Done with MR Mag?

[Anonymous]

Two N scale trackplans and not one picture of N scale modeling in the last 2 issues of MR. Did I miss something?!!

I do believe my subscription days are over--I'm pretty much up on my 'Back To Basics' . While this magazine does quite a bit right, it just does not give N scale its due.

Am I the only N scaler that feels this way?

[Anonymous]

Two N scale trackplans and not one picture of N scale modeling in the last 2 issues of MR. Did I miss something?!!

I do believe my subscription days are over--I'm pretty much up on my 'Back To Basics' . While this magazine does quite a bit right, it just does not give N scale its due.

Am I the only N scaler that feels this way?

[csxns]

GO HO.

[csxns]

GO HO.

[Bergie]

Here's my point of view on scale-related articles...

I've worked at Kalmbach for over 9-1/2 years, and over that time I've heard the complaint about a lack of certain scale articles in MR (not just N scale) hundreds of times. Now, to my opinion...

Shouldn't a modeler be able to take a concept from an article and learn from it regardless of the scale? Especially layout articles. Can't you look at a layout in whatever scale and adapt a good idea or concept to your scale of choice? You can also do it for how-to articles, but it might be a little more difficult depending on the materials required to complete the project and the materials that are actually available to you.

That's my two cents. I'll freely admit that I'm an HO scale modeler, but that doesn't mean I flip past articles on other scales. I actually think that if MR is showcasing a beautiful layout, regardless of what scale it is, they shouldn't say on the cover or in the article headline what scale it is. Show the layout, and oh, by the way, it's whatever scale. I'm affraid too many people miss good modeling ideas simply because it's an article that's not of their liking.

Read, learn, grow. That's the way I approach the hobby. [:)]

Again, just my two cents.

Oh, one more thing. Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles in MR are submitted by outside authors. With that in mind, if there's a lack of articles from your scale, rally your fellow modelers to write more articles. [;)]

Happy modeling,
Erik

[Bergie]

Here's my point of view on scale-related articles...

I've worked at Kalmbach for over 9-1/2 years, and over that time I've heard the complaint about a lack of certain scale articles in MR (not just N scale) hundreds of times. Now, to my opinion...

Shouldn't a modeler be able to take a concept from an article and learn from it regardless of the scale? Especially layout articles. Can't you look at a layout in whatever scale and adapt a good idea or concept to your scale of choice? You can also do it for how-to articles, but it might be a little more difficult depending on the materials required to complete the project and the materials that are actually available to you.

That's my two cents. I'll freely admit that I'm an HO scale modeler, but that doesn't mean I flip past articles on other scales. I actually think that if MR is showcasing a beautiful layout, regardless of what scale it is, they shouldn't say on the cover or in the article headline what scale it is. Show the layout, and oh, by the way, it's whatever scale. I'm affraid too many people miss good modeling ideas simply because it's an article that's not of their liking.

Read, learn, grow. That's the way I approach the hobby. [:)]

Again, just my two cents.

Oh, one more thing. Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles in MR are submitted by outside authors. With that in mind, if there's a lack of articles from your scale, rally your fellow modelers to write more articles. [;)]

Happy modeling,
Erik

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input Eric. I figure there are a lot of people saying they want more of this or that or the other.

I've no problem taking a concept from anything, in fact that's why I read almost every article--regardless of scale. However, when in the early stages of building a layout it's very helpful to see how certain concepts are realized in your scale of choice, and also to learn methods, compromises etcetera. Oftentimes, it's the starting point that's the most frustrating on any project. I've learned this from a friend that works on our layout that can visualize little to nothing. I dare say, in most instances, there is simply more gained from seeing a finished (or not so finished) project in a familiar scale.

QUOTE: Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles in MR are submitted by outside authors.

Does this mean MR has very little N scale content to publish?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input Eric. I figure there are a lot of people saying they want more of this or that or the other.

I've no problem taking a concept from anything, in fact that's why I read almost every article--regardless of scale. However, when in the early stages of building a layout it's very helpful to see how certain concepts are realized in your scale of choice, and also to learn methods, compromises etcetera. Oftentimes, it's the starting point that's the most frustrating on any project. I've learned this from a friend that works on our layout that can visualize little to nothing. I dare say, in most instances, there is simply more gained from seeing a finished (or not so finished) project in a familiar scale.

