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