Modeling Railroads of the 1950s Special MR editon

[potlatcher]

One thing I found interesting about the issue was the article on the last page by *** Christianson - the Managing Editor of Model Railroader. He explains that the reason he is so interested in the railroads of the 1950's is because of his own memories of that decade. He sums up his essay by stating that he found the trains of the time to be "swell". Then he says, "And, in my case - and probably yours - because of the memories, they still are."

There has been some discussion in this forum whether the model railroad industry is focusing most of its promotional and manufacturing efforts at the baby boomers, and failing to encourage the hobby among younger generations. Mr. Christianson's statement might indicate that he has fallen into the trap of assuming the only reason someone would read about the railroads of the '50's would be to relive their own youth.

I was born 20 years too late to truly experience the 1950's, but I still model that era - to recreate something interesting that I missed out on. I'm sure there are others like me, and we hope that those who lived through the '50's will be willing to share their experiences with those who did not.

In that regard, I felt the rest of the issue was directed at the broader audience - showing how to model the 1950's whether you were there or not. I would have enjoyed more detail in the articles, but all together the magazine was a good read.

Still, I found ***'s last comment to be a little curious.

Tom

[rrinker]

Yet at the beginning, Tony Koester makes the point that the pool of available railroad employees from the 50's that you can talk to and gain first-hand information from is rapidly dwindling as those people age. I would say that is more directed towards people who are too young to have directly experienced the 50's yet want to model that period. Hmmm...

I have just about read it all now (I saved the passenger articles for last, since it's my least favorite aspect), and one thing I noticed is that the articles seem to just 'end' rather abruptly - influence of my wife being a teacher and reading over the essays she has her class write for practice. They all seem to just suddenly drop into a one or two sentence paragraph that is supposed to be a conclusion of some sort. It makes me believe this is editorial, as I don't think ALL these people write like that. Ayone else notice that?

A good thing though is that this isn't simply a rehash of existing Model Railroader article like some other recent publications. There's a little rehash in the John Pryke weathering article, but it's not simply a reprint of the original MR article, either.

--Randy

[potlatcher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

They all seem to just suddenly drop into a one or two sentence paragraph that is supposed to be a conclusion of some sort. It makes me believe this is editorial, as I don't think ALL these people write like that. Ayone else notice that?

I notice that every month in MR. There's probably more content in the submitted articles than there is room in the ever-shrinking number of pages available for articles.

Tom

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

There also seems to be a suggested trend in the posts above. I suspect many who are giving rave reviews to the publication were born after the 1950's, while those who personally experienced that time are rather less enthusiastic.

CNJ,

I missed the 50's and thus have no memory of what things were like back then. This is perhaps why I found this publication very informative and helpful (orange groves outside of LA? who would have thunk that?). I think coming out with a single magazine size book "Railroads of the 50's" is an exercise in deciding what to include. Even if the time were to be condensed to one year, many many things would have to be left out. Given that, I enjoyed the read and the pics as it did provide me lots of information of a time period that I have no first hand knowledge about. In thinking over your comment, I think you hit the nail square on the head. I would probably be somewhat disappointed about a special issue concerning the late 70's early 80's period in that I would immediately say "hey - how could they leave [fill in the blank] out?"

If anything - this issue has sparked my interest in many things that I never thought about before and now want to learn more about. While many will disagree with me, for me researching how and why things were the way they were is one of my favorite aspects of this hobby.

Dave

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly
CNJ,

I missed the 50's and thus have no memory of what things were like back then. This is perhaps why I found this publication very informative and helpful (orange groves outside of LA? who would have thunk that?). ........
Dave

Dave,

Sourthern California was a lot more rural in the 50's than it is now. To give you some idea of the population growth, there are now as many people in LA County alone as there were in the entire state of California in 1950. There was actually countryside between the small towns. We moved from Denver to Southern California in early 1952 and even though I was only a little 5 year old squirt then, I remember miles and and miles of orange groves between San Bernardino and Pomona, where an uncle taught at Cal Poly. Unfortunatey, that land became more valuable for housing developments than for growing oranges. The same thing happened in the Santa Clara Valley with respect to all the plum, peach and apricot orchards there.

