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

[Anonymous]

Since my wife works at the local grocery store I wander in there to pick her up afer work sometimes. I'll check out both Model Railroading and Model railroader and compare. the two. Mostly I see more craftsman type articles in Modelrailroading but lately there have been a few articles in Mrr that peaked my intrest:
the tree article from last month, detailing the athearn Mike and the flatcar loads from the current issue.
Mostly I'll page through before I buy but when I first entered the hobby in the early eighties I found more in each issue that intrested me, or at least it seems. I do miss paint shop, and the plans (both structure and rolling stock)
I realise it takes alot of time and effort to draw out a proper plan but in the past year I believe that Model railroader had two building articles (one on the stone building using balsa wood crushed with a pencil end to simulate the stone) But what I would have appricated was a set of plans to the buildingf pictured included in the article. Obviouls the author had the plans drawn up to build the original (at least I would) so couldn't MR publi***hose as well?

[Marc_Magnus]

Seing all your answers and opinion it would be great to see again a great project, affordable for everybody, like the late san juan central project or the jerome and southwestern, with great modeling but easy to do for everybody

[Marc_Magnus]

fine to read all your opinion

[bluepuma]

I think it has a pretty good mix, usually. I've been back into Model Trains since 2000, but was interested in trains much longer, use to check the model train magazines at the newsstand section of the bookstores in the mall, etc., but so much of the stuff just turned me off, didn't have space for the huge layout or time and energy to make one, but had I found the right small layout article, I might have built something on a door or re-cut 4x8 sheet to make a L or along the wall with turn-around loops. I esp. liked the Turtle Creek, more with the L.

[caboose63]

what i miss seeing in model railroader is the articles on modeling shortlines. in the late 1970's ti mid 1980's you had articles on modeling shortlines such as Arcade & Attica, Winchester & Western, Ashley, Drew & Northern, Green Bay & Western, Genesee & Wyoming and Keokuk Junction. i Quit buying the magazine back about a decade ago after growing tired of countless layouts with the name rio grande or santa fe in it. Model Railroader is still good reading but for me what they have left in the magazine is not worth me putting down $5 for an issue. thankfully one of the library branches in bay city, michigan gets model railroader each month and that saves $5 each time for me

[jfugate]

Interesting thread.

I know MR is very concerned about their drop in circulation, and they seem to have developed a philosophy as to why it has been happening, which explains the latest changes in their magazine over the last few years.

I also know I proposed an in-depth caboose kitbashing article on SP Bay Window cabooses and they weren't interested. So I went to the other hobby magazines and they were interested.

MR's basic philosophy these days appears to be "how do we better appeal to the masses?" This means the more esoteric articles that appeal to hard core modelers are less likely to appear -- unlike in the 50s and 60s when the magazine seemed to see itself as a more hard core hobbyist rag. But no matter what you do, there are risks.

Can you run enough advanced articles to keep the hard core readership happy without scaring away the newbies?

Can you run enough newbie articles to draw them in without alienating the hard core readership?

And if you lose anybody in either group, can you pick up enough in the other group to compensate?

If you have to chose, who do you prefer to please? It seems to me the newbies group would be better for the hobby in the long run, and that group could over time grow to be larger than the old hard core modelers. The size of the hard core group probably stays pretty static, so if you want to *grow* the magazine, keeping the hard core guys happy isn't going to get you much growth.

Tough questions. I do know that generally MR does a pretty good job keeping me informed after nearly 40 years in the hobby, even if it is dumbed down somewhat from days past.

I also know the trend in media is toward more visual presentation, which I see as a good thing -- but it does mean the text-heavy articles of the past are probably gone for good. I'm visually oriented so I like having more step-by-step photos as long as the captions have plenty of meat to go with the photos.

And finally, a magazine can only print what it receives as submissions. Have any of you advanced modelers bemoaning the loss of more in-depth articles contacted MR and proposed writing an article for them? Those in-depth articles don't come out of thin air, you know!

