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.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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).
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
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?
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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.
Enjoy
Paul
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.