Is MR becoming too basic, what do you think about it?

[Marc_Magnus]

I am an avid reader of MR since I am 15 ( I am now 46) and I have nearly all the issues since 1934.

I like the changes in the making of of MR magazine which appear regulary since his beginning.

But I feel that in the few last years (+/- 5 years) a lot of project are very basic one and I think they are especially made for beginner.

I must admit I still learn something sometimes in these basicals.

What I mean is in the past, in the 70ies and 80ies even in the 90ies there where a lot of projects which are affordable for everybody and which have given the basic of serious modeling.

Some projects like the one from Gordon Odegard, Dave Frary, Malcom Furlow, John Olson were excellent and affordable for everybody and were great learning lessons.

I feel this kind of projects have dissappaer from the colums of MR like some editorial, the model month award, the famous list of even and so forth.

I think a so great magazines must touch the beginners, it's evident but it must still need touch the other model railroader.

It's just a feeling of an idea of me?

What do you thing about it?

[grandeman]

I think it would be tough to please everyone as a magazine editor but that MR is a fantastic asset to our hobby. I enjoy it very much. Maybe a series of special editions (annual maybe?) of advanced topics would be nice though.

[potlatcher]

The "good old days" you're referring to were back before everything you needed for your layout had to be built from scratch or kitbashed from available items. I always enjoyed the articles on kitbashing basic Athearn diesels into different models, but MR doesn't publi***hem anymore because now you can buy practically any locomotive you want straight off the shelf (and many have railroad specific details that don't require any aftermarket parts). I always enjoyed MR's Paint Shop column, but that was removed because you can buy almost any paint scheme you want on a given model today. Laser-cut structure kits have eliminated the need for many scratchbuilding articles. The list goes on . . .

In the defense of MR, they seem to be focused lately on helping modelers make progress on their layouts. The long-winded scratchbuilding or detailing articles from the past only tend to get modelers focused on one project and keep them from creating "the big picture" of a fully sceniced layout. Personally, I prefer working on one or two well detailed models at a time, but when I break away from those projects I also enjoy making progress on my entire layout using simple kits and scenery products.

Of course, taking out the older text-intensive construction articles opens up more space for the advertisers that are selling their ready-to-use hobby items. This may seem somewhat mercenary on their part, but what does it really cost to produce a high-production-value magazine like MR with today's rising costs? I bet if they used less space on advertisements and more on construction articles, we would be paying $10 per issue instead of $5. And, I'm sure their circulation numbers would drop dramatically, no matter how interesting the articles were.

So, on the one hand MR is trying to further the hobby by promoting layout construction, and on the other hand they're trying to keep their magazine alive for future modelers. If you want detailed construction articles, try Mainline Modeler, but if you want a really cool layout, stick with MR. After all, once you get the layout built, you can always go back and replace your "pre-fab" structures and rolling stock with superdetailed, scratchbuilt models.

Tom

[Beowulf]

Yes. MR endlessly repeats the basics as it probably must to keep in business. But there is room for just a little less about scenery and detailing and a little more advanced material.

What happened to electronics articles? There must be new useful ideas short of DCC. How about articles on radio controlled DCC - full power on the rail from power pack (or battery pack in the train) but all control signals over radio? How about explaining how to use and control a stepping motor?

How about articles on upgrading the mechanisms of brass models, going beyond just dropping in a modern mechanism?

How about some warnings that plastic is not an archival material? I have heard that the Smithsonian is having problems with plastic artifacts from the 1940's distorting as solvents evaporate out over the decades. But my father's 1947 Varney Dockside keeps its shape.

How about more on tools? Are there drills smaller than #80? How are they used?

How about traction? Are new materials and techniques making it easier to model realistic overhead?

One advanced article every second or third issue wouldn't drive away the masses.

[Anonymous]

I really miss "Workin on the railroad" It allways had a fun little project or a little insight to it.

[Cox 47]

I think they do a good mix I have never picked one up that I didn't learn something from or pick up something I could use in my modeling Its a tuff job but no one offers a better mag month after month year after year Cox 47

[West Coast S]

It seems be leaning towards beginers (nothing wrong here, gotta get the new blood interested) with emphisis on shake the box throughly ,remove wrapper to open, plop on the layout and your done as opposed to the days when it was more of a craftsman, hands on projects magazine

Note, no more paint shop department, among the many now departed or replaced. My first copy cost me 75 cents and you had a variety of projects and layouts for that small outlay, sad to report, but that level of variety is just not embraced in MR anymore.


