Well said!
I was very disappointed in the project feature Lee mentions. Of all the aspects involved in constructing a layout, adding two vehicles to a scene is pretty minor. It seemed as if it were an "afterthought."
Additionally, the engine terminal layout... I was thinking "wow, he did a nice job ballasting!" No, he didn't. He had that layout custom-built. There's an increasing trend in MR featuring articles about guys whose paychecks are big enough to purchase entire layouts ready-to-run. If that's a trend hobby-wide, fine... But let's spend more time talking to the guys that build 'em and less time talking to the guys that buy 'em. I don't ever plan to buy a custom layout, even if I had the money... it wouldn't really be mine. Only if I were to become significantly handicapped would I consider it. I'm sure most model railroaders would rather know more about "how to build" than "what I bought."
Now, the Virginia and Western layout... That was a nice old-school feature. Well built, well photographed.
But please, MR... If the best project feature you can muster is gluing two vehicles to a layout, don't bother... Even the newist noob could probably figure that one out.
I miss David Popp's construction projects for his N scale NHRR. Those seemed well-thought-out and relevant. In fact, I used a number of his techniques on my own layout.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
MR's slogan has gone from "Model Railroading is Fun" to "Dream, Plan, Build", to "Dream, Plan, Buy".
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
If I may, I'd like to keep the topic related to scratch building articles in particular. I can see where this can quickly devolve into a flame fest pointed at MR editorial policy, but I'd like to keep it focused on what you would find useful about a return to regular features on modeling prototype structures and equipment.
It would also be helpful if you have built models following plans previously published in MR, and sharing photos of them. Plus a little discussion of what challenges you faced and how you met them.
I'd like to show the MR staff that this kind of stuff IS valid, and that they shouldn't abandon the pursuit of craftsmanship in exchange for quick fixes and "open the package" articles. I really think the lowest common denominator is driving the bus lately, and it is costing the magazine, and the hobby in general, dearly.
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
You are, of course, correct, Lee. Over the past 15 or so years, MR has changed direction from being regarded as the magazine of typical, advanced model railroaders, to one designed mainly for the increasingly RTR, entry-level, crowd. I also tend to agree with you that much of their copy has become designed for advertiser product-pushing, rather than toward hobbyist self creativity, ingenuity and the building of actual modeling skills. Certainly, some of this does seem to stem from the current editorial staff being progressively less and less composed of seasoned modelers, as you also suggest in your post. Note, too, that the latest editorial staff addition (May MR) seems not to have any mentionable model railroading background at all.
I wouldn't expect too many major format changes in the near future, as MR seems to be very much set on following its present course, in spite of the fact that they are loosing seasoned hobbyists/readership at a steady rate of 4,000 to 7,000 per year. Incidentally, who else has noticed that lately RMC has consistantly exceeded MR in both page count and useful content? The former is a pinacle RMC had never even approached in all its past history! Signs of a changing-of-the-order to come, perhaps?
CNJ831
Okay, on the subject of scratchbuilding...
I would say probably the biggest obstacle to a new hobbyist wanting to scratchbuild is probably his limited toolbox and parts box. MR has done features from time to time about what should be in a modeler's toolbox, but how about an article (or even a feature) about building up the scratchbuilder's toolbox? I think a new modeler would get a whole lot more bang for his buck buying some decent tools from MicroMark than some fancy new loco that might not even match his modeling goals.
New hobbyists need to be assured that they, too, can kitbash and scratchbuild if only they take the time to develop the skills.
MR has stepped into the role as a "gateway" magazine for the hobby. That's fine. In many respects, they've always played that role. Years ago, there were also more articles on more advanced stuff. But, MR used to make a point of emphasizing that the "advanced stuff" was within everyone's reach.
Again, I wish we could do a better job as a hobby (here's where MR can assert great influence) encouraging new hobbyists from the get-go that if something they want can't be had off-the-shelf, that they can build it themselves. You don't have to be in the hobby for 25 years to do that. I scratchbuilt my first wood structure (from an article in RMC, BTW) when I was 13.
I would hardly consider myself one of the "good" modellers yet, however I am learning and I am tackling some of the bigger kits without ruining them. I started with a couple of Athearn and Roundhouse kits, which looking back was more a mistake than anything else - should have gone with the LHS' reccomendation and gotten one of the more complex kits (the brand name fails me at the moment); but the price was right on the Athearn/Roundhouse cars and I wasn't sure about being able to complete a more complicated kit at the time. And now I've built Red Caboose and Tichy kits. and have a Bowser K-11 somewhere (UPS won't tell me where it is, though I have a feeling it should have been delivered yesterday).
Anyway, on to the topic at hand -- I remember reading some of the '93 or '94 issues of MRR, where they did a 5 or 6 part series on scratchbuilding a steam loco. I remember the first time reading through said series (being all of about 8 -- serious) thinking that I couldn't wait to have the stuff to do what the author was demonstrating for the article.
Even being one of the younger guys who this publication is "geared towards" as you guys are implying, I find that some things (like the afore-mentioned job site article) are too "easy" as well. Perhaps if it had been a "take the cars out of the box, make a mould, and cast 7 more" type article, things would be a little more on the right track (pun intended) with where MRR should be....
OTOH, maybe it's our fault for having such a "simple" magazine now -- the authors don't seem to change month to month, or feature a "new" guy every so often like used to be in MRR...
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Well, from a novice's perspective:
The value I extract from articles like Dana's and Cody's is one of technique. They become building blocks for the evolution of my skill sets.
Currently, I look to RMC for articles on scratch building. Additionally, there are other sources, like the Railroad Lines forum, that have entire sub-categories dedicated to scratch builders and their projects.
These advanced methods are far beyond my skill and patience levels right now, but I definitely see some scratch building in my future - and I'm not a young man.
I do read every project thread on this forum and with all the skilled modelers here, there just aren't detailed scratch building projects submitted.
I guess what I'm saying is that I look to multiple sources to learn more about this hobby and from those sources I adopt the methods and lessons that work for me.
That said, maybe a new sub-category - Scratch Building - wouldn't be a bad idea for this forum........
I save my back issues of MR partly because of the drawings and accompaning articles. I have all but 6 issues back to 1950 and some before that.
But apparently the interest in this kind of information is very low. I suspect that most model railroaders are not interested in scratch/parts building or even kit building. The explosion in the past few years of ready-to-run indicates that most people in the hobby don't have the time, desire, etc. for scratch/parts building or even kit building, but do want a model railroad.
It may be that there never was a high interest in the model building part of the hobby. Most hobbbyists did it because there was no practical affordable alternative. Now, with cheap labor in China, good quality RTR is about the same price as good quality kits, so there's no need to build. And HO has such wide selection that many roads can be modeled easily without having to build anything. The last holdout, structures, is starting to give way to RTR as well.
In my case, I enjoy model building but have deferred it in order to build the layout. I have started the benchwork for the first part, 11'x23', and will extend it if I don't retire and move first. In the meantime I am accumulating parts and kits. Looking back, I see that the times when I did the most model building are those when I did not have a layout. But until I get the layout up and running, I will use as much RTR as possible. After that I will do more model building, but that may not happen until retirement in a couple of years.
Enjoy
Paul
I agree. What I really miss are the prototype plans and photos - and not just the structures. The locomotives and the cars with short blurbs about the changes they went through over the years were/are 50% of the magazine's value to me. The structure articles were particularly good because they often had plans and photos showing the track layout in the area (LDEs anyone?) along with the structure plan. The series on railroads you could model was one of my favorites. Since the plans are no longer a part of Model Railroader, I don't worry about keeping up my subscription as much as I used to. Now if the subscription lapses, and I miss a few issues (the current case), it's not the big deal it once was. I look over the issue in the LHS, and buy it or not.
OTOH, I have never missed an issue of NG&SLG in recent years.
my thoughts
Fred W
wm3798 - I certainly would love to see your detailed model of the WESTERN MARYLAND'S Cumberland station, and a step-by-step description of how you constructed it, in the pages of MR. Perhaps an email to the powers that be, might land you a spot...nothing gets a project finished like a deadline...
Give Neil B. a little more time, folks, he's a very hands-on editor, and will bring you a balanced magazine.
Ibflattop wrote:Well if you gents dont like MRR well stop buying it and get the outher publication that out there. Also why dont you guys start a Roundrobin club in your area. Then you could go to each others layouts work on them and get ideas to work on your layout. Kevin
My father started getting MR in the 1950s... It's been a part of our family ever since. I started really reading MR in the 80s, but of course I read every back issue my father had as well.
I think for many of us that grew up with MR, recent trends are unsettling... I think it's quite reasonable for us loyal MR readers to express concern. If MR doesn't address those concerns, then fine, we'll stop buying. But MR has always been part of my life and it's hard to let go just like that.
The way the economy is going and prices are increasing, there are going to be a lot of young model railroaders who will not be able to afford the hobby if they have to buy everything. One way to keep them in the hobby is for MR and others to put more focus on scratch building articles using commonly available materials. RMC seems to have a prototype drawing or two in each issue. I guess that's why they call it Railroad Model CRAFTSMAN. I have scratch built quite a few buildings and bridges from the plans and drawings from MR. Most were built of wood, but one or two were built of plastic sheets and shapes. This has increased my skills to the point where I have tackled at least one structure from hand drawings I made myself, and a couple of bridges. I will admit that a MRR gets completed faster with all the kits that are available now, and the personal satisfaction seems to be in completing the RR rather than building and detailing a bridge or wood building that no one else has. Being of retirement age, I have a collection of MR that goes back to the 1960's, and those scratch building articles are great, and great inspiration as well. I really miss those regular articles and drawings.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
Railphotog wrote: MR's slogan has gone from "Model Railroading is Fun" to "Dream, Plan, Build", to "Dream, Plan, Buy".
Unfortunately, this is a sign of out times. I'm a retired carpenter/contractor, and used to watch every episode of This Old House when it was first on TV. They used to take a run-down "everyman's" house & rehab it. Today they do multi-million dollar projects that most of us can only dream about!
My first "models" were putting the Plasticville buildings together for my Lionels. Next was making "factories" out of small cardboard boxes & some paint - then came plastic & wood models. My first job was for the local toy store - I was making a lot of models and the owner asked me if I could show him a finished one. I wound up making "display" models for the store at the rate of one free model for every 3 or 4 I made for them + some free glue & paint!! Even "easy" kits were work in the early '50's - I remember a wood DC3 that the wings had no leading or trailing edges - you had to do a LOT of sanding!! (There were no Toys R Us then - every town had their own mom & pop toy/hobby store!)
When I discovered HO - an uncle made his own engine, cars, & track! - I started with Athern, Roundhouse, Revell, and other simple kits. Even these simple kits gave you a sense of satisfaction & pride in doing something yourself. My first "harder" kits included an Ulrich tractor/trailer out of metal (I came across it recently in reorganizing my "stuff") which took many hours of fileing, glueing, and painting - they don't look as good as the Wiking, Ricko, Athern, Atlas, or even Wmart rtr, but I MADE THEM!!
I've been buying a lot of the rtr stuff myself lately, mainly because there is less & less kit items in my LHS, and the rtr is so darn good today.
I get a real kick out of the look in my grandson's eyes when he looks at an old model I MADE and asks "You really made that?" Next time he's here I'm going to get one of those old unbuilt kits out.
Any of you guys remembeer Trains magazine? It was meant for the novice and had tons of plans and building articles. I specially liked the ones by E.L.Moore.One of the reasons I've kept all my MRs over the years was the the building articles and plans never seemed to get obsolete. Yeah we've got new glues and materials(styrene,gator board,foam etc) but the methods and plans are still there.
Now that was almost 50 yrs ago for me. TV was just becoming available in my area,rural MT, and even Arthur C. Clarke hadn't envisioned video games, the internet, 3D modeling and all that stuff. Plus modelrailroading was a hobby where you built your own equipment, not like baseball or football where you could BUY everything.
So now whats happening? Does the Mr.staff have a demographic that shows that buying into the hobby is more popular than building? And is that the reason for the current trend?
Lee,I really don't know where to start except looking at the changed in the hobby over the past few years.While there are still thousands of craftsmen(scratchbuilders) I fully believe it will be one of the casualties* of our hobbies advancement into the open the box RTR and the increasing prebuilt structures market..After all how many of us builds locomotive kits? Very few I'll wager.
Now with the current RTR market MR had to change its pace and stay with the flow.Now we need to know how to weather those great looking RTR engines,cars and ready to place structures and vehicles.In other words we spend more time fine tuning our layouts instead of spending hours/days/weeks scratch building a structure.
But,one the other hand more modelers are entering the "prototype correct" modeling style where generic buildings will no longer suffice for a (let's say) C&O station.However specialty companies are filling this void with kits...
*While I don't think scratch building will completely fade into the sunset,I suspect there will be fewer scratchbuilders in the years to come..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Lee, first let me congratulate you on an excellently authored piece. Secondly, the answer is quite simple.....it is called " instant gratification". I do not mean this to be taken as derogatory. Except for maybe those who are retired, and have the ability and time, ( and maybe lack of $$ ) scratchbuilding is not going to ever return to it's roost.
Scratchbuilding takes time, ability, and patience. Be honest with ourselves, how many of us will take the time? 5%?, 15%? ,
This thread is doomed to be locked/deleted....
I agree with that statement, WM. Taking a paintbrush, sandpaper, chalk, and paint, weathering a commerical vehicle with them, then gluing them to the layout isn't MY idea of a project. I respect the staff of MR, most have layouts of their own, and probably do the kinds of projects that you're discussing, but might not do write ups of them.
I think MR could be trying not to scare the newer modelers out of the hobby, because "the hobby is dying" and we need more modelers. Then again, they might just be trying not to scare off new potential subscribers. That might work, but do they realize they are losing a lot of the older, more expirianced subscribers that might submit the more advanced articles?
I also enjoyed the "step by step" feature by David Popp, and was saddened when they ended. The new "scenery step by step" doesn't measure up to the standards of the old column most issues. Sometimes they can measure up, but many of the more recent articles don't.
I like this WSOR project layout, and it was a small spot of hope in the project layout, after the complete ready-to-run layout that was previous, that B&O/NYC layout, the name eludes me, KATO unitrack, and mostly built up structures. That layout just looked....wrong.
Not that unitrack layouts are bad, on the contrary, one of my favorite project layouts was the Cripple Creek Central back in the 90s. I have a book compiling all the articles in it, and it has provided me with quite a lot of insperation for my own layout.
Just my
Getting back to the OP's original complaint about the current Scenery Step-by-Step column - the thing is, this month's topic is pretty darn... lame. Last month (April 2008) was a much more interesting discussion of 'embedding' rails in a concrete lot, with tips on preparing the styrene/concrete, scribing, painting and weathing the surface, detailing etc. - maybe not ground breaking, but useful, interesting, and the results were pretty good looking - so that article's a keeper (for me at least).
This month, in almost the same amount of column-space, they 'weather' two construction vehicles (and I will be so bold...the finished truck looks way cartoonly - if he stopped with the 'first wash', added the light dust and rust chalks, and then tied it together with a light airbrush of dust & dullcoat, it'd have been much better). The only cool thing in the whole article was the cornstarch & ballast mud on the dozer. This was not worthly of 9 pictures and 3 pages...maybe a picture and 2 paragraphs in the Workshop column at most.
However, as CNJ pointed out (and this time I must agree with him), lately RMC has been running more pages than MR in the same month - so maybe MR decided they need filler (the RMC page discrepency also came to me as kinda a mild 'Huh' moment when I had both RMC and MR on a shelf in front of me in the 'private reading area' of my apartment (complete with running water), and noticed that RMC seemed thicker...oops, it was. Same discognizance occured a few months earlier, when I saw for the first time in my life a (not MR or RMC) magazine cover price as '$7.95 - Canada $7.95' - oh no, parity!)
wm3798,You are right. "Model Railroader" magazine has all but abandoned scratchbuilding...but mainly because model railroaders themselves have all but abandoned scratchbuilding. Good thing that there are still magazines like "Railroad Model Craftsman" and "Narrow Guage and Short Line Gazzette" for those that want to scratchbuild.
Kalmbach is a business, they don't run it out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it for money, and the money is not coming from scratchbuilders. If it were, RMC would be the No. 1 model railroading magazine (it's still not even close), and "Mainline Modeler" would still be around.
I think in any "building" hobby, the more casual hobbyist will always outnumber the craftsman by a large margin. How many folks buy die cast auto models vs. scratching one out these days? How many folks buy "Almost Ready to Fly" airplanes vs. carving their own balsa? IMHO, Kalmbach recognizes this simple truth, and is going after the larger market of the more casual model railroader.
BTW, "Model Railroader" has also abandoned articles on how to wind your own DC motors and how to cast your own smokebox fronts from lead (both articles I have seen from the 1940's).
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
...a point has come up that almost bears its own thread...
We who lament the dramatic decrease in kitbash/scratchbuild articles in MR probably do so because we have distinct needs that the ready-to-run market does not always meet.
That's the issue.
On the one hand, you have a rise in modelers who are looking for the easiest route possible, limited only by the size of their hobby budget. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the rise in extreme prototype fidelity modeling, where if the brake chain has too many links per scale foot, the car is wrong.
These two groupe seem to be increasing in size, yet the overall pool of model railroaders is by most estimates shrinking. That means the middle ground is shrinking fastest.
How will the hobby media address both extremes as they grow? Personally, I don't quite get why simply buying piles of expensive stuff needs a magazine devoted to it... but I digress. MR used to cover both bases, but it apopears they no longer want to, probably both as a function of the changing demographics of the editorial staff and the lack of sponsorship and advertising revenue from the scratchbuild/kitbash manufacturers.
I guess I'll be the guy that disagrees with the trend.
Sure, MR may not print as many articles about scratch-building as they used to. I haven't been around long enough to miss them.
But the fact of the matter is if you want to build a good layout, that is one that fits your vision and is not cooped by settling for available models, then you have to scratch-bash. Let's face it there will never be the right model for you. You either settle or build.
MR does not have to print scratch building stuff because they have this forum, and if they can get people to the forum, you guys will do a far better job of teaching the newbies how to scratch-bash.
The only thing missing is the plans, and with help, even those are attainable.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Wow, this sure struck a nerve! I just got home from church and find two pages of very well thought out responses. Thanks!
I guess my biggest concern is that MR has devolved into a platform promoting "what is" instead of a launch pad for "what is possible." I have to wonder if all the chatter about RTR and pre-built is really a trend, or if it is in fact, a self-fulfilling prophecy? Again, I draw my analogy to a woodworking publication that sends you to Ikea instead of the hardware store. Not everyone is Norm Abrams, but without some encouragement, how do we gain experience, and from that experience deeper satisfaction?
I agree with Dave that we are seeing some fragmentation in the market place, but I still generally see this as a good thing. I also think that many of the RTR offerings have been great for the hobby. I don't think scratch building is for everyone, just as hard-core car card and waybill operations is for everybody.
But why downplay, or even ignore it? The club I belong to recently went through a brou-haha when changes were made to the layout to make it more operations friendly. A branchline was added, a yard was upgraded, and it was proposed to add some crossovers and sidings to make switching more efficient. The plans were rejected because the guys who show up once a year to run at open house. So, increased function and broadened interest was sacrificed for simplicity and basics. Most of us know that a well designed layout can support operations, but still work just fine for open house running by aligning a couple switches. But a simple roundy round plan, no matter how elaborately scenicked, is hard to adapt if it makes no provision for operations.
Why do I draw this analogy? Because a magazine that offers some meat and potatoes to more advanced modelers won't lose that audience while it still grooms and nurtures the new guys. But if all you do is present offerings to the beginner, you won't hold the interest of the old heads, nor will you inspire and challenge the new guys who are so inclined.
And several have already said it here, myself included... those old editions that we have stacked under the layout have proven extremely useful to have around when we review them and find a nugget that was probably "over our head" back when we first thumbed through it. Tell me, what is in the current edition that will be worth re-visiting in 10 years?
