RMC vs. MR

[Anonymous]

I get both and like both. If I had to drop one though it would be MR as RMC has more of the stuff I like to read.

James

[Anonymous]

Havn't bought an RMC for over 10 years now. I understand that I'm not missing much. [V]
I get MR every month[:D], and Model Railroading every once in a while, maybe for a few months if a prototype series that I am interested in is running.

[twhite]

I subscribe to both, enjoy both pretty equally. I agree with a lot of you guys about the depth of the articles in RMC--I think the name of the magazine Model Railroad CRAFTSMAN pretty much says it all. Sometimes I think they get a little carried away with focusing on Eastern--especially North-Eastern railroad prototypes, but, hey, there are New Haven and Boston and Maine modelers out there, too, thank God. I've REALLY liked their boxcar series, it's very informative, especially concering the fact that I'm modeling pretty much in the same era. Also like their Collector's Corner, sometimes it brings back fond memories, especially their articles on Max Gray. Look forward to both RMC and MR, because sometimes they arrive at my mailbox on the same day and I have to postpone Real Life for a couple of hours to peruse them. MR, with its focus on layouts and basics, appeals to a broader contingent of model railroaders, and you've probably read my comments on another forum about that, whenever anyone starts criticizing an issue as being 'irrelevant'. Like I said, I like both. Long may they wave!

[CNJ831]

Both are "good" (but sadly not excellent) magazines, each having its strong and weak points. MR has great production qualities but tends too much toward the glitz, flash and fluff end of the spectrum. The layouts displayed are typically eye candy, beyond the skills and ability of 99.9% of hobbyists. The accompanying text gives little or no useful info, with pictures that show close-ups of about 5% of the actual layout. Although I have and treasure every copy since 1940, I have to say that MR has evolved into the "People" magazine of model ralroading .

The production quality of RMC is decidedly lower, with many errors in editing and poorer quality illustrations; the layout graphics sometimes don't even correspond to indicated photos in the articles. Most of the layouts that appear in its pages are of the down-to-earth or "I could probably build that" variety - sometimes truly a good thing. RMC is also mostly about real modeling and detailed instruction in the how-to aspects of the hobby (MR was once also). I haven't missed a issue in twenty years.

Incidentally, I've tried most of the other HO magazines over the years but always found them too limited in scope. If they happen to be covering your particular prototype railroad they could prove very useful but I found this rarely happened for me. Eventually I dropped my subscriptions to each.

So, with regard to MR vs. RMC, the choice for me becomes rather a toss-up. One tends to balance the other and I really wouldn't want to drop either one.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley

I like them both. Each has something to offer.

I also like both magazines as each one tends to compliment the other in many ways. MR is the leader by a long shot in articles and advertising, but RMC has added drawings and articles to the hobby that are either overlooked, or not done by MR. MR also does a better job of testing new models and giving out the data on them. Did you catch the MR error recently with drawbar pull on the diesel?
I think both are good and they do compliment each other.

[egmurphy]

It's all a matter of personal preference. I get them both and enjoy them both, while recognizing that they certainly have differences. I haven't bothered to try to determine which I think is better.

Regards

Ed