CNJ sez:
You suggest that my criteria isn't the best choice. Perhaps not, but, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing solid to indicate that the conclusion drawn from it is not valid and absolutely correct. For a change, how about you presenting readers here something beyond a long winded opinion, like perhaps substantiated, hard figures, that counter my own? Can you do so? Over a number of years on this forum and regarding this paticular question, I've offered comparative page-counts, ads to text ratios, column inches, text to illustration ratios, range of subject matter covered, even the column size vs page size (every one of which has declined over the period, incidentally) substantiating any claims I've presented.
Of course, if you are pleased with yourself for paying twice as much for a publication one-half of its former size that limits its content largely to entry-level material rather than the serious model railroading fare it once offered, by all means revel in it!
CNJ831
Amazing. Simply amazing. And for once I wasn't trying to bait him.
I don't care who you are, that's funny.
Andre
Dave Vollmer wrote: Andre,I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with what you say.Inspiration and technique are scale, era-, and prototype-independent.Case in point: I kitbashed my N scale coal mine following an article on an HO mine....and while you may never kitbash an N scale M1, I hope it has inspired some to cut into a perfectly good loco to come up with something new.There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Andre,
I have to respectfully, but strongly, disagree with what you say.
Inspiration and technique are scale, era-, and prototype-independent.
Case in point: I kitbashed my N scale coal mine following an article on an HO mine.
...and while you may never kitbash an N scale M1, I hope it has inspired some to cut into a perfectly good loco to come up with something new.
There's nothing inspirational (in my opinion, anyway) in "hey, lookey what I bought!"
Dave, with all due respect, one of Pennsy's biggest sources of traffic was coal and bashing a coal mine is a natural even if the original article was actually written for another scale. The point I was trying to make was not that you couldn't adapt an HO scale article to N. That's not the case. As I said above, a coal mine is a natural source of Pennsy traffic. However, a citrus packing plant wouldn't be, even if the article were in your scale of choice. A citrus packing plant (or sugar beet loader or sugar refinery or lumber mill) would be something I would be interested in as a fan of the SP. Certainly fish canneries would be of interest to me. Coal mines, no. Except for the Rio Grande Division (and then only up til 1950 when Phelps-Dodge closed the mines at Dawson, NM), SP didn't use coal after 1905 or thereabouts.
Please don't take this in a manner it's not intended. I really do admire your work on the M-1 (not to mention the H-10 and L-1) , but in all honesty, that's as far as it goes. I'll cut into a locomotive if and only if it's the only viable solution to obtaining a piece of motive power that I really want. I only need a couple of 2-8-0's and a 4-6-2 as a minimum roster. The 4-6-2 (P-6) will not involve sectioning a boiler, although I haven't decided whether to strip one of the upcoming Athearn USRA's and re-detail it (drivers are undersize for P-6) or to take a Bowser K-4 mechanism and cobble up a boiler for it (P-6 had 77" drivers, visually closer to the 80" drivers of the K-4). If I want to add a TW-8 4-8-0 and a 4-6-0 (T-28, T-31) for a bit of variety, they're all available in 60's era brass and a 4-6-0 (either class as well as the 69" driver T-32) also can be made from one of the old MDC kits (I just happen to have one). I have an extra MDC boiler and cab and with a Mantua 4-8-0 chassis, which I don't currently have, I might be able to avoid brass altogether.
It's not a case of "hey looky what I bought" in my case. It's a case of acquiring the stuff I need to model my favorite piece of railroad. If I can buy it, I will and do so without apology. If not, I'll scratchbuild, kitbash it or just re-detail it if that's appropriate. I was about to buy AMB's laser kit for the SP C30-1 caboose when Walthers announced their (almost) rtr version of the same thing. Should I apologize for buying the Walthers ready-to-run caboose rather than the AMB kit? I've put caboose kits (not plastic shake the box kits, either) together before. I don't need to do another unless I simply want to do it for the sheer fun of it. I need cabooses, not the experience of building cabooses. I need a P-6 Pacific. Since none have ever been made in any scale in any material, it looks like I'll have to create one of my own somehow. If by some miracle, some manufacturer loses his business sense decides to do one in plastic before I start working on mine, I'll gladly buy it. And I'll buy it with the same gusto that the auld pharts of the "Classic" era bought Japanese brass as fast as it could be made without apology because it was cheaper and easier than building their own out of brass bar and sheet coupled with the use of Cal-Scale and Kemtron (now Precision Scale) castings.