Lee
I am not new to the hobby....I have just had other things in my life to take me away from being able to do a whole lot. My Grandfather got me started in the hobby. And some of the stuff he taught me over the years will stick with me. I too have inherited his collection of MRs some dating back to the 30s. As a kid I used to read them and look at the articles and the scale drawings. I have made it a point to buy structure kits that are more challenging just because of the older articles. I remember reading a lot of article on scratch building and some day want to be at that level of Hobbyist. The Magazine used to be geared towards those with a limited income, it is proven that scratch building is a lot less expensive than buy the laser cut wood kits or the plastic kits and yes the process is a little more time consuming but the pride one gets from completing the structure is amazing. As far as MR not catering to the scratch builders.. it might not be in every issue but, in the MAR 08 Issue there is an article on building craftsman kits. This same general knowledge used to build one of these type kits could easily be used to scratch build a structure. And if the modeler is really interested in scratch building, Kalmbach Books has published a guide to "Basic Structure Modeling" that has a nice section on scratch building. The resource are out there for those that want to look. I understand the MR Staff needing to adapt to the current trends in the Hobby. And if RTR is what is hot at this point then I can't fault them. Maybe the Staff could Publish an Issue once a year or so that has the scale drawings and an article or two about someone scratch building something on their layout.
Just My Thoughts
Brad
I think that jblackwell makes a good point for things, BUT I also have questions/concerns about them as well. (nothing personal jblackwell - just pointing out something I questioned as I read your post. Correct any assumptions I make if they are wrong)
What i noticed was that you like the fact that MRR is a "newbie-friendly" magazine, and I would assume you do not want it to change focus back to it's more "advanced" state that it was in a few years/decades ago, as there are other publications out there. Now, I have never heard (much less seen) RMC prior to coming to these forums - and I have a relatively well stocked LHS nearby.
At least twice while I've been eyeing the (out of my price rage) steamers in the glass cases, a novice has walked into the store (one man with his son) and asked about some simple train things -- both to the effect of "I had <insert RTR trainset-in-a-box here> when I was a kid and I'm looking for...." In BOTH instances, the clerk helped them out with getting started again, and also suggested picking up that month's copy of MRR for tips/tricks/ideas/what have you.
I would argue that since MRR is the "gateway" magazine for people, that they do in fact 'step it up' and show what can be done with some time, paint, and imagination - whether it be on a sheet of plywood, a couple cereal boxe, or random bits of kit "leftovers". I'm not saying that every issue should be full of 3-part series on building a feed mill, or steamer, or Japanese prototype electric while neglecting the new guys; but that there should be "Scratchbuilding a <noun>: Part <number>" or "Repower a 1960s Brass Locomotive" in the same issue as "Weathering your scenery for more realistic appearence" -- much like some older issues seem to have been. Enough "easy stuff" for the new(er) guy so he's not overwhelmed, but at the same time enough complex stuff for the "pros" to stay interested AND to give the new guys/middle of the road guys something to strive for.
Redskin,
Kalmbach does have a good variety of more in-depth material available, but where did it come from? Much of it is comprised of recycled articles from the good old days, repackaged (and re-priced) for a new market.
Does that mean there are no new materials or methods to describe in the periodical? Does that mean there is nothing left to do but that which has come before? For many of us who recall MR from it's more in-depth past, we look at these compilations as being an over priced hook for information we used to get as part of our regular subscription.
Another case in point from the current issue: The 3rd place winner in the Pike Sized Passenger Train contest is a tidy little article, with some nice photography. There's a picture of the model car that was modified into a cab control car, but no corresponding prototype image, nor any basic drawing or step by step showing how the modeler made the modifications. Now it's possible that the author didn't include this with his submission, but what is the job of the editor? Wouldn't that information, the major modification made to the otherwise stock models with nice paint jobs, have made the article more useful to someone interested in modeling a push-pull commuter train? If the author didn't provide that information, why didn't someone pick up the phone to request some more details? And if he did, why was it left on the cutting room floor?
I would place this at the feet of the youthful exuberance for nice pictures, but lack of experience of the staff.
I recall previous "Pike Size" articles that provided such minutae as modifying the doors on a baggage to make it more closely resemble the prototype, or how to paint a commercially available car to better fit the particular train. (This is part of the article this month, so we're halfway there...) We can see that the car was modified, but there's precious little information as to "how".
I believe that the direction the magazine is taking might be good for the guy just starting. The photography (as always) is better than any other magazine out there, and the layout features are almost always worth reading. But if there is no effort to encourage the modeler to deepen his interest and broaden his skills, he won't stick around long once that Scenic Ridge layout is done. You can almost hear Peggy Lee singing "Is That All There Is?" in the background...
Scratchbuilding?
I have scratchbuilt three watertanks, a warehouse, several flatcars and a turntable over the past few years. The plans mostly came from the Gazette and other sources. My current project is an engine house being built from plans I drew myself from photo interpretation. I scratchbuild mainly because I like the unique structures that I can create and because there are no kits (most of the time) for the prototype.
I think that MR may have changed its focus over the years in terms of the modeler that they are aiming at. This is fine with me. There are lots of other resources to draw upon if you want to scratchbuild items. In defense of MR, I don't think that most of the modelers out there are at an advanced level, let alone scratchbuild stuff. Why would a general interest magazine like MR cater to a very small percentage of the population of the hobby like scratchbuilders?
The other issue I see here is that if you are going to scratchbuild something, you probably want a very specific building or piece of rolling stock. So it's hard to publish "generic" scratchbuilding plans. If this is the case, which specific prototype drawings do you publish?
I find the most difficult part of scratchbuilding is coming up the plans. The way that I approach the situation is to find a prototype structure that I like and then try to find plans. I search through old magazines and ask my modeling buddies for ideas:
Some of the resources for plans that I have found:
Old Model Railroaders: searchable online, reprints from the publisher or Kalmbach NMRA library
Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette: Plans in every issue. Searchable online reprints as above
Model Railroad Craftsman; Same as above
Mainline Modeler: Same as above
There are groups and books out there that are Road specific and can yield a wealth of information for the modeler Just a few examples:
SP practices books: a series of blueprints of SP buildings, trestles, stock pens etc available as paperback books very useful.
Yosemite Valley: Jack burgess has several cds for sale with photos and scale drawings of everything YV along with his excellent book about the YV Even if you don't model the YV these buildings can be adapted.
Westside modelers: There are a couple of books and lots of plans, photos etc available of this line and its structures.
A modeler with some time and effort can track down most of what you want in terms of plans (if they exist). If the plans don't exist get photos and make your own.
I have noticed that a large number of the current scratchbuilders are in Narrow Gauge. Check it out sometime and I think you will be impressed and inspired. They are out there.
Your Mileage may vary,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
MR wants to appeal to the broadest interests of its readers and I don't think scratchbuilding falls into that category. The hobby has changed greatly over the years and scratchbuilding simply isn't necessary anymore due to the wide array of kits as well as the advent of modular building materials. I think modelers who do a significant amount of scratchbuilding are becoming an ever smaller percentage. For those who still like to scratchbuild, that option is still available. Does a scratchbuilder really need plans? Isn't developing your own plans part of the creative process?
For those who are still old school modelers, I think RMC tends to cater more to their interests. MR is more geared to the interests of the average modeler as well as the newbie. Both serve a valueable function in the hobby and there is some overlap in the type of material presented. At the same time, each has its own identity. I find both to be of interest which is why I recently subscribed to RMC. However, if I were to only read one, it would be MR because there is much more in there that appeals to modelers of my level. I am very happy with the content of MR and don't miss the scratchbuilding plans at all. I rarely read them anyway.
But does MR provide a service to hobbyists by saying "Go spend money and open a package" and it's the best you can hope for... And if that's it, you're not really asking much of your audience.
Yes, I've certainly drawn up my own plans, mostly because I have the capability to do so. But that's not to say that I've never been inspired or instructed by published plans.
Without that challenge and inspiration, is MR's role merely that of a catalog of advertisers? And while catering to the needs of the new members of the market is certainly a valid function, without that challenge and inspiration, will those people be saying in the future that they subscribed to MR for 20 years like a lot of us have? Or will Kalmbach accept that once people stick around for awhile, it's okay for them to "outgrow" their publication?
Now, that being said, I have to add that MR does a very good job of addressing the issues of operations-oriented layouts and modelers. I think they have consistently been more thorough in their coverage of how railroads work, and how to simulate that on your layout. They also do a good job of showing the range of operations that people practice, from the loosiest of gooseys to the most anal retentive... And that's an area that can really overwhelm new guys.
And perhaps that focus is part of the drift away from actual modeling projects. They showcase the nice kits, built-ups and RTR's, and tell you how to put them to use on your layout... That's a valid approach. When there is a prototype plan article, they also do a pretty good job of weaving that operations aspect into it, offering what the purpose of the structure is (was) and how it related to the railroad overall.
I guess I'm just looking for more of that physical plant stuff, and less "bucket of trees" type of article.
jecorbett wrote:...because there is much more in there that appeals to modelers of my level. I am very happy with the content of MR and don't miss the scratchbuilding plans at all. I rarely read them anyway.
I think this is the attitude that wm and Dave V. et al are concerned about. I don't mean to point fingers at you personally jecorbett, but I think that you have presented the best/most concise argument as to why MR shouldn't have the plans in them anymore.
I can see where the guys who are saying that they didn't like/read the scratchbuilding sections because they were above their level or otherwise outside their confines of interest (wrong RR, wrong era, whatever). So maybe the articles concerning scratchbuilding your very own "generic ATSF freight station" are out because few people would need them, but on the same token there should probably still be SOME more advanced things in the mag for us to aspire to (other than just great photographs taken with 5k+ of photography equipment).
I would imagine it has to be hard to make a business decision as to which way a publication must go and how it will reach it's goal of profitability.
With all of the newcomers into the hobby and with the instant gratification mentality we have these days, MR is only going where their readership says they want to be. I've seen both sides of the coin in the past few months...some issues are better than others, some I wish I had left on the rack.
It's a wide spectrum that needs to be covered and each issue won't please everyone.
Bob Berger, C.O.O. N-ovation & Northwestern R.R. My patio layout....SEE IT HERE
There's no place like ~/ ;)
It's refreshing to see such a level-headed discussion here, although less surprising than it otherwise would be: the majority of responses has been in favour of more in-depth articles, but most of that majority have also been more in-depth in their replies. Perhaps this says something about the therapeutic value of scratchbuilding, and the willingness of scratchbuilders to spend the time necessary to both complete a project and formulate a measured response to the question.
I used to buy MR, RMC, Mainline Modeler, Trains, and Railfan faithfully, at my LHS, and read all of them. As their focus changed, Railfan, then Trains were dropped, Mainline became too expensive for me to buy every issue, and of course, they eventually disappeared on their own. When I retired, I realised that I couldn't afford to continue buying both MR and RMC, so, because it more suited my modelling interests, I subscribed to RMC and dropped MR. MR has always had outstanding photos, and is generally a "slicker" production, but its (and the model train industry's) shift to r-t-r, "buy" as opposed to "build" your hobby, failed to maintain my interest. It's my personal feeling, though, that a hobby into which you put little (except money) will return, in enjoyment, about the same (minus the money).
Wayne
Each of us has our reasons for why we do or do not scratchbuild. In my case, my choice to build a very large layout makes scratchbuilding impractical. I simply don't have the time to scratchbuild each structure if I want to come anywhere close to completing this layout in my lifetime. Even the most basic kits take a good deal of time to paint and weather properly if you don't want them looking like they belong in Plasticville. I have spent virtually all of my layout building time the last 4 months building the cityscape for the town of Bedford Falls, which is the smaller of the two major towns on my layout. Next winter I intend to begin work on the larger one.
I appreciate well built and detailed scratchbuilt structures that I see on this forum and in print, but it is not in the cards for me to try to match those efforts. I am very happy using the very common plastic kits that are widely available and I don't care how many other layouts these same structures are on. They are unique in the world I am creating and that is all that matters to me. When I do them well, it pleases me and that is the only thing that is important.
Fair enough.
I don't expect to scratchbuild everything on my layout either. But I also don't expect a leading publication that purports to represent the hobby holistically to put scratchbuilding on the back burner. Again, let's analogize this to other hobbies to carry this to its logical extreme...
Gardening: Why bother cultivating flowers and veggies from seed, when you can go out and buy plants and stick 'em in the ground?
Hot Rods: Don't bother learning how to pull a dent or re-chrome a bumper... just go and buy one. Better yet, don't worry about any restoration or "souping it up" at all... Go to Carlisle with your check book!
Fishing: Don't let all those different rods and reels confuse you... there's a fish market on the way home.
There are so many aspects to model railroading that are diminished or lost when only the outcome is presented. The rewards, at least for me (and it sounds like quite a few others here) are in the journey, not the destination.
doctorwayne wrote:Perhaps this says something about the therapeutic value of scratchbuilding, and the willingness of scratchbuilders to spend the time necessary to both complete a project and formulate a measured response to the question.
Perhaps this says something about the therapeutic value of scratchbuilding, and the willingness of scratchbuilders to spend the time necessary to both complete a project and formulate a measured response to the question.
Writing long responses makes me feel smart....
wm3798 wrote: Fair enough.I don't expect to scratchbuild everything on my layout either. But I also don't expect a leading publication that purports to represent the hobby holistically to put scratchbuilding on the back burner. Again, let's analogize this to other hobbies to carry this to its logical extreme...Gardening: Why bother cultivating flowers and veggies from seed, when you can go out and buy plants and stick 'em in the ground?Hot Rods: Don't bother learning how to pull a dent or re-chrome a bumper... just go and buy one. Better yet, don't worry about any restoration or "souping it up" at all... Go to Carlisle with your check book!Fishing: Don't let all those different rods and reels confuse you... there's a fish market on the way home. There are so many aspects to model railroading that are diminished or lost when only the outcome is presented. The rewards, at least for me (and it sounds like quite a few others here) are in the journey, not the destination.Lee
...or extended to other hobbies:
Home brewing. Why bother? You can buy beer already made!
Or golf... Why learn how to improve your swing? You can just watch Tiger play!
Okay, I know, I'm getting silly...
I don't actually scratchbuild much at the moment. I built most of the structures on my current layout from commercial, common kits. I have a few built-ups, too, where I couldn't get the structure as a kit. But I've painted and weathered every structure on my layout. I did this in the interest of completing my layout quickly.
As my layout evolves, and as my plan for a future prototypical Pennsy layout evolves, the need to scratchbuild certain things arrises. After all, even the Standard Railroad of the World had dozens and dozens of designs for common structures, and almost every station and interlocking tower, though based on similar themes, was unique. Most of them don't come in kits at all, and almost none in N scale.
Scratchbuilding is a hobby within a hobby for some... For me, if a kit can meet my long-term needs, it will have a permanent place on my layout.
But isn't it nice to have a skill set beyond simply assembling a kit the way someone else thinks it needs to be put together? Shouldn't MR encourage new hobbyists not to give up on an idea just because it's not in the Walthers catalog?
But with that kind of logic, I don't like articles about DC control, automatic block signalling, and S scale fork lifts, so therefore all references to these should be eliminated... Does MR serve the entire hobby, or just the segment that chooses to spend money instead of time? And to follow up on Dave's earlier comment, does an article showcasing a layout that was professionally built encourage a new guy? or does it scare him off because he doesn't have that kind of bankroll, and therefore should never expect to obtain the skills evident in the article?
And who's to say that while it doesn't interest you now, that five or ten years from now you might want to tackle a project you remember seeing in your old magazine? Why eliminate a critical component of the wider hobby just because one segment of the market doesn't see fit to use the information, or is too preoccupied with instant gratification to feel it could apply to their modeling efforts, now or in the future?
wm3798 wrote: ...But does MR provide a service to hobbyists by saying "Go spend money and open a package" and it's the best you can hope for... ...Lee
...But does MR provide a service to hobbyists by saying "Go spend money and open a package" and it's the best you can hope for... ...Lee
Lee, these words, to me, bespeak judgement. You are speaking from the position of someone who has learned and modified his apprehension of all that railroad modelling can be, or you are well along that path. For the neophyte, what is "best", and for what should he "hope"? Should it be what the more experienced guys say it should be, or should it be something the individual defines as he/she sets about their own exploration of the hobby?
I think that the magazine has to appeal to the broadest and most potent group of people who will keep it in business, and somewhere in the mix is going to be a bit of this and a bit of that. I don't think many of those who are at the moderate and advanced stages of the hobby would mind seeking other pubications that address their needs, while those who are in the early stages need to have something to aspire to, as well. It should be, as I said, a bit of this and a bit of that, some clearly beyond one's ability, but not so overwhelmingly difficult or complicated that it doesn't inspire.
A secondary thought is that perhaps the latest bunch to show an interest in the hobby are better, as a group, at imagination. They don't mind the detail disparities, the lack of Jill's Corner Store back in their old neighborhood. They are "turned on" by what they see and also what they can use in as much time as it takes to set up a Wii or an MP3 player. Edit- there, I did it myself...used a judgemental term "better". Let's use "different".
It's a new culture out there, and I think MR is quite sharp and adept at keeping the pulse of their patrons.
You and I define the hobby in our own terms, but after a while we notice that others seem to be swimming past us. It's the way of all human enterprises...we older guys pause on the stairs to think about something, and then can't remember which way we were going. The new folks take over and set the tone for the rest of the race, or at least, until they begin to pause midstream and reflect on their journey.
Tempus edax rarum. Time is voracious, and it eats things that don't change fast enough. I believe this hobby is changing.
-Crandell
I do miss the plans, I only really used the SD90MAC plans for a scratchbuilding project (might have been from another Mag?! oops!). This information was good as to how many were built, the period they typically ran and renumering, etc. Although technically I didn't scratch build because I used a Rail Power shell and detailed it up. But it was a fantastic source for adding detail that you couldn't quite see in the photos because of the shadows, unless you were lucky to find a photo taken in the late afternoon or early morning. Being in Australia it is a bit hard to take my own photos, but maybe that is just a poor excuse on my part!
Unfortunately it kept derailing and I could work out why, so it is a static model and a kato has replaced it, I know Build it, plan it, buy it.
However I also find the plans great for just adding extra detail to locomotives, bring it back Model Railroader!!
However on the other hand, I do see where MR is coming from, many people don't have the time. They are trying to show people that with a few kits you can create this wonderful scene. They are trying to give people hope, showing that it isn't that hard and also attract new people.
I think there can be a little more balance of beginner, intermediate right through to advanced, seems to be a little too much beginner lately, not to say I haven't learnt new techniques from these articles.
As I have the great Plywood plains at the moment scratchbuilding isn't high priority but I still like to detail a locomotive a little more occassionally and the plans were a great source.
Nige.
One comment I would like to add here is that based on personal experience, I would seriously debate the presumption that scratchbuilding is something that new model railroaders have no interest in. When I got back into the hobby as a teenager I did quite a bit of scratchbuilding on my first layout. In fact I would venture to say that over 50% of the structures on that layout were home made. None of my structures could ever have won an award at a NMRA divisional convention, but they served the purpose of starting me on the road to a life long hobby.
The reason I began scratchbuilding so early on is that like most young modelers I didn't have the income to be buying fancy kits left and right. I had to choose carefully when I went to the LHS to spend my meager dollars. The issues of MR that I would see at the LHS encouraged sctrachbuilding as a way to stretch my modeling dollar, and offered plenty of tips for simple scratchbuilding projects. As well as plans to work from for more sophisticated projects.
Now we are all setting around in this thread talking about scratchbuilding like it's some esoteric art reserved for the most wise and senior of master modelers. IMHO, I think that the modeling magazines should be promoting scratchbuilding for beginners, as well as for advanced modelers. Otherwise we run the risk of driving off potential new model railroaders from simple "sticker-shock" as they check out the prices of all those R-T-R structures and scenic items on the hobby shop shelf.
