How much do our models really cost us

[JohnR]

Two things today have collided to make me write this post. One, I was ersearching average pay over the last 40 years, and I happened to look up the details of the first train set I was given as a christmas present in 1974.

 

I looked up the excellent Hornby railway collectors guide website and found my first train set here. Checking the price (I never did ask "Santa" how much he paid for it!) I saw that it cost the princely sum of £14.75. Now you can easily look up the rate of inflation since 1974, but as I was also doing some work on wage increases since the 1970s, I thought I would compare it against the average pay, in other words how much of the pay packet went on it.

 

According to a parliamentary answer, the average pay for a manual male worker (my dad was a carpenter) in 1973 was £38.10. So that trainset cost 39% of the weekly wage. Now today, the mean (average) salary for a male worker is £35,661 pa, or £685.79 a week (a lot more than me - must be all those footballers!) But a train set doesnt cost £265.50. does it? Or does it? The Hornby DCC set 'The east coast Pullman' is currently advertised in argos at £247- but then thats got 2 locos and a digital controller. Perhaps a better comparison would be the Hornby pendolino set at £129 or the Hornby Flying Scotsman at £125 - half that price.

 

I think we actually have it much better than people realise, and thats before you consider the quality of the models.

[Baby Deltic]

I spend a smal fortune on model railways. I practically live in John Dutfield's, Chelmsford. I think next year will be very hard hitting on my income because of the sheer volume of new D&E stuff coming out, plus there's a few steam loco's I'll want to get.

[PhilH]

£35,661 pa, or £685.79 a week

 

:blink:

[Kenton]

I think there is something very flawed in your "averages" The £38.10 /week seems incredibly low for what I recall of then and I think the £36K+ seems way over the £20K that seems to be used frequently by the media. The values may be correct "averages" I just think that perhaps the selected static is wrong. As you eluded to including very high earners does that include bankers and the like and their bonuses, a group of people at a level of pay unheard of in the 70's? footballers, consultants, etc

 

I've always thought the best inflation index has been the price of a Mars bar.

But I will agree on the "we (most at least) have never had it so good"

[Coombe Barton]

Depends where you live, and how old you are, and maybe the median is more representative than taking the mean. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

[stewartingram]

For what its worth, this was about the time I got married/applied for mortgage so I remember the pay level. Not going to quote actual figure, but as a qualified radio engineer then/now, I now my pay (basic) has risen by 33x in that period if it helps?

[Baby Deltic]

I think 35 grand is a bit high. I would say 22K is closer to the average wage. A lot of people who work in offices and call centres (that aren't outsource to India yet) aren't going to be on 35K a year.

[Southernman46]

Whatever the average wage etc is.......one thing I do is record what I've bought , where from, when and how much for (it's an OCD thing ) in an excel spreadsheet - at the bottom of the how much column is a total that updated when item are added - just occasionally I look at it and end up feeling very guilty

[Baby Deltic]

Whatever the average wage etc is.......one thing I do is record what I've bought , where from, when and how much for (it's an OCD thing ) in an excel spreadsheet - at the bottom of the how much column is a total that updated when item are added - just occasionally I look at it and end up feeling very guilty

 

I don't even want to know what I'm spending on the hobby.

[newbryford]

I don't even want to know what I'm spending on the hobby.

 

The wife doesn't want need to know what I'm spending on the hobby.

 

Mick

[James]

I think there is something very flawed in your "averages" The £38.10 /week seems incredibly low for what I recall of then and I think the £36K+ seems way over the £20K that seems to be used frequently by the media. The values may be correct "averages" I just think that perhaps the selected static is wrong. As you eluded to including very high earners does that include bankers and the like and their bonuses, a group of people at a level of pay unheard of in the 70's? footballers, consultants, etc

It depends which average was used too.

 

£36K seems a lot - the average wage in Hull, which is a large-ish settlement was just £13,000 or so the last time I saw it reported in the local media.

 

But I do agree that the real price now does represent much better value than in times past.

[Gdaysydney]

Whatever the average wage etc is.......one thing I do is record what I've bought , where from, when and how much for (it's an OCD thing ) in an excel spreadsheet - at the bottom of the how much column is a total that updated when item are added - just occasionally I look at it and end up feeling very guilty

 

 

I have been doing the same thing for the past 8 years - recording the locos I have purchased- Its amazing how it adds up - especially in the past few years since I started buying sound fitted locos..... needless to say I have a password on the spreadsheet so that SWMBO can't use it as evidence

 

 

Seasons greetings to all

[Baby Deltic]

I do a stocktake occasionally and usually end up shocked at the number of loco's that I have no recollection of buying and forgot I even had.

[JohnR]

i thinkt he point is well made about the two different types of average. The Mean is what most people mean by average - its the sum of everyones wages, divided by the number of people. The median is actually a more useful number in terms of analysing income these days - its the figure where exactly half the people earn more and exactly half the people earn less.

 

The £38.10/week was the quoted average manual male full time workers pay in late 1973 (the parliamentary question was in 1974) and is probably what we would call the mean. The £38,661 figure I used is the Mean male full time worker figure for 2009. You're right if this sounds a lot, and the figure often quoted will probably be the Mean for all workers (male & female, full & part time) which is £21,320.

 

However, and I may be sterotyping a little here, but I'd say the vast majority of modellers are men who have full time jobs (or who are retired from full time jobs), so its probably right to consider that demographic.

 

Looking back at my original trainset, the 37 had incorrect bogies (in was actually a Bo-Co passing itself off as a Co-Co!), the mark 2's had inset glazing - just compare that to current models from Hornby and Bachmann! The quality is fantastic! However, i do think the "play value" of the operating TPO had something to do with it.

