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....
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
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.
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