Another Garden Railway in MR.

[marknewton]

vsmith wrote:

<"Its not just garden RRing in MR, the same mentality cropped up last time MR published a layout from Malcomn Furlow or Dave Barrow, a few forum members went just apesh*t because it was "not what I'm doing">

Speaking for myself, I went "apesh*t", as you so eloquently put it, because the last Malcolm Furlow layout that featured in MR was just badly-executed, nonsensical rubbish.

However, I'm always keen to see Dave Barrow's work - he strikes me as being one of the few Americans in the hobby who is an original thinker.

Cheers,

Mark.

[Anonymous]

TheRockModeler wrote: <"I will make a counter point: I dare you to respond to! Take a picture of your layout and post it against Marty Cozads...and request which photo looks like a photo of a real railroad. I doubt you would win. But please try me, I would love the contest."> I'm rather disappointed, Eric. I took up your challenge, and posted photos as you requested. Why no repsonse from you? Cheers, Mark.

Mark,

First of all I will state you have a layout that appears you have spent a lot of time on, and have detailed it nicely. You should be proud of it. I hope you share it with world in MR mag (unless you already have & I missed it).

Just a point, the contest was for realism, none of your photos qualified. You need to spend more time track side/looking at proto photos, before posting photos, claiming them to be realistic, because those photos make me say "I'd have to assume you haven't seen many real railroads..." . I could tell it was a layout without a second glance it was not real. Just a few quick notes: out of scale couplers with pigtails and mold lines, people looked fake, little/no weathering, and lack of power line wires. I'm sorry, but those photos made your layout look TOY like. Which is exactly what you are saying all G people are. I had not responded because your photos proved my point. Your quoted post prompted this response.

As far as the radius/ yard length, my point was model railroaders must make compromises, usually in distance (ok so do you model the entire distance of that RR?)/radius, etc. My point being ALL modelers must make compromises, some more than others. You did to.

BTW I'm not intellectually lazy, you are intellectually wrong. Words have definitions and therefore mean what they mean, no matter what only one person says.

Mark, I was gonna let this drop, as we are all model railroaders in this for the fun of it. If you can't find anything in another scale/era/etc. to help you out on your layout (which was my point on my original post), I guess that is your problem, not mine.

Good Luck & Fun to all, however you chose to do it.

Cheers

[vsmith]

Model railroading is model railroading,  if it's Z to G. I can show you photo's of G scale outside and you can't tell it from the real thing.

 

Same here, Cozads Nebraska layout and Jens Bang's layout in Idaho would blow yer minds with their realism. To me this is just a couple members of the HO police whining their sirens about "not what I'm doing" Big deal. Get over it.

 

Its not just garden RRing in MR, the same mentality cropped up last time MR published a layout from Malcomn Furlow or Dave Barrow, a few forum members went just ape- because it was "not what I'm doing" so it shouldnt have been included in "thier" magazine...I dont buy MR much anymore because all the layouts they show have a unsettling conformity to each of them. The avaliblity of quality model building supplies and the instructions provided guarentee anyone can produce a competent layout these days leading to a dulling conformity layout to layout. There just plain boring anymore! With outdoor RRs its always extremely varied, due to the terrain, climate, and modeler, hence more interesting.

 

Maybe MR should change its name to "HO only all others go away Model Railroader for uptight modelers who cannot abide anything ouside of their perspective magazine"

 

I commented earlier about guys being afraid to come out of their basements into the sunshine resulting in  mushrooms growing on their backs

[Don H]

Model railroading is model railroading,  if it's Z to G. I can show you photo's of G scale outside and you can't tell it from the real thing.

[MTCarpenter]

MTCarpenter wrote: <"I don't. I expect it to be entertaining and informative. In that order."> That's a separate issue entirely

Disagree.  Both are related.

I expect material about scale model railroads, not toy trains and gardening.

I'm still missing you.  The article was about scale model trains being built outside.  Where's the "toy" and "gardening" in there?

[Marty Cozad]

Mark
 I could not get any of the urls to open up.??? Not sure why.

[jerryl]

It seems to me that the garden RRs that are published in MR are more detailed & closer to prototype than the average one in thier garden RR mag.  GR is more basic & beginner oriented, which is the reason I dropped my subscription a few years ago. I model in HO & 20.3 outside.  It would be nice to see scale specific mags,but you could probably only find enough material for 6 issues a year.  With a little imagination you can adapt most good ideas to other scales.    I draw the line at tinplate & lego trains... They are not MODELS.    Jerry

[Guilford Guy]

Same here
My garden's inspiration is teh F&SM and Lou sassi's diarama's

[marknewton]

TheRockModeler wrote:

<"I will make a counter point: I dare you to respond to! Take a picture of your layout and post it against Marty Cozads...and request which photo looks like a photo of a real railroad. I doubt you would win. But please try me, I would love the contest.">

I'm rather disappointed, Eric. I took up your challenge, and posted photos as you requested. Why no repsonse from you?