If even just half the stuff that's available today were available 40-50 years ago, those self-same pioneers held up today as models of craftly virtue would have lined up to buy in droves (they lined up in droves to by what was actually available in any case). Naturally, they would have grumbled about how the hobby is going to Hades in a handbasket and craftsmanship is dead and the younger generation wants instant gratification and doesn't appreciate the dedication it takes...... Oh wait a minute. I was there. They did. And they complained about MR both what it did and what it didn't do. Despite all the changes in the hobby over the last 50 years, it's a relief to know that some things are still as they were. It's the one unchanging thread of continuity that binds us to them in spirit.
Side note to Joe G. Collias, who, about 50 years ago, complained about plastic squeeze bottle shake the box kits and how they were killing the hobby: Joe it ain't dead yet. How about you?
andrechapelon wrote: CNJ sez:You suggest that my criteria isn't the best choice. Perhaps not, but, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing solid to indicate that the conclusion drawn from it is not valid and absolutely correct. For a change, how about you presenting readers here something beyond a long winded opinion, like perhaps substantiated, hard figures, that counter my own? Can you do so? Over a number of years on this forum and regarding this paticular question, I've offered comparative page-counts, ads to text ratios, column inches, text to illustration ratios, range of subject matter covered, even the column size vs page size (every one of which has declined over the period, incidentally) substantiating any claims I've presented. Of course, if you are pleased with yourself for paying twice as much for a publication one-half of its former size that limits its content largely to entry-level material rather than the serious model railroading fare it once offered, by all means revel in it! CNJ831Amazing. Simply amazing. And for once I wasn't trying to bait him.I don't care who you are, that's funny.Andre
I asked only that instead of simply weaseling out, it would be an interesting change of pace on your part to offer something that can be substantiated, in your long-winded rebuttals and replies. I have yet to see any indication of actual knowledge-in-depth of the hobby, or MR's status, in any of your numerous postings...only self-serving or contrary opinion. In any adult discussion, facts need to be met with opposing facts if there's a question of which point is valid. Are you capable of doing so?
lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!
I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?
CNJ831 wrote: lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?CNJ831
Opinions, maybe, but you gotta admit there's no mold growing between the pages.
What do real modeler's do on serious sites? Just curious.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
SpaceMouse wrote:What do real modeler's do on serious sites? Just curious.
Real modelers on serious sites complain about how the MR forums are full of opinion and no facts, and how the modelers in MR forums are not serious...
That's a joke, son!
Ya know, I wonder how much farther I'd be in getting my new signalling system in place if I took my forum time and traded it in for hobby time! Whoops!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
I think "serious" is a misnomer. A collector with no intention of building a layout or running trains can be quite serious in his approach the hobby.
It might be more appropriate to classify some of us as those who apply their efforts to realism in their model railroading. Of course even that can be subdivided into prototypical operators, prototypical model builders, equipment detailers, and scenery gurus... maybe a few more.
I would be very interested to hear from the MR staff at this point. Come on down to the fox hole... just nevermind those bullets whizzing by overhead!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Perhaps Seasoned would be a better adjective. Even folks who are just starting out are serious about it.
I, too, would like to hear from MR on this.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
shayfan84325 wrote: Perhaps Seasoned would be a better adjective. Even folks who are just starting out are serious about it.I, too, would like to hear from MR on this.
Hm... That sounds better, but labels, no matter how useful or good-intentioned, will always spark controversy. Everyone wants to label, but no one wants to be labeled. But "seasoned" certainly sounds less argumentative than "serious."
Actually, I've never wondered that at all and now that you have told us that, I am not too concerned about it either. I'm not even sure what you mean by "serious model railroaders". I have a hunch that by your definition, I would not qualify. I am passionate about model railroading and have invested thousands of dollars and hours into my current layout over the past 5 years, but I still believe this hobby is supposed to be fun and not to be taken too seriously. We're building make believe worlds. How serious are we supposed to take it.
