what type of magazine articles would interest you that you rarely see?

[Mark B]

The new RMC has a very detailed article on building an access gate to bridge a doorway opening. It's something I've been contemplating for some time. Not only to access some unused area but allows us "seasoned citizens" to enter an area with out bending over. Such layout enhancements may be of interest to many of us but we have no idea of how to go about it. I think something about fascia, layout skirting, backdrops (both installation and how to paint your own), storage, lighting would deserve some interest. Nothing real technical, KISS methodology works best for me. Resin/plaster casting and mold making. I know 3-D is out there but it can get a bit pricey. I'm sure others will have other subjects that I have not thought of.

Mark B.

 

[SeeYou190]

Whimsy, alternate-universes, fantasy, sci-fi, steampunk, and nonsense.

We need a lot more fun in our reading.

-Kevin

[danmerkel]

Personally I'd like to see articles like those written by the late Art Curren. Art's buildings were unique , rther easy to build and Art always had a story to go with them. 

Frankly, I'm not impressed by articles featuring basement-sized layouts that were in many cases, built by someone else other than the owner. Track plans don'e do much for me either. i already have my track plan and there are tons of track plan books out there for those who don't yet know what they want.

I'm guessing that many of us have layouts that are in progress and can always use articles that will help us add to them. nothing beats a good kitbash or ideas to repurpose an existing structure.

dlm

[Overmod]

Articles on trackwork.  Proper superdetail and weathering of track elements, including tie and fishplates and low rail joints, and perhaps trompe l'oeil shadow under the railhead to simulate the effect of sunlight and shade there.

An article like the one on transition spiraling many years ago, including the compressed template for model practice.  Discussion of what sort of compression of superelevation and management of vertical transitions ought to be 'common knowledge' for the community.

An article on the original and evolved versions of track gleaming, including the metallurgical discussion of different alloys and fabrications used in different types of track, the effect of different top-dressings, how to check surface quality and clean properly -- including inaccessible track locations.  Etc.

Of course there may be little call for the level of detail and illustration involved, which is much better provided in pause-and-review high-definition video.  There's certainly a place for printed articles, including those that can be copied and then read under the layout in uncertain light, too.

I'd love to see a series on steam superdetail -- there was one many years ago, on how to make all your piping prototypical, but it did not (as I recall) have the breadth and depth of detail seen in actual practice over the years.  I don't think there is that much interest here in how the prototype actually works as there is in getting the rivets and the lines reasonably correct.  But it helps to know how it works, and how it might get damaged or abused and then fixed, when detailing or weathering a model.  I have yet to see very many examples of proper weathering involving boiler operation and maintenance (and problems therewith!)

Where much of this stuff needs to live is with the NMRA or other organizations, not a for-profit magazine with dubious search availability.  Whether they do that in part by linking to subsidized content is their option.  But there needs to be one place where a search for answers can start without redundancy or mystery.  This forum has too many threads and too little search-engine navigation sense to be that one first place.  Hopefully some of the issues will be fixed by the end of stage 3.

[dstarr]

The part of model railroading that I enjoy is modeling stuff.  So I like articles showing stuff that could be modeled, rolling stock, structures, trackwork, scenery, etc.  Photographs, some prototype history, good drawings with dimensions, prototype colors, owning roads, date first built, date last one scrapped.  I miss the old Paint Shop.  I like kitbashing articles, I do a bit of kit bashing.  I like scratch building articles, I do a bit of scratch building.  Those layout tour articles would be more interesting if they talked about how the benchwork got built, how the layout got wired, how the track plan come about.  

[doctorwayne]

gregc

"what type of magazine articles would interest you that you rarely see?".

Sheldon's offering on trucks and wheels is certainly noteworthy, but since it's here rather than in a magazine, those of us who value the information can simply click and copy it for future reference.

I was very late to subscribe to model railroading magazines, but for many years bought them at the many hobbyshops that used to be in this area.  They included Model Railroader, Railroad Model Craftsman, Trains, Classic Trains, and Mainline Modeler.

RMC was always my favourite for its how-to articles, and the fact that they included an annual index of articles, too, while MR was noted for its photos.  I was a big fan of Mainline Modeler, too, but tended to cherry-pick the ones I bought, as they were considerably more expensive.  The drawings in Mainline Modeler were a big draw for me.
I eventually bought a subscription to RMC, but cancelled it a year-or-so after White River took over, as it lacked the depth of information for the eras in which I had interest.

I had MRs from the mid-'50s to 2004, and RMC from 1970 to 2018.  I gave my MR collection to a friend in Ottawa, and most of my Trains magazines to another friend in British Columbia...fortunately, both were able to pick them up.

I should probably thin-out what's left, and donate it to someone nearby, as it would cost a fortune to mail it to somebody that's not within less than a day's drive.

Wayne

[RR_Mel]

I really got into model railroading in the early 50s and I was really into building kits of all kinds.  Didn’t make much difference what kind of kit it was it was the construction, just making something that looked nice did it for me.

I stayed with kit building until the early 2000s when I bought a laser cut kit and after looking at the goodies in that kit said to myself “I can do that”.

I had lots of computer CAD experience getting into CAD in the early 80s so I worked at drawing up the basic walls as such and made HO scale templates of the parts in the kit.  I cut out the paper walls and taped them together and I was into scratch building.

Mainline Modeler had articles on scratch building and reading those helped me to get into scratch building.  With Mainline Modeler gone it would be nice to see articles like those.

I found a great site with floor plans that I have drawn up to HO scale on my CAD then scratch built them.

http://www.antiquehome.org/  Click on House Plans, hundreds of floor plans.

I would like to see articles for first timers into scratch building, I didn’t think I could ever build any thing that would nice enough to put on my layout and wasted many years not scratch building.
Here is a link to a scratch build post on my blog
https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2017/09/september-1-2017-hickory-house-scratch.html



Mel
 
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951


My Model Railroad    
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
 
Bakersfield, California
 
Aging is not for wimps.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

danmerkel

 

Frankly, I'm not impressed by articles featuring basement-sized layouts that were in many cases, built by someone else other than the owner. 

dlm

 

That is an interesting assumption. Which seems to indicate some sort of bias not based in available facts.

I'm getting started on a "basement-sized" layout, without any paid or volunteer help. It will fill 1500 sq ft, the track plan you are not intertested in is posted in a thread on this forum.

I built the last one that filled a 1000 sq ft room without any help.

I'm a little too "fussy" to accept much help.......

I can get in my car and drive to a dozen or more 1000 to 2000 sq ft layouts less than 20 minutes away, and while some owners had some help from fellow modelers (including my help), most all represent primarily the efforts of their owners.

I have met a great number of modelers, and visited a great many layouts here in the Mid Atlantic region, and many are "basement filling" since basements are rather common here.

I am not aware of one that was not primarily the work of its owner, with some help from a few of his buddies.

And I do find it interesting that you would assume that a layout in a magazine article was not built by it's owner without some evidence to support that belief.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Mark B

The new RMC has a very detailed article on building an access gate to bridge a doorway opening. It's something I've been contemplating for some time. Not only to access some unused area but allows us "seasoned citizens" to enter an area with bending over. Such layout enhancements may be of interest to many of us but we have no idea of how to go about it. I think something about fascia, layout skirting, backdrops (both installation and how to paint your own), storage, lighting would deserve some interest. Nothing real technical, KISS methodology works best for me. Resin/plaster casting and mold making. I know 3-D is out there but it can get a bit pricey. I'm sure others will have other subjects that I have not thought of.

Mark B.

 

 

Me too, I have been considering something like that for my new layout. That article was a like a proof of concept for me that allowed me to finish the design of my own access gate.

Sheldon

[riogrande5761]

danmerkel

Frankly, I'm not impressed by articles featuring basement-sized layouts that were in many cases, built by someone else other than the owner. Track plans don'e do much for me either. i already have my track plan and there are tons of track plan books out there for those who don't yet know what they want.

I couldn't disagree more.  The vast majority of basement layout articles I've read were not built by someone other than the owner.  I've read many articles over the years.  The only one I can think of off hand was an article about a guy who got a company to come in and build his layout.  There were probably some who had help, but they still designed and built their own.

As for track plans, I eagerly look to see track plans in articles.  It has given me idea's on how to design layouts myself.  

[rrebell]

An artical on weathering rolling stock step by step without an airbrush by someone who accually knows what they are doing. 

[hornblower]

I would like to see more articles on structure building, especially scratch built structures.

I have also enjoyed the "Staff" competitions where each staff member builds their own version of a "project."

I also like to see articles about how a modeler dealt with a particular problem on their layout.

[BigDaddy]

I'm not convinced that Rod Stewart built all of his layout, but it has a cool factor.  Some of the authors give credit to friend who helped wire, build structures or lay track.  I'm not a big 2000 sq ft layout kind of guy.

How to articles, where there are 10 pictures the size of two postage stamps aren't helpful.

There is the problem of being relevant to both new modelers and long term subscribers.  If you are a newbie you will really enjoy how to weather a freight car with pastels or powders if you've never seen it.  If you've been around for a while, you've seen 5 or 10 of those articles.

I belong to an organization, whose topic is banned here, but it has some associations with the Bill of Rights and their monthly publication has stuff from WW1, stuff from WW2, stuff from Vietnam, stuff from Iran, stuff from the Revolutionary war, and then they find new authors to rehash all that stuff year in and year out.  Their magazine isn't worth reading anymore.

MRVP had a brief series of the staff building the same Walthers model.  I enjoyed it, but how often can they do that?   None of the iterations would have fit my layout.

[selector]

We do all realize that the magazine staff need US to generate all these articles.....right?  I can't disagree with any proposals, biases, interests, or preferences posted above my own post; they're all legitimate opinions, and they all indicate that if such things were to appear, the magazine could look forward to some appreciation of the effort of publishing it.  But, they can't do it all.  I know, I know...somebody always says this.  But, it's true.

I would like to see how-to articles on lineside details, weathering of 'bout anything, especially the ballast and tracks, how to make truly realistic forest canopies (and any accompanying photos have to walk the walk...!). 

Would ALL yards have extensive cinder coverage/spillage, or just those where the practice was de rigueur? 

How would one model a track pan on a small/mid/large layout?

An article on uncoupling setups would be welcome about now.

I think the hobby is large enough, with enough new releases, that several items could be trialed and evaluated each issue.  This would include the mats, corn rows, fencing, switch machines, rolling stock, scenery materials of other kinds, glues, lubes, heck, I could go on for a while.

Someone who KNOWS they're good with scenicking and using the flocking and ground foam could generate a two or three part series with lots of photos on what goes where, and why, and how to put it down so that it looks decent.

How does one paint a good backdrop if one doesn't want to use wallpaper types?  Or, how does one create a realistic sky above a mountain range?

