Midnight Railroader wrote: dehusman wrote: "I want to be your tool lady." Ah, yes, Patty. Whatever happened to her?
dehusman wrote: "I want to be your tool lady."
Wasn't that Pam Anderson's gig before she went on to Baywatch?
'Way back when, there were some, 'Right on the borderline,' bits in MRR. However, the somewhat negative reviews given to the aforementioned bib overall photos ["I don't want my teenage son seeing this!" (at a time when his high school classmates were wearing tube tops over skin...)] caused the editorial staff to swing all the way to the extreme end of the scale. Any females in MRR are going to be wearing street clothes, business suits or burqa.
Going clear back to the original subject, I have noticed that, with the exception of in-house project railroads, there are very few layout articles that include under-construction and unfinished-work photos. The only exceptions are those which are introducing new concepts for benchwork.
Of course, if I want to see half-finished benchwork and unballasted track, all I have to do is go into my garage...
By the way, Dave - well done, sir.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
jwhitten wrote: My guess is that if their research showed tha a swimsuit edition would increase circulation, we'd see one of those, too.My guess is that they have not actually done that research or else there would be one already.
My guess is that if their research showed tha a swimsuit edition would increase circulation, we'd see one of those, too.
My guess is that they have not actually done that research or else there would be one already.
Actually they already did that. You can occaisionally see a few shots from the effort in some older books.
Back in the 1970's they had several shots with women in bib overall shorts and engineer caps posing in pictures. Probably the most reproduced one has two women on top aof a boxcar with what looks to be a huge thumbtack marked for car forwarding (that dates it back to when tack/tag on car systems were much more common). It didn't go over well and so was quietly side tracked.
About the only "R" rated stuff has been a few double entendre's in ads ("Give your wife a Climax for Christmas", "I want to be your tool lady").
One of the funniest model railroading cartoons I ever saw was in Playboy. A guy dressed like an engineer is busy at a control panel running his layout. His wife is standing behind him au naturel and he says "Not now Martha, I have a railroad to run!". A man's got to have his priorities.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Perhaps a single page in each issue titled "Train spotter of the Month".
She could also do Cody's segment on the website.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
jwhitten wrote:My guess is that if their research showed tha a swimsuit edition would increase circulation, we'd see one of those, too.My guess is that they have not actually done that research or else there would be one already.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how anxious I am to see John Allen in his swim suit...
Actually my only real complaint about the article is I wish they had gone into more detail about the cost(s) of the layout. That's probably not something that is widespread knowledge since most people build their own, and it would probably be an interesting/useful detail.
For myself personally, it wouldn't matter (much) to me if someone else built it, as long as it was what *I* wanted, worked well and I could run trains and customize it-- and if someone else paid for it... :)
I don't understand this argument.
Some people like to play with the trains and have no interest in trying to see who can build the most realistic miniature world. There must be a lot of those people because train simulation software is popular.
Some people enjoy building the layout and showing off the product of their labor, and have little interest in actually running the trains. Some of them build dioramas, where actually running the trains, as opposed to displaying the trains, is not even possible.
Some people enjoy both.
Is there not room in the hobby, and the magazine for all of us?
I enjoy articles about a commercially built layout as long as the article is about the construction of the layout, not about the guy who financed it.
steinjr wrote: dehusman wrote: Actually MRP ran an article on a commercially designed layout a couple years ago. It was designed by John Armstrong. Athabaska? Yup. Article contained quite a bit about how the owner had communciated with John Armstrong during the planning process. Stein
dehusman wrote: Actually MRP ran an article on a commercially designed layout a couple years ago. It was designed by John Armstrong. Athabaska?
Actually MRP ran an article on a commercially designed layout a couple years ago. It was designed by John Armstrong. Athabaska?
Yup. Article contained quite a bit about how the owner had communciated with John Armstrong during the planning process.
Stein
I don't mind articles about layouts built by professionals, though I do admit that I feel a little let-down when I read that the owner didn't do the work himself. No, I'm not saying he HAS to do it all himself, but I'm more impressed by people who learn the skills and apply them than the ones who open their wallet.
dehusman wrote:Actually MRP ran an article on a commercially designed layout a couple years ago. It was designed by John Armstrong. Athabaska?
