Does Technology Affect the Value of the Trains We Own? Help Me with Your Insights!

IMO, this is really all that matters and what it's all about along with sharing the fun with others, especially kids, grandkids etc.

I know that I'm way late to the topic but I have to add my two cents worth. I love all the new technology and I doubt if I would buy an engine without it, but it can be a real pain in the -------!

As for the value they may or may not hold is a question for more informed minds then mien. That said there value to me is purely for their play factor and little else. I will never sell them and if and when they do get sold it will be literally  over my dead body. At that point I wont care.

In future it's going to be upgrading, scrapping, or modifying that's going to keep today's modern trains going.

The technology alone is a valid draw.

 Our present society insists on sampling it all, and being on top of it is the only way to succeed.

 That makes command an attractive sell.

Command by cell(phone) may bring in hordes more.

Or maybe they will buy a wi-fi R2-D2 toy. But they will buy for the tech as much as the "toy".

 

The only negative for me is paying extra $100s for a "system" I don't want.

The thottle's here have worked adequately for a lifetime.

And I don't really like the sounds too much.

But I'm awful interested in the workings.

But that's too close to being like my old jobs, for it to be lots of fun doing it again.

Little jobs are fun. Wiring, troubleshooting, etc. But to go deep a complicated board?

  There the fun is long gone. I'd rather eat all my cauliflower.

 

 

 

 From what I gathered it wasn't tmcc as we know it back then. 

  Neil, a self proclaimed nerd, was into digital electronics for a long time before that. Using it for music, equipment, and some gadgets, and approached Lionel with the idea for the "BIG RED BUTTON" as well as some other things.

 

 The actual origin of the software and hardware is an evolution of a basic idea.

A digital signal that can control remotely. 

 

 

Ed,

 

Beyond your present story research effort, a serious piece of hobby journalism would be a story based upon current interviews with the various manufacturers of current locomotives, rolling stock and accessories; the national toy train organizations, the investors behind the manufacturers and national experts on supply chain management, manufacturing and electronics on the short and long term points of lifecycle design, lifecycle replacement parts, intra- and inter-manufacturer compatibility and migration to non-original equipment manufacturer electronic parts in the aftermarket.  In short, how will consumers and hobbyists be able to use and maintain their O-scale equipment over the long term; not just the current year's sales cycle?

 

As many of the people posting here mentioned, spare parts after purchase are a major concern, especially now that we're in the second generation of Lionel command and control (TMCC, now superseding Legacy) and third generation of MTH command and control (Protosound ( P/S 1, P/S 2 and now P/S 3) and DCS).  There's also the design quirk that LionChief is not directly compatible with Legacy.  (One would think LionChief would have been a low-end entry point to Legacy to grow the customer purchases over the long term, but no, it's incompatible with Legacy.)

 

Just as a point of reference, with boxcars now around $80 MSRP and locomotives in the $350 to 2000.00 bracket, it's obvious the manufacturers are not aiming solely at the holiday season purchasers.  If they were, they would not be publishing multiple annual catalogs with large product lines scattered across dozens of color pages; all they would need is their small ready-to-run holiday catalog.

 

When I raised my thoughts in the past on asking OEMs about product quality and parts obsolescence, I always received a visceral, volcanic response that such questions are off-limits.  Why?  In 2005, the Financial Times documented the worldwide model railroading industry as a $2 Billion business.  In 2011, the Hobby Manufacturer's Association announced the US model railroad industry had sales of $424,770,000 in 2010.  That's serious business; not a hobby for any business person, so a serious journalistic article on these issues should not offend any OEM executive. 

 

If an OEM executive is offended by serious interview questions about his or her firm's product quality and parts obsolescence, then that's a piece of news the public--and hobby consumer--should be informed about during their purchase decisions, especially considering the price of today's expensive locomotives.  I would also think the OEM's bankers and investors would be very interested in that interview as well.

 

BTW--the Wall Street Journal has published numerous articles on model railroading over the last ten years.  Maybe they would be interested in a joint article with you on this topic?

 

 

 

 

This continues to be a thoughtful and interesting discussion. I was intrigued by the original question because it resonates with similar questions about the value of other consumer items which have 'increased' in technology over the years, as well as the growth of a more 'throw-away' culture. 

 

In my opinion, any answer starts with the basic premise that a train's value is directly related to how much it is desired or wanted by a hobbyist, regardless of its condition. Beyond that, value appears to be related to whether a train (engine) works or not. One ongoing issue seems to be that older 'conventional' engines, in general, appear to be easier to maintain and keep running over the years. (I have a 248 from the 1920s that still works perfectly ). However, as time passes, conventional engines will not be as interesting to hobbyists with digital layouts -- it will be interesting to see how the after-market supports first and second-generation digital trains.

"However, as time passes, conventional engines will not be as interesting to hobbyists with digital layouts -- it will be interesting to see how the after-market supports first and second-generation digital trains."

Actually i think just the opposite, they will be more interesting as they will still be running and parts will still be easily available, i wonder how many proto 1 and 2 parts will be available when they are the same age as your 20's loco. To me people will wake up one day with these throw away trains they make now, new version of same casting just a new .1 version people sell the old for next to nothing to buy the new one, all the while most of the older 2 rail versions still have more detail and run better, but whatever floats your boat i suppose.




       

 

 

Like Hummels and Beanie Babies...

They could become priceless, but only if someone still wants them. If no one wants them they are not worth much at all if anything. I don't know if the collectible aspect is over, but I do think it is declining as younger folks enter the hobby and older folks leave the hobby.

They are not worthless in the resale market, but unless you have something really rare people are just not going to pay a lot of money for our toys any longer.

if you have an Acela set sealed in the box you will get some money for it. But well run items that are on our shelves are basically toys to be played with.

So lets go and have a lot of fun.

 

People collect pretty rocks too...only when the last one is gone will it stop.

 

..Us that is, not the rocks...or the trains.

  I never collected either of those, but ended up owning one of both.

  I gave the Hummel to a collector I know from a while back, as he didn't have it yet.

He has post cards too.

 The Beanie bat hangs quietly in a dark corner of the basement ceiling.

I figure the potential for profit in my lifetime isn't over...if your's are at the dump