What should Model Railroader do "Better" "Different"?

[Anonymous]

MR is the best. on the layout reviews, i'd like to see them write a more on the operation of the layout.

Alexander

[jfugate]

Terry:

Thanks for setting me straight on the reviews question and the economics of MR. Knowing the facts is much better than all this speculating.

I enjoy MR and find that each issue these days is still an interesting read, even to this modeler who's been in the hobby going on 40 years now!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by KenLarsen

I would like to see articles about some modular clubs, in ALL scales. Those huge layouts are gorgeous, but I want to see more of what is within reach of the 'common man'.

There is an excellent modular HO club in my area (the FCSME, not exactly sure what the 'FC' part stands for) that always sets up at the Great Scale Train Show every 3 months in Timonium, MD. Would it be too much trouble to send an MR photographer to such an event so readers throughout the world could see more of these community-effort layouts?

This may be classified as "ancient news", but MR did a cover article on our local HO scale modular club layout way back in June of 1989. It was my article and most of my photos.

Also as I undestand it, MR does not regularly send photographers out in the field to do such articles. Most are submitted by MR readers. MR does commission articles by such photographers as Lou Sassi and probably others, but they are not staff photographers.

So if you want your local club or whatever in MR, prepare an article and send it in yourself. Or find someone in your group who can do the photos. They are the most critical aspect of any magazine article. MR says they can fix up your writing but can't do much with less than suitable photos.

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

I would like to see articles about some modular clubs, in ALL scales. Those huge layouts are gorgeous, but I want to see more of what is within reach of the 'common man'.

There is an excellent modular HO club in my area (the FCSME, not exactly sure what the 'FC' part stands for) that always sets up at the Great Scale Train Show every 3 months in Timonium, MD. Would it be too much trouble to send an MR photographer to such an event so readers throughout the world could see more of these community-effort layouts?

[Anonymous]

Terry,

From what I've read, you gave the Veranda Turbine a very good review. I think the only thing you said was wrong was that some of the wires are to stiff. But that's really how all the MR reviews are these days. Maybe describe one or two faults, but then go right back to glorifying it. We (the readers) would like to know if the model has any serious faults (though most of the time you guys state those), so we can know before we buy the product. The most honset review I've seen in MR in a while was Andy Sperando's review of the BLI ATSF 3700 class 4-8-4. Nice job Andy! [^]

[mikebonellisr]

No...Thank you for listening.I would suppose that many of your staff are modelers too, and would have the same feeling about the hobby as most on this fourm.Thanks for a great magazine. I get most of my insperation,ideas and product information fromMRR

[MRTerry]

Dear guys,

Thanks to all of you who have made constructive comments, even critical ones. We do appreciate them, and the thought that goes into them.

However, I have to throw the flag on some of the comments made about our reviews. We do not slant our reviews to please our advertisers. (If you don't believe me, read my review of the Lionel veranda turbine, or my upcoming review of the Trix NYC caboose.) We never have. We have lived by Al Kalmbach's model of "courageous editing" for 72 years, and we're not about to change that now. I keep that memo on my bulletin board, right next to my computer. (And yes, we get complaints from manufacturers who think we're too tough.)
Not only that, but what some of those who posted are suggesting isn't even possible, and it sure wouldn't be smart business. We don't even know who our advertisers for a given issue will be until long after the content is selected and written, so we can't play that game. And the "explanation of magazine economics" printed below is just plain wrong where MR is concerned. Well over half of our revenue comes from our readers. It would make no sense to jeopardize our main revenue stream for the sake of one ad, or ten for that matter.

Well, enough about that. Again, thanks to those of you who offered constructive thoughts.

Terry

[Anonymous]

Would love to see prototype drawings every month like used to be done. Put "Modelrailroading is Fun" back on the cover! Would also like to see more Art Curren type kitbashing articles. Overall, though, it's a great mag! Just a little tweaking needed, IMHO.

[jfugate]

Of course you know why MR does the photo contest ... it provides them with a year's worth of very nice Trackside photos. Otherwise, they're constantly beating the bushes to get anything decent to print.

Darn clever, but you are right, the photo contest winners selected seem to be very suseptible to the subjective mood of the judges.

But even with all the critical comments we can make, for my money MR is still the best magazine in the hobby. It's the only hobby magazine I own a complete collection of all the way back into the 1950s ...

[Anonymous]

My first suggestion would be: How about two versions of the magazine? One for HO scale and one for all the other scales. (Of course, some content such as scenery, electronics, etc. could still be duplicated). While I understand their reasoning behind covering all scales, I think the economics on my suggestion could be positive, and I constantly note the percentage of each issue that is completely irrelevant to me (I happen to be in HO).

Second: more "overview" pictures is a suggestion that comes up again and again. If you look back over the last couple of years I think MR has responded to this. I suspect, based on the layouts that I've visited (inluding several that have been featured in MR), that two issues are (a) the portion of the layout that is unfinished, and (b) the amount of junk / clutter that would be in the picture. So I don't go as far as wanting "warts-and-all" overview photos. Plenty of those are available on personal web sites, and I enjoy them and sometimes find them instructive (especially good reminders to keep my own layout area tidy), but I want the photos in MR to remain high-quality.

Third: I am of two minds about the electronics articles that used to appear fairly regularly (for a couple of years they even had a column). On the one hand, these were potentially among the most useful articles that I read. On the other hand, I say "potentially" because - for some completely inexplicable reason - they could NEVER get the circuit diagrams correct - and I truly mean NEVER. And often made mistakes in the component lists too. So I'd like them to return but only if these problems can be fixed.

Finally - and perhaps most controversially - do away with the photo contest, which as far as I'm concerned pretty much wastes one full issue each year.