How does one create the illusion of distance over successive mountain/hill ranges or peaks using tinted paints to generate the obscuring/blueing/haze?  Is an air brush necessarily going to be the best bet?

[emdmike]

Ones on modeling traction, both older ie interurbans and street railways and modern light rail that is very much a part of many urban land scapes around the globe.  More exposure might encourage more modeling or companies to offer models of modern light rail(which is larger ignored outside of Kato Unitram and Tomy N scale products).   Yet you seldome see any traction articles in Model Railroader.  But traction modeling lends itself to small spaces with its very tight curves and smaller equipment.  With many younger modelers living in apartments and inner city dewelings, small space layouts should be a focus and push by the magazines to help move the hobby forward.  Not all modelers have that house in the burbs with a big basement or spare room.  

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

BigDaddy

I'm not convinced that Rod Stewart built all of his layout, but it has a cool factor.  Some of the authors give credit to friend who helped wire, build structures or lay track.  I'm not a big 2000 sq ft layout kind of guy.

I know some of the people who helped Rod Stewart with his layout.

One is a known industry professional, the other, now retired, was once in the electronics side of the this industry supplying various electronic items. This second person manufactured my custom circuit boards for my advanced cab control based on schematics I provided.

He also provided electronics for Rod's layout. He got that opportunity thru the first not to be named industry professional because I introduced the two of them regarding another modeling project, then later Rod contacted that first individual for his services.

None of us do this completely alone, but very few simply get a checkbook out......

As for 2000 sq ft layouts, or even my soon to be underway 1500 sq ft layout, there is an opening statement and discussion in my thread which contains my trackplan about layout size vs layout complexity.

I understand those who don't want a big layout.

But size and complexity are separate ideas, and we all have different goals.

I will use my classic example - an 8 track doubled ended classification yard 24' long is no more complex than an 8 track double ended classification yard 12' long.

And the 24' long yard is only slightly more expensive to build - but it will support dramaticly more realistic train lengths.

So if you see more space as requiring that you build two 12' long yards rather than one bigger yard, you are right, you don't need a bigger layout and you may be shooting yourself in the foot with a bigger layout.

Sheldon  

[Colorado Ray]

gregc

what types of articles would you be interested in seeing?

 

 

I'd like to see more layout visits and associated track plans.   There are many fabulous layouts out there that aren't getting any press.  GMR is good, but there are even better layouts.  My favorite forum posts are the layout build threads.  You get "invested" in following the builder's progress.  

Ray

[gregc]

reading these replies has given me a different perspective on the value of today's magazines and why i think their decline is inevitable.  

as i originally suggested, most agreed with how-to articles.   but as others suggested, such information may not be easily accessible by modelers without subscriptions and would be better posted on more public or less commercial (NMRA) web sites.   Also the suggestions that magazine staff may not be qualified and "we" need to write those articels as Sheldon did suggests magazine staff may not be able to provide such articles.

i don't believe the magazine had such limitations in Linn Westcott's day.  back then it was a primary source of information and we were fortunate that  Westcott had the technical background to write significant articles are many aspects of the hobby

so i'm starting to think of today's magazine as more of entertainment, more for reading about the hobby than as a source of technical (from benchwork and scenery to electronics and operations) information.    back in the day, if you wanted to learn about model railoading you bought magazines.   today you do a google search and are unfortunately flooded with information.

i'm impressed with the size, scope and concepts of the few basement size layouts i see.    i don't believe those modelers are inspired by what they read in today's commercial magazines.   several of them are NMRA members and i believe the NMRA has a magazine (?).   (i need to ask them).

i wonder where this and many other hobbies will be in the future and how the internet is affecting all of us.

 

[SeeYou190]

gregc

I think their decline is inevitable.  

I do not think it cannot be avoided for all magazines.

Magazines can control their content 100%, so the editorial staff can create something truly magnificent with personality.

What they need to do is keep the magazine something we look forward to receiving in our mailbox every month.

I can honestly say that I look forward to Fine Scale Modeler more than I do Model Railroader now. Fine Scale Modeler is just more fun to read through, and always enjoyable.

I would think RMC is the real test. This magazine lacks all personality and fun. It is an effort to read through, and I dislike the editorial style.

It tries to present factual information devoid of all fun and flair. This is what the internet excels at. All that boring stuff in RMC can be found in a web search.

I believe that magazines that will demise are the ones with cold personality where their content can be found elsewhere easily.

I expect that if magazines become "episodes" of something entertaining, they will continue to be viable. They need to be enjoyable, entertaining, and fun to spend time with.

Just my , and that is all it is really worth.

-Kevin

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Greg, yes the NMRA has a magazine, the content is pretty good, but the volume of content is limited.

More later, busy earning train money.

Sheldon

[Doughless]

dstarr

The part of model railroading that I enjoy is modeling stuff.  So I like articles showing stuff that could be modeled, rolling stock, structures, trackwork, scenery, etc.  Photographs, some prototype history, good drawings with dimensions, prototype colors, owning roads, date first built, date last one scrapped.  I miss the old Paint Shop.  I like kitbashing articles, I do a bit of kit bashing.  I like scratch building articles, I do a bit of scratch building.  Those layout tour articles would be more interesting if they talked about how the benchwork got built, how the layout got wired, how the track plan come about.  

 

Agreed.  Generally, scratchbuilding structures to accurately scaled dimensions is a bit beyond my interest, but your general ideas of MR articles going maybe one step deeper into how things were built is spot on.

With accurate RTR models being produced these days, the notion of building your own specific loco or car has kind of lost its importance.

But structures are different.  Simply plopping an as-built kit structure into a layout is not often possible because of its dimensions.  That aspect of the hobby hasn't changed from the 1960's, so articles about how to modify or kitbash an existing kit should be a fairly frequnet topic for the magazine, IMO.

Also, more depth into the benchwork, wiring, layout planning would be appreciated.  Doing so would probably add a full page of text to the mag and give it a more robust and comprehensive feel.

Its kind of been dwindling in terms of substance and seems to rely upon hitting the high splashy points.

And the Railroads You Can Model articles were always interesting.  There are plenty of shortlines around that could be the basis of an article or project layout.  

MR seems to rely upon articles written by readers.  But I would think it would not be too difficult for a staff memeber to pick out a RR, arrange meetings with a willing RR, and spend a few nights in a motel to put together the interviews, research, and a cab ride to gather some good information for an article.  Maybe the Kalmbach expense accounts don't allow that kind of thing.

 

[Outsailing86]

I liked the RR you can model or Industry you could model. 

Another good article was taking a 4x8 and modifying it for an around the room layout. Steve Otte published it a few years ago. I think more layouts like that. What can you do in a room? I liked the track planning contests. 

More about operations... For example, would you dispatch a local from the yard to work the quarry? Or was that done as part of the short road train work? And why? 

[PM Railfan]

" considering the interest in Sheldon's post on truck wheels, would there be an interest in such articles in a magazine? "

 

Id say so. You said it yourself - 'the interest in his post'. I though it was well written and very informative. Put me down as interested.

 

PMR

 

[Pantherphil]

Some of my favorite articles are models based on actual railroad locations.  I recall an article on the old Steamtown  roundhouse and engine facility in Brattleboro VT that I built in N scale and another on the St Lawrence and Atlantic where the modeler selectively recreated actual locations from Portland Maine to Danville Junction (now discontinued) and points north.

[danmerkel]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

And I do find it interesting that you would assume that a layout in a magazine article was not built by it's owner without some evidence to support that belief.

On many occasions, I have seen pictorials of layouts that have been professionally built for their owners. My only point is that it takes away from those like you who have built your own.

dlm

[hardcoalcase]

danmerkel

Frankly, I'm not impressed by articles featuring basement-sized layouts that were in many cases, built by someone else other than the owner. Track plans don'e do much for me either. i already have my track plan and there are tons of track plan books out there for those who don't yet know what they want.

dlm   

I'm in a different camp on this.  Getting a peek at other track plans, regardless of size, era, theme, or who planned them or built them, these are clearly my favorite articles.  My own layout plan has evolved over decades, virtually all the many aspects of which, were first seen in the pages of MR.  While I'm well into my "last layout", and "ain't no way I'm gonna make" any significant modifications, I still enjoy seeing new and different approaches to layout design.  

But as an early c.1900's modeler, articles on detailing diesel locos... these you can do less of...    

Camelbacks rule... diesels drool!

Jim

[hardcoalcase]

But to the point of what I'd like to see more of... 

Articles about different rail-served industries, how they work, the basic description of the processing, what do they receive and ship out, and what type of rail cars and special handling provisions are involved.

There could be a series of articles on each industry on how these factors have changed over the span of railroad time. 

There are recent publications detailing the coal and steel industries, but how about some other themes such as leather tanning, pickling, meat processing, textiles, regional industries such as lumber, cranberrys, cotton, specific minerals, seafood, agricultural co-ops, on and on.

Jim

[hon30critter]

I like articles about scratchbuilding and kit bashing. I love to see other people's creative talents.

Dave

[blackpowder1956]

I would guess that a lot of us are capable of writing a good article. Whether or not MR decided to publish it is another question. Certainly they should be capable of determining if the readership wants to read such an article. Not to sound crass, but does MR pay for the rights to publish an article? This could be an incentive to get off our collective duff to photograph, write, and hopefully publish. If that is already the case it needs to be out there and advertised. I would add that I read more useful stuff on this forum than I do in the magazine. That is unfortunate for MR. The magazine could be much better, more like it was in the 1980's. Perhaps the contributions of readership and forum members are the way forward to how it could be.

 

[hon30critter]

blackpowder1956

I would guess that a lot of us are capable of writing a good article. Whether or not MR decided to publish it is another question. Certainly they should be capable of determining if the readership wants to read such an article. Not to sound crass, but does MR pay for the rights to publish an article? This could be an incentive to get off our collective duff to photograph, write, and hopefully publish. If that is already the case it needs to be out there and advertised. I would add that I read more useful stuff on this forum than I do in the magazine. That is unfortunate for MR. The magazine could be much better, more like it was in the 1980's. Perhaps the contributions of readership and forum members are the way forward to how it could be.

Well said!!!

The MR people need to expand their use of available opportunities. They should be actively soliciting new material. They need to do a lot less navel gazing.

Dave

["JaBear"]

OK, firstly I should state that this is a good topic for discussion but while Sheldon’s post on wheels and trucks was well researched, concise, and personally useful, the question is; would I buy a magazine on the strength of it' and continuing similar articles? 

 

I don’t find any of the suggestions of what contributors would like to see unworthy, but I must admit that I agree with doctorwaynes assessment that articles/threads/posts that are available on the internet, if they are of particular interest to me, I can copy, paste, and store on my own computer. (I must admit that having the Model Railroader 75 Anniversary Collection, and having had access to RMC and other magazines at the club, I have several folders of photocopied future things to do, one day(??))