IRONROOSTER wrote: I save my back issues of MR partly because of the drawings and accompaning articles. I have all but 6 issues back to 1950 and some before that.But apparently the interest in this kind of information is very low. I suspect that most model railroaders are not interested in scratch/parts building or even kit building. The explosion in the past few years of ready-to-run indicates that most people in the hobby don't have the time, desire, etc. for scratch/parts building or even kit building, but do want a model railroad. It may be that there never was a high interest in the model building part of the hobby. Most hobbbyists did it because there was no practical affordable alternative. Now, with cheap labor in China, good quality RTR is about the same price as good quality kits, so there's no need to build. And HO has such wide selection that many roads can be modeled easily without having to build anything. The last holdout, structures, is starting to give way to RTR as well. In my case, I enjoy model building but have deferred it in order to build the layout. I have started the benchwork for the first part, 11'x23', and will extend it if I don't retire and move first. In the meantime I am accumulating parts and kits. Looking back, I see that the times when I did the most model building are those when I did not have a layout. But until I get the layout up and running, I will use as much RTR as possible. After that I will do more model building, but that may not happen until retirement in a couple of years.EnjoyPaul
I 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 think you've pretty much hit the nail (spike?) right on the head.
Craig
DMW
lvanhen wrote:MRR Staff, where are you? I e-mailed them Sunday PM, and by now I would have expected some form of post in this thread, which has become one of the best in the forums for some time! There has to be a rationale for their change of magazine format. We've discussed it here at length, but it would be nice to hear something "from the horse's mouth!!
It will take them a few days to weed through all the replies here But I also doubt this is the venue they would use to defend any changes to the magazine. And as some of the posts have been rather "off", I would not hold my breath on a posting from MR. Even the mods are generally staying out of this one.If I do not like something, I do not buy it. I buy MR and RMC and CRM. They are all different, with different focuses but I get value from them. Maybe not each and every article/page but enough to keep buying. When that changes, I will stop buying. Simple.
Here is an anomaly -- at least from my perspective.
On one hand, we have people lamenting the shift away from scratchbuilding.
On the other hand, it has always been my distinct impression that model railroaders can't be bothered even with the simple art of applying decals. Pretty much every piece of rolling stock -- even the assembly kits -- come with markings factory-applied.
As someone who also builds other types of models (mostly armour) I find this odd. As it is, most RR "assembly kits" consist of screwing the trucks onto the body and gluing two ladders and a brake wheel on -- not much of a challenge. Compare this to other types of model kits that have dozens of pieces.
Personally, I think model RR eqipment would be much cheaper if manufacturers didn't have to put out a separate SKU for every road number. Just put 'em on yourself!
Just my two cents...
jecorbett wrote: CNJ831 wrote: lvanhen wrote:HEY GUYS!!! Yes, I'm shouting!! Let's get back to the thread and leave the petty bickering alone!!I'm sorry, Lou, but this situation is a prime example of why this forum is held in such low esteem by the members of so many other sites around the Net. Far too much B.S. and personal opinion, with very little in the way of accurate substance in any discussion from which to draw a meaningful conclusion. And folks here keep wondering why so few serious model railroaders choose to particpate here?CNJ831 Actually, I've never wondered that at all and now that you have told us that, I am not too concerned about it either. I'm not even sure what you mean by "serious model railroaders". I have a hunch that by your definition, I would not qualify. I am passionate about model railroading and have invested thousands of dollars and hours into my current layout over the past 5 years, but I still believe this hobby is supposed to be fun and not to be taken too seriously. We're building make believe worlds. How serious are we supposed to take it.
As Forrest Gump might say "Serious is as serious does."
I am very serious about prototype operation but,could care less if old XY&Z RR never had a SEICO boxcar.
That never concerned me in my 9 1/2 years working as a brakeman..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
As an occasional participant in this thread, I have a few comments I'd like to make:
I subscribed to MR from 1969 through 1977. In '69 I was 12 and new to the hobby, and my primary complaint about MR was that it was written for modelers who were much more advanced than I was. It seemed to be written in its own language. Over the years I learned the language and much more. I Graduated from college and the apartment life allowed no space for models of any kind really.
I had a couple decades of life in the 1:1 world, and then found myself with space, time, money, and a wife who thinks trains are cool. I was back!!