[GMTRacing]

With all the arrows flying at him is this Koesters' last stand? Seriously, I'm for the first time trying to go beyond the track on wood theme and as a newbie find MRR a good read because alomost anything I read at this point is new information. However, I can see where the veteran modeler is bored or only marginally interesred in the articles because even I can see how basic they are. The Turtle Creek project has doubtless been good because you can look back and see the progress to a nice simple layout. Most of us newbies look at the developed layouts and say "I will never be able to do that"' not really comprehending the hours and revisions and just plain hard work some of you have done.
Many of the people here represent to me the best of this hobby, and maybe there is room for MRR to do some in depth advanced books for you to sink your teeth into. No worries then about monthly sales and they could even apply an ad section for those companies that cater more to the developed layouts of the people who would read such a book. No charge for the business plan. live long and prosper J.R.

[robengland]

Once upon a time MR did original research. They were thought leaders. Linn Westcott started the tradition and people like Gordy Odegard carried it on. They weren't just a channel for info, they created new ideas or inspirations. TAT IV, L-girder benchwork, zip texturing, the Clinchfield ...

Now I still read them but more as eye candy than real input, much as I would browse Better Homes and Gardens. And that's the level they pitch at. Look at this dream house (layout). Better ways to arrange cushions. Beginners guide to interior decorating. Smart ideas with a candle and some pinecones (Workin' on the Railroad). What's new at IKEA (Walthers).

Beautifully presented fluff. They've got me hooked with a formula and I don't like it. But we should get used to it - it is a sign of the times. And every few months they throw in some heavy stuff to keep us from wandering off. They're smart guys - they know what they are doing.

BTW, I think Tony Koester is one of the few deep thinkers in a generally practical down-to-earth hobby. I often read him first, and it is one of the few remaining bitsof the mag with some real meat.

[timthechef]

I've only been in the hobby for about 4 years now, and have had a subscriftion for about 2 years. I always find something interesting in the magazine.
I do agree that there are less scratch building articles but as was stated before in this thread, look at how everything is ready out of the box now. I prefer kits but am having a harder time finding them.
I am also into classic Mustangs and have had a subscription to Mustang Monthly for about 10 years now and have noticed that I see the same articles over and over, but how much can you say about restoring a Mustang that hasn't bee said in the last 40 years?

[Anonymous]

I thought about this thread the other night after I wrote my last thought down. I came to realize that it might not be MR’s fault on why their articles have changed to easy or simple. All the kit manufactures except a small hand full have changed to Ready to Roll because they found that people just don’t have all this time to put them together. I’m starting to believe that MR is just following suit on trying to tailor to it audience. I know that I have complained to Kato about their lack of assembling their engines at the price their asking for, but only because of Proto 2K.

You know it only takes a few people to make the companies think that they need to rethink their marketing strategy. Look at Athearn they took their product to a whole new level because someone else came out with something better that was assembled. They knew if they didn’t roll with the new punch in the market they would lose their shirts.

If what was said earlier about their numbers falling on magazine sales is right I have to assume that they thought they needed to rethink what it is they need to publish. That would explain why the Paint Shop was knocked out of the magazine. Maybe they are not receiving as many questions on the subject anymore, because people don’t want to do it themselves.

I think maybe America is getting lazier or busier and companies are just now realizing it and tailoring their products to us. I know I am guilty of this, I am a business owner and I just don’t have the time but I am willing to pay the already assembled price. I still like to kit bash and all that, but I think there are just a few that really want to make their own everything and are fine with spending extra time.

In the bottom line I can see why they are changing, we are really to blame. MR does depend on us spreading the info to others with their articles on how to’s. Maybe that’s why you read articles about DCC how to’s so much anymore. Those of us that know it, know that DCC is a complicated and confusing issue for most.

I think all of us have something to contribute to MR and its readers; we just have to be willing to put it on paper and hope that it doesn’t get rejected by MR. . . . . [:o)]

Ross

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rdw283

I thought about this thread the other night after I wrote my last thought down. I came to realize that it might not be MR’s fault on why their articles have changed to easy or simple. All the kit manufactures except a small hand full have changed to Ready to Roll because they found that people just don’t have all this time to put them together.