[Chinahand]

Which all goes to prove that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Well, as a young postie in 1981, I used to take home £36 a week. The following year when I hit 18 though, it rocketed to £59!

I can't remember what a brand new Hornby Shire cost though!

 

Dave.

[JZ]

The media will trot out any figure that suits the story they are doing. The huge wages earned by a few can distort the picture, ie, a currency trader at a bank can earn £1m before bonuses, the same as 50 in the same bank in customer facing roles. Does this mean the average wage for them in £98K ? A couple of years back I read somewhere, in the media, so take it with a pinch of salt, that pay rises were running at 6.6%, yet if you took out the huge bonuses paid to traders etc, it fell to 3.75%.

 

Anyway, back to the OP. My first pay packet in 1974 was £19.95 gross for a 40 hour week, about £16 after deductions. My first loco was a Farish pannier tank, which cost, if I remember correctly, £7. A substantial chunk of cash. These days I can afford to buy sveral and still have spare left for less important things like heating, food, car, etc.

[Chris Chewter]

So if we go back to the question, if £25k is an average salary, a weekly salary before tax would be £480. If we use the train set given in the example provided by the OP, it equates to just over half! Therefore we have it worst than a 1970's counterpart.

 

There must be some logic in this that isn't obvious, such as elasticity of trainset prices or increase in oil prices justifying this increase. There is the added value of extra detailing to locos these days that many feel justify the costs. However that wouldn't apply to train sets would it?

 

Whatever the reason, we are paying these prices, and the model suppliers have decided that these costs are fair. Therefore nothing is going to change unless we vote with our cash. If we don't like the price, don't pay it! Simples!

[James]

Picking out an individual town is a waste of time, somewhere like Hull, undoubtedly having a hard time of it recently will obviously show a lower average than a 'wealthy' home counties town or city.

And that was the point!

 

I was making a poiint about averages, which is what is at the heart of the OP.

 

Incidently, the figure I mentioned is not related to the current economic climate - it's just a fact of life in Hull. My wife works in Hull, in a job someway above the average and for the role locally it's considered to be a very good rate but if she travelled forty miles to Doncaster everyday she could add a few thouasand onto her salary but with that would come greatly inflated travelling costs and an extra hour and half out of the house each day. So the localy based job, I think, will lend a better quality of life, especially once she leaves Hull behind and heads back out into the sticks!

 

Quality of life can often be linked with despoable income - this could be another factor when deciding how much models cost. If you live in a small house with a small mortgage you may well spend more on hobbies than someone who may well earn more but their bigger house bought at the height of property prices with a silly sized mortgage.

 

Harder to quantify is how these different groups regard as value for money which often, for me at least, provide some justification of the cost.

[Nick Holliday]

An inflation comparator that I often find is quite accurate is the cost of Railway Modeller. As I recall in 1974 it cost around 30/35p, and now it is £3.60, so the rate of inflation in RM terms is around 110%. So the cost of the original set would be raised to £160 which would seem to be about what you have to pay now. It has to be said that the quality of both products has considerably improved in the intervening thirty five years as well.

[Kenton]

The average can easily be distorted by the population sample used. There will always be a difference between a sample average and a population average that is affected by both the type of population distribution and the sampling method. When comparing averages it is only relevant to compare averages taken from identical distributions and using the same sampling method.

 

Is the correct population "only full time workers" (we therefore are excluding unemployed, student, part-time, self-employed, investment, retired and possibly other categories.)

 

As illustrated above do we sample from a specific "representative" location/area, or group of "workers", class of employment eg "manual".

 

And what is the source of data used, official tax returns, postal/internet/interview, anonymous? Where salary range information is collected by survey it is notoriously elevated especially when that information is suspected as being used to decide salary levels. Even tax return information is not without its problems: income such as wages/salaries might not include bonuses/special payments, capital/investment income, and may (but shouldn't) tips/gratuities and "black economy" undeclared income.

 

When someone quotes an "average" I immediately ask "what average and of what" and mistrust the motive behind the figure even though it may be innocently done.

[Pugsley]

I've always thought the best inflation index has been the price of a Mars bar.

Not really, you can't compare like with like, as they've definitely shrunk over the years.

 

In fact, this is one of the ways that the true rate of inflation, certainly in terms of food, is being disguised - the price stays the same, but you get less in the pack.

[Horsetan]

Well, as a young postie in 1981, I used to take home £36 a week. The following year when I hit 18 though, it rocketed to £59!

I can't remember what a brand new Hornby Shire cost though!

 

All the 4-4-0s with smoke generators retailed that year for £29.99. I had a "County of Bedford" that year.

[Guest jim s-w]

Its best not to think about it TBH

 

Look at our fiddleyard. 1.5KM of rail, 600 meters of exactoscale track bases 80 + tortoise point motors. I dont even wanna know!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Gwiwer]

Let's just say that the only person who knows what my models cost in total is me. The insurance company has a regularly updated list of rolling stock and a notional new-for-old replacement figure but given the number of irreplaceable or otherwise unique items (such as the custom-weathered ones) even a full payout wouldn't replace a total loss.

 

My major suppliers would know what I spend with them of course but that is spread around a few of the majors and a number of smaller and one-man businesses. SWMBO knows how much I earn and could probably figure out what proportion is spent on the hobby if she wanted to - it's not that hard! She doesn't ask and I feel no obligation to ask her in return what she spend son her hobbies.

 

Compared with the train sets of childhood (around 50 years ago) we are definitely paying for much better quality now but whether we are paying a greater or lesser proportion of our income is really determined at an individual level since we all earn and spend different amounts.