I'm kinda thankful that I got to see it before (in the words of the song) "they paved paradise and put in a parking lot".

Andre

[leighant]

I guess I have become so specialized in my modeling that I found the Modeling Railroads of the 1950s Special MR editon that it seemed kind of generic. It was merely specialized in general instead of being specialized-squared whe\ich is I guess where I've ended up.

I have gotten too used to squirreling away and filing articles like 6 or 8 pages on 50 foot PS-1 boxcars of the 1950s, with photos of top, sides, ends and underbodies and maybe a contruction pix, and at least a dozen photos of the cars on different railroads, and a roster of who bought them and their car numbers and reporting marks at the time. That might be more than some people want to know. But that is what I like to see.

Actually, maybe 25% of the content of Modeling Railroads of the 1950s Special MR editon was what I consider the good "hard stuff", although you may have had to look for it. Another 25-40% was interesting, just not in the "hard stuff" way.
After concentrating on collecting and cataloguing specific 1950s railroad and industrial material for 25 years, I have gotten to where I reacted to a fair amount of the content the way any long time "serious" modeler reacts to a cousin who knows he likes train and gives him a Christmas present of whatever the year's current coffee table book is, on "everything about trains all over the world",
which appears indistinguishable from 50 other "everything about trains all over the world" coffee-table books seen over the years.

The most immediately inspiring thing in the publication for me was the aerial view on p.44 of the sprawling team track facility in Chicago. I recently did a study of tracks around the passenger Union Station area in Houston
( http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/afj.jpg ) and noticed rows and rows of parallel team tracks. They covered several blocks (not shown on my schematic) just south of the REA building on my plan.
When I grew up in Houston, there was a two or three car team track in my neighborhood, and I have seen other small neighborhood team tracks like that in other towns where a team track is comparable to another industry, one which might have a handful of customers and can either be unmodeled, suggested on the background or modeled in a space where an immediately-adjacent spur is not easily fit-in-able. But this large team track facility gives me the idea of a destination of a large proportion of the cars from a terminating train. And it is something I can fit into the plan I am working on now, where I cannot fit in the 8 to 20 customers it can represent,

So thank you, Modeling Railroads of the 1950s. I am hard to please, but I found something to be pleased about.

[ereimer]

i don't model the 50's but this discussion got me interested in having a look at the book/magazine , so i stopped by a book store today to have a look at it . seems pretty interesting if you didn't know much about that time , but i suspect most model railroaders who model the 50's already know much more than is in (or could possibly be ) in this book . not that this is bad , just that it's for a specific market that may not include anyone who is already modelling that era .

and the 'model an orange grove' article ??? maybe that was a technique used in the 50's , but i think most modellers would want something more realistic on todays layouts

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer

i don't model the 50's but this discussion got me interested in having a look at the book/magazine , so i stopped by a book store today to have a look at it . seems pretty interesting if you didn't know much about that time , but i suspect most model railroaders who model the 50's already know much more than is in (or could possibly be ) in this book . not that this is bad , just that it's for a specific market that may not include anyone who is already modelling that era .

and the 'model an orange grove' article ??? maybe that was a technique used in the 50's , but i think most modellers would want something more realistic on todays layouts

Ever seen a grove or orange trees?

That's actually the best way to model them since orange trees resemble big balls.

Here's a picture of some "prototype" orange trees in Florida:



Look an awful lot like Smaus's orange trees to me.

Andre

[Piedsou]

Another problem I had with the orange grove article was that it was too specific to an area and too non specific to the 1950's. You can model orange trees for any decade, the 30's, 40's, 50's etc. so why take up valuable space in the magazine that could have been used for better info. Also, probably less than 1 % of the modelers would have a need for an orange grove on their pike.

Something I think people would have found more interesting would have been how grain was transported then. Now you have huge 100+ ton covered hoppers to transport grain products. You see them on railroads all over the country. What did they use in the 50's?