You know it only takes a few people to make the companies think that they need to rethink their marketing strategy. Look at Athearn they took their product to a whole new level because someone else came out with something better that was assembled. They knew if they didn’t roll with the new punch in the market they would lose their shirts.

If what was said earlier about their numbers falling on magazine sales is right I have to assume that they thought they needed to rethink what it is they need to publish. That would explain why the Paint Shop was knocked out of the magazine. Maybe they are not receiving as many questions on the subject anymore, because people don’t want to do it themselves.

In the bottom line I can see why they are changing, we are really to blame. MR does depend on us spreading the info to others with their articles on how to’s. Maybe that’s why you read articles about DCC how to’s so much anymore. Those of us that know it, know that DCC is a complicated and confusing issue for most.
I

Ross, I think you've largely got the cart before the horse here. In fact, it was the "dumbing-down" of MR's content that coincided with the dramatic decline in its circulation, not the other way round.

Likewise, I'd say that at least in many cases, the manufacturers saw that they could increase their profit margin by offering RTR rather than kits and that was the deciding factor. As someone fascinated with the hobby's statistics, I can not find any indicators that the make-up of hobbyists suddenly changed over the past decade. For the most part the hobby is being supported by the same guys who were in it a decade and more ago, fellas that enjoy building, painting, and detailing models. There's been no great influx of new blood to change that situation and the creation of WGH alone verifies that just the opposite has been true.

For those that claim the lack of challenging, scratchbuilding, or other material of the sort, is the fault of ourselves for not contributing it, I offer that down through the years MR usually counted quite a number of highly creative model railroaders among their staff. They were filled with inventive new techniques and had an eye toward using old materials in new ways. These gentlemen were also prolific writers and their ideas often led the way in the hobby. They also cultivated a stable of great contributing outside authors like Allen, Armstrong, Olson, Furlow, and so many others. Where are their current counterparts?

Finally, were model railroaders truly trending toward all-out RTR and simplicity, how do we explain the respectible success of RMC and the great many specialty magazines (whose total circulation now approaches MR's) in the last decade? They are all based on a more complex, technical, build-it-yourself approach to the hobby. ONLY MR has followed the newer simplified direction...and it's lost 50,000 readers while doing so.

CNJ831

[dknelson]

Former editor Linn Westcott once wrote that while every issue of MR needed something aimed at the beginner, in point of fact the beginner would have so many questions on so many topics that no monthly magazine could serve his needs -- he'd need in January what the magazine might not get around to until December.
That is why, he said, Kalmbach published books so that all those questions -- about wiring, about benchwork, about how to build a basic layout -- would be in one place.
My sense is that for the last few years they have tried to say a little bit -- whether it is enough to be truly helpful I cannot say -- about every beginner topic about every three issues, even while they publish more and more books for beginners (often written by Jeff Wilson who used to be on the staff). In that sense I do perceive a change in general editorial direction.
As to declining circulation, there are many reasons for that. RMC is close to MR in quality of production and presentation than it was some years ago. The "other" magazines are very good too each within its own sphere (why the NMRA continues to even try to compete with Scale Rails I cannot say). And there are many many N scale modelers who seem to feel that a general magazine is of no use to them and they need an N scale mag, period. A hobby shop can carry all or most of those. Fewer general newstands seem to carry Trains or MR or RMC or Railroad/Railfan -- they used to.
Dave Nelson

[IRONROOSTER]

With respect to the decline in MR's general circulation, I think a lot of that is due to there being more magazines to chose from. This dilutes the market. While several folks may subscribe to multiple magazines, I doubt that very many, if any, subscribe to all. I know that I don't. When I first started in 1972, there was MR and RMC plus a couple of scale specific magazines each in S and O. (There may have been more, but I didn't see them.) Now there seems to be several multiple scale magazines and at least one scale specific magazine for each of the popular scales (Z, N, HO, S, O, G). There are also several niche magazines for modeling Canadian railroads, two footers, etc. Plus there are many organizations to belong to, each with their own magazine. All of these choices are good for us. But not so good for the Magazine folks since the amount spent on magazines gets divided up more.
Enjoy
Paul

[Marc_Magnus]

We have the same problems here in Europe, many magazines with and that's a shame, presenting the same layout in the same lmonths.
It's appears that so many magazines have diluted the marked, and the great one have lost in general circulation.