 

However, it is apparent that some contributors to this thread, did not read selectors post;

“We do all realize that the magazine staff need US to generate all these articles.... right?”

 

So, here’s the link…

https://www.trains.com/mrr/magazine/contributor-guidelines/

…  sharpen those pencils, clean the camera lens, and think productive thoughts instead of useless, and unhelpful bellyaching!

 

At the risk of repeating myself IMO, this is a worthy topic, thanks Greg.

Cheers, the Bear.

[pav]

I'd like to see more articles about modern rail served industries that don't take up a lot of real estate and that utilize a variety of rolling stock.

[gregc]

i'm trying to tie comments together

 

SeeYou190

I can honestly say that I look forward to Fine Scale Modeler more than I do Model Railroader now.

seems that many are interested in articles on building models of structures

presumably Fine Scale Modeler is more successful because it does just that, focuses on building models of structures.  i assume it doesn't cover layout design and other aspects of model railroading.

 

blackpowder1956

I would guess that a lot of us are capable of writing a good article. Whether or not MR decided to publish it is another question.

Certainly they should be capable of determining if the readership wants to read such an article.

i'm curious how many MR articles were written by non-staff in Linn Westcott's day.   does anyone know?

while several say they like layout/track plan articles, could they be sacrificed to make room for other types of articles, or is it just too expedient (easy) to publish yet another or two layout articles from repeat non-staff authors.  (I submitted one years ago)

perhaps those layout articles implicitly describe alternate design and construction methods.   instead of an article on a specific type of benchwork construction, what about one on various types of benchwork?  how about an article about different type of bridges?

 

hardcoalcase

Articles about different rail-served industries, how they work, the basic description of the processing, what do they receive and ship out, and what type of rail cars and special handling provisions are involved.

they have a model railroad, but they don't model a raiload

i assume many will be offended by this comment.   of course a layout can serve a number of purposes.   i think John Allen used his orignal layout as a backdrop for photographs with finely detailed structures and scenery.    i believe (i asked) a large number of modelers are more interested in building a layout, model structures and scenery than running trains, while others just want to run trains.

but shouldn't a magazine called "Model Railroader" be about modeling a railroad.   i am puzzled by one large layout that runs trains between staging.    but i didn't get the idea of "modeling a railroad" until i saw another layout that is a station, yard, industrial area and staging, and more about trains coming from distance cities, being broken up and returning and service many local industries.

since then i've seen other layouts designed with the intent of modeling a railroad and not just running trains.   and fortunately i'm helping build these layouts.

with the thought of "modeling a railroad", i can overlook the shortcomings of a model railroad magazine covering the more technical aspects i'm fond of.   but the magazine needs to do this.

 

this discussion is helping me refine my understanding of the hobby, how its media presence is changing and my expectations (maybe even joining the NMRA)

["JaBear"]

gregc

im curious how many MR articles were written by non-staff in Linn Westcott's day.   does anyone know?

Out of curiosity, I had a look in the MR 75 Anniversary Collection, and came up with the following.

Linn Westcott became editor of Model Railroader with the February 1961 issue.

 

Not counting the regular features like Trade Topics, Trackside Photos, Kinks, etc, for his first year in charge, the MR staff were responsible for 19 articles, 63 were submitted by “Readers”.

 

Of course, I’m going to claim a 3% margin of error with my figures but…

 

It getting past my bedtime, but if it’s another rubbish weather day, I may look at some other years.

Cheers, the Bear.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Greg, in the interest of space I'm not going to quote all or part of your latest post, just make a few comments.

I find it interesting that apparently you are trying to define the hobby. This is a very abstract hobby, who's ultimate definition exists in the mind of the individual.

I imbrace the hobby from a lot of different perspectives, but have no problem skipping over the parts that do not interest me, and likewise embracing some aspects others don't consider important.

I almost hate to say some of this, at the risk of sounding arrogant.

I have been at this since age 10, I'm 64 now, and as a teen embraced the idea of modeling "one place" and the coming and going from that place rather than trying to model the origin and destination of a railroad system.

After all, unless we are the train crew, we see railroading from one place.........

Being the train crew is just one model railroad experience, not necessarily my favorite railroad experience.....

All aspects of the industries that support this hobby are very challenged right now to understand and supply the needs of their customers.

I often feel the model press works too hard trying to define or steer the hobby, but that could be a false impression on my part?

Good or bad I will continue to buy MR and RMC, and will continue to support the NMRA, because in the BIG picture it is good for the hobby and good for my participation in the hobby.

And if some issues offer little or no useful info as it applies to me, so what? My approach and goals are unique.

Maybe when I have more time, I will submit and article or two......

Sheldon

[gregc]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

I find it interesting that apparently you are trying to define the hobby.

define the hobby?

i am trying to understand what to expect from today's (vs Linn Westcott's) version of Model Railroader and other magazines, and learning what others find interesting and expect helps put that into perspective

as i said, i am seeing aspects of the hobby from the layouts i visit that i have never seen described in a magazine nor forum (once seen, seem obvious).    and each has a different concept.

i'm beginning to think the NMRA provides a more advanced perspective.    several of the modelers i know are NMRA members.   the few local (< 10 mi) meetings i've attended are about what you expect, but i'm guessing are more important about providing social contact and it's that social contact that shares ideas and make modelers aware of various aspects of the hobby.

all the layouts i'm familiar with are designed to operate in realistic ways and use various construction techniques.   current work involves building benchwork, trackwork, switch machines, (lots of) wiring and various electronics (some custom).

building model structures becomes more important when the layout is mostly complete.   but i'd bet, most MR subscribers are actively constructing a layout, laying track and wiring, and would be interested in articles about that.   Of course, there have been similar articles in the past; why another on building a structure.

***   i see the Tony Koester has an article on Freelance vs Prototype and another on Staging, in  the last couple issues of MR (july, june).   

it would be good if MR continues to publish articles like this every issue.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Ok, makes more sense now.

Yes, back in the day "layout concept" was talked about in the magazines. Not so much today from what I see.

Most people I know who have built larger layouts have their own clear concept, which yes, they did learn thru contact with other modelers. 

They also generally don't build their layouts to rigid construction "process". That is all the benchwork and track first, then all the wiring, then scenery then structures, etc.

Most are build in phases, one section is build "nearly" complete, allowing them to be engaged in all aspects of the construction process at once, and to get at least some part running early.

So I would think a great many modelers are always interested in a wide range of information.

I own a lot of "information". I have MR and RMC back into the 50's and 60's, and as we have discussed before, I don't think much of that info becomes totally obsolete. 

I still say the hobby will continue to become more diverse, and that will be a big challenge for publishers and manufacturers.

But here is what I have not gotten into personally, I don't watch videos as a general rule.

One, I learned how to read, two, most of them are slow and boring with too much fluff, just like most of the fluff articles in MR these days.

I don't want an article, or book, that tells me I can use computers to run my signals, I want an article that spells out exactly what to do. Just like when Bruce Chubb and Ed Ravenscroft wrote electronics articles decades ago.

Sheldon

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

One more thought, maybe the next thread I start should be one defining and categorizing different layout concepts...........

My layout concept is pretty well explained in my track plan thread........ others make different choices.

Sheldon

[IRONROOSTER]

I like layout articles.  While I read them all, my favorites are larger than a 4x8 and smaller than a one car garage. 

I also like to see articles on model building using simple tools.  No power tools except maybe a Dremel - no laser cutter, airbrush, lathe, etc.

I would love to see articles on safer modeling like safe soldering, alternatives to soldering, safer glues, paints, etc.

My current layout (and maybe last if I don't move again) is 10.5x30.  It's a point to point shortline (Maryland and Pennsylvania RR prototype), I have room to expand it, but at 74 I'll be happy just to get this much operational with some scenery.

MR is and has always been my favorite, but I have subscribed to RMC and been a member of the NMRA since 1972. 

Paul

["JaBear"]

gregc

i'm curious how many MR articles were written by non-staff in Linn Westcott's day.   does anyone know?

An update.

1962-63. Staff, 12 articles. Readers, 95 articles.

1963-64. Staff, 17 articles. Readers, 74 articles.

1964-65. Staff, 19 articles, Readers, 72 articles.

 

1965-66. Staff, 27 articles. Readers, 58 articles.

1966-67, Staff, 16 articles. Readers, 68 articles.

1967-68. Staff, 21 articles. Readers, 77 articles.

1968-69. Staff, 27 articles. Readers, 76 articles.

[DrW]

I like the product reviews, but I wish they were more critical, as in past times. What about comparative reviews? Test all models of a certain prototype currently on the market side-by-side. I am aware that the magazine is not "Consumer Reports", but depends on its advertisers and should avoid to annoy them. However, many for-profit magazines in other areas are able to walk this fine line. And you can express your criticism positively ("While the 'company A' F3/F7 is the prototypically most correct, the 'company B' has the better sound" .)

[MisterBeasley]

I would like to see a few pages on grade crossing gates and signals.  No one, to my knowledge, makes anything better than a small, local crossing that basically is just a single track crossing that activates when a train is directly over it.  All the components are available, but no one puts them together.

I have built a pair of crossing protection systems, one just crossbucks and one a set of gates.  I used optical sensors, a commercial circuit and commercial signals.

I researched every component, bought them, assembled them and wired them up.  But, many modelers don't have my stubborn patience.

[MisterBeasley]

As it happened, my latest issue of MR arrived the other day.  As usual, I thumbed through it first, with this thread in mind.  There was one basement sized layout, and it was in N scale.  There was an article which built a plastic kit, basically exactly as it was designed, paying attention to using an airbrush, basically just to have something to do with an airbrush.  There were a couple of philosophy articles.  The whole magazine seemed kind of thin.  There were two full pages pushing the newly monetized online stuff.

What would I like to see?  Imagination.  That is a large part of the hobby.  We see ourselves mirrored in our layouts.  We see ourselves in the Transition Era, or the Steam Age.  This month, the best photography was in the few pages of Trackside Photos, those pages devoted to user-submitted photos of their own layouts.  None of the staff photoshoots came close.

Stop being so dang corporate and go back to having fun playing with trains.  MR has lost its way and needs to get back on track.

[Steven Otte]

There's a sentence that I've typed so many times that I've put it in a draft e-mail so I can just copy and paste it: "Model Railroader magazine could not exist without the contributions of modelers like you."

When I came to MR almost 14 years ago, we had 8-1/2 people on staff (one split his time with another magazine). Now we are five, and all of us also have responsibilities with other publications. Which means that we rely more than ever on our reader-contributors to provide the content that makes up our magazine. 

Which is to say: If you want to see a particular kind of article in the magazine, write it. Or find someone who knows more about the topic than you do to write it. We can select submitted articles, we can solicit article submissions, we can suggest topics people might submit. But we can't publish an article if nobody submits it.