Dave,I admire your open-mindedness on this topic. I see it as a question of what do I want/need from a magazine? For me, model railroading is a construction hobby, so I enjoy articles that relate to construction. As Model Railroader has chosen to focus more on RTR and now includes RTR layouts in its features, I find myself looking forward to the next issue less and less. That's just me. I'm sure there are some among us who are thrilled to see articles like this one. For them, I'm glad Model Railroader is there to serve their interests. My subscription ends with the August issue; as a consumer, I plan to exercise my prerogative to not renew. If they ask me the reason, I'll tell them. I really doubt that they care about modelers like me, and that's OK - it's their prerogative.
Sometimes I get the sense that many of us see Model Railroader as the showcase where the real model railroaders are anointed with some sort of higher status. To see a feature in which that status is placed on someone who just wrote out a check would run against my grain. However, I don't see it that way: Model Railroader is not the hobby's hall of fame. Model Railroader is in the business of selling advertising space, so they publish a magazine that they feel will get high circulation numbers because that helps to sell advertising space. My guess is that if their research showed tha a swimsuit edition would increase circulation, we'd see one of those, too. I recommend that we all regard Model Railroader for what it is - a business whose primary interest is profits. It is no different from any other business. As such, they are entitled to make their product the way they feel is best, and we should only buy it when we feel it serves our individual interests.
I feel a little sad about my decision, because I feel a sense of loyalty to the Model Railroader brand. Yet, it makes no sense to keep buying something just out of loyalty - for my hobby dollar, it has to do me some good. The $40 that I would have spent on the magazine will do me a lot more good on eBay - It will probably buy me at least one vintage craftsman kit.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Dave:
It takes a big man ...
Sorry to dig up this old thread, but I wanted to pass along that I've had a profound change of heart on this subject.
I still wish MR would focus more on the contract layout planning/construction/installation process than the finished product.
But my original argument that having a layout "custom built" for someone "cheapens" what the rest of us do is, the more I think about it, nonsense. I've always, always felt that custom model railroad builders, for the most part, are dedicated, skilled model railroaders who have found a way to make money doing what they love. The target of my argument was their customers.
But I realized, especially now that my layout has been crated for sometime awaiting a move, that everyone, no matter what their skill level and spare time allotment, deserves the chance at a well-constructed, well-detailed, and well-operating layout. Should they have the money to "buy" one off the shelf, and they don't mind the diminished sense of ownership that may (or may not) go with that, then they should be allowed to do so without guys like me accusing them of not being "real" model railroaders.
When I've been invited to operate a layout, I really don't end up caring who built it. If it looks and operates well, it's fun no matter what. Now, I will always build my own layouts unless a handicap prevents it, because I get the most fun from building. But not everyone is comfortable building. Even the most dedicated model railroader with plenty of time to build one may not have the talent or skill to achieve his dreams... should he be denied a decent layout? I used to think "yes..." But the more I read about the custom model railroad business online, the more I realize that there's NO reason a person with a shaky skill set should have to live with a poorly constructed layout when there are excellent craftsmen available to build one for him or her. These custom layout guys are part of the hobby industry, and so it helps everyone when we can inject money into that system. After all, these custom builders are buying large amounts of MR products from scenery to track to structures to trains, on a scale much larger than you or I.
Some people just may not find construction fun. I get that now. I do, and that's why I would probably enjoy being a custom builder.
So with foot planted firmly in mouth, I wanted to apologize to anyone offended by my previous arguments in this thread... As much as I have always respectd the custom builders, I want to now extend my respect and acceptance to the custom layout buyers. How they choose to enjoy the hobby is immaterial; that they're enjoying it is the key.
Happy model railroading!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
jwhitten wrote: I am thinking that you're not a true model railroading hobbyist unless you scratchbuild all your locomotives & rolling stock, including winding your own motors and turning your own wheelsets from raw bar-stock, growing the trees you'll harvest for the timber to construct your benchwork, dig up your own iron ore to forge the nails you'll need to hold it all together, design and build your own DCC-compatible throttle system and decoders, and grow your own lichen for trees. Anything less is just a store-bought fancy in my opinion and it really pains me to see all the press the ready-to-run off-the-shelf stuff gets in the hobby press. MRR should just stick to the fundamentals.
