Unscientific, not guaranteed to be representative, age versus modelled era poll

[newbryford]

Why would anyone want to produce a CGI representation of a model railway?

 

 

 

I'd like to see how they do "the hand of God......."

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Ozexpatriate]

Why would anyone want to produce a CGI representation of a model railway?

 

If you could, you should be equally capable of replicating a real one; effectively a more realistic representation of what is already available in train simulation games, in fact.

I'm sorry, my phraseology was unclear. CGI can produce a virtual model railway.

 

Train simulation games are what I was talking about - they are CGI models of a railway. From what I've seen, most of them are not nearly as good as the rendering in contemporary first person shooter / role playing video games.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[Junctionmad]

I do suspect that this poll may not be reaching as many younger and older RMwebbers, separate from the question as to whether RMweb reaches as many younger and older enthusiasts. (I think we can pretty safely conclude that there are a number of older enthusiasts who might use the internet to order online but don't spend much of their time on forums, preferring magazines or even supplier websites.) Certainly there are people on New Railway Modellers or even the Hornby Forum who don't visit RMweb.

 

Getting age data was key to the assessment, but it was not the purpose of the poll. There is plenty of data so far to draw conclusions relative to the questions asked that is not misdirected by any likely missing input. I'm ready to publish, but there continues to be a steady trickle of votes each day so I'll let it run a little longer before sharing the analysis I've done.

The poll represents " data " however small the sample size is. But your comments are merely opinion, I would suggest from looking at the membership of our club for example , that the age distribution follow the poll very closely , with very few members over 70 , the bulk concencented in the " nearly retired , recently retired " category and a handful of members under 25 ( usually sons of members ) clubs of aging men are not places teenagers tend to hang around.

 

Hence I didn't accept there may be statisically significant age groups not represented by the rm poll. There is no physical evidence I see to suggest it's not representative . At warley it's clear the hobby is dominated by the same age group as evident by the poll.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Ozexpatriate]

Hence I didn't accept there may be statisically significant age groups not represented by the rm poll. There is no physical evidence I see to suggest it's not representative . At warley it's clear the hobby is dominated by the same age group as evident by the poll.

Personally I think that the poll data collected is likely to be very representative of the RMweb membership.  There exists a possibility that it is not. And yes, those are opinions.

 

The point of that post is that a precise age distribution actually doesn't matter - just that there is *some* age distribution in the results. The data we have is quite conclusive relative to the question I wanted to answer. (And that is not an opinion.)

Edited January 18, 2018 by Ozexpatriate

[Junctionmad]

I'm sorry, my phraseology was unclear. CGI can produce a virtual model railway.

 

Train simulation games are what I was talking about - they are CGI models of a railway. From what I've seen, most of them are not nearly as good as the rendering in contemporary first person shooter / role playing video games.

Any visit to " maker spaces " and fab labs will show you hordes of young people " making " things , laser cutting , 3D printing , CNC machining , electronics etc, simply because they are not soldering brass sheet or cutting plastkard doesn't lead to the conclusion that young people are in some virtual world. In fact rapid manufacturing systems have brought huge numbers of young people into the " maker space " . My library has a free to use 3D printer , it's users are not of my age !!!

[Junctionmad]

(I think we can pretty safely conclude that there are a number of older enthusiasts who might use the internet to order online but don't spend much of their time on forums, preferring magazines or even supplier websites.)

 

I was making the point , generally , that we cannot conclude exactly that , because in general we have no data to arrive at that conclusion. undoubtably there are people that don't use the internet or access forums , but we can't conclude it has any statistical effect on the conclusions of the poll

 

The poll is likely to be very accurate within the confines of the sample size.

Edited January 19, 2018 by Junctionmad

[Ozexpatriate]

I was making the point , generally , that we cannot conclude exactly that , because in general we have no data to arrive at that conclusion. undoubtably there are people that don't use the internet or access forums

And anecdotally so. I don't claim it is demonstrated in the responses when there's clearly no data to substantiate it.

