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

[Bergie]

Let's move on. [Topic locked]

[Marc_Magnus]

It seems my topic didn't excite a lot of them.

I beleive we nned a lot of opinion to see may be a change ....

[Marc_Magnus]

I

[Marc_Magnus]

For the newcomer on this topic, I just resume you the 5 pages of opinion:

We all agree in general that MR give a too simple image of model railroading and I feel that a lot of the old editorial which have dissappear since a few years are missing by a lot of us.

Many opinions say they need to read other magazines to find scratchbuilding projects.

But all of us say that's MR is still and far the best magazine avaible.


I hope to read more of your opinions.

Thanks a lot for your reading.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's not the magazine,but us.Maybe in this age of information,super detailed everything,we just want more.Model railroaders run from prototype modelers down to the people who just like to run trains,not giving a lot of thouht to specifics.Guys who operate on schedules to those who want to see trains go round.The magazine can't possibly connect to us all.I would like to see more passion from that staff and a little less bottom line.I personally mess the end of the line on the last page,it sort of gave you that final inspiration......

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rrinker

I don't know why peopel think MR offers nothing "in their scale". Wiring, signalling, DCC, Scenery is all pretty much scale-independent.

Not true; none of those issues is independent of scale. Control systems, wiring needs, and signalling especially are a great deal more various in O, where many more options exist than in the smaller scales.

Your point about plans is well taken, but MR rarely reviews O scale releases, and their advertisements are almost exclusively focused on HO and N. That's why I appreciate OST: the ads are all useful, and the reviews are relevant.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

QUOTE: Originally posted by davekelly

...

In any event - I love MR and enjoy reading all the articles (and I enjoy looking over all the ads to). Are there things I wi***hey would delete, concentrate on, bring back etc? Yup - but then I'm sure there is a reader who has the exact opposite opinion as I do.

[#ditto] MR is my favorite magazine. I read and enjoy it all, even if I do think Tony K. is a little over the top now and again. I'd love to see the Bull Session come back.

Enjoy
Paul

[#ditto][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^][^]

[rrinker]

I don't know why peopel think MR offers nothing "in their scale". Wiring, signalling, DCC, Scenery is all pretty much scale-independent. And MR started LONG LONG ago to publish plans with ACTUAL dimensions on them, rather than giving you the actual dimensions needed to build the car, loco, or structure in a particular scale. So what if the author built his example in HO and you're in O? A 50' car is 50 scale feet long in Z or G, it doesn't matter. Curious over a 50+ year collection of MR, the very same complaint keeps popping up. Just the scale beign complaied abotu changes. [:D]

--Randy

[palallin]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gbailey


3. Eliminate other scales than HO and N - they have their own mags.

Quite right: we do. That's one reason why I'm one of the lost-MR-reader statisitcs. Since MR gave me nothing in my scale, I went elsewhere. Incidentally, elsewhere I find many of the kinds of articles whose loss in MR is being much lamented in this thread. OST, for example, runs regular series on scratch-building steam locos in O scale. . . . Even if I am unequipped and insuficiently experienced to go that whole route, I find a wealth of detailing info in such articles.

That said, I *do* subscribe to another Kalmbach magazine: CTT. And I have written for and been published therein. It, too, has seen a shift in emphasis over the last five years or more, from collecting to operating and from tinplate to hi-rail. This trend, too, is being pushed by both the readers and the editorial staff. While the market may be static in size, the demographics, they are achangin'!

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

I just had MR contact me soliciting an in-depth article on building rolling stock based on the SP prototype.

That's one data point that they may not totally be dumbing down the magazine.

Do it!!!!!!! I've enjoyed looking at the pics of your work and would love to see an article by you. Even though I don't model SP I'm sure it will include info that I can incorporate in my own efforts.

I also agree with your assemssment about the passion for modeling seems not to be there anymore. It seemed that when I read a Odegard, Hediger or Curren article there was some excitement. Something was being done that would make their layout or modeling skills better. In reading their articles I used to think "what a great job they have - it allows them to do Model Railroading and get paid!" Now it's pretty much "what a great hobby they have that allows them to do their job better." It's more than just a play on words its an outlook on the hobby. Gordy, Jim and Art (and I'm sure Lynn also) were folks that if they ever visited my layout for an article I could imagine spending time with just talking trains. I don't get that feel now. Like you said, the current staff seems to be magazine editors first and model rails second. (I will make exceptions for Tony and Lionel - but they are not full timers at MRR) This is reflected in the descriptions that are posted when a position becomes open.

