Dave Vollmer wrote: But I know plenty of modelers who have, and often the material sits in limbo for upwards of several years without feedback. I figure if I have something worth publishing, I want it out sooner rather than later. Besides, what if it comes back 2-3 years later rejected? RMC might have published it in the meantime. RMC turned around Max Magliaro's 3-part N scale PRR I1s 2-10-0 kitbash in just a few short months.
But I know plenty of modelers who have, and often the material sits in limbo for upwards of several years without feedback. I figure if I have something worth publishing, I want it out sooner rather than later. Besides, what if it comes back 2-3 years later rejected? RMC might have published it in the meantime. RMC turned around Max Magliaro's 3-part N scale PRR I1s 2-10-0 kitbash in just a few short months.
I have also heard that, I remember a time when an article somebody submitted back in the seventies was held by MR for 3 years before they published it. The author submitted it to another magazine and it was published by both magazines within a month of each other.
Everybody but MR pays for and lets the author know approximately when the article will be published. MR does their theme issues and this delays some articles for many years. A friend of mine had MR in to take pictures of his layout and it was never published, I think it was finally in RMJ four years later.
Rick
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
That raises an interesting point about the variety of content in the magazine. Since they've turned primarily to photo-heavy layout tours and less to project oriented pieces, there is a long line for layout articles, and a long wait between project articles. So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
That's just poor customer service to leave potential authors cooling their heels that long, especially when rarely a month goes by that we don't get Sassi'd. This only feeds the perception that authors who don't rank among the MR elite are generally passed over.
I have the tools and capability to prepare scale drawings, and there are lots of potential projects near my home that I'd be willing to provide, but it is very time consuming. Between measuring, laying out and actually producing the drawings, you're talking about a 40 hour work week. I'd be hesitant to make that kind of commitment if the editors at MR can't even give the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798 wrote: So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
Well, with all due respect to Cody, I've been writing for over 20 years, including editing a local newspaper, writing columns and doing all kinds of technical writing... I'm sure they would take anything I submitted and put it under the knife, maybe that's the part I can't stomach!
Neil Besougloff
editor, Model Railroader magazine
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond.
I guess you've answered some of our questions, but I'm curious why Cody's scratch building article was reserved for a special edition, and not included in the pages of the regular magazine?
I suppose it's like any good website, where the free stuff is just a teaser, but to get the meat and potatoes, you have to shell out some extra money...
On the other hand, I do want to compliment the magazine on its focus on operations. Andy's column on the back page is usually the first thing I read. I also like David Popp's work, both editorially and modeling. He stands out as a ray of hope...
Keep working on those young guys, though...
Neil B. wrote:Another example of old and new: two days ago Andy S., who’s in his third decade as a member of MR’s staff, was kitbashing a building for next winter’s project layout (not a 4x8). I saw him scrutinizing something at his workbench so I walked over to look -- his kitbashed freight house was doing fine, he was simply adjusting the iPod he was listening to as he worked.
sounds like an idea!
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot Visit my blog! http://becomingawarriorpoet.blogspot.com
Neil,
Thanks for responding.
I have mixed feelings about all of the special editions. I have several of them. The ones I have (Koester's ones on design and ops, modeling the 50s, and David Popp's layout one) are great, and I read them frequently.
On the one hand, I agree with the others that this used to be content that came in the magazine and was covered by subscription. It's frustrating to have to pay extra for it.
OTOH, having these "themed" books really helps keep things consolidated. If I want to read more about operations, I don't have to sort through 15 years of MRs. Plus I can grab-n-go if I'm taking a trip.
Paying more for convenience is, after all, the American way, so I guess it's good in the long run. I agree with Lee; having Cody (or whomever) toss an article or two like that back into the monthly issue would be great too.
It's great that Andy's been with the staff so long. I remember as a kid reading about the old Wichita & Santa Fe project layout Andy was building. Didn't he also edit Student Fare for a while?
Oh, and thank you thank you thank you thank you for not doing another 4x8 project layout this year! We've often said here and in other fora that the 4x8, though easy for a beginner, is very limiting. Now, a 4x8 project layout in N would be neat, but you guys seem to be out of the N scale project layout business. Either way, it'll be great to see something beyond the standard HO 4x8 based on Wisconsin.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen
It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
NeO6874 wrote: nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR.
