The Feb. CTT cover reads...

[prewardude]

Regarding the lack of any MTH "duds," I will quote John Grams' last paragraph in his introductory comments to the aforementioned article:

QUOTE: There's one more disclaimer. Most of these models are from the postwar and late prewar years. For many contemporary items, it's too soon yet to say whether they have stood the test of time. Rest assured, though, that before long a new crop of sleepers and duds will surface.

Since MTH is a contemporary company... but I digress.

Now if I was to choose an MTH "dud," it would be their Proto1 system. I don't have any Proto1 stuff, but I don't think that scrambled chips would be very much fun!

So there ya go, Big Jim. I made up for Mr. Grams' lack of inclusion.

[Bob Keller]

I know that the boss has posted this elsewhere, but when we go out for a photo shoot, we go armed with snapshots sent in by the owner. We try to do advanced planning based on those. Often we have a rudimentary track plan to get an idea of the lay of the land. We also have checklists covering everything from the number of wall outlets to availability of colorful trains. It covers close to everything - including getting an overall photo of the layout.

Everyone has a mandate to a) shoot a potential cover - no matter how small the layout might be. b) shoot a lead photo for the feature story. and c) shoot an overall shot, if possible. After those are done (or in the case of "c" attempted), THEN we begin the other "scenic" photography.

If we have an overall photo that is usable, we use it. If we don't, we don't.

We're not going to publish a photo of substandard quality just to include an overall shot. The point is, that we do a plan to shoot (and usually do shoot) an overall view, but because of reasons such as lighting (try lugging 300 pounds of lights through an airport... ), the shape of the layout, or other factors it doesn't get used.

Thats just the way it is. No staff editor is going to pick a bad shot to use, the art director isn't going to let the story designer use a bad shot, the editor isn't going to let us use a bad shot, the head of the art department isn't going to let us use a bad shot, and our publisher isn't going to let us use a bad shot.

And I'll bet if we DID use a bad shot, people would complain because it still didn't meet their desires.

So you'll have to trust us - if we do have a usable overall photo, we'll run it. [:)]

[Kooljock1]

I STILL think it's a great idea for a whole series of articles, and no I didn't agree with all the choices!

But wasn't that the point?

But you want controversy? Do a MTH over/under rated article and watch the reaction!

I can see it now:

"They're ALL under rated!"

-TRex

"It is my considered opinion after years of studious research at the academic level that the choices were ill advised at best, and loathesome at worst."

-Allan Miller

"They're all over-rated!"

-BigJim

"My head is gonna blow any second..."

-OGaugeoverlord

Jon [8D]

[prewardude]

LOL!

[Bob Keller]

The door certainly isn't closed on a modern era story - but the vintage stuff included more than we could squeeze in.

I would agree about Proto 1 - for example. It deserved honorable mention for being developed as an alternative to RailSounds - but in retrospect it was quirky and cumbersome and nobody knew it could be done easier. I sure didn't.

But it could only be done easier and better with the passing of time, technology, and investment of $$$$. ProtoSound 2.0 is astonishing. Proto 1, in retrospect, is the member of the family nobody wants to talk about.

Some of you may recall my long term review of my Centipede. The service guy I told to rip the guts out and install a reverse unit - was *** Teal. He calmed me down and fixed it. I'm also glad I only bought two PS-1 engine - while I bought a lot of MTH - it was the whistle only version for me.

So yeah, Proto 1 would have a place at the table on a modern era list of duds.

[overall]

Bob,

I generally thought the article was OK. I did think the author blew the call on the coal elevator, although he may have had a point about the buckets being small. I got one of these from back in the seventies. It was an inch deep in dust. I did clean it up some and did get it to work. I envisioned it being used as a transloading facility. Coal would come in by rail on the side with the flip pan and leave by dump truck on the chute side.

George

[c50truck]

Any magazine that can get this type of response and conversation on an open forum must be doing it's job. I think I'ts time I subscribe.

[MartyE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Kooljock1

I STILL think it's a great idea for a whole series of articles, and no I didn't agree with all the choices!