Cheers,

Mark.

[marknewton]

MTCarpenter wrote:

<"I don't. I expect it to be entertaining and informative. In that order.">

That's a separate issue entirely. I expect the editorial content to be relevant - I expect material about scale model railroads, not toy trains and gardening.

<"Modeling railroads is all relevant in one way or another.">

Agreed. Which is why garden toy train layouts aren't relevant to me.

[Super Chief Rules]

mgilger wrote::

MR is much like some other hobbies, in that less and less of the younger generation is coming up the ranks. They are all stuck in front of the tube playing the video games, etc. Take a hard look the next time you go to a train show. Less and less young folks are coming up the ranks. So with the older generation gradually dieing off and less younger generation to take our place, the amount of people subscribing to the magazine will of course drop off.

 

Not all teenagers are stuck behind the tube.  And, it is adults that assume that ALL of us are, upsets me.  There are plenty of teens (and younger) hooked on the hobby.  And, the last time I was at a train show (Feb 06) the ratio af adults to kids was pretty close.  My brothers and I are perfect examples.   

 

And as to there being a garden railway in MR, I kinda enjoyed it.  My mom did too, and we all know that is important!!  Now she wants my dad and my brothers to build one for her outside ;).

 

btw i underlined and bolded his 'all' statement.  btw(2), absolutes such as all are usually a bad idea ;)

 

Now i will see what will happen to me.  And, hopefully my dad doesnt read this ;)

[Marty Cozad]

Most if not all my home made structures was copied from Walthers  HO cat info.
Most my scratch built rolling stock was copied from HO.
My whole RR design came from growing up watching the V & O  themes and ideas.

[MTCarpenter]

MTCarpenter wrote: "Everything - every word, add, article, and image in every issue of MR is relevant to you? Every single little bit?"

I expect all of the editorial content to be relevant to me. Don't you? Mark.

I don't. I expect it to be entertaining and informative.  In that order.  To pay for anything else would be very disappointing, especially dealing with media.  Media has to be as many things as it can to as many people it can reach, even in something as specific as MR.  Hopefully some of those people see some value in what is there, and continue to buy it.

As for relevant - while I am currently laying out my outdoor railroad, I’m pulling ideas from all different scales.  I don't prefer certain scales, but I think it great to see what they are doing.  Many of them are very talented craftsman, and there are too many people out there with fantastic ideas for me to just throw out everything that's not "relevant" to me.

Modeling railroads is all relevant in one way or another.  Being open - that's how we learn.

[Anonymous]

The british magasine 'Railway Moddler' has had a fair few garden railway articles, whats wrong with them? Like othes have said it's'model Railroader'! So what if not everyone is interested in one particular article, as long as there are a range to read. Although i have not seen the article in question i am sure it is fine. I have 00gauge and g-gauge, and i am not a scale or prototypical modler in either and i enjoy it that way! And enjoy all other scales too. If you don't like it don't read it! Don't put other peoples choices down about it..........

daniel white

[CNJ831]

I have a bunch of 40's through to 70's issues, and I can say that todays MR is alot better then it way back when. like the previous poster said, david popps article  may have been about an N scale layout (im in HO) it still had plenty of tips and tricks. Magazines change to keep up with the times, I suggest you do too...

And my suggestion is that you take another look at your old issues (maybe not the 40's ones, however). One upon a time MR was considered to be THE magazine for the serious and advanced hobbyists. Today its main thrust is toward the rank beginner and the arm-chair enthusiast. This, in part, probably explains its dramatic decline in readership over the last decade. And while I really have enjoyed David Popp's writings and his modeling style, his published material has been no more than introductory-level and something I would have hoped most of us had long since moved beyond. The word "challenging" seems to have been deleted from MR's vocabulary, except in the area of electronics.

CNJ831

 

[MisterBeasley]

I'm in HO now, but I do see garden railroading as a possible future hobby.  My wife has a lot of gardening genes, and I think she might actually buy into it.  Those of us who are approaching retirement also have to think about whether or not we will uproot ourselves and move to warmer climates, although it now appears that warmer climates will be coming to all of us.  I guess if I had a big yard, good weather most of the year and more time than I knew what to do with, I might think seriously about putting in "just a simple little loop" of G-scale.

