Internet forums are like a bunch of guys shooting the breeze. Individually, it's hard to tell the good from the not so good, but collectively some pretty good advice is usually to be had. Sure we're sharing experiences as well as what we have heard from others and one or two may not have it right, but when you get 5 or 6 or more saying the same thing the reliability goes up.
And I'm sorry, but getting something printed in a publication does not necessarily make it correct - one of the reasons you had to get mutltiple sources for those term papers back in school. I have found that when I have first hand knowledge, the printed version is seldom completely correct.
While I'm sure that MR works hard to ensure accuracy, a lot of model railroading is really preferences and opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not one size fits all. What works best for some is not the best for others.
There's a lot of good information on the Internet, but you have to evaluate sources and critically examine content. That's more important since a lot ot it is unchecked by others, but it's nothing new or unique to the 'net..
Enjoy
Paul
dknelson For those fellow geezers nostalgic for the more prose-heavy, construction type articles of the past, join the NMRA and sign up for Scale Rails. It is amazingly improved over what the NMRA Bulletin was just a few years ago. I find it to be an excellent compliment to MR. Dave Nelson
For those fellow geezers nostalgic for the more prose-heavy, construction type articles of the past, join the NMRA and sign up for Scale Rails. It is amazingly improved over what the NMRA Bulletin was just a few years ago. I find it to be an excellent compliment to MR.
Dave Nelson
Valid point, Dave. Been a life member since 1974--one hundred smackers in those heady days--and I find the publication interesting and valuable.
Perchance just a few minutes ago I retrieved my July '09 Scale Rails from my mail box. In every issue there is a feature called Timelines featuring a photograph from the Kalmbach Memorial Library; this current issue has a photograph taken in August 1969 showing a Milwaukee Road reefer being iced and salted at some nameless location--how many of you are still icing reefers in August 1969? I figure that I have received about 425 NMRA Bulletins/Scale Rails since I parted with that hundred bucks thirty-five years ago which averages out to about 4.25¢ an issue and that makes this a very cheap photograph indeed! In addition to Timelines most issues feature an article and/or drawing of either a structure or a piece of rolling stock/motive power; this month's feature is the Erie Railroad depot in Industry, New York. The article is by Otto Vondrak and the drawing is done by Harold Russel, MMR.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Folks:
I see the thread has gotten around to the print vs. net thing. I don't feel that the intertubes has to suck the life out of MR, for a few reasons:
a. Humorously, you can't read the Net on the john. More seriously, the Net requires some sort of technological tool to read. A magazine does not. Of course, this may not matter to us here, but then this is an Internet forum, isn't it? Might as well ask 100 vegetarians for cheeseburger advice.
b. We have a direct comparison to the other major hobby magazine, which has actually remained the same size, perhaps grown in content, as MR has shrunk. How? I feel they have adapted better - gone into more depth than they used to, and provided what the Net can not, which leads me to...
c. Frankly, the net vs. print comparison only holds up well if you don't look at the Net. Not to be rude, but I've got more Internet-fu than most of you old-timers , and I read more old magazines than most people here. Why? Because that stuff just isn't on the Internet.
If I go out and surf, and turn up 1000 things, it won't be 1000 different things. It will more likely be ten, repeated 100 times each. The internet is about as useful to an information seeker as a field of taconite is to a blacksmith. A magazine could use it to their benefit - as a source of feedback and ideas (this forum) and as a mine for data and new authors!
Surf da Net. When you come upon a new idea, something really brilliant and unexpected (like that home metalcasting rig somebody posted here) contact the author and get him to write an article! Don't lament the Net, drag it! The result will be a concentrated collection of really superb knowledge, buyable for five bucks, instead of countless fruitless hours of searching.
Easy, guys - I am the one who started this thread with just a little innocent question. No reason for any issues that start to become a touch to personal for my taste.
There is room for all kinds of media in our hobby - be it reputed magazines like MR or others, be it the internet. We have many a good contribution from members of this forum in the internet - let me just quote SpaceMouse´s home page with valuable hints for beginners as "pars pro toto".
I use the internet for communication and information, but magazines for imagination and dreaming...
So let´s apply Rule 8 - Have fun!
markpierceThis thread is a battlefield. "Take our trucks...we are out of here!"
Dang, Where's Dave's popcorn when you need it--------
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
andrechapelon You just don't get it, do you? I was referring to sites where the likes of Joe Fugate, Lance Mindheim, Jim Six, Tony Koester, Andy Sperandeo, Clark Propst, Charlie Comstock, et. al. hang out. I'm also referring to the quarterly e-magazine now available to be downloaded. Peer review does happen. It's real time and interactive instead of the batch mode so beloved of those stuck in the 50's. EDIT: OK, CNJ. You claim to be a published author (something I've never claimed to be). How's about a list of some things you've written that have been published? Then again, how do I know I could trust that list? You could be anybody (although the set of anybodies is probably limited to fans of the Central of New Jersey which does limit the population of anybodies considerably), Andre
You just don't get it, do you? I was referring to sites where the likes of Joe Fugate, Lance Mindheim, Jim Six, Tony Koester, Andy Sperandeo, Clark Propst, Charlie Comstock, et. al. hang out. I'm also referring to the quarterly e-magazine now available to be downloaded.
Peer review does happen. It's real time and interactive instead of the batch mode so beloved of those stuck in the 50's.
EDIT: OK, CNJ. You claim to be a published author (something I've never claimed to be). How's about a list of some things you've written that have been published?
Then again, how do I know I could trust that list? You could be anybody (although the set of anybodies is probably limited to fans of the Central of New Jersey which does limit the population of anybodies considerably),
Andre
Sadly, Andre, it is you that doesn't get it. By you own recent admission, you are simply an armchair hobbyist, not even a active modeler and definitely not a published one. Yet you dispute posts by individuals, certainly beyond just myself, with regard to correctness, accuracy and subject understanding. Then, when your post is shown to be inaccurate, or simply wrong, you repeatedly attempt to wease-word your way out of it, as you attempted to do here. This is precisely what's wrong with so much material on the Internet. While there are indeed some very useful sites run by experienced hobbyists, they likely amount to 1% or less of what is to be found out there in a web search. The great majority of material is less than worthwhile, posted too often by fringe hobbyists and wannabe model railroaders. In your case, you don't model, don't have a clear understanding of the hobby's history, you're not a published author, and lack familiarity with the publishing industry, at least as far as I can see. Just where then is this fount from which springs your ability to speak to this and so many other model railroading subjects?
Andre, you ask for some of my credentials as an author/hobbyist. So, only at your insistence and with reluctance on my part, a portion goes as follows. For twenty years I was a columnist associated with Sky Publishing, publishers of several monthly internationally recognized science magazines. Therein, I had published well over 250 signed articles. I also freelanced several dozen additional pieces for other highly regarded popular magazines. Athough I have little interest in publishing articles in model railroading magazines after a long writing career elsewhere, I have had three articles addressing segments of the hobby's history in RMC in addition to acting as an historical advisor for the book The Blue Comet - The Seashore's Finest Train.
With all due modesty, I think this snippet sufficiently qualifies me to speak with some authority on the subject under discussion.
CNJ831
betamax Where else can a group of people spend a lot of time explaining the correct methods and materials to do something, and why you don't do it this way, only to have someone come along and state "I've been doing it that way for years and never have any problems." That's because he hasn't had a problem yet. Trying to stop the spread of incorrect or misleading information is almost impossible thanks to the internet. Some of the concepts and techniques belong in another era, but they live on thanks to the internet and it's self proclaimed experts.
Where else can a group of people spend a lot of time explaining the correct methods and materials to do something, and why you don't do it this way, only to have someone come along and state "I've been doing it that way for years and never have any problems."
That's because he hasn't had a problem yet. Trying to stop the spread of incorrect or misleading information is almost impossible thanks to the internet. Some of the concepts and techniques belong in another era, but they live on thanks to the internet and it's self proclaimed experts.
That may be the case that the guy has not had the run in with something going awry on him/her when using their favorite method but that does not mean that just because it may not work that one time that is totally wrong to use it. This sounds like a case of the idea of there being One Single System for everything---
Look, to me methods are only methods. There is no scientific basis in one way being WRONG and another being RIGHT. I think that the methods may change but all they really become is just different. In other words--there is no hierarchical ranking to that difference. And just b/c someone uses an "out of date"--I did not know there was an expiry date on methods--method, and ohno ohno finds the thing still works for them does not mean that the method is incorrect----or even---"from another era---" I don't always use the most au courant methods just because they are of our present time. I use whatever methods work ---for me.
As for the concepts--again, sorry for our luck, but sometimes those concepts may have worked for that era. There are other ways of conceiving things that work for now----others will come that will work better for those future periods.
AACCH---maybe I'm just too much of a pragmatic-----
This thread is a battlefield. "Take our trucks...we are out of here!"
CNJ831 In regard to the question of print being killed by the Internet as a source of information, I would hasten to point out an unfortunate fact that the Internet-free-info proponents seem to consistantly gloss over. It's the fact that anyone can post how-to articles, or offer supposedly sage hobby advice, essentially without any peer review whatever. All too often I find that the Internet and its various forums provide information worth exactly what you are paying for it.
In regard to the question of print being killed by the Internet as a source of information, I would hasten to point out an unfortunate fact that the Internet-free-info proponents seem to consistantly gloss over. It's the fact that anyone can post how-to articles, or offer supposedly sage hobby advice, essentially without any peer review whatever. All too often I find that the Internet and its various forums provide information worth exactly what you are paying for it.
I am inclined to agree with your opinion there. The internet has given a lot of people the ability to put forth their opinions as fact, and their beliefs as the truth.
---- I'm going to bring up my favourite thing---the 5 blind men and the Elephant.
And that's where we're headed---
Look. I'm pretty convinced everyone has a piece of truth and that no one has the Truth--in the singular and with a capitol "T". And it is through conversation between others and self that things come to be known.
But it sometimes requires one to admit that sometimes others are correct---- with a lot of
I Must agree with CNJ831. I have also written for big magazines and know that the fact and proof reading is intense!
Here's the problem, Graffen. You know who you are and what you've done, but nobody else does. I certainly don't. However, I'm willing to take what you say at face value (more or less). You posted a lot of highly opinionated stuff about airbrushes over on the layout building forum, which, again, I was willing to take at face value pending further research. Well, after doing some research at sites devoted to airbrush art, I've come to the conclusions that: 1. You know what you're talking about with respect to airbrushes 2. Other people who are airbrush artists don't always prefer the airbrush(es) you do. This means your opinion is valuable, but it is not the ultimate word on airbrushes (i.e. there are a number of makes that are good).
The other side of that coin is that your claimed expertise as been limited in scope. You don't claim to be an expert on the hobby, its history and to have crystal ball into its future.
But back to the issue at hand, I believe that if MR is trying to make themselves more attractive to the readers by "streamling" the content they are sourly mistaken! I
f you read the stuff that´s on the Web you soon realise that most is very basic, filled with errors and often VERY poorly done.
Nobody's arguing that. However, the same can be said of print (and other) media. You need to wade through a lot of chaff to find the wheat. OTOH, the task is made a lot easier once you've reached the point where telling the difference has become second nature.
I have had some very bad experiences (mostly in my former work life) with people claiming expertise (and who were supposedly certified as such) who later turned out to have been dead wrong on a number of things. As a result, I tend to take certain claims with significant doses of sodium chloride.
Graffen CNJ831 [ I don't know if you've ever written for any national, or international publications, and so speak from in any way from a point of actual knowledge and experience (which I very much doubt) but I did so and for 20 years, as well as doing freelance writing. Submitted material often went back and forth between author and editor half a dozen times, or more, for accuracy checks and source documentaion before it ever saw the light of day. If you honestly consider material in serious, peer reviewed magazines as anywhere near as ill-founded and misleading as what is typically to be found on the internet, Andre, then I'm afraid that you are sadly naive. CNJ831 I Must agree with CNJ831. I have also written for big magazines and know that the fact and proof reading is intense! But back to the issue at hand, I believe that if MR is trying to make themselves more attractive to the readers by "streamling" the content they are sourly mistaken! I f you read the stuff that´s on the Web you soon realise that most is very basic, filled with errors and often VERY poorly done. The magazine have to be filled with articles that tickle peoples imagination and not just make them open their wallet and order stuff. But okay, if they only want to please their advertisers, then they are totally right.
CNJ831 [ I don't know if you've ever written for any national, or international publications, and so speak from in any way from a point of actual knowledge and experience (which I very much doubt) but I did so and for 20 years, as well as doing freelance writing. Submitted material often went back and forth between author and editor half a dozen times, or more, for accuracy checks and source documentaion before it ever saw the light of day. If you honestly consider material in serious, peer reviewed magazines as anywhere near as ill-founded and misleading as what is typically to be found on the internet, Andre, then I'm afraid that you are sadly naive. CNJ831
[
I don't know if you've ever written for any national, or international publications, and so speak from in any way from a point of actual knowledge and experience (which I very much doubt) but I did so and for 20 years, as well as doing freelance writing. Submitted material often went back and forth between author and editor half a dozen times, or more, for accuracy checks and source documentaion before it ever saw the light of day. If you honestly consider material in serious, peer reviewed magazines as anywhere near as ill-founded and misleading as what is typically to be found on the internet, Andre, then I'm afraid that you are sadly naive.
The magazine have to be filled with articles that tickle peoples imagination and not just make them open their wallet and order stuff. But okay, if they only want to please their advertisers, then they are totally right.