I didn't bother to subscribe to the magazine because I was pretty well seasoned. A few years ago my wife gave me a subscription as a gift. That's when I found that MR had read my thoughts from 30 years past and responded - the magazine had become elementary and much more commercial (containing infomercial tech articles).
My wife noticed that I was regularly buying NG&SLG at the LHS, so she gave me a subscription to it as a Christmas gift (sorry guys, her sisters are all married, too). She asked if I'd like to continue the MR subscription and I told her that it really isn't that interesting or helpful, so I'll be letting that one run out.
If there is a point to all this, here it is:
Be careful about the wishes you make, they may come true.
If a product doesn't meet your needs, stop buying it.
************************************************************
One other comment: It may be that MR is finding it tough to get the staff they need to publish more advanced articles. Their most recent new staff member is apparently a pretty good writer, but he's not a model railroader, at least, not yet. That's an observation, not criticism.
It may be that the choices we see in MR are not because they think it's what we want, but because it's the best they can do. If that's the case, I'd urge them to solicit the expertise of some of the skillful folks in the hobby; they could ask any of us to provide subject-matter while their writer gets the grammar, etc. right. From what I hear, that's what Linn Westcott used to do when he was editor - he was well known by contributors for his alterations to their submissions.
After I become a former subscriber I'll browse through MR occasionally at the LHS. If they revise their approach I may well re-subscribe.
Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:
http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdf
It's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.
BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO.
It's because those garden guys are used to getting their hands dirty... no so for us molly-coddled indoor guys...
shayfan84325 wrote: Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdfIt's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO.
Doesn't look like this was written by one of the staff writers, as I stated in a previous post if these types of articles are not submitted by us modelers, then they are not published.
As another aside, I can go thru my old Mainline Modelers and find at least 4 or 5 models that I want to build from scratchbuilding, kitbashing, resin kits in every issue along with plans for a class of cars such as the different Auto Parts cars. I realize that MM is defunct and I believe it is because many modelers neither want or desire that type of information, but rather have RTR without doing the modeling. I can see their point, as my job takes more and more of my time and I don't feel I have the time to build as many models as I used to.
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!
I had to work for a while and while I was away it occurred to me that I could sum up what has been said and at the same time define the audience of Model Railroader.
There are serious modelers: a person who sits in a basement looking like Grumpy with low light, but still cranks out great scenes. They are above reading Model Railroader, but do so to keep up with the literature. They never know when they will be called upon to give a scathing review. In fact, Model Railroader should be asking them to write serious modeler articles, but alas, they are too busy looking like Grumpy in their basement.
Now a happy-go-lucky modeler, on the other hand, screws Model Power track onto astroturf covered luann and gives advice to people on less-than-serious forums. They buy Model Railroader, but only read the cartoons.
In between are the wannabees who are less than serious but not quite so happy-go-lucky. These are the people with baseless opinions. They will probably never be a serious modeler. They read Model Railroader cover to cover but wish it were better.
In a group by themselves are the people who talk on radios and drink beer waiting in the hole. They read Model Railroader, but only columns by Tony Koester and Andy Sperandeo and ads for Signaling Systems.
It seems to me that Model Railroader reaches 4 out of 4.
Are people CCing their posts to MR with letters to the editor?
I realise that MR only generally publishes favourable letters to the editor, just as they only print favourable product reviews but if enough of these comments are written to them, perhaps they'll get the message, even if they don't publish them?
MR's readership has been generally dropping over the past years. Even the photo competition prize money has dropped from US$5,000 down to US$1,000 reflecting, I suppose, the decline in readership. I wonder how the editorial staff explain away the declining readership to the senior managent and board of directors? Of course, it won't be the fault of the editorial staff nor anything to do with the way they've changed the magazine over the past ten years. They'll come up with several excuses why it's nothing to do with them, even though their readship base, males over the age of 45 or something, continues to climb as boomers age.
Your thoughts?
P.S. I still purchase MR every month, out of habit I guess, as there's little in the way of content that interests me anymore. Heck, they're even recycling old feature articles and photos on model railways under the excuse that it's an anniversary year.
Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the late Great Eastern Railway see: - http://www.greateasternrailway.com
For more photos of the late GER see: - http://s94.photobucket.com/albums/l99/rogertra/Great_Eastern/
rogertra wrote: Are people CCing their posts to MR with letters to the editor?I realise that MR only generally publishes favourable letters to the editor, just as they only print favourable product reviews but if enough of these comments are written to them, perhaps they'll get the message, even if they don't publish them?MR's readership has been generally dropping over the past years. Even the photo competition prize money has dropped from US$5,000 down to US$1,000 reflecting, I suppose, the decline in readership. I wonder how the editorial staff explain away the declining readership to the senior managent and board of directors? Of course, it won't be the fault of the editorial staff nor anything to do with the way they've changed the magazine over the past ten years. They'll come up with several excuses why it's nothing to do with them, even though their readship base, males over the age of 45 or something, continues to climb as boomers age.Your thoughts? P.S. I still purchase MR every month, out of habit I guess, as there's little in the way of content that interests me anymore. Heck, they're even recycling old feature articles and photos on model railways under the excuse that it's an anniversary year.
Kalmbach is privately owned, not a publicly traded company. I don't know who the owners are but I doubt there is a board of directors they answer to. The editors come and go but I imagine the company's owners are very hands on when it comes to the content of all their publications. Furthermore, I think they are very aware of the trends within the hobby and I'm sure this influences the business decisions they make. I have no data to back this up, but my educated guess is that scratchbuilders are an ever decreasing percentage of modelers and that RTR is gaining in favor. I am not concerned about either trend. Anything that allows modelers to build good looking layouts in less time and with less effort will be good for the popularity of the hobby. I don't think the manufacturers are stupid. They know what sells and the fact that RTR is becoming more and more abundant is a clear indiciation that it is selling and it is what the customer base wants.
rogertra wrote: Your thoughts?
For whatever it is worth (probably about as much as you paid me for expressing my opinion on this subject), I think that Marcus Tullius Cicero probably did the classical "O tempora, O mores!" rant with rather more eloquence than most modern posters.
Stein
steinjr wrote: rogertra wrote: Your thoughts? For whatever it is worth (probably about as much as you paid me for expressing my opinion on this subject), I think that Marcus Tullius Cicero probably did the classical "O tempora, O mores!" rant with rather more eloquence than most modern posters. Stein
The same orator - Nihil est incertius vulgo.
(Nothing is as uncertain as the crowd's (wishes)).
-Crandell
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Actually, instead of making wrong decisions I think MR has done very well. Several other model railroad magazines have recently quit after years of publishing. With their specialty issues, books, video, and this web site I'd have to say Kalmbach is working very hard to stay on top of the hobby in a changing environment. It's interesting that the two mainstays of the hobby when I started, MR and RMC, are the two survivors. I may be wrong but I think these are now the only two general purpose model railoading magazines covering all scales and gauges.
dti406 wrote: shayfan84325 wrote: Kalmbach just posted the Garden Railways newsletter. It includes this:http://www.trains.com/grw/objects/pdf/loading_platform.pdfIt's plans and instructions for scratch building a raised platform for a dump truck. If they can offer this in Garden Railways, why not in MR? I don't get it.BTW, I may scale this down and build a couple in HO. Doesn't look like this was written by one of the staff writers, as I stated in a previous post if these types of articles are not submitted by us modelers, then they are not published.Rick
I think that is the crux of the issue. I enjoy building/ kit bashing, scratch building, etc. but I think if we want to see articles on scratch building, etc. then we need to submit them ourselves. Why don't we flood the MR editorial offices with articles!?! I'm game for it. In fact, i might start writing one now!
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot Visit my blog! http://becomingawarriorpoet.blogspot.com
Admittedly, I have not submitted to MR; I find their photography standards somewhat beyond my current reach.
But I know plenty of modelers who have, and often the material sits in limbo for upwards of several years without feedback. I figure if I have something worth publishing, I want it out sooner rather than later. Besides, what if it comes back 2-3 years later rejected? RMC might have published it in the meantime. RMC turned around Max Magliaro's 3-part N scale PRR I1s 2-10-0 kitbash in just a few short months.
How many times have you read an article about a layout in MR only to read in the closing paragraph that the layout was dismantled two years ago or so-and-so passed away in 2003? It seems more frequent than one would expect.
But again, this is hearsay on my part; I have not personally submitted to MR. I've submitted and been published in much more limited media. Currently I'm planning an article on my M1 kitbash for The Keystone Modeler, probably a much more appropriate medium for such a specialized project.