So, I like seeing other options in model railroading.  If nothing else, I'm always impressed and inspired by the craftsmanship of other hobbyists, whether it's in MR, at a train show or just scrolling through Weekend Photo Fun.  For now though, I'm just happy I don't have to worry about rodents digging tunnels under my tracks!

[FJ and G]

MR's title doesn't say "Indoor MR" it says simply MR. So if there's a nice "scale" looking layout inside or outside, why the fuss. I think too much time in your basement and you will glow from the radon. Get outside and smell the flowers, watch the birds and swat some mosquitoes.

Also, if you get your butt outside, perhaps your wife will start to enjoy trains too; esp. the gardening aspect. Also, you won't have nasty dust to contend with or water that doesn't move or clouds that are stationary on a backdrop. Instead, you'll have real, dynamic nature with an occasional washout to contend with and real snow you'll have to plow with your locomotive. Not that fake stuff.

Also, NOT everyone does G outside. Mine is O...

[loco4501]

I personaly like to see articles in Model Railroader based on all the different scales modeled these days. I think that these articles are especially helpful to the new modelers who may be trying to decide what is the best scale for them, along with the planning and work involved to accomplish this.

I personaly model strictly in N Scale but I still enjoy reading all these different articles for the tips and valuable information I recieve from them.

While Garden Railways might not print articles about other scales, as it is a magazine dedicated to the Large Scale Modelers. Model Railroader on the other hand is dedicated to all scales.

 

[james saunders]

(snip)

Quite frankly, I think MR overall is better than it's ever been, even if David Popp has never scratch-built a USRA light Mike (a la Gordon Odegard). 

Andre

Andre - I've been reading MR longer than you and I would challenge that statement by asking you or anyone with a reasonably large library of MRs to select at random issues from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, compare side by side their content to that of issues from 2006, and honestly come away saying that the magazine's serious modeling content (not fluff, not no-text layout pieces, not single loop 4x8 layouts) today is superior to anything that went before.

To save some folks a lot of time and effort, I'll tell you up front that there is simply no comparison - the past issues were decidedly superior. That's my reasoning for saying that if there's space that can be filled, that space should go to scale modeling first, not garden railways.

CNJ831

I have a bunch of 40's through to 70's issues, and I can say that todays MR is alot better then it way back when. like the previous poster said, david popps article  may have been about an N scale layout (im in HO) it still had plenty of tips and tricks. Magazines change to keep up with the times, I suggest you do too...

PS, Garden railroading, IMO is scale modelling, just a larger version, the offerings on the market today are extraodinary models with tons of detail.

just my

[CNJ831]

(snip)

Quite frankly, I think MR overall is better than it's ever been, even if David Popp has never scratch-built a USRA light Mike (a la Gordon Odegard). 

Andre

Andre - I've been reading MR longer than you and I would challenge that statement by asking you or anyone with a reasonably large library of MRs to select at random issues from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, compare side by side their content to that of issues from 2006, and honestly come away saying that the magazine's serious modeling content (not fluff, not no-text layout pieces, not single loop 4x8 layouts) today is superior to anything that went before.

To save some folks a lot of time and effort, I'll tell you up front that there is simply no comparison - the past issues were decidedly superior. That's my reasoning for saying that if there's space that can be filled, that space should go to scale modeling first, not garden railways.

CNJ831

[jacon12]

I don't think Roger is mad or angry about the article, he's just expressing an opinion. 

Anyway, I'm going to the poor house with an indoor HO scale layout but I like to see what the garden 'variety' (pun intended) modelers are doing.  I think they're pretty neat myself.  I like to see what all the scales are up to.

And this begs a question.  Since everyone has always warned me about the effects of heat and humidity on roadbed, track etc.... how the heck would anyone build an outdoor layout in the Southeast U.S.  where, in the summertime, it's not unusual at all to have 95+ F and a dew point of 60 and higher, for about 3 or 4 months of the year.  Do the majority of outdoor model railroaders live in dry, cool.. beautiful weather places? 

[andrechapelon]

 

CNJ831 sez:

Further, if you examine issues of MR from the more distant past, when they had a staff of technically skilled modelers, most of which had been in the hobby for decades, the magazine contained considerable material developed in-house as good or better than anything contributed from the outside. Such material was typically not of the "this is track and this is roadbed" introductory level sort either. When is the last time you saw an in-house MR article on a par with the pieces authored by, say, Art Curren? Been a looong time!

  CNJ831

I've been reading MR since 1957 and most of the articles I recall are from outsiders like John Allen, Bill McLanahan, Jim Findley, E.L. Moore, Mel Thornburgh, John Armstrong, Terry Walsh, Mal Vordenbaum, Doug Smith, to name a few.