[jfugate]

I believe most of MR's editors are modelers too, even today.

What is different is for today's staff it's mostly a job, and they are modelers because it augments their job skills. At least that's how it seems. The passion for modeling, job or not, just isn't there very much in today's magazine.

The material's still good, but I miss the passion from the old days, which made every issue of MR outstanding. It's an intangible that's hard to simply manufacture -- model railroading needs to be your first love deep down, regardless of whether or not you happen to be working for MR.

[Anonymous]

Back in the sixties ,when I was a kid, I bought MR every month to see what the better modelers did (Allen,etc), to get ideas from my own basic attempts at modeling.The editors were modelers too.Now they put something out and rush off to play golf or something,There is no sincerity in the magazine,it's cold like todays toys,video games,et al.

[jfugate]

Paul:

I agree 100% ... if you have a larger layout, you want to save time with RTR if at all possible.

I enjoy scratchbuilding and serious kitbashing as much as the next guy, but to get a larger layout done in a single lifetime, saving time is essential.

On a related note, that's what's always amused me about MAINLINE MODELER. The implication in the magazine title is you want to model bigtime railroading. But then the magazine is *filled* with ambitious scratchbuilding and kitbashing projects! You can't have a layout of any serious size that models a bigtime mainline railroad and scratchbuild everything unless you are a full time modeler -- and even then it's an ambitious goal!

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

I love this assumption that every old timer in the hobby wants kits and it's only because the hobby store owner holds a gun to his head that he buys RTR.

If you want a layout and your time is limited you may not be able to do everything from kits. I personally enjoy building kits and scratch/parts building, but 80% of the cars on my layout are RTR. Why? the answer is time. My first desire is to have a layout and RTR enables me to do that. Given the popularity of RTR I must not be alone. As the layout gets to completion I expect I will return to more kit building and scratch/parts building but for me now it's RTR. I have been in the hobby 33 years and I think the current times are great.
Enjoy
Paul

Paul, and no offense meant here, this is a baseless argument that I see repeated endlessly. Building rolling stock and building a layout are really mutually exclusive aspects of the hobby. No where is it written that one must build or acquire a large stable of rolling stock at the same time he is building his layout. Whether you like kits or RTR should be irrelevant to this. It's been my experience, and I've been in the hobby for decades too, that most of those I encounter who "claim" they don't have time to build kits (rolling stock, structure, bridges, et al.) and thus must have RTR, don't work on their layouts any more than if they were building kits.

As to the LHS owner not holding a gun to our heads and forcing my friends and I to buy RTR, you're right, he's not...and we simply aren't buying any RTR at all. We have him order kits for us!

CNJ831

[IRONROOSTER]

I love this assumption that every old timer in the hobby wants kits and it's only because the hobby store owner holds a gun to his head that he buys RTR.

If you want a layout and your time is limited you may not be able to do everything from kits. I personally enjoy building kits and scratch/parts building, but 80% of the cars on my layout are RTR. Why? the answer is time. My first desire is to have a layout and RTR enables me to do that. Given the popularity of RTR I must not be alone. As the layout gets to completion I expect I will return to more kit building and scratch/parts building but for me now it's RTR. I have been in the hobby 33 years and I think the current times are great.
Enjoy
Paul

[jfugate]

I just had MR contact me soliciting an in-depth article on building rolling stock based on the SP prototype.

That's one data point that they may not totally be dumbing down the magazine.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tpaulsen
This is the age of buy it and run it. I still belong to the age of build it, super detail it, redo it, change the trucks, rebuild someone elses mistake and on and on. People like me have become dinosaurs in the hobby. MR is just addressing the direction the hobby is headed. I do think MR is still the best in the hobby, but it no longer leads the field in a dominant fashion as it did years ago.