[CNJ831]

To those commenting that MR's readership base may have become diluted because of a proliferation of other magazines, I would point out that virtually all the magazines that might honestly compete with MR were already well established long before MR started loosing readership in 1995. Likewise, none of the competitors - nor all of them together - showed any dramatic increase in circulation 1995-2005 that would have reflected a defection of MR readers to other publications.

Look elsewhere for cause and effect.

CNJ831

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

To those commenting that MR's readership base may have become diluted because of a proliferation of other magazines, I would point out that virtually all the magazines that might honestly compete with MR were already well established long before MR started loosing readership in 1995. Likewise, none of the competitors - nor all of them together - showed any dramatic increase in circulation 1995-2005 that would have reflected a defection of MR readers to other publications.

Look elsewhere for cause and effect.

CNJ831

Hmmm. What you are saying then is that the total number of magazine purchases declined between 1995 and 2005. Thus the pie to be divided got smaller. Possibily this overall decline was caused by the rising prices of magazines which forced consumers to purchase fewer magazines while spending a constant amount. And as readers chose which to keep and which to drop, MR lost market share - still sounds like a dilution problem since there were many to choose from. I for one am planning on dropping some of my subscriptions as they come up for renewal (due to cost), not MR - some others.

Also, it is not only the head to head competition from those magazines which are multiple scale, general magazines, but you must also consider the others as well. Most of us have only so many dollars to spend on magazines and if I chose to buy say "Maine 2-Foot Quarterly" and drop MR because I can't afford both I would say that is a dilution effect, because without the availibility of the of the other magazine I might have continued with MR.

Enjoy
Paul

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

To those commenting that MR's readership base may have become diluted because of a proliferation of other magazines, I would point out that virtually all the magazines that might honestly compete with MR were already well established long before MR started loosing readership in 1995. Likewise, none of the competitors - nor all of them together - showed any dramatic increase in circulation 1995-2005 that would have reflected a defection of MR readers to other publications.

Look elsewhere for cause and effect.

CNJ831

Hmmm. What you are saying then is that the total number of magazine purchases declined between 1995 and 2005. Thus the pie to be divided got smaller. Possibily this overall decline was caused by the rising prices of magazines which forced consumers to purchase fewer magazines while spending a constant amount. And as readers chose which to keep and which to drop, MR lost market share - still sounds like a dilution problem since there were many to choose from. I for one am planning on dropping some of my subscriptions as they come up for renewal (due to cost), not MR - some others.

Also, it is not only the head to head competition from those magazines which are multiple scale, general magazines, but you must also consider the others as well. Most of us have only so many dollars to spend on magazines and if I chose to buy say "Maine 2-Foot Quarterly" and drop MR because I can't afford both I would say that is a dilution effect, because without the availibility of the of the other magazine I might have continued with MR.

Honestly, Paul, I feel what we are witnessing is largely a combination just two factors. The first is a general shrinking of hobbyist numbers (attributable variously to the general aging of the average hobbyist, a lack of replacement newbies, the steadily rising cost of the hobby, lack of time, etc.). The second is hobbyists with multiple magazine subscriptions are dropping MR because of its declining useful content by those longing for something more than the basics and pretty pictures.

Some posters like to cite the influence of the Internet as a major factor but I don't accept that since there is a very large percentage of older, established, modelers who are not on-line at all. A striking illustration of this appeared in the one of the NMRA's regional publications recently. It reported that less than half the region's members were computer literate. Admittedly, of the many older modelers I know, I'm probably the only one interacting on forums and such. Many don't even own computers.

CNJ831

[jfugate]

As to the internet and number of people online, according to a recent Congressional study, about 70% of Americans have email addresses. Of those, 10% only have an email address through work ... the other 60% also have a personal emal address.

The more telling figure for this discussion is that only 30% of those 65 and older have an email address. If you go to a national convention, you will see more than a few in that age category ... in fact youngsters are the exception.

On the other end of the scale, some 95% of 20-30 year olds have an email address.

