Latest Issue of CTT

[FJ and G]

Not all Lionel employees would lose their TCA cards, just the guilty ones, unless all are guilty by association?

I think that the TCA would want its members to be in good standing and not be toy train thieves or rip-off artists. At least I suppose that to be the goals of the organization.

Like I said, assigning blame to individuals may be a bit more tricky, and I don't even think that Lionel has admitted one iota of guilt, anyway.

[3railguy]

I view MTH and Lionel to be commercial, profit making institutions. I don't view them like I would private members of the TCA. The allegations are being handled by our courts, not the TCA. The fines will be paid by Lionel to MTH if any. I think that is enough punishment for Lionel.

[FJ and G]

I thought the editorial was dead on. More like stating the obvious facts rather than an editorial (except for the part about revoking TCA memberships for the Lionel culprits; sort of a no-brainer if you ask me). Now, how to identify the culprits?

[Anonymous]

Neil's column is, as it's supposed to be, an opinion piece--an editorial. Nothing more and nothing less. Some will agree with the content (or that of any other editorial they read) and some will invariably disagree. But expressing the editor's opinion, or that of the editorial board, is one of the perks of being at the helm of a publication. Folks who attempt to read any more than that into it--as I've seen alleged on some other boards and forums--are simply grasping at straws.

Call 'em like you see 'em, Neil! Nothing at all wrong with that!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by nblum

I have no doubt that by the standards of today, Lionel's advertising in the JL Cowen era was deceptive and unethical at times. But that was 60-80 years ago. I don't think that justifies similar liberties taken by any advertiser today, when standards of truth in advertising are quite different. One of the objections some have is that MTH on the one hand has a long history of derogatory advertising regarding Lionel. Simultaneously they are profiting off the Lionel name, history and reputation by issuing their own close replicas of Lionel collector's items using the Lionel numbering system, such as "6464" and "400E." That strikes some folks as legal but a form of intellectual piracy, as well as legal but unethical.

Neil:

I believe you'll find that the kind of advertising JL Cowen did in those days was considered deceptive and unethical by the standards of the day, let alone today's standards.

What is considered ethical or moral may differ from place to place & time to time, but I believe that some things are just wrong. Obviously, the jury found that Lionel knew it had in its possession information it shouldn't have. Those person(s) did something wrong, and MTH was wronged, whether you like MTH's policies or not. Justice should be done.

I've read Neil Besoulogh's editorial and I don't have the same reaction to it that you have expressed. While it is possible that the verdict can be overturned by the judge, I don't think it highly likely that it will be. I do think its much more likely that the judgement amount will be reduced.

Tony

[nblum]

I have no doubt that by the standards of today, Lionel's advertising in the JL Cowen era was deceptive and unethical at times. But that was 60-80 years ago. I don't think that justifies similar liberties taken by any advertiser today, when standards of truth in advertising are quite different. One of the objections some have is that MTH on the one hand has a long history of derogatory advertising regarding Lionel. Simultaneously they are profiting off the Lionel name, history and reputation by issuing their own close replicas of Lionel collector's items using the Lionel numbering system, such as "6464" and "400E." That strikes some folks as legal but a form of intellectual piracy, as well as legal but unethical.

[ChiefEagles]

I just got to quickly browse my new CTT issue. Looks good and informative. It has even hepled me with a problem with an engine I was having. Now David is right on about Mr. LC and marketing. He was a shroud operator [some would say closer to crook]. He wanted the "EUnit", so he went a got it. You do have to give him credit. Trains traveling at high speeds around sharp curves on a track on the floor impressed young boys [thus magnitraction]. The main thing is, "One had on the throttle and one one the whistle." Lets run those trains boys!!! [:D]

[Dave Farquhar]

I read somewhere (may have been here) that Joshua Lionel Cowen and Mike Wolf probably would not have liked each other one bit, because they were too much alike.

Thanks for bringing up the bit about Lionel Corp.'s ads, Neil. A lot of Ives fans didn't like Lionel because of those ads; read the Greenberg books on Ives trains and you get the distinct impression that the bitter feelings lasted at least into the '70s. Another dirty trick Lionel used was comparing Ives' least expensive items to Lionel's most expensive items in their ads. It's fair to venture that Ives' costlier models would have held up better.

Another example of Lionel's marketing: Ives lithographed details onto its trains, while Lionel painted them solid colors. Neither looked especially realistic, but the Ives was closer to reality, albeit two-dimensional reality. Al Kalmbach (founder of Model Railroader) asked Cowen why he didn't make his trains more realistic, and Cohen responded that toy trains were bought by mothers who didn't care if they looked realistic, they just wanted something that looked good.

It would seem that Lionel didn't survive because it made the best quality trains, the most affordable trains, the best engineering, or anything else of that sort. But it did have the best marketing.

[Anonymous]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the feedback pro and con. I know all of you are well versed concerning the lawsuit, but most CTT readers do not go on the Internet and read toy train forums and most don't know about the lawsuit and the jury's decision. Given the potential impact of the court case on the toy train hobby, those readers should not be kept in the dark because they don't participate in Internet forums.

