working man's view

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: Originally posted by timthechef

I also subcribe to Mustang Monthly magazine and on the back page they feature pictures of readers cars and give a $50 gift cirtificate to the best one. maybe something like this could be done with MR.
As for smaller railroads they have been featuring quite a few articles on book shelf layouts and modular rail roading. I have actually gained insparation from this and and setting my small railroad up for modular expantion.

eh...maybe it's just my dirty mind, but for some reason when I read this I didn't register that it was a magazine that showed pictures of readers' CARS...as there are *ahem* other sorts of magazines that encourage readers to send photos and pay for them. But the concept is essentially the same, if you've got something nice to look at, it's interesting having a way to show them off...

[GerFust]

Folks:

There are many good thoughts here. I too would like to see more small size railroads. I'm planning a 2x16 shelf-style right now. A smaller size doesn't mean less quality. [;)]

In particular, I'm interested in seeing how people do things less expensively. Ian Rice recently mapped out how to make manual turnout controls using copper cable and pipe. I'm thinking about doing the same using bicycle cable.

MABruce - great idea about the layout improvement angle. MR probably gets plenty of article submissions they take a pass on. That's great stuff to start such a section!

-Jer

[BNSFNUT]

I would like to see some smaller layouts featured. But MR can only print what is sent to them. Most peaple think that they are not good enough to get printed.
Well you never know intill you try. If you want to see the average Joe layouts send in a artical on your layout in. The worst that can happen is that they say no and you might be suprised and the accept it.
I have only a modest layout my self but I am preparing to submit some photos soon just to see what happens.
I will still read MR every mounth just to see if there are any ideas that I can use on my layout.
As to cost of large layouts most are several years old and the cost and time is spread out over time. My layout was started in 1996 and still has some bare plywood on the branch. I am on a fixed Income (low income?) and have had to spread the cost off my layout out over many years.
OK I'll get off my soapbox now.

[timthechef]

I also subcribe to Mustang Monthly magazine and on the back page they feature pictures of readers cars and give a $50 gift cirtificate to the best one. maybe something like this could be done with MR.
As for smaller railroads they have been featuring quite a few articles on book shelf layouts and modular rail roading. I have actually gained insparation from this and and setting my small railroad up for modular expantion.

[Eriediamond]

I, like many of you want to see the large "professional" pikes(man, thats an old word) in our magazines. After all, we are all mostly looking for inspiration to do better. I also like to see articals like the "$500 layout" also. Sure for us older seasoned modellers it may seem dull and boring, but lets remember some new comers need inspiration and a means of gaining the skills to grow. I don't know how many times I've seen the good advice given on this forum to people just starting out to start small, learn and then move up to that large dream layout. But then the same people that give that good advice complain about a simple loop and spur project in a magazine that attempts to teach those skills. I feel that some times it takes a lot more skill to model in a small space then in a large basement. We are illusionist, if you will, that strive to give the illusion of something that extremely large into a small space. I won't argue the large basement type layouts require more work, but the small "bedroom" type layouts requires more skill in that we have a smaller space to create that believeable working railroad. Would I like my railroad published? Not really, I'm building it for my own satisfaction and enjoyment. Would I like to see "average Joe" layouts in magazines? Yes, if nothing else to show new comers that they don't have to be perfect in their modeling skills or have a deep pocket to enjoy this great hobby. Didn't mean to be so long winded here.

[MAbruce]

I’m an average Joe. My layout is certainly nothing special, and can’t hold a match to those that are routinely featured in magazines like MR. Do I want to see average layouts featured? Not necessarily.

I have an idea though. Maybe MR should start a regular series that mirrors what we have been seeing with these home improvement shows. I think they should take an average layout and show how certain things that can be done to it in order to make it much better. Sort of a Layout Makeover (or maybe something like “Trading Layouts” [:P]).

It doesn’t need to feature anything extreme – like tearing up sections and doing them over. Rather, it should take what is already there and show simple ways to enhance it.

Just an idea…

[Big_Boy_4005]

Jetrock has really nailed this one, guys. Since the web has become so popular and so inexpensive, it has become the voice of the masses, leaving the much more expensive and exclusive print media to resort to showing only the best of the best. Has anyone else ever noticed that not many of the people that participate in the forums have ever had their layout published in a magazine????? Am I the only one here, I hope not!!!

[Fergmiester]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

Quite frankly, when it comes to "average joe" layouts, I've seen plenty of those online, via the links on this forum. I can kind of understand MR wanting to showcase the more skilled modeling achievements as something for us average modelers to shoot for, but on a forum like this I can see directly what other non-pro modelers are doing.

This is nice in that it's cheap (would you really want to pay to see pictures of mediocre layouts?) and the models vary widely in size and quality (like the zillions of links to amazing little micro layouts off www.carend.com) and, quite frankly, sometimes it's refereshing to see someone who obviously has LESS skill than you who is building a model railroad...but I might not want to pay for that privilege, and since it's online I don't have to!

I'm with Jetrock on this one. What amazes me is some of the pictures that some of you have posted here on this forum. They belong in MR. Some modellers don't seem to care if they show off their abilities or maybe don't know how good they are. I think should be showing their layouts in the "Trackside Photos" section as this section should be at least a couple of pages more.

[Jetrock]

Quite frankly, when it comes to "average joe" layouts, I've seen plenty of those online, via the links on this forum. I can kind of understand MR wanting to showcase the more skilled modeling achievements as something for us average modelers to shoot for, but on a forum like this I can see directly what other non-pro modelers are doing.