 

but we can't conclude it has any statistical effect on the conclusions of the poll

I don't.

 

I can't help feeling we are cross purposes here.

[Junctionmad]

And anecdotally so. I don't claim it is demonstrated in the responses when there's clearly no data to substantiate it.I don't.I can't help feeling we are cross purposes here.

I'm merely arguing that such a poll must be taken at face value , i.e. In the absence of other hard data that's suggests other profiles.

I get slightly annoyed when peiple say " ah yes but there could be this that or the other " that the poll fails to capture and that conclude that the poll results are questionable.

 

Polls are questionable , but only in the face of equaliy hard alternative data, otherwise it's just idle speculation

[Reorte]

I'm sorry, my phraseology was unclear. CGI can produce a virtual model railway.

 

Train simulation games are what I was talking about - they are CGI models of a railway. From what I've seen, most of them are not nearly as good as the rendering in contemporary first person shooter / role playing video games.

The one I've played (Train Simulator) suffers from running on a rather dated software engine. There's a new version (well, a completely different piece of software really) using a much more up to date engine but it seems to have received rather lukewarm reception so far. Part of the problem of course is that those other games cover a few square miles at most, and have the backing of more money than a train simulator is likely to get. The amount of work that would be required to create 100 miles of route to that detail is immense.

 

VR has been mentioned. I've played with it, it's a little clunky but I'd still love to have a VR train simulator. Even using it to sit in a pre-grouping carriage on a pre-grouping railway and watching the world go by would be something, let alone driving.

[Mad McCann]

Interesting. That's the first poll of any kind I've ever taken part in that places me exactly as Mr Average. And yet my broad general spread of interests probably isn't. :-)

 

It occurs to me that the most active of us appear to be late Boomers or (like me) early X-ers.

 

In terms of era, I suspect that the late crest era is still most popular for two reasons.

A- It's the era Boomers best remember and also, demographically there are more of you guys than anybody else.

B- Most of us like both steam and diesel trains and being the transition era of traction, it's the only era where you can properly run both together.

 

Of course it's an unscientific poll and there's no way I can argue my opinion as scientific; that's for sure!

 

D4

Edited January 19, 2018 by Mad McCann

[Tony Wright]

Most interesting.

 

I have voted.

 

I wonder whether any similar polls were conducted (pre-internet thingy)). If they were, I'd venture to state that the average age of the voters would have been much younger. 

[newbryford]

Most interesting.

 

I have voted.

 

I wonder whether any similar polls were conducted (pre-internet thingy)). If they were, I'd venture to state that the average age of the voters would have been much younger. 

 

Without a doubt. Having been part of the exhibition scene for heading towards 40 years, (eek!) I myself have seen a shift in the age demographic of visitors and exhibitors.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Nearholmer]

Quite the opposite.

 

Fellow exhibitors and attendees have always, for forty five years, been about the same age as me or up to about fifteen years older; always.

 

Oh, hang on a moment ..........

Edited January 19, 2018 by Nearholmer

[The Johnster]

I have always considered exhibitors to be largely, though by no means exclusively, middle aged middle class men, often 'of a certain carriage' and with a propensity towards pipes and beards.  This has been apparent to me over a period of about half a century now, and I have never noticed a change in the demographic once I have factored out my own perceptions of age (someone in their 40s who might have been approaching drain circling age to my view 50 yeas ago would now look quite young); the older ones die off and are replaced by identical slightly younger ones.  

 

There must be some sort of holding pen for them somewhere, a sort of distribution warehouse that keeps the supply topped up when new shows appear or there has been a high die-off rate after a cold winter...

[Jamie]

I have always considered exhibitors to be largely, though by no means exclusively, middle aged middle class men, often 'of a certain carriage' and with a propensity towards pipes and beards.  ...the older ones die off and are replaced by identical slightly younger ones.  

