Perhaps the line of action to acheive the desired results would be to contact the mag's staff directly. Maybe they are working under the assumption that what they have been doing recently is what we as subscribers desire.
Well, I think it's been stated that MR relies heavily on submitted content to achieve a certain level of variety. If you don't submit material, don't expect them to call you asking to come over with the Rolly-Flex and the Smith Corona.
When they don't get material from the field, we get another heaping helping of Lou Sassi, Paul Dolkos and David Popp. (Not that that's a bad thing...)
Regarding the quality of the work shown, I think it's appropriate to showcase the best of the best. You don't pick up Motor Trend to read about some guy's half-baked re-hab of a 78 Nova. The idea is to present the best work out there, then instruct you how to achieve the same results.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Actually I would be quite surprised if this thread gets deleted. MR seems to be able to take constructive critisism as long as it's presented in a reasonable fashion as I think you have done here. I too would like to see more "home spun" model railroads featured...however, with that said I also appreciate seeing Rod Stewarts incredible layout.
As ,long as our disscussions remain somewhat on topic, do not degenerate into hate mongering and contain no personal attacks or advertising we seem to be, for the most part, left alone.
As mentioned, the best way to voice our opinions about the magazine would be to contact the magazine itself. Maybe a letter to the editor? One might even get published if the contents of the letter are relevant and well presented.
I didn't expect to have any responces...
1) I wouldn't expect to see a '78 Nova rebuild in Motor Trend...maybe Hot Rod...it's item specific. This hobby is about model railroading and it's not all museum quality work, but the work of people from all walks of life.
2) It looks like it's a 50/50 split on thoughts about the content each month...to each his own..no ill will intended. It was just my thoughts on the subject. There was a writeup of a gentleman years ago who had a small rollout N-Gauge in his coat closet. It was obvious he lived in a one bedroom apartment and his answer to his modeling was inovative...things like that are interesting to me and I would think that there would be others who would feel the same.
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
Perhaps the editors would consider a new section/feature, a couple three pages, highlighting a different "average modeler" layout, finished or not, each month.
Of course MR couldn't afford, nor do they have the time to get professional photos of each such layout, so they would need to get and use "photos by author". As mentioned before, not all modelers are photographers and such photos can be pretty "rough around the edges" and would not be up to MR's normal High standards.
SO! Would we, as readers, like such a section? Could we look at it and take it for what it is? The earnest attempts, raw and unfinished, of new or average modelers who like to run trains? Can we be polite and gracious with our comments? Or would we nit pick and complain about the picture composition, depth of field, angle, type of camera used, lack of scenery, misplaced or un-prototypical industries, etc, etc. (I've seen all of this on forums)
More importantly, are we modelers prepared to support such an endeavor with a constant stream of pictures? Warts and all? The editors would need enough material for articles months, if not a whole year in advance. Would you help another modeler by taking pictures if they couldn't?
I guess I'm saying it would be nice but I'm not sure such an idea is supportable, or desired.
Tilden
The photo essays on gorgeous layouts are inspirational to me. I look at the beautifully lit and composed photos and start thinking about bringing my humble layout up to the standards set by MR.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
Hi,
We (readers of MR mags) are of all levels of expertise, experience, knowledge, and accomplishments. As a "mid-level" modeler, I prefer to see "mid-level" articles and layouts. But the mags cannot ignore the beginners, nor can they ignore the "high-level" modelers. Frankly, it must be very difficult to put together a mag that would attract buyers from all levels.
Having said that, I find that I really appreciate the layouts of individuals or clubs, as opposed to someone showing off the layout that they "bought".
Said another way, and in conjunction with the auto example mentioned earlier, I would much rather see and hear about how an individual(s) built/customized/restored their older car or truck, than to read about someone's mega dollar exotic that they bought.
Hey, that's just my opinion - and of course we all have them...........
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Hey, fellas! My compliments to all of you! What a wonderful discussion. Truly.
I can see something in all positions here. I wouldn't mind it if MR did an experiment towards the summer or early fall and included maybe two issues back-to-back with average guys/gals who were developing something and what their worries, problems, and challenges were. It would put it into perspective for all of us...I would think.
Maybe it should only be one special issue a year, or one of the montly editions, devoted to newbies and average modellers so that we could enjoy stories of personal growth that weren't looking back on 30+ years worth of five or six large layouts.
Also, as mentioned by Lee, MR can't print what they don't get submitted to them. I am unsure they would look seriously at my own offering, , but maybe they would consider catering to the trials and tribulations of the more modest among us...once in a while.
-Crandell
The beginner is very well served in MR both through "Project Layout" article series, as well as product reviews and announcements, Step By Step features, and a variety of other resources.
I believe it would be a disservice to lower the standards of the feature layout articles. I wouldn't buy it, as has been said, $6 is a high price to pay to look at mediocrity. They'd have to change the tag line to read "Dream It, Plan It, Whatever, Publish it Anyway."
No, MR is the general interest flagship of the hobby. It would serve absolutely no purpose to make the Average Joe Plywood Plains a highlight. I agree that this forum and others are excellent venues for the type of layouts you are talking about. Think of it as the old Vaudeville circuit... it's an opportunity to show your work, get immediate feedback, refine your skills, and work on your "act" before going for the big time on Broadway.
I don't think too many people submit layout articles to MR until they fell they have reached some level of completeness and detail. And I see no reason for MR to not use the best ones they get.
But I also suspect they are having trouble getting articles from new authors. I think that's the reason behind the layout contests they have had. And currently they are running a contest for articles on just doing a single scene. Looks to me like MR is really trying to get some new folks writing for them.
Enjoy
Paul
Way, Way and perhaps not so way back - people were building layouts on shoestring budgets and innovation and a thought process was required to acheive realism. Specifiacally, ditch the RTR buildings -and get back to building it yourself from scratch or a kit.
A return to the basics is always good. Old techniques can be new again - if infused with New Technology.
I too would like to see more "guy/girl next door layouts". It's their progress as modellers that would interest me most. The 'masters' we revere nowadays probably botched a few early buildings with too much glue or a paint smudge on a locomotive. It's a talent you hone and are not born with.
You can bet that Walther's doesn't spend alot on advertising - MR does it all for them.
Have Fun.... Bob.
Good conversation about the magazine and its content. I like the articles, and almost always learn something, or come away with new ideas from them.One thing might be a feature page or two of pics from the weekend photo fun on this forum. I see some great work every weekend here. Any thoughts or ideas on that?
Good conversation about the magazine and its content. I like the articles, and almost always learn something, or come away with new ideas from them.
One thing might be a feature page or two of pics from the weekend photo fun on this forum. I see some great work every weekend here.
Any thoughts or ideas on that?
selector wrote:Hey, fellas! My compliments to all of you! What a wonderful discussion. Truly.
I agree...and thank you Crandell. Hopefully, it won't get yanked
selector wrote: Maybe it should only be one special issue a year, or one of the montly editions, devoted to newbies and average modellers so that we could enjoy stories of personal growth that weren't looking back on 30+ years worth of five or six large layouts.
I think that's a great idea...one that I'm going to suggest in my letter to MR. If other mags can do it i.e. Penthouse (sorry but it came to mind first...girl next door kinda thing) , why not MR?
selector wrote:Maybe it should only be one special issue a year, or one of the montly editions, devoted to newbies and average modellers so that we could enjoy stories of personal growth that weren't looking back on 30+ years worth of five or six large layouts.Also, as mentioned by Lee, MR can't print what they don't get submitted to them. I am unsure they would look seriously at my own offering, , but maybe they would consider catering to the trials and tribulations of the more modest among us...once in a while.-Crandell
That seems reasonable to me. I can see where having a regular feature would be difficult if not impossible to acheive.
Personally I don't buy MR JUST to see the full blown feature layouts. Being a subscriber I don't have to pay $6 per issue either. It works out to about $4.50 each. I think I would still keep subscribing even if the magazine began featuring more modest layouts every now and then. I don't think the O.P. was suggesting that the magazine should only feature smaller layouts but I could be mistaken. Featuring bare bones begginers layouts in the magazine is probably not a great idea though. If I want to see one of those I can just go downstairs...
OKrlroads wrote:Good conversation about the magazine and its content. I like the articles, and almost always learn something, or come away with new ideas from them.One thing might be a feature page or two of pics from the weekend photo fun on this forum. I see some great work every weekend here. Any thoughts or ideas on that?
Isn't that what Trackside Photos is supposed to be?
Why not publish photos of your own layout - on a website. There are many free sites where you can make your own, then share it with forum members.
As has been mentioned, MR only wants the best of the best. They often commission photographers to go and photograph layouts and I'm sure they won't commit themselves until they have proof that the layout is worthy.
I've done a few layout articles, and I've been really selective too. No use spending time and my money on photographing something that won't have a broad appeal. While in another city on business, I spent some of my free time photographing a few area layouts for submissions to magazines.
At one modelers' home another was telling me of his layout, and that it too might be suitable. He told me of scratchbuilt structures, completed scenery, operating signal system, etc. It sounded great and the others who were there agreed. So I made arrangements to visit him on my next visit.
It was a total waste of time and money. The "scratchbuilt structures" were semi decent, but were mostly made from unpainted and unweatered white styrene; the scenery was mostly complete, but there was a large bare plywood section in the middle that I had a hard time photographing around; the signal system was OK, but was hard to photograph to make it interesting.
He had commercial printed backgrounds around on the walls, fastened on with wrinkled clear tape at the joints and on the top; it all reflected in my photo lights. Worst of all was his rolling stock, all like new and shiny, really toy-like. I did take photos while I was there because I had commited myself to do so. But the color slides stayed in their small boxes after I had them processed. I vowed never to inquire about photographing a layout without first seeing it in person.
Haw many of you have layouts with some of these "features? Publish them yourselves online!
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
A website gets shown to the handful of people you put the link out to. The idea here, i think is to share with the vast numbers of readers that don't come by the MR forum. I would have no problem of photong my own layout and sending it in (if I had one yet...) I disagree with the "best of the best" idea, because eventually you run out of "best"s to display. And the majority of readers aren't all that capapble of detailing the way some of the masters can.
Me just said
Maybe I missed this part of the dissscussion, but if there's already 2 or 3 layouts to an issue, why not devoting a smaller slot to us the underbudgeted. the rules are "send in a few of your own pictures, and an X number of words article, we'll work through them, and possibly publish it".(I'm sure you could find some willing volunteers to help with this. Wink Wink) I'd be happy with a page or two. This way, we can still get the master's view of what can be done to truly astound. But also the fun flavor of what's going around, as well as what other people have learned and done with the "master's" technique. Surprisingly, one can do a fair bit with a "stock" building with brick paints, and interiors.
EDIT: Tilden mentioned it already.
Tilden wrote: Perhaps the editors would consider a new section/feature, a couple three pages, highlighting a different "average modeler" layout, finished or not, each month. Of course MR couldn't afford, nor do they have the time to get professional photos of each such layout, so they would need to get and use "photos by author". As mentioned before, not all modelers are photographers and such photos can be pretty "rough around the edges" and would not be up to MR's normal High standards.SO! Would we, as readers, like such a section? Could we look at it and take it for what it is? The earnest attempts, raw and unfinished, of new or average modelers who like to run trains? Can we be polite and gracious with our comments? Or would we nit pick and complain about the picture composition, depth of field, angle, type of camera used, lack of scenery, misplaced or un-prototypical industries, etc, etc. (I've seen all of this on forums)More importantly, are we modelers prepared to support such an endeavor with a constant stream of pictures? Warts and all? The editors would need enough material for articles months, if not a whole year in advance. Would you help another modeler by taking pictures if they couldn't?I guess I'm saying it would be nice but I'm not sure such an idea is supportable, or desired.Tilden
In answer: yes. I'd like that section
I'd help them if I could.
I suspect a few people would whine about the pictures being choppy. but we have ways of fixing that. It's called Duct Tape, a rock, and a riverbed. If they aren't gonna be responsible enough to let us have our chance to shine, they're a bad mark on our name and don't really deserve to have a place amongst a fun hobby.
It might take us a while to get to a constant stream of pictures. but I suspect we can get there.
And don't forget, OP style is a large requirement and not something all the layouts in MR now can do anyway.
-Morgan
1train1 wrote: Way, Way and perhaps not so way back - people were building layouts on shoestring budgets and innovation and a thought process was required to acheive realism. Specifiacally, ditch the RTR buildings -and get back to building it yourself from scratch or a kit.A return to the basics is always good. Old techniques can be new again - if infused with New Technology.I too would like to see more "guy/girl next door layouts". It's their progress as modellers that would interest me most. The 'masters' we revere nowadays probably botched a few early buildings with too much glue or a paint smudge on a locomotive. It's a talent you hone and are not born with.You can bet that Walther's doesn't spend alot on advertising - MR does it all for them.
I agree. Many of the money-saving techniques used in the past can be applied today using modern materials. There are many alternatives to using costly dedicated model railroad products, however, some people either don't have the time or an interest in building or prefer to persue other aspects of the hobby. Nothing wrong with that or RTR (that's the way I like my locos). I always try to use alternative methods and materials whenever possible instead of having to rely on some of the costly dedicated model railroading products. One of the things that attracts me to offbeat scales and gauges is the fact that they require more scratchbuilding, kitbashing, and innovation, as there aren't many products available. Model Railroader being a mainstream magazine cannot possibly cater to everybody's interests but I believe it does a good job in catering to the majority of modelers. For those of us who are not in the majority (like me), there are other magazines and resources available.
Maybe the real issue is, that fewer and fewer people feel comfortable writing genuine prose (not just photo captions) to a publishable level.
Dave Nelson
I have liked the mag since I was young. It takes on some high dollar aspects for some of the featured layouts, but thats ok with me. I enjoy the test reveiws, and new product line. Yes there are some very detailed layouts featured. I wonder at the time and effort that went into the build, and admire the work. Do I have some of those features on my layout? Or strive to get it just as good? Yes everytime i work on it. Time, money and effort play a major game in this type of work.
Yes I would like to see some average Joe layouts in MR mag, but its ok if they don't throw them out there that often. Fancy detail and layouts always sparks me to do better I guess.
dknelson wrote: Maybe the real issue is, that fewer and fewer people feel comfortable writing genuine prose (not just photo captions) to a publishable level. Dave Nelson
This is probably the easiest part of submitting to MR - they've said in the past that they cannot do much about poor photos, but can rewrite supplied text. I beleive they do in fact rewrite much of the submitted articles, that's what all of the Associate Editors do. They ensure the material is prepared in "the MR style", whatever that is!
Railphotog wrote: dknelson wrote: Maybe the real issue is, that fewer and fewer people feel comfortable writing genuine prose (not just photo captions) to a publishable level. Dave NelsonThis is probably the easiest part of submitting to MR - they've said in the past that they cannot do much about poor photos, but can rewrite supplied text. I beleive they do in fact rewrite much of the submitted articles, that's what all of the Associate Editors do. They ensure the material is prepared in "the MR style", whatever that is!
The alteration of submitted material ultimately amounted to a joke (one of many) on John Allen's G&D. Allen built a building called "Lynn's Archives". "Lynn's Archives" specialized in "Literature and altered articles", a reference to the fact that submitted material was often unreconizable to its author upon publication.
Andre
I would be in favor of seeing an "average-sized" layout so long as it is well done. However, it appears (based on the postings here) that many people think that there is a market for articles showcasing "average quality" work - there isn't.
If you can't afford the time or money to make a gym-sized layout to top quality, rather than rant here, make a module or diorama and submit that. I have seen a number of articles covering a particular industry or scene and the surrounding terrain that were quite good.
Take a look at some of the back issues of RailModel Journal if you want "average guy" layout articles. Some - not all - are embarrassing. Pikes with 90% of the track on bare plywood, dark, out-of-focus photos, junk and boxes poking out from under the bench and into the aisles, and tools and supplies on the benchwork apparently taking the place of hills and buildings. The MR features may make you think "I wish I could do things like that", while these RMJ articles make you say "Gawrsh - I know I could do better that!" I guess both are inspiring in a way . . .