But wasn't that the point?

But you want controversy? Do a MTH over/under rated article and watch the reaction!

I can see it now:

"They're ALL under rated!"

-TRex

"It is my considered opinion after years of studious research at the academic level that the choices were ill advised at best, and loathesome at worst."

-Allan Miller

"They're all over-rated!"

-BigJim

"My head is gonna blow any second..."

-OGaugeoverlord

Jon [8D]

Now that post was underated! Thanks for the laugh!

[BigJim]

I guess to the casual vistor to these forums or those that don't actually "read" what I post, may think that I am just trying to create "much ado about nothing". I can assure you that is not the case.

What I am actually trying to do is wake people up to the fact that things can be done better. That a job worth doing is worth doing right...the first time!

It seems that far too many people want to take the easy way out, do the least to get by, and charge the most money they can, instead of putting out a quality product worthy of the "Made in the Good Ol' USA" label.

And don't give me that "well everything is made in China now" mumbo jumbo. The people over here have to sign off on it don't they?

Wake up people. Demand the best! Give the best! Be the best that you can be!!! It's up to you. Are you up to the challenge? If you are, then get on the train. If not, then stay off!

[Anonymous]

What does that have to do with this thread? Now, you're ranting about the train manufacturers. When you started this thread, you were complaining about CTT's content. My guess is that you just like to hear yourself rant.

And if you are so dissatisfied with Classic Toy Trains, like Bob said, why bother reading it? However, if you want to be pro-active, you could always write an article and show us how it should be done. Come on flap-jaw--put your money where your mouth is. Are you up to the challenge?

[Richard A]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

I guess to the casual vistor to these forums or those that don't actually "read" what I post, may think that I am just trying to create "much ado about nothing". I can assure you that is not the case.

What I am actually trying to do is wake people up to the fact that things can be done better. That a job worth doing is worth doing right...the first time!

It seems that far too many people want to take the easy way out, do the least to get by, and charge the most money they can, instead of putting out a quality product worthy of the "Made in the Good Ol' USA" label.

And don't give me that "well everything is made in China now" mumbo jumbo. The people over here have to sign off on it don't they?

Wake up people. Demand the best! Give the best! Be the best that you can be!!! It's up to you. Are you up to the challenge? If you are, then get on the train. If not, then stay off!

Big Jim,

I couldn't agree with you more. But I STILL don't see how this applies to the article in question GIVEN the caveat cited by the aurthor in his last paragraph before the list started. It is cited above in someone else's post.

This makes me wonder whether you actually read the entire article. No offense meant.

[Anonymous]

Richard,

Like I said, he just likes to hear himself speak.

[Jumijo]

Sleepers and Duds (my version):

Vanilla Ice Cream [:)]

The month of June [:)]

The Flu [|(]

Going out to breakfast [:)]

Gas prices [|(]

Dissing internet yahoos [:)][:D]



Any one else?!

Jim

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry Jim... but you're digging a bigger hole! No one would argue with your last statement about quality, etc. But the host of this site has done a fantastic job explaining how and why they do things at CTT, and frankly, they do a GREAT job! You've gone from ranting ABOUT the "Sleeper" article, to ranting about the Cover of Feb. CTT, to ranting about where the manufactoring is being done, etc. STICK TO A TOPIC JIM! Any "one" article that has generated this much talk... well... if I'm the Editor, I'd be in the process of writing another one like it!

As far as your manufactoring rant... many of us who LOVE this hobby would not be in it if products were still 100% made in the Good ol' USA. Not that I like the situation, but it is what it is, and the products coming from overseas are really quite good for the money. Would you like to start another thread and be a little more specific about problems with particular manufactorers??? Or do you want to continue to confuse us with your scattered thought process. I'm sorry, but you're making our heads hurt.
Greg

[BigJim]

QUOTE: But I STILL don't see how this applies to the article in question GIVEN the caveat cited by the aurthor in his last paragraph before the list started.