We do what we can to fill in the gaps with regular departments like Rehab My Railroad (formerly Step By Step). But we can't generate most of our content in-house any more. Those days are gone. Want to see a particular kind of article in the magazine? Write it. Not a writer? Send us a Trackside Photo. Not a writer or a photographer? Ask a friend who is. Seriously. Please. We would be more than glad to publish the kind of articles you want to read. But we can't publish the article nobody writes.

[NorthBrit]

Steven Otte

There's a sentence that I've typed so many times that I've put it in a draft e-mail so I can just copy and paste it: "Model Railroader magazine could not exist without the contributions of modelers like you."   ------------------

 

 

That answer pulled no punches.      Thanks.

I like it.

Would an article from a UK modeler modeling  a UK layout make the MR pages?

Ermmmmm!!   I'll give it a go.   

 

David

 

[York1]

Steven Otte, thanks!  Your comment is something that I did not know.

We have a lot of expert modelers on this forum.  I hope that some of them consider your suggestion.

[NVSRR]

Mr. otte.  I am reminded of a true statement that for every person that says something,  there is a vastly large number that think but do not say it.   With that in mind, may I suggest that a shortened version of your post be created and published monthly on the first page to remind readers in bold print that is how the magazine states afloat.   That hopefully would drum up more articles too.    And note they get paid for it.   Something to consider

 

shane

[gregc]

Steven Otte

Which means that we rely more than ever on our reader-contributors to provide the content that makes up our magazine. 

so considering the title of this thread -- what type of magazine articles would interest you that you rarely see?

i submitted one a few years ago, and that the magazine is apparently not interested in that type of article.

[Steven Otte]

gregc

i submitted one a few years ago, and that the magazine is apparently not interested in that type of article.

 

If you let one rejection stop you, that's on you.

[JDawg]

NVSRR

 And note they get paid for it.   Something to consider

 

shane

 

 

How much we taking here?Kidding, kidding.

 

Unless....

[Steven Otte]

I'm not in the loop when it comes to payments, so this is a rough guess, but the range is about $75-$100 per published page, depending on how long the contributor has been writing for us. So a typical layout visit article from a first-time contributor would be about $450-$600. If someone else shoots the photos, that amount gets split between the writer and the photographer. 

[gregc]

Steven Otte

gregc

i submitted one a few years ago, and that the magazine is apparently not interested in that type of article.

If you let one rejection stop you, that's on you.

 

just pointing out that i tried.  never got any feedback

 

gregc

Steven Otte

Which means that we rely more than ever on our reader-contributors to provide the content that makes up our magazine. 

so considering the title of this thread -- what type of magazine articles would interest you that you rarely see?

would you be couteous enough to answer my question?

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Ok Greg, you got my curiosity up, what kind of article did you write?

I could be wrong, but I don't see them publishing any of my somewhat "anti progress" pieces I post on here.

Like my recent piece on sprung/equalized trucks in an age when all but one brand freight car comes with rigid trucks. It's kind of like saying to every advertizer your product is sub par.

Or, the discussion in that thread about code 88 wheels, that whole thread is "anti industry progress" if you choose to take it that way.

Do you think that more than three readers want to read about my relay based signal system? Given the small numbers of people on this forum that express any interest in signals, no matter what kind of high tech computer gismo controls them, I don't see much interest in that.

OR, I could do a piece on how I put working, touching American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger equipment - and I would have to write it is such a way as to dance around all these $100 RTR passenger cars with two foot scale gaps between the diaphragms.....

Just ask Steve, which of these articles would he like me to submit?

Maybe after the layout is well underway, I can do a piece on the layout, and bring up the topics noted above............

Sheldon 

[leewal]

I would love to see an article, or series of aticles, on manufacturing a " brand new" steam locomotive from the concept, through the process, to when the loco ends up on my layout and the amount of time it took to get there. 

[York1]

How about an article that is for Arduino beginners?  If you look online or on Youtube, there are lots of articles that claim they're for beginners, but within minutes they are into things that require some electronic knowledge, and the pictures usually have the person's hands blocking the view of the wiring.

I guess it would be a good article for me and a small group of interested readers to have an article, with lots of pictures, that is truly for beginners.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Greg, earlier in this thread, you expressed an idea I wanted to explore more.

"they have a model railroad, but they don't model a raiload"

And you made a related observation:

"all the layouts i'm familiar with are designed to operate in realistic ways and use various construction techniques.   current work involves building benchwork, trackwork, switch machines, (lots of) wiring and various electronics (some custom)."

I was not offened in any way, as you feared some might, but the meaning of the first statement requires we define "modeling" or "model railroading".

One definition of the word "modeling" would negate the statement. "modeling" is the process of building a model, in this case a scale model of trains and their related scenic features. Having a model railroad, that you more or less built yourself, would statisfy the second - you have modeled a railroad.

The statement therefor seems to assume value in things like prototype operating sessions, historical accuracy, etc. If we go down that road, we quickly get into the dreaded "who is a REAL model railroader" topic. No thank you.

I would submit that it is impossible for any of us to model "everything" about railroading. So if I build a "display" layout with no sidings or industries, or in the case of my new layout, design a layout so that one of its operational formats can be like a museum display, am I still not modeling one aspect of real railroading? The over the line travel of mainline trains thru the country side?

Next point/question.

ALL the layouts you are familiar with? You don't know anybody with model trains who is more "casual" about the hobby?

Based on my earlier analysis of your first statement, who gets to decide if a layouts operational scheme is realistic enough?

We touched on the idea of modeling a single place and the comings/goings/activity at that place. Even if that place fills a basement.

I find that very realistic, some do not.

I found Tony Koester's article in the latest MR very good on this point, making good arguments for both prototype and freelance/protolance modeling without suggesting one is "better" than the other.

Based on your own comments, it seems you would like to see more "modeling philosophy" articles, exploring "why", as we have talked about.....

The beginning of my track plan thread explains my "why" pretty well, the re-write will have wait until I build the layout and submit the layout article.

Sheldon

 

[Doughless]

To Sheldon's point, and to Greg's, it would be helpful to know what articles interest MR.  And what type of content would be more likley to get published.  As others said, maybe a sticky on this forum would be helpful.

I get the layout tour articles, and maybe that's the main way readers contribute, but there are many other topics.

The style of writing is sometimes a bit different, and advertisers and financial supporters of the mag is not something the average reader contributor is going to think about when writing an article.

The July MR has a wonderful article by Cody Grivno on building a freelanced industry, Cargill Salt.  Part of the Rehab my Railroad series which I find to be a nice addition.

Its basically a kitbashing article. However, I noticed that it seemed to go a bit out of the way to pepper the names of manufacturers of hobby products where the content of the task didn't seem to have to go that far.  Painting a small roof vent a specific kind of gray paint from Tamiya seemed a bit obvious way to get a name in there. JMO.

Its fine.  I get it.  And I support the mag giving a shout out to all hobby companies that contributed to the project. Its just that the average contributor would not think about that extensive of a product list when they would write an article.  Would it get rejected for something like that?  

I don't notice if Pelle Soeburg or others do that.   

[gregc]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Ok Greg, you got my curiosity up, what kind of article did you write?

it was around the time MR published an article on controlling signals(?) using an Arduino that i thought didn't explain the code nor hardware very well and they posted the code as a pdf which meant it couldn't be dropped into an IDE.

i submitted an article (2018) describing how to build an NCE Compatible Cab using an Arduino.   after being asked if it could be built for < $100, (i figured $15), this was the final response from Harold Miller

It’s not a question of interest, it’s a question of space. Right now I’m sitting on three other stories that use arduinos. I’d say if you want to see it published in the next 24 months, please shop it around.

not sure i've seen many MR articles on arduinos since that one and came away with the impression that anything written might take years before published

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

gregc

 

 

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Ok Greg, you got my curiosity up, what kind of article did you write?

 

 

it was around the time MR published an article on controlling signals(?) using an Arduino that i thought didn't explain the code nor hardware very well and they posted the code as a pdf which meant it couldn't be dropped into an IDE.

i submitted an article (2018) describing how to build an NCE Compatible Cab using an Arduino.   after being asked if it could be built for < $100, (i figured $15), this was the final response from Harold Miller

It’s not a question of interest, it’s a question of space. Right now I’m sitting on three other stories that use arduinos. I’d say if you want to see it published in the next 24 months, please shop it around.

not sure i've seen many MR articles on arduinos since that one and came away with the impression that anything written might take years before published

 

Thanks for answering.

I made the comment earlier about lack of technical depth these days. I think the Iphone generation is not interested in technical depth - until they finally set their mind to something - then they just want to ring it up on the web.

I think this is a real challenge for the magazines.

Having programed early (very early - 1980?) PLC's, I get the Arduino concept, but have not bothered to learn anything about them. BUT, I would read a good in depth beginner article - just to know.

For me it fun to use old fashioned tech to build signals for my 1950's period layout.

The layout represents the preservation of history both above and below the bench work....

Sheldon

[gregc]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

but the meaning of the first statement requires we define "modeling" or "model railroading".

whatever we build is a model railroad.    but it may not be built to actually operate like a railroad.   real railroads don't run trains around in circles.

the photo is from Boomer Pete's How to Run a Model Railroad (1944) showing an O-gauge layout built on the floor of a basement.  operators would step over the track to move around the layout.

they operated by running trains on a schedule.   not sure about freight operation.   but the point is no scenery or structures are needed to model and operate a railroad.   on another forum i asked, and i found out that most modelers are interested in building models, not operation.

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

ALL the layouts you are familiar with? You don't know anybody with model trains who is more "casual" about the hobby?

no actually.   all the modelers i know are from a club.   i was actually taken by richhotrains comment about just wanting to see trains running and not interesting in having others over to have an operating session.   it made me think a little more about automation, an oppotunity to build intelligence into the layout

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

We touched on the idea of modeling a single place and the comings/goings/activity at that place. Even if that place fills a basement.

i'm learning that there are many ways to model a railroad.   a simple pt-to-pt is pretty minimal but realistic. 

one layout i'm familiar with models the DRG&W.   it fills a basement and model the endpoints of the RR and many of the stations and branches.  it intends to operat TT&TO.   this is a single track railroad that will require meets at siding

another models the UP with it's multitrack mainlines.   it intends to have a dispatcher controlling train movements.   not sure how much of the RR in models, but models a specific section.

another, we're actively working on and which was the most eye opening.   it's a yard, passenger station and industrial area with multiple industries, plus some other areas in new haven ... and several stacked staging yards

there's little track between staging and either the passenger station or the yard.   trains come from bayridge, maybrook, springfield and boston.   passenger trains stop a the station.   

frieghts go into the yard and broken down. cars are either switched locally or are put on trains to one of those 4 destinations.  power may need to be swapped diesels/electrics.

so there very liitle seeing trains running.    this layout is modeling one area of the new haven RR and there will be structures that match what he saw as a kid, it's really about operation

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Greg, OK, thanks for the detailed response.