KL
Kurt_Laughlin wrote: I would be in favor of seeing an "average-sized" layout so long as it is well done. However, it appears (based on the postings here) that many people think that there is a market for articles showcasing "average quality" work - there isn't.If you can't afford the time or money to make a gym-sized layout to top quality, rather than rant here, make a module or diorama and submit that. I have seen a number of articles covering a particular industry or scene and the surrounding terrain that were quite good. Take a look at some of the back issues of RailModel Journal if you want "average guy" layout articles. Some - not all - are embarrassing. Pikes with 90% of the track on bare plywood, dark, out-of-focus photos, junk and boxes poking out from under the bench and into the aisles, and tools and supplies on the benchwork apparently taking the place of hills and buildings. The MR features may make you think "I wish I could do things like that", while these RMJ articles make you say "Gawrsh - I know I could do better that!" I guess both are inspiring in a way . . .KL
Maybe the terminology is bad. We don't want "average" quality. we want more of a "good or great" (depending on your interps of the words) quality by "average" people. Quality that's good, and deserves even a small article, but just maybe not the Guiness Record type quality that some have put out.
wm3798 LeeTrackside Photos may supposed to be that, but most of the photos are shot by Lou Sassi, Paul Dolkos, Andy Sperandeo. No problem with that, I like the feature. I am talking about photos direct from the forums Weekend Photo Fun. Just from this weekend alone, pics from Brian M, Garry (Heartland Division), Jon Grant, Ray (Howmus), jktrains, Selector, and your own, would make up one or two pages. Each has at least one photo posted that would look great in the mag. Plus it would be a real kick to see your work in print.The page would not have to have a write-up on the layout or project, just the pictures and your name, with a blurb for the forum, to see more like this go to the Model Railroader web site, forums, and look for Weekend Photo Fun threads.
wm3798 Lee
Trackside Photos may supposed to be that, but most of the photos are shot by Lou Sassi, Paul Dolkos, Andy Sperandeo. No problem with that, I like the feature.
I am talking about photos direct from the forums Weekend Photo Fun. Just from this weekend alone, pics from Brian M, Garry (Heartland Division), Jon Grant, Ray (Howmus), jktrains, Selector, and your own, would make up one or two pages. Each has at least one photo posted that would look great in the mag. Plus it would be a real kick to see your work in print.
The page would not have to have a write-up on the layout or project, just the pictures and your name, with a blurb for the forum, to see more like this go to the Model Railroader web site, forums, and look for Weekend Photo Fun threads.
andrechapelon wrote:The alteration of submitted material ultimately amounted to a joke (one of many) on John Allen's G&D. Allen built a building called "Lynn's Archives". "Lynn's Archives" specialized in "Literature and altered articles", a reference to the fact that submitted material was often unreconizable to its author upon publication.
That is no doubt true, but I'm guessing that in about half the cases the submitted material was unrecognizable as English prose.
On one of my scale modeling groups fellows were talking about the great aircraft/aircraft modeling articles in the mags of yore. One guy who edited one of the mags piped in that while ol' Joe Shmoe was a great photographer and model builder, he couldn't write an English paragraph to save his life, and all of his articles for twenty-odd years were essentially ghost-written by the editor. I'm sure this was not uncommon.
Flashwave wrote: Maybe the terminology is bad. We don't want "average" quality. we want more of a "good or great" (depending on your interps of the words) quality by "average" people. Quality that's good, and deserves even a small article, but just maybe not the Guiness Record type quality that some have put out.
??? Whaddaya mean "average people", and what does that have to do with anything anyway? I wouldn't care if the RR was built by a rich guy, a poor guy, a housecat, or a potted cactus if the modeling was good.
I enjoy seeing articles that immortalize a master.
I also enjoy articles that show how the master did something. I subscribe to both the magazine and these forums to learn, not to look at other people's trains.
If you have built something remarkable, I would like to see it, and to learn how you did it.
It doesn't matter if it is huge. It can even be a small feature on your layout. If it is unique, I am interested. If it's average, I am not. If you have found a new or better way to do something, I am interested. If you have found a new construction material I am interested. If you are just a true artist of scenery construction I am interested. I am here to learn.
If others can learn from my experiences, that is good too.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
museum quality layouts are great to look at,they give me a goal to reach for even though i know i could never reach it. but do to xmas being last month, my spare million$ are spent till my income tax return shows up. i dont have a 100x200 spare room at this time untill spring cleaning, and with the whole global warming cure i found, my time isnt what it was. but maybe a avererage joe write up every now and then wouldnt be bad. they have great ideas also, due to bugets,spare time restrictions,room size. maybe some of their passion for the hobby could find its way to others who need it. model railroader is a qreat mag, and very rarely have i ever been left down by them. but there could be more wrote for the average joe, with a room bigger than a 1 wall shelf layout or a museum quality 50x85 layout, and are at a skill leval between then 4x8 table and the 50x85 that we read about so often infact almost monthly and feel overlooked. cant we all get along and share the same mag if a half finished layout or a plywood mainline makes you sick, just flip the page
truly yours
average joe
What is the mission of the magazine? I don't have a copy handy, so I don't even know if they publish their mission statement regularly, or if they even have one. But I can't imagine that it is to not hurt anyone's feelings by showing mediocrity and pretending that it's anything but.
Regarding the Trackside Photos, it is supposed to come from readers, and in at least the last issue, they have a big promotional announcement soliciting same. They also couldn't just pick up images off of this site directly, since most of them have been reduced and compressed to be on-line, so they wouldn't likely reproduce well.
What they COULD do is occasionally contact contributors here who make the effort to build and photograph nice looking layouts (or scenes, or photo dioramas, or what not) and provide them with an easy means of making a properly scaled submission.
Kurt_Laughlin wrote: Flashwave wrote: Maybe the terminology is bad. We don't want "average" quality. we want more of a "good or great" (depending on your interps of the words) quality by "average" people. Quality that's good, and deserves even a small article, but just maybe not the Guiness Record type quality that some have put out. ??? Whaddaya mean "average people", and what does that have to do with anything anyway? I wouldn't care if the RR was built by a rich guy, a poor guy, a housecat, or a potted cactus if the modeling was good. KL
Now THAT would be interesting!
Maybe a feature called "The Pike Next Door", MR would drum out offers of folks to have their model railroad featured in however finished state, talk about their construction and so on.
Hey Loathar, I'll go post up the O27 streetcar line I had as a kid, running from room to room on the floor with the Lionel bumper streetcars ....8-D
This is what trackside photos is about tho, submitted stuff from readers.
I didn't mean that as an insult, I meant normal person as opposed to felix moneybags.
dinwitty wrote: This is what trackside photos is about tho, submitted stuff from readers.
That's what Trackside Photos was for decades. These days it seems to be an outlet for commissioned photographers such as Lou Sassi and others. I think there were three of his photos in the current issue. Other times they are promotional photos for the specials that MR puts out such as their annuals. They also used to place non winning photos left over from the annual photo contest, pehaps that is where the few that appear come from.
Railphotog wrote: dinwitty wrote: This is what trackside photos is about tho, submitted stuff from readers.That's what Trackside Photos was for decades. These days it seems to be an outlet for commissioned photographers such as Lou Sassi and others. I think there were three of his photos in the current issue. Other times they are promotional photos for the specials that MR puts out such as their annuals. They also used to place non winning photos left over from the annual photo contest, pehaps that is where the few that appear come from.
From one of the "elders" here, and of the hobby in general, I think this is an important statement. I can't judge whether it should be counted as merely an observation or an opening for some dialogue (meaning I don't want to say one way or another...I invite some comment and feedback on Bob's behalf, if I may). Maybe this is a place where those of us who want more "Joe Average" content need to be submitting material?
What is your own feeling on the subject, Bob, if I can call on you to help us out?
luvadj - I checked out your website, and I think your rolling-cart benchwork itself might garnish some interest. When you do get to a stage of completion, submit an article. All they can say is "no". But, maybe they won't.
And for the rest of you, keep posting those pictures on your WPF. You never know who will be watching...
luvadj wrote: I'm catching up on my Febuary MR and it got me thinking about their content of late. I mean, a few years back, anyone's layout would be featured..Mr Joe Jones's small layout could be viewed on their pages and not just someone's polished and unbelievably detailed empire. It almost makes me feel that whatever effort my family and I put into our layout will never be as good as the guy who gets a writeup in MR.Now I know that what we accomplish is not in vain and is a joint effort; one that we are proud of. But I for one would like to see more of the average guy's efforts grace their pages instead of someone's magnificence. That kind of work mostly results from spending all their free time at it and most of us work and don't have that amount of time, degree of talent or amount of money ( 5 MRC #1501's on a shelf layout..must be nice to put out $100.00 for convience ) to achieve those kind of results. Sorry for the rant, but it just struck me as they use to showcase a broader spectrum of modeling..is it too much trouble or is advertising more important? I'd pay more for the magazine if they offered more....
I'm catching up on my Febuary MR and it got me thinking about their content of late. I mean, a few years back, anyone's layout would be featured..Mr Joe Jones's small layout could be viewed on their pages and not just someone's polished and unbelievably detailed empire. It almost makes me feel that whatever effort my family and I put into our layout will never be as good as the guy who gets a writeup in MR.
Now I know that what we accomplish is not in vain and is a joint effort; one that we are proud of. But I for one would like to see more of the average guy's efforts grace their pages instead of someone's magnificence. That kind of work mostly results from spending all their free time at it and most of us work and don't have that amount of time, degree of talent or amount of money ( 5 MRC #1501's on a shelf layout..must be nice to put out $100.00 for convience ) to achieve those kind of results.
Sorry for the rant, but it just struck me as they use to showcase a broader spectrum of modeling..is it too much trouble or is advertising more important? I'd pay more for the magazine if they offered more....
Agreed. Said the same myself before.
I like MR as it is but wouldn't mind seeing a mid-level or the first project once in a while. Having been out of the hobby for too long I read MR and have regained some knowledge that I had forgotten and learned quite a lot more. Showing the best of the best is an inspiration for the newbe and mid-level.
I have noticed that they do push products in their articles. I can understand why they do it but still irks me.
Just don't take the joke out.
Interesting topic - obviously.
I appreciate the inspring, incredibly realistic layouts MR generally features, but I wonder if so little of the "average Joe's" work in the magazine also contributes somewhat to the lack of hobby growth?
Stay with me, here - MANY years ago (50s & 60s), most of the layout features were written by the layout owners, and more than a few explained that their first exposure to model railroading came from an issue of MR they bought or found, and this in turn led to their involvement in model railroading.
MR isn't on so many newstands today, but you can find it at places laike Barnes & Noble. Mr. Joe Average, who has always found trains of some interest, happens to see a copy and picks it up to flip through it. He sees only the masterworks, and thinks "HOLY [bleep]! This is great!" Next month he picks up another issue, and again is floored by the incredible layout. And maybe it goes one more time, then he's intimidated out of the hobby before he even gets into it because all he saw were the cream of the crop, and he's sure he could never do that.
I think Tilden had a great idea - a few pages of an average guy's work. Maybe not every month, but every second or third month, maybe. Something to show that not every project comes out a masterpiece.
Or maybe not...
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Not many people wll admit it because they would rather kiss MR butt since this is their forum but the fact is you are right. It matters on who you are to get in the mag and how money is invested in the layout to make the magazine. If you look thru 2007 MR magazines you will be able to figure out the majority of the Model railroaders are some sort of ENGINEER. The likely job is a Computer Engineer, retired pilot, Retired Colonel in the Air force. Basically all the contributors are rich! Remember the layout a few months back in the guys garage with the two matching corvettes in it? That is a typical type of people who contribute. OR OR OR the contributor will go into a story of who helped them bulld their layout and when they say the names it is always in the circle of previous MR contributors or employees. If you do not meet the two standards of a great career and knowing someone the chances of getting into that mag decreases much much much more to less than imaginable and it does not matter if you have a fantastic looking layout either SORRY! Then just for the heck of it the MR might throw in one or two new guys thru the whole year but thats it. Sort of like an affirmative action hire. :) So the move you need to make before trying to get published in the mag is locate someone like TONY KOESTER, befriend him a little bit kiss his butt and then later one boast how he helped you take a picture or build a kit or two then BOOM your in!!
fifedog wrote:luvadj - I checked out your website, and I think your rolling-cart benchwork itself might garnish some interest. When you do get to a stage of completion, submit an article. All they can say is "no".
luvadj - I checked out your website, and I think your rolling-cart benchwork itself might garnish some interest. When you do get to a stage of completion, submit an article. All they can say is "no".
The cart is only a small part of the layout..there are other features as well that we're equally proud of, especially the group effort part by the family. I've entered the small layout contest held in the past..obviously, it didn't win, but it was an enjoyable experience for us.
That's not the point of the post..it's the fact that I'd like to see more of other people's work and not just the masters. If it took more ads, I'd be willing to pay a little more for the magazine.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I don't think too many people submit layout articles to MR until they fell they have reached some level of completeness and detail. And I see no reason for MR to not use the best ones they get. But I also suspect they are having trouble getting articles from new authors. I think that's the reason behind the layout contests they have had. And currently they are running a contest for articles on just doing a single scene. Looks to me like MR is really trying to get some new folks writing for them.EnjoyPaul
See I disagree because the MR mag consist mainly of a circle of contributors who know one another over and over. Does anyone else notice when they read the articles of the layouts the author more than likely is linked to another regular character? Which reminds me of 6 degrees of separation but these people are usually 3 degrees at most separated from editors and publishers of the magazine. Its really sad that new comers have no chance to make it in the mag. Well that is a typical business though. Cops hire other family and friends, firefighters do the same, actors and actress' family get in due to the connection and I guess that is just how the world is.
I'm all for the idea of Joe Average layout photo's having a place in the magazine whether it be in special editions, or a couple pages each issue. However, I would also like to see occasional photos of smaller layouts (4 by 8, and larger...) beside the occasional "project layout's built by MR's staff members. I enjoy seeing those large 25' X 35' empires, but let's see some smaller pike size ones every now and then. I have a "land-locked" 11' by 7' area and would like to see what other modelers with a similar size layouts have been able to accomplish with their modeling.
secondhandmodeler wrote:Though I've found some useful articles in the few magazines I've read, I feel like I'm reading an infomercial. I don't think you can look on any square inch and not see a plug, or reference to an advertiser's product. I may have become spoiled by everything I can learn online for free. I like seeing the larger than life layouts in the magazine. If I want to see a layout in progress, I come to this or other forums. Sorry, I hadn't read a Model Railroader in years. When I bought one last month, I was rather annoyed by the advertising.
And
Way of the Wolf wrote: I have noticed that they do push products in their articles. I can understand why they do it but still irks me.
Normally I'm a cynic but I can't say as I've seen them "push" products, but they do mention them and cite where to get them. My guess is that they are just pre-emptively answering the inevitable "What did he use for ground cover in last month's article?", "Who made that station kit on the PRR layout?", and "What brand of track was shown in the live interchange piece?" questions. The scale modeling sites I visit have forums where people show their work. It is impossible to post a model without noting what kit was used, what accessories, even what paint without a follow-up of "Is that the DML or AFV Club kit?" or "Are those aftermarket tracks? Which ones?" When people see something interesting they want to learn more. If it's really interesting they want to try it themselves, and to do that they at least want to know what the first guy did and used.
Supreme Line wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: I don't think too many people submit layout articles to MR until they fell they have reached some level of completeness and detail. And I see no reason for MR to not use the best ones they get. But I also suspect they are having trouble getting articles from new authors. I think that's the reason behind the layout contests they have had. And currently they are running a contest for articles on just doing a single scene. Looks to me like MR is really trying to get some new folks writing for them.EnjoyPaul See I disagree because the MR mag consist mainly of a circle of contributors who know one another over and over. Does anyone else notice when they read the articles of the layouts the author more than likely is linked to another regular character? Which reminds me of 6 degrees of separation but these people are usually 3 degrees at most separated from editors and publishers of the magazine. Its really sad that new comers have no chance to make it in the mag. Well that is a typical business though. Cops hire other family and friends, firefighters do the same, actors and actress' family get in due to the connection and I guess that is just how the world is.
