Along with Model Railroader, I also subscribe to Fine Scale Modeler, also a Kalmback Media publication.
FSM has more reviews, they are more critical, and they are more in depth. The reviewer actually builds the model and includes useful information, like when the instructions are incorrect.
However, the target audience of Fine Scale Modeler is people who actually build models, but do not operate them, so the content matches the audience.
I will say this... Fine Scale Modeler is a lot more fun to read. Their equivilent of Trackside Photos shows off creativity and whimsy. Their how-to features show new and different ideas, not just instructions on how to make your models look exactly like everyone else's look.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Note that they often test locos on DCC with a system that defaults to 28 steps. Sometimes the reviewer also tries it with 128 step mode and reports at least the start speed in the text - when they do, it's almost ALWAYS a lower speed than the 28 step table shows.
"But real locomoticves only have 8 notches" Yes, and real locomotives have the effect of 100+ tons of inertia, not to mention the weight of the train.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Without meaning to crank up a dreaded "nobody builds things anymore" posting, I suspect the product reviews ignore many products because the market does too, at least from a volume standpoint.
It is evident less and less space is given to new product reviews and more to new product announcements, and to be frank over the years I have likely based more of my purchase decisions on product announcements than reviews.
With so much stuff on limited run/advance reservation however, what's the point of a deep review of something that isn't available by the time the review sees print? So there is a whole class of model that likely does not get reviewed because of the kind of distribution the manufacturer or importer has elected.
For the most part what gets reviewed is locomotives and rolling stock, and sometimes a structure, including ready built structures. It is getting rare if the item reviewed is something the reviewer had to construct, in contrast to the 1960s when even extremely difficult craftsman kits would get reviewed, and the reviewer was expected to assemble the kit to the point that A. L. Schmidt could photograph it.
In fairness sometimes the DCC columnists review new systems or throttles, and those reviews are not always gushing.
When I started reading MR in the 1960s even a decal sheet or small detail part would get fully reviewed not just announced. Ditto brass locomotives. Having said that, back in those days that decal sheet or detail part or brass locomotive would be in the catalog for some time and might actually be something you could buy at the LHS.
I have MR hard copy back to the late 1940s, and while the reviews were often negative back then, there was also a different standard for what was good or bad. Sometimes the reviewer would mention that the kit or whatever was nearly impossible to put together as designed yet could still say good things about it because the reviewer's end result looked good and the readers were assumed capable (and willing) of filing and fitting and drilling and tapping new holes if necessary.
There was less of this in the 1960s but it was still done: most reviews would make some comment about whether the price was too high or seemed just right or surprisingly low. Read those reviews now and you just shake your head at one some of the old heads regarded as too expensive. Linn Westcott said that was one of the things he tried to discourage when he became editor first because he felt each reader could make up their own mind about price and value and also because he felt the manufacturers were starting to chase low price over quality and durability and criticizing a product for high price was encouraging that trend.
I do not mean to praise high prices but just maybe the high prices of many of today's mostly RTR model railroad supplies (oh oh another forbidden topic) have resulted in a higher level of acceptability of the models themselves -- including prototype conformance -- and thus fewer nits for reviewers to pick.
This is not entirely off topic but might be regarded as such: it is funny how the product reviews in the NMRA Magazine mostly focus on conformance to NMRA standards, and it is even more funny how often a product that fails to get a conformance warrant because it fails to meet this or that standard is nonetheless praised as a wonderful model.
Dave Nelson
I often read old loco reviews when I try to date an item or to get the specs before buying a used item. For me the MR reviews are like reviews of brand new cars: I don't expect to discover a lemon through them. I also like Darth Santa Fe's reviews ☺.
Simon
The one thing that would be helpful is body removing insatructions. Of other things I don't see their speed charts of any use, dose it mater a what voltage an engine starts, better to say it starts at a crawl and speed increases are smooth.
There are a lot of things I miss from the "days gone by" like "A Railroad You Can Model and Paint Shop". I also miss the days when someone's railroad was featured in MR and they talked indepth about the motive power and equipment. But with everything now RTR and so highly detailed, these are pretty much outdated. People used to talk about detailing and updating or rebuilding the drive and now very little is even said about the running equipment and more focus is on the layout and track plan. Maybe because it's the only thing left that's not pre-made or bought off the shelf.
As far as the reviews go, with everything pre-ordered these days and selling out so quickly, by the time it hits the pages of MR its usually gone or hard to find. And I hate to say it, but the video reviews just list a few details and most of the focus is on how it sounds which depending on the quality of your computer or laptop speaker can very from what you would hear in person.
I will say that I do like the reviews on Cody's Office, he does the most detailed review on the MR website and being twice a month will usually do his review when the products hitting the shelves, but it seems YouTube or Facebook are the go to places for indepth reviews or Model Railroad News.
There are still a lot of talented people who can still paint and detail and rebuild locomotives and freight cars including some on this forum who's work I really enjoy seeing, or Video Plus, we just don't see it here in print like we used to.
Ralph
tstageMaybe it's like the elementary schools now: You can't say anything negative because someone (manufacturer) would get their feelings hurt. And everyone gets a participation award.
Yep! That too.!
Mike.
My You Tube
I have been reading Model Railroader for around 40 years, maybe longer.
There used to be TONS of new product released every month. New item announcements filled pages of not only the New Releases column, but also Hobbyshop Window, and Product Reviews.
Now, there are very few new products released. Almost all announcements seem to be new paint schemes. Almost no new decals, few detail items, and no nifty little crafty bits to talk about.
What is being released is amazing, because that is what we are now demanding. The level of detail is incredible and performance of even "cheap" locomotives is better than what we dared to dream about in the 1980s.