This is nice in that it's cheap (would you really want to pay to see pictures of mediocre layouts?) and the models vary widely in size and quality (like the zillions of links to amazing little micro layouts off www.carend.com) and, quite frankly, sometimes it's refereshing to see someone who obviously has LESS skill than you who is building a model railroad...but I might not want to pay for that privilege, and since it's online I don't have to!

[wp8thsub]

I have to disagree here in that I don't have a desire to see "average quality" layouts in the magazine. I look to the hobby press for inspiration and have never much cared for features on the such modeling. For that matter, I'm not liking the direction the magazines are taking with beginner layouts that don't really look presentable - like the recent "layout for $500.00" stories. Compare that to older series like the Jeome & Southwestern that showed you could create something very nice in 4'X8'. If a how-to article doesn't inspire me to achieve I don't wanna read it.

RailModel Journal has pushed the "attainable excellence" angle and RMC features a lot of relatively "average Joe" stuff. Rather than sending MR in that direction try the other mags.

If by "average Joe" layouts you mean high quality small layouts however, I'm all for that. A well done spare bedroom size layout trumps a poorly executed basement empire every time.

[Anonymous]

I was thinking the same thing....the guy who had his N-scale layout professionally built because he was too busy to do it himself, did he miss out on some fun? Maybe it wasn't as much fun for the builder, either, or at least, not as much as if it had been his own layout. I want to "enjoy" banging my head on the duckunders or the benchwork while I'm setting up my tracks. I want to be able to swear like a gandy dancer when I accidentally try to solder my hand to the two pieces of flextrack I'm trying to join together. And I certainly want to be able to gasp in horror as my fast freight jumps the track and flies the 3-1/2 feet to the carpet because I didn't throw the turnout in time.

My own feeling on the subject is that we should all build what we're comfortable with, in terms of expenditure, size, complexity, operations, etc. I'd like to have a large basement to set up a huge layout, but I know that it's probably never going to happen unless I suddenly hit the PowerBall Jackpot (not likely, I don't bet on lotteries).

The small $500 layout that was featured in MR a few issues back is nice, but it's not what I want to do with a railroad. It seemed to me to be little more than a basic oval with a loop going off to the industrial area. That might be fine for some people, but I like to be able to run trains and watch them move through lots of variations in scenery as they pick up cars in one location and drop them off in another.

I suspect that if I ever get my layout(s) up and running, that they won't be "overnight" successes, they won't be anywhere near professionally done, nor will they feature anything fantastic, such as automated dispatching. They will have the things that I want on them, the way I want them, and maybe, from a working man's view, that's the way they should be.

[AggroJones]

MR needs to show more impressive "small layouts". Ones that can fit within a spare bedroom. Bigger does not mean better. I've seen some "small" layouts that out shine some of these massive, basement sized monsters. Showing that you can build a high quality layout in less space may help draw in more people to the hobby.

[Anonymous]

I have to agree with Brakie here. Showcasing average layouts by enthusiasts with less skill, bucks or room size would grab the attention of newcomers to the hobby, or those rekindling an interest in trains. I realize MR needs to showcase incredible talent as a lure, but it wouldn't hurt to feature what the average guy had assembled, too. Inspiration comes in many forms.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Grand Funk. I have a 4X9 with a couple extensions and never thought it would be seen in a magazine. Even though my layout looks better that the "$500 layout" and I have not paid that much for mine yet. I work 50+ hour weeks and do squeeze time in to work on it. I don't even subscribe to MR anymore mainly because the layouts and ideas are not affordable to me and I'm not that good. I just go to the store and thumb through it to see what's new.

I do wi***hey would come up with a section and maybe title it Reality Model Railroading. Then I would defintely resubcribe.[2c]

Thanks,
Jeremy

[vsmith]

Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette routinely highlights smaller layouts in its pages. Often smaller than 4x8, granted they are specificly narrow gauge and usually unbeleivably detialed but they are small (3x6 for example) so i dont see why the magazines couldnt do that. MR has shown some smaller layouts recently, they should show the types that are more likely to inhabit someones rec room. It would be good incentive for those starting out in the hobby that they dont have to build an addition to their house just to enjoy this hobby.

[BRAKIE]

Mike,I have thought for years that there should be more "average Joe" layouts in magazines more so then the larger layouts that fills a basement.This would not include those silly looking beginners layouts that MR insists on doing every year.MR can do better then that for a beginner..
MR did a small layout contest about 5/6 years or so ago and I think its time for another contest.

[Roadtrp]

Yes, I agree that MR and other magazines should occasionally show "average" layouts. The great majority of us will never have a layout that looks anything like the layouts featured in MR (except for the recent "Under $500" layout). It would be encouraging for us beginners to have the more average layouts of MR readers displayed occasionally. They could even have a "MR Reader Layouts of the Month" feature where they would print a selection of photos submitted by readers. These layouts would be selected not on their perfection, but on the basis of what an average modeler could reasonably aspire to. [:)]

[streettrains]

I was at a train show yestarday & picked up to binders of the 1974 & 1978 of Model railroader and while looking quickly through all the old issues, one thing seemed to make think... I notice sometimes that in these days of model railroading there seems to be many layouts featured that are done by people that have the money & can spend 24/7 on their layouts. ( well it seems that way) Maybe I am looking at this from the working man's view. I think will my layout ever be featured in a magazine or just mentioned. I saw in some of the old issues they had a section for students and their layouts and what they were doing. I was thinking shouldn't they have a section in any model railroading magazine where someone like me ( or if there is any more that feel like I do)or anyone who wants that dream layout that works on there layout when they can. Now we all now all of our layouts are great Railroads of the mine and they should all be mentioned and seen...

does anyone think that there should be something like this in a magazine, something like an update or whatever.. or am I thinking too much....

thanks

Mike

~Thunder Mountain Railroad~