I would have liked some generic color photos of streets, business districts, small town stations and the like. As I said in an earlier post, I have seen many color photos in Trains Classics which would have provided much information and modeling ideas. Not the standard 3/4 roster shot, but as an example,one including a small town station with the baggage carts, lamp posts, signs, cars, people and the trains and track.

[West Coast S]

The hobby cannot be all things to all people. If the subject of modeling orange groves is causing undo stress to your life, just don't buy the issue....

Dave

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Piedsou

Another problem I had with the orange grove article was that it was too specific to an area and too non specific to the 1950's. You can model orange trees for any decade, the 30's, 40's, 50's etc. so why take up valuable space in the magazine that could have been used for better info. Also, probably less than 1 % of the modelers would have a need for an orange grove on their pike.

Something I think people would have found more interesting would have been how grain was transported then. Now you have huge 100+ ton covered hoppers to transport grain products. You see them on railroads all over the country. What did they use in the 50's?

I would have liked some generic color photos of streets, business districts, small town stations and the like. As I said in an earlier post, I have seen many color photos in Trains Classics which would have provided much information and modeling ideas. Not the standard 3/4 roster shot, but as an example,one including a small town station with the baggage carts, lamp posts, signs, cars, people and the trains and track.

Publications like MR depend on the material that's offered to them since most articles are written not by employees but contributors. They published what they thought was best out of what they were offered. There wasn't that much variety in the authors, with some writing multiple articles.

As for the complaint about orange groves, would you have been satisfied by fall grain rushes in the Midwest, potato traffic in Maine or apple traffic in Washington, all of which is rather specific?

Grain was generally hauled in boxcars up until about the 60's. Plywood "walls" were nailed inside the door openings so the grain wouldn't spill out when the door was open.

I used to listen to a radio station whose motto was "if you don't like the news, go out and make some yourself". By the same token, if you don't like what's in MR (or MRP or GMR, etc.) write some of your own articles.

Andre

[Piedsou]

QUOTE: Originally posted by West Coast S

The hobby cannot be all things to all people. If the subject of modeling orange groves is causing undo stress to your life, just don't buy the issue....

Dave

Believe me, I have just about every magazine Kalmbach has published since the 1950's and still have them all. I never sit down and read them first before buying, but purchase them sight unseen. I have contributed to Model Railroader and have had the material published. I treasure all of my MR's, Trains, Model Trains, Rail Classics, etc., that's why I still have them all,

BUT....

I also see no reason why a person cannot, in good faith, critique a magazine. Hundreds of people are employed as art critics, movie critics, sports critics and the like, though they never have made a movie, painted a picture or played a sport. People constantly criticize new locomotives or rolling stock on the market for wrong paint schemes, numbers, etc. even MR does it at times in their Product Reviews. This is no indictment of the individual authors, who have done a great job I'm sure, but just a critique of Kambach's article selection and layout. So, just to have something to talk about, why can't we critique the magazine?

I'm OK with the 'Moving Citrus to market' article. I know that all traffic scenarios couldn't be included in one magazine. I just think the extra article on modeling the citrus groves was space that could have been used for more photos of the 50's scenes. I know the hobby can't be everything to everyone, but I think a magazine about the 1950's could be targeted toward a wider audience then that specific article was. I know Kalmbach must have thousands of slides taken during the 50's that they could have included in a section for want of a better name,' Trackside photos of the 50's.' They wouldn't need any 'authors' for that.

I certainly didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings with my comments. I apologize if I have.
It just seems as though some people have taken it personally when I and others didn't find the magazine totally meeting our expectations.



Dale Latham
www.railimages.com/gallery/dalelatham

[rrinker]

Oh yes, one other thing I noticed. And I can't believe I didn't mention it before - it's my biggest peeve with ALL layout plans presented in MR in the past few years. This has to do with the John Armstrong plan in the special issue. According to the stats, the squares are 1 foot. This makes many of the aisles 2 feet wide or slightly over. Now, those people they stick in there (which are digitized from actual MR employees - see if you can pick out your favorites!) are supposed to be scaled the same as the drawing. But every single one of them fits int he 2-foot wide space with room to spare! Now I KNOW not everyone on the MR staff is as thin as David Popp, and I personally am large but not huge, and 2 feet is an AWFULLY narrow space, at least when I mock it up by setting up some cardboard boxes and spacing them 2 feet apart. So which one is off, is the layout actually bigger than the listed dimensions, or are the people drawn undersized to make it look better?