I am thinking that you're not a true model railroading hobbyist unless you scratchbuild all your locomotives & rolling stock, including winding your own motors and turning your own wheelsets from raw bar-stock, growing the trees you'll harvest for the timber to construct your benchwork, dig up your own iron ore to forge the nails you'll need to hold it all together, design and build your own DCC-compatible throttle system and decoders, and grow your own lichen for trees. Anything less is just a store-bought fancy in my opinion and it really pains me to see all the press the ready-to-run off-the-shelf stuff gets in the hobby press. MRR should just stick to the fundamentals.
Here's the plan. Go out to the woods, cut down a tree. Use it for everything from benchwork, ties structures and rolling stock. Find a copper mine. Process the ore, make your own wires. Drill for oil. Use the oil to produce plastics to insulate the wires you make. Repeat this going back to the raw materials for everything in the hobby. Oh come on....you can do it....
Now back to reality. Yes, there are scratch builders that make their own wheelsets in their home shop. I suppose mostly in G scale and or live steam guys, but scratch building is your thing. I admire your skill and dedication to your hobby. I wanna run some trains, sooner rather than later. That would be my hobby. So if anyone wants to count my rivets for me...don't expect me to add or remove any. A model railroad is a model railroad. Matters not who built it. Stories in MR are about different things beneath the showing off of the completed work. Some are about scenic design, some stress ops, others structures. President Mouse's proposal is a good one(not to be kissing up to a candidate from space)get it built and have it running, then make it look good. Still, having only space and time and virtually no budget, there's the construction philosophy for my layout. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to cast some new dies for my wire extrusion shop. Do you know how hard it is to build all my tools from scratch?
Wow, great discussion! It did get a little out of hand sometimes, with a little too much sarcasm and perhaps name-calling, but all in all, quite interesting to read. Since I don't have the magazine here at work, I will base what I am about to say on my increasingly bad memory and some statements on the articles content in this thread.
I am assuming that the owner of the layout designed most of it and built some, but not the majority of the structures. (Yes, I do know what happens when you "assume", but I'm tired and the shift isn't over for another 6 hours, so let me go)
I liked the article, but will admit to some disappointment when I read that a custom builder built it. It would have been better to have more information from the builder's side of things, as has already been suggested.
I hope that if the owner of the layout saw this thread, he took no offense. He committed no crime and should not be chastised for his choices. We all know a layout is never really finished, and if he did some work on it, no doubt he will do more as time allows. I am glad he shared his layout with us
There were a lot of attempts to make analogies to our hobby. Home building and custom cars are two that come to mind. I think they are all wrong. Our hobby is unique. There are just too many variations to Model Railroading. There are "modellers" who like to build everything and "collectors" who are happy to get what the factory made. There are "operators" who like to duplicate the way railroads actually worked and "runners" who simply like to run the trains over the layout. There are "proto-realists" who want to get all the details correct for a specific place and time on a particular railroad, and then there are the "Toy Train" people who are quite happy having a car with a giraffe sticking it's head out the top and can get into long discussions on the intracasies of getting a milk car to deliver or pickup those milk cans. I am sure you all can come up with a few more classes, but the truth is, most of us are somewhere in between all of them. One guy likes to scratch build his structures, but prefers to buy his locomotives factory painted. Another guy is serious about operations, but has a dinosaur on his layout. ;)
The great thing about our hobby is that there is room for everybody.
TomikawaTT/ Chuck: you raise a good point in this discussion. I certainly agree the article was not a " three- page ad". However, if the model railroad was built by CMR, then it should be from the perspective of CMR. As it is, the article would be better off in Model Railroad Planning. or at least should focus more on the planning of the railroad, since that's just about all John Bruno did. (or maybe, How to fill out a check? O right, no sarcasm, sorry)
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would object to someone contracting out the building of their layout. Some people enjoy the process of layout building while others either don't enjoy it or don't have time to do it themselves. Why does any one else care how somebody goes about getting their layout built?
