I understand it is sometimes difficult.

[Anonymous]

Hey, I have read model railroader for about 40 years, with a few breaks.....Naturally, I find some issues of more interest than others, but it is always high quality.

I, for one, think their new "USA Today" brevity is great. It fits the times! And, long articles aren't necessarily better articles, they are just longer. Another mag recently had an article on electrical reliability of Peco switches, which interested me. However, despite reading four or more pages, it was so poorly written that I did't understand it at all. That would never make it into MR. They would put it in "Workin on the RR" and have five bullet points referenced to photos showing how to do it.

Secondly, for the other old timers who think it should be a little more in depth, I disagree, only from the standpoints that, 1) the long term trend is to make the hobby easier, so it consumes less time. Since MR is promoting WGH, this makes sense, and 2) I think they have made the conscious decision to cater to beginners and intermediate modelers for a few reasons. First is WGH. Second is that their are numerous specialty mags that can fill the role of "scratchbuilders monthly" and third, the sad fact is, even many of us long time modelers never get out of trhe "intermediate stage."

So, I think they know their audience well. If you don't happen to be in their demographic, subscribe to other mags, and be grateful they are trying to grow the hobby.

[jacon12]

It has to be a daunting task for a magazine to appeal to the rank beginner and the 40 year veteran at the same time. If they run articles only on complicated tasks or layouts it goes completely over the head of the neophyte and that person quietly exits the hobby never to be seen again. If they run articles on how to make a good solder connection or successful wire stripping, the advanced hobbiest is up in arms. As a member of the first group I appreciate both types of articles. I read and try to understand the advanced articles and I appreciate the basic ones that tell the how to lay track.

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twhite

Hit the wrong darned button on the computer again--as I was saying, in other words, QUITYERBITCHIN' and just be glad that we have a hobby magazine that addresses ALL of us, not just the Happy Few, as Henry V was so prone to say. I've not read an issue that didn't give me something to think about, even if it didn't seem relevant at the time.

Amen, brother. I don't know what everyone's complaining about. Just looking at a few recent issues reveals a wide range of interesting articles. In the October, 2004 issue alone, there are articles on installing DCC in Athearn diesels, backdrop painting, a room size midwestern track plan (1990's perhaps, but do the words back dating mean anything) and detailing plastic steam locomotives. The previous issue has articles on a C&NW layout (so much for the complaints about Eastern roads getting it all), rock formations, plastic structure kitbashing basics, operational paperwork and kitbashing an ex- Milwaukee SDL-39. The issue before that had a track plan for the SF Surf Line, backdating a P2K BL-2, an HOn 2 1/2 layout, making better looking brick buildings and 10 things you can do to improve your layout.

I've been reading MR since 1957. Trust me on this, it's better than it ever has been and it's been good throughout the years. Whaddya want, an MR staffer to hold your hand? Do something neat and submit an article about it.

Now if MR would only reprint that 1967 article by Jim Boyd on rolling your own boiler.

Andre

[twhite]

Hit the wrong darned button on the computer again--as I was saying, in other words, QUITYERBITCHIN' and just be glad that we have a hobby magazine that addresses ALL of us, not just the Happy Few, as Henry V was so prone to say. I've not read an issue that didn't give me something to think about, even if it didn't seem relevant at the time.

[twhite]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. If EVERY issue of MR was solid gold, I'd have the most incredible model railroad in the universe, and so would you guys, right? The Ads tell me what's available now or soon, the Product Reviews let me know if I should salivate or not and start saving my Cesterces (Roman coins, to you uninitiated), the articles may or may not be pertinent to what I am currently projecting, but sooner or later, fellows, you're going to do the same thing I do, and that's scurrying thorugh your old pile of MR, because you SUDDENLY REMEMBER someone's article that explained what right now, you're all at sea about. In other words,

[on30francisco]

I used to subscribe to Model Railroader several years ago. Depending on its contents, I now buy it occasionally at the newsstand. There are still some good articles in there, but for myself, the magazine isn't what it used to be in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. I've found other model railroad magazines that better cater to my interests; and there's always the internet.