I've also noticed that the majority of material that gets published comes from the same clique of contributors. This is too bad for the beginner or even the advanced hobbyist as the magazine is more of a showcase and infomercial rather than an informative medium. I remember how I used to revere Model Railroader ever since I got my first Lionel trainset in the early 60s but I guess times change. I'm sort of lucky that I model minority scales and offbeat railroads that are rarely if ever covered in MR, as it has compelled me to seek out other magazines and sources that cater to my interests.
Brunton wrote: I think Tilden had a great idea - a few pages of an average guy's work. Maybe not every month, but every second or third month, maybe. Something to show that not every project comes out a masterpiece. Or maybe not...
To expand and para/re-phase what Brunton said, it would be good to show that not every plan works out - at first - but how the author learned from it, tried again, and created a successful model. This could apply to a whole layout or creating an operating switchstand. A successful model - one that does what and looks like the modeler intended - is better than a "masterpiece", and may be a better characterization of what is published than the former term.
If you feel like you've reached a penticle where you are satisfied with your modeling skills, and your happy, then that's what model railroading is all about. As long as you are happy with your layout, but I tend to agree with some of the other posters in saying, that I too, am not paying Kalmbach Publishing to present me each month, through MODEL RAILROADER magazine, "average" layouts. I'm trying to better my modeling. If I want to see average modeling I can look at my own,lol. I recently purchased another magazine and there was what I would call an average layout featured, it looked as though he went to his local hobby shop, bought some equipment and some track and called it a layout. The units were shiny!! I've been an engineer for over ten years, and I can tell you, squicky clean units are few and far between. Do you think I'm going to read that article, well no, but there are alot of good scratchbuilding plans, scenery articles that will help me grow into the modeler I want to be.
Really anybody can buy highly detailed RTR equipment these days and put it on a track and call it a layout, but are they really modeling or just playing with toy trains?
Just my opinion.
Kurt_Laughlin wrote: And Way of the Wolf wrote: I have noticed that they do push products in their articles. I can understand why they do it but still irks me. Normally I'm a cynic but I can't say as I've seen them "push" products, but they do mention them and cite where to get them.... KL
Normally I'm a cynic but I can't say as I've seen them "push" products, but they do mention them and cite where to get them....
Sorry, the article on the bucket of trees was a three page advertisement for Woodland Scenics. Who in their right mind would spend $7 a square foot to cover a large area with foliage? There's dozens of better looking and more cost effective methods. The author blows off "puff ball" trees as being "too messy" or some such nonsense.
That section took about an hour and a half to make, and used maybe $3 worth of material. And if I really wanted to send them through the roof, I'd admit that I used Scenic Express ground foam, because it's CHEAPER!
No, Product Placement is the name of the game, and I can assure you, read this post fast, because it won't be here in the morning.
Supreme Line wrote:See I disagree because the MR mag consist mainly of a circle of contributors who know one another over and over. Does anyone else notice when they read the articles of the layouts the author more than likely is linked to another regular character? Which reminds me of 6 degrees of separation but these people are usually 3 degrees at most separated from editors and publishers of the magazine. Its really sad that new comers have no chance to make it in the mag. Well that is a typical business though. Cops hire other family and friends, firefighters do the same, actors and actress' family get in due to the connection and I guess that is just how the world is.
It only seems like that at times. I have noticed the same contributors on a rotational basis, but that's fine. I do agree that if you don't contribute, you cannot make change or see what you like on the pages.
I've bought MR religously since the late '60's and I've enjoyed the content every month since then. Throughout all of their format changes, I've enjoyed and learned plenty.
BTW wm3798, nice trees...this is what I'm talking about. Nothing fancy, economical and intresting stuff to read and learn from.
The name of this thread made it a bit suspicious to start with, and to some it may be a dissapointment that it hasn't been 'yanked' (or in fact 'Aussied' in my case).
I think to a degree, it shows Kalmback's commitment to allowing modellers their freedom of speech via their comments, yes, credit is due in the most part for an interesting and non-argumentative discussion - but!
We all give and get different things from this hobby, I produce a club magazine which is 40 pages each month for the club I am secretary, editor, exhibition co-ordinator etc of, I have contributed 'small' parts to different 'professional' magazines, and have been accepted and rejected in different areas.
As an editor of a club magazine, I can tell you that the comments being made are just the same sort of thing that I recieve, it is rare to recieve a compliment, and most objections come from non-contributors.
The aspect of promoting products and/or suppliers is something that I also face, for the most part, if the information is 'not' included, questions will be raised as to where do ya get it?
If the information is given, one is showing favouratism, any editor and/or contributor has to attempt to create a balance across the board, the named contributors were once no-names also, and surprisingly, not all come up through the ranks by connections.
I feel priviledged that I am able to communicate with fellow modellers via these forums, but would hate to go without my magazines, model and prototype.
It is to be hoped that the for and against's in this thread will aid the producers of not only the magazines, but the contributors and readers as well.
Teditor.
Teditor
Have fun with your trains
zapp wrote: If you feel like you've reached a penticle where you are satisfied with your modeling skills, and your happy, then that's what model railroading is all about. As long as you are happy with your layout, but I tend to agree with some of the other posters in saying, that I too, am not paying Kalmbach Publishing to present me each month, through MODEL RAILROADER magazine, "average" layouts. I'm trying to better my modeling. If I want to see average modeling I can look at my own,lol. I recently purchased another magazine and there was what I would call an average layout featured, it looked as though he went to his local hobby shop, bought some equipment and some track and called it a layout. The units were shiny!! I've been an engineer for over ten years, and I can tell you, squicky clean units are few and far between. Do you think I'm going to read that article, well no, but there are alot of good scratchbuilding plans, scenery articles that will help me grow into the modeler I want to be.Really anybody can buy highly detailed RTR equipment these days and put it on a track and call it a layout, but are they really modeling or just playing with toy trains?Just my opinion.
A pentacle is a 5 pointed amulet used in witchcrraft. Did you perhaps mean pinnacle?
Glad to see that this still didn't get yanked -- but then it is only 08:20 in Badger land.
Brunton makes the most salient observation -- because MR has really pulled off a "scoop" with the December issue -- having Rod Stewart's name on the cover really drew attention -- why I have been fielding Emails from friends (some in England) who I didn't even know were aware of MR's existence.
I wonder what the sales numbers have been for that issue?
Kudos to those who have participated in this discussion without allowing it to degrade into an argument or and outright flame war.
I agree with many above that the goal should be to include as many contributors as possible without lowering the quality of the magazine or content. I believe there are a lot of modelers out there with small or average size layouts that have one or two scenes worthy of publication, but perhaps not enought to fill the number of pics in the average MR layout tour. Another problem for many like myself is finding someone capeable of taking the quality pics needed for publication.
Well, here is one idea. Perhaps MR should consider a column (1-2 pages) specifically for first time contributors. This would allow some of these modelers to share their best work with a short article describing their inspiration and work with a few pics, but not the quantity usually required for a full layout tour. This column could be monthly if enough good submissions were offered, or as little as every 6 months or so, depending on how many offered quality submissions.
I must say, however, that there is little room to complain for those who say they want to see work "like their own" published if they do not go to the trouble of submitting something. Guys and gals, take your best pics, or have your photog brother-in-law do it, write your best article, and send that sucker in and see what happens.
Ron
Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado.
Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy
Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings
A few years ago on a different message board, this same topic came up when somebody went on a tirade about how he was cancelling his subscription to Model Railroader because he wasn't happy with the content. The basic attitude of the responses was that if he wanted to see what he wanted in the magazine then to submit his own material for publication. He said he did that and that it had been rejected. He then posted a picture that he'd submitted for Trackside Photos. Everybody pretty much said that it was not a really good picture. The locomotive had horn hook couplers. The pine trees were obviously pipe cleaners. And the guy couldn't figure out why his picture wasn't good enough to be published in a magazine. While I enjoy seeing a variety of layouts in Model Railroader, I'm thankful that they publish work where modelers are making an effort to make their work look realistic.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
I could envision a monthly or bi-monthly "Around The Hobby" type of feature that takes up 1/2 to 3/4 of a page with four to six smaller reader-submitted layout photos along with a few sentences of accompanying descriptive text. That might be fun. There's certainly enough good material floating around this forum to sustain that space for a very long time. But bear in mind, magazine pages cost money to produce, and that money comes mostly from advertisers. I'm not sure how keen some advertisers would be seeing photos of their products in a less-than-stellar application. That would be a very fine line to walk.
I know that Trackside Photos is already a supposed incarnation of that concept, and that Lou Sassi seems to have that market cornered. But then again, I don't recall ever having seen a bad Lou Sassi photo...
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
n2mopac wrote:Kudos to those who have participated in this discussion without allowing it to degrade into an argument or and outright flame war.I agree with many above that the goal should be to include as many contributors as possible without lowering the quality of the magazine or content. I believe there are a lot of modelers out there with small or average size layouts that have one or two scenes worthy of publication, but perhaps not enought to fill the number of pics in the average MR layout tour. Another problem for many like myself is finding someone capeable of taking the quality pics needed for publication.Well, here is one idea. Perhaps MR should consider a column (1-2 pages) specifically for first time contributors. This would allow some of these modelers to share their best work with a short article describing their inspiration and work with a few pics, but not the quantity usually required for a full layout tour. This column could be monthly if enough good submissions were offered, or as little as every 6 months or so, depending on how many offered quality submissions.I must say, however, that there is little room to complain for those who say they want to see work "like their own" published if they do not go to the trouble of submitting something. Guys and gals, take your best pics, or have your photog brother-in-law do it, write your best article, and send that sucker in and see what happens.Ron
This is another great idea for average layout coverage...I don't think it would take away much from their format and would be well recieved by all. I also agree that a half-baked layout wouldn't show well but someone's idea of finished or semi-complete layout might interest someone into starting a layout or give someone a new idea. My E-mail went out last night to them with some of my thoughts and ideas..let's see if/how they'll respond.
I'm glad this thread has stayed sane as well....and at last check, it's a 60/40 split on the subject with 60% for some sort of average Joe type layout coveage.
Thanks again one and all for keeping this thread going (and there has been some posts pulled...sorry about that, but it is their forum. We need to play nice here ).
One of the most amusing aspects of this forum is the way the host, Kalmbach gets bashed for not being inclusive, while all the time they have provided this forum that includes us. Or the complaints that Kalmbach *gasp* is a business that shapes its product according to the interests of the market, rather than in some sort of egalitarian way.
The fact is that master modelers set the bar, and one can probably learn most from those most experienced, and that the magazine therefore highlights the best. That's why I buy it, and I'm guessing what most people probably want to see...otherwise MR would out of business pretty quick. Even if it was a non-profit and devoted purely to altruistic goals, I don't think the point changes much. One usually doesn't go to an art museum, for instance, to look at work of "average" joes. We can stare at our own work.
I think Kalmbach in general does quite nicely by the hobby, and serves a purpose in setting that bar high.
I do concede however that it does, from afar, seem a bit of clubby affair amongst the MR insiders. And Tony Koester's philosophical ramblings and reminiscences are sometimes a tiresome waste of space in the magazine. I'd rather see Joe Fugate write a column.
Folks:
I like seeing a mixture of layouts in MR. I think the best way is to showcase a range of good-quality modeling, but not to concentrate on one group of super-modelers. I love to read about the huge masterpieces that are unachievable for a lot of us, or perhaps achievable but not necessarily desirable. I also like to see stuff that is well done, but something I could conceivably have myself. Am I making any sense to anyone?
Articles about the F and SM, for instance, are great to read, and really inspiring. (Not always a good thing. It took me years to kick the desire for a ma$$ive city scene). Somehow, though, articles on layouts like Ron Kuykendall's SPcO stick in my memory, all out of proportion to their magnitude. I look at it and think, wow, that looks great, but I think that maybe I could almost do that...
wm3798 wrote: Regarding the quality of the work shown, I think it's appropriate to showcase the best of the best. You don't pick up Motor Trend to read about some guy's half-baked re-hab of a 78 Nova. The idea is to present the best work out there, then instruct you how to achieve the same results.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Lets see...a choice between a large nicely detailed, professional looking layout...or some dude's 4X8 complete with Life-Like grass matt set up in his Mom's garage...hmm...
~ Jason
J Campbell wrote: Lets see...a choice between a large nicely detailed, professional looking layout...or some dude's 4X8 complete with Life-Like grass matt set up in his Mom's garage...hmm...
J C:
All right, but what about some dude's 4x6 complete with board-by-board scratchbuilt buildings, tie plates, and individually attached clusters of etched-brass pine needles? What about a layout, mostly bare plywood but with green-sawdust grass in a few spots, and some snap-together buildings, that uses the most innovative and realistic operation system since half past Ellison?
Let me alter course a bit.
There's more than craftsmanship to consider. Take some hypothetical layout that is large, finely detailed, and very realistic in appearance. Let's even assume it was custom-built. This would be fine to look at and very inspiring, but outside of that, what does it offer?
Take a layout, maybe that Plywood Pacific I talked about up there, that doesn't look quite as good, and isn't large or elaborate, but contains some really ingenious features. Maybe it has a new kind of staging yard, or a clever track plan, or maybe it uses some old idea in a new and unusual way. Are we going to toss these out?
In this hobby, there are craftsmen, and I like to see what they have done. There are also artists, innovators, engineers, and a whole lot of what can best be described as hackers. I want to see a mix of that.
Yes I will agree to that statement. I noticed that as well. That means there will not many new contributors because MR must not publish them and it kind of sends a message that if you do not know someone you will not get published and I think that will discourage many from even submitting their work. Thats unfortunate
Andies Candy wrote: Supreme Line wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: I don't think too many people submit layout articles to MR until they fell they have reached some level of completeness and detail. And I see no reason for MR to not use the best ones they get. But I also suspect they are having trouble getting articles from new authors. I think that's the reason behind the layout contests they have had. And currently they are running a contest for articles on just doing a single scene. Looks to me like MR is really trying to get some new folks writing for them.EnjoyPaul See I disagree because the MR mag consist mainly of a circle of contributors who know one another over and over. Does anyone else notice when they read the articles of the layouts the author more than likely is linked to another regular character? Which reminds me of 6 degrees of separation but these people are usually 3 degrees at most separated from editors and publishers of the magazine. Its really sad that new comers have no chance to make it in the mag. Well that is a typical business though. Cops hire other family and friends, firefighters do the same, actors and actress' family get in due to the connection and I guess that is just how the world is.Yes I will agree to that statement. I noticed that as well. That means there will not many new contributors because MR must not publish them and it kind of sends a message that if you do not know someone you will not get published and I think that will discourage many from even submitting their work. Thats unfortunate
Is this dismal prophecy based on actual experience, or is it just written in the stars?
Guys,Food for thought and something that has nagged me for a very long time..In fact several members of one of the clubs had a round table discussion on this subject during one of our weekly "Breakfast Rounders" round robin talks(many would make interesting topics) with various views.
Has the average Joe modeler become a endangered species in today's hobby??
How so?
Well let's take a long look at the pictures we see every weekend..What does these pictures show? As we can see the average modeler can build a super looking layout with all the scenery needs at their finger tips and for instant help they have books and videos so,we see better layouts today then ever before...Now add the better building we have today throw in the "supped " up locomotives and cars and we go far beyond the "above average" layouts of 20 years ago.
Today few if any modelers would consider using painted on grass and roads.Very few would consider using the old fashion "lollipop" trees.Many of us no longer use the out of scale matchbox or hot wheel cars and trucks.We have thankfully advanced beyond that with the tree kits and ready made trees from Woodland Scenics along with the various scenery items..
So,in my opinion MR had to stay in step with the current level of layouts being built by the "average Joe" modeler while encouraging us to excel in our layout detailing by showing above average layouts as they have done in years past..
And yes,its all in the scenery and detailing of the layout.
Has the average Joe modeler become a endangered species in today's hobby?
