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 are those that speculate that this trend has to do with "not biting the hand that feeds" since scratchbuilding, while time consuming, is typically a far more affordable option than buying pre-built structures or kits from the good advertisers who support MR. There are others who theorize that this is due in part to the MR staff's "youth movement" wherein most of the new editorial staff is in their mid-20's, and while competent authors and editors, they're coming up in a time when the emphasis in the hobby has been Ready to Run, and less focused on actual creative challenges like building something from nothing.
This month's edition offers a good example of this disparity. There's a two page spread by Dana Kawala on detailing two commercial vehicles for the Troy Branch project layout. Basically, he opens the packages of a commercially available truck and a bulldozer, splashes some paint on them, and glues them to the layout. This is not a project that inspires me to do anything, or challenges me to build my skills, much less build something for my layout.
This is akin to American Woodworker publishing an article about going to Ikea and selecting right Allen wrench...
But I digress... Aren't there any structures along the prototype Troy Branch? Can't someone make a phone call and send Dana and Cody out there with a tape measure and a camera? There are several good drafting programs that can be had for under a hundred bucks, which can be used by just about anyone to generate a good scale drawing. Evergreen, Plastruct and Midwest are still out there selling a wide variety of scratch building supplies, and there is tremendous satisfaction on the part of the modeler when there's something on the layout that is uniquely his.
I've been refering to plans published in MR almost two decades ago to build this model of the Western Maryland's Cumberland station...
Hopefully it won't take me more than a couple more decades to finish it! But without those published plans, this project would be impossible. So in addition to providing a valuable resource to modelers, you also create shelf life for your publication...
I know it's been often stated that MR's staff tries to provide a magazine full of features that its readers want... But is there any value to that if they do this at the expense of providing features that we NEED?
I hope this thread gets a good conversation going, and that the powers that be don't see this as a swipe at anyone or anything... This topic gets pages and pages of discussion on other boards, and I feel it's important to field this question here rather than sit in the peanut gallery somewhere else. Hopefully Andy or some of the other staff can also chime in.
Thanks for your input... in advance...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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.
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?
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