Despite the above opinion, Ocassionaly, MR can knock one out of the ball park, The steel frame benchwork article was outstanding and a refreshing example of why I continue to have faith in MR despite my scale being infrequently featured for understandable editorial and readership reasons.

I will now proceed to fall, not so gracefully from my soapbox

Dave

[dknelson]

That two part article on using brass or laser cut car sides to make accurate passenger cars using core kits was pretty advanced I thought.
The kind of kitbash Jim Kelly did to make the coal mine on the Turtle Creek project railroad addition would challenge most of us -- at least to do it as nicely as Jim did.
Dave Nelson

[Anonymous]

I am sitting on a .pdf stack that is 200 pages on the QSI DCC manual. whew.

Long ago you could feast on layouts with minute detail on cab control etc...

I dont think MR is "Dumbing Down" but I think that people think they can purchase a DCC ready engine and carry a Digitrax control system right out the door unaware of the really meaty issues of such a complicated system.

MR needs to keep rolling as they have been lately I suppose I like to partake of the meat and potatoes along with the gravy type of stories and articles that are very filling. But basic information helps alot as I tend to forget half the fundementals.

[Bikerdad]

What is the first magazine somebody coming into the hobby is going to pick up? Model Railroading....

That's why they continue to run "the basics", because its where folks start. The difference between today and 2, 3 or more decades ago is beginners don't have to spend as much time reinventing the wheel, so a lot of the "necessary" craftsman stuff just isn't necessary now. One more thing: advertisements can be a rich source of information for the consumer, in addition to performing the more mundane task of keeping the publisher solvent.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bikerdad

What is the first magazine somebody coming into the hobby is going to pick up? Model Railroading....

"Model Railroading" magazine as published by Highlands Station Publications in Colorado ( http://www.modelrailroadingmag.com/ )?

Or Kalmbach's "Model Railroader"?

There is a difference!

Bob Boudreau

[IRONROOSTER]

I think the mix of advanced and basic articles hasn't changed much. But as we become more involved in the hobby we become more skilled and what was once an advanced article becomes a beginners article to us. Also, the hobby has changed over the years and MR has changed with the times. But it is still a magazine that focuses on having an operating layout.

I get RMC because their emphasis is more on the model building. The June issue has the 3 scratchbuilding and 1 kitbashing articles plus others on model building.

The two together pretty much cover my interests (which is why I have subscribed to both for 30+ years).

Enjoy
Paul

[Anonymous]

Yeah, it's basic, but they still manage to come up with an article that will make me buy it, such as the one about passenger car trucks a month or two back. I don't want to say "been there, done that" when it comes to trees, but I make a point to at least look at them to see if somebody hasn't come up with something radically new or different.

As for "getting any locomotive you want in any scheme", where are the mass-produced North Shore Line steeplecabs? Guess I'll have to build those myself.

[selector]

Well, I am new to all of this (six months), but I enjoy MR with a bag of freshly popped popcorn and a soda when I finally get it. I am sure the editorial staff routinely conduct focus groups on the content (yes, MR?) to ensure that they appeal to a wide range of readership. They are also beholden to paying advertising clients, and they have to appeal to them, too.

Perhaps MR could have a one-page Advanced Modeling, Advanced Weathering, Advanced Electrical, and so on. But like every entity, it has to nourish itself through its roots, and that is not its established readership. Those of us already modeling will likely stay with it. It is the incoming blood, the new enthusiasts, who have to be convinced to part with their discretionary income on whatever is submitted for sale in the advertisements. That is where the growth lies, and every 'plant' wants to grow.

[Marc_Magnus]

thanks for all your answer, and I'm happy to see I'm not alone to think there is may be a little to much basic, but anywhere MR is still one of the best magazines avaible for model railroading

[Anonymous]

Way back when I was a teenage model railroader, Kalmbach also published "Model Trains" magazine, which was aimed at newcomers to the hobby. It featured simpler items and a lot of basic stuff. MR was for the more advanced modeler. Looks like MR is becoming the Model Trains of today?