This would lead me agree with CNJ ... 50% or more of the MR readership *is not* online, because the typical MRR hobbyist these days is probably 45-70 years of age -- the same age group that will be *less* online savvy.

But I still think the internet is a factor -- it's at the younger end of the scale. What new modelers there are entering the hobby most likely do is go to the web *first* for their info. Getting a magazine is an afterthought for many of this age group. Also because of the decline of railroads in our everyday lives, fewer youngsters are entering the hobby these days.

So on the young end of the scale, the numbers are smaller, and what numbers there are, their first source of info is the internet, *not* a magazine like MR.

[jfugate]

One other thought ... I believe the model railroading hobby is approaching what I will call the "bust" years. In another 20 years, so many of the older hobbyists will have passed on that the levels of business enjoyed today just won't be there because not enough newbies will have joined the hobby to take their place.

I'm not fond of this since I love the hobby, but it's just simple demographics.

I forsee many of the larger operations like MR having to significantly downsize their operation to stay afloat. I also see the number one source of info for all modelers being interactive media via the internet if you jump ahead 20 years. Hard copy hobby magazine circulation will be a mere fraction of what it was in the high water years, and will be seen as a supplement to the main source of info -- which will be the on-demand sources via the internet.

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

One other thought ... I believe the model railroading hobby is approaching what I will call the "bust" years. In another 20 years, so many of the older hobbyists will have passed on that the levels of business enjoyed today just won't be there because not enough newbies will have joined the hobby to take their place.

I'm not fond of this since I love the hobby, but it's just simple demographics.

I forsee many of the larger operations like MR having to significantly downsize their operation to stay afloat. I also see the number one source of info for all modelers being interactive media via the internet if you jump ahead 20 years. Hard copy hobby magazine circulation will be a mere fraction of what it was in the high water years, and will be seen as a supplement to the main source of info -- which will be the on-demand sources via the internet.

Joe, you and I see the exact same future.

CNJ831

[Marc_Magnus]

If int§ernet had take a good place for ressource and information even in model railroading, seeing the lot of complaints of the readers in my topics about the suppression of some editorial (the last one the list of futre events for club and fancy about model railroad) I beleive there is still a lot of readers who like to find a good magazine and in resume, I still believe that he options taken by MR last years are not the best to keep readers, I still beleive Mr is becoming too basic.

[SpaceMouse]

I'm not young but I am computer literate. The first place I went when I became interested in building a pike was the Internet. The first place I found was here. I saw my first issue of MR in my town 2 months after I found this spot, and it wasn't easy to find.

I now have 30 odd copies of current and back issues, and I haven't been through them all. Now the articles are good at times, but they are incomplete when you look at the overall picture of model railroading. What I mean by that if I have a particular question, even with all the magazines I have, finding the answer is hit or miss. The books are somewhat better in this reguard, but general in nature.

I had a question about converting modern figures to frontier and it was suggested I look for a particular article. I emailed MR and asked for the particular article and the emailed back 10 days later with 10 article titles. None of which, by the title, appeared to have anything to do with the subject I was asking about. To find out which was the one I was looking for, I would have to buy the articles.

Conversely, depepnding on the board, you can ask you question and get an answer in hours, or a day, sometimes minutes on the Internet. And you can ask questions. As we move into the Information Age, more and more, print media will be replaced with interactive hyper-media.

From a publishers perspective this is a serious problem. You can't charge for membership in an on-line publication because someone will have something for free. And advertising is ineffectual because as good as manufacturers are, no one wants to click on an ad, and ad blockers stop the pop-ups.

And because we consumers are unwilling to pay, we are missing out on what could be an exciting and informative experieince. Video tours of layouts where we go where we want, crawling under to look at wiring or close-ups of a scratch built engine house. Watching and listening to a John Allen type go through the steps of designing figures from wax--and asking questions.

It will take a while before consumers will see the value of commercial hypermedia--especially when a print version--e.g. this forum is availible for free.

[selector]

I have found that a given editorial staff will impart their own imprimatur on a journal or magazine over time. You'd expect this with human beings making decisions of an editorial nature, and any team is only as good as its leader(s).