 

 

 

Oh good lord, that summation of my fate has put me right off getting the layout back onto the exhibition circuit 

[justin1985]

It's a real shame that the poll owner can't break down the responses. I suspect this would have cut off quite a few "I know best" pronouncements.

 

As users can see their "blue star" responses, this means the forum software is saving responses individually. Is there any chance that Andy Y or the team could dump this data out from the MySQL table (I presume?) so that someone could have a play with some crosstab type analysis in SPSS or similar?

 

J

[Colin_McLeod]

The NUR strikes of the early 1980s?

Must get something running!

[Clive Mortimore]

I think Oz has done well to get any responses to start with and from my experience of modellers and people in general it is a fairly good response that reflects our hobby. 

 

For those who have rattled along about the ages of those who have voted, we are a hobby of people who the majority are older than the national average age. So what. Younger people have different interest in life than many of us had when we were young. Likewise I am sure a large number of us 50 to very old had a different interest outside of work to our parents generation. All the poll does is reflect our hobby within society. 

 

I am really glad not everyone models the same stuff as me, I like a diverse hobby and the poll shows we are still capable of being individuals even within that large group who model the "late crest period"....."late crest" should be in the bin with "modern image", but that is another campaign.

 

Well done Oz.

[Dunsignalling]

I think Oz has done well to get any responses to start with and from my experience of modellers and people in general it is a fairly good response that reflects our hobby. 

 

For those who have rattled along about the ages of those who have voted, we are a hobby of people who the majority are older than the national average age. So what. Younger people have different interest in life than many of us had when we were young. Likewise I am sure a large number of us 50 to very old had a different interest outside of work to our parents generation. All the poll does is reflect our hobby within society. 

 

I am really glad not everyone models the same stuff as me, I like a diverse hobby and the poll shows we are still capable of being individuals even within that large group who model the "late crest period"....."late crest" should be in the bin with "modern image", but that is another campaign.

 

Well done Oz.

I think we should bin all the era labels and just state the dates we model.  I model items and scenes ranging between 1954 and 1964 (with the greatest emphasis on 1958 to 1962) and that is far more readily understood than any half baked label. 

 

The "pre-grouping" era consists, more logically, of three distinct phases (roughly pre-WW1, WW1 and post-WW1) so the blanket label is at least as meaningless as "modern image". Personally, I'd make it four, subdividing the first into "realistic" and "idealised". Nothing to do with period but everything to do with how modellers interpret it.

 

"Late crest", on the surface looks capable of being easily defined as 1957-67 with edges less fuzzy than most, but it was also probably the ten (eleven!) years with the least physical continuity of any period in the history of our railways.

 

I much prefer the expression "transitional era" which succinctly describes the reality. At the outset, whilst the writing was on the wall, steam was still very much dominant and, at the end, it was all over bar the shouting. Also, one Dr Richard Beeching was almost unknown outside industrial circles in 1957 but had become a household name by 1967.

 

All the other "eras" can be more usefully understood if divided into smaller chunks - what the heck do 1928 and 1938 really have in common, for example?  Grouping? Try pre-depression, depression, post-depression.

 

I agree that modern image is the worst of the lot because this end is still open, but also because almost everyone has a different (usually age-related) idea of when it began. I try not to use it but it's quite hard to avoid sometimes and I now define it as today minus no more than five years. However, that's just me and it does create another "moveable feast" which is the last thing we really need.

 

My advice? Just stick to the numbers, guys.

 

John

Edited January 20, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[The Johnster]

Era labels are a mixed blessing, and they can lead to silly 'which era is best' arguments and divisive comments, as well as promoting a false impression of what is suitable to run with what.  I model the 1948-60 period precisely because it gives me scope to include liveries from wartime big 4 to 1958 ferret and dartboard/lined maroon coaches, including the very early BR attempts.  A vehicle painted in a livery usually ran for some years in that livery before being repainted at the next overhaul, and some 'missed out' some liveries altogether; there was considerable overlap.