Bob Boudreau

[simon1966]

With only a couple of years or so back in the hobby, I suppose I am a bit of a beginner, so I find that MRR meets my needs reasonably well. I also subscribe to MRR Craftsman and find that it satisfies my need for something a bit more advanced. To be fair to MRR, I think that they have been tackling some more compex subjects like the current month article on DCC yard control, it is just that the siubject matter is not "modelling" per se.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FundyNorthern

Way back when I was a teenage model railroader, Kalmbach also published "Model Trains" magazine, which was aimed at newcomers to the hobby. It featured simpler items and a lot of basic stuff. MR was for the more advanced modeler. Looks like MR is becoming the Model Trains of today?
Bob Boudreau

I, like Bob, recall the existance of Model Trains and the fact that it was aimed at newcomers to the hobby (along the lines of the Kalmbach Christmastime annuals) and that MR was focused toward the more serious hobbyist.

Now I could understand and see MR justification for "dumbing down" in recent years (and it most certainly has) if there were some great influx of newbies to the hobby. But I'd have to say just the opposite is true. In fact, I'd bet that today newbies don't amount to more than 10% of those in the hobby.

Since model railroaders, in general, seem to stay with the hobby for decades, most will soon grow tired of seeing simplistic articles on the same basic subjects over and over again. While the overall shrinking of the hobby certainly accounts in part for MR's loss of 50,000 readers over the past decade, I'm sure a large percentage have also walked away simply because the magazine offers so little challenging material any longer.

CNJ831

[orsonroy]

Didn't MR recently run a series on building passenger cars using car core kits? Those are by no means beginner's projects.

Since the 1980s, when MR really started pumping out the color pages, it has become more of a magazine to showcase fantastic modelling, rather than demonstrating technique. But that's OK, we've got RMC and Mainline Modeler to show us that end of the hobby. Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of modelers in the USA and Canada (probably around 1 million, if you include anyone with an old 4x8 in the garage or Lionel in the attic), and probably only a few thousand who do ANY "real" modelling like scratchbuilding structures of rolling stock (I'd guess scratchbuilding steam is down to about 100 people). MR is talking to it's audience. We scratchbuilders and other dark ages folks have got to learn to live with that.

[davekelly]

This is an interesting question which really has me thinking. Yes, MR seems to have lot's more beginner articles than it used to. Of course I have nothing to back that up - just a gut feeling. I've been in this hobby since the 70's, but I still like reading the "beginner" articles - there always seems to be a little twist to them or some new product or way to do something that I haven't thought of (helps keep me away from the "this is the way I've always done it" syndrome). I do think MR does have some more advanced articles - kitbashing or the brass sides passenger car article - but I doubt we'll ever see a series again like Odegard's scratch build a steam engine - but that's OK. MR, in my opinion, strikes a pretty good balance of different scales, eras, abilities etc. The layout articles are fantastic - the pictures are sometimes worth 3 pages of type in giving me fresh ideas. Of course I am totally looking forward to Pelle's article on those structures on his layout - I'm doubting that these will be "beginner" in nature.

I'll agree with the above that RMC seems to be filled with more "advanced" articles - which is why I subscribe to that mag also. Between the two of them - I feel quite content in my model railroad periodicals.

[Anonymous]

There's also the elimination of many long standing features, which seem to have been done with no visible increase in content - Paint Shop, Teen Modelers section, model of the month, show listings, Along the line last page, etc.

Yet Tony Koester just keeps on yammering and yammering along. I rarely read his columns and would not miss them if they were discontinued. But I think MR holds him in very high regard and sees his columns as valuable. To each his own.

Bob Boudreau

[Adelie]

I rarely ready Tony's stuff, either, Bob. Others will disagree, but I find his column to be painful more often than not. And the monthly feature that covers about a page of "the last issue was the greatest ever" letters probably ought to be retitled "Department of Propoganda."

I think MR is trying to appeal to too large a spectrum of readers. It is awfully tough to hold the line on the number of pages and yet appeal to beginners, advanced modelers and every level in between.

I used to regularly read many of the features that are now past tense. The result is that I probably spend less time with the average issue than I did, say, 5 - 10 years ago. The magazine reminds me of a few restaurants I know: On any given visit, they are only as good as their specials because the regular menu is only so-so. Eventually, they'll eliminate one too many things I like and I'll do what I always do when I'm not happy with somebody's product - stop buying it.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy

Didn't MR recently run a series on building passenger cars using car core kits? Those are by no means beginner's projects.

Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of modelers in the USA and Canada (probably around 1 million, if you include anyone with an old 4x8 in the garage or Lionel in the attic), and probably only a few thousand who do ANY "real" modelling like scratchbuilding structures of rolling stock (I'd guess scratchbuilding steam is down to about 100 people). MR is talking to it's audience. We scratchbuilders and other dark ages folks have got to learn to live with that.