I wouldn't count on the whole forum getting involved in this effort because scratchbuilding has become a niche interest. If you can demontstrate to Kalmbach that there is sufficient interest in this material to make it a regular feature again, perhaps they will respond. Like many others, I have no real interest in scratchbuilding arguments and won't be joining you in this effort, but if you are successful, I won't have any objections either.
jecorbett wrote: NeO6874 wrote: nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR. I wouldn't count on the whole forum getting involved in this effort because scratchbuilding has become a niche interest. If you can demontstrate to Kalmbach that there is sufficient interest in this material to make it a regular feature again, perhaps they will respond. Like many others, I have no real interest in scratchbuilding arguments and won't be joining you in this effort, but if you are successful, I won't have any objections either.
I respect your perspective. We are all entitled to do things the way we want in this hobby. I do think we should voice our opinions where they'll do the most good. In the posting about contacting the MR staff they list their e-mail as mrmag@mrmag.com.
I mean this about all opinions, whether you want to see the magazine revise its course or not; tell MR where you're at. At least then MR will have a sense of where their readership stands and they can make whatever decisions they feel are appropriate.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
I believe some of the old features like "ask Paint Shop" and MR Workshop etc. have been completely replaced by this and other forums, plus by all the various on-line resources available for prototype references. Why send in a note asking about the shade of red used by the Lehigh Valley when you can go on line and in a matter of minutes find color photos of a wide variety of equipment, and often deeper information such as rosters and in-service dates?
And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information. Koester's column is similarly unique... like him or lump him, Tony brings his unique personality and approach to the hobby to the mix, and there's value in that.
I guess that's one of the issues I have with younger, less experienced guys being at the helm of the editorial process. I think there would be some value in pieces by the younger guys where they are really challenged by a project, like studying a prototype structure and producing plans for it, then taking the time to actually build a model of it using commonly available scratch building materials. I think that would instill some confidence in the readership that they can do more than open a package and glue things to the layout. It would be interesting to hear how such a project would influence these Generation Y guys in their future endeavors.
Given the leaning toward RTR, maybe there's an opportunity to carry that opening the package process to a higher level. One poster earlier talked about "composing a scene" using RTR items. I do believe that's worth exploring, but not to the exclusion of all else. Or to borrow a term from the automotive world, how about a "hybrid" approach that starts with RTR structures and equipment, and uses some scratching and bashing to personalize them and adapt them to new uses...
Obviously there's no single, simple answer to all of this. But I think if it's approached with an open mind and a recognition of the sense of accomplishment that comes from doing some things the "old fashioned" way, (or perhaps applying those old techniques to new products) we can look forward to a magazine that continues to hold our interest.
SpaceMouse wrote: MR does not have to print scratch building stuff because they have this forum, and if they can get people to the forum, you guys will do a far better job of teaching the newbies how to scratch-bash.
MR does not have to print scratch building stuff because they have this forum, and if they can get people to the forum, you guys will do a far better job of teaching the newbies how to scratch-bash.
SM:
Of course, the question this leads to is, if the forum has all the content, why buy the rag?
It doesn't make any sense to have a free service and charge $6 for the ad flyer, does it?
No, if MR wants to have a good magazine they need to work on having actual, interesting CONTENT, every month. I don't care if it's simple, advanced, or in between. I want it to be worth reading. I don't think that's too much to expect from a magazine.
If I read another writeup about fracking suitcase connectors or see another high-angle photo of some Walthers kits I am going to go into BEAST MODE. I do give them credit for the camera angles in this month's TP; that's the kind of variety I want to see. (But those suitcase connectors were there too....grr)
As for the lack of scale drawings, I suspect that may have to do with a lack of suitable draftsmen. A fairly small number of people made all those drawings in MR over the years. I can do decent work in this field, and I emailed MR about standards & what sort of things they'd like to see, but never heard back. I may have contacted the wrong department.
Autobus Prime wrote:...I am going to go into BEAST MODE.
...I am going to go into BEAST MODE.
Somebody needs to be staying out of the energon radiation...
Forums are great, but for some, Internet is not always an option. Lee is right that a lot more can be gotten from here and more quickly, but we often still get a pileup of questions. The Mag can still serve as a useful palce to aswer the more common questions. Or get people started in directions to be able to answer their own questions. Say pointing out the Fallen Flags site for colors, Or roadwidths and sidewalk widths. Almost all of us will have a sidewalk or road. and there are several threads about them. But I could be mistaken
-Morgan
wm3798 wrote: I believe some of the old features like "ask Paint Shop" and MR Workshop etc. have been completely replaced by this and other forums, plus by all the various on-line resources available for prototype references. Why send in a note asking about the shade of red used by the Lehigh Valley when you can go on line and in a matter of minutes find color photos of a wide variety of equipment, and often deeper information such as rosters and in-service dates?And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information.
And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information.