Since I first began reading about feature layouts in MR or RMC, it is not uncommon at all to hear a modeler say so-and-so did his electrical work, or his benchwork, or painte his backdrop. How is it cheating to paying someone to do the part of the hobby you either don't lile to do or don't have time to do. What I want to see in MR is outstanding layouts and I wouldn't care if somebody built his layout by having his wife Samantha twitch her nose and make it suddenly appear.
rustyrails wrote:A few years ago MR had an article about a layout that was based on Flager's Florida RR through the Florida keys. The layout was very well done and used many insightful techniques. I learned some things from that article and I very much enjoyed the layout. I would not have wanted to have missed that article.The layout was professionally done.-John
A few years ago MR had an article about a layout that was based on Flager's Florida RR through the Florida keys. The layout was very well done and used many insightful techniques. I learned some things from that article and I very much enjoyed the layout. I would not have wanted to have missed that article.
The layout was professionally done.
-John
It was built by the late Ross Allen who owned a company called RailServe. It's a beauty and I am fortunate to have operated on it.
tomikawaTT wrote: I'm sure that MR printed the article because the layout design (the author's creation) was a good change of pace from the usual, 'whole railroad in a gymnasium,' we have been griping about. (The magazine contains one of them, too; 25x37 in a basement.) I can't see one mention of the contractor's name being, "A three-page ad," for that firm, any more than naming the maker of a sedan would make an article about a cross-country railfanning safari into an ad for that carmaker.
I'm sure that MR printed the article because the layout design (the author's creation) was a good change of pace from the usual, 'whole railroad in a gymnasium,' we have been griping about. (The magazine contains one of them, too; 25x37 in a basement.) I can't see one mention of the contractor's name being, "A three-page ad," for that firm, any more than naming the maker of a sedan would make an article about a cross-country railfanning safari into an ad for that carmaker.
Good summary. I agree with you. To me too, it seems like the editors of MR made a reasonable call when they included this layout presentation in the May MR.
The layout contains interesting concepts and ideas applicable for other model railroaders too, no matter whether they are considering the use of a custom builder or not.
Custom builder or not was not a core point of the article anyways. As you observe, that was just mentioned in passing.
I also feel a wee stitch of envy for John being able to afford something I will probably never be able to afford, but how I deal with my feelings is my problem, not John's or MR's fault.
I also agree with some of the points raised in Dave Vollmer's last post. I also feel that the article maybe tried to cram in a too much in a little too few pages, and thus the coverage of several potensially interesting subjects got too skimpy.
An expanded treatment of at least some of subjects touched upon in the article might have been interesting to read. More on any (or all) of these subjects would have interested me, even though I am not planning either to build an engine terminal nor use a custom builder:
1) More details about how John Bruno arrived at his engine terminal track plan 2) More details on the process of working with a custom builder 3) More details on how a custom builder constructs, delivers and installs a layout 4) More details on John Bruno's operational scheme for his engine terminal
Edit/clarification: Point 3 above is applicable also to people who have no plan whatsoever of ever using a custom builder - because learning more about tried and proven methods of modular/moveable layouts construction probably would be an interesting subject for many model railroaders totally independent of who builds the modules. Point 2 probably only would be interesting for people who would be willing and able to use a custom builder. So I would have prioritized 1, 3 or 4 ahead of no 2 if I was going to decide on a subject for a followup article.
My opinion. Other people's mileage may mary.
Grin, Stein
No, it's not a three page ad, just a casual mention giving credit to CMR for doing the "grunt work". This is only common courtesy. CMR actually regularly advertises in MR (page 14 lower left in the May issue) and I would presume money flows from CMR to MR. The fellow who owns CMR occasionally posts here and if he read this thread, I would imagine that he got a laugh about it. CMR also has a number of kits they manufacture. Judging by their website, they're not finicky about doing the whole job **, but also invite the purchaser to participate in those things that he/she enjoys and has the time to do. As you point out, there were time constraints on Bruno. Had he had the time, I rather imagine he would have done the job himself.
** Quote from CMR website:
If you would enjoy building part of the railroad, that is no problem. You can do the railroading you enjoy, while we do the rest of the work for you. For instance, you may want us to assemble the benchwork, track and wiring, while you finish the scenery and structures yourself.
Here's one partially built by CMR and partially by the client: http://www.cmrtrain.com/ho1.html
Home page for anyone interested in what CMR does even if not in the market for their products and/or services. http://www.cmrtrain.com/index.html
It's not an either/or situation but a continuum.