[Anonymous]

I personally dont care for the hit and miss issues that arrive in my mailbox, therefore I have made the desicion to allow my subscription to expire and buy off the bookstore shelf when the issues are good and save my money when they arent

[sparkingbolt]

I lost interest in MR some years ago, in the '80's when it appeared (to me) that they thought their readers were all so affluent that cost was no object. One product reveiw casually recomended that modelers would want a large variety of $80 Brooklyn Mint vehicles for their O scale layouts. As if to just shell out 8 or 12 hundred bucks and plunk 'em down. They featured a breif survey once pointing out the model rail roaders were generally well to do.... I know this isn't a cheap hobby, but this rather lost me. I didn't go away mad, I just lost interest.

When I came back some years later I found articles aimed at beginners, things like the Alkali Central (I think it was called) , A layout everyone could learn something from,and you didn't need to be a doctor to build it. Features like "Workin on the Railroad" gave us hands on ideas. A number of smaller layouts were featured.

I agree every now and then a comparatively dry issue comes along, but I wonder what I would try to do to appeal to an audience who's fields of interests are ever broadening. DC, DCC. Sound ...Expensive. cheap. RTR. Kits. Deisel.Steam. Freight . Z-G Passenger.Scenery. No scenery. Operation. Scratchbuild. Styrene. Real wood. Hand tools. Power tools Proto87 0r 48...about the only thing we ALL have in common is flanged wheels on rails.
Seems in the really early days stuff was so limited that everything printed appealed to a great percentage of the readers. Most stuff was O scale, steam was the rule. Scratchbuilding was the only way to get so many things. Yeah, we're spoiled these days. And face it, we are getting used to the fact that we can get so much info these days on this and other forums that the Magazine couldn't keep up if it wanted to, which I think it does want to. I have benefitted greatly from this aspect of the forums. My layout very directly reflects that. But I would not have a layout if not for the education I got from MR.

I always look forward to the next MR these days. Some articles have info that I'll never apply but it's great to see the scope of what's available, and the scope of interests and skills out there. I too understand it is sometimes difficult. Dan

[METRO]

Whatever happened to the great how-to articles like the dear departed Paintshop section and Student Fare? And why why why was Workshop only less than a page? The models ARE the hobby you know! I'll tell you I'm starting to move away from the magazine and more onto my fellow modelers and my own troubleshooting skills when it comes to the hobby.

I really wonder where the great and inspirational articles went? I remember an article from a couple years ago that showed me how to paint the screen details onto my Walthers FAs and I still think that was a bit of modeling genius. There was also a layout a few years ago (it was an O-scale Canadian National pike) that inspired the lighting in some of my urban areas.

I really really want genius and inspiration back, especially since I'm starting a seccond layout and could use good ideas!

[Anonymous]

I thought this issue was pretty boring, too. The 8 tips from a Pro was helpful, but not much else. What I'd really like to see is more layouts featured and more pictures of the layout. Those could fill in all the pages filled with those darned adds![:(!] I mean, it's nice to seev what's new and coming out, and I always look at what Trainworld has on sale, but otherwise, there's too many!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cjm89

...unfortunately this month's article lingered on these huge layouts most of us couldn't pay for or upkeep...

While I can appreciate your desire for model railroads representing different locales, I like seeing articles on the big layouts that I will never do. It gives me a chance to see them, I can live vicariously, and I can still get ideas from them, even if they are not the same size scale.

Speaking of living vicariously, I would like to see some articles on these large layouts where a pictorial follows a train during an operating session. Whether they follow a mainline train, capturing the different scenes and trains it meets, or whether they follow a way freight, showing the detail of the industries, cars, trackwork, and engines. This way, we can see some of the layouts already illustrated in MR, but in more detail, and you get more of a feel of being there.

---jps

[Anonymous]

Bill,

Who said you can't teach us older dogs new tricks!!