Not at all..He/she up the meaning of "average" through better looking and detailed layouts thanks in no small part to all the readily available scenery items and today's "supped" up models..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
It's interesting how some people want this thread to be closed because they think it will somehow prove their point. Beginning with the title of the thread itself. Face it, kids. Nobodys squelching your criticism ... unless you get personal or nasty and force their hand.
Put me down in the "prefer quality" column. I can see plenty of poor photography and lame ideas on the internet for free.
The complaint about "all the same authors" doesn't pan out. If the MR Index is accurate, the following authors in the Feb 2008 issue were first time authors in MR.
Bob Van Arnem, Robert P. Foster, Al Skinner, John Schoonenberg.
8 features, 4 first-time MR authors. One other author, Dan Lewis, has been in the magazine a few times before, but he wrote about another person's layout thats never been in MR before, I think. So 5 of 8 features were first timers. And that guy uses marble dust and tile grout for scenery.
So as far as product placement, guess the makers of tile grout paid big bucks for that mention on the cover, huh?
How ‘bout this? An article that features a subscriber's submission of some aspect of their layout effort that either didn't yield the expected results or has just plain gone awry. Armed with some pictures, MR then "suggests" (read critique) ways to make it better. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an article on the entire layout, but should certainly be more than "one spot of bad track" or "a grab that keeps falling off". Kind of like the way this forum works, except the advice would be coming from the professionals at MR.
OTOH, I've found that the advice here can be as sound as any of the professionals'.
jblackwelljr wrote: How ‘bout this? An article that features a subscriber's submission of some aspect of their layout effort that either didn't yield the expected results or has just plain gone awry. Armed with some pictures, MR then "suggests" (read critique) ways to make it better. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an article on the entire layout, but should certainly be more than "one spot of bad track" or "a grab that keeps falling off". Kind of like the way this forum works, except the advice would be coming from the professionals at MR.
j:
Something like Bill Schopp's old "Layout Doctor" feature in RMC, with more photos?
Autobus Prime wrote: jblackwelljr wrote: How ‘bout this? An article that features a subscriber's submission of some aspect of their layout effort that either didn't yield the expected results or has just plain gone awry. Armed with some pictures, MR then "suggests" (read critique) ways to make it better. It wouldn't necessarily have to be an article on the entire layout, but should certainly be more than "one spot of bad track" or "a grab that keeps falling off". Kind of like the way this forum works, except the advice would be coming from the professionals at MR.j:Something like Bill Schopp's old "Layout Doctor" feature in RMC, with more photos?
Well, I'm not familiar with older RMC features, but yeah, I guess. The key is that the article would be initiated by the modeler/subscriber - and he might have to have some thick skin, depending on how awry the project went.
It's all part of the vast (or is it half vast) conspiracy to keep the published articles reserved for the privileged few. They just threw in some new authors to throw us off the scent. Next month, it'll be the same old crowd.
Marble dust and tile grout? Hmm. Rather than Bill Schopp as the "Layout Doctor", they're using the "Tile Doctor": http://www.thetiledoctor.com/installations/settinggrouting.cfm
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go finishing re-caulking my bathtub.
Add another voice -- and another opinion here:
A few people have brought this up, but I'll restate it anyway: many comments here seem to confuse "small" (or at least "not huge") with "average quality." Do I think MR should include average quality work? No. Why should they? As one person commented, he can go downstairs (upstairs, in my case) to see average work. But there's no reason why a 4x8 can't be absolutely exemplary. I seem to recall several articles in MR going back to the early 90's or so featuring really small layouts -- 1x6 switching layouts, and a study of British dioramas with fiddle yards, for example. If somebody's turned a 4x8 into something spectacular, then it should absolutely be included.
There is one other thing to remember (which Autobus Prime touched on): there's more to modeling than scenery. My (future) Springfield Terminal will be pancake flat, will have lots and lots of RTR buildings, will run on old-fashioned DC, etc etc. But I'm also noodling around with computer simulations to drive my switchlists, using supply/demand-based models. If I decide to finish writing that software, and if it works well -- then maybe I've got an idea that merits an MR article. And if so, why shouldn't you get to see a photo of the Plywood Central that inspired that software. Operations is modeling, too. If you don't want to see pictures of plywood or unweathered locomotives, you're going to eliminate an enormous number of modelers from the pool of potential authors.
My $0.165 (after taxes)...
This is my own opinion, but I believe many of the large professional layouts that grace the pages of MR such as the Franklin & Manchester, have become nothing more than a collection of craftsman kits, each kit unique and professionally done, while the model railroading aspect has become a sidebar. Some layouts have become so much visual candy. It's hard to figure out if the owner is modeling a railroad or the buildings. I think you can detail w/o over detailing.
I have no problem with the showing of excellantly done layouts, what I have a problem with with MR's only having articles on how nice the layout is but no instructions on how to accomplish it.
The only how to articles is when they do a project layout, what happened to paint shop especially when it came to kitbashing and making a true to prototype car or locomotive. Scratchbuilding and kitbashing structures ala Art Curren etc. All we are fed is what the next great RTR car or locomotive is, and then when we get them we find out they are not correct for our prototype railroad even though it is painted in our prototype railroads scheme. Or it is painted in the wrong scheme for that car.
Right now we have to rely on other magazines to perform that function and they are dropping by the wayside ala Mainline Modeler and Railroader Modeler.
We need more and better information on how to do things not how great somebody else's layout is on a constant basis.
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!
Sunset, you may be on to something. The average modeler would LOVE to have a column-free basement, a multi-car garage or a dedicated outbuilding (aircraft hangar size) to use for his layout space, but reality intrudes on that dream. Yet, most of the published plans are WAY too big for the usual spare bedroom. (The Japanese model railroad magazine, Tetsudo Mokei Shumi, frequently features small, simple but exquisitely detailed model railroads - so it can be done.)
I personally, would like to see a one-layout feature that includes some nicely finished scenery, a part of the same layout where the track is the only feature and maybe even some shots of new benchwork with nothing but raw, trackless subgrade. I'm sure that nobody waved a magic wand and suddenly filled a large basement with a complete, detailed, operating model railroad. (If anybody did, I want to borrow that magic wand!)
I would also like to see the kind of "speculative" track plans that John Armstrong used to do - just a track plan with sketched-in structures and scenery. Several of my earlier layouts started from those articles.
Andre, when you finish caulking the bathroom, don't forget to cap the tube. You'll need it later for laying track. (I even glue wood ties for hand-laid turnouts with latex caulk.)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I would think that anyone who is brave enough to submit a writeup on a layout with Life-Like grass mat and boxed trees deserves some attention . But that's not going to happen anytime soon...I meant layout coverage that was acceptable to MR's publishing standards but not embarrasing to the layout builder. Something that has a somewhat finished look and is presentable to the masses.
And on an off note...my cars and trucks are Micro Miniatures off the Wally World shelves...they were the right price and look good with N-Scale for the most part. Now there's something I could have appreciated coming from someone elses layout writeup if it wasn't for the fact that I thought of it on my own. Little details and hints or tips like that might give someone another bright idea or help someone with their empire building.
I like reading about great work, not so much about great utilization of advertisers' products. John Allen's layout is a terrific example of the kind of layout I love to read about. I can't recall a single item on his layout that he bought and put in place, unchanged. He even built his own controls (his momentum throttle actually had a flywheel in it), and he fabricated his own figures (using wire and wax). The Gorre & Daphetid was a grand layout if there ever was one, and I think it still inspires many of us, even 37 years after it was destroyed by a fire. My suggestion would be for MR to strive to publish features about layouts like that, and articles about ways to build things (sometimes on a shoestring), and focus less on featuring their advertisers' products - that recent Brass Loco Regearing article was obviously an "infomercial" for NWSL.
As far as I know (40 years), MR has occasionally published articles about how to use an advertiser's product, but now it seems like that's their main thing. Of course, advertisers are MR's primary source of income so they get priority. Even so, MR has swung too far towards boosing their advertisers' sales; maybe it's time to put a little more emphasis on their readers. Frankly, I'd be embarassed if I were NWSL. That piece seemed to be such an obvious push of their products that I can envision prospective customers being turned off by it.
In years past, Trackside Photos was a bigger part of the magazine and it was for readers to share their work. I'd like to see it expanded again. I'd also like to see them reduce the requirement for digital pictures from 5M minimum, to 3M. I really think the minimal difference in quality would be OK.
-Phil
PS: I do like the way Forum participants share pictures and construction info. The Forum is the main reason I subscribe to the magazine.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
SunsetLimited wrote:Yeah for some reason small layouts get mixed with average or poor layouts, people assume they contain grass mats, painted roads, hotwheels, etc. There are lots of great 4x8, 4x6, 2x10, 6x20 layouts, and i would for one like to see more of what other people in my size class are doing with the space, sure the big layouts are nice but they really don't interest me that much, its nice that people have the time and money to build them but it really doesn't help me much to see them. I also hate that 80% of those huge layouts are 1950's era, what a waste of space, its always the same thing, large steam engines and little tiny diesels, its the have your cake and eat it too time frame...boooring. Sorry for the rant that most of you will disagree with but i would really like to see some monster layouts modelled in modern times with large auto racks and container trains and such.
I've seen many small layouts, by small I mean less than 5x9, that can put some super size layouts in the average class (or below). In addition to some larger layouts, The Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette regularly features many small layouts - some just dioramas, micro-layouts, or shelf-style layouts - that can knock the socks off of many basement empires when it comes to detailing, scenery, themes, and innovation. The layouts featured also include how certain tasks were accomplished and sometimes include scale drawings or references for those who want further information. The photography is top notch and the articles are written with that "personal touch."
I'm just popping my head in to say how much I appreciate the contributions so far. It is really nice to see so many members joining in, including some who get here very seldom, or who have remained observers as a preference. Thanks, all, for everything you have said.
"Rust, whats not to love?"
I agree completly! I model a modern railroad, it's a shortline, but still a modern railroad. I like to see other modern shortlines (or class 1s) in the magazine, as they're great for insperation! I hope to have an article on my railroad someday, but it'll take a while.....
68 camaro wrote: This is my own opinion, but I believe many of the large professional layouts that grace the pages of MR such as the Franklin & Manchester, have become nothing more than a collection of craftsman kits, each kit unique and professionally done, while the model railroading aspect has become a sidebar. Some layouts have become so much visual candy. It's hard to figure out if the owner is modeling a railroad or the buildings. I think you can detail w/o over detailing. Larry
I have to agree completely. Though the Wisconsin Southern series is doing pretty good, and the Tall Pine RR fropm this last issue or so did good on the balance.
Robby P. wrote: I agree with alot of it. I know my layout will never make the mag. One reason is I don't have the huge layout,
You mean, like the 21" X 42" layout in October (DC, by the way)? Or like Lance Mindhiems shelf layout?
Robby P. wrote: nor do I have the DCC setup. I think it would be neat if they added a few layouts in the magazine still in DC.
You mean, like the Italian western in January 2008 (thats both DC and DCC)? The Central New England In November 2007 (DC)? And what does it matter? DCC doesn't change the way you lay track or do scenery. You can't look at a layout if its not DC?
Interesting small layouts with DC will get into the magazine, I think. You need a different excuse.
Re: I expect this will get yanked, but...
Hmm... 5 pages and still not yanked. Must not be that bad.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 wrote:Hmm... 5 pages and still not yanked. Must not be that bad.
I'm not suprised seeing that we're all supportive of MR for the most part in this thread and we're voicing our opinion on several different coverage formats is all ...who knows, maybe they'll see something useful out of this thread.
I've seen a lot of constructive feedback for MR in the forums. They'd be wise to be using it as a source of information regarding the direction of the model railroading "wind."
PS: I think they should put more material on steam in the mag. Not less diesel mind you, just more steam.
dti406 wrote:I have no problem with the showing of excellantly done layouts, what I have a problem with with MR's only having articles on how nice the layout is but no instructions on how to accomplish it.The only how to articles is when they do a project layout, what happened to paint shop especially when it came to kitbashing and making a true to prototype car or locomotive. Scratchbuilding and kitbashing structures ala Art Curren etc. All we are fed is what the next great RTR car or locomotive is, and then when we get them we find out they are not correct for our prototype railroad even though it is painted in our prototype railroads scheme. Or it is painted in the wrong scheme for that car.Right now we have to rely on other magazines to perform that function and they are dropping by the wayside ala Mainline Modeler and Railroader Modeler. We need more and better information on how to do things not how great somebody else's layout is on a constant basis. Rick
Yes I agree %100! I would far rather see how to articles than an article that just showcases a layout, any layout big or small. More and better information, absolutely! I miss the electronics symposium off yesteryear too.
shayfan84325 wrote:PS: I think they should put more material on steam in the mag. Not less diesel mind you, just more steam.
Yes more on steam would be good too. It's an era I would like to model one day when my budget allows for some really nice steam loco's.
Boy, do I agree!!! I am tired of the f-unit early hood unit layouts. lets see some ES44AC monsters with a coal drag.
shawnee wrote: One of the most amusing aspects of this forum is the way the host, Kalmbach gets bashed for not being inclusive, while all the time they have provided this forum that includes us. Or the complaints that Kalmbach *gasp* is a business that shapes its product according to the interests of the market, rather than in some sort of egalitarian way.
I don't see anyone bashing Kalmbach here. True, this has happend too much in other threads, but this thread has remained surprisingly and refreshingly positive. I am always one to jump in in defense of MR when it is bashed unfairly, as I love the mag and plan to continue subscribing for years to come. I agree it does quite well by the hobby. Everyone can benefit from constructive ideas, however, and what I see here (apart from the title and the repeated expectation by the originator that the thread will get "yanked") are people expressing their ideas about what they might like to see in MR in the future--i.e. how in their opinion a good magazine might be even better. I don't see this as bashing, and I doubt the staff at MR would either.
I enjoy the articles very much and look forward to the next issue every month. One thing I would like to see is maybe a structure build every month with adding details and weathering. They do this from time to time, but it would be great if they could do some more expensive kits like a Bar Mills, or others. DCC is a good topic, but they seem to really focus on it allot in the past year.
Also they could have a economy sections on adding thing to your layout at low cost, like scenery, sound, power, buildings, ect, ect. But I think they are doing a good job, it is the best mag out there you can get as far as MR is concerned. I hope they are looking at some of these post and take some of our ideas into thought.
shayfan84325 wrote: - that recent Brass Loco Regearing article was obviously an "infomercial" for NWSL.
- that recent Brass Loco Regearing article was obviously an "infomercial" for NWSL.
sf:
To be fair, NWSL is where a lot of regearing starts. They just sell a lot of useful stuff. I'd be a little embarassed if I were at NWSL and read that article, but not because it looked like advertising, but because of the 30 degree angle of that short cardan shaft. Ick. I suppose it worked all right, and I'm not sure I could come up with a way around it, other than replacing the motor with one of smaller diameter, unless a slightly taller gearbox could be had, but it sure doesn't look peachy keen to have such an extreme offset in that short distance.
In other news, I went back and looked through my recent MRs' Trackside Photo sections, with some idea in mind or other, and realized that they still /do/ show a range of skill and layout elaboration, if carefully photographed to catch only the best parts. I also noticed that Lou Sassi photographs a LOT. This may have something to do with an odd feeling of sameness I get from MR's photographs. Mr. Sassi is a very skilled model photographer as well as a great modeler. I think he must drive around NE in a van, tracking down modelers and infiltrating their basements. This prolific railhunter also seems to heavily favor a certain type of shot: train crossing diagonally in the foreground, shot from a somewhat high angle (equivalent, perhaps, to standing on a 1-story building's roof, beside the tracks). MR cover shots often use similar angles. This shot is a good one for showing off layout detail, so it does have its place; unfortunately, whether it's from overuse or from its intrinsic character, it is also a shot that says "Model" to me. I'd like to see some variety.
Take a look at the excellent Jan '08 RMC cover. It uses a very standard low-angle 3/4 view of a passing train. This would be almost stereotyped if the subject were a prototype train, but it's not a common model RR shot nowadays, and that combination gives it unusual realism. I'd like to see more of this.