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
Before reading any of the other responses, I'm going to throw in my 3 cents. My personal interest in the magazine has been declining for years. Partially because of the reasons you outline in your original post. I no longer subscribe and only buy an issue if I'm in a place that sells the magazine on any given month. So far this year, February, and I don't see myself going to the hobby shop anytime soon. With that caveat, from what I can see, you are correct. The magazine's modeling information has become more open the box, squeeze the tube, plop it on the layout, done. I'll readily admit that in my case however, it's more of a case of been there done that. Meaning, anyone who's been reading the magazine for any length of time knows that a lot of the modeling info is recycled every few years. The only real difference is the material being used. Once in awhile, someone puts a new twist on something. The layout tours usually leave me disappointed. Not that the layouts don't look nice but because I cannot see the layout. One of the favorite (not mine) photogs appears to stand in one spot, turn in a circle and snap a few closeup photos and from that, I'm to see what the layout looks like. I can recognize his work in the first photo.
Now, with that said, I don't think MR is alone. I cannot state that as fact as I don't typically bother with the other magazines either. To the take the tape measure and camera out suggestion, good one, IF the structure still stands. When it's been gone for 30+ years and most people barely remember the existance, the Art of scratchbuild modeling gets much more difficult. The hobby press has to decide if there would even be enough interest in the 'drawing' to persue it. I'd guess in a lot of cases, No.
We do have a way however without relying on the hobby press. I've shown this image many times before..
For those who do not know, this is Fort Street Union Depot in Detroit Michgian. It once served the Wabash, the Pennsylvania (until 1959), the PM/C&O/B&O (after various buyouts and mergers). It will be the eastern terminal of my layout (if I ever get it out of the paper stage). To MY knowlage, NO hobby press has Ever published plans for this structure. Therefore, I'm left to find it on my own. This structure has been gone for over 30 years, torn down in 1973. Even the ground it stood on was changed. A community college now stands in it's place.
It has taken me more than 3 years to collect the information I need to build a respectable model of this facility. It has come from some of the strangest places I might add. The fact that most railroad photos are just like most of those in the hobby press (anymore), the 3/4 shot of the loco, maybe in front of a building (the train chaser shots) doesn't help. I've had to dig up Sanborn maps, find overhead photos, an old train shed cyclopedia told me how tall the tower is (without any additional info), when it was built (1893), the track diagrams, etc. The few photos that seem to exist of this structure show mostly the angle you see in the post card above. My point here is, I very seriously doubt that anyone on staff at the magazines is going to put that much time and effort into something for a 2 page article on something that only a select few would be interested in. For the person who wants to model a specifc area, he/she must often do the legwork themselves.
I'm not looking to turn this into a buy or don't buy thread on the magazine (if it hasn't already turned into one), just offering my opinion on the 'lost art' and MR's role in the disappearance.
3¢
StebbyCentral: That is the exact situation I am in now. I streach my hobby dollars to the breaking point, buying only used freight cars from shows, (but no locos and couplers, I've learned to only get the best there) and most of my scenery items are made from natural matirials, sedum for trees, real dirt for dirt, and whatever else.
On the note of scratchbuilding from almost nothing, I made this plow from old trainset junk,
And this rock car from a spare underframe, sheet styrene, some detals from my scrap box, a spare set of trucks, and a plastic case for a scale vehicle. (the vehicle was a whopping $10!)
MR's focus has always been on the layout and operation. It just used to be that model building was a necessary step to that end. Now with good RTR for about the cost of good kits there is no longer a need for model building first. An aside - I think building a layout is a scratch/parts building project: you have to do plan it, lay it out, cut wood, lay track, wire it, make scenery, etc.
But I digress. Using RTR cars, locomotives, flex track, etc to build your layout is kind of like buying brake wheels, ladders, AB or KC brake parts, trucks, couplers, etc. to build your boxcar. Sure you could make them but I would be surprised if there's more than one person on this forum who does.
I think scratch/parts building and kit building will always be part of the hobby. But it will be a small part. I think one of the reasons Hirail does so well is RTR. Most of the O and S Toy Train market has moved towards realistic RTR that you can get set up for scale or toy train and it seems to be really doing well. N and G scale have always been mostly RTR. I think that HO RTR is really the Johnny-come-lately to the party. And all of this grows the hobby. In my area (Northern Virginia) RTR seems to dominate the hobby shops. The one that carried a lot of kits and parts is gone.
My suggestion for the model builders is buy ahead if you can afford it. Last train show I was at still had MDC locomotive kits for sale for under $100, better get the NWSL upgrade parts now as well. Personally I buy ahead as I can afford it, for instance I have 4 MDC HOn3 locomotive kits with NWSL upgrades that will be converted to Sn2 after I retire. I buy parts and kits as I can afford them. Already one of the two largest manufacturers in S has switched to RTR and the other has always been RTR. Smaller ones are following suit.
Just look at the product reviews, years ago they would have somebody build a difficult kit and comment on the instructions and what they did to make it better etc. The last MR I have is the March Issue (I only get them from the library). There are three full product reviews all of them RTR or Ready to Install. There is a quicky review on building a couple of simple kits one of which was peal and stick. This has been a common thread on the buy it model railroading magazine. No more Paint Shop, not even ask Paint Shop anymore.
I did have a subscription to Mainline Modeler as they offered plans, difficult kit bashes, and various scratchbuilding projects. I now have a subscription to RMC as they do some of the same things. Also their reviews are not all of RTR items but discuss difficult kits that the modeler can build.
I know that everyone does not want to build difficult car and structure kits, but there has to be a balanced editorial content that will involve all modelers not just the RTR crowd. They have Classic Model trains for that, and as somebody else pointed out the specialized large magazines that MR puts out are just rehashed articles from past MR's. What is MR going to do for content for these specialized magazines in the next ten years unless they put out some new content articles now.
I hope this hasn't been too rambling, but this has been a theme I have seen coming in MR for the last few years with the emphasis on their advertiser's items and RTR. I prefer to build my own including buying undecorated cars and modifying them, then painting and decaling. Now undecorated cars are not even offered and the decorated cars not even correct for the prototype I am modeling or if the railroad I model even had them.
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!
wm3798 wrote: I don't expect to scratchbuild everything on my layout either. But I also don't expect a leading publication that purports to represent the hobby holistically to put scratchbuilding on the back burner. Again, let's analogize this to other hobbies to carry this to its logical extreme...Fishing: Don't let all those different rods and reels confuse you... there's a fish market on the way home. There are so many aspects to model railroading that are diminished or lost when only the outcome is presented. The rewards, at least for me (and it sounds like quite a few others here) are in the journey, not the destination.
Let me do an alternate analogy, using one of the examples of other hobbies you presented. It is quite possible to get great enjoyment out of e.g fishing as a hobby, without particularily wanting to make your own lures or your own bait from scratch.
In much the same way, there are many different ways of enjoying model railroading. Some people put a lot of time into their hobby, some people put a lot of money into their hobby.
Most of us manage to combine both - we spend both a significant amount of time and a significant amount of money on doing our hobby in some way that gives us enjoyment
So why not just focus on telling others what you enjoy and why, instead of complaining about how other people chose to spend their time and their money ?
Smile, Stein
Tyler illustrates a very important point. Scratch building is NOT the preserve of old heads like me, yet that seems to be the perception. I came into it the same way he did. First out of economic necessity, then I stuck with it as I discovered the real joy in it.
I've seen a lot of very enthusiastic young modelers scratching and bashing their way to a more confident approach to the hobby. I've seen some pretty rough work, to be sure, but it's THEIRS, and that's the beauty of it. Crandell, with all due respect, I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. Certainly there is room to discuss and showcase the RTR aspect of the hobby, and I think everyone has their own approach to how much RTR is enough. I rarely modify a piece of rolling stock beyond weathering, and I do rely on commercial kits for most of my structures. But when there's something in particular that I want, I totally immerse myself in researching it, laying it out, and trying to get it right (always with varying degrees of success!)
So, if MR is TRULY interested in attracting the attention of new, younger model railroaders, shouldn't there be at least the occasional bone thrown that shows them that there are alternatives to buying the latest $50 Walthers kit, or to spending $20 or $30 on Woodland Scenics products?
There's no reason, in my view, that the magazine can't serve all of these diverse interests, many of them within the pages of EACH edition! I think it would be just as much of a disservice to the audience to focus solely on scratching and bashing, since obviously there is a market for more RTR.
But again, is the shifting of focus to RTR something that's genuinely coming from the unwashed masses? Or is it something that's being encouraged by the publication to further promote the offerings of the "founders of the feast".... I'm sure there's an element of truth to both sides...
steinjr wrote: So why not just focus on telling others what you enjoy and why, instead of complaining about how other people chose to spend their time and their money ? Smile, Stein
I'm not complaining about what others choose to do. The issue I'm discussing is the lack of material published that encourages individual growth and achievement through the acquisition of knowledge and deepening of skills. It's not that other people aren't doing it the way I do it, it's that the quick and easy approach is offered as the obvious, and in some cases only way to do it, eclipsing the more traditional, economical and challenging methods.
What I find amazing with this whole discussion is that everyone is concentrating on a monthly hard-copy publication (Model Railroader) and forgetting everything else that Kalmbach publishes under the general MR banner that isn't monthly, including the two annuals (GMR & MRP), the books on layout design, operation, scenery, detailing locomotives (steam and diesel) etc. Then there are the article downloads, videos, etc., not to mention this website. That's before we get to other sources of information.
How can MR be all things to all people? The hobby is vastly different than it was way back in the era of "Classic Model Railroading" http://cs.trains.com/forums/1/1320041/ShowPost.aspx (e.g. The way we did it in the good old days before everyone got lazy). The hobby used to be much more generic. There's a heck of a lot more specialization going on today. Why should I expect MR to print plans for an SP P-6 4-6-2 when there's an SP Technical & Historical Society that specializes in all things SP? SP's not the only one with its own society. Most major and a number of minor railroads also have their own historical and technical societies. There's a layout design special interest group on Yahoo as well as one for Ops. There's a SIG for modeling the Citrus Industry ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citrusmodeling/?yguid=71526938 ) and I know there's others although I've only bookmarked ones in which I'm particularly interested.
I personally have no fewer than 5 websites bookmarked that deal solely with re-motoring and regearing model steam locomotives. Why should I depend on a monthly issue of MR for such stuff? It just boggles my mind that the amount of information available at one's finger tips is orders of magnitude more than just twenty years ago and yet people are complaining that more of that information is not available between the covers of a magazine published 12 times a year. Years ago, about the only source of easily obtainable info was contained within the pages of MR and RMC. That's just not the case anymore. Kalmbach, at least, recognizes this fact and is making some modicum of effort to take advantage of the capabilitities of modern technology to reach a wider audience. Who cares if RMC has a higher page count than MR in any given month? I'm not trying to trash RMC, but it's text based when a graphics based magazine would convey more information in less space.
Returning to a previous paragraph, no one has ever made a model of an SP P-6. The closest available model is of a UP Harriman Heavy (they were built to the same plans) in brass. If I want an SP P-6, I'm either going to have to kitbash one or scratchbuild one. Regardless of how it happens, the whole point of the exercise will not be to acquire locomotive scratchbuilding/kitbashing skills but to acquire a locomotive to pull an HO scale "Del Monte". If some manufacturer loses his/her corporate mind and decides to offer one in plastic because it's a locomotive that's going result in mega revenue, I'll be more than happy to shell out the money even as I watch that manufacturer lose his/her shirt. I'll buy 3 (2453, 2454, 2458) since that's what SP had after 2455, 2456, 2457 went to the T&NO to be converted to P-14's for the "Sunbeam".
As I said earlier, the hobby's gotten more specialized. It should be obvious by now that I'm an SP fan. That, however, doesn't even come close to describing my interests. I don't just want to model the SP, but the SP Monterey Branch in the late 1940's with the emphasis on operations from MP 125.7 to MP 130 (all mileposts are measured from San Francisco). IOW, what interests me are the operations from Monterey station to the sand plant at Lake Majella (Asilomar). Everything else is subordinate to that goal and all decisions relative to what gets included/rejected are directly tied to whether or not it enhances that goal. I've been reading MR since 1957 (RMC almost as long) and I don't ever recall an MR or RMC article relating to the Monterey Branch. There are 3 signature trees in this area of California, the Coast Live Oak, the Eucalyptus and the Monterey Cypress. In 50 years, there's never been an article about modeling these trees. At least the Coast Live Oak and Eucalyptus are common in a wide area of California, the Monterey Cypress not so much. Given the absolute failure of Kalmbach and Carstens to address this major oversight in the modeling press, I guess I ought to quit reading MR and RMC and take my marbles elsewhere. It's not just the trees, either. Where are the articles on building structures in manner of Mission style architecture?
Oh wait a minute. The information I seek can be found elsewhere. I can go on reading MR and RMC (not quite as often as MR) simply because I enjoy them even if they don't go to the trouble to publish long articles on how to make one of these:
Andre
selector wrote: Lee, these words, to me, bespeak judgement. You are speaking from the position of someone who has learned and modified his apprehension of all that railroad modelling can be, or you are well along that path. For the neophyte, what is "best", and for what should he "hope"? Should it be what the more experienced guys say it should be, or should it be something the individual defines as he/she sets about their own exploration of the hobby?I think that the magazine has to appeal to the broadest and most potent group of people who will keep it in business, and somewhere in the mix is going to be a bit of this and a bit of that. I don't think many of those who are at the moderate and advanced stages of the hobby would mind seeking other publications that address their needs, while those who are in the early stages need to have something to aspire to, as well. It should be, as I said, a bit of this and a bit of that, some clearly beyond one's ability, but not so overwhelmingly difficult or complicated that it doesn't inspire.A secondary thought is that perhaps the latest bunch to show an interest in the hobby are better, as a group, at imagination. They don't mind the detail disparities, the lack of Jill's Corner Store back in their old neighborhood. They are "turned on" by what they see and also what they can use in as much time as it takes to set up a Wii or an MP3 player. Edit- there, I did it myself...used a judgemental term "better". Let's use "different".It's a new culture out there, and I think MR is quite sharp and adept at keeping the pulse of their patrons. -Crandell
I think that the magazine has to appeal to the broadest and most potent group of people who will keep it in business, and somewhere in the mix is going to be a bit of this and a bit of that. I don't think many of those who are at the moderate and advanced stages of the hobby would mind seeking other publications that address their needs, while those who are in the early stages need to have something to aspire to, as well. It should be, as I said, a bit of this and a bit of that, some clearly beyond one's ability, but not so overwhelmingly difficult or complicated that it doesn't inspire.
Crandell, what can I say, I agree! Your a wise man.
One thing I would like to ad to this discussion is that even if a majority in it seems to support the idea of scratch building doesn't make the majority of the readers are, we tend to write in topics that we have a passion for.
Where do I stand. Well first of all I do believe that we should be less judgemental and accept the different paths that different modelers choose. Scratch building is superb for those who like it. Completely built models for those who like that is also fine. None is better or worse, they just choose different angles and approaches to this hobby of ours. I think that we often mistake our opinions as correct, I often see people being condescending on others who are not as prototypical or don't do this or that. It's just a hobby, we play with trains and we hopefully have some fun.
So with that said. I would like some scratch building articles in MRR, but not to advanced. Partially I have problems getting hold of material that I have to order from 30 different sources and it gets really expensive. But small manageable projects would be great. Now we overseas subscribers are naturally a minority but we are probably enough to effect decisions.
Most importantly I think that Kalmbach should do what keeps them going and makes them the most profit. Because this in effect also means that they are hitting the largest audience. I would as I've said love some intermediate scratch building, I have sculpted models from "greenstuff" and done the equivalent to scratchbuilding in my other hobby, war gaming with miniatures. But it took me some time to get to the point where that was something that I needed and I accepted that most will never be at that point.
Magnus
wm3798 wrote: ... But when there's something in particular that I want, I totally immerse myself in researching it, laying it out, and trying to get it right (always with varying degrees of success!)So, if MR is TRULY interested in attracting the attention of new, younger model railroaders, shouldn't there be at least the occasional bone thrown that shows them that there are alternatives to buying the latest $50 Walthers kit, or to spending $20 or $30 on Woodland Scenics products? ...
... But when there's something in particular that I want, I totally immerse myself in researching it, laying it out, and trying to get it right (always with varying degrees of success!)
So, if MR is TRULY interested in attracting the attention of new, younger model railroaders, shouldn't there be at least the occasional bone thrown that shows them that there are alternatives to buying the latest $50 Walthers kit, or to spending $20 or $30 on Woodland Scenics products? ...
Yes, I agree. And that is why I, personally, question myself when I refer to myself as a model railroader. I'm not. I can't, truthfully, use the term. I don't model, I put together a few kits and lots of RTR stuff to make a greater whole. The product could be called a model, but I'm not even in the same continent as you good and talented folks to do as you say in the second para I quoted above. And let me add, I am envious and full of admiration...so much so that it may actually move me off my increasingly lardy butt some time to try it.
wm3798 wrote:There's no reason, in my view, that the magazine can't serve all of these diverse interests, many of them within the pages of EACH edition! I think it would be just as much of a disservice to the audience to focus solely on scratching and bashing, since obviously there is a market for more RTR.But again, is the shifting of focus to RTR something that's genuinely coming from the unwashed masses? Or is it something that's being encouraged by the publication to further promote the offerings of the "founders of the feast".... I'm sure there's an element of truth to both sides...Lee
I guess there's no reason it can't, unless it conflicts with a couple of driving forces. One could be editorial leadership and direction, and the other could be what the boys and girls in marketing are telling them they'd better do if they want to stay working. So, I am at a loss, and it is a good question.
For your second paragraph just above, same response. I would be unhappy learning, and accepting as I am doing, that the publishers in the hobby are not addressing the needs or desires of a sizeable portion of the members of that hobby. I would personally feel better knowing that the magazine(s) is/are more inclusive, and I would probably develop more of an interest in the parts of the hobby that you feel are not covered if they printed scratching plans as I read they used to. If it is of any use to you here, nothing would make me happier to read a response from the directorship at MR to put a handle on your observation. I think you and the others posting in support deserve one. You do good work, and you belong at least as much as I do.
This has been a great conversation. I really appreciate all the thoughtful comments, and I look forward to reading more. I hope someone from the MR staff also chimes in. I'd be interested to hear their perspective.
The hobby has come a long way. Some of us start talking about 40 or 50 years ago and the skills and time required to build a rail road and say "Why isn't it like that now"? "Why don't people make every thing themselves"? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO! That is the benifit reaped from those "old timers", those "skilled craftsmen". They developed techniques that others now provide the materials for (i.e. Woodland Scenics). The hobby is much more popular and available to more prople, who, while not the best craftsmen, LIKE TRAINS AND LIKE TO RUN THEM!
Not everybody likes all parts of the hobby. Way back when, one needed to be able to "do it all" most of the time there was no option. If you go back and check the articles on some of the premier layouts of yesteryear, you will find they mention help from other modelers. So and so wired this or so and so built that for the layout. Today there are many options and it allows more people to enjoy the hobby. This provides a base and demand for even more kits and parts etc. Instant gratification if you will.
Of course, a publication, to stay current and relavent must address the needs and interests of as many in the hobby as possible. Some complain the mags do too much on HO scale. But, currently, HO has the largest following. A few years ago you didn't see much on O scale and almost nothing on garden railroading. Now, monthly publications usually have at least one article on each.
In general, the availability of new techniques and materials has raised the quality of an "average" layout to what would have been considered "Very good" 40 or 50 years ago.
An remember the old addage, "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". I often wonder how much those "old timers" would have scratch built if they had access to the materials available today?
I think I'll go run some trains.
Tilden
MR still hits the occasional home run with me, but they seem fewer and farther between these days...
This was discussed on an advanced forum last week as well, and the question came up... Is it really MR, or did we change? Did we "outgrow" MR?
I discussed this tonight with my father during the weekly family phone call... He's been in the hobby for over 50 years and is a serious craftsman (basswood, cardstock, and pewter casting kind of guy). He's noticed it's a very recent change as well. So I don't think it's just "us."
I noted the irony of this all today... I've been very busy both finishing my PhD dissertation and preparing to sell my house. So the one project (and probably the last for a long time) I did this weekend was to weather a ready-to-run Atlas Trainman PS1 boxcar. RTR.
See, most of us, I think, fall in between, where we buy RTR when it fits our needs, but then build it when we need it but can't get it otherwise. I think MR ought to be that way. Can't find it? Here are a few ways you can get it. Build it yourself, kitbash it to come close, or buy a stand-in. None of these routes is beyond the skill of any of us here, save for those with a real physical handicap.
