What should Model Railroader do "Better" "Different"?

[Anonymous]

[:X]What would you like to see Model Railroader do differently, or better? I have to say that I think Model Railroader is one of, if not the best model railroading magazines on the market. I rate its' product quality as high as any and it's content maybe the best at providing me what I want to see in a model railroading magazine!

1). However, I would like to see more photos of featured layouts and maybe less of the repetitive narrations on how the layout was built, IE. L-girder/plywood/cookie cutter, atop which is foam/open grid work with screen wire, cardboard interwoven strips and plaster dipped etc, etc. Each layout featured, likely has some unusual feature which could be brought to light, discussed in depth and made a focus of why this layout stands out.

2). I would like the magazine to show some teeth when it comes to reviewing products and facing the issues of the day! Is the magazine a glorified advertising medium? Or, is it an unbiased tool for the consumer to use when considering a purchase? And, is it a sounding trumpet when an issue becomes something of significance in the hobby? The magazine should take on all comers in protecting this hobby! Some points in reference: The Athearn Genesis Challenger's sound system. This system was discussed on this forum and it appeared many felt; Here's this beautiful loco with such a crappy sound system! Also, the MTH/Lionel/QSI debacle and the Union Pacific licensing fee issues are all issues effecting this hobby. However, little press was given these issues and the review of the challenger only stated the reviewer had heard better coupling clanks.

I know, it's one of those "which side the bread is buttered on" things. However, it seems to me there is so little courage in business today. Lets show some!

[mikebonellisr]

I imagine most of us recieved a MRR questionaire on our email,pretty much asking the same thing.They do want us to be happy with thier product.I can see where thier product review is put between a rock and a hard place when they have to review some of thier major advertisers products that many of us would consider toy like or junk.I would love to see a honest review as many times I will buy a item based on thier review and what I read here.

[Leon Silverman]

One of the topics that I find to be non-dscriminating is in the area of "freely rolling trucks". There has been a discussion of this topic in this column, but if MR sees fit to plot a locomotive's current draw, drawbar pull, and speed characteristics against "average" locomotives, why can't they compare the rolling characteristics of a reviewed rolling stock against an average or standard incline where movement initiates.

[Anonymous]

As has been posted here previously, I would like to see more overall shots of featured layouts - how they fit into the room they are in. Not all shots should be of perfectly posed mini scenes on layouts, as there is more to a model railroad layout than that. Of course this all goes back to those who contribute and photograph the articles. Maybe they do include such shots, and maybe MR edits them out, who knows?

Those of you who have seen older copies of MR - way back in the 60's, 70's, etc. would have seen photos of models that weren't finished, works in progress. Heck the "Trackside Photos" used to show partially completed layouts, benchwork and all. Now all readers see are layouts, models and scenes that are perfect in all aspects. This can be kind of intimidating to newcomers - "I could never do that!"

As to product reviews, I gave up a long time ago expecting much truthful - "warts and all" - reviews in MR. And they used to feature prominently in full color all the time in the new products section models from Walthers. MR's being in the same city as Walthers seems to have them always receiving preferential treatment. They are (or were!) the biggest in our hobby, but they do not have to be the main feature in each and every issue!

Stepping off my soapbox for now. [soapbox]

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

Bob, What are "truthful warts"? Can you look at your last paragraph and clarify what your trying to say here? I think your saying MR pays to much attention to Walthers, but am unsure.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Bob, What are "truthful warts"? Can you look at your last paragraph and clarify what your trying to say here? I think your saying MR pays to much attention to Walthers, but am unsure.

I changed the punctuation in that sentence, hopefully making it more clear!

Bob Boudreau

[jfugate]

Getting truly honest reviews is a toughie for all the magazines.

If you understand the economics of magazine publishing, you know that most magazines pay their production costs through advertising. Typically the cover price of the magazine just pays for the printing costs (after the distribution channel takes their cut).

So by printing an unfavorable review, you are biting the hand that feeds you. Publishing such a review is also a career-limiting move for an editor ... a well known editor's tenure at RMC back in the early 80s, rumor has it, ended with with the editor authorizing and printing an unfavorable review of a large advertiser's product.

Any for-profit business will suffer from this problem no matter how noble we would like them to be, so don't expect it to change any time soon.

[IRONROOSTER]

I have always regarded the product reviews as in depth product announcements. As noted above, there is a reason Consumer Reports doesn't sell advertising. One thing I always liked were the drawings that MR had. It doen't seem to me that they do as many as they used to. I would also like to see more coverage of the minority scales - S, O, TT, OO, etc.

Still all in all, MR has been and is still my favorite magazine. I have all the issues back to 1965 and most (90%) of 1950-1964.

Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Joe, If this is the case (and I am sure it is) then the magazines should stop printing these things in the disguise of being reviews. Stating they are a review is a misnomer and I'd even go so far as to say, if they are calling them reviews then they are lying. A review should be an unbiased opinion and since they are unable to give an unbiased opinion then they either need to rename what they call them or stop printing them.

However, like you say, I won't be holding my breath!

[Anonymous]

My first suggestion would be: How about two versions of the magazine? One for HO scale and one for all the other scales. (Of course, some content such as scenery, electronics, etc. could still be duplicated). While I understand their reasoning behind covering all scales, I think the economics on my suggestion could be positive, and I constantly note the percentage of each issue that is completely irrelevant to me (I happen to be in HO).

Second: more "overview" pictures is a suggestion that comes up again and again. If you look back over the last couple of years I think MR has responded to this. I suspect, based on the layouts that I've visited (inluding several that have been featured in MR), that two issues are (a) the portion of the layout that is unfinished, and (b) the amount of junk / clutter that would be in the picture. So I don't go as far as wanting "warts-and-all" overview photos. Plenty of those are available on personal web sites, and I enjoy them and sometimes find them instructive (especially good reminders to keep my own layout area tidy), but I want the photos in MR to remain high-quality.

Third: I am of two minds about the electronics articles that used to appear fairly regularly (for a couple of years they even had a column). On the one hand, these were potentially among the most useful articles that I read. On the other hand, I say "potentially" because - for some completely inexplicable reason - they could NEVER get the circuit diagrams correct - and I truly mean NEVER. And often made mistakes in the component lists too. So I'd like them to return but only if these problems can be fixed.

Finally - and perhaps most controversially - do away with the photo contest, which as far as I'm concerned pretty much wastes one full issue each year.

Reviews: I concur with Joe's points. I think they do a pretty good job on reviews; you just have to do some "reading between the lines". In particular, if ANY negative is mentioned, however fleetingly or lightly, I consider it to be a big yellow caution sign. (For example, the review of the Walthers bascule bridge acknowledged some problems with fit of parts, and difficulties in getting the bridge to operate; other sources indicated that these were very serious and frustrating problems). Just obtain views at your LHS or on the forum before making any signficiant purchases. Bear in mind also that one of the ways they combine efforts at objectivity with maintaining good relations with advertisers, is by generally choosing to review only those products about which they can honestly be positive. A signficiant release that is not reviewed should also be viewed with caution.

[jfugate]

Of course you know why MR does the photo contest ... it provides them with a year's worth of very nice Trackside photos. Otherwise, they're constantly beating the bushes to get anything decent to print.

Darn clever, but you are right, the photo contest winners selected seem to be very suseptible to the subjective mood of the judges.

But even with all the critical comments we can make, for my money MR is still the best magazine in the hobby. It's the only hobby magazine I own a complete collection of all the way back into the 1950s ...

[Anonymous]

Would love to see prototype drawings every month like used to be done. Put "Modelrailroading is Fun" back on the cover! Would also like to see more Art Curren type kitbashing articles. Overall, though, it's a great mag! Just a little tweaking needed, IMHO.

[MRTerry]

Dear guys,

Thanks to all of you who have made constructive comments, even critical ones. We do appreciate them, and the thought that goes into them.

However, I have to throw the flag on some of the comments made about our reviews. We do not slant our reviews to please our advertisers. (If you don't believe me, read my review of the Lionel veranda turbine, or my upcoming review of the Trix NYC caboose.) We never have. We have lived by Al Kalmbach's model of "courageous editing" for 72 years, and we're not about to change that now. I keep that memo on my bulletin board, right next to my computer. (And yes, we get complaints from manufacturers who think we're too tough.)
Not only that, but what some of those who posted are suggesting isn't even possible, and it sure wouldn't be smart business. We don't even know who our advertisers for a given issue will be until long after the content is selected and written, so we can't play that game. And the "explanation of magazine economics" printed below is just plain wrong where MR is concerned. Well over half of our revenue comes from our readers. It would make no sense to jeopardize our main revenue stream for the sake of one ad, or ten for that matter.

Well, enough about that. Again, thanks to those of you who offered constructive thoughts.

Terry

[mikebonellisr]

No...Thank you for listening.I would suppose that many of your staff are modelers too, and would have the same feeling about the hobby as most on this fourm.Thanks for a great magazine. I get most of my insperation,ideas and product information fromMRR

[Anonymous]

Terry,

From what I've read, you gave the Veranda Turbine a very good review. I think the only thing you said was wrong was that some of the wires are to stiff. But that's really how all the MR reviews are these days. Maybe describe one or two faults, but then go right back to glorifying it. We (the readers) would like to know if the model has any serious faults (though most of the time you guys state those), so we can know before we buy the product. The most honset review I've seen in MR in a while was Andy Sperando's review of the BLI ATSF 3700 class 4-8-4. Nice job Andy! [^]

[Anonymous]

I would like to see articles about some modular clubs, in ALL scales. Those huge layouts are gorgeous, but I want to see more of what is within reach of the 'common man'.