ICRR1964 wrote: I enjoy the articles very much and look forward to the next issue every month. One thing I would like to see is maybe a structure build every month with adding details and weathering. They do this from time to time, but it would be great if they could do some more expensive kits like a Bar Mills, or others. DCC is a good topic, but they seem to really focus on it allot in the past year. Also they could have a economy sections on adding thing to your layout at low cost, like scenery, sound, power, buildings, ect, ect. But I think they are doing a good job, it is the best mag out there you can get as far as MR is concerned. I hope they are looking at some of these post and take some of our ideas into thought.
Yes like giving more opportunities to the NEW contributors and not the same OLD ones. It would be nice, real nice.
ICRR1964 wrote: I enjoy the articles very much and look forward to the next issue every month. One thing I would like to see is maybe a structure build every month with adding details and weathering. They do this from time to time, but it would be great if they could do some more expensive kits like a Bar Mills, or others. DCC is a good topic, but they seem to really focus on it allot in the past year.
This is not a criticism of MR or of the above quote, but the articles you describe are really the domain of Railroad Model Craftsman, which has a different mission than MR does. MR strives to be an all-inclusive journal for the hobby of model railroading, covering a little of everything (beginner to advanced, modeling, kit building, scratchbuilding, scenery, control, benchwork, underwater basket weaving, etc.) in every scale. RMC is more specialized for the model builder, focusing on the process of building scratch projects (they have a monthly column just on this subject), kitbashing, etc. If you're looking for this type of info on a monthly basis you might consider adding RMC to you subscription list (or pick up the one's that interest you at Wal Mart like I do).
Andies Candy wrote: ICRR1964 wrote: [MR] could have a economy sections on adding thing to your layout at low cost, like scenery, sound, power, buildings, ect, ect. But I think they are doing a good job, it is the best mag out there you can get as far as MR is concerned. I hope they are looking at some of these post and take some of our ideas into thought. Yes like giving more opportunities to the NEW contributors and not the same OLD ones. It would be nice, real nice.
ICRR1964 wrote: [MR] could have a economy sections on adding thing to your layout at low cost, like scenery, sound, power, buildings, ect, ect. But I think they are doing a good job, it is the best mag out there you can get as far as MR is concerned. I hope they are looking at some of these post and take some of our ideas into thought.
[MR] could have a economy sections on adding thing to your layout at low cost, like scenery, sound, power, buildings, ect, ect. But I think they are doing a good job, it is the best mag out there you can get as far as MR is concerned. I hope they are looking at some of these post and take some of our ideas into thought.
AC/IC:
I don't think the "economy section" would work as a regular feature, but it would be great to see some articles of that kind happen. I think if somebody were to submit material along those lines, and it was interesting to enough people and done well enough with good photos, it would definitely get in. I fully intend to do just that once I get my skills up to speed again.
I think the best example of what I'm thinking of is E. L. Moore (who I have mentioned a time or two before, I think.) He was proud of building things cheaply and easily, and he made no secret of that, but what was left to the reader to discover is that he really was a careful builder with a good eye for buildings, and an excellent photographer. Photography had been his trade, after all.
The photography is probably a big hurdle for most of us, particularly nowadays, as articles have so many photos. Sometimes they have too many (you *can* have too many). This may be more of a mental block than a physical one nowadays, since a 5 MP digital camera can be bought for around $100.
I think someone will always be left out. If there is a limit to 96 sqft layouts to fit into the low-dollar layout section, or a maximum dollars per sqft, the hobbyist who is just beyond the line will be left out. My layout is 8 X 13 - does my 104 sqft put me in the high dollar class? I don't feel high dollar.
I think it's something that all hobby publications wrestle with, whether it's cars, model railroads, doll houses, motorcycles, woodworking, cooking, etc., etc. There's always a high-dollar faction. I think the best thing a magazine publisher can do is to be sensitive to the interests of their readers and maintain a balance. It may be that this thread (and some others) are an indicator that Model Railroader is a little off balance. My guess is that the MR staff reads these threads and they may be making adjustments as we continue to comment.
Frankly, I'd feel like I'm missing something important if MR was to choose not to publish features like the recent one on Rod Stewart's layout simply because his space and finances are different from much of the readership. If they were to ask me, I'd recommend that they publish the best model railroading work they can find, regardless of the size of the layout or the number of advertisers' products that appear in the pictures.
One thing I'd like to see more is features about clubs and their activities and layouts. Clubs do some wonderful work - it's a synergy thing.
SunsetLimited wrote:I also hate that 80% of those huge layouts are 1950's era, what a waste of space, its always the same thing, large steam engines and little tiny diesels, its the have your cake and eat it too time frame...boooring. Sorry for the rant that most of you will disagree with but i would really like to see some monster layouts modelled in modern times with large auto racks and container trains and such.
SunsetLimited.
The reason that 80%???, your numbers, of the layouts are transition era is that many modellers can appreciate that era. I look at a Steam Locomotive of any size and see coal or oil being fed from the tender into the firebox. The fire heats up the water in the lower 2/3rds. (approximately) of the boiler to create steam in the upper 1/3. The steam is then fed to the pistons which are connected to and drive the siderods. The siderods are connected to the driving wheels to move that locomotive. That, my friend is a VISIBLE engineering marvel and a joy to watch. (Greatly simplified, of course.)
The road diesels of the day, were hardly TINY. Although they were not the VISIBLE engineering marvel as were the steam locomotives that they were replacing. They were streamlined and their design was pleasing to look at. They were not the huge powerhouses that todays workhorses are, but they got the job done.
Todays beheamoths, in my humble opinion, have no redeaming qualities as to their appearance, but I cannot argue the fact that they have no equal as to their brute power and their ability to move great tonnage down the rails.
I hope that I have not offended anyone as these are just my own opinions and I do not force them on any of you who may differ.
No offence is intended. No offence will be taken.
As others have mentioned previously, I am pleased that this thread is giving a great deal of feedback. Even though I would like to see some smaller layouts featured, I still get ideas from the large layouts that can be condensed and put into a smaller layout. Kudos to MRR for its overall fine work.
Blue Flamer.
I keep thinking of a special edition, perhaps near or at Christmas, when all those trains sets are purchased. In general, I feel the magazine does a good job of appealing to a broad range of interests. If they could see their way toward a simpler, beginner, "this is how we all start" kind of addition, or a separate smaller insert, it would greatly help the would-be modeller to get a clear start...something with benchwork and wiring, the whole nause....maybe 30 pages, and only the inside covers with advertizing. Those of us who were merely curious would undoubtedly take a look, but those of us who couldn't care less can chuck it into the corner with the week's accumulation of newspapers....and still have the regular monthly to peruse.
They already do something along those lines with their annual freebie five pager, which I think is a great idea....the one dealing with track planning and other subjects.
selector wrote:I keep thinking of a special edition, perhaps near or at Christmas, when all those trains sets are purchased. In general, I feel the magazine does a good job of appealing to a broad range of interests. If they could see their way toward a simpler, beginner, "this is how we all start" kind of addition, or a separate smaller insert, it would greatly help the would-be modeller to get a clear start...something with benchwork and wiring, the whole nause....maybe 30 pages, and only the inside covers with advertizing. Those of us who were merely curious would undoubtedly take a look, but those of us who couldn't care less can chuck it into the corner with the week's accumulation of newspapers....and still have the regular monthly to peruse.They already do something along those lines with their annual freebie five pager, which I think is a great idea....the one dealing with track planning and other subjects.
Something that may appeal to everyone (almost everyone) is if the mag took on a project at someone's home, maybe twice a year. It would be like those home improvemnt shows were a crew of 3-5 "experts/specialists call em what you want" show up to help the home owner acheive perhaps what they could not acheive without hiring an architect, interior designer, etc.
Here is my idea, MRR places a submittal form in the mag and online. In this form you say what you have available (room, money, skills,) AND the thoughts on era, scenery, operational capabilities, and operational limitations. The editors/managers can then select from the submittals perhaps 5 or 10 possibilities and then do a phone interveiw and perhaps request a quick video be made of the area to build in to confirm space, etc... Of these then one is chosen to "win" the help.At this point the "road crew" shows up and like in the tv shows they assist with direction and giving alternatives. So if the winning person has a space that is roughly 8'x12' for the train room and has say $800-$1000 available they work together to decide on detailing what to use, how to use it, and how to continue on after the initial project is done.
I'm not suggesting a show (although they could offer it in a DVD series) but something that they can print that shows how to simplfy the decision making process as well as pointing out alternate materials that can be substituted to save money.
concretelackey wrote: Something that may appeal to everyone (almost everyone) is if the mag took on a project at someone's home, maybe twice a year. It would be like those home improvemnt shows were a crew of 3-5 "experts/specialists call em what you want" show up to help the home owner acheive perhaps what they could not acheive without hiring an architect, interior designer, etc. Here is my idea, MRR places a submittal form in the mag and online. In this form you say what you have available (room, money, skills,) AND the thoughts on era, scenery, operational capabilities, and operational limitations. The editors/managers can then select from the submittals perhaps 5 or 10 possibilities and then do a phone interveiw and perhaps request a quick video be made of the area to build in to confirm space, etc... Of these then one is chosen to "win" the help.At this point the "road crew" shows up and like in the tv shows they assist with direction and giving alternatives. So if the winning person has a space that is roughly 8'x12' for the train room and has say $800-$1000 available they work together to decide on detailing what to use, how to use it, and how to continue on after the initial project is done.I'm not suggesting a show (although they could offer it in a DVD series) but something that they can print that shows how to simplfy the decision making process as well as pointing out alternate materials that can be substituted to save money.
I, for one, would love to see this.
Folks,gather 'round. I've read all your posts, and I gotta tell ya, what you seek already exists: CLASSIC TOY TRAINS. Heck, we've already given you Neil B to set things right.
"Come on in boys; the water's fine."
Shayfan,
I commend you on your spelling!
concretelackey wrote:Something that may appeal to everyone (almost everyone) is if the mag took on a project at someone's home, maybe twice a year. It would be like those home improvemnt shows were a crew of 3-5 "experts/specialists call em what you want" show up to help the home owner acheive perhaps what they could not acheive without hiring an architect, interior designer, etc. Here is my idea, MRR places a submittal form in the mag and online. In this form you say what you have available (room, money, skills,) AND the thoughts on era, scenery, operational capabilities, and operational limitations. The editors/managers can then select from the submittals perhaps 5 or 10 possibilities and then do a phone interveiw and perhaps request a quick video be made of the area to build in to confirm space, etc... Of these then one is chosen to "win" the help.At this point the "road crew" shows up and like in the tv shows they assist with direction and giving alternatives. So if the winning person has a space that is roughly 8'x12' for the train room and has say $800-$1000 available they work together to decide on detailing what to use, how to use it, and how to continue on after the initial project is done.I'm not suggesting a show (although they could offer it in a DVD series) but something that they can print that shows how to simplfy the decision making process as well as pointing out alternate materials that can be substituted to save money.
Ok, gotta reply to this one. I purchase MR all the time for the information contained in the magazine, and enjoy the layouts that it features. It would be great if the magazine 's editors were to read this post and take some notes though. There are a lot of good point which they could follow up on.
Personally, the great layouts that it features inspire me to continue with my efforts but as mentioned it can also act as a deterent for a newcomer. So it would be interesting to see the pictures from the masters previous layouts. Layouts from previous efforts that were not such stellar layouts as an editorial attachment to the main feature. Let us not forget that everybody has to start somewhere. Also smaller layouts that the average person might build should also be featured as long as they compare to the high quality of the larger layouts which are currently offered by MR. This might encourage more individuals to build a layout themselves.
Just my worth.
Frank
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
NevinW wrote:I really have to disagree. I don't subscribe to MR to see small, mediocre average layouts. Every once in a while someone makes this complaint but if they really thought about it, the usual first-timer 4x8 would look pretty embarrassing and not be something anyone would be really interested in. Personally my only complaint about the layout features is that I would like to see a few photos showing how the layout fits into its environment and room. I want to see the state-of the-art layouts myself. - Nevin
I agree with your disagreement 100%!
Craig
DMW
Supreme Line wrote: luvadj wrote: It matters on who you are to get in the mag and how money is invested in the layout to make the magazine..... Basically all the contributors are rich! ........So the move you need to make before trying to get published in the mag is locate someone like TONY KOESTER, befriend him a little bit kiss his butt
luvadj wrote:
It matters on who you are to get in the mag and how money is invested in the layout to make the magazine..... Basically all the contributors are rich! ........So the move you need to make before trying to get published in the mag is locate someone like TONY KOESTER, befriend him a little bit kiss his butt
I couldn't disagree more. Speaking as someone who has been published in both MR and GMR, I think it would be appropriate to share my first hand experiences.
My entry into MR stemmed from a submission to the small layout contest they hosted in 2001. My layout at that time was in a spare bedroom and fit the 100 square foot maximum size requirement. I spent several weeks working on the manuscript and took my own slide photos. It was fun, but a LOT of work. Unfortunately, my submission did not place in the contest, but it was purchased for future publication. That "future" was four years later, but in April 2005 I had a life-long dream realized by seeing my work appear in MR. As a complete unknown, I had no connections to Kalmbach publishing, Tony Koester, or any other hobby notable. My layout was not a billboard for any company or manufacturer. Nor did it occupy the Super Dome. Yet somehow it managed to sneak under the radar of the "elitists" at MR.
Soon after, I began my current dream layout. Motivated by the first article, I decided from it's inception that the new layout would be built to a publishable degree of quality...period. Living in an area where model railroaders are few and far between, I saw the hobby media as a means to share the layout with others. True, I build it for my own personal enjoyment, but I derive equal gratification by sharing it, as shown through the labors of my website. This second layout was published in GMR 2007; however this time, I was contacted by the magazine. It seems that Andy Sperandeo had visited my website and liked what he saw. I was, and still am, an unknown name in the hobby...but somehow managed to crack that "bastion of wealthy socialites" up in Waukesha. I guess they lowered themselves temporarily to pity the Hoi Polloi.
My point is this. MR has something known as standards. It is their right and, IMHO, obligation to the readership. I by no means am putting myself on a pedestal. I don't profess to have a great model railroad, as the name of GMR suggests. However, I do believe that anything worth doing is worth doing to the best of one's abilities and talents. This holds true not only for the layout itself, but also the manuscript writing and the photography. If what I put before MR's readers is mediocre, then it doesn't say much for me. I have never bought into this notion that exquisite layouts scare away newcomers. They certainly didn't scare me away. To the contrary, they motivated and inspired me. My message would be "if I can do it, anybody can!"
As for being rich, I'm a teacher. 'Nuff said.
Cliff Powers
www.magnoliaroute.com
Kurt_Laughlin wrote:??? Whaddaya mean "average people", and what does that have to do with anything anyway? I wouldn't care if the RR was built by a rich guy, a poor guy, a housecat, or a potted cactus if the modeling was good. KL
a potted cactus could not do a worse job on the retaining wall I just completed.
Personally I like the big, expensive layouts.
I like to spend time gazing at every section of them and then use my limited talents to try to reproduce 1 or 2 small sections that jumped out at me.
Cliff, my compliments to you. Nicely and comprehensively stated, and I hope you convince even one of the readers who would prefer to think otherwise.
I agree with shayfan.
More clubs and local groups would be great!
Cliff,
Thanks for piping up. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking you have to know somebody who knows somebody. By the way, I thought your article in GMR was outstanding. The atmosphere you created with your layout was enough to make the back of my neck sweat, and give a taste for a tall glass of lemonade... I could almost smell the peat moss.
I'd like to agree with the poster who hoped that the MR editors take a look at this thread. I've seen more good ideas here in a couple days than I've seen in the rest of the time I've been a member here. There's really a good thougtful discussion going on, which I hope sets the tone for the rest of this forum.
I've got half a manuscript and a bunch of notes I intend to string together into a submission, but I still need to get a bag of Round Tuits... I hope this inpires me to get off my duff.