Concerning the editorial, I'm well aware the judge has yet to give his final word on the jury's award and Lionel has said it will appeal. But to say therefore that the jury's decision doesn't carry much weight is just wrong, and to suggest that the individuals who were accountable for such actions go unpunished is wrong, too. Mike Wolf is a TCA member, and those who are accountable quite likely are/were TCA members, too. To me, that's a TCA member not abiding by the code concerning another TCA member.

Well, enough said about all that.

As far as ads in CTT, we use a fixed ad/edit ratio to decide on the size of an issue. The ratio has been the same since I got here in 1997, so the size of a given CTT, for better or worse, is a partial reflection of the economic health of the hobby. OGR does the same thing, and its ad count also is not what it had been a few years ago. Take at look at Time, Newsweek, and US News and World Report, and you'll see the same thing.

Lastly, JL Cowen wasn't a saint all the time. If you have the opportunity, look at some of the Lionel ads from prewar years (or some of the prewar catalog intro material) and you'll see beat up and broken Ives trains compared to like-new Lionel trains. Its no different than the MTH/Lionel ads of the past few years. Cowen also coined the name "Standard gauge," suggesting that anyone that didn't use his track (which didn't follow any established gauge) was "non-standard." That was incredibly smart marketing, but I can't imagine his competitors thought much of it.

Thanks again for the feedback.

Sincerely,
Neil Besougloff
editor, Classic Toy Trains

[Anonymous]

BillFromWayne;

Excellent points about CTT vs OGR! I never gave any thought about
the finer points or the number of issues. I guess it's because I no
longer subscribe to OGR and under the RM regime I ceased to be
as interested due to his changes, etc.

As for OGR's criticism of CTT and the hue-and-cry because CTT said
anything at all "before the issue is settled". I notice that OGR is saying
in their forum that OGR is going to do an exrensive article on the topic
using one of their members who happens to be a lawyer as the author.
It will still be second-hand/hearsay information with an OGR slant.
Therefore, they will be no better than CTT regarding this topic.
Sort of like when the TV networks use an "expert commentator" to
"interpret" the news that we have just seen. Allmit serves to do is stir
up burning embers each time the fire begins to burn down...all in the
name of subscriptions/ratings! Bah! I no longer watch Network news
just for this reason. If something is really important, I look for it on
CNN, catch the headline and then make my own conclusions. I don't
need an "interpreter".

As for the TCA remark in the editorial, I suppose that was meant to
poke a stick in the side of TCA to get them to take some kind of stand
on the issue (copying/fraud), not the verdict. TCA does in fact have an
anti-fraud standard, but it is enforced rarely and I don't think they will
have the gumption to enforce it against Lionel despite a court decision.
TCA is almost a Lionel sponsor. As I said once before, this whole thing
is sort of an exercise in futility as we as hobbyists have no control over
the situation other than with our wallets. The two companies will keep
on doing what they always have until they feel an economic bite from the
consumer (us).

I did notice that the CTT articles had an underlying tone, mainly about
products that were MADE IN THE USA. For example, pre/postwar motors,
postwar Plasticville/Littletown, Gilbert American Flyer and old tinplate track.
Yes, I know there was an article on electronics upgrade, but that, too, was
a DIY thing which is what the hobby should be all about.

[Anonymous]

I just received the September issue of CTT and my thoughts are that it is a very well balanced issue with a host of informative articles. For a magazine that covers a cold weather seasonal hobby, this summer time issue of CTT was packed with very interesting articles.

After reading Neil Besougloff's Editorial, I came away with the opinion that it was upbeat, well balanced and right on target. His editorial ran eight paragraphs. Only one small paragraph mentioned his thoughts on what the TCA should do to the wrong-doers. (And that's only if the culprits are TCA members.) All in all, his editorial was fair, balanced, clear and concise. His closing paragraph was certainly uplifting to me.

I didn't notice any part of his editorial that warrents the over five pages of misguided and totally unwarrented criticism that appears on the OGR Forum.

As for the guys who have nothing better to do than to count pages, I suggest that you understand that CTT uses a smaller typeface than that other magazine, and it also has less leading between lines (less white space). It is also printed on thinner paper on a web press, has a varnished cover and is saddle-stiched. All of which makes for a thinner journal; designed to keep postal costs to a minimum.

And for all you OGR apologists--please keep in mind that CTT publishes nine issues a year, not seven! So of course, during the warmer months their issues will seem lighter.

BillFromWayne
www.modeltrainjournal.com

[Anonymous]

I have been a subscriber since the 1st issue and was a little annoyed at the TCA bit in the editorial but am most annoyed at the whole Lionel-MTH issue. Trains are supposed to be a form of escapism (at least for me). Unfortunately, I suspect there is no escapism in any pursuit nowdays........

[Anonymous]

The latest CTT is another great issue as usual. I saw nothing wrong with the editorial. What Neil B. said needed to be said and I applaud him for it. It's about time for TCA to show some backbone and address this issue.

[waltrapp]

I just received my issue.