Lee, the problem with your concept (and that of more than a few others) of forums replacing print for providing answers/advice to questions posed, is that getting the correct answer to the question is very much a crap-shoot, on-line. The replies may be accurate, questionable, or even down right erroneous. Believe me, I've seen a great deal of misinformation passed off as fact on this and other forums. The truth of the matter is that in most cases you really have no idea what the experience level of the person responding is. Here, in particular, it may be a newbie with 6 months experience, responding to another newbie's question. Even if a correct answer is provided in a long thread, how does the less experienced reader know which of the replies is the accurate one? Take a look at some of the varied responses in today's question on dullcote. To say it is confusing is an understatement...and this one was better than many I've seen here!
In the magazines, on the other hand, there is a significant degree of peer review involved in preparing any article or written response. Mistaken statements are corrected long before ever being put forward...at least 98% of the time. Likewise, if the advice is coming from someone like Sperandeo, Hediger, or a well known author in a Kalmbach published book, it is the voice of long experience speaking. How often can you guarantee that on-line?
Folks put far, far too much credence in what they can get in the way of information over the Net as being accurate. Yes, the photos can be an enormous asset and so is help from the various tech societies, but advice and information offered by an unknown source as fact can be quite another matter, I'm afraid.
CNJ831
And folks, whatever you do, never, ever, not in a million years listen to anything AndreChapelon says. The man never has been able able to distinguish between his http://www.trekker.co.il/english/israel/i-bar-08.htm and and a hole in the ground: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2839926750067483864mrUvoP
Besides, his hobby is actually wasting money on various publications from Kalmbach.
EDIT: This may get pulled, but it was worth it.
Andre
wm3798 wrote:There was a time up into the mid 1990's when just about every issue of Model Railroader offered a scale drawing of something for your layout. Whether it was a locomotive or other piece of rolling stock, or a station, industry or other line-side structure, you could always find something that would provide an interesting scratch build project.For some reason, those articles have fallen by the wayside. This is a shame, because at the same time we've lost this resource for recording the equipment and physical plant of the railroads, we're losing the prototype almost as quickly.
There was a time up into the mid 1990's when just about every issue of Model Railroader offered a scale drawing of something for your layout. Whether it was a locomotive or other piece of rolling stock, or a station, industry or other line-side structure, you could always find something that would provide an interesting scratch build project.
For some reason, those articles have fallen by the wayside. This is a shame, because at the same time we've lost this resource for recording the equipment and physical plant of the railroads, we're losing the prototype almost as quickly.
Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.Neil BesougloffMR editor
Which is EXACTLY why I no longer subscribe. Why do we have to pay Extra to get the Good stuff??
rolleiman wrote: Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.Which is EXACTLY why I no longer subscribe. Why do we have to pay Extra to get the Good stuff??
Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.
You thought the magazine was not worth the price you paid for it, you ceased to subscribe. Excellent. More people should do so, if they feel that they are not getting enough value for their money.
I am feeling that I am getting good value for money from my MR subscription.
I subscribe to Model Railroader, to Railroad Model Craftsman, to Trains magazine, and as a member of the LD SIG I also get the Layout Design Journal. I also pick up some of the Model Railroader books & special issues.
If I had to let one subscription lapse to save money, for me it would be RMC. For me, that is the one that has the lowest directly applicable value - the scratchbuilding plans of specific prototypes in RMC is worth less for me than most layout presentation or tips on operations articles in MR.
Your mileage may vary.
Case in point - RMC for March 2008. The 75th anniversary issue. Contains 135 pages. About normal distribution - first roughly 50 pages of adds and product presentations, then 50 pages of articles, then another 35 pages of adds. As normal (from my point of view), articles tend to be fewer and somewhat more longwinded than articles in MR, and illustrations of poorer quality than in MR.
Scale drawings for scratchbuilding in this issue:
- Motive Power MP36 and MPXpress trains - A plan for a country depot
A year's subscription to RMC cost me $45 (I live outside the US). I am not going to build either of the two specific scratchbuilding projects that there are long articles on in the march issue. Why not ?
Well, for one thing - in the 10 pages RMC on the MP36 plans and info on the MP36 prototype, there is hardly a single word about how a newbie to scratchbuilding engines would go about to actually build such an engine ....
The 7 page article on scratchbuilding a country depot from the Rutland Railroad mentions several tricks and tips, but the figures does not really show the techniques in much detail.
And neither of these two scratchbuilding projects would fit very well into the theme for my current model railroad layout project, which is not running MPXpress engines and is not set along the Rutland Road.
I paid $15 for the Model Railroader book on "HO trackside structures you can model". 120 pages with quite a few different types and styles of RR trackside structure plans collected in one book, with adequately illustrated explanations of techniques etc.