I'd have to agree that there have been some outstanding ideas for showcasing average layouts in the last couple of days...I hope that someone from MR is taking notes I never thought that my ranting would turn into such a lively and thought provoking thread...
Reading the last two pages I guess I should apologize for the thread title. It was not meant to be a "rickroll" or subversive in any way....I really thought that the post would be deleted seeing as it was a rant on MR's format.
To see that we can air our opinions on this subject is very refreshing indeed.
I'm glad Cliff Powers chimed in also.
I see one common thread among layouts in MR. They're the good looking ones! They look great, and that's why they're in there. Cliff's first layout was awesome. (I'm a bit of a layout article junkie - scanning my favorites into my computer before recycling the magazine in the recycling bin). Both of Cliff's layouts are great.
There have been many beautiful small layouts in MR. (How about Lance Minheim's small shelf layout in GMR 2007?). Don't believe it, check out his website: www.lancemindheim.com
As for the "I don't have DCC" argument: Hopefully Eric Brooman will finally install DCC one day so that his Utah Belt could actually make it into Model Railroader! (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
The layouts in the magazine are there because they're great layouts. Not just because they're great in size or expense, but because they're just great.
Another beautiful layout is the HO Scale 4.5ft long by 1ft wide "Maine Central's Rockland North Yard" in the June 1999 issue. It's gorgous, and tiny!
In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say many of the smaller layouts are more attractive in many ways because the creators didn't have to spend an arm and a leg on them (or a lifetime creating them).
Looking for time/moneysaving tips? Lance Mindheim mentions how he didn't use any turnout mechanisms, kept the wiring extremely simple, made benchwork out of doors for goodness sake. There was ONE locomotive shown in the article. ONE! The layout is in the magazine because it's a work of art.
How about the 2ft x 12ft N scale Kingsbury Branch, featured in Jan 1997, and on the Cover in May, 1998? Beautiful.
I wouldn't want to buy a magazine full of mediocre layouts. Keep the great ones coming!
maandg wrote: Supreme Line wrote: luvadj wrote: It matters on who you are to get in the mag and how money is invested in the layout to make the magazine..... Basically all the contributors are rich! ........So the move you need to make before trying to get published in the mag is locate someone like TONY KOESTER, befriend him a little bit kiss his butt I couldn't disagree more. Speaking as someone who has been published in both MR and GMR, I think it would be appropriate to share my first hand experiences. My entry into MR stemmed from a submission to the small layout contest they hosted in 2001. My layout at that time was in a spare bedroom and fit the 100 square foot maximum size requirement. I spent several weeks working on the manuscript and took my own slide photos. It was fun, but a LOT of work. Unfortunately, my submission did not place in the contest, but it was purchased for future publication. That "future" was four years later, but in April 2005 I had a life-long dream realized by seeing my work appear in MR. As a complete unknown, I had no connections to Kalmbach publishing, Tony Koester, or any other hobby notable. My layout was not a billboard for any company or manufacturer. Nor did it occupy the Super Dome. Yet somehow it managed to sneak under the radar of the "elitists" at MR.Soon after, I began my current dream layout. Motivated by the first article, I decided from it's inception that the new layout would be built to a publishable degree of quality...period. Living in an area where model railroaders are few and far between, I saw the hobby media as a means to share the layout with others. True, I build it for my own personal enjoyment, but I derive equal gratification by sharing it, as shown through the labors of my website. This second layout was published in GMR 2007; however this time, I was contacted by the magazine. It seems that Andy Sperandeo had visited my website and liked what he saw. I was, and still am, an unknown name in the hobby...but somehow managed to crack that "bastion of wealthy socialites" up in Waukesha. I guess they lowered themselves temporarily to pity the Hoi Polloi.My point is this. MR has something known as standards. It is their right and, IMHO, obligation to the readership. I by no means am putting myself on a pedestal. I don't profess to have a great model railroad, as the name of GMR suggests. However, I do believe that anything worth doing is worth doing to the best of one's abilities and talents. This holds true not only for the layout itself, but also the manuscript writing and the photography. If what I put before MR's readers is mediocre, then it doesn't say much for me. I have never bought into this notion that exquisite layouts scare away newcomers. They certainly didn't scare me away. To the contrary, they motivated and inspired me. My message would be "if I can do it, anybody can!"
I think that Cliff inadvertently brings up a couple of points that, in fact, reflect on some of the counterpoints that have been posed here.
How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.
Likewise, I'd have to say that Cliff is being more than a bit modest in claiming his layout is not something special and he offers it up as an example that anyone can get published. From what I've seen of it, his current layout is likely in the top 100 layouts across the country and at a level far, far beyond the capabilities 99.9% of the hobbyists on this forum.
My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists. It would seem that MR can no longer normally accept submissions from outside its circle of elite modelers without feeling it is lowering its standards below the extremes it has set. Perhaps this situation is fine from the viewpoint of the armchair folks but for those who actually struggle to model, I'd say that it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs.
Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to see the magazine filled with layouts that look like some kid from the 1950's Lionel pike. But it would be nice to see a much wider diversity that encompasses a broader range of layouts that didn't necessarily take an army of helpers, or $100,000 , to create.
CNJ831
I didn't mean that showcasing layouts of average quality was one of the good ideas. The publication should always rise to the top with the cream.
There are, however, a lot of really good ideas in terms of things that could be included in their layout spreads, such as how the layout fits in the room, more "how to" information from the model builders, etc.
Model Railroader isn't the place to show pictures of a piece of plywood tetering on a saw horse with a circle of Unitrak on it.
fifedog wrote: Folks,gather 'round. I've read all your posts, and I gotta tell ya, what you seek already exists: CLASSIC TOY TRAINS. Heck, we've already given you Neil B to set things right."Come on in boys; the water's fine."
lol
Actually some of the postings on this thread actually seem to be yearning for a return of Kalmbach's old magazine, Model Trains -- which probably only a handful of us grizzled veterans remember. It featured scale and tinplate but the projects were at a do-able level for more people, the layouts tended to be small apartment sized. It also featured some wonderful "railroad you could model" articles about prototypes. Linn Westcott wrote that the magazine was discontinued not because it wasn't selling but because the target audience needed so many questions answered at the same time that the conclusion was that only books on a topic, such as wiring or scenery or building a layout on a 4x8 that could grow, really met the need.
On the other end of the spectrum, for good how-to articles and layout visits that don't seem to be re-hashing the same set of modelers repeatedly, don't ignore the new and improved Scale Rails magazine that you get when you join the NMRA. Every issue features scale drawings of at least one structure, and often a locomotive as well. It is several steps improved from the NMRA Bulletin of years past.
Car Craft magazine has had a section of the magazine that is dedicated to readers rides for a long time. I myself have just picked up my first subscription to MR in 20 years. I want to see a mix of stuff, I want to see the museum pieces for new ideas, and the average layouts for "Corner Cuttin Money Savin Idee-ers".
I am the first to admit that my layout when completed will be no museum piece. I am trying to complete a basement layout for $5000.00 or less, with DCC. It looks like I might be able to accomplish this goal. But it will by no means be a showpiece, but with a little care and a lot of effort it can look nice.
Will my layout grace the pages of MR? Probably not.
So what. Its about bonding with my son that is the most important, and he and I are interested in Model RR together.
CNJ831 wrote:How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.CNJ831
I believe that the company photographer has probably been sent out to photograph layouts that were intended to be a full major article, but may have been pulled for something else. So at least they use the photo in Trackside Pictures to give us a flavor of the layout even if we don't get a full article. I know of a number of people where they came out and never published the article on the layout.
just a little comment, but i thought it funny that the title is about this getting locked quickly, and here we areon page seven. kinda funny.
on a more serious note, i think this type of thoughtful, cordial discusion and debate a nice change and a standard for other posts
"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
I think that Cliff inadvertently brings up a couple of points that, in fact, reflect on some of the counterpoints that have been posed here.How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.Likewise, I'd have to say that Cliff is being more than a bit modest in claiming his layout is not something special and he offers it up as an example that anyone can get published. From what I've seen of it, his current layout is likely in the top 100 layouts across the country and at a level far, far beyond the capabilities 99.9% of the hobbyists on this forum.My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists. It would seem that MR can no longer normally accept submissions from outside its circle of elite modelers without feeling it is lowering its standards below the extremes it has set. Perhaps this situation is fine from the viewpoint of the armchair folks but for those who actually struggle to model, I'd say that it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to see the magazine filled with layouts that look like some kid from the 1950's Lionel pike. But it would be nice to see a much wider diversity that encompasses a broader range of layouts that didn't necessarily take an army of helpers, or $100,000 , to create.CNJ831
Well stated and from my experience submitting stuff it appears to be true. MR has an elite circle of contributors and to get into that circle you will have to get to know someone already in the circle well. Its just like a club where you can only enter if you have a family or friend that is currently a member of it.
My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists.
I don't care who you are, THAT's funny. First he tells us that the hobby is dying and that Model Railroader is no longer publishing articles that are of interest to experienced modelers and now he tells us that Model Railroader's standards are too high and that all we're getting are "fantasy" layouts.
Blasts from the past - fantasy layouts from the "Golden Age".
John Allen - fantasy layout
Terry Walsh - fantasy layout
Bill McClanahan - fantasy layout
Wally Moore - fantasy layout
Carl (?) Appel - fantasy layout
Whit Towers - fantasy layout
Cliff Robinson - well, you get the picture
There are more and I'll probably think of them later, but right now, I have to clean the coffee spray off my monitor and explain to my wife why I'm having fits of the giggles.
Andies Candy wrote: I think that Cliff inadvertently brings up a couple of points that, in fact, reflect on some of the counterpoints that have been posed here.How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.Likewise, I'd have to say that Cliff is being more than a bit modest in claiming his layout is not something special and he offers it up as an example that anyone can get published. From what I've seen of it, his current layout is likely in the top 100 layouts across the country and at a level far, far beyond the capabilities 99.9% of the hobbyists on this forum.My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists. It would seem that MR can no longer normally accept submissions from outside its circle of elite modelers without feeling it is lowering its standards below the extremes it has set. Perhaps this situation is fine from the viewpoint of the armchair folks but for those who actually struggle to model, I'd say that it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to see the magazine filled with layouts that look like some kid from the 1950's Lionel pike. But it would be nice to see a much wider diversity that encompasses a broader range of layouts that didn't necessarily take an army of helpers, or $100,000 , to create.CNJ831 Well stated and from my experience submitting stuff it appears to be true. MR has an elite circle of contributors and to get into that circle you will have to get to know someone already in the circle well. Its just like a club where you can only enter if you have a family or friend that is currently a member of it.
AC:
Actually, you and CNJ are saying two completely different things.
CNJ is saying that the MR staff has set their standards so high that few can meet them.
You are saying that MR just favors certain people regardless of standards.
I have to say that there may be something in what Mr. 831 says here, particularly in the area of photography. Lou Sassi is an excellent model-railroad photographer (although as I have said before, I wish he'd vary his style more). A less experienced shutterbug or sensorbug would have to get up pretty early in the morning to come up with something that wouldn't look a little rough next to one of his photos. Of course, his photos also look really nice, so I wouldn't really want to see standards brought down. I suppose we will all have to get up earlier.
Photography has always been somewhat of a stumbling block for would-be contributors, I think. Many of the people we remember most from bygone days just happen to be the model railroaders who were also good photographers: John Allen, for instance.
As for publication delays, I wonder how much of that depends on the subject matter. If, for example, MR gets a lot of articles on detailing F units or DCC programming, these might sit for a long time before use. OTOH, a long multipart article about something extraordinarily arcane like scratchbuilding a brass gondola car in N with working brakes and individually carved grains of scale coal might wait a long time for the time to be right. I am willing to bet my prized Tyco "Snack Pack" boxcar* that a short, interesting article with good photographs on something a lot of people could get into would see quick use.
andre c: I'm pretty sure CNJ is referring to layouts we'd dream about owning, rather than freelanced or fictional-world model railroads, although a lot of what you listed could also qualify as that. The G&D was and is that, for sure.
*It's the 60-footer and doesn't have trucks, sorry.
dknelson wrote:...On the other end of the spectrum, for good how-to articles and layout visits that don't seem to be re-hashing the same set of modelers repeatedly, don't ignore the new and improved Scale Rails magazine that you get when you join the NMRA. Every issue features scale drawings of at least one structure, and often a locomotive as well. It is several steps improved from the NMRA Bulletin of years past. Dave Nelson
That may be true for the recent past Bulletins, but the Bulletin of the 70's and 80's when Whit Towers was editor, I think, are still its best years.
I'm pretty sure you're right.
I think I read once that MR makes an effort to include a balance of material for N, HO, and O scale modelers. I imagine that most of the submissions to MR are from HO scale modelers, and the topic of the submission is in HO scale. Assuming that they receive more HO submissions than the other scales, it makes sense that the wait for publication would be longer and those submissions would receive greater scrutiny.
Regarding photographs, the published standards for Trackside Photos are fairly high (digital pictures must be at least 5 megapixel). I think this is because the printing processes cause a certain amount of degradation of the image, so the better the original the better it looks in print.
I think we all appreciate the crisp and high-quality appearance of MR, and we can understand them making a conscious effort to include the three most popular scales with some level of equality. Based on all of this, it seems that much of what it takes to see your work in print is to do good model work that would be of interest to a lot of readers; write it up very well, and provide very good pictures.
I've considered writing articles and submitting them for publication, but I know that to have any real hope of success (in getting them published) I'd have to get a better camera and set up a visually clean work-space, create some darn good drawings, and write/rewrite until I've got it right. As much as I'd love to see my work in print, I'm a builder - not a writer - and all of that seems like work, not fun. I've already got a job; I don't need my hobby to start resembling my vocation. One thing I like about the Forums is that the standards are simpler, so I can share my best work and ideas without having to do all the extra stuff that it takes to appear in MR.
I'm grateful for the modeler/authors and modeler/photographers among us. They provide us some great reading material and photos, and give us the resulting inspiration/information to do better and better work. I'm also grateful to the Forums contributors, this is like sitting down for coffee with a bunch of model railroaders - it's a lot of fun and a great way to share information, methods, and ideas.
If an article submitted to MR is deemed worthy, they will buy it and stash it away for future use. Balancing issues is I imagine a big part of their having lots of material to draw from. Sometimes the purchased articles can sit for a long time in their archives; they held onto one of mine for 13 years! It was bought and paid for so I couldn't submit material on the model to any other prublications, somewhat frustrating if you'd like to see your work in print.
As has been noted, preparing articles for submission to magazines can be a fair amount of work. If you're working on a model, then you have to be set up and prepared to take in progress photos as well as ones of the finished model. Writing an article takes a fair amount of time - assembling your references, setting up a proper sequence, etc. My word processor keeps track of time a document is open; one article I completed showed over 600 minutes - 10 hours. Now I wasn't typing all this time, but was working at the computer most of this time.
Photography has become a lot simpler with digital cameras, with instant feedback. I was always crossing my fingers when I used to shoot color slides, especially on out of town layouts. I didn't know how my photos turned out until I got back home and had them developed. Never really had any problems, but it was always a concern. Dioramas set up for photography were usually left set up until the slides could be checked to see if I got what I wanted. Normal shots weren't a problem, it was the ones with special effects such as smoke from engines, falling snow, etc. The photo setups often took a fair amount of work, but I didn't mind as photography was my other main hobby and trying to get the special shots I had envisioned was fun for me. But I can see how it could be a problem for anyone not comfortable taking photos.
It was fun anway!
Some things are a labor of love, we put everything we are into a work of art and only some of the folks will see the blood sweat and money that goes into what we see as a Master Art work when others will look at it and just see mediocre work.
Art like lay outs is subjectable or in the eyes of the beholder.
As long as you enjoy your creation that is all that matters.
Yes , I'd love to see the average Joes layout, this would give me more incentive to advance to a place that is reachable to me, and I must admit the perfect lay outs with the endless cash flowing into them can intimidate me and make me wonder if I'd ever have a lay out that would stand out amongst all the rest.
My game plan is to build what I know, honor what I'm doing and those who will enjoy it the most are those that I hope will get some inspiration from me and my art form.
