Skip to main content

While cleaning out a closet yesterday, I came across some old OGR magazines from 1996 that I had saved .  Why I decided to keep these particular issues is somewhat of a mystery although it was around the time that I was transitioning into O gauge from N Scale. I know I was looking for some layout ideas but I think I was also trying to get the “lay of the land” so to speak in terms of finding what was going on in the hobby and to discover how it had changed since I had packed away my old Lionel trains from when I was a kid.  One particular issue had the first official OGR review of TMCC that had just been introduced, which is probably the main reason why I saved it but there are several other things about that issue that I find of particular interest today.

 

The first thing that caught my eye were all the hobby shops, dealers and manufacturers of both trains and peripherals that are today no longer in existence. The second thing was a commentary by Barry Lewis, printed in a small box at the end of the TMCC review, calling for cross-compatibility within the industry. “What the hobby needs now is a single standard that insures compatibility of engines, throttles, sound systems and command systems from various manufacturers.” He also was hoping that either the TCA or one of the other organizations would take the lead in establishing an NMRA like environment for 3-Rail O Gauge. Finally there are the prices, and here I was pleasantly surprised.  In 1996 a Mike's Train House F3 ABA with Proto-Sound was advertised by a dealer for $620 (I don’t know what the list price was).  Today, while not an exact comparison, the 2013 MTH catalog has an FA2 ABA with all the bells & whistles listed for $730.  That’s less than an 18% price difference in 17 years for a similar engine. Meanwhile Google tells me that $620 in 1996 has the buying power today of $927, nearly a 50% increase.

 

So what’s the moral of the story? I take away 3 things.

  1. While Madison Hardware and other dealers like them are no longer around, we now have Charles Ro,  Trainworld and RMT, just to mention a few who I've bought from recently so from a competition standpoint we as consumers are in a pretty good position.
  2. I think that it would still be a great idea to have NMRA-like standards. Why this hasn't happened can only be answered by Lionel and MTH who appear, at least to someone like me who doesn't follow the industry that closely, intent on destroying each other. In this way we can base our purchases solely on features, price and quality and not have to worry about what features will or won’t work on either of their command control (or conventional) systems.
  3. On a dollar for dollar basis, we’re paying less now than we were in 1996. But I suspect, based upon recent posts on several different threads, the quality of the equipment from all manufacturers has suffered. So the key question is, would we be willing to pay more if we knew that we were getting a better quality product or has the transition to digital electronics along with the inherent quickening obsolescence of those circuit boards and software made the manufacturing of long-lasting quality products a thing of the past?

 Regardless of the questions (or answers), I think I’ll put that OGR Run# 147 back in the closet.  

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Interesting thought process. Back then we also had Oldsmobile, Mercury and Pontiac.

 

The electronics are much more advanced today and vastly superior to what they were in 1996. Back then Proto1 was fairly new as was TMCC. It took me a while to decide I even wanted a handheld. Proto2 and Legacy didn't exist. The sounds from that era don't hold a candle to what we have today.

 

We can thank competition for the less than inflationary price increases. The price we pay is incompatibility. I run both DCS and Legacy on the same layout. The engine determines which handheld I use. Switches (turnouts to be politically correct) and sidings are controlled by AIU's, so they run off the DCS system. I don't think that's a heavy price to pay and having multiple handhelds is an advantage when other people are over.

 

As each system strives to outdo the other, we just get better and better results. Sure there are bumps in the road. You just have to be careful about how hard you hit the bumps.

 

The ones I wonder about are the "other" manufacturers (Atlas, 3rd Rail, Weaver, etc.) who are shut out of Legacy and DCS. I don't blame Lionel and MTH one bit for making this proprietary. They incurred the cost and invested the bucks. They took the risk and should get the rewards. That is the "free enterprise" system. Licensing the latest and greatest to others should be their decisions. So where does that leave "the others" as these 2 systems advance? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

But you can read posts on the Forum about the Lionel sound system and then you wonder how long people will pay the premium for brass when the sound system isn't nearly as good and the detail on the cast iron engines approaches that of brass. And presumably (we've been told this at the DCS dinner for a while now), MTH will catch up with the sounds in the proto3 system (hold your breath and put your head underwater).

 

Change and innovation are great. Keep them coming and a look back tells us how far we've come.

 

Gerry

 

 

 

Standardization and innovation are mutually exclusive.

 

I like innovative products and am actually glad that Lionel and MTH didn't standardize command control.  They have generally made the products compatible enough that they can be run at the same time and interchangeably, while continuing to introduce new and improved features at fairly reasonable cost.

 

It really isn't very difficult to grab a Lionel handheld to run Lionel engines or an MTH handheld to run MTH engines.  It's not even very difficult to decide which handheld to use when operating brass or older engines I have converted to PS 2 or TMCC.

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×