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.
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
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."
-Phil
PS: I think they should put more material on steam in the mag. Not less diesel mind you, just more steam.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
??? 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.
Dave Nelson
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.
-Crandell
I agree with shayfan.
More clubs and local groups would be great!