Mass Man wrote:There was a time up to about 2002 when they used to advertise movies that were available in VHS and DVD now they do not offer VHS at all anymore. I am aware that it is because times have changed and we do not want VHS movies anymore. I personally do not like to scratchbuild a locomotive or boxcar. I do not miss that type of article in the MR at all just like i do not miss VHS either
I think you're right about technological evolution and the way the market evolves with it. I think many of us consider ourselves part of a big club and Model Railroader is OUR magazine - like it should always pursue the greater good of the hobby (whatever each of us thinks that is). There is a strong kinship among model railroaders - sort of a brotherhood, but the fact is that Model Railroader Magazine is a commercial enterprise and it exists to earn money for the publisher. Apparently, the editorial staff feels that their current approach is the best way to make money - that's their prerogative.
In August I'll exercise my prerogative and not renew my subscription. I find that NG&SLG is the magazine I look forward to every couple of months, Model Railroader just doesn't appeal to me as much as it used to (the articles are too few, too short, too shallow, include too much plastic, and too many of them are oriented to diesel modelers). I like to scratch build; I like technical drawings; I like steam; and I resolve to keep plastic locos, rolling stock, and structures off my layout - I feel that Model Railroader is catering to a kind of modeler that I'm not. Once in a while there's a tidbit of information I find useful, but it's not worth the subscription price.
I doubt that Model Railroader will miss me, but at least I won't be wasting my money. I urge the others who find the magazine has stopped meeting your needs to do the same.
BTW, I will keep my forums subscription going (I really like you guys).
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Well you can see some real veiws on this subject, and I like them all, they seem to share some real values to the hobby and outlook on where it is going.
You know, In the past 5 years the MR hooby has moved at rocket speed it seems as far as the RTR, DCC, and the new age of got to have it now. Like most here when I was starting out and not even have 2 nickles to rub together being a teen, it was hard to buy anything. It always seemed like I was dreaming about what I wanted many years ago as far as the MR hobby goes.
Now to give some sort of my own veiw, I did scratch build, or kitbash items to get close to what I needed for my layout. It was tough times. But it was a great learning adventure for myself. I bought 2 mags back then Model Railroader, Railroad Modeler. I looked this morning and dug out a few of the old mags and looked through them, allot of cheap easy builds made from basic items.
Yes I do aggree, times are changing and it is going to continue to change in the MR world.
reklein wrote:Any of you guys remembeer Trains magazine? It was meant for the novice and had tons of plans and building articles. I specially liked the ones by E.L.Moore.One of the reasons I've kept all my MRs over the years was the the building articles and plans never seemed to get obsolete. Yeah we've got new glues and materials(styrene,gator board,foam etc) but the methods and plans are still there.Now that was almost 50 yrs ago for me. TV was just becoming available in my area,rural MT, and even Arthur C. Clarke hadn't envisioned video games, the internet, 3D modeling and all that stuff. Plus modelrailroading was a hobby where you built your own equipment, not like baseball or football where you could BUY everything. So now whats happening? Does the Mr.staff have a demographic that shows that buying into the hobby is more popular than building? And is that the reason for the current trend?
You may mean Model Trains, Linn Westcott kinda headed that one, I have some, they are kinda geared for newbies but enough for the skilled gustos to be interesting.
I thought there was a mag out geared more for the skilled hobbyist...anyways..
My layout you can't buy a lot for what I have to do, a lot has to be hand made because the market don't have it. Or its expensive.
if I may, I'd like to spin this thought to a different angle...
As a new modeller, the scratch build has hinestly been a rather overwhelming fear. I can recognize that something isn't right, that it isn't the protoype I'm wanting to capture. But I have tried, and can't even modify an RTR to become closer to what I want, let alone scratch.
I have some of the old issues, and enjoy reading them. But I've skipped the Scratch sections, because I don;t have the talent. Practice may be key, but it becomes discouraging when one can;t get to sheets of styrene to stick together. But after reading these 3 pages, I'm starting to want to try again. as a new modeller, I'm wiling to try it out. Sure, I don't need anything so overly complicated as a schematic for a Big Boy, but a crossing tower might be a neatway to start off and keep us less experianced in. And thanks for relighting a discouraged flame guys.
As a newb, may I ask a simple question then? What counts as scratch building for some? If I buy wall sections as the DPM to build a model of the Indy Union Station? Does that coubt? or should I may brick from Styrene? I think that should be clarifed to help not chaee off new modellers.
-Morgan
Flashwave wrote: if I may, I'd like to spin this thought to a different angle... As a new modeller, the scratch build has hinestly been a rather overwhelming fear. I can recognize that something isn't right, that it isn't the protoype I'm wanting to capture. But I have tried, and can't even modify an RTR to become closer to what I want, let alone scratch. I have some of the old issues, and enjoy reading them. But I've skipped the Scratch sections, because I don;t have the talent. Practice may be key, but it becomes discouraging when one can;t get to sheets of styrene to stick together. But after reading these 3 pages, I'm starting to want to try again. as a new modeller, I'm wiling to try it out. Sure, I don't need anything so overly complicated as a schematic for a Big Boy, but a crossing tower might be a neatway to start off and keep us less experianced in. And thanks for relighting a discouraged flame guys. As a newb, may I ask a simple question then? What counts as scratch building for some? If I buy wall sections as the DPM to build a model of the Indy Union Station? Does that coubt? or should I may brick from Styrene? I think that should be clarifed to help not chaee off new modellers.
For me, scratch building is when a modeler buys materials and components and creates a model. It's a little analogous to baking a cake: A cake from a bakery is ready to run, a cake mix is like a kit (everything you need in one package, pre-measured, with instructions), A scratch cake means you acquire materials and provide skill to assemble and finish - but you may use a recipe.
My suggestion for learning to scratch build is to try a few craftsman kits. That way you'll get the right materials and some instructions to guide you step by step. Then try a simple project on your own - maybe following along with an old magazine article. If you can, go to train shows and talk to the modelers there - you'll learn a ton.
Flashwave, you hit the nail on the head! Start simple, bite off what you can chew. This is exactly the type of stuff we used to see regularly in MR. I built this over the course of two evenings, fudging the plans from available photos. It's built from styrene pieces, scrap windows from another kit, and some Plastruct stair parts. Dipping your toes in doesn't have to be overwhelming.
The DPM modulars can be bashed into just about anything, too. I would consider that more of a kitbash than a scratch build, but the basic premise is the same...
Again, I can't emphasize enough how inspiring this thread has been for me. I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback!
Flashwave, your question is at the cusp of the point where so many of these discussions take a nasty turn. Each of us uses "something" else to generate what we need. For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...that's how niggly it can get when the one-upmanship of ego-manifestation feels it must make itself known. And God knows this hobby has egos.
My point is that, unless we really do mine our own metals and smelt them, we all rely on the efforts of some other entity, organism, or natural process to gain what we need to have fun in the hobby. That may be the weed and branch, the sheets of styrene, or the lightly weathered locomotives that Bachmann is selling this very day.
That is why several of us bleat, against a seeming noisy gale, that there should be room for all of us, with our several abilities and interests, in this hobby. And, bless his heart, Lee has stated as much in his opening question several pages back.
Yes, very much, you bet.
Yes, Crandell, and that street runs both ways... there should be room for us inveterate researchers and scratch builders at the table, too...
Your extension to the other logical extreme (mining your own metal) is just as ridiculous as mine (calling yourself a fisherman because you stop at the seafood market on your way home from the boat...) I believe most of us have a degree of common sense that helps us know generally where the lines are drawn.
selector wrote:...For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...
...For some of us, that is merely money. For others, that is hacking off branches and picking weeds. I don't think any one of us will claim to mine his own metals, but nothing would surprise me...
Wait, so you're telling me that the modeler's skill test of being let loose in a forest with an xacto knife and/or razor saw with the expectation that in 3 weeks you come walking (or limping) out of said remote forest with an accurate scale representation of <fill in the blank here> is now definct?!
and I was so close to being able to do that too....
I have to agree with all of you completely.
Another similar story, was when reading an issue of Classic Toy Trains, maybe last year (my aunt renews the subscription each year), there was a pretty nice highrail layout. I was impressed until I realized he hired a custom builder to come and design the layout to fit in the room, and build it, contributing only scenic ideas. I understand CTT is for toy trains, and not a "modeler" magazine, but to have a layout featured in a magazine that you yourself didn't build?
Alex
I feel that I have to chime in here. I've only been in the hobby for alittle over a year, and have been buying MR and other mags, as soon as they hit the shelves. The entire reason that I got into the hobby was because of the scratchbuilding, that is something I enjoy. I found a hobby shop that had alot of old mags that was for sell, and I bought boxes upon boxes of them and started reading. I figured that if I was going to learn how to do anything in this hobby, I should learn it from the ones that prefected it, made it what it is today.
I have noticed the lack of scratchbuilding articles and also the electronic how to's. Even as young as I am, I understand the change. With the way that the hobby has become so commercialized, you have to make your sponsers happy. What they are producing is what you push. Without the sponsers there wouldn't be a MR. So unfortunately I do understand. With saying that I would love to see some more scratchbuilding and electronic articles.
Maybe I'm naive but I plan to scratchbuild every structure on my layout, and also build every pc board. It gives me that satisfaction that "this is mine and only mine".
All of this, is just my own opinion, but even with or without a magazine to help with scratchbuilding, there is always going to be scratchbuilding.
Norman....
Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratchbuilders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accomodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
Also, for the dedicated prototype modeler, what are the chances that any of the plans are going to be for a structure that belongs on their layout.
At one time, scratchbuilding was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature.
Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature.
I like to see them and I do read them as they give me ideas. The actual plans are not significant to me although I look at them for spacial relationships sometimes. What is more important to me is learning the construction techniques and short-cuts people use. These are skills I can incorporate into my own efforts.
selector wrote: My point is that, unless we really do mine our own metals and smelt them, we all rely on the efforts of some other entity, organism, or natural process to gain what we need to have fun in the hobby. That may be the weed and branch, the sheets of styrene, or the lightly weathered locomotives that Bachmann is selling this very day.-Crandell
Crandell, this is rather surprising to hear from you, gievn that you are our resident voice of reason. I don't know that anybody really would deny that even scratchbuilding relies mostly on commercial parts. Oh, sure, every now and again you hear of the guy who scracthbuilt every part of his loco but the wheels, but, as Lee says, any reasonable person would consider scratchbuilding to start somewhere after the metal was smelted or the trees cut down. That argument seems more like the typical "blocking strategy" than a cogent argument.
When I was doing HOn3 so many years ago, I used to scratchbuild from photos. I'd find a door, a window, or a person standing next to the structure, and then scale the whole thing from that. It was usually a best-guess than an exact replica, but it worked for me. I used pre-sized lumber, milled wood siding, and commercial windows and doors. Yet I would still call it scratchbuilding in its intended sense.
But the real argument here, if I'm reading Lee correctly, is that MR used to feature more of that kind of modeling than today. I don't think scratchbuilding will ever go away (to address the VHS analogy) because there will always be modelers wanting a specific structure or car that is not commercially available. Now, whether MR choses to show modelers that there's an option beyond off-the-shelf is the issue at stake.
I agree 100% with Lee, and I don't feel this is judgemental at all. By chosing to ignore that entire aspect of the hobby, MR will ultimately do a disservice to the modeler by not showing that there can be more beyond simply opening a box and plopping something on the layout.
OTOH, RMC stands in a position whereby it may finally be able to capture a big share of the market from MR, that being the more craftsman-oriented modelers. RMC used to always play second-fiddle to MR, and probably will still do so, but I'm buying RMC again, whereas I hadn't for many years. And that's essentially what Hal Carstens had intended... for the Craftsman part of Railroad Model Craftsman to be where it distinguishes itself from MR.
To depart on a positive note, MR's focus on operation has been very helpful to me, as has its focus on DCC. I can see how someone in the construction phase of the layout might be disappointed, but for a guy like me, relatively new to DCC and looking to operate beyond 'roundy-round, the operations and DCC aspect of MR is something I won't get in any other pub.
There are hobbyists who like to make things, railroad modelers. There are others who like to accumulate stuff and run it. I'm a model builder and get satisfaction out of making something with my own two hands, and later taking photos of it.
I previously reference to a lumberyard that I scratchbuilt from plans in MR. I don't recall the specifics, but think the article was mostly plans and photos of the prototype - I didn't follow anyone else's construction practices. I modified one part of a structure from the plans to better suit the area it would be placed in on my modules.
I modify/change/add to kits that I've assembled to make them "mine". Buying the latest premade gizmo just isn't the same.
I've used those plans for everything from working on my Cumberland station down to photocopying them and watercoloring them for backgrounds.
There's also the ability to take the plans that are close to what you want, and modifying them before you start cutting styrene or wood. When they include floor plans, they can help you understand how the building functioned, and therefore what details should go where... (roof vents over the bathroom, Coke machine outside the waiting room, time clock next to the staff door, that sort of thing)
Obviously there's a lot of features in a monthly magazine that aren't going to interest everyone, or even a majority. I usually skim right past anything that involves building a circuit. The question remains, what is the objective of Model Railroader? Is it to help people expand their horizons? Or to peddle the wares of their advertisers?
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratch builders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratch builders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accommodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.Also, for the dedicated prototype modeler, what are the chances that any of the plans are going to be for a structure that belongs on their layout.At one time, scratch building was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
Let me pose this question to the scratch builders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratch builders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accommodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
At one time, scratch building was a necessity because of the lack of quality kits available but that is no longer a problem. A wide variety of kits are available that can be painted and weathered to look good on any layout. Kitbashing and add-on details allow the kit builder to create outstanding structures. Even the prebuilts are coming preweathered although I do like to dress them down a little bit with my own weathering powder. MR's decision to drop these articles seems to be a recognition that scratchbuilders are becoming an ever smaller percentage of the modeling community. The hobby has changed and the editorial decision by MR has reflected that. For those who are still committed to scratchbuilding and are interested in those types of articles, RMC still caters to those interests. MR seems to me to be more geared to the general modeling world, while scratchbuilding has become a niche interest.
Regarding the usefulness of the articles, they were/are very helpful, because they provide insight into techniques that are useful in other cases. There is also a lot of scratch-bashing that goes on, in which portions of detailed construction articles are combined to create something different, or structures are resized or rearranged to fit a certain situation. It is significant that these articles and the technical drawings are falling by the journalistic wayside.
I believe that the hobby is seeing the same changes that we see in other hobbies. I'm a street rod guy and I've noticed that many more professionally built rods are showing up at car shows (shown by the proud owners who simply bought them). It used to be that cars and model trains were process hobbies - we were involved because we love the process of creating something our own way. The evolution seems to be leading these hobbies in the direction of possession hobbies in which there is some satisfaction in simply possessing a completed street rod or model railroad. For me, there is little satisfaction in possession hobbies, but there must be for some folks - Model Railroader's May feature on a purchased layout had me thinking "Do I really have anything in common with this hobbyist?" I can't bring myself to refer to him as a modeler.
I get concerned that this evolution may cause the market for some important supplies to dwindle. That might make it tough to keep being the kind of modeler I am, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime (I figure I'm good for another 20-30 years). I do wonder if in 10 years I'll go to a train show and find that the whole thing is about buying RTR this and RTR that and that the interest in scratch building and craftsman kits will have dropped to practical non-existence. It saddens me to think that may be the future, but if those folks of the future find satisfaction in it - I guess it's OK. It is certainly not my place to decide what brings pleasure to someone else.
If the magazine chooses to cater to RTR hobbyists, so be it. What they publish has never dictated what I do as a modeler. I'm grateful for what I learned in the bygone era, but they have a business to run. If anyone should understand how technology and financial climates usher in change, model railroaders should. Significant changes happen in our prototypes at a remarkably fast pace - 100 years ago the piston valve was on the horizon, now there is talk of fully automated trains (no engineer on board). Should we not expect changes of similar magnitude in our hobby, with its hallmark periodical leading the way? Objectively, I think we have to admit that we've seen this coming.
That said, we don't have to like it or participate in it. There are other magazines, other forums, and plenty of traditional modelers to maintain a wealth of shared knowledge and hopefully maintain a market for our supplies. We can continue to do our thing our way, and we can welcome newcomers into the fold. If there is really a market for it, perhaps a new magazine dedicated to traditional ways of model railroading will be created (although, there already are a couple of good ones).
In closing this diatribe, I'll simply state that I feel a sense of having been betrayed by Model Railroader Magazine. I feel that I have been a loyal reader. I patronize some of its advertisers and I've sung its praises - although, not recently. I now feel that Model Railroader is turning its back on the very modelers who made it the prominent publication that it is. Business is business, but that's just not right.
My subscription renewal will not be in the mail.
wm3798 wrote: Obviously there's a lot of features in a monthly magazine that aren't going to interest everyone, or even a majority. I usually skim right past anything that involves building a circuit. The question remains, what is the objective of Model Railroader? Is it to help people expand their horizons? Or to peddle the wares of their advertisers?Lee
I think the truthful answer is both. Kalmbach is first and foremost a business. If it doesn't prosper as a business, it will cease to function in the other areas. Subscriptions pay only a small share of the bills. Most revenue comes from their advertisers so they must keep those people happy. At the same time, they have to control costs, which means a fixed amount of space for content. Within that space, they can't be all things to all people. They have to determine who their target readership is going to be. To what extent that decision is influenced by the interests of their advertisers, we can only guess.
MR has made the decision to target the widest possible audience while RMC's content seems to me geared to the craftsman as their name would indicate. Twenty years ago, I didn't see as much difference in the content of the two magazines but now they seem to be diverging into different directions. It's true that MR no longer seems interested in presenting scratchbuilding material. On the other hand, have you ever seen RMC do a 4X8 project railroad. MR is going to be more relevant to the newbies while RMC is going to be of more interest to the highly skilled modeler. Both carry content that will be of interest to most of us who like me, fall somewhere in between those two extremes. There's something for all of us. You just aren't going to get it from a single publication any more.
Dave, what you quoted of mine was my way of reminding all readers of two things: first, that these topics tend to draw passionate and pent-up ire from even the most controlled responders, particularly as the topic gets further along.
Secondly, each of us uses something, and draws on the work of others, to get "satisfaction" as we define it at a given stage of our development and interest. For some of us, that will be solidly RTR. For some, metal brass blocks or sheets will be indicated.
As I have stated elsewhere, there is room for all of us, and the rest of that comment, which I feel Lee misunderstood (may very well be my way of using words, so no fault suggested except that it be mine) was a way of saying that I felt his way of doing model railroading belongs as much as mine, and I acknowledged that it was his central premise of the thread. If the magazine can meet the needs of the neophyte in all its guises, why can't it also find room for those who have "earned their stripes" for want of a better descriptor. And I agree with him.
But, as happens frequently, these discussions do, almost to a one, degenerate into name calling and suggestions that one side or the other in the inevitable polarity that develops is too rigid and intolerant. I can see it building in responses that came after my last.
Keep the lid on it, please, and don't be so testy folks. I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
Lighten up!
Crandell, I'm not sure which post you're referring to... I think this entire thread has been very civil and enlightening...
selector wrote: I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
I was expressing a middle ground, and still feel the heat. I was being conciliatory, if clumsily expressive, and still find folks wanting to tackle me.
Fair enough. I understand what you're getting at. I don't think this thread has gotten as angry as I might have expected, and for that, I commend my fellow posters.
Many of us are passionate about this because seeing MR changing in this way, inevitable or not, is like losing an old friend. Whereas I used to wear out each month's issue to tatters before the next came, now I can pretty much finish it in an evening, and expect not to refer back to it during future modeling. Too bad. Much, if not most, of what's on my layout now was influenced by MR from a few years ago and back. The most recent issues have little of that "meat" that Lee gets at.
I should have seen this coming... Several years ago Terry Thompson did an editorial in which he compared model railroading to RC boats and planes. Since hobbyists can come home from the shop and fly a plane or sail a boat right out of the box that very day, he opined, how can model railroading compete? The answer, as he saw it, was to push ready-to-run to its limits, in hopes of capturing the instant-gratification crowd and also to lose fewer new hobbyists to frustration when the layout turns out be an overwhelming project.