I used to be an avid long distance runner, and read the Road Runner Magazine for many years. I never subscribed, but bought it monthly. After a few years, I noticed that the magazine was less appealling. Writers began to complain that a pretty, pony-tailed 21 year old in a jogging outfit seemed to be found on 90% of the covers. The magazine had more and more advertisements. It ran out of running!

I see, in so many of the previous posts, that MRR has drifted away from what appeals to them. If you haven't done so, why not send them an e-mail, all of you, and attempt to convince them that you are right....after all, you are customers, and the customer is...

[davekelly]

It's interesting that this thread is about MR becoming too basic, but there are posters on the "MRR Snob" thread that think the opposite (specifically Tony K's column) and that it is overwhelming to the newcomer. The joys and sorrows of trying to publish a general purpose magazine I guess.

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.

[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

[Anonymous]

Remember, this very WEB page is given to us by MR and it does answer many questions for new people wanting to know more. If they were to write the magazine, their answer would not be addressed quickly, if at all.

Maybe MR saw the future a few years ago and wanted to provide a very handly method for our communication to each other, rather than each of us asking their staff.

I know the internet has hurt their advertising and probably all types of publications will have to change in the future to survive.

[Anonymous]

Today, I buy MR mostly for the pictures - which are ALWAYS head-and-shoulders above any competing mag. And not just for the "eye candy" but for ideas. The reviews are well done but its just simple statistics that few are relevant to me, especially since I have not moved to DCC. I'd say that only three or four times a year do I find a text article that really teaches me something, or that motivates me to do a project. The problem they have for me is finding a middle ground; most project articles are either too basic, or numbingly complex.

To be fair, part of the issue is the modest skills and experience I've acquired over the years. But the direction the magazine is taking is also a cause. Its not just about beginner articles; I actually always enjoy the project railroads. The electronics column, the paint shop column are both history as part of an editorial decision. I'll miss Lionel's column but it appears that this was more his decision than the editor's. Koester's column was usually good when he had an operating layout; IMO its been worthless since then. I also concur with others that I miss the features on short lines. So given the lack of actionable information, I've already decided that, without any changes (or I should perhaps say, positive changes) the next price increase will be the end for me.

But if they've taken the decision to go with the "eye candy" approach - then why not give us more? Its obvious that there is no lack of material since they routinely publish layout articles that were written and photographed as much as five years previously (the article on the West Virginia Northern in the current issue is at least three years old since one of the modellers died in 2002). And of course they also have plenty of material for the annual Great (well, not always that great, but that's another topic ...) Model Railroads.

I do get sick of the self-puffery in the mail bag. I've written several letters or e-mails, not criticizing articles per se, but taking issue with certain recommendations, but none were published. One example from maybe 10-12 years ago was a feature on building your own walk-around throttles by Keith Gutereiz (sp?) that in my opinion left out some vital information. Two issues later, MR acknowledged that many readers had written about this exact point, but my recollection is that no letters were published. Another example was an article claiming to give a few easy steps to "flawless" car-truck mounting. The article itself was seriously flawed and I personally know of two others who wrote to take exception - but nothing in the mail bag. I no longer bother; if at least most of the letter is not cringingly adulatory, it will NOT be published.

I'll also say that while I cannot judge the worth of my efforts, after several draft-article submissions and a couple of idea submissions, its my impression that you need something really special to get them to reach out beyond their established stable of contributors. Once again, I've stopped bothering.

[Marc_Magnus]

In my purpose to send this topic I would not to make a critic about MR, in fact It was a feeling and seeing all the answer you made,I guess a lot are going in the same way of my feeling.

Of course time have changed, we have internet and this site made by the best (I still believe it) magazine about model railroading is the best ressource avaible for modelers until now.

It's maybe the quality of the articles that MR have published since seventy years which
was always overwelming that we don't find so often in the magazine.

It's perhaps there were no more "locomotives writters", like the one we find
in the past , that MR did'nt find the good materials for articles.

But beleive it I always enjoy to read my issue of model railroader and it's always my best ressource for advertissement, articles and photos.

[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 [^]

[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