Mark

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fergmiester

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

I wi***his were true, but the more I contemplate the diminished informational value of the articles I read, the more I sense the oppressive hand of the editors. Case in point, the May 2004 issue's cover story: "Great Layout, Great Ideas". The subhead says that Dave Kotsonis tells how he built his layout. Aside from a bullet-list insert, the words are not Dave's. The body of the article is composed out of the same cookie-cutter phrases that seem to be the building blocks of any layout article, such as "set it in the late 1940's and early 1950's... so he could run a wide variety of locomotives..."; "he drybrushes the rock surface with lighter colored paints to hightlight the details"; "Though he builds some as kits straight from the box, most have been kitbashed or scratchbuilt...". Each of these could be explained a little more, perhaps demonstrated with a photo or two, but that kind of substance wouldn't have the high gloss of the photos they do print. Several times in the article, I read a reference to something which I'd really like to see, and went scanning the photos only to find it was left out. One whole paragraph described the memorable Old Man of the Mountain, a replicated piece of scenery, and scenic landmarks are so rarely faithfully modeled that I thought for sure there'd be a picture. No such luck. The scratchbuilt structures at the quarry, written about, are insignificant background material in one photograph, there is simply no opportunity to learn about quarries from this article, despite the research Dave put into it. And thre of the original freight cars he got started with 40 years ago are still in operational service? Show them to me!

The insert, though, with Dave's tips in a bulleted list, is actually rather valuable. If we had been given 6 pages of just this list, fully demonstrated in the photos, I would have had an article worth the price of admission. The "Layout At A Glance" feature, which summarizes things, could theoretically replace all the generic schlock the pads out the article proper. My sense is that it is an editorial decision, to diffuse any of the possible depth or intrigue down to an acceptable-to-all, mild-cheddar-cheese generality. Which is odd, because clearly they want startling titles for the cover: "Great Layout, Great Ideas" came across as a competent layout, conventional ideas, even though I know the potential to live up to that claim is there. The same summarizes my feelings for MR as a whole: competent, conventional, but with the potential to return to their pioneering past.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I really like the articles on srcratchbuilding, kitbashing, and kit building. I also like the layouts of Midwestern roads (only one was a cover story in the 16 months I've been a subscriber) and DCC guides, but unfortunately this month's article lingered on these huge layouts most of us couldn't pay for or upkeep, and beginner stuff. (I am a beginner, but the "Passenger Train on a Budget" and "Tools to build a Layout" was too basic for me.) After all though, no issue of MR never has and never will have every single paragraph and picture useful to me.

The magazine needs to stop visiting huge layouts modeling Eastern coal country and the Southwest, and find a few nice Midwestern and reasonably sized layouts.
Just my 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

hey deschane -

Guess what I learned how to do today?

I appreciate your "apology", but I took it as a well deserved ribbing!
Have you determined what I learned how to do today - yet?

If I told you that this 58 yr old fart is teaching himself how to use a PC, would that be a big enough hint? (I'm working on tightening up my sentence structure next !)

Bill

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fergmiester

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

But MR is a business, a magazine produced for profit by a company.

Not a club.

Not a co-op.

If you went to the grocery store and they didn't have what you wanted, would you be happy if they said, "Well, grow some and bring it in"?

No. because you are paying for a product. In that case, some sort of vegetable.

It is a cop-out for a large publisher like Kalmbach to charge $5 for a periodical and then tell us it's up to us to send in material for it if we want to see good articles. That's not my job. Solicit new writers; solicit article from established writers; use in-house talent.

But don't make it my problem if your magazine for which you charge $5 needs better material.

[Anonymous]

I think the changes that have come to MR are simply a sign of the times. The issues in my file go back into the 30's and are complete from 1954 on. The magazine used to be produced by model railroaders that were reasonably adept at publishing a magazine. The staff today seems to be folks with degrees in journalism that happen to dabble in model railroading. The magazine has been realigned and restructured at least twice in the past 20 years or so. There is more shine, more glitz, more quick hit stuff. Lots of color and a simply splendid presentation style. The days of articles like "Pillar to Post" are over. The articles that Gordon Odegard seemed to speciallize in, small trackside details, small buildings along the right-of-way, are all gone. Part of the reason for the indepth articles of the past were the number of modellers that had to build the things on their layouts, RTR was a rare option and the quality of RTR was substandard at best. Today the hobby is much less scratchbuilding and more lets buy what we need and get it running. Some suppliers seem to be phasing out kits in favor of RTR. There has been a major change in the hobby, much of it tending to be improvement on the past. I cannot find fault with MR simply because they are keeping up with the trend in the hobby. I still get good value for my money from MR.