Bruce Wilson's newer $20 Model Railroader book on "Basic Structure Modelling for model railroaders" also contain far more stuff that is directly applicable to newbies than the depot plans in RMC.
Bruce Wilson's book covers techniques for building plastic and wooden kits, kitbashing, scratchbuilding and detailing.
For me, who is a relative newbie to scratchbuilding/kitbashing, getting one book (or maybe a couple of books) that explains how to do scratchbuilding/kitbashing is worth more than a heap of plans of specific prototypes.
Especially since I can use the despised and not-at-all-to-be-trusted Internet to do stuff like pull up pictures and plans from e.g. the HABS/HAER (Historical American Buildings Survey/Histoircal American Engineering Records) collection of the Library of Congress website much easier than I can leaf through old issues of a paper magazine to find plans I might adapt for a scratchbuilt building that might be remotely correct for my layout location and era.
Incidentally - there were two good and fairly easy to follow articles on kitbashing in the same issue of RMC - how to turn an engine into a slug, and how to modify some Mini Metals delivery vans. That last article was what made that issue of RMC worth my money for me.
The fairly longwinded 7 page first installment on a two part article series on how to use ICC Valuation maps for layout planning gave me little more useful (for me) information than a short four article on the same concept by Jerry Britton that appeared in Model Railroad Planning 2005.
Incidentally - the Model Railroad Planning series is in general a wealth of condensed and applicable information for layout planning. Comes once a year. Costs a whopping $7 or so. Not particularily expensive.
Same goes for the "How to build Realistic Layouts" specials Neil B mentioned - they seem to run to about $8. Not horrifically expensive. You buy the ones that seem interesting to you, and skip the ones you are not interested in.
There is an old truism in engineering that says that you can get something "good, quick or cheap - but you can only choose two out of the three".
If you want things cheap - you will either have go to poorer quality or have to spend far more time on doing things to get a good quality result.
If your time is not a sparse resource, you can get good results and save money. But if time is a sparse resource, it might be worthwhile for you spend a little more money to et a good result.
Each person must make up their own mind about what is the most sensible allocation of his or her resources - use more time and less money, or more money and less time.
In the meantime, I will continue to spend some of my money on subscribing to both both MR and RMC. Plus pick up every issue of MRP and some of the MR books and special issues.
Again - your mileage may vary.
Smile, Stein
The excessive wordiness of the articles coupled with the inferior graphics is one reason I only read RMC when there is a specific article that interests me sufficiently to justify shelling out the cover price. Ironically, when Tony Koester was editor way back when, I thought RMC was superior to MR as RMC offered a wider variety of content at the time.
Seven pages? You must be kidding. Unfortunately there are those that think more words means more information is transmitted and more pages equates to success. I remember the MRP 2005 article. I haven't seen the RMC you mention. I don't even look for it unless I go to a hobby shop. MR is available in a number of non-hobby stores (like the Wal-Mart in Jackson, CA, a town of about 4,000). It's been a long time since I've seen an RMC anywhere but a hobby shop. Not even the local Border's book store carries it. However, it does carry MR, Garden Railways, Classic Toy Trains and Trains as well as Classic Trains, MRP, and GMR. I assume it's because a sufficient number of issues are sold to justify the cost of carrying them.
Lemme see. Amortized over a year, that's less than 2 cents/day (4 if you also get Great Model Railroads). At my age, I've quit counting birthdays. I measure the passage of years by the arrivals of GMR and MRP.
So, then, less truly is more! So to assure its survival, MR should just charge $60 a year to send out a monthly post card to let you know when the next special edition is coming out... for another $7 to $20 a throw... Since those are the only things worth reading on a regular basis.
Or would it make more sense to take all the special editions, figure out how to stretch them in to twelve annuals, and distribute them monthly as the magazine!
Eureka!
What kind of content do I want to see from MR? Here's the short list:
1) Multi-page spreads on outstanding layouts, whether home or club layouts, to continue to inspire me to complete my own layout. My preference is for HO transistion era layouts, but all of them are interesting if well done.
2) News and product reviews on recent releases, including RTR and pre-built structures.
3) How to features on scenery, operations, DCC, and other electronics issues.
4) Photos of other layouts.
5) Letters from reader.
Do I sound like someone who is unhappy with the current content?