That's not to say that there weren't some talented modelers in MR's ranks (e.g. Westcott, Odegard, Larson, Reschenberg, Curren) who didn't supply some very good articles, but even then most content was provided by non-staffers. Quite frankly, I think the David Popp series has been the equal of anything done by any MR staffer in the past. He's basically covered everything to do with building and operating a model railroad. This has been a continuous stream of output for several years. I don't recall any MR staffer from the "good old days" who has been as prolific or as comprehensive. Art Curren was a specialist in creative kitbashing. Popp is a generalist who does everything competently even if not masterfully. It hasn't been a long time and the evidence is right in front of you.

Quite frankly, I think MR overall is better than it's ever been, even if David Popp has never scratch-built a USRA light Mike (a la Gordon Odegard). 

Andre

[bnnrailroad]

OK....I just took last half hour to read this whole thread. FWIW, my .02:

 

1:1 is true to life. ANYTHING smaller I would concider a model not withstanding gauge or scale.

With that being said, any article in MR MIGHT be of intrest to me. Hence MODEL RAILROADING!!!!!!

 

 

My 2cents....short and sweet!!!

[dgwinup]

FWIW, here's my 2 cents worth:

I model in N scale.  That means that MOST of MR should be of NO interest to me!  I model Union Pacific and Santa Fe.  Only rarely do UP or SF in N scale get featured in the magazine.  I use foam construction extensively.  There are few articles in MR that really cover all aspects of foam construction.  I model the transition era, but MOST of the articles concerning the transition era AREN'T in N scale!

My conclusion:  MR has nothing to offer me!

If any of the above were true, why would I subscribe to a magazine that ignores my scale, ignores my chosen prototypes, ignores my scale modeling era and ignores my preferred method of construction?  Other than some basic scenery articles, no matter what is published in MR, an article CAN NOT appeal to ALL modelers.  I don't scrathbuild, I don't follow strict prototype, I don't detail my engines or rolling stock and I don't weather them (except for the dust they collect on the layout! LOL).

So why do I subscribe?  Because ANY article can teach me something or offer me some entertainment.  I may not want to know HOW to convert an 0-8-0 Indiana Harbor Belt locomotive to a CNJ camelback, but I find the PROCESS fascinating!  Along the way, I may learn something that WILL improve the performance of my 0-8-0.  I don't scratchbuild, but knowing HOW to properly brace the interior of my buildings may be of use to me at some time.

You get out of the magazine just what you are open-minded enough to recognize and learn from.

Like I said, it's my 2 cents worth.  Your mileage may vary!  LOL

Darrell, quiet...for now

[CNJ831]

The reason the content of MR has dropped off could be that less is being submitted for print by us.

 

Like any other magazine devoted to a particular hobby, they require us to submit articles for print, or the magazine goes wanting. Maybe MR would stick to printing articles on N & HO if they had enough material being submitted. I don’t think any of us are in the position of knowing what criteria they use.

 

 

Untrue in several respects. The claim that MR gets far less in the way of contributed material today than in the past is, at best a feeble excuse, based totally on assumption and not on any facts apparent. What you will find, however, is that many other monthly magazines today and almost assuredly MR as well (and yes I wrote for a widely circulated magazine for 17 years so I know first hand) is that magazines are now mainly interested in articles done to their specific format or style. They will sideline or discard most other material not meeting that criteria. Typically, they will pick out several contributors who write in a fashion meeting their desires and simply stay with them over and over again, rather than cultivate a host of new authors.

 

Further, if you examine issues of MR from the more distant past, when they had a staff of technically skilled modelers, most of which had been in the hobby for decades, the magazine contained considerable material developed in-house as good or better than anything contributed from the outside. Such material was typically not of the "this is track and this is roadbed" introductory level sort either. When is the last time you saw an in-house MR article on a par with the pieces authored by, say, Art Curren? Been a looong time!

  

CNJ831

 

[Marty Cozad]

This is just for fun.
Some garden RRers try to build their RRs like the real ones do.
Using some of the same equiment


Here Bangs Canyon is being dug for the new eastern sub div. The RR can pick up many more Indus as they move east.

And heres a steel on concrete bridge built over the canyon

 Now I won't talk about rivets, scale or gauge here. This will put hair on your chest.

