To answer the question; not currently, with no plans to join. I got turned off as a teenager, when I joined only to be bombarded with solicitations to build the new headquarters building in Chattanooga. Dropped it after one year.
The magazine is not that big a deal; I subscribe to MR and that is enough. I am not into conventions and contests; the AP program is a meh as well.
Yah. Good publication along with online access to model railroad issues. I thinks it’s important to support an organization which is devoted to expanding model railroading.
Also a Yea.
I was a “lone wolf” for many years, faded out of the hobby, and came back a couple of years ago. This time I’m interested in social contact and operations. I find the NMRA magazine to be interesting and informative. And I’ve gotten active in my local division, making new friends and having interesting activities. I’m going through a major expansion of my railroad, and the division folks have been very helpful in my planning for operations.
If you’ve be offended by someone in the past, maybe you should give it a second look. And as for the cost, only you can decide if it’s worth it to you. Just remember that things don’t cost what they used to.
As far as cost, I would circle back to what I said earlier: Note that “Premium” membership (with both print and digital NMRA Magazine) is $92/year; “Basic” membership (with just the digital NMRA Magazine) is $68/year. I went with the Basic a few years ago, as I rarely saved the magazine anyway and recycled them. This way I can open one on my tablet and read it, plus go back a few years to earlier ones, without having any clutter.
Plus, new members can get a 9-month “Rail Pass” trial membership for $19.95, which includes the digital magazine.
Rich. TTs and reversing loops disappeared decades ago on real railroads. But a bunch of folks have them on their layouts today. I like these layouts just fine
It’s not a matter of liking them. It’s a matter of do I want to pay a due for an hours conversation and get about 3 minutes worth of stuff I’m interested in while the vast majority of the group gets their moneys worth by talking about what they are interested in.
Well, if you only see the NMRA as a social connection with other modelers at a meet or convention, many of which will not have the same modeling interests as you, then clearly it has little value.
For 90 years they have done the work that has prompted the manufacturers to make all your little trains work together, including DCC. And they have provided tons of well documented prototype and modeling information.
Just like you have no interest in my 1950’s modeling of the B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND, I have zero interest in current prototype railroading, short line or otherwise.
But I still believe there are things to share with and learn from all modelers. And I am happy to support their ongoing work in the hobby which I don’t have the time or temperament for.
True reverse loops were always pretty rare on the prototype, they are largely a function of our compressed layouts. And yes, turntables are largely a steam thing.
Talk about differences in modeling choices - I would NEVER build a primary layout that is point to point - not enough action for me. I like industrial switching, but not as the sole operational nature of a layout.
Why did I respond here? Because you are beating this horse pretty bad…
So to each their own.
Sheldon
$68 a year is still more than I can afford; that’s almost enough to buy a nice-ish locomotive!
There’s still several turntables on the big roads at least. Mostly at the heavy shops.
Even a loop or 2 around.
Yes, still a few.
The NS yard in Elkhart IN still has a reverse loop it’s used daily
No not really. The point is that since most of the participants in the hobby are, or at least until very recently, interested in transition era, even more so during half of the 40 years I’ve been in the hobby; the NMRA caters to such modelers. No big deal. Like minds hang out together. It’s a fact of life.
It’s great that NMRA sets standards. But once they do that how often to they have to get together to discuss them What are they going to talk about at their next meeting, whether or not to adjust their opinion of what a scale boxcar should weigh? I thought they settled that about 60 years ago. (Which were probably set for modelers who ran 30 car trains and not 7 car trains, where the standard should be 1 pound per car to at least get closer to scaling weight).
I appreciate the members who funded the coffee and donuts at the past meetings where they set them.
But seriously. The hobby is more fractured today because time moves on and there is more to model today than in days past. It’s more difficult to have a club, association, or magazine that can cater to everybody because for those not in the majority of interests, the juice just isn’t worth the squeeze.
Well Doug, a few facts you may not be aware of.
Over the last two and a half decades, in addition to the establishment of of the DCC standards, the NMRA has added standards for Proto scales and Fine scales in virtually all scales and gauges. And there have been minor adjustments to the original standards.
This includes trackwork, wheels, turnouts, everything. Turnout specs have been greatly expanded in to all of these areas.
The Data Sheets have been updated to include newer prototype information.
And the recently completed standards for LCC - layout command control.
So as technology and usage has advanced, the Standards and Recommended Practices have been reviewed, expanded, and adjusted as needed.
And in the last 20 years, all this data has moved from paper to electronic media - no small task in itself.
I do agree that the splintering of the hobby is partly the result of the passage of time. I have explained over and over, and only some people seem to understand its implications.
If we just start at 1900, in 1968 when I started in the hobby there were basically only seven decades of prototype history to choose from. Today there nearly 13. So even if the number of modelers has grown at the rate of the population increase since then, there are still less modelers “available” to model each decade.