I don't know if you have read my layout design thread, or would remember much of it if you read the beginning back when I first posted it.

But you and I have had other conversations.

A great many people interested in trains, or model trains, have no interest in participating in staged prototype operating sessions.

Some just like building trains and train layouts, and run them casually for their own enjoyment or for guests - who may or maynot be railfans or modelers.

Some are more interested in casual running and only build what they must to achieve that, prefering to buy RTR as much as possible - still without much interest in prototype simulation of train movements.

Some people (Me) like many different aspects from the more serious to the more casual. I have designed my layout accordingly to support different types of uses and to be a display for model building - not just models of trains, but of houses, buildings, "the model village" as it were.

I have learned that I don't want to go too deep in the weeds in any one aspect of the hobby.

Examples:

• My CTC system and signal system are simplified
• Not every piece of rolling stock needs to be a high detail completely correct model
• Commercial track is generally fine
• A little nostalgia is fun - I have models from the 50's and 60's on my layout
• I would never want a "proto" throttle - I don't want to have to turn lights on, etc
• The fiction of "protolancing" is fun - but I take the believeablity of it pretty seriously
• I like all phases of operation, but don't want to get too bogged down with rules or paperwork

Respectfully, you need to get out more. Meet some other modelers, serious and casual, see some more layouts, have some fun as Kevin would say.

My opinion - ONLY my opinion (did everybody get that?) point to point layouts fail in most cases to represent real railroads - too much space wasted on two terminals, no "run" in between.

It takes a lot of space to model the 4.5 mile long Strasburg Railroad inch for inch, how can you effectively model any larger railroad and include both "ends"?

Again just my opinon.

My new layout lets trains run in circles - but also provides support trackage for very serious "off stage" point to point modeling.

It also has an "ISL" (industrial switching layout for those not familiar) nestled inside it, that can be operated without crossing or fouling the mainline. Allowing "real" operation while the Chrsitmas Garden display trains run on the main.

My goal is "balance". Balance between prototype operation and fun display/railfan running and balance between mainline running and switching.

I think it is VERY SAD that some of the great model train layouts that have been built are not run casually, but only run for the "opps" session.

Being the "engineer" is neither my most favorite or least favorite job on the layout. Being the railroad president is by far the most favorite.....

I like the whole hobby......

Sheldon

[Doughless]

gregc

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

but the meaning of the first statement requires we define "modeling" or "model railroading".

 

 

whatever we build is a model railroad.    but it may not be built to actually operate like a railroad.   real railroads don't run trains around in circles.

the photo is from Boomer Pete's How to Run a Model Railroad (1944) showing an O-gauge layout built on the floor of a basement.  operators would step over the track to move around the layout.

they operated by running trains on a schedule.   not sure about freight operation.   but the point is no scenery or structures are needed to model and operate a railroad.   on another forum i asked, and i found out that most modelers are interested in building models, not operation.

 

 

In a conceptual sense, operating a model railroad is nothing more than solving a puzzle of how to get cars from one point to the other, in the least amount of moves of course.

The concept can be drawn out on a schematic, like and electrical circuit or a blueprint.

Once the layout is built to operate trains along the schematic, that may be all some need.  In 3D tangible, like the pic. 

The curves, loops, are just a way to fold the 3D schematic into the available space and are inconsequential to operations.  Those bridges aren't really bridges, they're just a way for mile post 50 to cross mile post 100 on the layout without trains running into each other.

"operating a model railroad is nothing more than solving a puzzle of how to get cars from one point to the other, in the least amount of moves of course."

  So, you could have fun if you were like this guy, who I could've sworn was actually Sheldon enjoying his layout.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtAqlOhUoY

 

 

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Well Douglas, that's an interesting concept, but it leaves out a lot of things I find interesting about model trains and their operation.

On my old layout, and my new layout, some trains never uncouple a single car during an opps session. 

Their acting job is just to come on stage and simulate that thru train that does not stop here.....

Others will just stop and get fresh power.

Others will deliver whole blocks of cars, and leave with different blocks of cars.

And still others will be made up from cars that have been gathered from the local industries on the belt line, and then leave the stage.

The time saver puzzle - boring.

Sheldon

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Greg, a few other thoughts.

I don't need or want automation. It goes against Charles Ketterings first rule - parts left out cost nothing and cause no service problems.

It was easy enough to design my layout so that the 420' double track mainline converts into four dedicated, none conflicting, dispay loops with the throwing of a few turnouts.

And my WESTERN MARYLAND branch also has a continious loop thru its staging, giving me five display loops.

During "serious" opps sessions, those cutoff tracks, which are shortcuts to or from staging, double as interchanges.

My signals work with or without a CTC dispatcher, so in display mode the signals will still appear to be controling the trains.

As the tains run in display mode, a single operator can "grab" one at any time and make a station stop, and in some cases redirect it, or replace it with a different train from staging.

All without any computers or little brains in the trains.

Operation does not have to be an "all or nothing" thing - so I would not want automation.

Sheldon 

[gregc]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

I don't need or want automation.

it's just another way of "running" the layout.   of course, different modelers have a different preferences for what they do with their layout from making something to run trains around to highly detailed to detailed railroad operations.

there's no reason trains can't be manually operation along with automated trains.   i think the enjoyment of an op session (regardless of type) is the satisfaction of doing something with others.    guests will have to adapt to the way the layout is "run"

it seems many MR articles are "yet another" layout tour, building a structure, detailing something, ...   of course you can see how different modelers design their layout for what they want to do with it.   the drawback is you don't see a complete range

re-staging is another way the layout is operated; a time consuming task from what i've heard and read (see tony koester, june MR) depending on the type of staging

i should note that the "On Operation" column by Jerry Dziedzic breaks this mold.   i'm note sure about DCC currents, which is presumably focused on DCC products (although the june column discussed resistance soldering).   

i imagine it's hard to come up with ideas for a column every month, but i wonder if a column on wiring/electronics wouldn't be of interest.   seems critical on the layouts i've seen from basic wiring of reverse loops, switch machines, panels, to remote sensing and control using buses to minimize wire (and confusion)

 

what puzzles me is many modelers seem more than satisfied with the magazine.   but i think it could offer more

[Doughless]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

Well Douglas, that's an interesting concept, but it leaves out a lot of things I find interesting about model trains and their operation.

On my old layout, and my new layout, some trains never uncouple a single car during an opps session. 

Their acting job is just to come on stage and simulate that thru train that does not stop here.....

Others will just stop and get fresh power.

Others will deliver whole blocks of cars, and leave with different blocks of cars.

And still others will be made up from cars that have been gathered from the local industries on the belt line, and then leave the stage.

The time saver puzzle - boring.

Sheldon

 

 

I wasn't advocating an art-less concept or the timesaver as my preference.  I was following up on Greg's concept as I understood it.

One could take this schematic

And plan an operating session for 30 trains, each  50 cars long.  The planner could have an origination and destination for each of the 1500 cars established.  Could be operated solely on computer. Figure out a plan to get them all where they belong in the most efficient way.  Have dots represent each car and move them along the system, tracking them to see how well your plan works.

Throw in a wash out somewhere, and then adjust the schedule.

You could operate a model railroad totally on computer, schematically. (But would it still be a model railroad?  Well, you're operating one, even without the 3D "model")

No actual model building.  No artsy expression.  The layout does not have to come to 3D tangible life in your basement.

That pic that Greg attached is exactly what was going on.  Total problem solving.  Puzzle solving of how to move cars through the railroad system, only capturing one small slice of the whole system.  Without scenery or structures.  No artsy fartsy bits to the layout at all.

An article could be written about the pure logic of getting cars from point A to point B, passing by each other in opposite directions, pulled by whatever combination of horsepower and tractive effort is up to the task, and is available.

It wouldn't be for everyone, but it could help to show how we can think about how to operate the layout.

 

[Doughless]

gregc

it seems many MR articles are "yet another" layout tour, building a structure, detailing something, ...   of course you can see how different modelers design their layout for what they want to do with it.   the drawback is you don't see a complete range re-staging is another way the layout is operated; a time consuming task from what i've heard and read (see tony koester, june MR) depending on the type of staging

Because the hobby is generally more visual than it is cerebral.  We are cerebral in our daily lives, and most treat the hobby as an escape.  Just my theory.

As far as staging: My layout revolves around taking cars from interchange and swapping them out at the industries along the system.  About a 15 mile system.

Various short trains do the job.  At the end of the session, when all of the cars are swapped out, the cars that started the session at the industries end up in the interchange yard.  Effectively, the layout is restaged for another swap out session.

Yes, if you model trains going from east to west and west to east, you may have to restage.  IF you use two staging yards on a purely point to point layout.

If you have a continuous big loop with one double ended staging yard, the trains essentially leave one side of the yard, appear on the layout, then disappear and return to staging from the other end, still pointed in the correct direction for the next session.  One double ended staging yard can be self-restaging.

I think that's what Sheldon is planning, which also makes it a continuous running layout and not a pure point to point layout.  Its operated like one, but the tracks are just arranged so that the two points 20 miles away (on the schematic) loop back and touch each other. 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Exactly, that is how my layout will work. The thru staging in not one big yard, but a series of small ones along the hidden part of the continuous route.

And is enhanced by a 10 track sub end staging yard on the leg of a wye - trains easily restaged by turning them on the wye.

Sheldon

[gregc]

another type of layout is just a roundhouse, associated tracks and a portion of a yard.   i had read somewhere that this type offers the most interesting operation in the least amount of space.

an outside analyst at qualcomm gives a 400 slide "survey" talk each year.   her talk makes listeners aware of what her slides include and listeners review them after the talk.    i'd be interested in a survey article that attempts to briefly describe a variety of different types of layout.   I won't say all types because who knows how many types there are

Doughless

Because the hobby is generally more visual than it is cerebral. 

while i agree many may just want to come home and watch trains run while having a beer, but i believe many are also interested in gadgetry and do want to control theire layout using tech.   (in some cases it's unavoidable, see interlocks)

 

Doughless

That pic that Greg attached is exactly what was going on.  Total problem solving.

that schematic suggests the scope of the problem.   part of the solution is the string diagram that helps determine a schedule of which trains to run when and where the "meets" are.

i think one possible goal is to have an op session where everyone knows when and what to do, everything runs smoothly, all trains run on schedule.(see Frank Ellison's "Art of Model Railroading")

i think some may think where's the fun of that, but i for one can be very satisfied when it works.  (kinda like playing a song in a band)

 it just seems there's a lot more to model railroading than i read in magazines

[Doughless]

gregc

  part of the solution is the string diagram that helps determine a schedule of which trains to run when and where the "meets" are.

I understand the concept.  Actually designing somehting like this is above my pay grade, so to speak.