--Randy

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

Publications like MR depend on the material that's offered to them since most articles are written not by employees but contributors. They published what they thought was best out of what they were offered. There wasn't that much variety in the authors, with some writing multiple articles.

Untrue, Andre! I wrote for one of Kalmbach's major competitors for many years and was on a number of occasions requested to write a specific type of article for a special, one time publication. Big magazines, hobby and otherwise, commission writers to do so all the time. The is no reason to draw only from pre-submitted material to compile a special issue of a magazine.

CNJ831

[ereimer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer

i don't model the 50's but this discussion got me interested in having a look at the book/magazine , so i stopped by a book store today to have a look at it . seems pretty interesting if you didn't know much about that time , but i suspect most model railroaders who model the 50's already know much more than is in (or could possibly be ) in this book . not that this is bad , just that it's for a specific market that may not include anyone who is already modelling that era .

and the 'model an orange grove' article ??? maybe that was a technique used in the 50's , but i think most modellers would want something more realistic on todays layouts

Ever seen a grove or orange trees?

That's actually the best way to model them since orange trees resemble big balls.

Here's a picture of some "prototype" orange trees in Florida:



Look an awful lot like Smaus's orange trees to me.

Andre

EDIT : somehow my response got lost . i'll try again

you're absolutely right . i stand corrected . smaus's orange grove does look pretty realistic compared to that photo . i was basing my comment on the only orange trees i had seen , which were in phoenix arizona and were much taller , normal tree shapes . i presume because they weren't bred / trimmed to make it easy to pick the fruit

i also recall the oranges were green throughout most of their growing season , although that might also have been due to the variety of tree i saw

[ereimer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by West Coast S

The hobby cannot be all things to all people. If the subject of modeling orange groves is causing undo stress to your life, just don't buy the issue....

Dave

hehe it didn't cause me any stress , and i didn't buy the issue . but it wasn't because of that article , it's because i don't model the 50's . if i did i would have bought the issue as the rest of the articles looked interesting

[jddav1]

I got mine around Aug 24 it's great

Jeff

[davekelly]

Perhaps we should start a thread "What We'd Like to See in Volume 2"?

[selector]

Sure, Dave, why not? If we have any say, from the editors' points of view, and if they want to ensure that the next one meets the needs and interests of a healthy sample of modelers, we should discuss this.

Care to start us off...[:P]

[davekelly]

Crandell,

Sure!

How 'bout . . . .

Electricfied commuter operations in NYC and Philly
Carfloat operations
REA Express operations
Beginnings of TOFC

Anyone care to add?

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

Crandell,

Sure!

How 'bout . . . .

Electricfied commuter operations in NYC and Philly
Carfloat operations
REA Express operations
Beginnings of TOFC

Anyone care to add?

Last years of steam helper operations over Tehachapi.

Steam/diesel transition on SP's Cuesta grade.

SP's Monterey branch operation during the final years of steam, with particular emphasis on the "Del Monte".

Salinas Valley lettuce rush.

Steam/diesel transition on Northwestern Pacific.

Last of steam on SP's Tillamook branch in Oregon.

Ditto - Coos Bay Branch

Perishable operations in general.

Pacific Northwest lumber traffic to California as well as points East.

Bangor & Aroostook/Maine Central operations during potato season.

Maine Central Mountain Division operations Portland, ME to St. Johnbury, VT.

Maine Central freight and passenger operation on the Rockland Branch.

B&M/CP/MEC/StJ&LC Operations at St. Johnsbury, VT in the very early 50's.

GM&O "Doodlebug" line during final years of steam.

NYC Passenger operations to Lake Placid, NY (Trains did this years ago - "Pacifics To Lake Placid" or something like that, how about an updated reprint complete with station trackage diagrams?).

Something along the lines of "A Day In The Life Of LAUPT (Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal)" around 1950.

Andre