Is MR becoming too basic, what do you think about it?

[Anonymous]

I agree with 'Mouse - I find more detailed info from MRRing BOOKS than from MR.
Sometimes in MR articles it's: do step A, (magic occurs), do step D, ....
Even though the books may be derived from magazine articles, they are often "fleshed out" better.

My suggestions:

1. More construction detail, to include more photos. Perhaps fewer but longer articles are needed here.
2. More advanced projects, as per Railmodel Journal (or Steve Hile's RI articles in the RITS Newsletter).
3. Eliminate other scales than HO and N - they have their own mags.
4. Fire the current model reviewers and hire someone who is capable of "telling it like it is" - I want to KNOW if the fans are too big or the sound is wrong !!! Let's have REAL consumer reports !!!!!

[Marc_Magnus]

Yes I agree too with mouse and gbailey, there is more detailled articles i some other magazines .

Second We know it's the advertiser who are responsable of the live of the magazine, but with so many photos in library that MR seems to have, why not publish a few more; they are so inspirating

[Anonymous]

I have been reading MR for over 30 years. It got me started in this fantastic hobby. MR is as enjoyable today as ever. I have read others and some are good but I still like the format of MR.

R. Eisner, Middleton, Nova Scotia

[Anonymous]

I think it matters why you read the magazine. If you read it for entertainment purposes, it will suit a wide range of people. It is the first magazine for model trains that I purchased, so I subscribed for a year. I wanted knowledge. I wanted to be educated. Unfortunately, they spend too much time showing off big flashy layouts, mostly eastern railroads in steam. As I am doing diesel in flatlands, they offer me no assistance. I let my sub expire. I still check out the current issue at the store, but I haven't bought one in quite a while. $5 is a lot to pay for 1 tip or pic of something. I don't want the entertainment. I want to learn, and it lacks that for me.

Also, I am new. 47 years old, but working on my first real layout.

The BEST thing about MRR, to me, is this group of forums. To bad you guys don't publish something.

[Anonymous]

I've been reading your postings with interest. As has been said before, there are just so many ways to explain how to put an L girder together or how to lay track. That's great basic stuff for the people who are picking up the mag to get into the hobby. I think the onus is on the readers, subscribers and seasoned modellers to keep submitting interesting articles for the rest of us. I've been a subscriber for 5 years and feel like I know the regular contributors (Dolkos, Kempinski, etc.) as neighbours. I've used lots of their info on my layout. Lionel Strang's articles always had a cool little project. What about the rest of us? All you guys out there have a neat little project or trick that some of us don't know about! Sometimes I read about projects that were published years ago to great acclaim. They were before my time! Maybe we should have a MR revisited column like Along the LIne was.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by enduringexp

The BEST thing about MRR, to me, is this group of forums. To bad you guys don't publish something.

Ah, but I do publish something!

See http://model-trains-video.com ...

[:D]

[Marc_Magnus]

Yes Its possible that the answer is in the lack of enough good contributor with scratchbuilding articles.

And I think there is another bad news for our sunshine, Lionel STRANG stop his editorial about "working on the railroad" which I beleive was very appealing for the etablished modelers.

[Marc_Magnus]

It's there anybody knowing if the staff of MR sometimes read the topics of everybody?

[Marc_Magnus]

No more opinions about the becoming of our magazine?

[Anonymous]

I responded to the Trackside Photos thread and can put forth the same concept here as well. This is just my own personal, very personal, opinion. I am not trying to start an argument or trash anyone's ideas. But I do not feel MR is more basic in that sense, I would rather refer to it as more generic. The staff used to be model railroaders putting out a magazine. Today, the staff are all journalism forlks. The rag has come of age with modern formating and glitzy presentations. The grunt detail articles are gone, quite possibly because there are few of us who build our own stuff anymore. This is the age of buy it and run it. I still belong to the age of build it, super detail it, redo it, change the trucks, rebuild someone elses mistake and on and on. People like me have become dinosaurs in the hobby. MR is just addressing the direction the hobby is headed. I do think MR is still the best in the hobby, but it no longer leads the field in a dominant fashion as it did years ago. Again, just my opinion.

You can't cook a hotdog with diesel exhaust.

Tom

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tpaulsen
This is the age of buy it and run it. I still belong to the age of build it, super detail it, redo it, change the trucks, rebuild someone elses mistake and on and on. People like me have become dinosaurs in the hobby. MR is just addressing the direction the hobby is headed. I do think MR is still the best in the hobby, but it no longer leads the field in a dominant fashion as it did years ago.

I really have to challenge the idea that the whole direction of the hobby has changed over the past 10 years and a new breed of hobbyist has taken over, such that MR's content is simply following the trend of the future.