Tom

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

Any magazine can only print what people write and submit to it. I used to have the same problem when I was editing a computer magazine back in the glory days of Atari home computers -- users didn't submit articles so we sometimes had nothing to print. Needless to say, the magazine died after a couple of years because we couldn't think of enough to write about on our own.

Right, thats my experience too. While there are a few people who could be called "professional" writers in the hobby, most of the content comes from readers sharing there knowledge and experience with the rest of us, although I'm sure MR does recieve many more submittals than they can possibly publish.

[ClinchValleySD40]

I've noticed they've tried to broaden their coverage. That seems to be the reason for some of the basic stuff, like what tools to use. And I never ever get tired of seeing other layouts, I'm glad they always include them.

It's not perfect, but it's still the best out there (IMHO).

[Fergmiester]

Any publication is only as good as the submissions it recieves. If we want to see what is of value to us then we will have to provide it. Not wanting to sound blunt about it but MR is by modellers for modellers.

[Anonymous]

I think MR is always helpful

DOGGY

[Big_Boy_4005]

There's a pretty wide variety of tastes out there, as is evident from reading this topic.

MR ain't SARA LEE. You know "Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee".

I don't think that a lack of material is the problem here, it may be just the opposite, too much to choose from. This hobby is growing and changing constantly, and MR always has tried to keep up with the times.

Over the years we have seen a shift away from car and engine kits, in favor of RTR. The manufacturers have watched as the demand has dried up for those products.

Stop and think, why did people used to do kits in the first place? What were plastics like in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Combine that with the fast food mentality and the pace at which we live our lives, and RTR is king. Add to that the huge selection in the market place today, and kits are dead.

Kitbashing and super detailing are still alive and well, and if you really like to model perhaps branching out to structures is the answer, as no manufacturer will ever make a model of "YOUR HOUSE" or most buildings we see.

I have been reading MR for over 30 years, and in that time I have learned and seen a lot of interesting things. Of course in that amount of time, finding new ideas becomes more and more dificult. Ever have someone tell you something you've heard before, an old joke perhaps?

I often find myself turning the pages of MR, and saying to myself, "yeah, yeah, so what's so wondreful about that?" It's like looking for diamonds in a pile of coal, and the pile just keeps getting bigger. But every once in a while......[swg]

[cacole]

Any magazine can only print what people write and submit to it. I used to have the same problem when I was editing a computer magazine back in the glory days of Atari home computers -- users didn't submit articles so we sometimes had nothing to print. Needless to say, the magazine died after a couple of years because we couldn't think of enough to write about on our own.

[Anonymous]

I'm not claiming the MR is a bad magazine nor am I trying to flame them. This issue on a grade scale compared to their normal is a C-. If my high school students handed me this issue I would think they rushed it and just did it to get it done. I am talking about this issue and this issue only . If more issues come out of this quality then there may be a problem. The MR staff should know that their subscribers notice filler and fluff. MR covers a good range for a wide spectrum of skill levels. That is not a problem either. Even the most experienced modeler can find something and go "oh really hmmm". Out of the same issue I really liked the Warehouse on a curve article and the change of scenery article. The passenger trains on a budget missed it's point . It had nothing to do with budget! It spent time on how to make generic cars look like other cars. This would fit any price level. I guess it depends on your budget . Modelers have the same problems wether they are on a budget or not. As for the tool article, as soon as children get their Fisher Price tool kits they know what a hammer is and what to do with it. It doesn't take much longer to figure out screw drivers, drills and what a 40 watt soldering iron are for.. When you start building your layout most people know what they at least basically need. That's the nice thing about this hobby. You can get as exotic as you want or keep it simple. The gizmo article was better from a couple of issues back. MR from time to time shows these tools in action and how to use them properly. That is much better.