I see nothing "sinister" in what Terry said... there's much truth in it. But MR has definitely followed that ideology lately, trying to reduce as much as possible the amount of time and effort required to get to the layout operations part of the hobby. But in doing so, it seems, leaves many of us proces-based modelers trackside, as the outcome-based express rolls past.
I apologize if this sounds judgemental, but I'm very passionate about this. I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Has anyone considered that MR is just following the trend of the readership?
I fly RC as another hobby. Years ago (about the same timeline as Model Railroader) the RC mags always had several construction articles in each issue about building a model from plans or from scratch. Over the years these build articles have gone away. Today the preference is for ARF (almost ready to fly). Why? Because modelers today have limited time to devoted to building. I think the same is true for model railroading. A quick walk thru your local hobbyshop will present you with dozens and dozens of pre-built structures. These obviously sell well and provide the modeler with "instant gratification".
I'm sure that an very good percentage of MR readers fit into the "limited time" available category. They don't have the time to sit down and research a particular structure, make plans, obtain the necessary materials and start building. MR has to follow what the readership wants or else they're not going to sell magazines. Like it or not, todays world has consumers and hobbyists that want it now and just don't want to wait or take the time to develop the skills. This is true with every hobby or interest.
How many of you like RTR rolling stock or locos? I bet almost all of you do. Sure it's fun to build a piece of rolling stock every now and then but if you have a fleet of 100 box cars building, painting, decaling and weathering every single one would quickly become tedious and boring. The same is true of structures. How long would it take for you to build all the structures you needed for your layout if you had to build each and every one from scratch? My guess is there would be very few of you left in the hobby.
Every hobby I'm involved in has lamented the loss of the skill base with the coming or pre-made items (planes, trains or automobiles). it's a fact we're going to have to live with. If you're truly dedicated to scratch building then you will find a way.
-G-
I would like to second the points Crandell is making. There is a long stream of processes that go into turning raw materials into a finished layout. The difference among us is at one point we choose to enter that stream. No modeler I have ever been aware of steps in at the beginning of the process. No one turns raw materials into components for scratchbuilding structures and rolling stock. Does anyone mill there own scale lumber? Does anyone mold their own window and door castings? Does anyone suggest that these people are not modelers because they take advantage of materials others have produced? Of course not. But there are some who seem to suggest that those of us who choose to enter the water a little farther downstream are not real modelers. If you go a little farther down the stream, you find the kit builders and bashers. These are the people who buy shake the box kits and may or may not customize them with extra details.
Lately, we see more and more modelers who take advantage of the availability RTR locos and rolling stock and prebuilt structures. And I have no qualms about calling these people modelers. Whereas a scratchbuilder takes advantage of manufactured components to build a unique structure, the RTR modeler buys ready made structures to compose completed scenes. Both approaches utilize a creative process.
Lastly there are those who choose to have others build there layouts. Even these people get involved in the process. It might be as much as presented a builder with the plans and writing or check or simply presenting the builder with a concept and asking him to do both the design and construction, but even those people have significant input into the final product.
I make the analogy to someone who wants to make a cross country trip. If you want to get there fast, you fly. If you want to enjoy the journey, you take the train. Most people choose to fly simply because they don't have the time for the train. We all have options as to how we get to where we want to go and we all make different choices. What's wrong with that?
Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies.
I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time.
Dave Vollmer wrote:... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Dave, even your process is an outcome for you because it is a means to the end of achieving "success" and enjoyment as you define it. It is a vessel for your passion, but your statement at the front of this quote is, to my way of seeing it, broad and exclusive of those who merely dabble...whatever that term means. A person who buys everything, and who merely arranges it so that it resembles a model railroad is not a model railroader the way I see it. But they are included in the hobby, and that is what the magazine serves. At the other extreme, someone driven to craft every visible item on his layout should not expect much substance in the contents of MR for what he does.
There is a middle ground, but even then it may not be a smart business decision to adopt the middle ground as the basis on which to keep the magazine viable. What generates the revenue? Exclusively sellers of scratch-buliding supplies? No, it is the advertising from manufacturers of things that induce people to purchase those self same things.
But, and this will be my last contribution, I do feel that the magazine should occasionally reach out to all its hobby members in a meaningful way...if for no other reason than to be good stewards of the hobby, including by way of educating the newer and less adventurous members that there is more development out there for them if they should want it. That means, describing it in easy terms, and then showcasing it.
Lee, I hope I have managed to state, in that last paragraph, what I think you are driving at...or some of it, anyway. For the record, I do not disagree.
SpaceMouse wrote: jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. I like to see them and I do read them as they give me ideas. The actual plans are not significant to me although I look at them for spacial relationships sometimes. What is more important to me is learning the construction techniques and short-cuts people use. These are skills I can incorporate into my own efforts.
The plans give me a general idea of how the item looks and the basic construction. I usually alter them to suit my needs or make my own based on the published plans. It's MUCH easier to alter a plan than to kitbash. These articles in the old MRs were and still are useful to me. I no longer subscribe to MR due to the fact there are very few articles of interest to me. The Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, RMC, and LID are my bibles when it comes to unbiased construction articles.
SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time.
I know there's a nugget of humor to your response, but it does point out to me that I need to clarify what I meant...
I don't mean "model railroad to the exclusion of all else." But I do mean that when I'm working on the layout, I'm 100% committed to that project at that time (until kids, wife, job, other hobbies, etc., call me back to the real world). But I've been described as an "intense" person before. I'm never completely satisfied with my work. I have to be very careful not to extend that philosophy to parenting and marriage, but it has served me well in my work and my hobbies. Continual process improvement.
Dave Vollmer wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I like model railroading a lot, even when I have to do it in N-scale. But I cannot see devoting all my energy to it except in short, dedicated bursts. My value system requires that I devote some time to my family, job, and spirituality from time to time. I know there's a nugget of humor to your response, but it does point out to me that I need to clarify what I meant...I don't mean "model railroad to the exclusion of all else." But I do mean that when I'm working on the layout, I'm 100% committed to that project at that time (until kids, wife, job, other hobbies, etc., call me back to the real world). But I've been described as an "intense" person before. I'm never completely satisfied with my work. I have to be very careful not to extend that philosophy to parenting and marriage, but it has served me well in my work and my hobbies. Continual process improvement.
Of course I was joking, even about the scale. But I also knew what you meant. I too figure anything doing is worth doing to the best of my abilities, even if my skills are not up to master levels.
And as an aside to Jcorbett. I can't stand paying for strip wood. The best investment I made was a mini-table saw so I could mill my own lumber.
Except it doesn't do very well below HO scale.
jecorbett wrote: Let me pose this question to the scratchbuilders. Just how useful were these articles when they were a regular feature. The reason I ask that is that a number of scratchbuilders have stated on this forum that they like to scratch build because they can be creative and build unique structures to fit the space rather than adjusting the space to accomodate the structure. Don't you lose both of those when you scratch build from somebody else's plan. If you follow the plans, you have no more flexibility than a kit builder would have. You also lose the uniqueness in that your structure is going to look like the others that followed that same plan. Granted, there won't be as much duplication as there is with kits builds, but it won't be unique either.
Those articles were indeed very useful and were widely employed by the serious model railroaders of the day. I can say that I've personally cataloged most of the scratchbuilding articles in MR from the 50's onwards and have built numerous examples. Several of these structures garnered awards in NMRA regional contests, before gracing my layout. And since every modeler has his own "style" of building, I can't say I recall seeing any two scratchbuilt structures that truly looked exactly alike, even when based on the same set of plans.
Incidentally, for those new to the hobby, be advised that a goodly percentage of those old major scratchbuilding structure projects from MR were employed by the manufacturers in creating plastic kits. The same was true for the locomotive diagrams. When MR dropped these sorts of features, they lost one of the magazine's most valuable assets for attracting the serious hobbyist. That decision is at least partially responsible for the drastic decline of MR's circulation figures and its popularity over the past dozen years.
selector wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote:... I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.Dave, even your process is an outcome for you because it is a means to the end of achieving "success" and enjoyment as you define it. It is a vessel for your passion, but your statement at the front of this quote is, to my way of seeing it, broad and exclusive of those who merely dabble...whatever that term means. A person who buys everything, and who merely arranges it so that it resembles a model railroad is not a model railroader the way I see it. But they are included in the hobby, and that is what the magazine serves. At the other extreme, someone driven to craft every visible item on his layout should not expect much substance in the contents of MR for what he does.There is a middle ground, but even then it may not be a smart business decision to adopt the middle ground as the basis on which to keep the magazine viable. What generates the revenue? Exclusively sellers of scratch-buliding supplies? No, it is the advertising from manufacturers of things that induce people to purchase those self same things.But, and this will be my last contribution, I do feel that the magazine should occasionally reach out to all its hobby members in a meaningful way...if for no other reason than to be good stewards of the hobby, including by way of educating the newer and less adventurous members that there is more development out there for them if they should want it. That means, describing it in easy terms, and then showcasing it.Lee, I hope I have managed to state, in that last paragraph, what I think you are driving at...or some of it, anyway. For the record, I do not disagree.-Crandell
Maybe it's the diplomatic wording, but I'm almost having trouble deciphering whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with me, or both... But I understand you're trying to extract yourself from this thread so I won't belabor it...
I don't mean to be exclusive of certain groups as it pertains to who should or should not be catered to in MR. I do have personal opinions on what does and does not constitute model railroading, but expressing those here would be devisive and likely alienate me... There's a time for brutal honesty and this ain't it. This has still been pretty civil, in spite of the odds.
But I agree that all aspects of the hobby should be covered by the hobby's leading "gateway" magazine, for two reasons. The first is to maintain long-time loyal readership. And the other is to expose new modelers to every aspect of the hobby from RTR to craftsmanship and back again, so that new modelers can make more informed choices about how they can chose to enjoy this great hobby.
Dave Vollmer wrote:I apologize if this sounds judgemental, but I'm very passionate about this. I'm of the school that anything worth doing is worth devoting all of one's energies to, and that includes hobbies. I know that doesn't fit everyone's views, and I don't mean to imply that my philosophy is better. And the process-based versus outcome-based labels are not meant to draw sides in a fight, but to illustrate the differences in philosophy.
Dave, I appreciate your passion as much as I do the fine work you have presented on this forum, but many of us who don't scratchbuild are still devoting our passions to the hobby. It's all a matter of circumstance. I am retired, so I have more time than most modelers but I am also building a very large layout so building most of my structures the old fashioned way simply is not an option. There have been a few modelers who have the skill to produce high quality craftsmanship on a large scale, John Allen and George Selios are two that come to mind and I know there are others. I simply am not that good. To produce craftman quality work is probably going to take me 3 times as long as some of these folks and if I went that route, I'd never come close to finishing my layout. About half my rolling stock and most of the newer stuff is RTR. Most of my structures are built from common kits with little modification. I am starting to use some prebuilts because the quality of these has improved recently and I have even learned to weather them to remove the plastic look. I have a handful of top end craftsman structures which turned out pretty good but again, took an awful long time to complete. I have even done some scratchbuilding if you count an extra long receiving platform I build for my produce warehouse (It isn't very good, but it fills the bill).
I look forward to the day when I can run a train over the entire mainline without it once passing through bare foam or plywood. That day is several years away at least, and when that happens, I'll begin work on the branchline with the same approach I am using now. And if I manage to complete that before I get carried out of the train room horizontally, I might take a serious stab at scratchbuilding and replacing some of the earlier efforts with higher quality work, assuming the mind, the eyes, and the fat fingers are still capable.
One thing that might help you is Evergreen Styrene's book: http://www.evergreenscalemodels.com/Book.htm
Some of the chapters are available as pdf files. The book is $14.95 + $3 for S&H. Well worth the cost.
I wouldn't be particularly worry about how "scratchbuilding" is defined. As one scratchbuilder put it, the primary difference between scratchbuilding and putting together a craftsman kit is that with scratchbuilding, you are the one creating the kit components.
Ever get the feeling you've dug yourself a great big hole and forgotten to take a ladder with you?
No, don't get me wrong. I'm not equating scratchbuilding with passion. Heck, the majority of the items on my layout are RTR or simple kits, all weathered and/or painted to look like they're not. The RTR stuff outnumbers the craftsman stuff by 10 to 1 at least. I'm saying, though, that if I need something that I can't buy, I'll build it myself. Case in point: my PRR steam engines.
I'm simply saying that commerical unavailability of a modelers' favorite loco or structure needn't be a dead-end. And I think MR owes us that perspective if it truly wants to respresent the hobby as a whole.
If you can meet your every modeling objective off the shelf, then that's awesome! In some respects I wish I could too, or at least I wish I had the option. And I don't mean to imply that makes you less of a modeler or less passionate.
Dave Vollmer wrote: I'm simply saying that commerical unavailability of a modelers' favorite loco or structure needn't be a dead-end. And I think MR owes us that perspective if it truly wants to respresent the hobby as a whole.
This is the point I was making back on page 2, but no one bit. There is so much to do on a layout that I'm willing to compromise any way I can with my time. That said, what I'm not willing to compromise is my vision--and that means, more often than not. Scratching and Bashing.
But I also think, that this forum is a better source of inspiration in that regard than the magazine is (was?).
Yes, it's true, we all wade into the warm waters of Model Railraoding at the point we feel the most comfortable. I don't think the point you decide is right for you should ever be a topic for debate.
However, I believe there is a problem when the people who jump into the marathon 100 feet from the finish line seem to get a lot more say in what is getting published by what is supposed to be the flagship magazine of the hobby.
It does alienate us those of us who have been working on our skills for a long time, and working on them under the tutelage of the greats like Odegard, Armstrong and Allen (among others). Maybe I'm just getting old (I believe that there are now no major league ball players my age...) but I really think MR is adrift.
I've got another 8 months or so in my subscription, so we'll see how it plays out.
Here is a suggestion from little me.
How about a "scratch builders corner" in every issue? Just as the letters page have it's spot. I would love it. Makes it easy for the ones who do not like it to just jump past it.
As to the question of are the drawings/plans helpful?? You bet. I still have to adapt and fill in some blanks but they are quite handy when building stuff.
The magazine is making a choice as to which building they will publish plans for, so if I am not interested in a structure, I will probably skip the article. However if enough plans get published eventually I will fin ones that are useful.
If MR were on it, they would group plans from back issues together either by road or structure types and sell them on CDS to interested partires:
Examples: Structures of the Southern Pacific
Structures of the Wsstern Shortlines
Small Freight Sheds Etc...
And yet somehow, the content available from MR in the form of annuals, special editions, its series of books (most notably "Building Realistic Layouts") is continuously expanding. Kalmbach, as a publisher of railroad related material (both prototype and model) is constantly expanding what it offers. I was rather surprised, when I went to the local Borders, to discover a complete special issue devoted to preserved operable steam locomotives in the US. Even saw photos of people I know personally. I had no idea that issue was even in the dream stage, let alone the publish stage. It's called "Steam Today" and is an excellent issue.
Who caters to the garden railroad crowd with a periodical? It ain't that outfit in New Jersey. Again, I'm not trying to trash Carstens, but to point out that if you want a wide variety of content, Kalmbach is where it's happening.
Who offers multiple Internet forums where people can exchange ideas and (probably more importantly) moan and complain about what the hosts appear NOT to be doing?
Who offers a quarterly magazine ("Classic Trains") devoted solely to railroading prior to about 1970 wherein those of us who love the transition period can get info that doesn't regularly appear in "Trains"?
Not to forget the toy train crowd, who caters to them? I occasionally buy CTT and the last few issues I've seen seem to be getting away from the anything goes philosophy more to Hi-Railing (e.g. scale or semi-scale model railroading). The last issue I bought even had an 3 rail O-gauge version of an Iain Rice layout in it. But that was a couple of months or so ago.
Who is continually bringing out new hard copy content both model and prototype in addition to their regularly scheduled monthly mags? Hint: The company name starts with the letter "K".
The amount of stuff available from Kalmbach alone both from a modeling and prototype perspective is mind boggling compared to what was available from all sources back when my hair actually had some color in it.
Given the expanding nature of Kalmbach offerings vis a vis model and prototype railroading, I have to wonder why people seem to expect so much from a single periodical.
While I continue to subscribe to MR, I do find that RMC is a much more appealing magazine now than it was 20 years ago. I have started subscribing to it this year and I have to admit I have been impressed with the improvement. I also think that magazines like the Shortline and Narrow Gauge Gazette now represent the craftsman and scratchbuilder. Take a look at the 2 foot gauge large scale combine in the latest issue. That guy definitely cut his own lumber!
The article mentioned about the weathering of the construction equipment was one of the weaker articles to show up in MR in some time. Not only was there not much modeling to it, but the weathering was not particularly convincing to me at all. It looked like some oatmeal was glopped onto it.
There is a good reasons why so much more of our hobbies are RTR and I understand the logic of MR in writing articles that appeal to those who are beginners and primarily buy RTR equipment, I just hope they don't forget those of us who are farther along in the hobby and need more sophisticated articles and plans to enjoy ourselves. - Nevin
andrechapelon wrote:Given the expanding nature of Kalmbach offerings vis a vis model and prototype railroading, I have to wonder why people seem to expect so much from a single periodical. Andre
Andre,
...for the simple reason that until recently MR did give us so much in a single periodical. Maybe we were spoiled. But of course, now Kalmbach has so many extra publications and annuals, that in some respects it still covers much of what it used to, only now you have to spend more money.
But the plans, however, seem to be disappearing from the whole spectrum of Kalmbach pubs... Too bad, too. I agree that they ought to be available on CD (if they're not already...!).
Lee,
You hit the nail on the head. I have to concur... Years ago, whole articles on scratchbuilding... Then at the turn of this century, the last page of MRR had a nice "quick hit" article on a scratchbuilding item. Loved it! Now, the last page is operations, which is nice, but where did the plans and scratchbuilding go???? I now buy Railmodel Craftsman for this stuff and am considering dropping my MRR for that reason. Really, I mean, I like the articles about layouts and all, but LESS of that and more scratchbuilding/kitbashing articles like RMC....
Brian
P.S. There is an old Kalambach book which I got off Amazon used, HO Trackside Structures You Can Build, 1994, which is AWESOME...around 30+ structures with 20+ plans, etc... a must have for us newbies to scratchbuilding!
andrechapelon wrote:That decision is at least partially responsible for the drastic decline of MR's circulation figures and its popularity over the past dozen years. CNJ831And yet somehow, the content available from MR in the form of annuals, special editions, its series of books (most notably "Building Realistic Layouts") is continuously expanding. Kalmbach, as a publisher of railroad related material (both prototype and model) is constantly expanding what it offers. Andre
And yet somehow, the content available from MR in the form of annuals, special editions, its series of books (most notably "Building Realistic Layouts") is continuously expanding. Kalmbach, as a publisher of railroad related material (both prototype and model) is constantly expanding what it offers.
Much of that material would have appearred in the body of the magazine itself in the past. What Kalmbach has done is to take the real meaty subject matter out of the magazine to sell separately at extra cost to the MR readership. In theory, perhaps a profitable business concept, until you find that, as a result, the magazine is being consistantly panned by nearly all the more serious hobbyists on forums all over the Net.
Have you looked at the page count of MR lately? It has been declining 8-10 pages an issue, per year, since the magazine's "new outlook" on the hobby of Dream-it, Plan-it, BUY-it, surfaced. The latest issues are almost one-half the size of those in the 1990's and, in fact, thinner than any issues since the mid 1970's. You pay more, get less and then are expected to purchase the books at $20 a pop? Perhaps it wouldn't be quite so bad if they at least included a few in-depth articles per issue, instead of so much highly truncated material. In the May issue, dirtying up two vehicles (rather poorly at that) is passed off as modeling info. Please! And I'm afraid that just looking at a wealth of pretty pictures, no matter how good or impressive they are, will never make the reader into an actual model railroader.
We need to stop comparing page count on how the magazines are declining or increasing. Column inches is a more accurate count for the content of the magazine. Ten years ago many of the retailers advertised with multi-page advertisements. Now they just have a little ad to check their website. MR has lost a lot of advertising dollars in the past ten years.