Build it from your heart and it will always be remembered, build it for publicity and it will only be judged and out done by some one with more money and talent than we hope to have.
Good luck, now I'm off in search for pics of the average Joes lay outs.
I'm also happy to see that they didn't "Pull this post" that would only make me wonder about freedom of expression at this site, it is refreshing to see that at least one of our rights remains in tact.
OzarkBelt wrote: just a little comment, but i thought it funny that the title is about this getting locked quickly, and here we areon page seven. kinda funny. on a more serious note, i think this type of thoughtful, cordial discusion and debate a nice change and a standard for other posts
I am happy you noticed. You have pointed out the very reason the thread has proliferated....it is focused, respectful in tone, and it is relevant. It doesn't matter who is saying what, it is more focused on what is being bandied about...which is the intent of the forum and Kalmbach.
No need to squelch a good conversation. It would be rude.
I don't want to side-track the thread, but just a point, because it keeps popping up - freedom of speech is not guaranteed...not in my house, and not in yours. If you offend me, I'll demand you leave, and you will leave. It's the same here....Kalmbach sets its own rules, and can compel each of us to comply. It's the price we pay for enjoying what is meant to be friendship here as their guests.
I believe the rules are generous, and our hosts are quite tolerant in their enforcement. They are also, to give them credit, relatively bright people who would not be fooled by a topic titled as this one is.
Now, could we put this much behind us for once and enjoy what's left of the thread?
As far as the issue of not being able to get things published without being in the Model Railroader clique is concerned, there does appear to be some cronyism that I have noticed over the years. However, there is often considerable self-delusion among those that submit something to MR that is rejected. Over the years I have been subjected 4-5 times to a rant from someone (usually in a hobby shop) who is really upset by the rejection of their submission to MR. When I was shown the actual manuscript, photos or ideas, it was all I could do to keep a straight face and be diplomatic. Not all of us are skilled modelers or photograhers and not all of us can write. Having seen some of the modeling featured in some of the lesser (and now gone) magazines, and am glad that MR has high standards.
The other thing I have noticed is that often the newer, skilled modelers and new quality layouts will show up in RMC or LDSIG first, or develop a regional reputation for having a layout worth seeing and then will start showing up in MR, so people do break though and get published in MR. - Nevin
selector wrote:I don't want to side-track the thread, but just a point, because it keeps popping up - freedom of speech is not guaranteed...not in my house, and not in yours. If you offend me, I'll demand you leave, and you will leave. It's the same here....Kalmbach sets its own rules, and can compel each of us to comply. It's the price we pay for enjoying what is meant to be friendship here as their guests.I believe the rules are generous, and our hosts are quite tolerant in their enforcement. They are also, to give them credit, relatively bright people who would not be fooled by a topic titled as this one is.Now, could we put this much behind us for once and enjoy what's left of the thread?-Crandell
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
My presence or absence in your house is not a freedom of speech issue. In my house my freedom of speech is guaranteed.
Since the topic of model railroad photography has been mentioned a few times, I've got to make sure you all know about this website:
http://arailfan.googlepages.com/
It's the creation of Bob Boudreau (one of our fellow forums participants) and it's great! It is full of good advice for taking great pictures of your work. I really urge you to take a look.
GREAT WORK, BOB!
I brought those layouts up because they represented the "state of the art" at the time. They were what the rest of us either aspired to or thought we should aspire to. Interestingly enough, a number of those might be considered somewhat amateurish today given the vastly improved kits, r-t-r and scenery materials with which we have to work. Both McClanahan's T&RGW and Walsh's WA&I used Tru-Scale milled roadbed with ties milled in place, IIRC. The milled roadbed had ties that were way too uniform.
I don't care who you are, THAT's funny. First he tells us that the hobby is dying and that Model Railroader is no longer publishing articles that are of interest to experienced modelers and now he tells us that Model Railroader's standards are too high and that all we're getting are "fantasy" layouts. Blasts from the past - fantasy layouts from the "Golden Age".John Allen - fantasy layoutetc., etc., etc.There are more and I'll probably think of them later, but right now, I have to clean the coffee spray off my monitor and explain to my wife why I'm having fits of the giggles.Andre
etc., etc., etc.
Poor Andre. I was pointing out that the level of modeling and the physical magnitude of virtually all the layouts pictured in the layout tours lately are so far beyond the abilities of such as yourself and probably 99% of the readership, that MR is largely selling a magazine of fantasy, rather than of practicality. Certainly not that the layouts are fantasy. For future reference, let me advise you that when the meanings aren't clear to a poster, the intelligent approach is to ask what the author actually meant, instead of the classic approach of the ignorant in vainly attempting to poke fun at things they don't understand.
IRONROOSTER wrote: My presence or absence in your house is not a freedom of speech issue. In my house my freedom of speech is guaranteed.EnjoyPaul
So...are you agreeing with me, Paul, or disagreeing? I am not following...sorry.
Is it just me, or has the positive nature of this thread degenerated a little?
andrechapelon wrote: andre c: I'm pretty sure CNJ is referring to layouts we'd dream about owning, rather than freelanced or fictional-world model railroads, although a lot of what you listed could also qualify as that. The G&D was and is that, for sure.I brought those layouts up because they represented the "state of the art" at the time. They were what the rest of us either aspired to or thought we should aspire to.
I brought those layouts up because they represented the "state of the art" at the time. They were what the rest of us either aspired to or thought we should aspire to.
ac:
Okay, right. That's true...the G&D was certainly the greatest dream railroad to a lot of people, and it still is up there. Fair enough.
What is nice about the G&D is that if you go way back and read old issues, you can follow Allen's dream as it grew up...but then, Allen was a gifted photographer who could take very little and make it look amazing. We've all seen the picture of a boxcar being unloaded in the background, with overhanging tree branches in front? Then there is this scene:
http://www.gdlines.com/GD_Galleries/Structures/slides/awesome.html
It's really simple in detail, but what an atmosphere. It's still rare that a scene has the kind of reality that Allen could create - often I see a picture and it looks like a perfect model, but I don't get the feeling that I could reach out, open the door, and walk right in.
One thing that I sense as I read MR is that layouts that more or less closely follow an actual prototype railroad seem to be most favored, and freelance layouts are considered second tier. Is it just me, or do others get that feeling, too?
One example is that the Pike-sized Passenger Train contest required entries to have a real prototype. Up to that point, I was going to model the Hooterville Express, of Petticoat Junction fame ('60s TV show). I respect the discipline that it takes to closely follow a prototype railroad, but for me it is more fun to make it up as I go along. Your thoughts?
I find this thread interesting, and will chime in my . You may react as you wish.
One thing I find very useful for me in various MR articles is - especially in the 'fantasy' ones (e.g., Rod Stewart's, and he had help with that, as those who read the article carefully know already) - is the ones of whatever size, which have in a very good or excellent manner portrayed the scene (for lack of a better phrase). The article and photos need not be something I can achieve all of it (and I may not want to recreate that layout), but it just needs to inspire me or to give me a detail or two in setting the scene, that I hadn't thought of which could be transferred to my layout (small, freestanding shelf/sectional type - I live in a one-bedroom apartment, and currently my layout sits in part of the living room). Though I wouldn't give the 'layout design elements' book five stars, I think the concept is useful. I don't need to duplicate every detail; I want instead to create the mood, the ambience that lets the layout viewer (or me) to fill in whatever details we remember from some time when we watched a railroad. So, in a way it's helping create the fantasy, but without having to buy every big-ticket item in Walthers' (or other) catalog to do that.
Okay, I'll step down from the now. To each his/her own...
Jim in Cape Girardeau
selector wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: My presence or absence in your house is not a freedom of speech issue. In my house my freedom of speech is guaranteed.EnjoyPaulSo...are you agreeing with me, Paul, or disagreeing? I am not following...sorry.-Crandell
Mostly what I am saying is that this isn't really a freedom of speech issue. In the case of houses the implied right of privacy is superior.
Okay, gotcha...thanks for clearing that up for me.
Here would be my official suggestion to the editors....
1-since Kalmbach owns/operates this forum they should have a representative voice from the editorial staff pop in on threads like this to explain the hows and whys of the current magazine format to us (not that they really are obligated to do so but just to answer some questions AND) to show they are really listening.
2-Establish a clearly stated "outline" of what they expect for submittals to consider for publication. Do they require 20 to 30 photos, a 3000 word essay on how they current layout came to life, or would a decently drawn CAD plan with 5 snapshots and 100 words be enough? Doing this would give all of us a level playing feild to get started.
I am extremely impressed with the fact that this thread has remained as civil as it has been.
concretelackey wrote: Here would be my official suggestion to the editors....1-since Kalmbach owns/operates this forum they should have a representative voice from the editorial staff pop in on threads like this to explain the hows and whys of the current magazine format to us (not that they really are obligated to do so but just to answer some questions AND) to show they are really listening.2-Establish a clearly stated "outline" of what they expect for submittals to consider for publication. Do they require 20 to 30 photos, a 3000 word essay on how they current layout came to life, or would a decently drawn CAD plan with 5 snapshots and 100 words be enough? Doing this would give all of us a level playing feild to get started. I am extremely impressed with the fact that this thread has remained as civil as it has been.
Terry
Terry in NW Wisconsin
Queenbogey715 is my Youtube channel
Poor Andre. I was pointing out that the level of modeling and the physical magnitude of virtually all the layouts pictured in the layout tours lately are so far beyond the abilities of such as yourself and probably 99% of the readership, that MR is largely selling a magazine of fantasy, rather than of practicality.
That's twice today that I have sprayed my monitor with a caffeinated beverage. This time it was Pepsi.
You must mean layouts like Rod Stewart's or Bruce Chubb's or Chuck Hitchcock's to name a few recent ones. So what? Doesn't mean that we peasants and other assorted riff-raff can't enjoy reading about them. I remember that when I first saw the 2 parter about Bruce Chubb's new layout, my first reaction was a mix of "wow" and "why"? The more I read, the more it became "why?". I mean no disrespect to Bruce Chubb, but my overall impression was one that can be summed up in the word "overkill". Well done overkill, perhaps, but overkill nonetheless.
As for abilities, if you mean skill, well, skills are learned, not inherent. If you mean financial means, you're probably right but, as far as I'm concerned, irrelevant. Even if I could afford a club sized layout in my basement (if I had a basement), I have no desire for something of that magnitude. Actually, my favorite recent layout was the Indiana & Northern (I think it was called that, I don't have my copy of GMR 2008 handy). Not ALL the layouts shown in the last year in MR, GMR, MRP are mega layouts. There've been a number of smaller ones, including Lance Mindheim's little gem of a switching layout. Even the Troy branch of the WSOR, although large, is not a mega layout. It's certainly a doable one for many, even if it would have to be "downsized" to fit a smaller space.
Certainly not that the layouts are fantasy. For future reference, let me advise you that when the meanings aren't clear to a poster, the intelligent approach is to ask what the author actually meant, instead of the classic approach of the ignorant in vainly attempting to poke fun at things they don't understand.
Physician, heal thyself. When I referred to "classic" mega layouts as fantasies, I was referring to the fact that those of us great unwashed (not to mention those poor benighted young whippersnappers unschooled in the way of the classic Jedi model railroader) could only fantasize about having such layouts.
I knew exactly what you meant. Did you know what I meant?
For those who enjoy seeing all sorts of layouts including incomplete ones, small ones, and some that are not perhaps as finished as might warrant an article in the model railroading press, I hope you are NMRA members and attend divisional meets as well as regional and, when possible, national conventions. Layout tours in person are a real opportunity to learn.
dknelson wrote: For those who enjoy seeing all sorts of layouts including incomplete ones, small ones, and some that are not perhaps as finished as might warrant an article in the model railroading press, I hope you are NMRA members and attend divisional meets as well as regional and, when possible, national conventions. Layout tours in person are a real opportunity to learn.Dave Nelson
Hear! Hear! I plan on rejoining the NMRA in next 2-3 months for that very reason plus,to renew old friendships with folks that live in other areas.
selector wrote: I don't want to side-track the thread, but just a point, because it keeps popping up - freedom of speech is not guaranteed...not in my house, and not in yours. If you offend me, I'll demand you leave, and you will leave. It's the same here....Kalmbach sets its own rules, and can compel each of us to comply. It's the price we pay for enjoying what is meant to be friendship here as their guests.I believe the rules are generous, and our hosts are quite tolerant in their enforcement. They are also, to give them credit, relatively bright people who would not be fooled by a topic titled as this one is.Now, could we put this much behind us for once and enjoy what's left of the thread?-Crandell
CNJ831 wrote: I think that Cliff inadvertently brings up a couple of points that, in fact, reflect on some of the counterpoints that have been posed here.How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.Likewise, I'd have to say that Cliff is being more than a bit modest in claiming his layout is not something special and he offers it up as an example that anyone can get published. From what I've seen of it, his current layout is likely in the top 100 layouts across the country and at a level far, far beyond the capabilities 99.9% of the hobbyists on this forum.My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists. It would seem that MR can no longer normally accept submissions from outside its circle of elite modelers without feeling it is lowering its standards below the extremes it has set. Perhaps this situation is fine from the viewpoint of the armchair folks but for those who actually struggle to model, I'd say that it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to see the magazine filled with layouts that look like some kid from the 1950's Lionel pike. But it would be nice to see a much wider diversity that encompasses a broader range of layouts that didn't necessarily take an army of helpers, or $100,000 , to create.CNJ831
CNJ,
You gotta stop this! That's twice today I've agreed with you 100%!
I've had some folks suggest I do up an article for MR on my layout, the angle being that it's small, portable, and yet prototype-specific. My wife thinks that since the layout is designed for my active-duty military lifestyle (constant moves with no gaurantee of a large space for a layout at the next assignment, etc.) would strike a chord with our more mobile younger generation.
Two things prevent me from even trying to submit to MR:
1. The photography standards are so complex, I feel like I'd either have to pay a professional or take up photography as a second hobby (not happening, since I just took up home-brewing as a new hobby!).
2. I don't want to wait 5 years to see if MR will publish it.
Current plans are to submit to one of the N scale mags.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave Vollmer wrote: CNJ831 wrote: I think that Cliff inadvertently brings up a couple of points that, in fact, reflect on some of the counterpoints that have been posed here.How often, even in this thread, do we hear,"They can't publish stuff that isn't submitted." Then you see that the outsiders who do get published typically wait 4-7 years for their articles to see the light of day (ask our friend Bob B. about that)! Do you honestly think that reflects a lack of outside submissions? At the same time, those authors favored by MR are published on a regular basis about every couple of months. As a former magazine writer myself, I can tell you that either these guys are spending all their time writing, or their submissions are consistantly going to the head of the line. Trackside Photos has become even worse. Whereas this was once the outlet for "every-man" to get his best efforts published, the majority of photos displayed every month currently are coming from the same individual...who happens to be the company's paid photog.Likewise, I'd have to say that Cliff is being more than a bit modest in claiming his layout is not something special and he offers it up as an example that anyone can get published. From what I've seen of it, his current layout is likely in the top 100 layouts across the country and at a level far, far beyond the capabilities 99.9% of the hobbyists on this forum.My overall impressioin is that MR has pretty much backed itself into a corner with its extremely high standards, today largely offering the readership fantasy-layout tours and no longer showcasing the hobby as what it really is, or can ever hope to be, for hobbyists. It would seem that MR can no longer normally accept submissions from outside its circle of elite modelers without feeling it is lowering its standards below the extremes it has set. Perhaps this situation is fine from the viewpoint of the armchair folks but for those who actually struggle to model, I'd say that it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs. Now don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't want to see the magazine filled with layouts that look like some kid from the 1950's Lionel pike. But it would be nice to see a much wider diversity that encompasses a broader range of layouts that didn't necessarily take an army of helpers, or $100,000 , to create.CNJ831 CNJ,You gotta stop this! That's twice today I've agreed with you 100%!I've had some folks suggest I do up an article for MR on my layout, the angle being that it's small, portable, and yet prototype-specific. My wife thinks that since the layout is designed for my active-duty military lifestyle (constant moves with no gaurantee of a large space for a layout at the next assignment, etc.) would strike a chord with our more mobile younger generation.Two things prevent me from even trying to submit to MR:1. The photography standards are so complex, I feel like I'd either have to pay a professional or take up photography as a second hobby (not happening, since I just took up home-brewing as a new hobby!).2. I don't want to wait 5 years to see if MR will publish it.Current plans are to submit to one of the N scale mags.
yes he made real good points I agree, BUT 5 years just is not a long time man. I mean where could anyone be in 5 years? Yes you may have moved and started a whole new layout, had a kid or two, bought another house, changed careers, earned a few gray hairs and have more aching bones but its not a long time.
