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
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 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
- Douglas
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:
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......
ATLANTIC CENTRALALL 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 CENTRALWe 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
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
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 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....
ATLANTIC CENTRALOk Greg, you got my curiosity up, what kind of article did you write?
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.
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.
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.
York1 John
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.
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............
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.
gregc i submitted one a few years ago, and that the magazine is apparently not interested in that type of article.
i submitted one a few years ago, and that the magazine is apparently not interested in that type of article.
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?
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?
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.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
NVSRR And note they get paid for it. Something to consider shane
And note they get paid for it. Something to consider
shane
How much we taking here?Kidding, kidding.
Unless....
JJF
Prototypically modeling the Great Northern in Minnesota with just a hint of freelancing.
Yesterday is History.
Tomorrow is a Mystery.
But today is a Gift, that is why it is called the Present.
Steven OtteWhich means that we rely more than ever on our reader-contributors to provide the content that makes up our magazine.
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
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
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.
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." ------------------
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
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
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.
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.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
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.
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" .)
gregci'm curious how many MR articles were written by non-staff in Linn Westcott's day. does anyone know?
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
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
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.
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.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI 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.
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......
gregcim curious how many MR articles were written by non-staff in Linn Westcott's day. does anyone know?