[Marty Cozad]

Keep it light hearted kids,,,Even in "G gauge " many 1:20th scale N G folks don't hang with 1:29th scale mainliners, etc
 rivit counters still don't like unweathered engines and shiny pretty folks don't want to devalue their resalable toy.
 And your right, G is NOT a scale. Its the distance between the rails. Which was established way back and it would be to costly to change now.
Scale is the size of trains you wish to run on that track and I can take my trains to any other RR and run them on that established gauge ( right or wrong).
Back to MR, If that  GRY artical keeps some of us buying that magizine , then it reached its goal.
Keeping every one happy is impossible, but tring it well worth it.
I'm sure this thread has made the guy who finally got his artical into a magizine feels really warm and glad he did.
Sometimes its good to think of others who put forth the work.

[mgilger]

The reason the content of MR has dropped off could be that less is being submitted for print by us.

 

Like any other magazine devoted to a particular hobby, they require us to submit articles for print, or the magazine goes wanting. Maybe MR would stick to printing articles on N & HO if they had enough material being submitted. I don’t think any of us are in the position of knowing what criteria they use.

 

MR is much like some other hobbies, in that less and less of the younger generation is coming up the ranks. They are all stuck in front of the tube playing the video games, etc. Take a hard look the next time you go to a train show. Less and less young folks are coming up the ranks. So with the older generation gradually dieing off and less younger generation to take our place, the amount of people subscribing to the magazine will of course drop off.

 

Then there is the price of the subscription. Who of us 10 years ago would have believed the price we would be paying for a subscription today? I would like to subscribe to more magazines than what I do, but it gets cost prohibitive, so I end up picking up an issue every once in a while at the news stand for the ones I do not subscribe to.  I do subscribe to a half dozen, 2 being train related. Model Railroader and Garden Railroading being those two.

 

So it comes down to this. If it takes MR printing Garden Railroad articles, then more power to them if it keeps them in business. If more of us start submitting articles directed towards HO and N, then all the better. I for one hope the GR articles continue.

 

 

http://community.webshots.com/user/mvgilger

 

Regards,

Mark

 

[marknewton]

TheRockModeler wrote:

<"I must point out that G isn’t a scale or a gauge, it is a loosely defined term for large scale model railroads. The track is generally #1 gauge, but several scales are used.">

Der, I know all that. Why do you think I wrote that G "scale" isn't a scale at all?

TheRockModeler wrote:

<"By definition a Model is "A)to shape or fashion in a plastic material. B) to produce a representation or simulation of C)miniature representation of something else." quoted from merriam webster collegiate dictionary 10th ed.">

I'm not even remotely interested in how Werriam Mebster defines model railways. I reckon those who let a dictionary define their hobby are just intellectually lazy. But since you mention it, have you noticed that the definition you quoted excludes most garden railways, since most aren't simulations or representations of something else?

<"So your point is wrong, no argument required, look it up in Websters.">

See above. I'm arguing modelling with you, not semantics with the editors of a dictionary.

<"Now if you were trying to say that some, G modelers don't fit your standard of scale modeling, you may have a point from your point of view.">

That, too, is what I'm saying.

<"I will make a counter point: I dare you to respond to! Take a picture of your layout and post it against Marty Cozads (if you say he is the exception I will get many other photos of many other outdoor railroads for you) and request which photo looks like a photo of a real railroad. I doubt you would win. But please try me, I would love the contest.">

Game on, then.

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24106592.html

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24106593.html

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24844455.html

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24844456.html

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24844457.html

http://marknewton01.fotopic.net/p24844458.html

I wouldn't say that Marty is an exception. Most garden layouts I've seen look like the photo he posted. If you reckon it looks like a real railroad, then I'd have to asume you haven't seen many real railroads...

<"IF ALL that is in MR is relevant to you, except for the garden railroad stuff, you must have a very interesting layout which involves many scales, eras, operation styles, conflicting operating systems, and is a model of the entire railroad system of North America.">

Why must my layout be any of these things? What conection is there between my layout and the content of MR? None.

I expect that the content of MR to be relevant in the sense that it be about SCALE MODEL RAILROADING, not collecting toy trains and gardening.

<"Just in case you have not got it thru your thick head yet, I model in 2 scales. I am a member of both the local HO & G clubs. I am a stickler in every gauge I model.">

Bully for you. I also model in number of scales and gauges. So what? You say you're a stickler? Meaning what, exactly? That's not the same as being a good modeller, is it?

<"Finally, I assume you use prototypically correct radius...">

Yes, I do. Don't you?

<"exactly how many scale miles is your railyard long?">

Scale miles? The terminal yard I built for the Chitetsu scales out to be a shade under 18" wide by 8' long - no compression needed.

<"Some model railroads have more errors than others, but who are you to judge?">

Someone with a lifetime's working experience of real railroads in numerous countries, *and* models. I'm as well equipped to judge as the next bloke, in all probability better.

Since you ask, what's the basis for your judgement?

Cheers,

Mark.