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

[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.