What are the reviewers going to say?
The one thing I do miss is when sometimes they would disassemble a locomotive, give instructions how to do this, and describe how it is constructed.
They USED to go out and buy the item. It wa a rare exception (and mentioend in the review) is a sample was sent over by the manufacturer.
Al Kalmbach was all about the consumer. He didn;t let an advertiser's threat dictate editorial content. The best example is probably the whole Floquil debacle - they threated to pull advertising if MR published John Page's article on using stove polish as a cheap subsitute. The article ran. Floquil withdrew all ads for many years. Eventually they released it was hurting them more than it was hurting Model Railroader magazine - they weren't advertising their product in the highest circulation magazine in the hobby.
I jsut wish this attitude would return. Everyone's too quick to drop someone or something at the slightest hint of controversey. It's all about the short term today, no one thinks long term.
ROBERT PETRICK One thing about reviews is that they review brand-new stuff right out of the box. What about after 30 days of ordinary use? Six months? A year? Rolling stock, and especially engines, behave differently with age.
One thing about reviews is that they review brand-new stuff right out of the box. What about after 30 days of ordinary use? Six months? A year? Rolling stock, and especially engines, behave differently with age.
Let's be realistic: it is a plastic and metal toy. That level of review is pretty out there.
And, are the things sent directly from the manufacturer? Knowing that they're being reviewed? Pristine cherry-picked specimens? Or, are samples pulled at random from the shelf? Completely double-blind?
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Trainman440 Yea, exactly. For a while there I started to believe product reviews just werent worthwhile reading, but then I read a facinating review of the MTH H10s by Keystone Modeler and it was super fascinating as they went through every single little detail, running characterstic, comparing to other similar models, etc. While I find the review a bit too "rivet counter" like, I still found it far more informational and engaging than MRR's review of the same engine. Obviously, very few have the time to address all the points Keystone modeler did and I dont expect MRR to do anything close to that, but I would appreciate a little more detail than what MRR have currently done. In case someone was interested, here are the reviews: Keystone: http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler_PDFs/TKM%20No.%2098%20-%20Autumn%202016.pdf MRR: https://mrr.trains.com/news-reviews/staff-reviews/2016/05/mth-ho-scale-prr-h10s Charles
Yea, exactly. For a while there I started to believe product reviews just werent worthwhile reading, but then I read a facinating review of the MTH H10s by Keystone Modeler and it was super fascinating as they went through every single little detail, running characterstic, comparing to other similar models, etc. While I find the review a bit too "rivet counter" like, I still found it far more informational and engaging than MRR's review of the same engine.
Obviously, very few have the time to address all the points Keystone modeler did and I dont expect MRR to do anything close to that, but I would appreciate a little more detail than what MRR have currently done.
In case someone was interested, here are the reviews:
Keystone: http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler_PDFs/TKM%20No.%2098%20-%20Autumn%202016.pdf
MRR: https://mrr.trains.com/news-reviews/staff-reviews/2016/05/mth-ho-scale-prr-h10s
Charles
Wa-a-a-y back in the days when Al Kalmbach ran the place, he had a very simple rule regarding reviews - whether or not the manufacturer was an advertiser, he would tolerate nothing but total honesty in the reviews. If it lost an advertiser, that was too bad. The magazine's first loyalty was to the reader. This rule was published in the magazine on more than one occasion.
Unfortunately, after Al and the first couple generations of staff faded out, so too did that rule, apparently. For years now, the approach seems to have been to find and print only the nice things that can be said about the product. Very little criticism is published, possibly because that might lose Kalmbach the advertiser. And that's money. Can't have that.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
tstage Maybe it's like the elementary schools now: You can't say anything negative because someone (manufacturer) would get their feelings hurt. And everyone gets a participation award.
Maybe it's like the elementary schools now: You can't say anything negative because someone (manufacturer) would get their feelings hurt. And everyone gets a participation award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Well, I don't read all of the reviews, and....19 years is a long time. Maybe they have changed the format to take any personal views out of it. Your getting the facts, as the reviewer sees it.
Hi, this probably isnt the best place to put this, but I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way.
MRR's reviews used to be very in depth, especially about accuracy. They used to say which details may be missing, or oversized, or inaccurate. They used to talk about possible issues encountered by a buyer. Their used to be criticism toward each review. Very few reviewed products had no faults.
I feel like in the past few years, the reviews have become less and less detailed. Yes, they still have the speed curves, prices, features, history, but the criticism have become more and more rare. The reviews now seem to only praise each model, in an almost generic "oh this model is very detailed, paint is crisp, dimensions match drawings from so and so era" way. They just sound...like its written with little passion.
Now, yes, maybe models these days have just become so good there's no longer anything to criticize, but I feel like there's just been less effort given when writing each review.
Here's a sample of the latest review:
https://mrr.trains.com/product-reviews/staff-reviews/2021/02/bachmann-ho-scale-sc-44-charger-diesel
Here's a (very) old review, note how much more detail and emphasis is placed on accuracy, detail. It makes the read (atleast to me) far more enjoyable:
https://mrr.trains.com/news-reviews/staff-reviews/2002/02/rivarossi-allegheny-2-6-6-6-steam-locomotive-is-a-monster-even-in-ho-scale
(you can say Im cherry picking but go back and you'll see a general trend of more detail in older reviews)
Im in no way saying the writers are lazy, I fully respect the time they put into review each product, getting all the test data for each engine, and spending the time into writing.
I just personally find them less and less enjoyable to read, and getting less and less value out of them besides the pictures.
But I might just be a one off case so I was wondering if anyone else felt similar.
-----
PS maybe its not criticism per say that its lacking, but something just feels like its missing.