I really have to challenge the idea that the whole direction of the hobby has changed over the past 10 years and a new breed of hobbyist has taken over, such that MR's content is simply following the trend of the future.

Firstly, there is very little evidence I am aware of that "newbies" constitute any significant percentage of hobbyists currently. In fact, their numbers are probably at a historic low or there never would have been a WGH campaign. We have talked over and over again about how this hobby does not appeal to the under 30 generation. Likewise, every survey MR ever did indicated the typical reader of the magazine had been in the hobby for 10-20 years and so would hardly be looking for basic info any longer. Realistically, I'd suggest that newbies don't amount to more than 10% of MR readership currently. So why the need for endless basic articles when the typical reader is likely to be well versed in the hobby? Also notice the dwindling circulation of MR and that just about everyone here that complains about content and says they won't re-up when the time comes is a longterm modeler...the main readership base the folks MR should be aiming at.

That we see so much about about RTR does not necessarily indicate that it is favored by the great majority of hobbyist. It only serves to indicate that the manufacturers can sell out small runs of expensive equipment in the short term to a limited faction in the hobby. In their view this is perferred over stocking large amounts of slow selling kits so there is little wonder they are doing it. I have never seen any statistical proof that kit sales have declined in recent years and I honestly doubt very much they have.

A while back MR dropped its slogan "Model Railroading is Fun" and replaced it with one that more or less reads, "Dream It, Plan It, Buy It." Over the years MR has attempted to lead the hobby in certain directions, whether hobbyists favor the direction or not. I feel the magazine is currently pushing the concept of RTR, not reacting to it, for the benefit of its advertisers. Among all the modelers I know, almost to a man they are of the old fashion "build-it-yourself" ilk (in the sense of wanting kits, building supplies, etc.). None of us purchase much, if anything, in the way of RTR items. Likewise, we are all longterm hobbyists and are between 45 and 65 years of age...hardly newbies.

As some food for thought, let me add that I often see posters saying MR probably doesn't publi***echnical or scratchbuilding articles because readers are not submitting them. Has anyone considered the possibility that such submissions are being made but might generally be turned down by MR because they do not reflect the direction the magazine wants to head?

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

I responded to the Trackside Photos thread and can put forth the same concept here as well. This is just my own personal, very personal, opinion. I am not trying to start an argument or trash anyone's ideas. But I do not feel MR is more basic in that sense, I would rather refer to it as more generic. The staff used to be model railroaders putting out a magazine. Today, the staff are all journalism forlks. The rag has come of age with modern formating and glitzy presentations. The grunt detail articles are gone, quite possibly because there are few of us who build our own stuff anymore. This is the age of buy it and run it. I still belong to the age of build it, super detail it, redo it, change the trucks, rebuild someone elses mistake and on and on. People like me have become dinosaurs in the hobby. MR is just addressing the direction the hobby is headed. I do think MR is still the best in the hobby, but it no longer leads the field in a dominant fashion as it did years ago. Again, just my opinion.

You can't cook a hotdog with diesel exhaust.

Tom

[Marc_Magnus]

No more opinions about the becoming of our magazine?

[Marc_Magnus]

It's there anybody knowing if the staff of MR sometimes read the topics of everybody?

[Marc_Magnus]

Yes Its possible that the answer is in the lack of enough good contributor with scratchbuilding articles.

And I think there is another bad news for our sunshine, Lionel STRANG stop his editorial about "working on the railroad" which I beleive was very appealing for the etablished modelers.

[jfugate]

QUOTE: Originally posted by enduringexp

The BEST thing about MRR, to me, is this group of forums. To bad you guys don't publish something.

Ah, but I do publish something!

See http://model-trains-video.com ...

[:D]

[Anonymous]

I've been reading your postings with interest. As has been said before, there are just so many ways to explain how to put an L girder together or how to lay track. That's great basic stuff for the people who are picking up the mag to get into the hobby. I think the onus is on the readers, subscribers and seasoned modellers to keep submitting interesting articles for the rest of us. I've been a subscriber for 5 years and feel like I know the regular contributors (Dolkos, Kempinski, etc.) as neighbours. I've used lots of their info on my layout. Lionel Strang's articles always had a cool little project. What about the rest of us? All you guys out there have a neat little project or trick that some of us don't know about! Sometimes I read about projects that were published years ago to great acclaim. They were before my time! Maybe we should have a MR revisited column like Along the LIne was.