Reviews: I concur with Joe's points. I think they do a pretty good job on reviews; you just have to do some "reading between the lines". In particular, if ANY negative is mentioned, however fleetingly or lightly, I consider it to be a big yellow caution sign. (For example, the review of the Walthers bascule bridge acknowledged some problems with fit of parts, and difficulties in getting the bridge to operate; other sources indicated that these were very serious and frustrating problems). Just obtain views at your LHS or on the forum before making any signficiant purchases. Bear in mind also that one of the ways they combine efforts at objectivity with maintaining good relations with advertisers, is by generally choosing to review only those products about which they can honestly be positive. A signficiant release that is not reviewed should also be viewed with caution.

[Anonymous]

Joe, If this is the case (and I am sure it is) then the magazines should stop printing these things in the disguise of being reviews. Stating they are a review is a misnomer and I'd even go so far as to say, if they are calling them reviews then they are lying. A review should be an unbiased opinion and since they are unable to give an unbiased opinion then they either need to rename what they call them or stop printing them.

However, like you say, I won't be holding my breath!

[IRONROOSTER]

I have always regarded the product reviews as in depth product announcements. As noted above, there is a reason Consumer Reports doesn't sell advertising. One thing I always liked were the drawings that MR had. It doen't seem to me that they do as many as they used to. I would also like to see more coverage of the minority scales - S, O, TT, OO, etc.

Still all in all, MR has been and is still my favorite magazine. I have all the issues back to 1965 and most (90%) of 1950-1964.

Enjoy
Paul

[jfugate]

Getting truly honest reviews is a toughie for all the magazines.

If you understand the economics of magazine publishing, you know that most magazines pay their production costs through advertising. Typically the cover price of the magazine just pays for the printing costs (after the distribution channel takes their cut).

So by printing an unfavorable review, you are biting the hand that feeds you. Publishing such a review is also a career-limiting move for an editor ... a well known editor's tenure at RMC back in the early 80s, rumor has it, ended with with the editor authorizing and printing an unfavorable review of a large advertiser's product.

Any for-profit business will suffer from this problem no matter how noble we would like them to be, so don't expect it to change any time soon.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by deschane

Bob, What are "truthful warts"? Can you look at your last paragraph and clarify what your trying to say here? I think your saying MR pays to much attention to Walthers, but am unsure.

I changed the punctuation in that sentence, hopefully making it more clear!

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

Bob, What are "truthful warts"? Can you look at your last paragraph and clarify what your trying to say here? I think your saying MR pays to much attention to Walthers, but am unsure.

[Anonymous]

As has been posted here previously, I would like to see more overall shots of featured layouts - how they fit into the room they are in. Not all shots should be of perfectly posed mini scenes on layouts, as there is more to a model railroad layout than that. Of course this all goes back to those who contribute and photograph the articles. Maybe they do include such shots, and maybe MR edits them out, who knows?

Those of you who have seen older copies of MR - way back in the 60's, 70's, etc. would have seen photos of models that weren't finished, works in progress. Heck the "Trackside Photos" used to show partially completed layouts, benchwork and all. Now all readers see are layouts, models and scenes that are perfect in all aspects. This can be kind of intimidating to newcomers - "I could never do that!"

As to product reviews, I gave up a long time ago expecting much truthful - "warts and all" - reviews in MR. And they used to feature prominently in full color all the time in the new products section models from Walthers. MR's being in the same city as Walthers seems to have them always receiving preferential treatment. They are (or were!) the biggest in our hobby, but they do not have to be the main feature in each and every issue!

Stepping off my soapbox for now. [soapbox]

Bob Boudreau

[Leon Silverman]

One of the topics that I find to be non-dscriminating is in the area of "freely rolling trucks". There has been a discussion of this topic in this column, but if MR sees fit to plot a locomotive's current draw, drawbar pull, and speed characteristics against "average" locomotives, why can't they compare the rolling characteristics of a reviewed rolling stock against an average or standard incline where movement initiates.

[mikebonellisr]

I imagine most of us recieved a MRR questionaire on our email,pretty much asking the same thing.They do want us to be happy with thier product.I can see where thier product review is put between a rock and a hard place when they have to review some of thier major advertisers products that many of us would consider toy like or junk.I would love to see a honest review as many times I will buy a item based on thier review and what I read here.

[Anonymous]

[:X]What would you like to see Model Railroader do differently, or better? I have to say that I think Model Railroader is one of, if not the best model railroading magazines on the market. I rate its' product quality as high as any and it's content maybe the best at providing me what I want to see in a model railroading magazine!

1). However, I would like to see more photos of featured layouts and maybe less of the repetitive narrations on how the layout was built, IE. L-girder/plywood/cookie cutter, atop which is foam/open grid work with screen wire, cardboard interwoven strips and plaster dipped etc, etc. Each layout featured, likely has some unusual feature which could be brought to light, discussed in depth and made a focus of why this layout stands out.

2). I would like the magazine to show some teeth when it comes to reviewing products and facing the issues of the day! Is the magazine a glorified advertising medium? Or, is it an unbiased tool for the consumer to use when considering a purchase? And, is it a sounding trumpet when an issue becomes something of significance in the hobby? The magazine should take on all comers in protecting this hobby! Some points in reference: The Athearn Genesis Challenger's sound system. This system was discussed on this forum and it appeared many felt; Here's this beautiful loco with such a crappy sound system! Also, the MTH/Lionel/QSI debacle and the Union Pacific licensing fee issues are all issues effecting this hobby. However, little press was given these issues and the review of the challenger only stated the reviewer had heard better coupling clanks.

I know, it's one of those "which side the bread is buttered on" things. However, it seems to me there is so little courage in business today. Lets show some!