There is an excellent modular HO club in my area (the FCSME, not exactly sure what the 'FC' part stands for) that always sets up at the Great Scale Train Show every 3 months in Timonium, MD. Would it be too much trouble to send an MR photographer to such an event so readers throughout the world could see more of these community-effort layouts?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KenLarsen

I would like to see articles about some modular clubs, in ALL scales. Those huge layouts are gorgeous, but I want to see more of what is within reach of the 'common man'.

There is an excellent modular HO club in my area (the FCSME, not exactly sure what the 'FC' part stands for) that always sets up at the Great Scale Train Show every 3 months in Timonium, MD. Would it be too much trouble to send an MR photographer to such an event so readers throughout the world could see more of these community-effort layouts?

This may be classified as "ancient news", but MR did a cover article on our local HO scale modular club layout way back in June of 1989. It was my article and most of my photos.

Also as I undestand it, MR does not regularly send photographers out in the field to do such articles. Most are submitted by MR readers. MR does commission articles by such photographers as Lou Sassi and probably others, but they are not staff photographers.

So if you want your local club or whatever in MR, prepare an article and send it in yourself. Or find someone in your group who can do the photos. They are the most critical aspect of any magazine article. MR says they can fix up your writing but can't do much with less than suitable photos.

Bob Boudreau

[jfugate]

Terry:

Thanks for setting me straight on the reviews question and the economics of MR. Knowing the facts is much better than all this speculating.

I enjoy MR and find that each issue these days is still an interesting read, even to this modeler who's been in the hobby going on 40 years now!

[Anonymous]

MR is the best. on the layout reviews, i'd like to see them write a more on the operation of the layout.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FundyNorthern

...So if you want your local club or whatever in MR, prepare an article and send it in yourself...

That very idea occurred to me a split second AFTER I clicked the submit button! [D)]

QUOTE: ...Or find someone in your group who can do the photos....MR says they can fix up your writing but can't do much with less than suitable photos.

I think I could get some great shots with my Canon Digital Rebel, as long as I bring a tripod and an adequate supply of photo-floods.

[Anonymous]

Terry, As the instigator of this post, I want to say "Thank you" for your comeback on this thread. I have to say, after I wrote my response to Joe Fugate's response on reviews in all magazines, it made me quite depressed to think that a hobby magazine would pull punches on a bad product! Your subscribers rely on you to be fair and honest when doing a review of a product. It's nice to know that honor wins out on this issue from the stand point of the editor and that the founder believed in these precepts enough he attempted to put them forward as a guide for the future of the company!

Many of us are beat-up by and discouraged by the tome: "Money is the be all and end all" as far as American Business is concerned. It's Nice to know there are others whom do not believe in this depressing thought!

Could you explain what you are alluding to in the following;
"Not only that, but what some of those who posted are suggesting isn't even possible, and it sure wouldn't be smart business".

[MudHen_462]

I'll just add "THANKS TERRY, AND ALL YOUR STAFF FOR A GREAT MAGAZINE".
I look forward to it, each and every month !!!

Bob / IronGoat

[Anonymous]

I've read MR on and off since the mid-70's. I've always considered MR the leading modeling mag around. Others have tried and though they offer different perspectives of the hobby, I feel they do not provide the same quality.

As Joe mentioned "for my money MR is still the best magazine in the hobby."

Thank you for allowing this opportunity to voice an opinion.

[Anonymous]

I enjoy Model Railroader every month and always find something useful. But I wi***here were more at times-- for instance, in the latest issue there's an article about modeling 1905. I'm interested in this time period, so it's very informative, but how about a prototype drawing of one of these unique cars? Or a companion article on detailing a loco so it matches 1905 technology? What were signals like in 1905? Depots? I sometimes feel that the articles are a little underwritten--I could use more in-depth information.

Gary

[JDCoop]

I like the layout articles no matter the scale, but I would like to see more photos of the main layout feature.

I like Information Desk as a regular "column" and I like Step-by-Step with Mr. Popp.

I really like the annual articles on Industries You Can Model, Eras You Can Model, Passenger Trains You Can Model etc... Not to mention the competition, but I really enjoyed the series in Railroad Model Craftsman where they profiled the meat packing industry and then took it a step further and modeled it. That is the next step I would like to see in MR with the "...... You Can Model" articles (although if I remember correctly, I think they did this with one of the passenger train articles...or maybe I'm just confusing it with something else.)

Anything dealing with scenery, kitbashing, or scratchbuilding gets my vote for becoming an article.

I personally like the photo contest, but hey, it's just an opinion (just as is this entire post).