Flashwave wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:...I am going to go into BEAST MODE. Somebody needs to be staying out of the energon radiation... Forums are great, but for some, Internet is not always an option. Lee is right that a lot more can be gotten from here and more quickly, but we often still get a pileup of questions. The Mag can still serve as a useful palce to aswer the more common questions. Or get people started in directions to be able to answer their own questions. Say pointing out the Fallen Flags site for colors, Or roadwidths and sidewalk widths. Almost all of us will have a sidewalk or road. and there are several threads about them. But I could be mistaken
Fw:
I thought the Vok already solved that nasty Energon-pollution problem...
Let's not forget that the dead trees are more portable. I'm a decently computer-savvy person, but I don't want to spend all day staring at phosphor, and you can't really drag the forum to the comfy chair, or the bus station, or the john, can you? Sure, there's laptops, but even if things got Star Trek enough for them to compete on convenience, the "feel" is different. Log on and you're in the "network zone" which isn't as relaxing as the "sitting here minding my own business, turning pages zone". That's the flipside of interactivity...the mental demand of interaction, even when you really don't WANT to interact.
Now, I subscribe. I don't intend to drop that. I like reading the magazine, but I sure am not going to pretend it couldn't be a whole lot better. There's that suitcase-connector business...and here we have to disagree a little bit. I don't think the mag should focus on common problems. They should leave *that* to their online stuff...just as they used to leave it to books. Focus on common stuff in the magazine, and you get repetition. Suitcase connectors and rail nippers every other month.
Keep up the variety in layout photos and expand it. If MR wants to be known for stunning layout photography, then why not make it actually stunning? I'm not talking about photoslapping your face into a steam loco cab and adding some cheesy smoke. I'm talking about interesting scenes and lots of neat viewpoints besides Lou Sassi's helicopter (apologies offered to LS :) It's not a bad angle, but it has seen a lot of use. ) Again, this month's TP section was a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure what the problem could be. Talk of lost interest and declining skill are pure piffle. I have no time for that. It's a lazy excuse. Could it be that MR is run by Old Guys who don't understand how Online works, or is it run by Young Guys who don't understand how Print works, or is it a little of both?
Here is what they need to do: Make It Fun To Read. That's all. Is that so hard?
lvanhen wrote: Unfortunately, this is a sign of out times. I'm a retired carpenter/contractor, and used to watch every episode of This Old House when it was first on TV. They used to take a run-down "everyman's" house & rehab it. Today they do multi-million dollar projects that most of us can only dream about!
Unfortunately, this is a sign of out times. I'm a retired carpenter/contractor, and used to watch every episode of This Old House when it was first on TV. They used to take a run-down "everyman's" house & rehab it. Today they do multi-million dollar projects that most of us can only dream about!
That's a great analogy to our hobby. My wife and I have a Saturday morning ritual of watching This Old House. I remember when they used to use real hardwood floors for every project. I remember the first time they used laminate/pre-fab "hardwood" floors. I almost fainted... I could have sworn that true craftsmen like them would never stoop so low as to use a floor that goes together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Guess what... today it seems like every project they work on uses laminate flooring.
There's a saying that some of the old-timers here at Trains magazine use: ETTS
Translation: "Everything turns to ----"
Face it, the older you get, the more everything you've come to know and love gets worse. For example:- Do you really enjoy drinking soda from an aluminum can or plastic bottle over a glass bottle? Probably not.- Do you enjoy the fact that there's a little more than a handful of Class I railroads today? Probably not.
I don't enjoy This Old House as much as I used to, but I understand the changes in how things are built thanks to technology and still watch it every week.
Remember, things get better too. Remember that old Chevy you had with the high-beem switch below your left foot. That was pretty darn cool. But you know what, that car didn't have AC, had manual windows, an AM radio, and no heated seats. Say what you will about today's cars versus the cars that were produced back when we used to publish scale drawings, but you do have to admit that there are a LOT more creature comforts in today's cars. (Similar to today's model trains, now that I think about it.)
"Those old cars were better." Were they really? Please define better. They may have been able to lay down better scratch on the pavement thanks to their huge motor and rear wheel drive posi traction, but overall, I think I'll take the heated seats, power windows, sun roof, CD player/iPod input/satellite radio, GPS navigation of today's cars, thank you very much.
In closing, the lack a scale drawings has nothing to do with a lack of draftsmen (we have illustrators that will knock your socks off... and Soo Line fans out there who know of Rick Johnson's work will attest to that) or anything else. It's a direct reflection of market conditions. The model railroading market has changed, and thus, so has the magazine. As Neil mentioned, the staff does surveys all the time... the changes they make to the magazine are largely driven by what our customers say.
Now, after six days and nine pages, I'm going to lock this so we can move on. It's been a great discussion, and we appreciate your contributions.
Have a great weekend, everybody.Bergie