 

But periods are a very useful tool when you are looking for stock in a model shop (Lord and Butler, usual disclaimer) that has had the very good sense to display models in periods to help you; it saves a massive amount of time and arguably money as you are not tempted to buy stuff that looks nice in the 'wrong' livery for your purposes.

[BMacdermott]

I think we should bin all the era labels and just state the dates we model.  I model items and scenes ranging between 1954 and 1964 (with the greatest emphasis on 1958 to 1962) and that is far more readily understood than any half baked label. 

 

John

Hello John

 

I very much agree with you (but with a small caveat).

 

As noted in an earlier post of mine, the era system was set up for retailers to get some form of relative context to help them sell things. That seems to work for them and we have seen Hornby etc fall in line with that system. 

 

However, it has no real purpose for those of us who understand railway history.

 

If anyone asks what I model, my reply is broadly 1957 to 1961 but with more of an emphasis towards 1959/1960 depending on what I am running. My layout is 'generic' in that it can purport to be a number of different places (Oxford or Exeter Central etc) to suit what I want to run for a month or so.

 

Brian

[Andy Hayter]

In terms of our individual modelling the era system is not really that relevant.  However as Brian says from a retailer perspective and also for the purposes of doing a survey such as this it has benefits.

 

You could of course as suggested just post the individual years over which you model, but then there is a problem in how to interpret those 300+ responses.  To take just the two examples given:

 

John models 1954 to 1964

The Johnster models 1948 to 1960.

 

As an analyst how do I treat those two inputs?  Can I say that these two model the same period?  There is a 7 year period of overlap.  But there are a total of 10 years which don't overlap.  So do these two (for the basis of analysis) belong together in one group or not?  If not - which is quite an understandable stance if looking at it from a personal rather than group perspective - then we would run a risk of ending up with an analysis that would do little better than saying we have people modelling from 1900 to 2018 with a few outliers in the period before 1900.

 

At least eras (no matter how flawed) provides a means of grouping responses together and moving from personal perspectives to group perspectives.

 

I know some whizz will come along and suggest that you could at least do a Pareto analysis, but then might come the objections of unfairness,  John would vote for 11 years, The Johnster would vote for 13 years and someone who models one specific day just one year.  You might also get some very strange distortions.  Many pregrouping modellers choose the period that covers the years from roughly 1910 - 1914 (which happens to cover many of the rtr releases).  If say 80% of those who voted pre-grouping era voted for each of these 5 years, while for example say those who model grouping spread their interests around relatively evenly over the 25 years, you could see say 1912 being more popular than any year in the grouping period.

 

All in all, and despite the obvious shortcomings, eras do provide a method of grouping our interests in time periods that we do understand, even if we don't agree with them.

[Miss Prism]

Brian Macdermott's point about the 'era system' being set up for retailers to get some form of relative context to help them sell things is fair enough, but I've always thought the main problem with the era system is that if I consider I am modelling the period '19xx-yy', then I probably should be focusing primarily on locos and stock built 10 or even 20 years previous to that time span.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Miss Prism

 

Exactly my point that the era system has no real value to those who know their history. I'm sure that you - with your knowledge - would speak in 'years' rather than 'eras'.

 

Brian

[Andy Hayter]

Brian Macdermott's point about the 'era system' being set up for retailers to get some form of relative context to help them sell things is fair enough, but I've always thought the main problem with the era system is that if I consider I am modelling the period '19xx-yy', then I probably should be focusing primarily on locos and stock built 10 or even 20 years previous to that time span.

 

Absolutely - but quite probably re-liveried to a later (but not necessarily the xx to yy) period.

 

Isn't that why we have the same model (or essentially the same with perhaps minor modifications) released with a series of liveries? - and sorry for those still waiting for their Wainwright H class or the centre coach in the Birdcage rake in Southern livery, I did not mean to rub salt in the wound (because it includes me).