I assume Gato is some sort of small terminal destination.  Maybe an interchange with a shortline, or an out and back branchline operation from Silverton (I would model that line).  The longer lines are trains traversing the entire system, and they meet where the lines cross.

Taking this into layout design.  The modeler better have a passing siding long enough where those lines cross or else a big part of the system will be shutting down.

[Steven Otte]

I thought that this thread was about what kind of articles you, the readers, want to see in the magazine. When it comes down to it, obviously we want to publish what you want to read. If we didn't, we'd soon run out of readers. So asking me what kind of stories we want you to write is kind of counterproductive. We want you to write the kind of stories you are qualified to write. If we tell you what to write and you aren't familiar with that topic, either you won't write it or you will and you'll do a bad job at it. Or my list might inadvertently leave something off that we would actually be surprised and thrilled to receive, but if you don't see it on the list you won't write it.

So I won't give you a list. But I can give you some idea of the kind of article we don't want:

• Artices that start "I've never seen this kind of article in your magazine before, but I thought you'd find it interesting." We've been in this business 88 years. If we found it interesting, we would have published something about it at least once before. (The obvious exception to this being new technology which we haven't had much opportunity to publish a story about before, like 3-D printing or the uses of an Arduino.)
• Fiction. And when I say "fiction" I'm talking about those "Let's take a ride along with Engineer Charlie Baker and the crew of the No. 6 as they work the Podunk Turn" narratives. The magazine is called Model Railroader, not Fantasy Railroader. Tell us about your layout, not the daily lives of your made-up characters.
• How-to's for something nobody does any more, like dying sawdust for ground cover, or kitbashing a locomotive that hasn't been sold for 30 years.
• Articles that show sub-par modeling, just in the interest of inclusiveness. Yes, we realize people have different levels of modeling skills, but the purpose of MR is to show readers what they *could* do and help them achieve that. Think you're not a good enough modeler? Everyone has something they're good at. If it's not modeling, it might be track planning or prototype research or operation. Write about that instead.
• Articles that belong in another publication, like Classic Toy Trains or Finescale Modeler. We're not interested in three-rail trains or detailing a Sherman tank, even if you do install it on your layout afterward.
• Articles that aren't about model railroading. I shouldn't have to say that, but you'd be surprised.
• Poetry. 'Nuff said.

And things not to do in the story we would otherwise publish:

• Shoot your photos so close-up to the locomotive that we can barely see the layout behind it.
• Forget to include the railroad in your photos at all. Yes, Mr. Seenery, it's a very pretty mountain, but where are the trains?
• Spend the first half of the article talking about the Lionel train you got for Christmas as a kid and the layout you built in high school and the layout you built before you got married and the layout you built after that. We don't care about your bona fides; we want to see your current layout.
• Send us a "how to" story with pictures that show only the finished product. People need to see how you did it in order to do it themselves. If you didn't think about writing the article until you finished the model, sorry, but you're going to have to build another one to shoot process pictures of.
• Forget to include important information like the author bio, the "Layout at a Glance" box, or the photo captions. You've all seen the magazine; you should know what goes into an article. If you leave that out, we can't make it up out of whole cloth. We have to try to track you down and get it from you, and as the Internet meme says, ain't nobody got time for that. 

If you don't do any of those things, you're already ahead of half of the people who ask about writing for MR. So get to it.

[gregc]

thanks

[richhotrain]

gregc

 

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

ALL the layouts you are familiar with? You don't know anybody with model trains who is more "casual" about the hobby? 

no actually.   all the modelers i know are from a club.   i was actually taken by richhotrains comment about just wanting to see trains running and not interesting in having others over to have an operating session.   it made me think a little more about automation, an oppotunity to build intelligence into the layout

When I made that comment on another thread, it was in the context of a lone wolf. I have never been a member of a train club, and I never will be a member of a train club. And, I don't have friends nearby who have their own layouts. For all I know, there may be guys on my block who have layouts in their basements, but I am not aware of any.

My layout has operational possibilities, but for me it is more a matter of show, the visual aspect, than the tedium of spotting cars, using waybills, etc. So, I build layouts to look good and then sit back and watch trains run.

gregc

another type of layout is just a roundhouse, associated tracks and a portion of a yard.   i had read somewhere that this type offers the most interesting operation in the least amount of space.

an outside analyst at qualcomm gives a 400 slide "survey" talk each year.   her talk makes listeners aware of what her slides include and listeners review them after the talk.    i'd be interested in a survey article that attempts to briefly describe a variety of different types of layout.   I won't say all types because who knows how many types there are 

Doughless

Because the hobby is generally more visual than it is cerebral.  

while i agree many may just want to come home and watch trains run while having a beer, but i believe many are also interested in gadgetry and do want to control theire layout using tech.  

 it just seems there's a lot more to model railroading than i read in magazines

You may be on to something here, greg.

[Steven Otte]

richhotrain

A lot of replies to this thread focus on possible articles in MR magazine that deal with specific issues like soldering techniques, building structures, etc. Others want to see layout pictorials. But, I gotta believe that a lot of modelers want to know more about what motivates a fellow modeler to design, build and operate a layout in a certain way.

 

Is a particular layout built primarily to look realistic and visually pleasing? Is a particular layout designed to maximize operational opportunities?  Is a layout designed and built to simply get pleasure out of sitting back and running trains?

 

As I have followed along on this thread, I keep thinking, why not a ongoing feature of MR magazine that focuses on what motivates a fellow modeler to design, build and operate a layout in a certain way. 

Rich, if you (or anyone else out there) would like to write such an article, I bet that Tony Koester, editor of our annual Model Railroad Planning, would love to hear from you.

[gregc]

it might be interesting to read why a modeler designed a layout the way they did rather than how the layout was built. 

• were they mostly interested in the looks or operation?
• what other designs did they consider
• how much did space constrict the layout
• did they consider (hidden) staging, a 2nd deck, a helix
• were they limited by doing everything themselves and didn't do things they lacked skills for
• or did they have fellow modelers to help build and operate
• were they driven by time or willing to take their time

i found it interesting to read about the design considerations in Koester's multi-deck book and the help and suggestions he got from fellow modelers

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

gregc

it might be interesting to read why a modeler designed a layout the way they did rather than how the layout was built. 

• were they mostly interested in the looks or operation?
• what other designs did they consider
• how much did space constrict the layout
• did they consider (hidden) staging, a 2nd deck, a helix
• were they limited by doing everything themselves and didn't do things they lacked skills for
• or did they have fellow modelers to help build and operate
• were they driven by time or willing to take their time

i found it interesting to read about the design considerations in Koester's multi-deck book and the help and suggestions he got from fellow modelers

 

This is all very similar to things I have covered in my layout plan thread. What I have planned and why.

Sheldon

[Harrison]

Steven Otte

 

 

richhotrain

A lot of replies to this thread focus on possible articles in MR magazine that deal with specific issues like soldering techniques, building structures, etc. Others want to see layout pictorials. But, I gotta believe that a lot of modelers want to know more about what motivates a fellow modeler to design, build and operate a layout in a certain way.

 

Is a particular layout built primarily to look realistic and visually pleasing? Is a particular layout designed to maximize operational opportunities?  Is a layout designed and built to simply get pleasure out of sitting back and running trains?

 

As I have followed along on this thread, I keep thinking, why not a ongoing feature of MR magazine that focuses on what motivates a fellow modeler to design, build and operate a layout in a certain way. 

 

 

 

Rich, if you (or anyone else out there) would like to write such an article, I bet that Tony Koester, editor of our annual Model Railroad Planning, would love to hear from you.

 

I am interested in writing for MR, but I haven't been able to contact anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR. 

[Steven Otte]

Harrison

I am interested in writing for MR, but I haven't been able to contact anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR. 

 

What am I, chopped liver? 

[Harrison]

Steven Otte

 

 

Harrison

I am interested in writing for MR, but I haven't been able to contact anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR. 

 

 

 

 

What am I, chopped liver? 

 

I've been told by you and others to contact the "editor". If you'd like to deliver my emails by hand to his office, let me know and I'll PM them...

[Steven Otte]

Harrison

I've been told by you and others to contact the "editor". If you'd like to deliver my emails by hand to his office, let me know and I'll PM them...

 

Well, that's not exactly the same thing as being unable to contact "anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR."  Model Railroader's editor is Carl Swanson. E-mail him at [e-mail].

[richhotrain]

Steven Otte

 

Rich, if you (or anyone else out there) would like to write such an article, I bet that Tony Koester, editor of our annual Model Railroad Planning, would love to hear from you. 

Steven, thank you for your encouraging words. I will go through some prior issues of Model Railroad Planning to review content and style and see if my layout is magazine worthy.

Rich

[Doughless]

I sincerely believe that many folks are held back from contributing a magazine quality article....in their minds.... by the quality of the photography needed to pass muster with such a visually oriented magazine.

I-phone photos good enough?  Do editors enhance and crop them as needed?  Lighting?  What is good lighting?

Many simply don't have many photogtaphy skills beyond taking the standard family snap shot.

[doctorwayne]

MisterBeasley

...I researched every component, bought them, assembled them and wired them up. But, many modelers don't have my stubborn patience.

I'd respectfully disagree, Mister B:  lots of us modellers have extremely stubborn patience, but it's simply directed to the projects which most interest us.

Wayne

[doctorwayne]

JDawg

NVSRR

 And note they get paid for it.   Something to consider

 shane

How much we taking here?Kidding, kidding.

Unless....

 

Many years ago, (1980) I submitted a short article to MR's "Paint Shop", and while I was asked to submit some photos better than the ones that I had originally offered, the article was printed in the February issue of that year.

I received a cheque for $86.00(U.S.) and later, a bound volume of that year's Model Railroader magazine.

My main reason for submitting it was to offer a painting technique which I was using to do multi-coloured paint jobs on diesels.  If I'm not mistaken, the technique was first offered by Art Curren for creating signs, so my procedure was simply an extension of that.

 

I was, at that time, painting for a local hobbyshop and was getting tired of doing the same paint jobs over and over....66 locomotives (including a couple of brass diesels and one in N scale, too).  I was doing a lot of other painting for that store, too, and simply wanted to end it.  The money wasn't bad, but it left me no time for my own layout.  I was hoping when the article appeared, that at least some modellers would give the method a try.

I was genuinely relieved when Atlas brought out that paint scheme in r-t-r, followed shortly thereafter by similar offerings from Proto.

 

I don't think that I have anything worthy of offer to MR - my methods and techniques are mostly arcane, relative to modern methods and technology.

 

Wayne

[richhotrain]

Doughless

I sincerely believe that many folks are held back from contributing a magazine quality article....in their minds.... by the quality of the photography needed to pass muster with such a visually oriented magazine.

I-phone photos good enough?  Do editors enhance and crop them as needed?  Lighting?  What is good lighting?

Many simply don't have many photogtaphy skills beyond taking the standard family snap shot. 