While I'll agree that few hobbyists are scratchbuilding rolling stock and steam locos today, I think you are way off the mark with regard to structures. I know very few modelers with quality layouts that don't have mainly or even totally scratch or extensively kitbashed structures on their layouts. I tend to think scratch/extreme kitbashers are still a "silent" majority in the hobby. Just look at any of the layouts published in the magazines, Walthers catalog's "Magic" pages, or appearing on-line. Those buildings are 90% bashed or original to that particular hobbyist! While the RTR crowd may hold sway in the eyes of MR, they are not representative of the great majority of hobbyists if you look around an see who's actually doing what in the way of layout building/detailing and simplistic articles are not what most of us are looking for.

And what became of high quality, impressive-looking, project layouts in MR? Remember the Great South Pass, the Clinchfield, Furlow's Carbondale Central, the Breakneck Mountain n-scale module, and some of John Olson's efforts? What we've been seeing recently are about one step above MR's Pine Tree Central from the 1950's! The Turtle Creek extension wasn't bad but the original layout looked downright primative and toy-like by today's standards. And that $500 job from last year..ugh!

CNJ831

[bsteel4065]

Funny you should say that Mark. I too feel the same way. First of all I wondered if it was because I had been in this hobby for so many years. I thought that maybe I was getting into the 'yeah, I know that' or 'yeah, I've read that before a good few times,' mode. BUT, I still read MR from cover to cover, reading every word and ad. I then read it again and again throughout the month. AND keep every issue in month, year order for reference. MR is the best on the market. It still holds a magic.

[rrinker]

I have to agree with Bob. Tony's earlier columns were much better, lately it's as if he's run out of material or something. But then, it did start almost 20 years ago. He still writes good articles, and has a wealth of knowledge on prototype research and layout planning. Perhaps a new format for presentation than the Trains of Thought column is needed to get more of the best from Tony.

--Randy

[Marc_Magnus]

I don't know if one of the MR staf will read this topicand the others too of course, but seeing the complains about the suppression of the list of the future events in the MR editorial, I think It would be interesting they read somme of the readers demands.....

[Seamonster]

MR is a general-purpose magazine, covering all aspects of model railroading, all scales from Z to G, all aspects of layout building from benchwork to scenery detailing, and so on. And they've got only so many pages to do it in. It's easy for them to be perceived to be favouring one aspect of the hobby. Now, I'm not trying to be their advocate--indeed there's many times I've grumbled about the vast number of pages devoted to stuff that didn't interest me in the least. I miss a lot of the old features like the project layouts, Paint Shop, and most especially, Symposium on Electronics. It seems that the only "electronics" these days is DCC. I, too, used to enjoy Tony Koester's column, but now find it boring. I miss Art Curren (may he rest in peace) but maybe there's another kitbasher of note out there somewhere. Possibly other magazines like RMC or Mainline Modeler have more interesting articles, but I've subscribed to MR for decades now, and living on a fixed income, I can barely afford the approximately Cdn$60 it costs me each year for one magazine. I get what I can out of each issue, and, not considering myself any kind of expert modeler, I can get something out of the "beginner"articles too. There, that's my [2c] for what it's worth!

[Marc_Magnus]

Well it's gr'eat to see so much opinions about my question, and what it's interesting is to see that much agree with me.

I think that more of the twenty years ago readers would see some subtle change and see the coming back of some more elabrated articles.

[dehusman]

One thing I have noticed that MR seems to have less of latesly is prototype plans. RMC has typically has had more prototype plans (They had a series several years ago with plans for virtually every Alco diesel) and generally has way more in depth articles on prototype things (MR had a two page article on a CNJ "northeastern" caboose, RMC had a 3 part article that covered every version of the NE caboose, with drawings and rosters).

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

I am a MR Mag. nut but for the past few years I've noticed a decline in the amount of layout spreads and how to-s and an increase in ad’s and fillers. I am starting to think maybe MR has gotten pickier on the quality of layouts they are willing to show and tailoring more to the makers of trains. Isn’t this magazine for us railroader and not for the marketing department, I guess everyone wants that big dollar; we are in a specialized hobby you know. It is getting a little too basic yes but I think they have removed some favorites like the paint shop like others have said. I really think that the advertisement department said they needed the space and now they run all the departments.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on MR they still are better than the rest.

Ross