Of course, Carl Appel's OO scale "Norfolk & Ohio" that appeared in one of the 1958 issues (November, I think - I don't have the issue anymore) featured a lot of scratchbuilt locomotives, cars and buildings, so I guess the hobby really has gone to hell in a handbasket in the last 50 years. IIRC, Appel was a machinist and his locomotives were equipped with ball bearings.
Andre
Let me get this straight.
John Bruno designed a layout, including an interesting staging arrangement that I, personally, had never seen before. Then, due to time constraints (about which neither I nor anyone else has a clue, and therefore about which we are in no position to judge,) he hired a professional model building firm to do the 'grunt work' of assembling and installing his dream layout in his home. The name of the firm appears in normal size print in the last sentence of a second-page paragraph in a section of the article titled, Assisted Development - and nowhere else.
While all the sound and fury was venting in this thread, did anyone notice that another thread had been started by someone who was looking for this exact concept? When I finally re-read it, I noticed that no one had pointed its OP to this layout.
Seems that we were so busy chopping down the tree that we completely ignored somebody who wanted to gather its fruit.
Dave Vollmer wrote: I think it got buried in the midst of the debate, but I'd like to repeat a point I made yesterday:If MR wants to run articles about professionally-built custom layouts, I'd love to learn more about the process.The article can be in several parts (heck, they could even spread it over several issues just to keep the readers hanging).First part deals with the process of designing and arriving at a contract. I hope this would also disclose information about cost.Second part deals with construction at the custom builder's location and talks about the team and what each person does as well as how they do it.Third part deals with delivery and installation.Fourth part visits the owner and new layout, discusses the whole experience, and operations on the new layout.What do you guys think about that? I think that would scratch everyone's itch. For those of us more interested in construction, we get that in the beginning. For those looking to draw inspiration from the finished layout, they get that in the last part.Then we all get some insight into the process. It's possible my opinions on the whole subject are flawed simply because I don't know enough about the process.BTW, if you guys ever get to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, PA, you can see a beautiful custom HO layout built by Chris Comport of the Pennsy 4-track Middle Division in the 50s. There's also a custom-built layout at the Altoona Railroader's Memorial Museum.I can definitely support building custom layouts for museums 100%. I think they go a long way into explaining how the static displays worked together in motion as a whole railroad.
I think it got buried in the midst of the debate, but I'd like to repeat a point I made yesterday:
If MR wants to run articles about professionally-built custom layouts, I'd love to learn more about the process.
The article can be in several parts (heck, they could even spread it over several issues just to keep the readers hanging).
First part deals with the process of designing and arriving at a contract. I hope this would also disclose information about cost.
Second part deals with construction at the custom builder's location and talks about the team and what each person does as well as how they do it.
Third part deals with delivery and installation.
Fourth part visits the owner and new layout, discusses the whole experience, and operations on the new layout.
What do you guys think about that? I think that would scratch everyone's itch. For those of us more interested in construction, we get that in the beginning. For those looking to draw inspiration from the finished layout, they get that in the last part.
Then we all get some insight into the process. It's possible my opinions on the whole subject are flawed simply because I don't know enough about the process.
BTW, if you guys ever get to the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in Strasburg, PA, you can see a beautiful custom HO layout built by Chris Comport of the Pennsy 4-track Middle Division in the 50s. There's also a custom-built layout at the Altoona Railroader's Memorial Museum.
I can definitely support building custom layouts for museums 100%. I think they go a long way into explaining how the static displays worked together in motion as a whole railroad.
Dave,
We do agree on this, I had to disagree that it should not even be in MR at all. There are many segments of the hobby that most of us have little or no interest in( but each has differing interests) so each should enjoy what MR offers in their interest range and quietly ignore that which doesn't interest them, because surely it will interest someone else.
I like your multi-part suggestion and also, including the cost of going this route. Most other businesses advertise their price in their ads, and in a way this really is an ad for the custom builder's product that they don't have to pay for, hard to beat that deal.
I do think that custom built layouts have a place in MR, though they should be identified as such. Almost any well planned and built layout will have some element that will inspire another modeler in some way, be it a scenery method, or the layout of the track work for an engine servicing facility or some other aspect of the hobby.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails