Odd this. I just read a back issue of CQ magazine where in an editor had discussed a trend that seems to be developing in that we are seeing careers in electronic engineering would be disappearing to lands outside of N.A. Dang funny this. What is going on here? Almost the same thing. No longer being the technological leaders/drivers but the classic "mindless consumer" of everyone else's creations. Nostalgia?
The idea of building one's one stereo amplifiers or even---YIKES!!!--linear amplifiers in amateur radio---and the wonderment that that created when the first strains of a Stravinski piece as played by the Munich Symphonic or some such---or the first contact one heard with someone from Malaysia on a Heathkit shortwave radio that you put together with your bare hands may be a 'lost art' while we fiddle with the instant texting and have no curiousity about how that texting possibility got into the little cell phone in the first place. Nostalgia?
Why nostalgia?
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/
Folks:
All this talk about "age" and "nostalgia". Nostalgia, my caboose! I get a lot of my inspiration and project ideas from MRs that were starting to turn yellow before I was born.
I'm sure it's a comforting illusion for some people that this is just based on nostalgia. It ain't necessarily so. Personally, I'd rather have a disquieting reality than a comforting illusion.
The hobby is changing. Right now it is changing in a way that it wasn't changing a year ago, two years ago, or five years ago. We've been having threads lately about metalcasting, home pad printing, photoetching, kitbuilding, scratchbuilding, and some incredibly advanced stuff. Difficult? Sure. Impossible? Never, if the information is there. People are looking for something to do, not just something to buy. Is MR willing to give them that?
Sir MadogI start to eagerly wait for next month´s issue to come...But again, it is a different bird now!
But again, it is a different bird now!
Yes, I eagerly await each month's issue as well. I love the magazine but its not the same as it used to be. And I didn't even mind all the ads. They gave me something to consider and think about also. Now that I'm an adult and have spare cash, it would be fine with me if they bulked up the magazine with more ads-- provided they also put in some more good articles like they used to.
Another thing I wish they would do is put together all the other stuff-- extra magazines, videos, etc-- into a subsidiary subscription format so I could just sign up to get all that painlessly, like the magazine. I know they'll do it on a month-to-month basis where you have to deal with all the billing every month. It would be nice if they could do that on an annual basis, or some monthly credit card ding or something.
Sir Madog I guess it must be a sign of age that I start to like the things of the past a lot more than what is around me nowadays... MR still is for me the one and only source of model railroading US-style and their editors do more than just a good job. They reflect the changes that we have seen in our hobby and they are absolutely right in doing so. Whenever I have finished reading my latest copy, I start to eagerly await for next month´s issue to come... But again, it is a different bird now!
I guess it must be a sign of age that I start to like the things of the past a lot more than what is around me nowadays...
MR still is for me the one and only source of model railroading US-style and their editors do more than just a good job. They reflect the changes that we have seen in our hobby and they are absolutely right in doing so. Whenever I have finished reading my latest copy, I start to eagerly await for next month´s issue to come...
I agree the hobby is a different bird then it was back in the 70s.MR had to keep pace with the changing hobby..
I dropped my MR subscription in favor of N Scale Railroading and N Scale but,may renew my MR subscription in the near future..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
MR still is for me the one and only source of model railroading US-style and their editors do more than just a good job. They reflect the changes that we have seen in our hobby and they are absolutely right in doing so. Whenever I have finished reading my latest copy, I start to eagerly wait for next month´s issue to come...
I wasn't even a teenager when I started reading MR--the first issue in my collection is the fortieth anniversary issue of January 1974. I have fond memories of the magazine in the 70s, and still occasionally look through my old copies (and still use then as reference for modelling projects). But when I came back to the hobby as an adult, it was the "new" MR, with its well-illustrated and concisely-written how-to articles, which first inspired me to do some real modelling and sit down with some styrene and a sharp knife and build a model of my hometown station from scratch.
I'm not sure the magazine is less thorough, but it does present the information in a very different way. And to be fair, I bring a higher level of knowledge and skill to the hobby which makes even the old articles more accessible to me now than when I first read them all those decades ago. MR certainly has changed a lot since 1974. Thankfully, so have I!
Sir Madog I just dug out some old (really old) copies of MODEL RAILROADER and while leafing thru them, I thought I was holding a completely different magazine in my hands. The average copy in the 1980´s and 1990´s had between 180 and 200 pages, so about twice as much as today, more how to do features than today. OK, today, all the pics are in color and a lot crisper than before.I don´t mean that MR is not as good as it used to be - it is just, IMHO, a very different magazine, reflecting a general trend of being less "thorough". Am I wrong?
I just dug out some old (really old) copies of MODEL RAILROADER and while leafing thru them, I thought I was holding a completely different magazine in my hands.
The average copy in the 1980´s and 1990´s had between 180 and 200 pages, so about twice as much as today, more how to do features than today. OK, today, all the pics are in color and a lot crisper than before.
I don´t mean that MR is not as good as it used to be - it is just, IMHO, a very different magazine, reflecting a general trend of being less "thorough". Am I wrong?
I completely agree. I have been going back and forth in my archive over the last several months and I have been thinking the exact same thing. The last year or so seems like its been mostly "how-to" articles designed to showcase manufacturers store-bought products and solutions. Everything is pre-packaged, pre-measured, ready-to-run, tab-A into tab-B type stuff. The older issues are two or three times as thick, chock full of interesting construction articles including how-to's that demonstrate the use of basic tools, model railroad engineering concepts, building brass locomotives, scratch-building rolling stock. I have learned so much reading the articles and stuff in the older issues. The newer ones are nice for the pictures. But the older ones have all the good stuff. IMO
jwhitten
Sir Madog I just dug out some old (really old) copies of MODEL RAILROADER and while leafing thru them, I thought I was holding a completely different magazine in my hands. The average copy in the 1980´s and 1990´s had between 180 and 200 pages, so about twice as much as today, more how to do features than today. OK, today, all the pics are in color and a lot crisper than before. I don´t mean that MR is not as good as it used to be - it is just, IMHO, a very different magazine, reflecting a general trend of being less "thorough". Am I wrong?
No.
- Douglas
IRONROOSTERTrueBut we were young then and that's what we really miss.
True
But we were young then and that's what we really miss.
Neil, I know truth and wisdom when I see it -- you nailed it right there.
Neil B.I enjoy looking at old issues of MR, too, but those issues were published long ago. We live in a different age today with different hobby needs and suppliers and we are in a different social and economic environment. Also, we ourselves are not the same people we were 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
I think that the idea that we are different from what we were 20 years or more ago is in a sense true. One thing though---we change through our history but we still carry our basic self. Where ever you go ---there you are----
The issue though that I've come across a lot of younger kids that a couple of us guys fell over at the local mall recently are trying to find stuff on scratchbuilding/kitbashing in MR---and some were told about RMC. I'm finding myself having to tell them about how I've seen more articles in MR that dealt with those topics. It may be that with these kids we're coming across there may be a reading market that might also become part of the hobby as such. Hopefully they will be part of MR's readership---and hopefully we'll see more of those wonderful articles----especially like Freytags foundry one--
andrechapelon I've been reading MR since 1957. Personally, I think it's better than it was. Highly specialized info can be obtained elsewhere. A lot of the current complaints about MR are on a par with complaining that a medical article in Time is lightweight compared to The New England Journal of Medicine.
I've been reading MR since 1957. Personally, I think it's better than it was. Highly specialized info can be obtained elsewhere. A lot of the current complaints about MR are on a par with complaining that a medical article in Time is lightweight compared to The New England Journal of Medicine.
ac:
These complaints would be guaranteed if the Journal became another Time. That's a pretty big exaggeration, but since it only inverts your metaphor I don't feel too bad about using it in a reply.
A better comparison is to Popular Mechanics, which, over the years, has devolved from a genuine resource to a vacuous gadget rag. I don't think anybody wants to see that happen to MR.
Comparing MR in 2009 to MR in 1971 is like saying that the 1968 Chrysler Newport my mother drove when I was a teenager (about $4,300 new) must be better than the 2007 Chevy HHR my wife drives today (about $22,000 new) because the Chrysler was a whole lot cheaper per pound and there were a lot more pounds of it.
Well, that Newport actually cost the equivalent of $26,400 in today's dollars. Given that the curb weight of a 1968 Chrysler Newport is 3889 lbs, that equates to an inflation adjusted price of $6.79/lb.
The curb weight of an HHR is 3208 lbs (with manual transmission). Given a $22,000 price, the price per pound of the HHR is $6.85.
The HHR is more expensive/lb, but not by much.
Everybody hates it when I do that.
Andre
Neil B. Thanks for the feedback but I must confess that you drive me nuts when you create these threads because some of the information is correct and some of it isn't, and most of the inferences that are made aren't correct. I enjoy looking at old issues of MR, too, but those issues were published long ago. We live in a different age today with different hobby needs and suppliers and we are in a different social and economic environment. Also, we ourselves are not the same people we were 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
Thanks for the feedback but I must confess that you drive me nuts when you create these threads because some of the information is correct and some of it isn't, and most of the inferences that are made aren't correct.
I enjoy looking at old issues of MR, too, but those issues were published long ago. We live in a different age today with different hobby needs and suppliers and we are in a different social and economic environment. Also, we ourselves are not the same people we were 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
NB:
Completely true, but I don't think we're necessarily going back that far; we're also comparing with the late 1990s, and that wasn't so long ago at all.
I do like the direction the magazine is now taking, but I don't think it hurts to discuss things like this. Take a topic and set it adrift, and there's always a chance you'll find new ideas.
Paul,
Amen on that!
Neil
Neil Besougloff
editor, Model Railroader magazine
I've noticed the same thing. I bought a couple 1980's and a 1990s issue at a Train show, and yeah, much much different magazine.
You mentioend the trends, I tihnk it goes from the old scrastchbuilder/kitbasher style to the new RTR stuff.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Enjoy
Paul
Hi guys,
Sincerely,
editor
I think the specialty magazines had their place in the past, but at least some need to be folded back into MR now. "Realistic Layouts" and "Planning" in particular are pulling out good content. GMR can probably continue; there are still a lot of layout features.
The specialty spinoffs started when MR was at its thickest, and there was probably more material than they could use easily. At that point, they were an excellent idea, but this has changed. Maybe those days could come back, but they won't if the magazine doesn't have enough content to draw readers.
I just wish the articles were longer and more in-depth.
I also find the editorials have become fluff pieces rather than anything that addresses the issues facing the hobby.
I love Andy's new recurring feature (forget the name) on the last page, though.
Craig
DMW
wjstix. . . . . . . . . . (MR) had a nice sort of 'homey' feel to it, with some humor and such that is kinda missing now . . . . . . . . . .
This has been my observation. The magazine is very slick and very professionally done but it is not 'homey' as it was twenty, thirty, forty years ago. The shrunken size of the magazine could well be caused by a shrinking of advertising revenue. On average I feel that they do have more layout coverage than they did in former times but I (generally) find myself going back to the '60s or '70s and even the '80s in order to find articles on structures as potential material for scratchbuilding. They do seem to be few and far between; I can't remember the last time I saw a scratchbuilding article on using wood which is my material-of-choice. And unfortunately--and this has been brought up several times here on the forum--the magazine articles on scenery tend to be more promotional of commercial product.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
I am probably biased by my age, but I have been able to get my hands on some back issues, I think I have one in 57, I know there are somes 60s. And while I enjoy reading through them, I still find myself going back to the recent issues. In some cases, the initial read may be more enjoyable, yes. But they don't tend to get read as much. And maybe that's a concern of the issue falling apart, I've been known to be paranoid about things like that.
@ the first page. It's not that your really, REALLY old, but that magazines age faster.
-Morgan
TrainManTy Yes, the magazine was bigger back in the day, but remember... Only the last half actually was the magazine! The rest was ads, product reviews, and more ads. So content-page for content-page, the new magazines actually have close to the same number OR MORE than the old ones! The old ones just looked thicker because they had so many ads!
Yes, the magazine was bigger back in the day, but remember...
Only the last half actually was the magazine! The rest was ads, product reviews, and more ads. So content-page for content-page, the new magazines actually have close to the same number OR MORE than the old ones! The old ones just looked thicker because they had so many ads!
Unfortunately untrue I'm afraid, Tyler. The magazine's content has been divided 40:60 ads vs. editorial content for decades now. Likewise, if you take the time to seriously compare say the early 90's issues to the present, you'll find that textual editorial content is currently somewhere around 25% of what you were paying for back then, the remaining space being taken up by overly large, splashy photos. I offered an actual comparison of the number of articles (by type and content) and the column inches of text here a while back and the results were rather startling. You also need to appreciate that the size of the columns decreased and the typeface increased during this period! There's dramatically less useful meat to the magazine today than in the past (although certainly it's up in the last 2 years, or so - for which I offer kudos).
CNJ831
TrainManTyThe old ones just looked thicker because they had so many ads!
More ads = more people having choice of product.
But then again, exactly what kind of quality was/is that content? Eye Candy vs Just how did this get built? Sometimes it can be as stupid as that---pretty pictures vs meaty articles that discussed, for example, custombuilding a motor(MR, Oct. '67), Whit Towers' articles of building bridges, Building a GN 50' cushion-underframe boxcar(MR July 1979)---I could go on and on----
Then again---maybe the target audience is just different.
I received my first copy of MR in January 1971. I was a 15 year old boy then, dreaming of a big Marklin layout, which, at that time, was more like tinplate toy trains.
I remember "devouring" all those h2- articles in MR, especially those on detailing or rebuilding locos, something we rarely see nowadays. It was MR that got me started on scratchbuilding structures. Just reading the "old" mags again after many years brought back fond memories and, honestly,
I´d like to see some more of these articles in today´s MR.
Finally, it was MR that made me turn from playing with trains to being a model railroader!
CNJ831 dknelson Well hold on just a minute. Some of that 200+ page content included coverage of tinplate (which was just fine by me - I love looking at old toy trains). Now there is an entire magazine with that content. Sometimes there would be coverage of garden railroads. Now Kalmbach has an entire magazine with that content. There were lots of track plans back in those days -- now once a year there is Model Railroad Planning. Lavishly photographed layout visits? Now there is the annual Great Model Railroads. There is also a variety of special issues and magazine sized books, relating to the 1950s, industries along the tracks, DCC, and so on. And there is content strictly related to this website and the Dream Plan Build videos. Dave, that comment implying tinplate material being signiicant in those 200 page issues of 15 years ago is untrue. There was for a short time essentially just a one page "Tinplate Heritage" retrospective photo essay during the period in question, but there was no tinplate layout coverage and very, very little Hi-Rail. Tinplate has been pretty much banned from the pages of MR since the 50's. Likwise, all the "specialty" publications addressing specific subjects we see today are no great boon in my book. Such content formerly appearred simply as a part of the regular magazine years back. A lot of what used to be standard content has either been redirected to these specialty magazines, or previous magazine content recycled into them. The newbies may be fooled by this approach, but not those long in the hobby. It's simply another money making gimmick. CNJ831
dknelson Well hold on just a minute. Some of that 200+ page content included coverage of tinplate (which was just fine by me - I love looking at old toy trains). Now there is an entire magazine with that content. Sometimes there would be coverage of garden railroads. Now Kalmbach has an entire magazine with that content. There were lots of track plans back in those days -- now once a year there is Model Railroad Planning. Lavishly photographed layout visits? Now there is the annual Great Model Railroads. There is also a variety of special issues and magazine sized books, relating to the 1950s, industries along the tracks, DCC, and so on. And there is content strictly related to this website and the Dream Plan Build videos.
Well hold on just a minute. Some of that 200+ page content included coverage of tinplate (which was just fine by me - I love looking at old toy trains). Now there is an entire magazine with that content. Sometimes there would be coverage of garden railroads. Now Kalmbach has an entire magazine with that content. There were lots of track plans back in those days -- now once a year there is Model Railroad Planning. Lavishly photographed layout visits? Now there is the annual Great Model Railroads. There is also a variety of special issues and magazine sized books, relating to the 1950s, industries along the tracks, DCC, and so on. And there is content strictly related to this website and the Dream Plan Build videos.
Dave, that comment implying tinplate material being signiicant in those 200 page issues of 15 years ago is untrue. There was for a short time essentially just a one page "Tinplate Heritage" retrospective photo essay during the period in question, but there was no tinplate layout coverage and very, very little Hi-Rail. Tinplate has been pretty much banned from the pages of MR since the 50's.
Likwise, all the "specialty" publications addressing specific subjects we see today are no great boon in my book. Such content formerly appearred simply as a part of the regular magazine years back. A lot of what used to be standard content has either been redirected to these specialty magazines, or previous magazine content recycled into them. The newbies may be fooled by this approach, but not those long in the hobby. It's simply another money making gimmick.
Couldn´t agree more! If you, like me, have an interest in more than "standard" modelling, you now must buy a lot of "Speciailty mags". I don´t consider it to be worth the money if you compare the expense Vs. the interest.
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Well I started reading / subscribing to MR in the early seventies so I must be really REALLY old then. It was tough getting to the hobby shop when you had to fight off the saber-tooth tigers and woolly mammoths.
I do sometimes feel the mag back then, with Linn Westcott as editor, Al Kalmbach still as publisher (who as I recall was "Boomer Pete" who wrote the "Bull Session" column each month) etc. had a nice sort of 'homey' feel to it, with some humor and such that is kinda missing now. I do think it's true as someone mentioned that the mag did a lot more then because there weren't as many specialized magazines out there for particular scales and interests.
Plus you need to be wary of comparing prices too much. Inflation can throw things off. Back when MR cost $1 the minimum wage was only like $1.65 or so.
dknelsonMy point is that we modelers are hardly being starved for content from Kalmbach. We're up to our armpits in content, and that is even with some of the very fine second and third tier model railroad magazines disappearing on us, alas, so some respected authors are probably trying to mend some fences with MR. But sometimes I do wonder if the cream of the content is being skimmed off by the specialty issues leaving MR with what's left. If the "great" layout visits go into GMR, does that mean the "almost great" ones are in MR?
The question of the creme de la creme of the content getting syphoned off is interesting to this little puppy. If one can find that this is so then it seems to indicate that the product is not quite the thing as was before--the product was what you made in order to grow the business thereby generating revenue but now seems secondary to how much money one can generate from it. I've always been impressed with what there is in all the publications but I also found that one can spend a lot of serious cash if one wanted to go after every dang thing that Kalmbach put out---just 5 of the books at $20 a pop will take out an ATLAS/Bachmann/what have you from the roster---they did do this kind of thing for awhile as well so it is not like this is a new thing either.
The ads? Well, they may be expensive---makes one wonder how expensive the advertising is getting for the advertisers, especially if they are doing ads in say the Yearly layout mags plus any other mag---one never really knows for sure but I'll guess a fair amount. And now it is the advertising that generates the revenue---subscriptions and LHS sales a mere add on---
I have to agree that MR's glory years were when Linn Westcott was editor. Not that other editors haven't been good, but Westcott had a special touch just as Whit Towers did with the NMRA Bulletin.