In order for the ads to actually work one NEEDS readers. The issue at hand then becomes, and how do we get these readers? By, hopefully, giving readers more than just pretty pictures. I don't buy MR, or anyone else's magazine for that matter, just for the eye candy. I want something I can use to push the brain with---to EXERCISE it. For quite a few years there it was getting pretty thin on the real information end of things. Now it is getting better---
And that always has been an issue---in order to offer advertisers a market publishers have to also offer the potential reader SOMETHING that is also useful. Publishers have to walk a fine line.
And as for the checking for facts and grammar and spelling---boy, do I know THAT one----I may not publish anything worth printing---but even in getting reports done one better know their P's and Q's----
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
CNJ831 andrechapelon Besides, we're now starting to get excellent Internet content from recognized subject matter experts and it's not hard to find the places where these guys (and the occasional gal) hang out. Anybody who thinks that the advantage of hardcopy is that it's been peer reviewed is woefully behind the times. Andre I don't know if you've ever written for any national, or international publications, and so speak from in any way from a point of actual knowledge and experience (which I very much doubt) but I did so and for 20 years, as well as doing freelance writing. Submitted material often went back and forth between author and editor half a dozen times, or more, for accuracy checks and source documentaion before it ever saw the light of day. If you honestly consider material in serious, peer reviewed magazines as anywhere near as ill-founded and misleading as what is typically to be found on the internet, Andre, then I'm afraid that you are sadly naive. CNJ831
andrechapelon Besides, we're now starting to get excellent Internet content from recognized subject matter experts and it's not hard to find the places where these guys (and the occasional gal) hang out. Anybody who thinks that the advantage of hardcopy is that it's been peer reviewed is woefully behind the times. Andre
Besides, we're now starting to get excellent Internet content from recognized subject matter experts and it's not hard to find the places where these guys (and the occasional gal) hang out. Anybody who thinks that the advantage of hardcopy is that it's been peer reviewed is woefully behind the times.
I don't know if you've ever written for any national, or international publications, and so speak from in any way from a point of actual knowledge and experience (which I very much doubt) but I did so and for 20 years, as well as doing freelance writing. Submitted material often went back and forth between author and editor half a dozen times, or more, for accuracy checks and source documentaion before it ever saw the light of day. If you honestly consider material in serious, peer reviewed magazines as anywhere near as ill-founded and misleading as what is typically to be found on the Internet, Andre, then I'm afraid that you are sadly naive of the ways of the industry.
duckdogger Publishing is ultimately a business and one of their threats to market share is the Internet. The caveat for the users of the latter is they are solely responsible for separating the wheat from the chaff.
Publishing is ultimately a business and one of their threats to market share is the Internet. The caveat for the users of the latter is they are solely responsible for separating the wheat from the chaff.
You need to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff regardless of the source. Go into any bookstore or stop at any newsstand and you can find enough garbage to create a whole new landfill. It's still your task to determine what's useful and what is so much wasted ink (or electrons in the case of the Internet).
blownout cylinder I can remember the CB thing and yes you heard a lot of STUFF on that thing ---- that was the problem---most of it was the stuff of urban legend---- The thing here that I think we'd need to see is not a case of either one or the other but both. Not everything on the internet is garbage---we wouldn't see Google trying to archive books on RR's out here if that were the case---but then again----
I can remember the CB thing and yes you heard a lot of STUFF on that thing ---- that was the problem---most of it was the stuff of urban legend----
The thing here that I think we'd need to see is not a case of either one or the other but both. Not everything on the internet is garbage---we wouldn't see Google trying to archive books on RR's out here if that were the case---but then again----
Indeed, Barry, bonafide reference sources on the Internet can be of great assistance to the hobbyist. It's the information included in individually posted websites and forums that can all too often prove totally unreliable and misleading.
CNJ831Most model railroad aspects of the Internet are, I'm afraid, much closer to the world of 1970's Citizen Band radio, with its hords of participants who presented themselves as being things they are not and as sources of ready knowledge on many diverse subjects, rather than being a browsing of the NYC Public Library's stacks, or those of the Kalmbach Library.
Sir Madog ... video killed the radio star - remember that song? Internet killed the magazines ... ? No, not really, but a lot of what we gained in knowledge by reading mags in the past, we "google" in the internet today, but that content is not in the mags anylonger. I still prefer to sit on my favourite lounge chair and read Model Railroder than having a note book on my lap.
... video killed the radio star - remember that song? Internet killed the magazines ... ? No, not really, but a lot of what we gained in knowledge by reading mags in the past, we "google" in the internet today, but that content is not in the mags anylonger.
I still prefer to sit on my favourite lounge chair and read Model Railroder than having a note book on my lap.
Material published in reputable magazines goes through a careful process, usually with multiple reviews, before appearing in print. It's typically done by folks very well versed in the subject matter at hand. In the case of MR today this might mean Sperandeo, Hediger, or Popp, guys who have long since demonstrated real ability in the hobby. Conversely, on the Internet you rarely have any inkling, nor means of checking, the author's credentials and more often than not I see folks with what appears to be, at best, a couple of years worth of dabbler experience posting "information" that the casual, or naive reader, may take for gospel. Little wonder that threads here and elsewhere often seem so conflicted, or uncertain in their advice/instructions/information.
Most model railroad aspects of the Internet are, I'm afraid, much closer to the world of 1970's Citizen Band radio, with its hords of participants who presented themselves as being things they were not and as sources of ready knowledge on many diverse subjects, rather than being a browsing of the NYC Public Library's stacks, or those of the Kalmbach Library.
Hi from Belgium,
In a topic I post one year ago I have asked You about the same thing and especialy about "It's MR beginning to be to much basic"
Well answer say it's because of internet, it's because we need a publication affordable for the youngster, but all in all many good topic in the magazines have dissapear, like Electronics symposium, Model of the month award and other.
Many articles we see now come back every two years about the same subject and the quality of layout project construction like the Clinchfield RR or the Jerome and soutwestern or the San juan central are gone since a long time.
We have learned more about these construction projects that I beleive in the last decade of the publication of MR and it's only an example.
Yes I beleive that the qualitie of MR had drop a little, and for me it's very basic, to much basic and I am not sure that's only the fault of internet. At this time the youngster existed too and when reading old issues I never see complaint about these more elabored project.
It don't mean that MR is not a good publication, I wait every month to read the new one but certainly a change exist and we have a different magazine than the 80's and 90's.
Even if monthly publication had drop and MR need to attract readers, I beleive that quality article with big project could be challenging and attractive for readers.
Marc
dknelsonFor those fellow geezers nostalgic for the more prose-heavy, construction type articles of the past, join the NMRA and sign up for Scale Rails. It is amazingly improved over what the NMRA Bulletin was just a few years ago. I find it to be an excellent compliment to MR.
I think I just might pull out some of those late-70s Bulletins, and start building some biffys. After Whit Towers quit as editor (after 20+ years), the quality seemed to go down, until Stephen got ahold of it. A lot more cartoons in the older ones as well.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Graffen Yes the NMRA mag. It would be nice but there isn´t much of an idea to be a member when you live in Sweden. It also gets rather expensive with the shipping.
Yes the NMRA mag. It would be nice but there isn´t much of an idea to be a member when you live in Sweden. It also gets rather expensive with the shipping.
And in actuality, despite the commentary regarding the nostalgic element within the MR crowd, that so called element may be the ticket if things do get more problematic for those without limitless cashflow. If one looks at rising prices within the hobby--then 'how to' articles will become more prevalent and they also may be more---oh the horror!!---prose laden-----
So you are saying that NMRA is a geezer organization---eh?
Actually it is a good read that is for dang sure-----and the membership certainly helps---
ILLigitimi non Carborundum !!
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
I'll put my into the topic, I guess, Ulrich. I have some MR's from when I got started (2nd time) back into MRR'ing (1970's) - it would've been the mid-to-late 1950's when I FIRST started in model railroading. (Articles in Boys' Life about how to build your own HO scale layout, for all you nostalgia buffs...)
But I have at least 10-20 years worth of MR issues (not all continuous years, though), and there has been a shift in content, mostly because back when I started you had the Plasticville, Revell and AHM or else cardboard or build-your-own structures. Nowadays there are so many kits and ready-built structures that you can get confused figuring which ones you want for your layout (assuming you're not gonna just build your own from prototype photos/articles). Much of the same applies to rolling stock and, to a lesser extent, to locomotives (since Bowser is cutting out much of their kits and brass costs so much that mere mortals like myself cannot even think about that...).
But I digress - the older MR issues have some really great structure, loco, or car drawings (and articles on the structures and some cars for building same), and my biggest hindrance is that I only have so much time in my day - wish I could scan all my issues in, add keywords, and let the machine search for that particular article I vaguely recall. Yes, I know the MR/other magazine search capability, but it's not quite detailed enough for my searches sometimes.
Overall, I know the prices for model railroading items have gone up (for what I buy, as well as for MR to print their issues), but except for the lack of incentive$ for me to renew at a better price than the new subscribers get, most of my model railroading choices relate to 'which', rather than 'does anyone make'?
I'd say I am 80-90 percent satisfied with my choices, resources and 'purchaseables' in this hobby.
Jim in Cape Girardeau