I still read Trains of Thought right out of the gate. It's usually about the 2nd or 3rd column I read after receiving the magazine in the mail.

As far as the product review, I don't rely soley on them before making a purchase. I read what others have to say on the forums, as well as checking it out at my LHS. I'm wondering if most of the reviews seem mostly positive since MR only reviews approximately 50 to 60 products per year. We all know that there are hundreds and hundreds of products released each year. Maybe the reviews are just hitting the highlights of the overall realeases in the market. I would think that if every single new product were reviewed, we would be reading about some real stinkers.

My ideas for the future include a "rotating" monthly column. It would reprise Paint Shop, Student Fare, and mix in something new so that each would appear once each quarter. I know that many of us miss Paint Shop and Student Fare, but running them each and every month probably isn't feasible anymore, so why not run them once a quarter. You wouldn't be taking up additional pages every month since you would be rotating them. Just a thought.

Since Model of the Month Award went by the wayside, how about an annual "contest"? The winning entry would then be turned into an article. I am specifically thinking about a structure kitbash contest and resulting article. That might be a way to discover the next Art Curren (although I'm not suggesting that he could be replaced).

The last idea that I have is reviving the layout design contest. The twist on this one would be to have the contest to design the layout amongst the readers and then have the "professionals" build the layout in a series of articles.

Overally I am happy with MR (I still anxiously await its arrival in the mail...some of us never grow up [:)])

Jeff

[Anonymous]

I think all current subscribers should have full no-charge access to the PDF articles. Very little useful info in the month to month publishing of the magazine "for me" as I don't do steam, old, or PRR (any eastern lines). I do enjoy looking at photos of some of those huge "I will never accompli***hat because I am not a millionaire and I also have to work for a living" layouts, as I think we can all get some ideas on what to do with our layouts, but I think more photos showing more areas and better detail are needed. I know the last time I was critical about the magazine a bunch of smart-a's suggested I should publish my own magazine. You don't need to know how to do something to be a judge on whether it is done well, or to your liking. You all voted for your choice on who was best for President, but none of you knows how to do the job. Some of you even suggest you subscribe for the ads. Well, that was one of the reasons I purchased my first copy a little over a year ago, and the ads haven't changed. The sales (?) at MB Klein are the same today that they were 6 months ago. I really enjoy this forum and the website, and have enjoyed bits and pieces of the magazine, but not enough to spend $40 for a subscription. My first sub, I believe, was $19.95. I think I would renew for that, but I am not wealthy, and TO ME, $40 is more like charity than paying for what I am getting.

[dknelson]

My suggestion also has to do with product reviews but from a different angle -- I would like to see more reviews of detail parts, trucks, vehicles, gadgets, electronics, decals and the like -- back in the 1960s these tended to be fully reviewed including critical comments about accuracy etc. Reviews are mostly of locomotives these days. Other products would benefit from critical commentary, not just a product announcement.
Dave Nelson

[StillGrande]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rails5

Second: more "overview" pictures is a suggestion that comes up again and again. If you look back over the last couple of years I think MR has responded to this. I suspect, based on the layouts that I've visited (inluding several that have been featured in MR), that two issues are (a) the portion of the layout that is unfinished, and (b) the amount of junk / clutter that would be in the picture. So I don't go as far as wanting "warts-and-all" overview photos. Plenty of those are available on personal web sites, and I enjoy them and sometimes find them instructive (especially good reminders to keep my own layout area tidy), but I want the photos in MR to remain high-quality.

I have noticed that their has been a greater tendancy lately to show at least one "overall" shot. It is helpful to me to see how the decks look stacked, or how the yard in the layout diagram really looks stretching around a corner. There was some argument that these types of shots dispelled the illusion of a real railroad, but hello, we are reading MODEL Railroader not Railroader.

I have found myself lately more interested in how the layouts are run rather than how they are constructed. Stories which tell me how the operators get the trains through a session help me to evaluate the elements of the railroad. I am not as interested in following one train through the layout unless it actually does something along the way. The local community college access channel has been running some of the old Kalmbach Layout tour videos on Sundays. They are fine, but there is no life to them because there is just a set of scenes. Nothing about how the elements really fit together to come to life. Even if the operating session is "I sit in the middle and watch my trains go round and round because I like railfanning" gives me some idea of why the builder did what they did.

[Anonymous]

seems like the last couple issues i got had a lot more advertising and not as much info in them. hope we can get a couple more how to articles for us beginners

[Anonymous]

I need to ad a comment regarding my post. I am not saying by any means that MRR is not a good publication, just that the content for the most part doesn't appeal to me. I am sure that a lot of steam-era Smokey Mountain modelers are tickled to death to have such beautiful layouts to look at and replicate, but there just isn't much for ME and my little empire.