The much discussed Neil editorial was, IMHO, overall a very good piece. Maybe the TCA thing was questionable, but I have to wonder what Neil might know that we don't on this matter.

when I first pulled it out of the mailbox my first thougt was "this sure is a skinny issue". But then, as I always do when I first get a mag, I skanned thru it looking at the topics addressed and studying layout pictures. On the surface it looks like one dynamite issue!!!!!

There's quantity and there's quality. This issue happens to touch on many of things that I personally care about so for me it's one great issue, page count and all.

- walt

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah. The "Neil" I was addressing is Besougloff. [:)]
Just for the record.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the page count is down. (bummer), the ads count is up (gotta
eat), but in the past the page count has been up higher and down
lower (check some of your back issues) as needed for things. Yes,
the hobby (and the economy) are not as good as they could/should
be. Hope that changes. I originally didn't want to comment about the
editorial as I don't like "politics". However, NB could have chosen a
different, better and maybe more positive topic in view of all of this
howling about something over which we as hobbyists have no con-
trol except with our wallets. As for the legal nonsense, I think that
both magazines are equally as guilty and should refrain from such
things. If they want to advance the cause of the hobby so much, then
how about some editorials about the positive aspects of the hobby?

Old JLC was a success becasue he pushed more positive things
about the hobby, (Lionel Engineers, Father-Son activities, trains that
were educational, play value, etc.). It seems that there is just entirely
too much nastiness, greed and negativity in the hobby. THAT is some-
thing that we CAN change as hobbyists! You listening out there Niel,
Rich and others? TCA has seen the writing on the wall and started
the TCA Kids Club (although it needs more support from the organi-
sation), and NMRA has/had a Teen NMRA group. Several of the posters
here have made individual efforts (including myself) to reach out with
the positive side of the hobby. How come there are not more "editorials"
about this? As for pricing of new gear, I scream as loud (louder?) as
much as anyone, but how about an editorial on the economics (daily,
not "investment") of the hobby as connected to the hobby's survival?

I have seen a few new members join this and a couple other forums
in the last few months. A portion of them say how they are younger and
how disposable income is a problem (no more Mom and Dad to give
it to them [:)] ) and they have to count their money wisely. (good) These
are the "old guys" of tomorrow. We need to try to positively influence
them now or they will go away and spend their money on video games,
tech-toys, etc.

Some manufacturers are listening and watching the market. Ready Made
Toys, K-Line and even MTH have items that are attractively priced so that
even children can buy locos and rolling stock with their own money and
enjoy the "pride-of-ownership" that is part of the hobby. $10 cars and $50
locos may not be scale museum pieces, but in the eyes of a 10 year old
they are still "cool" and they are obtainable. Not so with an "affordable"
$200-$300 loco or $50 car. The biggest reason that children do not value
their possessions today is that they are given automatically and the child
takes it for granted. My next door neighbor boy (11 years old) prizes an old
$25 Lionel Alco higher than his first new train set. Why? Because "I bought
it myself!" Good!! THIS is the future of the hobby! How about some ink on
that subject?

On the other hand, It is interesting to see an article on Command Upgrading
in Classic Toy Trains. I guess new-tech has come of age and can now be
considered "classic". Good article and it reaches out to the high-railers in the
mix!

[nblum]

As to the editorial, here are the thoughts I posted on the OGRR Forum some days ago:

"Not one of Neil's finer ideas. Particularly since the case is far from over. Futhermore, the ethics and legality of what happened or didn't happen in Korea, much less in Michigan, are far from agreed upon by many inside and outside the industry and hobby. "

"Forgetting about the legal issues for the moment, what possesses a leader in the industry to further polarize what is already a contentious situation? The bitterness that is unusually common in this branch of model railroading, the partisanship and zealotry of dealers and consumers, will only be exacerbated by this ill conceived appearance of partisanship and premature judgement. "

[nblum]

116 pages. An editorial laden with moral posturing, legal nonsense and hyperbole. I really like CTT and wi***hem well, but some of the editorials (remember the one slamming the OGRR staff as lacking in professionalism?) are an embarassment. I prefer CTT to OGRR and just renewed for three years. I've been a subscriber since issue one. I really like the layout stories, the historical perspectives, the analytic articles about the industry, the visits to vendors and manufacturers, the how-to-dos, but am often ambivalent about many of the product reviews. I hope they improve the editorial content from its current naive, self congratulatory pose and keep improving the technical expertise of their product reviews. I will stick with them because they are much more focused on my interests than OGRR, which I also just renewed, and the plusses outweigh the minuses by far.

As an aside, the September 1997 issue had 148 pages, which tells you something about the health of the industry and the success of the competition.

[Anonymous]

Got my latest issue of CTT today. Very interesting and
helpful. Particularly the article on wiring on Lionel post
war motors. This is something that has been needed
for quite awhile. Lots of PW out there that is coming up
for repair/overhaul. Also enjoyed the piece on American
Flyer's gateman. The track article is good for the newbies.
Getting a little heavy on the ads, though. The price of
doing business. Nice variety of articles. Things for the
old and new guys alike. CTT is getting back to its old
roots. You all have been listening! The photos this time
are much improved.