Firstly, there is very little evidence I am aware of that "newbies" constitute any significant percentage of hobbyists currently. In fact, their numbers are probably at a historic low or there never would have been a WGH campaign. We have talked over and over again about how this hobby does not appeal to the under 30 generation. Likewise, every survey MR ever did indicated the typical reader of the magazine had been in the hobby for 10-20 years and so would hardly be looking for basic info any longer. Realistically, I'd suggest that newbies don't amount to more than 10% of MR readership currently. So why the need for endless basic articles when the typical reader is likely to be well versed in the hobby? Also notice the dwindling circulation of MR and that just about everyone here that complains about content and says they won't re-up when the time comes is a longterm modeler...the main readership base the folks MR should be aiming at.

That we see so much about about RTR does not necessarily indicate that it is favored by the great majority of hobbyist. It only serves to indicate that the manufacturers can sell out small runs of expensive equipment in the short term to a limited faction in the hobby. In their view this is perferred over stocking large amounts of slow selling kits so there is little wonder they are doing it. I have never seen any statistical proof that kit sales have declined in recent years and I honestly doubt very much they have.

A while back MR dropped its slogan "Model Railroading is Fun" and replaced it with one that more or less reads, "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It." Over the years MR has attempted to lead the hobby in certain directions, whether hobbyists favor the direction or not. I feel the magazine is currently pushing the concept of RTR, not reacting to it, for the benefit of its advertisers. Among all the modelers I know, almost to a man they are of the old fashion "build-it-yourself" ilk (in the sense of wanting kits, building supplies, etc.). None of us purchase much, if anything, in the way of RTR items. Likewise, we are all longterm hobbyists and are between 45 and 65 years of age...hardly newbies.

As some food for thought, let me add that I often see posters saying MR probably doesn't publi***echnical or scratchbuilding articles because readers are not submitting them. Has anyone considered the possibility that such submissions are being made but might generally be turned down by MR because they do not reflect the direction the magazine wants to head?

CNJ831

[jfugate]

I just had MR contact me soliciting an in-depth article on building rolling stock based on the SP prototype.

That's one data point that they may not totally be dumbing down the magazine.

[IRONROOSTER]

I love this assumption that every old timer in the hobby wants kits and it's only because the hobby store owner holds a gun to his head that he buys RTR.

If you want a layout and your time is limited you may not be able to do everything from kits. I personally enjoy building kits and scratch/parts building, but 80% of the cars on my layout are RTR. Why? the answer is time. My first desire is to have a layout and RTR enables me to do that. Given the popularity of RTR I must not be alone. As the layout gets to completion I expect I will return to more kit building and scratch/parts building but for me now it's RTR. I have been in the hobby 33 years and I think the current times are great.
Enjoy
Paul

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

I love this assumption that every old timer in the hobby wants kits and it's only because the hobby store owner holds a gun to his head that he buys RTR.

If you want a layout and your time is limited you may not be able to do everything from kits. I personally enjoy building kits and scratch/parts building, but 80% of the cars on my layout are RTR. Why? the answer is time. My first desire is to have a layout and RTR enables me to do that. Given the popularity of RTR I must not be alone. As the layout gets to completion I expect I will return to more kit building and scratch/parts building but for me now it's RTR. I have been in the hobby 33 years and I think the current times are great.
Enjoy
Paul

Paul, and no offense meant here, this is a baseless argument that I see repeated endlessly. Building rolling stock and building a layout are really mutually exclusive aspects of the hobby. No where is it written that one must build or acquire a large stable of rolling stock at the same time he is building his layout. Whether you like kits or RTR should be irrelevant to this. It's been my experience, and I've been in the hobby for decades too, that most of those I encounter who "claim" they don't have time to build kits (rolling stock, structure, bridges, et al.) and thus must have RTR, don't work on their layouts any more than if they were building kits.

As to the LHS owner not holding a gun to our heads and forcing my friends and I to buy RTR, you're right, he's not...and we simply aren't buying any RTR at all. We have him order kits for us!

CNJ831

[jfugate]

Paul:

I agree 100% ... if you have a larger layout, you want to save time with RTR if at all possible.

I enjoy scratchbuilding and serious kitbashing as much as the next guy, but to get a larger layout done in a single lifetime, saving time is essential.

On a related note, that's what's always amused me about MAINLINE MODELER. The implication in the magazine title is you want to model bigtime railroading. But then the magazine is *filled* with ambitious scratchbuilding and kitbashing projects! You can't have a layout of any serious size that models a bigtime mainline railroad and scratchbuild everything unless you are a full time modeler -- and even then it's an ambitious goal!

[Anonymous]

Back in the sixties ,when I was a kid, I bought MR every month to see what the better modelers did (Allen,etc), to get ideas from my own basic attempts at modeling.The editors were modelers too.Now they put something out and rush off to play golf or something,There is no sincerity in the magazine,it's cold like todays toys,video games,et al.

[jfugate]

I believe most of MR's editors are modelers too, even today.