Also, how much are we to blame? Has anyone of us, myself included, submitted a scratchbuilding or kitbashing article to MR for possible publication. They can only publish what has been submitted for possible publication. The staff has a lot of work in order to put together the magazine out each month without having to write articles on scratchbuilding, kitbashing, painting etc.
Just my .02
CNJ831 wrote: Much of that material would have appearred in the body of the magazine itself in the past. What Kalmbach has done is to take the real meaty subject matter out of the magazine to sell separately at extra cost to the MR readership. In theory, perhaps a profitable business concept, until you find that, as a result, the magazine is being consistantly panned by nearly all the more serious hobbyists on forums all over the Net.CNJ831
I am a serious hobbyist and I don't have a problems with the content. I realize it doesn't make everyone happy but I find ample interesting material in it every month. The things that don't interest me I just skip just like I have always done. People vote with their dollars what they want and apparently Kalmbach has responded to that with what they currently offer.
Hi,
In the last months I have open topics about MR policy to make some articles too basic and the dissappears of fine articles about scratchbuilding or construction of fine small layout like the Jerome and Southwestern or San Juan central for example.
On one series of articles about these layouts your learn more than a year actual publication of MR and the techniques for building these railroads Models are not difficult to use.
I am a great fan of MR but I agree with you on everything.
We see articles too basic, layout construction for toylike layout without any fine building concept and scenery, articles coming back every few months about the same subjects.
We are now in a "from the box to the layout" area and I don't know how youngster can learn something to build fine layout.
I don't think we are all expert of course but a try of some methods never again explained could give rapidly good results, and in the actual articles I dont smell this spirit. The layout project are too basic and give a cold result with poor color and scenery.
FOR EXAMPLE: The " Jerome and Southwestern RR" was build with ready to run track (Atlas snap switch and track) and easy to build just from the box structures,but see the results. The scenery use plaster and sand cover, you could replace the plaster with styrofoam, but the result was so appealing
IN CONCLUSION: Tomorrow project look like the Marklin or Fleischmann oval we see on every fair here in europe without any interest. This type of layout had nearly kill the construction of fine layout in europe during decades. Hopefully things are changing now; when a fine layout is presented everybody is looking for and asking questions.
So why MR the greatest and one of the best motor of this fabulous hobby is becoming so basic and poor in his article?????
One thing that has not been brought up in this discussion is that print media, magazines, are a cultural phenomenon that is in decline. To survive in this climate, there has to be a lot of cost cutting and jostling for position.
Eventually, an entrepreneurial website, free, full of content, video and possibly virtual reality will extinguish it's lights forever.
Much of that material would have appearred in the body of the magazine itself in the past. What Kalmbach has done is to take the real meaty subject matter out of the magazine to sell separately at extra cost to the MR readership. In theory, perhaps a profitable business concept, until you find that, as a result, the magazine is being consistantly panned by nearly all the more serious hobbyists on forums all over the Net
And the definition of more serious modelers would be those that are panning MR all over the Net, right? Those of us who are not panning MR all over the Net then would then, by definition, not be serious modelers because, well, we aren't panning MR all over the Net. Don't get me wrong, I don't think MR is perfect by a long shot, but I think they're doing a lot more right than wrong. No periodical can cover everybody's interest all the time. My point was that as far as total content in all publications went, Kalmbach is way, way ahead of its competition.
Why should something like the content of the series "How To Build Realistic Layouts" appear within the confines of MR? Actually, come to think of it, similar articles have appeared in past issues of MR, but in order to find, say, the information about yards that's contained with in the Freight Yards volume of "HTBRL", you'd need a stack of past issues of MR (I don't recall any discussion about yards and their function in RMC, at least not since TK was the editor) up to your waist. I've got tote containers full of old MR's. They're heavy. I'd rather go through a single specialty issue than wade through 50 lbs of back issues to find what I want. Come to think of it, I reread things many times. If I want to read about yards, it's nice to have all that info in one place. Come to think of it, if Kalmbach dispensed with paper altogether and put everything on CD, I'd be perfectly happy with that. Magazines take up a lot more room than CD's. Incidentally, the Realistic Layout series goes for $7.95 a copy, not $20. $20 items are more along the lines of the Tony Koester series on layout design, ops, scenery, etc., as well as Iain Rice's track planning books, Armstrongs "Track Planning For Realistic Operation" and several other books he authored. That's not an exhaustive list, but none of that stuff really belongs in a periodical anyhow. It's more book material.
I haven't seen the May issue yet so I have no idea what else is available in that issue. Surely the article that is causing so much complaint isn't the sole article in the issue. Judging from the volume of complaint, you'd sure think it was. So the May issue contains a clinker? It happens. It probably happens to RMC too. 'Course, there's no place to go to point that out to the publishers of RMC when that happens and it would be bad form to do it here. Nevertheless, let MR do something not quite up to snuff and the critics come out in droves.
There's a great deal of irony in all this. You've got this lovely web site here provided free of charge to discuss various aspects of the hobby (and complain about the hosts, which seems to be becoming something of a hobby within a hobby). You can even discuss those articles so dear to your heart that appear in RMC. Actually you can discuss "craftsman" articles anywhere you want on the net where modelers get together. However, the one place you can't discuss them is RMC's website. The one place you'd think that "real" modelers could get together and discuss "real" modeling is precisely the place that it's impossible to do so. You can't go to that other website and gently (or otherwise) point out that they seem to be stuck in a time warp and that there are whole aspects of the hobby of which they seem to be completely unaware. That's not to say they weren't aware of it at one time. They were. Unfortunately, they fired the messenger. Ironically, everything he writes appears under the auspices of the hosts of this website. I'm not just talking about operation, either.
Have you looked at the page count of MR lately? It has been declining 8-10 pages an issue, per year, since the magazine's "new outlook" on the hobby of Dream-it, Plan-it, BUY-it, surfaced. The latest issues are almost one-half the size of those in the 1990's and, in fact, thinner than any issues since the mid 1970's. You pay more, get less and then are expected to purchase the books at $20 a pop?
Being as I'm an MR subscriber, it's hard not to see the page count. So what? Is page count the alpha and omega measurement that tells you everything you need to know? Seems to me that relying on that one statistic alone means about as much as measuring programmers by how many lines of code they produce during a day. It's a meaningless measurement without looking at other factors.
I'm looking at pages 48-51 of the February MR, specifically the article on re-powering a brass engine. Compared to an article of only 20 years ago, the ratio of text to photos is vastly different with the photos taking up about 50% of the space in this instance. I find that I learn a heck of a lot more when the text supports the pictures rather than having the pictures supplement a rather wordy text. Way back in the day, it would drive me crazy reading somebody describing something he did without the benefit of a photo. What made it worse is that the photos that were provided with the article were always of something for which I didn't need photos to get a clearer idea of what was going on. Pictures can convey quite a bit of information in a rather compact format as compared to text, so it isn't just a case of looking at "pretty pictures".
andrechapelon wrote: Have you looked at the page count of MR lately? It has been declining 8-10 pages an issue, per year, since the magazine's "new outlook" on the hobby of Dream-it, Plan-it, BUY-it, surfaced. The latest issues are almost one-half the size of those in the 1990's and, in fact, thinner than any issues since the mid 1970's. You pay more, get less and then are expected to purchase the books at $20 a pop?CNJ831Being as I'm an MR subscriber, it's hard not to see the page count. So what? Is page count the alpha and omega measurement that tells you everything you need to know? Seems to me that relying on that one statistic alone means about as much as measuring programmers by how many lines of code they produce during a day. It's a meaningless measurement without looking at other factors. Andre
You suggest that my criteria isn't the best choice. Perhaps not, but, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing solid to indicate that the conclusion drawn from it is not valid and absolutely correct. For a change, how about you presenting readers here something beyond a long winded opinion, like perhaps substantiated, hard figures, that counter my own? Can you do so? Over a number of years on this forum and regarding this paticular question, I've offered comparative page-counts, ads to text ratios, column inches, text to illustration ratios, range of subject matter covered, even the column size vs page size (every one of which has declined over the period, incidentally) substantiating any claims I've presented.
Of course, if you are pleased with yourself for paying twice as much for a publication one-half of its former size that limits its content largely to entry-level material rather than the serious model railroading fare it once offered, by all means revel in it!
Did I not say it? Didn't I say it?!!!
selector wrote: Did I not say it? Didn't I say it?!!!
Yeah... I guess I owe you five bucks...
It was a neat thread while it lasted!
Dave Vollmer wrote: andrechapelon wrote:Given the expanding nature of Kalmbach offerings vis a vis model and prototype railroading, I have to wonder why people seem to expect so much from a single periodical. AndreAndre,...for the simple reason that until recently MR did give us so much in a single periodical. Maybe we were spoiled. But of course, now Kalmbach has so many extra publications and annuals, that in some respects it still covers much of what it used to, only now you have to spend more money.But the plans, however, seem to be disappearing from the whole spectrum of Kalmbach pubs... Too bad, too. I agree that they ought to be available on CD (if they're not already...!).
Dave, the hobby has become much more highly specialized over the years. How can Kalmbach cover everybody's interest in a single monthly publication? The funny thing is, we're here talking about MR's supposed shortcomings on MR's website when MR's primary competition doesn't even have a website capable of discussing anything. You can complain all you want about MR here, but if I want to go over to RMC to suggest some ways they can improve their mag, the best I can do is send a letter to the editor. I sure as heck can't discuss what I think is missing with my fellow RMC readers. I suppose I could do that here, but I don't really think it's kosher to do the equivalent of discussing how Ford could improve its cars on GM's website.
I'm in HO, you're in N. I'm an SP fan (at least of the last 4.3 miles of SP's Monterey Branch). You're a Pennsy fan. If I were to scratchbuild an SP TW-8 4-8-0, and get an article published in MR, what good would that do you? An O scaler might be able to scale up whatever methods I used, but it probably wouldn't work the other way. What would you learn from such an article, content rich as it no doubt would be (with lots and lots of pictures as well) ? For that matter, going the other way and observing what you did with your M-1, what you did really doesn't translate readily to something I can use. It's not that I don't appreciate what you did, it's just that I can't readily use your techniques. So where's the common ground? Surely there are tips, tricks, techniques, methodologies that are applicable not only to our different prototype interests but also to our different respective scales of choice. Scenery comes to mind as does trackwork, benchwork, possibly structure construction. Certainly one common point is that we're both interested in operation. However, it would appear that in the realm of building rolling stock, locomotives, etc., our interests are divergent and that we are best served just simply enjoying the difference.
As for the plans, IIRC, the ones I looked at most were the steam locomotive plans. I realize MR also did structures (there was a water tank drawing in the March MR BTW) as well as diesels. Do I miss them? Sure I do. They were fun to look at and that's mostly what I did. When you're an SP fan drawings of N&W K-1 4-8-2's and ACL 2-10-2's don't do you a lot of good (those both appeared in the 60's). As I recall, there really weren't many drawings of any kind that really appealed to me, although I seem to recall that there was a drawing of a Harriman Standard pile trestle done back in the late 50's or so and I vaguely recall that there was a drawing of an SP speeder shed, although I disremember when.
Lemme ask you this. Would drawings of a lettuce packing shed from Salinas, California do you any good? How about the station at San Jose (picture here: http://wx4.org/to/foam/sp/san_jose/depot/station/building.html ) and track diagram from 1960 (my treat).
The thing that a lot of people seem to have forgotten is that way back in the "Classical" days (which you so brilliantly illustrated with your magazine covers) is that people were just happy getting something to run and, if scenery was added (along with structures) it was rather generic. It seems that every layout that I ever saw pictures of contained the same Suydam Purina Chows building on a siding somewhere. There was no way that building could have provided any rail traffic anywhere, but there it was on the layout next to a siding. Quite often, if the layout was built by someone in California, there was a Suydam "Sunkist" packing house, a building of a size that might have been able to fill two reefers a week if everyone worked overtime. There wasn't an overwhelming amount of concern for prototype accuracy back then, at least not as far as the "peripherals" went (i.e. the stuff that sat beside the rails). Then again, painting a Mantua Pacific and lettering it for Santa Fe didn't make it a 3400 class, but it was often the only alternative. Equipping a Bowser NYC K-11 with a semi-Vanderbilt didn't make it an SP P-10, either, but those things were largely overlooked at least until Max Gray, PFM, MB Austin or Akane came out with a brass version that actually was based on a prototype engine. Shoot, back in the "Classic" days, you SPF's had it made with all those Penn-Line locos. The rest of us could only dream.
The point I have been trying to make all along is that the hobby has gotten more and more specialized. Just building a station for your layout isn't good enough. It used to be. Suydam sold a lot of these at one time http://www.alpinemodels.com/catalog/item/2762955/2639756.htm#image_1 and you could see one on a lot of layouts. The only problem is, is that it's based on a Southern Pacifc type 22 "left hand" combination station. "Left" because the #22 was also built with the passenger accommodations to the right of the freight house. A freelancer basing his layout in the Southwest could probably get away with it. Label it "Bartlett" and run MEC trains by it and people will be stifling snickers even if you scratchbuilt the thing and did a bang up job in the construction.
Ultimately, the question vis a vis drawings has to be, what good are they for you personally unless the item in the drawing actually appeared somewhere within 100 miles of a Pennsy right of way? Would you model a citrus packing house? For that matter, would a drawing of a potato packing house from the Bangor & Aroostook do you any good? How about a borax mine http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4982/ ? You can find one in Boron, CA, on the BNSF. I seriously doubt you could find one back in your neck of the woods. How many drawing does MR have to publish before they publish one that you (or I or anyone) can actually use? I don't know about the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania, but the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento has a lot of archived official drawings especially from the SP. That's where I intend to get copies of drawings that are relevant to my interests. I don't see how MR publishing drawings of , for instance, the passenger shelter at Del Monte (now the home of the Naval Post Graduate School) would help any budding modeler unless he were modeling a region of the country where Mission style architecture could be found.
I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with what you say.
Inspiration and technique are scale, era-, and prototype-independent.
Case in point: I kitbashed my N scale coal mine following an article on an HO mine.
...and while you may never kitbash an N scale M1, I hope it has inspired some to cut into a perfectly good loco to come up with something new.
There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Dave Vollmer wrote:There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Unless it's one of them $5,000,000 brass locos!
Dave Vollmer wrote: There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Well, sometimes there's a lot of envy.
It's a matter of approach, Andre, not necessarily specifics. When MR publishes a "Railroad You Can Model" article, I read it thoroughly whether it's a prototype I'm interested in or not. (Okay, if I'm interested in the prototype I'll read it sooner than if not, but it will get read...)
I like to see how the author researches the line, how he adapts available equipment to meet the needs of the layout, and how the track plan relates to the actual route. More often then not, I come away from that kind of article with an idea that solves a problem I'm facing on my layout, or sparks a flame that adds a new dimension to how I model my prototype or run my trains.
I'm sure that somewhere out there, someone read Dana's vehicle article and was inspired to spend a few minutes in the train room... it just seems like the space could have been used to raise the bar a little, something that article clearly didn't even attempt to do.
I didn't mean this thread to become a whipping post for MR or its editorial policy, or to start World War 3 between "serious" modelers and "dabblers." I originally wanted to raise the issue that as the real railroads are tearing down their landmarks at a record pace, Model Railroader has abdicated its role of recording them for posterity. And yes, the water tank article was nice to see back in March. If I was still doing my garden railroad, I certainly would have put it to good use. I'm sure that if I dug through my stack from the last couple years, I'd find more. But I'm just as sure they'd be few and far between.
Lee, your quote about hoping that it doesn't take two decades to finish the model says volumes. Many young people entering the hobby (and no flames please, I will explain) want it done now, and don't really look for the satisfaction gained by scratchbuilding or kitbashing something.
While I have met many younger modelers who ARE interested in doing the work, so to speak, the majority that I have run into want the stuff done out of the box, off the shelf, or done for them. They speak of limited time to devote to the hobby due to jobs, school and such, and I can believe the pressures of today's society has an impact. But I also think that many are not challenged during their formative years, and the challenge of creating something from scratch, with their hands and minds instead of using a mouse and a computer, is daunting to them.
Arguments that simplified how-to articles provide insight on technique might be true to a certain extent, but technique is something learned more by experience than reading it out of a book, and the simple articles of today are, to me anyway, a means to sidestep the risks, time and effort involved in creating something from raw materials and a written plan or imagination.
I believe the "old dinosaurs" are willing to teach the newer kids, but they have to want to learn, try and sometimes fail. That last thing isn't easy to do sometimes.
I myself have tried to acquire all back issues of MR back into the 40's specifically for the how to articles. The "kinks" articles contain many tips useable today, and the construction articles were well throught out and written extremely well in simple to undertsand language that didn't contain today's techno-speak.
As the demographics of the hobby change, so does the article content in MR. I have witnessed the content being "dumbed down" for a many years now, and that in itself is an unfortunate statement about where the hobby is, and where it is headed.
I have to wonder what Linn Westcott, John Allen, Bill McClanahan and so many other "old timers" would say, if they could?
4merroad4man wrote: I have to wonder what Linn Westcott, John Allen, Bill McClanahan and so many other "old timers" would say, if they could?
Ooh! Ooh! I know this one.
They'd say. "Screw it. Let's run trains."
4merroad4man wrote:I have to wonder what Linn Westcott, John Allen, Bill McClanahan and so many other "old timers" would say, if they could?
"Hey! There's dirt in my eyes!"
Sorry... couldn't resist the straight line...
Shecky
You didn't raise your hand first..........:0)
4merroad4man wrote:...I have to wonder what Linn Westcott, John Allen, Bill McClanahan and so many other "old timers" would say, if they could?
Wow! Look at all the neat stuff available. Now I don't have to scratchbuild everything.
Irreverently,
wm3798 wrote:...I originally wanted to raise the issue that as the real railroads are tearing down their landmarks at a record pace, Model Railroader has abdicated its role of recording them for posterity. ...Lee
...
I originally wanted to raise the issue that as the real railroads are tearing down their landmarks at a record pace, Model Railroader has abdicated its role of recording them for posterity. ...
I'm not sure that was ever MR's role. In any event, they printed what some of their contributors had captured. And at one or two articles per month on the whole gamut of mostly U.S. railroading, a lot was left out.
This function has found a place with the Historical Societies who really are the better repository for the material. I know in my case that I have gotten a lot more information from the Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad Historical Society than I have from my back issues of MR (all but 6 back to 1950 and some from the 40's).
Personally, I still look forward to MR each month even after 35 years. The magazine has changed, but so has the hobby, and more importantly so has society. While I think the glory years were those when Linn Wescott was the editor, those were the years when I first discovered the hobby and it was all wonderful and magical. And so I look back with rose colored glasses to a time when I was young and all the world was a possibility.
CNJ831 wrote: Of course, if you are pleased with yourself for paying twice as much for a publication one-half of its former size that limits its content largely to entry-level material rather than the serious model railroading fare it once offered, by all means revel in it! CNJ831
I subscribe to MR for one very simple reason. I get good value for my money. It is worth every cent I pay for it. When that ceases to be the case, I will cease to be a subscriber. I really don't care if I was getting more for my money years ago. I was getting a lot more for my money at the fuel pump and the grocery store back then too. Times change. That is inevitable. I choose to deal with the present. At the present time, I'm getting my money's worth from MR.
PS. Where did you get the idea that entry level modelers aren't serious modelers?
CNJ sez:
Amazing. Simply amazing. And for once I wasn't trying to bait him.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Andre,I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with what you say.Inspiration and technique are scale, era-, and prototype-independent.Case in point: I kitbashed my N scale coal mine following an article on an HO mine....and while you may never kitbash an N scale M1, I hope it has inspired some to cut into a perfectly good loco to come up with something new.There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Dave, with all due respect, one of Pennsy's biggest sources of traffic was coal and bashing a coal mine is a natural even if the original article was actually written for another scale. The point I was trying to make was not that you couldn't adapt an HO scale article to N. That's not the case. As I said above, a coal mine is a natural source of Pennsy traffic. However, a citrus packing plant wouldn't be, even if the article were in your scale of choice. A citrus packing plant (or sugar beet loader or sugar refinery or lumber mill) would be something I would be interested in as a fan of the SP. Certainly fish canneries would be of interest to me. Coal mines, no. Except for the Rio Grande Division (and then only up til 1950 when Phelps-Dodge closed the mines at Dawson, NM), SP didn't use coal after 1905 or thereabouts.