And the available resources are equally diminished for each modeling era. This is a very real problem for today’s manufacturers. And it shows up very clearly if you model the transition era today.
The “wealth” of new high detailed RTR models does not come close to representing the transition era very well, let alone the 1900 thru 1940 era.
Fact is, with the possible exception of “famous steam”, most of the new high end RTR models are post 1980/90 or newer prototypes.
Personally, model trains has always had a historical component for me. In 1970 I was not interested in modeling 1970, and in in 2025 I’m not interested in modeling 2025.
If I were to choose an era other than my 1954 date, it would be sometime before the Great Depression, likely 1920.
20 years ago I was invited to work on the Data Sheet revisions because of my knowledge of Architecture and Civil Engineering. Unfortunately I did not have time back then.
Honestly your expectations of what would make the NMRA valuable to you seem unrealistic.
Sheldon
gotta wonder how the NMRA supported ($$) the development of LCC
did the NMRA have anything to do with the de facto standard use of Kadee couplers
I have been out of the model side of the hobby for quite awhile, what is “LCC” and how is it different from “DCC”?
TIA
Doug
Sheldon. Those standards are great. But the fact is that all I need is one manufacturer of track. One manufacturer of dcc and one manufacturer of a dcc decider that runs on that one dcc system.
Any locomotive traversing #6 or #8 turnouts and code 83 track will do. It’s a freelanced short line. I’m the guy who only has one locomotive on the layout. So every locomotive in my collection has the address of 3. That’s how uncomplex it is.
I don’t need set standards across all manufacturers so that 8 brands of locos, 4 different brands of decoders, and 4 different brands of track all play nicely together. Managing all of that on one layout would zap the fun out of the hobby.
This isn’t a rant. It’s just pointing out a difference in that when I engage in those types of discussions or read those types of articles, it’s an academic and curiosity thing, whereas for “most” modelers the information is something they take with them because they need it to help with their modeling. Again, the juice is different for me and others like me.
What I might need is an article that discusses how long it should take for a conductor to walk off of the deck of the locomotive to throw the next switch and if the locomotive should wait for him to climb aboard again or just walk to the car needing to be coupled. According to an operational fast clock.
No, the de facto standard of Kadee type couplers came about when the patent on the Kadee design ran out. This allowed the introduction of generic versions of the Kadee design. The lower cost of these, specifically McHenry and Bachmann EZ Mate being the first two, allowed manufacturers to offer Kadee compatible couplers for the same production cost of the previous X2F “horn hook” coupler.
Kadee has never been willing to offer manufacturers any additional wholesale discount below their regular “wholesale price” to allow manufacturers to include genuine Kadee couplers on/with their models.
For this reason only a handful of products have ever come equipped with genuine Kadee couplers. One of the few products early on that did come with genuine Kadee couplers was Kar-Line. These were custom hand decaled Athearn Blue Box models that came with Kadee couplers and Central Valley sprung metal trucks - the trucks and couplers cost more than the basic Athearn car cost at the time.
The X2F was developed by the NMRA but never adopted as a Standard or Recommended Practice.
Prior to the Kadee design and the X2F, there were a list of proprietary couplers on the market, and many models came with simple scale dummy couplers that did not operate but simply slid together. Others included the Devore/Roundhouse coupler, a nearly scale operating knuckle coupler, as shown at the bottom of this catalog page.
https://hoseeker.net/mdclist/roundhousecatalog1951pg04.jpg
The NMRA has never set a standard for a coupler design in any scale, they have only set standards for coupler height - Standard S-2, and RP-21 which only applies to performance recommendations for Large Scale.
Sheldon
Doug, I understand, I don’t use DCC. I will not even use code 88 wheels. The old standards work perfect for my needs.
I find that very few people in the hobby these days are interested in the details of modeling the transition era to the level that I am. It is just the way it is now. The same as you are finding with your special interest.
Because I am not a convention/event goer, that has no bearing on my reasons for belonging to the NMRA.
I know enough people locally who are interested, at least somewhat, in what and how I model. And we have a local group who will come run any kind of trains on any medium or large layout.
I don’t need, or even want, the NMRA for my social aspect of the hobby, but I am still willing to support their overall mission.
I get plenty out of it with the technical resources and the magazine. I find both my old paper data sheets and the new online version very useful.
Sheldon
my point about Kadee is that things can become de facto standards without the NMRA
another example of a de facto standard is the JMRI WiFi command interface that allows controllers from various sources to be used thru JMRI with various commercial DCC systems
Sure, that only took 50 years…
Of course more serious modelers (even 12 year olds in 1969) were simply buying Kadee couplers and converting their equipment long before the first generic knock off showed up.
I still use only genuine Kadee Couplers on EVERY piece of equipment.
And much of my roster has Kadee sprung trucks as well.
Again, fine, if you don’t see any value in the NMRA then don’t support it.
I will still be interested in your thoughts on “where the hobby is going” and what the NMRA should do differently?
Sheldon
