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.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
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?).
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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.
Magnus
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...
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
CNJ831
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.
Andre
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
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!
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,
Paul
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.
Enjoy
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?