Please don't take this in a manner it's not intended. I really do admire your work on the M-1 (not to mention the H-10 and L-1) , but in all honesty, that's as far as it goes. I'll cut into a locomotive if and only if it's the only viable solution to obtaining a piece of motive power that I really want. I only need a couple of 2-8-0's and a 4-6-2 as a minimum roster. The 4-6-2 (P-6) will not involve sectioning a boiler, although I haven't decided whether to strip one of the upcoming Athearn USRA's and re-detail it (drivers are undersize for P-6) or to take a Bowser K-4 mechanism and cobble up a boiler for it (P-6 had 77" drivers, visually closer to the 80" drivers of the K-4). If I want to add a TW-8 4-8-0 and a 4-6-0 (T-28, T-31) for a bit of variety, they're all available in 60's era brass and a 4-6-0 (either class as well as the 69" driver T-32) also can be made from one of the old MDC kits (I just happen to have one). I have an extra MDC boiler and cab and with a Mantua 4-8-0 chassis, which I don't currently have, I might be able to avoid brass altogether.
It's not a case of "hey looky what I bought" in my case. It's a case of acquiring the stuff I need to model my favorite piece of railroad. If I can buy it, I will and do so without apology. If not, I'll scratchbuild, kitbash it or just re-detail it if that's appropriate. I was about to buy AMB's laser kit for the SP C30-1 caboose when Walthers announced their (almost) rtr version of the same thing. Should I apologize for buying the Walthers ready-to-run caboose rather than the AMB kit? I've put caboose kits (not plastic shake the box kits, either) together before. I don't need to do another unless I simply want to do it for the sheer fun of it. I need cabooses, not the experience of building cabooses. I need a P-6 Pacific. Since none have ever been made in any scale in any material, it looks like I'll have to create one of my own somehow. If by some miracle, some manufacturer loses his business sense decides to do one in plastic before I start working on mine, I'll gladly buy it. And I'll buy it with the same gusto that the auld pharts of the "Classic" era bought Japanese brass as fast as it could be made without apology because it was cheaper and easier than building their own out of brass bar and sheet coupled with the use of Cal-Scale and Kemtron (now Precision Scale) castings.
If even just half the stuff that's available today were available 40-50 years ago, those self-same pioneers held up today as models of craftly virtue would have lined up to buy in droves (they lined up in droves to by what was actually available in any case). Naturally, they would have grumbled about how the hobby is going to Hades in a handbasket and craftsmanship is dead and the younger generation wants instant gratification and doesn't appreciate the dedication it takes...... Oh wait a minute. I was there. They did. And they complained about MR both what it did and what it didn't do. Despite all the changes in the hobby over the last 50 years, it's a relief to know that some things are still as they were. It's the one unchanging thread of continuity that binds us to them in spirit.
Side note to Joe G. Collias, who, about 50 years ago, complained about plastic squeeze bottle shake the box kits and how they were killing the hobby: Joe it ain't dead yet. How about you?
andrechapelon wrote: CNJ sez:You suggest that my criteria isn't the best choice. Perhaps not, but, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing solid to indicate that the conclusion drawn from it is not valid and absolutely correct. For a change, how about you presenting readers here something beyond a long winded opinion, like perhaps substantiated, hard figures, that counter my own? Can you do so? Over a number of years on this forum and regarding this paticular question, I've offered comparative page-counts, ads to text ratios, column inches, text to illustration ratios, range of subject matter covered, even the column size vs page size (every one of which has declined over the period, incidentally) substantiating any claims I've presented. Of course, if you are pleased with yourself for paying twice as much for a publication one-half of its former size that limits its content largely to entry-level material rather than the serious model railroading fare it once offered, by all means revel in it! CNJ831Amazing. Simply amazing. And for once I wasn't trying to bait him.I don't care who you are, that's funny.Andre
I asked only that instead of simply weaseling out, it would be an interesting change of pace on your part to offer something that can be substantiated, in your long-winded rebuttals and replies. I have yet to see any indication of actual knowledge-in-depth of the hobby, or MR's status, in any of your numerous postings...only self-serving or contrary opinion. In any adult discussion, facts need to be met with opposing facts if there's a question of which point is valid. Are you capable of doing so?
lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!
I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?
CNJ831 wrote: lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?CNJ831
Opinions, maybe, but you gotta admit there's no mold growing between the pages.
What do real modeler's do on serious sites? Just curious.
SpaceMouse wrote:What do real modeler's do on serious sites? Just curious.
Real modelers on serious sites complain about how the MR forums are full of opinion and no facts, and how the modelers in MR forums are not serious...
That's a joke, son!
Ya know, I wonder how much farther I'd be in getting my new signalling system in place if I took my forum time and traded it in for hobby time! Whoops!
I think "serious" is a misnomer. A collector with no intention of building a layout or running trains can be quite serious in his approach the hobby.
It might be more appropriate to classify some of us as those who apply their efforts to realism in their model railroading. Of course even that can be subdivided into prototypical operators, prototypical model builders, equipment detailers, and scenery gurus... maybe a few more.
I would be very interested to hear from the MR staff at this point. Come on down to the fox hole... just nevermind those bullets whizzing by overhead!
Perhaps Seasoned would be a better adjective. Even folks who are just starting out are serious about it.
I, too, would like to hear from MR on this.
shayfan84325 wrote: Perhaps Seasoned would be a better adjective. Even folks who are just starting out are serious about it.I, too, would like to hear from MR on this.
Hm... That sounds better, but labels, no matter how useful or good-intentioned, will always spark controversy. Everyone wants to label, but no one wants to be labeled. But "seasoned" certainly sounds less argumentative than "serious."
Actually, I've never wondered that at all and now that you have told us that, I am not too concerned about it either. I'm not even sure what you mean by "serious model railroaders". I have a hunch that by your definition, I would not qualify. I am passionate about model railroading and have invested thousands of dollars and hours into my current layout over the past 5 years, but I still believe this hobby is supposed to be fun and not to be taken too seriously. We're building make believe worlds. How serious are we supposed to take it.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I save my back issues of MR partly because of the drawings and accompaning articles. I have all but 6 issues back to 1950 and some before that.But apparently the interest in this kind of information is very low. I suspect that most model railroaders are not interested in scratch/parts building or even kit building. The explosion in the past few years of ready-to-run indicates that most people in the hobby don't have the time, desire, etc. for scratch/parts building or even kit building, but do want a model railroad. It may be that there never was a high interest in the model building part of the hobby. Most hobbbyists did it because there was no practical affordable alternative. Now, with cheap labor in China, good quality RTR is about the same price as good quality kits, so there's no need to build. And HO has such wide selection that many roads can be modeled easily without having to build anything. The last holdout, structures, is starting to give way to RTR as well. In my case, I enjoy model building but have deferred it in order to build the layout. I have started the benchwork for the first part, 11'x23', and will extend it if I don't retire and move first. In the meantime I am accumulating parts and kits. Looking back, I see that the times when I did the most model building are those when I did not have a layout. But until I get the layout up and running, I will use as much RTR as possible. After that I will do more model building, but that may not happen until retirement in a couple of years.EnjoyPaul
I think you've pretty much hit the nail (spike?) right on the head.
Craig
DMW
lvanhen wrote:MRR Staff, where are you? I e-mailed them Sunday PM, and by now I would have expected some form of post in this thread, which has become one of the best in the forums for some time! There has to be a rationale for their change of magazine format. We've discussed it here at length, but it would be nice to hear something "from the horse's mouth!!
It will take them a few days to weed through all the replies here But I also doubt this is the venue they would use to defend any changes to the magazine. And as some of the posts have been rather "off", I would not hold my breath on a posting from MR. Even the mods are generally staying out of this one.If I do not like something, I do not buy it. I buy MR and RMC and CRM. They are all different, with different focuses but I get value from them. Maybe not each and every article/page but enough to keep buying. When that changes, I will stop buying. Simple.
Here is an anomaly -- at least from my perspective.
On one hand, we have people lamenting the shift away from scratchbuilding.
On the other hand, it has always been my distinct impression that model railroaders can't be bothered even with the simple art of applying decals. Pretty much every piece of rolling stock -- even the assembly kits -- come with markings factory-applied.
As someone who also builds other types of models (mostly armour) I find this odd. As it is, most RR "assembly kits" consist of screwing the trucks onto the body and gluing two ladders and a brake wheel on -- not much of a challenge. Compare this to other types of model kits that have dozens of pieces.
Personally, I think model RR eqipment would be much cheaper if manufacturers didn't have to put out a separate SKU for every road number. Just put 'em on yourself!
Just my two cents...
jecorbett wrote: CNJ831 wrote: lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?CNJ831 Actually, I've never wondered that at all and now that you have told us that, I am not too concerned about it either. I'm not even sure what you mean by "serious model railroaders". I have a hunch that by your definition, I would not qualify. I am passionate about model railroading and have invested thousands of dollars and hours into my current layout over the past 5 years, but I still believe this hobby is supposed to be fun and not to be taken too seriously. We're building make believe worlds. How serious are we supposed to take it.
As Forrest Gump might say "Serious is as serious does."
I am very serious about prototype operation but,could care less if old XY&Z RR never had a SEICO boxcar.
That never concerned me in my 9 1/2 years working as a brakeman..
As an occasional participant in this thread, I have a few comments I'd like to make:
I subscribed to MR from 1969 through 1977. In '69 I was 12 and new to the hobby, and my primary complaint about MR was that it was written for modelers who were much more advanced than I was. It seemed to be written in its own language. Over the years I learned the language and much more. I Graduated from college and the apartment life allowed no space for models of any kind really.
I had a couple decades of life in the 1:1 world, and then found myself with space, time, money, and a wife who thinks trains are cool. I was back!!
I didn't bother to subscribe to the magazine because I was pretty well seasoned. A few years ago my wife gave me a subscription as a gift. That's when I found that MR had read my thoughts from 30 years past and responded - the magazine had become elementary and much more commercial (containing infomercial tech articles).
My wife noticed that I was regularly buying NG&SLG at the LHS, so she gave me a subscription to it as a Christmas gift (sorry guys, her sisters are all married, too). She asked if I'd like to continue the MR subscription and I told her that it really isn't that interesting or helpful, so I'll be letting that one run out.
If there is a point to all this, here it is:
Be careful about the wishes you make, they may come true.
If a product doesn't meet your needs, stop buying it.
************************************************************
One other comment: It may be that MR is finding it tough to get the staff they need to publish more advanced articles. Their most recent new staff member is apparently a pretty good writer, but he's not a model railroader, at least, not yet. That's an observation, not criticism.
It may be that the choices we see in MR are not because they think it's what we want, but because it's the best they can do. If that's the case, I'd urge them to solicit the expertise of some of the skillful folks in the hobby; they could ask any of us to provide subject-matter while their writer gets the grammar, etc. right. From what I hear, that's what Linn Westcott used to do when he was editor - he was well known by contributors for his alterations to their submissions.
After I become a former subscriber I'll browse through MR occasionally at the LHS. If they revise their approach I may well re-subscribe.
Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:
http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdf
It's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.
BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO.
It's because those garden guys are used to getting their hands dirty... no so for us molly-coddled indoor guys...
shayfan84325 wrote: Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdfIt's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO.
Doesn't look like this was written by one of the staff writers, as I stated in a previous post if these types of articles are not submitted by us modelers, then they are not published.
As another aside, I can go thru my old Mainline Modelers and find at least 4 or 5 models that I want to build from scratchbuilding, kitbashing, resin kits in every issue along with plans for a class of cars such as the different Auto Parts cars. I realize that MM is defunct and I believe it is because many modelers neither want or desire that type of information, but rather have RTR without doing the modeling. I can see their point, as my job takes more and more of my time and I don't feel I have the time to build as many models as I used to.
I had to work for a while and while I was away it occurred to me that I could sum up what has been said and at the same time define the audience of Model Railroader.
There are serious modelers: a person who sits in a basement looking like Grumpy with low light, but still cranks out great scenes. They are above reading Model Railroader, but do so to keep up with the literature. They never know when they will be called upon to give a scathing review. In fact, Model Railroader should be asking them to write serious modeler articles, but alas, they are too busy looking like Grumpy in their basement.
Now a happy-go-lucky modeler, on the other hand, screws Model Power track onto astroturf covered luann and gives advice to people on less-than-serious forums. They buy Model Railroader, but only read the cartoons.
In between are the wannabees who are less than serious but not quite so happy-go-lucky. These are the people with baseless opinions. They will probably never be a serious modeler. They read Model Railroader cover to cover but wish it were better.
In a group by themselves are the people who talk on radios and drink beer waiting in the hole. They read Model Railroader, but only columns by Tony Koester and Andy Sperandeo and ads for Signaling Systems.
It seems to me that Model Railroader reaches 4 out of 4.
Are people CCing their posts to MR with letters to the editor?
I realise that MR only generally publishes favourable letters to the editor, just as they only print favourable product reviews but if enough of these comments are written to them, perhaps they'll get the message, even if they don't publish them?
MR's readership has been generally dropping over the past years. Even the photo competition prize money has dropped from US$5,000 down to US$1,000 reflecting, I suppose, the decline in readership. I wonder how the editorial staff explain away the declining readership to the senior managent and board of directors? Of course, it won't be the fault of the editorial staff nor anything to do with the way they've changed the magazine over the past ten years. They'll come up with several excuses why it's nothing to do with them, even though their readship base, males over the age of 45 or something, continues to climb as boomers age.
Your thoughts?
P.S. I still purchase MR every month, out of habit I guess, as there's little in the way of content that interests me anymore. Heck, they're even recycling old feature articles and photos on model railways under the excuse that it's an anniversary year.
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
rogertra wrote: Are people CCing their posts to MR with letters to the editor?I realise that MR only generally publishes favourable letters to the editor, just as they only print favourable product reviews but if enough of these comments are written to them, perhaps they'll get the message, even if they don't publish them?MR's readership has been generally dropping over the past years. Even the photo competition prize money has dropped from US$5,000 down to US$1,000 reflecting, I suppose, the decline in readership. I wonder how the editorial staff explain away the declining readership to the senior managent and board of directors? Of course, it won't be the fault of the editorial staff nor anything to do with the way they've changed the magazine over the past ten years. They'll come up with several excuses why it's nothing to do with them, even though their readship base, males over the age of 45 or something, continues to climb as boomers age.Your thoughts? P.S. I still purchase MR every month, out of habit I guess, as there's little in the way of content that interests me anymore. Heck, they're even recycling old feature articles and photos on model railways under the excuse that it's an anniversary year.
Kalmbach is privately owned, not a publicly traded company. I don't know who the owners are but I doubt there is a board of directors they answer to. The editors come and go but I imagine the company's owners are very hands on when it comes to the content of all their publications. Furthermore, I think they are very aware of the trends within the hobby and I'm sure this influences the business decisions they make. I have no data to back this up, but my educated guess is that scratchbuilders are an ever decreasing percentage of modelers and that RTR is gaining in favor. I am not concerned about either trend. Anything that allows modelers to build good looking layouts in less time and with less effort will be good for the popularity of the hobby. I don't think the manufacturers are stupid. They know what sells and the fact that RTR is becoming more and more abundant is a clear indiciation that it is selling and it is what the customer base wants.
rogertra wrote: Your thoughts?
For whatever it is worth (probably about as much as you paid me for expressing my opinion on this subject), I think that Marcus Tullius Cicero probably did the classical "O tempora, O mores!" rant with rather more eloquence than most modern posters.
Stein
steinjr wrote: rogertra wrote: Your thoughts? For whatever it is worth (probably about as much as you paid me for expressing my opinion on this subject), I think that Marcus Tullius Cicero probably did the classical "O tempora, O mores!" rant with rather more eloquence than most modern posters. Stein
The same orator - Nihil est incertius vulgo.
(Nothing is as uncertain as the crowd's (wishes)).
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Actually, instead of making wrong decisions I think MR has done very well. Several other model railroad magazines have recently quit after years of publishing. With their specialty issues, books, video, and this web site I'd have to say Kalmbach is working very hard to stay on top of the hobby in a changing environment. It's interesting that the two mainstays of the hobby when I started, MR and RMC, are the two survivors. I may be wrong but I think these are now the only two general purpose model railoading magazines covering all scales and gauges.
dti406 wrote: shayfan84325 wrote: Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdfIt's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO. Doesn't look like this was written by one of the staff writers, as I stated in a previous post if these types of articles are not submitted by us modelers, then they are not published.Rick
I think that is the crux of the issue. I enjoy building/ kit bashing, scratch building, etc. but I think if we want to see articles on scratch building, etc. then we need to submit them ourselves. Why don't we flood the MR editorial offices with articles!?! I'm game for it. In fact, i might start writing one now!
"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
Admittedly, I have not submitted to MR; I find their photography standards somewhat beyond my current reach.
But I know plenty of modelers who have, and often the material sits in limbo for upwards of several years without feedback. I figure if I have something worth publishing, I want it out sooner rather than later. Besides, what if it comes back 2-3 years later rejected? RMC might have published it in the meantime. RMC turned around Max Magliaro's 3-part N scale PRR I1s 2-10-0 kitbash in just a few short months.
How many times have you read an article about a layout in MR only to read in the closing paragraph that the layout was dismantled two years ago or so-and-so passed away in 2003? It seems more frequent than one would expect.
But again, this is hearsay on my part; I have not personally submitted to MR. I've submitted and been published in much more limited media. Currently I'm planning an article on my M1 kitbash for The Keystone Modeler, probably a much more appropriate medium for such a specialized project.
Dave Vollmer wrote: But I know plenty of modelers who have, and often the material sits in limbo for upwards of several years without feedback. I figure if I have something worth publishing, I want it out sooner rather than later. Besides, what if it comes back 2-3 years later rejected? RMC might have published it in the meantime. RMC turned around Max Magliaro's 3-part N scale PRR I1s 2-10-0 kitbash in just a few short months.
I have also heard that, I remember a time when an article somebody submitted back in the seventies was held by MR for 3 years before they published it. The author submitted it to another magazine and it was published by both magazines within a month of each other.
Everybody but MR pays for and lets the author know approximately when the article will be published. MR does their theme issues and this delays some articles for many years. A friend of mine had MR in to take pictures of his layout and it was never published, I think it was finally in RMJ four years later.
That raises an interesting point about the variety of content in the magazine. Since they've turned primarily to photo-heavy layout tours and less to project oriented pieces, there is a long line for layout articles, and a long wait between project articles. So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
That's just poor customer service to leave potential authors cooling their heels that long, especially when rarely a month goes by that we don't get Sassi'd. This only feeds the perception that authors who don't rank among the MR elite are generally passed over.
I have the tools and capability to prepare scale drawings, and there are lots of potential projects near my home that I'd be willing to provide, but it is very time consuming. Between measuring, laying out and actually producing the drawings, you're talking about a 40 hour work week. I'd be hesitant to make that kind of commitment if the editors at MR can't even give the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
wm3798 wrote: So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
So why bother submitting either, knowing it'll be a long time before they even acknowledge that they have it?
Well, with all due respect to Cody, I've been writing for over 20 years, including editing a local newspaper, writing columns and doing all kinds of technical writing... I'm sure they would take anything I submitted and put it under the knife, maybe that's the part I can't stomach!
Neil Besougloff
editor, Model Railroader magazine
Thanks for your reply, Neil. I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond.
I guess you've answered some of our questions, but I'm curious why Cody's scratch building article was reserved for a special edition, and not included in the pages of the regular magazine?
I suppose it's like any good website, where the free stuff is just a teaser, but to get the meat and potatoes, you have to shell out some extra money...
On the other hand, I do want to compliment the magazine on its focus on operations. Andy's column on the back page is usually the first thing I read. I also like David Popp's work, both editorially and modeling. He stands out as a ray of hope...
Keep working on those young guys, though...