I agree with you, 110%, Douglas.

I own an expensive, sophisticated, camera - - too sophisticated, but I am no photographer.

When I take photos of my layout for my own personal use, I notice all kinds of background clutter, mediocre lighting effects, layout flaws, and a lack of overall clarity, especially on closeups. In my opinion, my layout looks better in person than it does in photos. The camera magnifies things that are ignored by the human eye when viewing the layout in person.

To prepare my layout for a magazine article would require a lot of time and efffort, and additional costs for background staging. Consider those videos that Pruitt prepares for his layout updates. It took Mark 60 hours in May to edit those presentations.

So, writing the article is only half the battle.

Rich

[gregc]

Steven Otte

We want you to write the kind of stories you are qualified to write.

would you mind explaining the process?

most modelers are not writers.   so i had expected that an editor would provide comments or suggested alterations.  i had thought for a first time writer there would be a few iterations

i submitted a piece for MRH on a simplified transformer detection circuit and was surprised to see it published.   but i was also surprised to see the description of how the circuit works being edited out of the article.

this may be an example of the lack of technical background of a modeler magazine editor to understand the nuances of a technical article.

building a model is very visual.  photos can illustrate what to do.  the operation of electric circuits and software is not visual.  so construction and operation requires a different writing style and types of graphics.

[NorthBrit]

I understand and agree wth both Douglas angd Rich.

I have received information from MR on the requirements needed for an article.   I can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.   Not having 'sophisticated equipment'  for the correct pictures required.   End of story.   Maybe another magazine will be better (for me).

 

David

[York1]

NorthBrit

I have received information from MR on the requirements needed for an article.   I can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.   Not having 'sophisticated equipment'  for the correct pictures required.   End of story.   Maybe another magazine will be better (for me).

 

David, I'm going to politely disagree with you.  I've seen the many pictures you've taken of your layout, and I believe they are excellent.

I think your layout of early 20th century English trains would make a great article, and your photos of the various scenes are exactly what would make an interesting article.  Just witness how many compliments you get on your threads on this forum.

[gregc]

NorthBrit

I can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.

not sure sophisticated equipment is needed.

from my experience (frustration) and from what i'm told, one thing is to get as much light on the area as possible.  those white reflectors or multiple lamps minimize shadows.

the other thing is a camera stand and short delay

fortunately with digital cameras there can be relatively quick feedback looking at an image on a large screen to learn from.

one reason John Allen's layout and articles stood out is because he was a professional photographer

 

again, some advice/feedback from the editor would be helpful.

[richhotrain]

gregc

again, some advice/feedback from the editor would be helpful. 

One hesitation that any of us would have in writing an article is the resulting failure to have it published. I know that Steven Otte pointed out that if you don't succeed the first time, try again, but time spent is time wasted if the article doesn't get published. So, it would be essential to get some form of pre-approval from the editor that the proposed article would be published, or not, and under what circumstances.

Rich

[CGW103]

gregc

 

 

NorthBrit

I can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.

 

 

not sure sophisticated equipment is needed.

from my experience (frustration) and from what i'm told, one thing is to get as much light on the area as possible.  those white reflectors or multiple lamps minimize shadows.

the other thing is a camera stand and short delay

fortunately with digital cameras there can be relatively quick feedback looking at an image on a large screen to learn from.

one reason John Allen's layout and articles stood out is because he was a professional photographer

 

again, some advice/feedback from the editor would be helpful.

 

gregc

 

 

NorthBrit

I can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.

 

 

not sure sophisticated equipment is needed.

My son and his wife are both professional photogaphers. It is not so much the equipment as it it there eye. We have all taken photos of the same scene either one of thier photos looks a lot better than mine. My son is a lighting expert. He has talked at lenght about lighting my layout. But again he has the eye for it and has studied on it. If you have the talent it will show, if you dont you can improve your pics but not to a pro level. That is why they make a good living at it.

[Overmod]

Editors can't tell whether an article is 'publication quality' until they read it.  But they can surely read an outline, determine if it suits their perception of a proper article, abd comment on what they think needs to be changed or added.  That can cut waaaay down on the time spent initially 'pitching' an article idea, or can give a would-be writer early guidance on what the magazine most wants to see.

If photos are not 'full quality' for magazine reproduction, rather than reject the article solely for that reason, a good editor will request images in proper format.

I recall there being both a 'stylebook' for material to be submitted to Kalmbach and a guide for photographs -- that would likely have been in the pre-digital era.  Perhaps Mr. Otte can put together a sticky on best practices for submitting ideas or articles, and on the correct format(s) for images that make it easiest on the magazine's editorial staff and compositors.

[Steven Otte]

I feel I have already answered every question asked here. I'm not sure what more advice and guidance you want. I'm an editor. My expertise and my job are to turn poor prose into publishable prose. I am not a freshman composition teacher. I can't tell you how to be a good writer. But I can tell you how to be a writer: Write something. Write something and then we can talk about what you have written. I joined in this thread to encourage somebody to write an article for us. It doesn't have to be you. I'm not here to hold your hand and turn you specifically into a writer. If you don't have the self-confidence to write something, I can't help you. 

And beyond confirming that your story idea is the kind of topic we would publish, we're not going to give you pre-approval for your story. We can do a lot with poor writing. We can do a little with poor photography. We can do nothing with poor modeling. We aren't going to be able to tell you we will accept an article until we have the article in hand. Sorry, but we aren't alone in this; that's the way publishing works. You write, you get rejected, you write something else, you repeat until you get published. 

You will learn nothing from asking me for yet more guidance. There's only one way to be a writer. Write.

[MJ4562]

Articles on rail-served industries and sections of prototype railroads that offer good potential to model.  I know I enjoy those types of articles and it seems like Jeff Wilson's books are popular.   RMC used to do whole series of articles on different model relevant industries.  The reason I enjoy models and model railroads is that I enjoy seeing the real world shrunk down into hand held size.

 

[richhotrain]

I have no quarrel with anything that Steven Otte said. From my own personal experience with writing articles for my other hobbies, I had one published and one rejected. It's a gamble.

The risk is that the article may be rejected for one or more of a host of reasons, not all to do with the quality of the article or the photos. So, you need to be highly motivate to succeed, and you need a large ego, or at least not be thin skinned about rejection.

Rich

[Steven Otte]

Doughless

I sincerely believe that many folks are held back from contributing a magazine quality article....in their minds.... by the quality of the photography needed to pass muster with such a visually oriented magazine.

I-phone photos good enough?  Do editors enhance and crop them as needed?  Lighting?  What is good lighting?

Many simply don't have many photogtaphy skills beyond taking the standard family snap shot.

Phone cameras are getting better and better all the time. While it's possible to take a good layout photo with a cell phone, it actually takes more expertise than it does to take one with a decent camera. Lighting has to be better, and you have to use focal-stacking software to composite photos for depth of field. But it can be done.

Though photos for a layout visit article have to be of higher resolution, sharpness, and depth of field than most cell phone cameras can shoot, cell phone photos are often perfectly adequate for how-to articles and the like, where photos are published smaller. 

If you don't know if you and your camera/cell phone are good enough to take a publishable photo, submit to Trackside Photos. If your photography is good enough for Trackside, it's good enough for a layout visit article. And if it's not good enough, I will be glad to tell you how to improve it. I've done this so many times I have a draft e-mail saved; all I have to do is pick the relevant paragraphs and hit "send." I also have a PDF that tells you our technical requirements. E-mail me and ask. 

The race goes to the swift; the battle goes to the strong. The publishing game goes to the persistent. Or, to steal another sports metaphor: You miss every shot you don't take.

[York1]

Steven Otte, your advice reminds me of the many stories about people who had their work rejected 18 or 20 times by various publishers, but kept at and became best-selling authors.

I don't think I have that drive to write and publish.

[ROBERT PETRICK]

Steven Otte

The race goes to the swift; the battle goes to the strong. The publishing game goes to the persistent. Or, to steal another sports metaphor: You miss every shot you don't take.

 

And Gretzky never worried about shots being too low.

[dstarr]

You can get excellent photographs with just a low end point-n-shoot camera. All it needs is a lot of zoom in the zoom lens and a way to set the smallest f-stop and use a long exposure.  The small f-stop improves your depth of field.  Then you need a tripod to hold the camera absolutely steady.  I have two, a regular stand-on-the-floor model and a very short (6 inch) one that can stand on the layout.  For best steadiness use the camera's self timer to trigger the shutter hands-off.  Then you need plenty of light.  Be careful to avoid double shadows, caused by using two lamps.  Instead aim one lamp up at the white ceiling to get an overall shadowless light.  Digital camera's can correct the color from fluorescent lamps and incandesent lamps.  If you use both type of lamp in the same shot, the camera may not be able to cope.

  Composition of your photos is everything.  You want to avoid background objects like phone poles from sticking up behind your rolling stock photos.  Sometimes you want to go closeup on rolling stock photos to show small details.  Most of the time you want to back off a bit, to show some of the surrounding layout.  The rolling stock is more interesting when it is going thru a nicely scenicked layout with some people, some structures, the track, some ballast.  Take a lot of photos (electrons are free) and submit the best ones.  If you are taking layout shots for a layout tour kind of article be sure to have trains in all the pictures, no just deserted rails. 

[Doughless]

dstarr

You can get excellent photographs with just a low end point-n-shoot camera. All it needs is a lot of zoom in the zoom lens and a way to set the smallest f-stop and use a long exposure.  The small f-stop improves your depth of field.  Then you need a tripod to hold the camera absolutely steady.  I have two, a regular stand-on-the-floor model and a very short (6 inch) one that can stand on the layout.  For best steadiness use the camera's self timer to trigger the shutter hands-off.  Then you need plenty of light.  Be careful to avoid double shadows, caused by using two lamps.  Instead aim one lamp up at the white ceiling to get an overall shadowless light.  Digital camera's can correct the color from fluorescent lamps and incandesent lamps.  If you use both type of lamp in the same shot, the camera may not be able to cope.

  Composition of your photos is everything.  You want to avoid background objects like phone poles from sticking up behind your rolling stock photos.  Sometimes you want to go closeup on rolling stock photos to show small details.  Most of the time you want to back off a bit, to show some of the surrounding layout.  The rolling stock is more interesting when it is going thru a nicely scenicked layout with some people, some structures, the track, some ballast.  Take a lot of photos (electrons are free) and submit the best ones.  If you are taking layout shots for a layout tour kind of article be sure to have trains in all the pictures, no just deserted rails. 

 

I will have to explore these technical terms in more detail.  I have been thinking about contributing to the photography themed threads anyway.  Its been a matter of breaking the inertia.

Speaking of phone poles.  I once did the railfanning thing.  Took pics of my favorite shortline. 

Got all set up ahead of time, picked out the spot and the angle, thought about sun glare, other stuff; waited patiently for the train to take forever to get there, and clicked when it got there.