Workshop tip this month
Using half a basketball for easy clean up etc etc? What a waste of space, Im sorry. It was not a great tip that many will even consider to utilize. I will not cut a basketball for that purpose, nope. You may, but not me.
Trackside photos should read; Trackside photos of previous Model Railroader contributors
I really don't think there is any sort of inner circle membership requirement, or minimum layout size to get into MR. Over the past couple of years I've seen a couple of fairly small layouts featured (A UP layout that was set up as a sequence of dioramas, and another one that is always lit as if it were nighttime). The things that appeared to get them into the magazine were that they were well done, looked good, and were a little unique (something new to read about).
My question is do we really need to appear in MR to be validated as model railroaders? For me, that sort of thing is for certain professions (like college professors), but this is a hobby. We do it for fun, right? For folks who want to share ideas, methods, pictures, etc. I really think MR provides a place, right here in the forums. Want to look at "regular" modelers' work? Just look around the forums.
I once built a layout with the specific goal to see it in MR, I got all the way to having professional photos taken and then I asked myself how I'll deal with it if I'm rejected, and what I'll do if it is accepted. I didn't have an answer for either question.
Then I asked does it matter?
I never made my submission (I still have the pictures). Since then, I keep things in perspective: If I'm satisfied with my project, it's good; if I'm not satisfied, I keep trying.
One last thing - I did publish an article in a professional journal. I submitted it, got paid, 4 years went by, a friend called to say he just read my article, I was thrilled (briefly). When I read it I found out what editorial license really is: slasher is a word that comes to mind. All in all, it wasn't all that rewarding and most of my work ended up "on the cutting room floor." My point: Getting published ain't all that great.
Here's where I'm at: Let's build our layouts for fun, and accept MR for what it is. Those folks do all they can to keep their readership up, but they know they can't please everyone all the time - and they don't have space to feature all the great model railroading work that goes on in millions of private homes. If I were king of the magazine I'd change a few things, but I'm not king of the magazine. Somehow I doubt that I could do a better job than they do - after all, they've been at it for well over 75 years.
Regarding Trackside Photos: They just published the requirements for a photo to be considered - take your best shot!
Regarding the half-basketball tip: I agree, that was a little lame, but if you happen to have a ball with a hole - well, there you go!
shayfan84325 wrote:I really don't think there is any sort of inner circle membership requirement, or minimum layout size to get into MR. Over the past couple of years I've seen a couple of fairly small layouts featured (A UP layout that was set up as a sequence of dioramas, and another one that is always lit as if it were nighttime). The things that appeared to get them into the magazine were that they were well done, looked good, and were a little unique (something new to read about).My question is do we really need to appear in MR to be validated as model railroaders? For me, that sort of thing is for certain professions (like college professors), but this is a hobby. We do it for fun, right? For folks who want to share ideas, methods, pictures, etc. I really think MR provides a place, right here in the forums. Want to look at "regular" modelers' work? Just look around the forums.I once built a layout with the specific goal to see it in MR, I got all the way to having professional photos taken and then I asked myself how I'll deal with it if I'm rejected, and what I'll do if it is accepted. I didn't have an answer for either question.Then I asked does it matter?I never made my submission (I still have the pictures). Since then, I keep things in perspective: If I'm satisfied with my project, it's good; if I'm not satisfied, I keep trying.One last thing - I did publish an article in a professional journal. I submitted it, got paid, 4 years went by, a friend called to say he just read my article, I was thrilled (briefly). When I read it I found out what editorial license really is: slasher is a word that comes to mind. All in all, it wasn't all that rewarding and most of my work ended up "on the cutting room floor." My point: Getting published ain't all that great.Here's where I'm at: Let's build our layouts for fun, and accept MR for what it is. Those folks do all they can to keep their readership up, but they know they can't please everyone all the time - and they don't have space to feature all the great model railroading work that goes on in millions of private homes. If I were king of the magazine I'd change a few things, but I'm not king of the magazine. Somehow I doubt that I could do a better job than they do - after all, they've been at it for well over 75 years.Regarding Trackside Photos: They just published the requirements for a photo to be considered - take your best shot!Regarding the half-basketball tip: I agree, that was a little lame, but if you happen to have a ball with a hole - well, there you go!
Unfortunately, many activities that started out as hobbies, where the main focus was to unwind and have fun, have turned into competetive pasttimes in which many participants take more seriously than their job. Hiking and biking are good examples. At one time these were pleasurable pasttimes in which to enjoy nature, get out of the house, ang get some exercise. Today, at least in the SF Bay Area, these are extremely competative with some "official" gear costing thousands of dollars. Some people wouldn't be caught dead without their "official" gear. I suppose model railroading is like that for some people who feel they have to measure up to a certain standard in order to be "official". There's nothing wrong for wanting to better your modeling skills but when this starts to become more of a stressful chore rather than an enjoyable pasttime, it ceases to be a hobby and turns into a chore. I'm sure there are many superb layouts out there from some members on this forum and elsewhere that can outdo some of the "official" masters, but will never get published because the hobbyists attitude toward model railroading is enjoyment rather than trying to be numero uno.
on30francisco wrote: Unfortunately, many activities that started out as hobbies, where the main focus was to unwind and have fun, have turned into competetive pasttimes in which many participants take more seriously than their job. Hiking and biking are good examples. At one time these were pleasurable pasttimes in which to enjoy nature, get out of the house, ang get some exercise. Today, at least in the SF Bay Area, these are extremely competative with some "official" gear costing thousands of dollars. Some people wouldn't be caught dead without their "official" gear. I suppose model railroading is like that for some people who feel they have to measure up to a certain standard in order to be "official". There's nothing wrong for wanting to better your modeling skills but when this starts to become more of a stressful chore rather than an enjoyable pasttime, it ceases to be a hobby and turns into a chore. I'm sure there are many superb layouts out there from some members on this forum and elsewhere that can outdo some of the "official" masters, but will never get published because the hobbyists attitude toward model railroading is enjoyment rather than trying to be numero uno.
Well said! I've heard them referred to as "gearheads." As a cyclist on a 35-year old bike I wonder about whether they are having fun.
At work I'm evaluated and measured all the time, part of what I get from my hobby is a break from that. One of my pals commented that john Allen had a great approach to the hobby and his attitude was "I like it; I run it." No competition at all, just fun.
Here's to freelancers and guy's who put dynosaurs on their layouts and call them switch engines (like John Allen's #13).
Come to think of it, do you suppose it mattered to John Allen if he was featured or not? I like to think it was all for pleasure, never for fame.
tattooguy67 wrote:...don't you have to subscribe to MRR to gain access to this forum? and even if not i am a subscriber, and also own many of their fine books, so i guess the way i look at it is we are more like roomates or housemates if you like, and when i come on here i see it as more of me coming into the living room of a house we share and hanging out, and as i would want to keep peace in the house i would not hector you on a view you held, but i would also let you know that i did not agree and the reasons why, nicely of course, and while i do really enjoy this forum and have learned alot on here for no fee, i also do not consider this a charity in that they are losing money by providing it, they may not make much, and on some days it may seem more trouble then its worth, but i doubt it would still be here if it cost them....
...don't you have to subscribe to MRR to gain access to this forum? and even if not i am a subscriber, and also own many of their fine books, so i guess the way i look at it is we are more like roomates or housemates if you like, and when i come on here i see it as more of me coming into the living room of a house we share and hanging out, and as i would want to keep peace in the house i would not hector you on a view you held, but i would also let you know that i did not agree and the reasons why, nicely of course, and while i do really enjoy this forum and have learned alot on here for no fee, i also do not consider this a charity in that they are losing money by providing it, they may not make much, and on some days it may seem more trouble then its worth, but i doubt it would still be here if it cost them....
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, tattooguy. I agree with you...this is meant to be a place where we are equals in terms of our right to be here. What is not equal is how well each of us writes, and even our intellects and knowledge bases vary. Sometimes generally mean-spirited, but bright and articulate, posters can make the place miserable for the rest of us. It is my contention that they ought to know better. If they know so much, why can't they understand the rules...or remember them?
This place would suck, frankly, if we couldn't find something to disagree about. If we all liked Athearn Genesis, and no other product, where would we be? It also sucks when entire conversations are co-oped by loud-mouthed schnooks, to use the term of the Chicken Hawk in the Bugs Bunny cartoons.
By the way, I quoted you above at the start of a statement that indicates you are mistaken in understanding. You do not have to be a subscriber to the magazine to post here...you must only register with your required particulars and then you are free to use the place once you receive the confirmatory email from them. I subscribe to none of the Kalmbach magazines (30 of them), and I am a moderator on their trains.com forum....go figure!
shayfan84325 wrote:One thing that I sense as I read MR is that layouts that more or less closely follow an actual prototype railroad seem to be most favored, and freelance layouts are considered second tier. Is it just me, or do others get that feeling, too?One example is that the Pike-sized Passenger Train contest required entries to have a real prototype. Up to that point, I was going to model the Hooterville Express, of Petticoat Junction fame ('60s TV show). I respect the discipline that it takes to closely follow a prototype railroad, but for me it is more fun to make it up as I go along. Your thoughts?
From what I'm reading in Model Railroader, the magazine seems to emphasise modeling prototype railroads. For some people, model railroading today is more like a competative sport or job to be judged and evaluated rather than a relaxing hobby. My hat is off to those who enjoy this but it definitely is not for me. I have always enjoyed freelancing because I can create my own railroad with my logo, towns, rolling stock, etc. To me, following a prototype is more like a demanding job and a job and hobby are two different things. Although Model Railroader's emphasis is on prototype modeling and operation, they're not the only game in town. The most important point is to HAVE FUN!
Been lurking on these forums for ages, and I've finally decided to get active. Being new to the hobby, I'm was at first somewhat amazed at the amount of pessism I've found in these forums (death of the hobby, rising costs, these pages), but find a similar amount of pessism in forums I frequent for film photographers (death of film, rising costs, not enough "average" photographers featured in magazines). Perhaps that is just how we are as a society. What's even more interesting is that for many of you who've posted here, I've drooled over you wonderful layouts in fits of jealousy, and guess what, it wasn't in the pages of MR. It doesn't have to fall in the pages of a mag to for to discover your wonderful layouts!
I've only been subscribing to MR for 6 months. As far as the magazine goes, I've been quite happy to enjoy viewing the quality layouts they feature. It gives me inspiration and something to aspire to. I am not always impressed with the layouts they feature (maybe it's the plan, opertations, etc.) but I respect skills that are far superior to mine. I think they've featured a good mix of scales, sizes of layouts, freelance and prototypical operations from a multitude of modelers of different locations, ages, backgrounds, etc. It's helped generate many ideas for my layout planning, even if the process has been slow. Perhaps I'd like to see a little more content and less advertising, but hey, it keeps the costs down. Plus I think it's stated in the magazine that they more than welcome reader content.
They are entitled to have their standards in place for reader submissions. Quite frankly, I think it's very obvious from the articles what they require. If one has trouble with writing or photography, then why not seek help from others who are adept in those areas instead of giving up on the idea? I'm sure there are any number of people on these who would welcome the chance to critique writings and photos, and provide help. They sure don't hesistate when it comes to layouts And how can one complain about publishing if they've never attempted or done it a few times? Keep trying! Obviously the talented modelers did...they weren't born with the skills to lay and detail a layout.
I guess I'm just suprised at the some of the jealous overtones I find in these pages. MR features some wonderful quality layouts, and certainly wouldn't mind building layouts that matches that said quality. But MR isn't the end all be all to me, and I don't need them or anyone else to validate or justify my reasons for participating in the hobby. That's not my motivation when working on my layout. I'd be content with a just a few hits a year on website, and wife that say's "That's nice, babe" when I try to wow her with a weathered box car Hopefully, as I get more involved in these forums, I'll get help from you fine people and grow as a modeler, even without falling in the pages of MR.
Sorry...just the opinionated rant of a newbie...
on30francisco wrote: shayfan84325 wrote: One thing that I sense as I read MR is that layouts that more or less closely follow an actual prototype railroad seem to be most favored, and freelance layouts are considered second tier. Is it just me, or do others get that feeling, too?One example is that the Pike-sized Passenger Train contest required entries to have a real prototype. Up to that point, I was going to model the Hooterville Express, of Petticoat Junction fame ('60s TV show). I respect the discipline that it takes to closely follow a prototype railroad, but for me it is more fun to make it up as I go along. Your thoughts?From what I'm reading in Model Railroader, the magazine seems to emphasise modeling prototype railroads. For some people, model railroading today is more like a competative sport or job to be judged and evaluated rather than a relaxing hobby. My hat is off to those who enjoy this but it definitely is not for me. I have always enjoyed freelancing because I can create my own railroad with my logo, towns, rolling stock, etc. To me, following a prototype is more like a demanding job and a job and hobby are two different things. Although Model Railroader's emphasis is on prototype modeling and operation, they're not the only game in town. The most important point is to HAVE FUN!
shayfan84325 wrote: One thing that I sense as I read MR is that layouts that more or less closely follow an actual prototype railroad seem to be most favored, and freelance layouts are considered second tier. Is it just me, or do others get that feeling, too?One example is that the Pike-sized Passenger Train contest required entries to have a real prototype. Up to that point, I was going to model the Hooterville Express, of Petticoat Junction fame ('60s TV show). I respect the discipline that it takes to closely follow a prototype railroad, but for me it is more fun to make it up as I go along. Your thoughts?
sf/O30:
There are trends in this hobby just like there are trends in clothing. At one time, it seemed like everybody was modeling the Rocky Mountains. At the moment, I think we are in the later days of a trend shown in the work of Allen McClelland, David Barrow, Tony Koester, the RPI club, John Pryke and that guy with the Maumee Route (nee Midland Indiana) whose name slips my mind ATM. Some of these were or are freelancers, and they have their huge differences, but the point is picking some prototype and following it.
My preference is the earlier method where your RR /is/ its own prototype, so to speak, and you come up with your own standards to follow. Some will say that this can result in less realism, but really, I think the PRR would be completely unbelievable in this way, had it not actually existed in real life.
However, I don't hesitate to dig into the prototype, or to plunder the works of such as the RPI club. By doing that, I've discovered a lot more I could do with my little railroad with minimal capital improvement. For instance, I never realized just how neat milk trains were, or that nearly every industry of any size with rail service used to take so many carloads of coal. I'm not restricted by any particular prototype in how I do these things, but knowing about them adds to the fun.
(I'm not connected with RPI, but I recommend that anybody with an interest in history or railroads subscribe to their site for one month, and assimilate as much as possible in that time. You will be amazed at what's there. Essentially, you'd be buying the right to read the greatest model railroaders' encyclopedia of prototype information ever written, for one month, for a bit less than an issue of GMR. Screaming deal.)
JD: I don't think we're motivated by jealousy, and I do like reading the layout features. I buy MR at the newsstand, and I don't skip too many months. However, I also read a lot of back issues, and often I enjoy them more. Maybe it's because the good ones are what survived, maybe it's because we need another paragon of geekcellence like Linn Westcott to appear.
James,
Welcome to the forum! Getting feedback about how we behave on the forum is similar to us giving Kalmbach feedback on the magazines. Sometimes it''s an eye opener! You seem like a nice, even keeled person. You'll never fit in around here! I hope you enjoy the forum. It's nice to read anonymously, but it's even better if you can participate.