Neil B. wrote:Another example of old and new: two days ago Andy S., who’s in his third decade as a member of MR’s staff, was kitbashing a building for next winter’s project layout (not a 4x8). I saw him scrutinizing something at his workbench so I walked over to look -- his kitbashed freight house was doing fine, he was simply adjusting the iPod he was listening to as he worked.
sounds like an idea!
Neil,
Thanks for responding.
I have mixed feelings about all of the special editions. I have several of them. The ones I have (Koester's ones on design and ops, modeling the 50s, and David Popp's layout one) are great, and I read them frequently.
On the one hand, I agree with the others that this used to be content that came in the magazine and was covered by subscription. It's frustrating to have to pay extra for it.
OTOH, having these "themed" books really helps keep things consolidated. If I want to read more about operations, I don't have to sort through 15 years of MRs. Plus I can grab-n-go if I'm taking a trip.
Paying more for convenience is, after all, the American way, so I guess it's good in the long run. I agree with Lee; having Cody (or whomever) toss an article or two like that back into the monthly issue would be great too.
It's great that Andy's been with the staff so long. I remember as a kid reading about the old Wichita & Santa Fe project layout Andy was building. Didn't he also edit Student Fare for a while?
Oh, and thank you thank you thank you thank you for not doing another 4x8 project layout this year! We've often said here and in other fora that the 4x8, though easy for a beginner, is very limiting. Now, a 4x8 project layout in N would be neat, but you guys seem to be out of the N scale project layout business. Either way, it'll be great to see something beyond the standard HO 4x8 based on Wisconsin.
nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen
It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR.
NeO6874 wrote: nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR.
I wouldn't count on the whole forum getting involved in this effort because scratchbuilding has become a niche interest. If you can demontstrate to Kalmbach that there is sufficient interest in this material to make it a regular feature again, perhaps they will respond. Like many others, I have no real interest in scratchbuilding arguments and won't be joining you in this effort, but if you are successful, I won't have any objections either.
jecorbett wrote: NeO6874 wrote: nice to see this has stayed civil enough to not get locked... good job gentlemen It's also nice to see that MR is in fact reading (some) threads here and offering the hard/factual reasons for why the magazine has changed in the last few years... I guess it's time to get the whole forum community to vote these "missing" sections back into MRR. I wouldn't count on the whole forum getting involved in this effort because scratchbuilding has become a niche interest. If you can demontstrate to Kalmbach that there is sufficient interest in this material to make it a regular feature again, perhaps they will respond. Like many others, I have no real interest in scratchbuilding arguments and won't be joining you in this effort, but if you are successful, I won't have any objections either.
I respect your perspective. We are all entitled to do things the way we want in this hobby. I do think we should voice our opinions where they'll do the most good. In the posting about contacting the MR staff they list their e-mail as mrmag@mrmag.com.
I mean this about all opinions, whether you want to see the magazine revise its course or not; tell MR where you're at. At least then MR will have a sense of where their readership stands and they can make whatever decisions they feel are appropriate.
I believe some of the old features like "ask Paint Shop" and MR Workshop etc. have been completely replaced by this and other forums, plus by all the various on-line resources available for prototype references. Why send in a note asking about the shade of red used by the Lehigh Valley when you can go on line and in a matter of minutes find color photos of a wide variety of equipment, and often deeper information such as rosters and in-service dates?
And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information. Koester's column is similarly unique... like him or lump him, Tony brings his unique personality and approach to the hobby to the mix, and there's value in that.
I guess that's one of the issues I have with younger, less experienced guys being at the helm of the editorial process. I think there would be some value in pieces by the younger guys where they are really challenged by a project, like studying a prototype structure and producing plans for it, then taking the time to actually build a model of it using commonly available scratch building materials. I think that would instill some confidence in the readership that they can do more than open a package and glue things to the layout. It would be interesting to hear how such a project would influence these Generation Y guys in their future endeavors.
Given the leaning toward RTR, maybe there's an opportunity to carry that opening the package process to a higher level. One poster earlier talked about "composing a scene" using RTR items. I do believe that's worth exploring, but not to the exclusion of all else. Or to borrow a term from the automotive world, how about a "hybrid" approach that starts with RTR structures and equipment, and uses some scratching and bashing to personalize them and adapt them to new uses...
Obviously there's no single, simple answer to all of this. But I think if it's approached with an open mind and a recognition of the sense of accomplishment that comes from doing some things the "old fashioned" way, (or perhaps applying those old techniques to new products) we can look forward to a magazine that continues to hold our interest.
SpaceMouse wrote: MR does not have to print scratch building stuff because they have this forum, and if they can get people to the forum, you guys will do a far better job of teaching the newbies how to scratch-bash.
SM:
Of course, the question this leads to is, if the forum has all the content, why buy the rag?
It doesn't make any sense to have a free service and charge $6 for the ad flyer, does it?
No, if MR wants to have a good magazine they need to work on having actual, interesting CONTENT, every month. I don't care if it's simple, advanced, or in between. I want it to be worth reading. I don't think that's too much to expect from a magazine.
If I read another writeup about fracking suitcase connectors or see another high-angle photo of some Walthers kits I am going to go into BEAST MODE. I do give them credit for the camera angles in this month's TP; that's the kind of variety I want to see. (But those suitcase connectors were there too....grr)
As for the lack of scale drawings, I suspect that may have to do with a lack of suitable draftsmen. A fairly small number of people made all those drawings in MR over the years. I can do decent work in this field, and I emailed MR about standards & what sort of things they'd like to see, but never heard back. I may have contacted the wrong department.
Autobus Prime wrote:...I am going to go into BEAST MODE.
...I am going to go into BEAST MODE.
Somebody needs to be staying out of the energon radiation...
Forums are great, but for some, Internet is not always an option. Lee is right that a lot more can be gotten from here and more quickly, but we often still get a pileup of questions. The Mag can still serve as a useful palce to aswer the more common questions. Or get people started in directions to be able to answer their own questions. Say pointing out the Fallen Flags site for colors, Or roadwidths and sidewalk widths. Almost all of us will have a sidewalk or road. and there are several threads about them. But I could be mistaken
wm3798 wrote: I believe some of the old features like "ask Paint Shop" and MR Workshop etc. have been completely replaced by this and other forums, plus by all the various on-line resources available for prototype references. Why send in a note asking about the shade of red used by the Lehigh Valley when you can go on line and in a matter of minutes find color photos of a wide variety of equipment, and often deeper information such as rosters and in-service dates?And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information.
And workshop type questions get answered in a matter of minutes on-line instead of waiting for your idea to be reviewed, selected, edited and published. Those types of things are clearly a waste of space in the magazine anymore. Even my favorite column "The Operators" could be easily replaced with on-line resources, but I think in that case, I look forward to Andy Sperendeo's perspective as much as I do the raw information.
Lee, the problem with your concept (and that of more than a few others) of forums replacing print for providing answers/advice to questions posed, is that getting the correct answer to the question is very much a crap-shoot, on-line. The replies may be accurate, questionable, or even down right erroneous. Believe me, I've seen a great deal of misinformation passed off as fact on this and other forums. The truth of the matter is that in most cases you really have no idea what the experience level of the person responding is. Here, in particular, it may be a newbie with 6 months experience, responding to another newbie's question. Even if a correct answer is provided in a long thread, how does the less experienced reader know which of the replies is the accurate one? Take a look at some of the varied responses in today's question on dullcote. To say it is confusing is an understatement...and this one was better than many I've seen here!
In the magazines, on the other hand, there is a significant degree of peer review involved in preparing any article or written response. Mistaken statements are corrected long before ever being put forward...at least 98% of the time. Likewise, if the advice is coming from someone like Sperandeo, Hediger, or a well known author in a Kalmbach published book, it is the voice of long experience speaking. How often can you guarantee that on-line?
Folks put far, far too much credence in what they can get in the way of information over the Net as being accurate. Yes, the photos can be an enormous asset and so is help from the various tech societies, but advice and information offered by an unknown source as fact can be quite another matter, I'm afraid.
And folks, whatever you do, never, ever, not in a million years listen to anything AndreChapelon says. The man never has been able able to distinguish between his http://www.trekker.co.il/english/israel/i-bar-08.htm and and a hole in the ground: http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2839926750067483864mrUvoP
Besides, his hobby is actually wasting money on various publications from Kalmbach.
EDIT: This may get pulled, but it was worth it.
wm3798 wrote:There was a time up into the mid 1990's when just about every issue of Model Railroader offered a scale drawing of something for your layout. Whether it was a locomotive or other piece of rolling stock, or a station, industry or other line-side structure, you could always find something that would provide an interesting scratch build project.For some reason, those articles have fallen by the wayside. This is a shame, because at the same time we've lost this resource for recording the equipment and physical plant of the railroads, we're losing the prototype almost as quickly.
There was a time up into the mid 1990's when just about every issue of Model Railroader offered a scale drawing of something for your layout. Whether it was a locomotive or other piece of rolling stock, or a station, industry or other line-side structure, you could always find something that would provide an interesting scratch build project.
For some reason, those articles have fallen by the wayside. This is a shame, because at the same time we've lost this resource for recording the equipment and physical plant of the railroads, we're losing the prototype almost as quickly.
Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.Neil BesougloffMR editor
Which is EXACTLY why I no longer subscribe. Why do we have to pay Extra to get the Good stuff??
rolleiman wrote: Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.Which is EXACTLY why I no longer subscribe. Why do we have to pay Extra to get the Good stuff??
Neil B. wrote:Hi everyone,... when he scratchbuilt a general store from plans in our new special issue on Realistic Layouts: Trackside Towns and Cities. His scratchbuilding story and the drawings of the general store are in that issue, which is on sale now.
You thought the magazine was not worth the price you paid for it, you ceased to subscribe. Excellent. More people should do so, if they feel that they are not getting enough value for their money.
I am feeling that I am getting good value for money from my MR subscription.
I subscribe to Model Railroader, to Railroad Model Craftsman, to Trains magazine, and as a member of the LD SIG I also get the Layout Design Journal. I also pick up some of the Model Railroader books & special issues.
If I had to let one subscription lapse to save money, for me it would be RMC. For me, that is the one that has the lowest directly applicable value - the scratchbuilding plans of specific prototypes in RMC is worth less for me than most layout presentation or tips on operations articles in MR.
Your mileage may vary.
Case in point - RMC for March 2008. The 75th anniversary issue. Contains 135 pages. About normal distribution - first roughly 50 pages of adds and product presentations, then 50 pages of articles, then another 35 pages of adds. As normal (from my point of view), articles tend to be fewer and somewhat more longwinded than articles in MR, and illustrations of poorer quality than in MR.
Scale drawings for scratchbuilding in this issue:
- Motive Power MP36 and MPXpress trains - A plan for a country depot
A year's subscription to RMC cost me $45 (I live outside the US). I am not going to build either of the two specific scratchbuilding projects that there are long articles on in the march issue. Why not ?
Well, for one thing - in the 10 pages RMC on the MP36 plans and info on the MP36 prototype, there is hardly a single word about how a newbie to scratchbuilding engines would go about to actually build such an engine ....
The 7 page article on scratchbuilding a country depot from the Rutland Railroad mentions several tricks and tips, but the figures does not really show the techniques in much detail.
And neither of these two scratchbuilding projects would fit very well into the theme for my current model railroad layout project, which is not running MPXpress engines and is not set along the Rutland Road.
I paid $15 for the Model Railroader book on "HO trackside structures you can model". 120 pages with quite a few different types and styles of RR trackside structure plans collected in one book, with adequately illustrated explanations of techniques etc.
Bruce Wilson's newer $20 Model Railroader book on "Basic Structure Modelling for model railroaders" also contain far more stuff that is directly applicable to newbies than the depot plans in RMC.
Bruce Wilson's book covers techniques for building plastic and wooden kits, kitbashing, scratchbuilding and detailing.
For me, who is a relative newbie to scratchbuilding/kitbashing, getting one book (or maybe a couple of books) that explains how to do scratchbuilding/kitbashing is worth more than a heap of plans of specific prototypes.
Especially since I can use the despised and not-at-all-to-be-trusted Internet to do stuff like pull up pictures and plans from e.g. the HABS/HAER (Historical American Buildings Survey/Histoircal American Engineering Records) collection of the Library of Congress website much easier than I can leaf through old issues of a paper magazine to find plans I might adapt for a scratchbuilt building that might be remotely correct for my layout location and era.
Incidentally - there were two good and fairly easy to follow articles on kitbashing in the same issue of RMC - how to turn an engine into a slug, and how to modify some Mini Metals delivery vans. That last article was what made that issue of RMC worth my money for me.
The fairly longwinded 7 page first installment on a two part article series on how to use ICC Valuation maps for layout planning gave me little more useful (for me) information than a short four article on the same concept by Jerry Britton that appeared in Model Railroad Planning 2005.
Incidentally - the Model Railroad Planning series is in general a wealth of condensed and applicable information for layout planning. Comes once a year. Costs a whopping $7 or so. Not particularily expensive.
Same goes for the "How to build Realistic Layouts" specials Neil B mentioned - they seem to run to about $8. Not horrifically expensive. You buy the ones that seem interesting to you, and skip the ones you are not interested in.
There is an old truism in engineering that says that you can get something "good, quick or cheap - but you can only choose two out of the three".
If you want things cheap - you will either have go to poorer quality or have to spend far more time on doing things to get a good quality result.
If your time is not a sparse resource, you can get good results and save money. But if time is a sparse resource, it might be worthwhile for you spend a little more money to et a good result.
Each person must make up their own mind about what is the most sensible allocation of his or her resources - use more time and less money, or more money and less time.
In the meantime, I will continue to spend some of my money on subscribing to both both MR and RMC. Plus pick up every issue of MRP and some of the MR books and special issues.
Again - your mileage may vary.
The excessive wordiness of the articles coupled with the inferior graphics is one reason I only read RMC when there is a specific article that interests me sufficiently to justify shelling out the cover price. Ironically, when Tony Koester was editor way back when, I thought RMC was superior to MR as RMC offered a wider variety of content at the time.
Seven pages? You must be kidding. Unfortunately there are those that think more words means more information is transmitted and more pages equates to success. I remember the MRP 2005 article. I haven't seen the RMC you mention. I don't even look for it unless I go to a hobby shop. MR is available in a number of non-hobby stores (like the Wal-Mart in Jackson, CA, a town of about 4,000). It's been a long time since I've seen an RMC anywhere but a hobby shop. Not even the local Border's book store carries it. However, it does carry MR, Garden Railways, Classic Toy Trains and Trains as well as Classic Trains, MRP, and GMR. I assume it's because a sufficient number of issues are sold to justify the cost of carrying them.
Lemme see. Amortized over a year, that's less than 2 cents/day (4 if you also get Great Model Railroads). At my age, I've quit counting birthdays. I measure the passage of years by the arrivals of GMR and MRP.
So, then, less truly is more! So to assure its survival, MR should just charge $60 a year to send out a monthly post card to let you know when the next special edition is coming out... for another $7 to $20 a throw... Since those are the only things worth reading on a regular basis.
Or would it make more sense to take all the special editions, figure out how to stretch them in to twelve annuals, and distribute them monthly as the magazine!
Eureka!
What kind of content do I want to see from MR? Here's the short list:
1) Multi-page spreads on outstanding layouts, whether home or club layouts, to continue to inspire me to complete my own layout. My preference is for HO transistion era layouts, but all of them are interesting if well done.
2) News and product reviews on recent releases, including RTR and pre-built structures.
3) How to features on scenery, operations, DCC, and other electronics issues.
4) Photos of other layouts.
5) Letters from reader.
Do I sound like someone who is unhappy with the current content?
Flashwave wrote: Autobus Prime wrote:...I am going to go into BEAST MODE. Somebody needs to be staying out of the energon radiation... Forums are great, but for some, Internet is not always an option. Lee is right that a lot more can be gotten from here and more quickly, but we often still get a pileup of questions. The Mag can still serve as a useful palce to aswer the more common questions. Or get people started in directions to be able to answer their own questions. Say pointing out the Fallen Flags site for colors, Or roadwidths and sidewalk widths. Almost all of us will have a sidewalk or road. and there are several threads about them. But I could be mistaken
Fw:
I thought the Vok already solved that nasty Energon-pollution problem...
Let's not forget that the dead trees are more portable. I'm a decently computer-savvy person, but I don't want to spend all day staring at phosphor, and you can't really drag the forum to the comfy chair, or the bus station, or the john, can you? Sure, there's laptops, but even if things got Star Trek enough for them to compete on convenience, the "feel" is different. Log on and you're in the "network zone" which isn't as relaxing as the "sitting here minding my own business, turning pages zone". That's the flipside of interactivity...the mental demand of interaction, even when you really don't WANT to interact.
Now, I subscribe. I don't intend to drop that. I like reading the magazine, but I sure am not going to pretend it couldn't be a whole lot better. There's that suitcase-connector business...and here we have to disagree a little bit. I don't think the mag should focus on common problems. They should leave *that* to their online stuff...just as they used to leave it to books. Focus on common stuff in the magazine, and you get repetition. Suitcase connectors and rail nippers every other month.
Keep up the variety in layout photos and expand it. If MR wants to be known for stunning layout photography, then why not make it actually stunning? I'm not talking about photoslapping your face into a steam loco cab and adding some cheesy smoke. I'm talking about interesting scenes and lots of neat viewpoints besides Lou Sassi's helicopter (apologies offered to LS :) It's not a bad angle, but it has seen a lot of use. ) Again, this month's TP section was a step in the right direction.
I'm not sure what the problem could be. Talk of lost interest and declining skill are pure piffle. I have no time for that. It's a lazy excuse. Could it be that MR is run by Old Guys who don't understand how Online works, or is it run by Young Guys who don't understand how Print works, or is it a little of both?
Here is what they need to do: Make It Fun To Read. That's all. Is that so hard?
lvanhen wrote: Unfortunately, this is a sign of out times. I'm a retired carpenter/contractor, and used to watch every episode of This Old House when it was first on TV. They used to take a run-down "everyman's" house & rehab it. Today they do multi-million dollar projects that most of us can only dream about!
That's a great analogy to our hobby. My wife and I have a Saturday morning ritual of watching This Old House. I remember when they used to use real hardwood floors for every project. I remember the first time they used laminate/pre-fab "hardwood" floors. I almost fainted... I could have sworn that true craftsmen like them would never stoop so low as to use a floor that goes together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Guess what... today it seems like every project they work on uses laminate flooring.
There's a saying that some of the old-timers here at Trains magazine use: ETTS
Translation: "Everything turns to ----"
Face it, the older you get, the more everything you've come to know and love gets worse. For example:- Do you really enjoy drinking soda from an aluminum can or plastic bottle over a glass bottle? Probably not.- Do you enjoy the fact that there's a little more than a handful of Class I railroads today? Probably not.
I don't enjoy This Old House as much as I used to, but I understand the changes in how things are built thanks to technology and still watch it every week.
Remember, things get better too. Remember that old Chevy you had with the high-beem switch below your left foot. That was pretty darn cool. But you know what, that car didn't have AC, had manual windows, an AM radio, and no heated seats. Say what you will about today's cars versus the cars that were produced back when we used to publish scale drawings, but you do have to admit that there are a LOT more creature comforts in today's cars. (Similar to today's model trains, now that I think about it.)
"Those old cars were better." Were they really? Please define better. They may have been able to lay down better scratch on the pavement thanks to their huge motor and rear wheel drive posi traction, but overall, I think I'll take the heated seats, power windows, sun roof, CD player/iPod input/satellite radio, GPS navigation of today's cars, thank you very much.
In closing, the lack a scale drawings has nothing to do with a lack of draftsmen (we have illustrators that will knock your socks off... and Soo Line fans out there who know of Rick Johnson's work will attest to that) or anything else. It's a direct reflection of market conditions. The model railroading market has changed, and thus, so has the magazine. As Neil mentioned, the staff does surveys all the time... the changes they make to the magazine are largely driven by what our customers say.
Now, after six days and nine pages, I'm going to lock this so we can move on. It's been a great discussion, and we appreciate your contributions.
Have a great weekend, everybody.Bergie