Richard,
The way the cover reads, it makes absolutely no distinction about eras. Only certain manufacturers are noted. As presented in the body of the magazine, the authors text is miniscule compared to the space provided the authors choices. I would suspect that most of you simply scan through your magazine before sitting down to absorb every word, thus reading the smileys and frowns before reading the text.

QUOTE: What does that have to do with this thread? Now, you're ranting about the train manufacturers. When you started this thread, you were complaining about CTT's content.

Dennis,
What does this have to do with this thread? Everything!
It not only applies to the manufacturers, it applies to the magazines too. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out for yourself.
The "Dud" article does not say much about CTT other than sensationalistic journalism, that took away from space that could have been better provided to two nice layouts. For what? Just to put a frown on products that seem to have been and still are very popular? Since you can't figure this out for yourself, let me digress.
Lionel trestle sets;
Why just single out Lionel?
If this were such a dud, why are trestle sets still offered by other manufacturers?
Why are trestle sets still used in MANY MANY layout designs published by magazines?
Control Tower;
Why knock a basic design that can be seen in yards across the U.S.
Smoke Pellets;
The last time I looked these are still very desirable items.
Corral Car;
Didn't Jim Barrett offer a simple fix for these accessories?
Fire Car;
An obvious special purpose item that most people wouldn't even expect to see used the way the author laments.

QUOTE: write an article and show us how it should be done. Come on flap-jaw--put your money where your mouth is.

What and pay CTT to publish something that I wrote? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. Then, I have heard that the pay is pretty low if you get paid at all.
And exactly when did I start calling you names?

Back to the Magazine content/quality issue.
It would be of benefit to all of us in the hobby for the major publications to speak up in their reviews and take the manufacturers to task about some of the latest glaring flaws that have shown up models lately. Flaws that could have been easily avoided by manufacturers that cared about their product!
OH, I forgot, the magazines didn't receive any of those for testing. How convienient. And far be it from a high profile magazine to go out and find one on their own! And OH NO, we don't want to upset our advertisers do we?

QUOTE: many of us who LOVE this hobby would not be in it if products were still 100% made in the Good ol' USA.

Greg,
That is very true, however, that is not how it is meant to be taken. "Made in the USA" is usually associated with being a symbol of quality and pride! That is how it is to be taken.

[Bob Keller]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BigJim

QUOTE: What and pay CTT to publish something that I wrote? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around. Then, I have heard that the pay is pretty low if you get paid at all.

It would be of benefit to all of us in the hobby for the major publications to speak up in their reviews and take the manufacturers to task about some of the latest glaring flaws that have shown up models lately. Flaws that could have been easily avoided by manufacturers that cared about their product!
OH, I forgot, the magazines didn't receive any of those for testing. How convienient.

Regarding payment and rates: Sorry BigJim, we pay probably the highest rates around and pay for articles on acceptance (payment for photos for Photo Album are on publication). Maybe you're thinking of when Myron owned OGR and he'd pay after publication, if you submitted a bill to him.

Regarding reviews: I'll give you the benfit of a doubt, since you clearly don't have any idea of how we go about the review process. A fraction of readers want a review that says something is garbage even when it isn't.

The bottom line is that most everything is made to the same standard of quality, which is generally pretty good.

I've written about Lionel locomotives that needed to be pushed to get through curves, MTH O-72 locomotives that derailed on O-72 and multi-unit diesels that had motors that didn't work; K-Line locomotives with crappy paint jobs and wheels that fall off the tender and more. You simply need to read the reviews to discover what I find wrong with the products.

My mandate when I was hired was to write reviews for the reader without regard to advertiser influence. I've done that. I've also received complaints from manufacturers because I've pointed out faults and we've lost advertising because I've pointed out those faults. While I'll request additional samples if I encounter a major problem, we don't guarantee reviews, nor do we give the manufacturers the 'right" to pull a product we find defective.

You don't like the reviews in OGR or CTT, get the engines, test them yourself, and published them on your own website. Or send them to the club publications of LOTS, the LCCA, or TCA.

Oh, and most of the manufacturers have discovered the simple truth: Send a locomotive in for a review. It will get reviewed. Don't send it in and it probably won't.

Bob Keller

• Reply