[Anonymous]

I think it matters why you read the magazine. If you read it for entertainment purposes, it will suit a wide range of people. It is the first magazine for model trains that I purchased, so I subscribed for a year. I wanted knowledge. I wanted to be educated. Unfortunately, they spend too much time showing off big flashy layouts, mostly eastern railroads in steam. As I am doing diesel in flatlands, they offer me no assistance. I let my sub expire. I still check out the current issue at the store, but I haven't bought one in quite a while. $5 is a lot to pay for 1 tip or pic of something. I don't want the entertainment. I want to learn, and it lacks that for me.

Also, I am new. 47 years old, but working on my first real layout.

The BEST thing about MRR, to me, is this group of forums. To bad you guys don't publish something.

[Anonymous]

I have been reading MR for over 30 years. It got me started in this fantastic hobby. MR is as enjoyable today as ever. I have read others and some are good but I still like the format of MR.

R. Eisner, Middleton, Nova Scotia

[Marc_Magnus]

Yes I agree too with mouse and gbailey, there is more detailled articles i some other magazines .

Second We know it's the advertiser who are responsable of the live of the magazine, but with so many photos in library that MR seems to have, why not publish a few more; they are so inspirating

[Anonymous]

I agree with 'Mouse - I find more detailed info from MRRing BOOKS than from MR.
Sometimes in MR articles it's: do step A, (magic occurs), do step D, ....
Even though the books may be derived from magazine articles, they are often "fleshed out" better.

My suggestions:

1. More construction detail, to include more photos. Perhaps fewer but longer articles are needed here.
2. More advanced projects, as per Railmodel Journal (or Steve Hile's RI articles in the RITS Newsletter).
3. Eliminate other scales than HO and N - they have their own mags.
4. Fire the current model reviewers and hire someone who is capable of "telling it like it is" - I want to KNOW if the fans are too big or the sound is wrong !!! Let's have REAL consumer reports !!!!!

[ACRR46]

I've been a MRR for many years and have always enjoyed the layout photos as much as anyone. Why is it that Model Railroader rarely show distant shots of how the railroad fits into the room? From the "letters to the editor column" everyone enjoys these type of photos and they always get the most comments. Heck I wouldn't even mind a photo illustrating a transition from a finished scene to one under construction. You only see these photos once a year in Model Railroad Planning.

I guess that's what I like about the internet sites because everyone shares all sorts of construction photos illustrating benchwork, backdrops, fascias, wiring, electronics, and how a layout fits into their room.

Frank

[randybc2003]

Is it becoming too basic? I don't think so. I admit there is a lot of "basic" stuff in the articles, but a good portion is new technology. I can note the change in project RRs. I rember the Pine Tree Central and the Great Northern Pacific - (HO RR that grows) We are talking plywood, boards, chicken wire,"a mixture of water, Plaster of Paris, and Shreded Asbestos.....", True-Scale Milled Roadbed, etc. Control advanced through "following" circutry, and signals were brush switches or magnets. L.W. came up with the Twin-T, and several enhancements followed. ATLAS cab controllers were a breakthrough. John Allen & Ben King set the standard for presentation.

The next generation used L-Girder, Homosote, cork, flextrack, (both plastic & fiber), and enhanced electronics. Scenery was Hardshell, Zip, and rubber castings. Artist's colors were still "front line" , as was died sawdust. I still have a couple of cans of that stuff somewhere. Bill McClannihan's book on Scenery was the definitive reference. I finally understood Transistors - no thank to MR. They tried, but I finaly comprehended these little rascles with books from Radio Shack - who now don't carry such books. Cab control improved with "Wescot's Matrix". - how to wire a bank of terminal strips in 2-cab procedure.

The Carbondale Central and Jerome & Southwestern appeared formidible. The Yule Central I understood. It was small, simple, and scenicly effective. However, I have been able over the intervening years to appreciate the CC and J&S. Portions of my current project bear a similarity to the J&S. Computers started to come in (C/MRI), and Command Control started to really appear.