What is different is for today's staff it's mostly a job, and they are modelers because it augments their job skills. At least that's how it seems. The passion for modeling, job or not, just isn't there very much in today's magazine.

The material's still good, but I miss the passion from the old days, which made every issue of MR outstanding. It's an intangible that's hard to simply manufacture -- model railroading needs to be your first love deep down, regardless of whether or not you happen to be working for MR.

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I just had MR contact me soliciting an in-depth article on building rolling stock based on the SP prototype.

That's one data point that they may not totally be dumbing down the magazine.

Do it!!!!!!! I've enjoyed looking at the pics of your work and would love to see an article by you. Even though I don't model SP I'm sure it will include info that I can incorporate in my own efforts.

I also agree with your assemssment about the passion for modeling seems not to be there anymore. It seemed that when I read a Odegard, Hediger or Curren article there was some excitement. Something was being done that would make their layout or modeling skills better. In reading their articles I used to think "what a great job they have - it allows them to do Model Railroading and get paid!" Now it's pretty much "what a great hobby they have that allows them to do their job better." It's more than just a play on words its an outlook on the hobby. Gordy, Jim and Art (and I'm sure Lynn also) were folks that if they ever visited my layout for an article I could imagine spending time with just talking trains. I don't get that feel now. Like you said, the current staff seems to be magazine editors first and model rails second. (I will make exceptions for Tony and Lionel - but they are not full timers at MRR) This is reflected in the descriptions that are posted when a position becomes open.

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gbailey


3. Eliminate other scales than HO and N - they have their own mags.

Quite right: we do. That's one reason why I'm one of the lost-MR-reader statisitcs. Since MR gave me nothing in my scale, I went elsewhere. Incidentally, elsewhere I find many of the kinds of articles whose loss in MR is being much lamented in this thread. OST, for example, runs regular series on scratch-building steam locos in O scale. . . . Even if I am unequipped and insuficiently experienced to go that whole route, I find a wealth of detailing info in such articles.

That said, I *do* subscribe to another Kalmbach magazine: CTT. And I have written for and been published therein. It, too, has seen a shift in emphasis over the last five years or more, from collecting to operating and from tinplate to hi-rail. This trend, too, is being pushed by both the readers and the editorial staff. While the market may be static in size, the demographics, they are achangin'!

[rrinker]

I don't know why peopel think MR offers nothing "in their scale". Wiring, signalling, DCC, Scenery is all pretty much scale-independent. And MR started LONG LONG ago to publish plans with ACTUAL dimensions on them, rather than giving you the actual dimensions needed to build the car, loco, or structure in a particular scale. So what if the author built his example in HO and you're in O? A 50' car is 50 scale feet long in Z or G, it doesn't matter. Curious over a 50+ year collection of MR, the very same complaint keeps popping up. Just the scale beign complaied abotu changes. [:D]

--Randy

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

...

In any event - I love MR and enjoy reading all the articles (and I enjoy looking over all the ads to). Are there things I wi***hey would delete, concentrate on, bring back etc? Yup - but then I'm sure there is a reader who has the exact opposite opinion as I do.

[#ditto] MR is my favorite magazine. I read and enjoy it all, even if I do think Tony K. is a little over the top now and again. I'd love to see the Bull Session come back.

Enjoy
Paul

[#ditto][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^]

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

I don't know why peopel think MR offers nothing "in their scale". Wiring, signalling, DCC, Scenery is all pretty much scale-independent.

Not true; none of those issues is independent of scale. Control systems, wiring needs, and signalling especially are a great deal more various in O, where many more options exist than in the smaller scales.

Your point about plans is well taken, but MR rarely reviews O scale releases, and their advertisements are almost exclusively focused on HO and N. That's why I appreciate OST: the ads are all useful, and the reviews are relevant.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's not the magazine,but us.Maybe in this age of information,super detailed everything,we just want more.Model railroaders run from prototype modelers down to the people who just like to run trains,not giving a lot of thouht to specifics.Guys who operate on schedules to those who want to see trains go round.The magazine can't possibly connect to us all.I would like to see more passion from that staff and a little less bottom line.I personally mess the end of the line on the last page,it sort of gave you that final inspiration......

[Marc_Magnus]

For the newcomer on this topic, I just resume you the 5 pages of opinion:

We all agree in general that MR give a too simple image of model railroading and I feel that a lot of the old editorial which have dissappear since a few years are missing by a lot of us.

Many opinions say they need to read other magazines to find scratchbuilding projects.

But all of us say that's MR is still and far the best magazine avaible.


I hope to read more of your opinions.

Thanks a lot for your reading.

[Marc_Magnus]

I

[Marc_Magnus]

It seems my topic didn't excite a lot of them.

I beleive we nned a lot of opinion to see may be a change ....

[Bergie]

Let's move on. [Topic locked]