Took out the pic and noticed a big telephone poll IN FRONT of the tracks, between me and the loco.  Completely ruined the pic (which would have been very good, BTW).  Didn't even notice it all that time I was preparing.

I was so embarrassed for myself I said nothing,  packed the camera away, put my tail between my legs and immediately drove home.

 

[maxman]

I'd bet that someone would be interested in an article about easy and simple to make operating rotary couplers in HO scale. 

[Doughless]

Well, how about an article on model railroad photography.  I'm sure its been done before, but maybe not up to date for I-phones and other advances.

[doctorwayne]

It had been suggested, in RMC, that if you wanted to submit photos for publication in that magazine, you would likely fare better if the photos were in RAW format, rather than as JPEGs.

The reason that RAW is preferred is that it offers more options to manipulate to get the best version of each photo, depending on what medium is used to present it. 

I had recently been given a camera which included the RAW feature, so I took a number of layout photos, then put them on a disc and submitted them to RMC.  I also included a return mailer, with postage, should the disc be not acceptable.

I did receive a reply, indicating that the disc had been reviewed and that the photos were well-done and useable.  However, I had not included captions with the photos, as I merely wanted to know if the photos would be of use (I thought the photos to be okay, but felt that I could do better.  The submission was more-or-less a feeler to determine if it would be worthwhile to make a more complete contribution.)

Shortly after that, the original RMC folded, and was then acquired by White River Productions. 
I never heard from anyone again, so that disc may still be floating around somewhere, perhaps with somebody wondering "What the heck is this and who the heck is it from?"

Probably a case of poor timing on my part.

Wayne

 

 

[Lazers]

---

 

[Steven Otte]

Doughless

Well, how about an article on model railroad photography.  I'm sure its been done before, but maybe not up to date for I-phones and other advances.

Pelle Søeborg did: "Shoot photos like this with an iPhone," November 2017, page 42. That same issue also featured Paul Dolkos' article "Take your best shot," making it an all around good issue for prospective layout photographers to look up.

[groundeffects]

I have to say this has been a really informative topic, especially with the responses  from editor Mr. Otte.  These responses really go beyond the "contributor guidelines" found elsewhere in the MR website. 

Myself, I'm considering submitting an article, however I am still working on the query letter itself and how I can best deliver on the topic.  

Jeff B

 

[gregc]

So, here’s the link… https://www.trains.com/mrr/magazine/contributor-guidelines/

these guidelines say to send a manuscript and photographs to an address in the mail.   should that webpage be updated?

can an article be sent/linked electronically using email?   what is the preferred format?    

those guidelines also mention an acknowledgement w/in 60 days

We’ll send you a card acknowledging receipt of your article, and our goal is to review it and contact you no later than 60 days from the receipt of the article.

is this still correct?

[richhotrain]

greg, that link was last updated in October 2020, so I assume it is still current.

The information in the link states that the articles and photos are to be mailed (postal mail) and are not to be emailed.

Rich

[Overmod]

richhotrain

The information in the link states that the articles and photos are to be mailed (postal mail) and are not to be emailed.

This is more a concern over addressing shortcomings of email, I think, than a reluctance to receive the required digital format 'electronically' -- it also simplifies keeping track of the files, since the media sent by mail are hard-labeled and accompanied by human-readable printout.  Note that there is a way to send the images electronically (as FTP, of all things!) upon request.

Note the very clear instruction, somewhat different from the advice given by Mr. Otte above, to ask before you write:

Before you submit any article, please write us a short letter (MODEL RAILROADER, 21027 Crossroads Circle, P.O. Box 1612, Waukesha, WI 53187-1612) or email us ([e-mail]) your inquiry describing what you want to do. We can then tell you if it fits our needs; this may save you from working on something we won’t be able to use.

For those asking about photography practices, the guidelines also contain a link to Brooks Stover's "Model Railroader's Guide to Digital Photography":

https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/MODELERSGUIDETODIGITALPHOTOGRAPHY1-1.pdf

 

[gregc]

would hardcopy of a pdf be accepatble and they extract text and images from the paper copy?

would photos need to be printed on photo quality paper and they would scan them

??

[York1]

Mike is correct.  Mailing a hard copy is a protection for both the writer and the magazine.  Lots of articles and information can be electronically 'faked' but can be proven by postmarks and post office receipts.

[doctorwayne]

gregc

would photos need to be printed on photo quality paper and they would scan them

I doubt that a printed photo would be of much use. 

When I submitted that article to Paintshop I included several slides (positives) of the locos, but was asked to submit ones with better lighting, which I did.

Nowadays, the preferred method might be to submit photos on a disc or a memory stick, preferably taken in RAW format.

That allows the printers to manipulate the photos in a variety of ways that will yield the very best views of the subject, including colours, focus, and clarity.  I think that will also permit removal of anomalies or distractions not pertinent to the subject at-hand.

Wayne

[Overmod]

gregc

Would hardcopy of a pdf be acceptable and they extract text and images from the paper copy?

No.  They want it as a word-processing file, and specify Microsoft Word format (although they don't say which of the sometimes incompatible versions of "Word" format they want or expect).  Clarification here (and revision of the guidelines appropriately) might be a good thing.

Personally, I've used Rich Text Format (set as a default in the versions of Word I have used over the years) to be certain that people with other kinds of word processor can open and read the files I send them.  I would like to see whether this is an acceptable practice for the magazine now.

It does not matter whether a PDF or some other file was the source of printed output to be 'scanned'; the OCR works by recognizing the letterforms/font/typeface and extracting ASCII character data, which can then be put into some electronic document format. 

In order to recover text from a PDF some additional editing steps have to be taken, some of which involve Adobe security -- this is probably a major reason the MR editors don't want text sent in PDF format even though it has become something of a 'standard' for document exchange between different types of computer system.  It might be interesting, though, to read MR's own reasoning on why this format is not 'supported' -- or what conventions would have to be followed if they were to come to support submissions sent as PDFs.

Would photos need to be printed on photo quality paper and they would scan them?

I see the point, but that's extra hassle and time for their staff, and would almost certainly involve additional processing steps in the scanned file to make it suitable for printing.  Best to send the photos in requested form and resolution, with hardcopies only for identification.

Personally, I see value in putting caption text together with the 'proofing' copy of the picture something relatively easy to do in a word-processing program.  That copy, although essential to send for the reasons so far noted, doesn't even need to be better than a cheap inkjet print on letter paper or even a B&W laser job -- it identifies the higher-resolution image files on disk or FTP'd, both by name and by context.

[gregc]

may be more convenient to

• "mail" them (with postmark) a hardcopy of the article and
• email the article contents in some digital form that the magazine can easily process

not encouraging

[York1]

I would guess publishers are in the same boat as music producers.

There have been several big lawsuits over music copyrights, where a composer submits a song which is then produced by the music company.  Then they find out that the song or one very similar was written years earlier by someone else.

Your protection is that by mailing the article and some photos, you can prove that you wrote and submitted the article on a certain date.  Someone cannot come along later and claim you copied their work, unless they have some form of written proof that came earlier than your postmarks.  If they claim they have their work on a computer file, they cannot prove that the dates were not electronically manipulated.  If their work is written, without a postmark or official receipt from the post office, they may not be able to prove theirs came before yours.

As far as photos, I would imagine that if the publisher wants to use them, they would then ask you to submit the original photos electronically.

Of course, everything I'm saying is from me, a layman.  It's possible I'm completely wrong.  (Ask my wife.)

Mike the lawyer, or other lawyers on this forum, could tell us the actual information.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

gregc

may be more convenient to

• "mail" them (with postmark) a hardcopy of the article and
• email the article contents in some digital form that the magazine can easily process

not encouraging

 

Why exactly is it not encouraging?

Why would it be so hard to send them a simple plain paper printed copy, photos and all, and also provide a flash drive with electronic versions?

Seems to make sense to me.

But, then again I'm the guy who still has 2,000 print copies of model train magazines, 1700 vinyl records, 800 music CD's and 400 or so "books".

Sheldon

[gregc]

York1

Mike the lawyer, or other lawyers on this forum, could tell us the actual information.

i don't believe it's the same for all (modeling) magazines

[gregc]

on the topic of the title, Joe F recently commented on what he believes readers want

i'm surprised that he said DCC and wiring tricks as #2

[maxman]

Why all this swimming against the current stuff?  Seems to me Mr. Otte was pretty clear as to acceptable forms of article submittal and so forth.

If someone really has an article they'd like to submit, get off the pot and do so.  All the rest of the complaining appears to either be a waste of time, or a method of compiling a list of excuses to justify not writing an article.

[York1]

gregc

York1

Mike the lawyer, or other lawyers on this forum, could tell us the actual information.

 

i don't believe it's the same for all (modeling) magazines.

 

I think I'm looking at it from the side of the person submitting the article.  I would want the proof that the article was mine and it was not done earlier by someone else.

I can't find it now, but it seems that last year someone on this forum claimed that someone else submitted an article that they claimed was copied from their forum posts.  It may have been on the Trains side of the forum.  (I think I remember that -- at my age that's about the best I can do.)

[Overmod]

York1

I can't find it now, but it seems that last year someone on this forum claimed that someone else submitted an article that they claimed was copied from their forum posts.

It wasn't so much copied as plagiarized from a private blog... but the 'derivative' version was originally posted to one of the Trains Magazine forums as an 'hommage' to the original (a very good piece on railroading on part of the ex-PRR in 2040).  

Someone at the magazine apparently read the post, contacted the 'author', and apparently offered to print an expanded version as an article ... probably a paid article -- which Kalmbach took upon themselves to retitle 'railroading in 2040' to match the original blog-post title, and in which any credit to Don Oltmann was remarkably absent.  At first this just seemed like an attribution failure, since it had been clearly understood that the original was the inspiration ... and then Kalmbach abruptly took down the post, once the article saw print, and refused to credit Don for the original.  This did not meet with approval as even remotely ethical practice, and it still seems strange.

Magazines periodically repeat 'common' article topics over the years.  This may be less important as the years of posts, videos, and other collateral accrues online... but more and more of that is becoming monetized for the $6.99 per month whether or not you're a subscriber or have access to back issues.  That may make 'new' articles on older or timeless topics more relevant rather than less for those who remain only magazine subscribers using 'free' resources like the current forums (or perks their subscription entitles them to).

[gregc]

Overmod

Someone at the magazine apparently read the post, contacted the 'author', and apparently offered to print an expanded version -- which Kalmbach took upon themselves to retitle 'railroading in 2040' and in which any credit to Don Oltmann was remarkably absent.

if the magazine alters the submitted article, shouldn't the author review the change?

as i mentioned earlier, i was surprised that the description of how the circuit works was removed from the published article.

i hesitated to say even for typos, but at least in a technical article, an editor may think a technical term is a typo.