Slabs of Styrafoam. Woodland Scenics "ramp" grade system, Hydrocal, Sculptamold, and L. Strangs "ground groop" Digital Command Control. The Northwest Timber Co., Cactus Vallley, and Black Rock Central (Wasn't that the Blazing Saddles Layout?) Water base latex, Acrylic Artists Paints, etc. "Gluing" down track with Liquid Nails - or something similar. David Frary's book on water-base scenery set the standard, and was easy to understand. These techniques are NEW. I am working on a module to fit in with the local club. The "old hogger" of the club came around, looked at my module, lifted it with one finger - "[censored] - thats LIGHT!! [^] . Yup!! [:D] Digital Command Control. I am only about a 1st. level black belt with that.

Most of the little "project" layouts bring up NEW TECHNOLOGY. And That's what I like to see. I am a beginer too in some of that stuff. I am also a beginer is some of the technology from 20 - 30 years ago. I have some projects that I still want to get to, that were written up "back when"

What would I like to see more of? A little more of the OLD stuff. 100Yrs. +. The thing to rember is - read it all - it might come in handy later. I do note they haven't had an article on scratchbuilding for some time. My first scratchbuilt project was a Civil War era flatcar. Shortly after that - a Car Hoist shown as a "dollar model". I tried my first Lazerkit a couple of years ago. I have hopes for that tehnology. Yes - I do take other Mags. - RMC, and Narrow Gage & Shortline Gazet. (the latter distributed by K'. I am irritated. The delivery schedule dropped by 10 days.)

Some of the old "standby" projects still get "re-cycled". The first NEW MR I purchased was 1 of a 3 part article on scratch-building a C&NW brass Ten-wheeler. Over the years they have done additional articles - on a brass diesel, Mike, and yes- another 10 wheeler. I may yet get around to scratching out a brass loco.

Bill M's book on scenerystill has some good points in it. Frary's book is still a good standard. Some special projects are pushing the enelope - such as Hood's Winter scenery, and somebody (I think maby R. Hood) has figured how to do a "rainscape". I think there are some things they could do differently. They have put a few articles out on specific RRs, but usually with a model track plan. The most recent was the SIERA, by the late J. Armstrong. My agravation was that they have recently "split" the articles, - running the model article in MR, and the "Prototype" article in TRAINS. You have to get both the get the full package. More lucker for their coffers, I guess. It may be good business, but I reserve the right to GRIPE., especially when I purchase both mags.

Paint Shop - I didn't always read that. I said "always" - because sometimes I DID. The thing that they may not realize is that SOME OF US POOR SCHMUCKS ARE COLORBLIND. (In whole or in part). Student Fare - I think their address to that colum is spread out through the whole mag. I do think they could honor the students with more pictures and credits in the Trackside Phots. The Internet posts are nice - but NOTHING beats the ego and praise derived from having your photo PUBLISHED. Their one-page Table of Contents - seems a step backward. A two-page photo can't be replaced. The back page - put something INSPIRING on it. The basic stuff should go into the body of the work. You'r right - I do miss Bull Session - and Tony K. tries - but he doesn't have the same "kick" as the old Bull Session. As for the elimination of meeting postings - NOTHING BEATS THE LISTING IN THE MAGAZINE. NOT EVERYONE has access to the Internet, and print-outs aren't as convienent as a regular page in the MAG.

Prototype Operations - Passenger Car OPS, Signals, Track layouts for function, scenery techniques, control system, industry functions, model modification techniques, - no matter what scale the article is written in, you can use it in yours. Rarely are there articles that can "only" be applied to a specific scale. I do think their "newstand specials" are definately anemic in a number of cases. Koster's book on operation can't hold a candle to Bruce Chubs, and the Basic Scenery falls far shor of even Frary's. Of course it is "basic".

Beginer's projects? - yes. But where ther was once the G&D and the Timber City & Northwestern (I still have the issue where B. King described his station), there is now the Manchester & SW. Don't be intimidated. Be inspired.

All-in-all, I think it is the best "All-Around" model RR mag.

Randy [^]