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.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
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.
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.
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.
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
Alton Junction
NorthBritI can fill everything in until it comes to photographs.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
NorthBritI 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.
York1 John
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
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
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.
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 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 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.
JDawg NVSRR And note they get paid for it. Something to consider shane How much we taking here?Kidding, kidding. Unless....
NVSRR
And note they get paid for it. Something to consider
shane
Unless....
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
- Douglas
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.
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.
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...
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 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 I am interested in writing for MR, but I haven't been able to contact anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR.
I am interested in writing for MR, but I haven't been able to contact anyone who works for Kalmbach, let alone MR.
Harrison
Homeschooler living In upstate NY a.k.a Northern NY.
Modeling the D&H in 1978.
Route of the famous "Montreal Limited"
My YouTube
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.
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.
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
it might be interesting to read why a modeler designed a layout the way they did rather than how the layout was built.
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
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
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
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
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
thanks
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:
And things not to do in the story we would otherwise publish:
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 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.
DoughlessBecause 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)
DoughlessThat 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)
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.
gregcit 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 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
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.
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.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI 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
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.