RMax

[Roadtrp]

I've just been a subscriber for 4 months now, so I obviously have no knowledge of the "Golden Era" that some of the folks here are talking about. But personally, I've found many useful articles in every issue I've received. I guess I don't expect EVERY article in every issue to be something I personally find useful, or even something that I want to read. I don't read every article in any other magazine I subscribe to -- why would I expect MR to be any different?

A book or specialized publication like "Basic Trackwork" can target a specialized audience. A more general interest publication like MR has to appeal to a wide audience with various interests and levels of experience. I think MR does an excellent job with this -- at least for the short time I've been a subscriber. [:)]

[IRONROOSTER]

Personally, I like the issue. It's tough to cover all interests and all skill levels,. The magazine focuses on layouts, but I think does a pretty good job in the other areas. Sure, some of those beginner articles are redundant to me now, but they weren't when I started. And I still learn a little something from most of them. I subscribe to 4 model railroading magazines (plus 2 from NMRA and NASG) and occasionally pick up others on the newstand. MR is the best of them. Would I like to see more material, yes I would. But I suspect that is dependent on more advertising and/or more readers. With the proliferation of magazines and the internet sites that's probably not going to happen.
Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Bill, My only problem with what you said was there were no paragraph breaks and was attempting to poke fun at you for this! If my humor missed the mark, or I have none, Sorry!

As far as the content of the magazine, you all have a right to your opinions and I can't stop you for stating them, nor would I want to. However, I don't think the small number of folks communicating on this forum makes an avalanche of opinion!

Some of the folks on this forum have nothing to say, unless it is negative. Therefore, what true value does their opinion have.

I'm not going to waste your and my time listing all the articles I found in this issue which I feel where very strong. However, when you have a major contribution by the likes of John Armstrong, a structure article from Robert Smaus, a look at a great North Eastern layout and the end of an 8 part series on modeling a proto 87 layout, I can ask myself, "What more did I want?"

My opinion; you nay-sayers are all wet! Gee, I bet you will disagree with me, huh! Go figure!?!

[ATSFCLIFF]

I am a long time subscriber and find the MRR magazine quite informative.One shouldn't use one bland month's issue as a yardstick. Usually over a 12 month period there are many interesting articles especially for beginners. I think it's difficult to cater for the varied tastes of everyone. I personally think that there are not enough articles for the n-scale modeler. Large layouts can be boring especially for those who have to make do with small and limited space but I try to read and pick up scenic tips etc. and try them on my layout.
Where I live, there a handful of hobby stores catering for train modelers hence, I look forward to every month's issue. New product information, product reviews and even advertisements gives me an idea what's the trends in the hobby. Overall I find that they are trying their best and hopefully that they read the forum and maybe pickup some good suggestions to improve the magazine. I still think MRR is good value for money.

[Anonymous]

hey deschane - I'll make this brief - point well taken (guess I'm just got all this pent up energy after a ten year absence from the hobby.) My comments weren't meant to be hyper critical but an observation from my perspective as a reader of MR since approx 1950 when I started looking at my Dad's MRs. I want MR to be around at least as long as I am and hope that it listens to real time comments from its fans and supporters, and I consider myself one of them, or I wouldn't have taken the time to submit my thoughts. I've always considered MR the premier model railroading magazine and measure other modeling magazines against MR. I wasn't trying to be "ungrateful "by using a media paid for by Kalmbach to criticize them with, and it certainly wasn't "belly-aching" either. I have always expected the best out of MR, anticipated every issue, and have almost every annual and speciality publlication they've done. But my humble opinion is that they either have slipped up a bit or are catering to a different segment of the hobby as of late, as I expressed in my earlier post. (FYI deschane - I'm a tool guy too and subscribe to half a dozen magazines - and yes, I too find something useful in each one of them as I do in MR every issue. Yet , there is one of those that I hold on a pedestal and have come to appreciate the very best effort out of that publication in each issue.