QUOTE: Keep in mind that the vast majority of articles in MR are submitted by outside authors.

Does this mean MR has very little N scale content to publish?

[MAbruce]

Erik - thanks for sharing your observations. However, I think some of what you said is a typical HO modeler’s perception of other scales. I don’t say this as an insult to you, nor to bring any controversy into this thread; it’s just that I’d like to take a stab at shedding some light into how scales can differ.

I agree with you that most concepts can be learned from in any scale, but I’d have to add that there is a limit to this. You cited examples of adapting layout and how-to articles. Yes, I agree that they can provide a starting point and inspiration. However, not all layouts can easily be adapted to other scales without extensive modifications (assuming you want to use the same space). When you start to talk a how-to article, then the scale difference becomes much more apparent. Some of these projects are scale specific as they relate to a specific loco/car/product that may not be available in another scale. Scenery materials can differ significantly. In fact, the whole approach to scenery can differ. These are issues that I think most (exclusive) HO modelers have a mindset that anything they model can be easily adapted to other scales.

The fact is that N-scale offers advantages that need to be singled out. For example: Layout plans that make use of the extra space advantage in N-scale scale, lightweight construction materials that can be utilized (that could not be considered in HO), and detailing methods.

I always love to see a layout showcased no matter what scale it’s in. But there is something more motivating to me when it’s an N-scale layout. It shows me that it can be done!

As for the lack of N-scale articles being submitted, there could be a couple of reasons behind that. The first is that there are two other publications that are N-scale specific. The second is that if there is a perception among those who model in N-scale that MR favors HO, then that may be discouraging N-scale participation. I think it would go a long way for you to seek out N-scale modelers in order to dispel this perception, so that there will be more N-scale articles submitted in the future.

There are many of us N-scale modelers out there. If there is any doubt about this, take a look at your own on-line poll that you are currently conducting. [;)]

In conclusion, I don't have any real beef with MR (as some here seem to have). It's a great publication, but I'd like to see more N-scale specific material.

[MAbruce]

Erik - thanks for sharing your observations. However, I think some of what you said is a typical HO modeler’s perception of other scales. I don’t say this as an insult to you, nor to bring any controversy into this thread; it’s just that I’d like to take a stab at shedding some light into how scales can differ.

I agree with you that most concepts can be learned from in any scale, but I’d have to add that there is a limit to this. You cited examples of adapting layout and how-to articles. Yes, I agree that they can provide a starting point and inspiration. However, not all layouts can easily be adapted to other scales without extensive modifications (assuming you want to use the same space). When you start to talk a how-to article, then the scale difference becomes much more apparent. Some of these projects are scale specific as they relate to a specific loco/car/product that may not be available in another scale. Scenery materials can differ significantly. In fact, the whole approach to scenery can differ. These are issues that I think most (exclusive) HO modelers have a mindset that anything they model can be easily adapted to other scales.

The fact is that N-scale offers advantages that need to be singled out. For example: Layout plans that make use of the extra space advantage in N-scale scale, lightweight construction materials that can be utilized (that could not be considered in HO), and detailing methods.

I always love to see a layout showcased no matter what scale it’s in. But there is something more motivating to me when it’s an N-scale layout. It shows me that it can be done!

As for the lack of N-scale articles being submitted, there could be a couple of reasons behind that. The first is that there are two other publications that are N-scale specific. The second is that if there is a perception among those who model in N-scale that MR favors HO, then that may be discouraging N-scale participation. I think it would go a long way for you to seek out N-scale modelers in order to dispel this perception, so that there will be more N-scale articles submitted in the future.

There are many of us N-scale modelers out there. If there is any doubt about this, take a look at your own on-line poll that you are currently conducting. [;)]

In conclusion, I don't have any real beef with MR (as some here seem to have). It's a great publication, but I'd like to see more N-scale specific material.

[dknelson]

When Linn Westcott took over as editor he said one of his goals was to stop printing articles like "Build an S Scale Gondola" in favor of "Build a Gondola." His reasoning was why exclude an audience by being scale specific when it is not necessary.
It seems to me that N scalers want their articles to be very scale specific -- not being an N scaler myself I assume the reason is that the problems and challenges are unique (which the Z or TT scale guys might dispute). I guess I can see the point for track plans -- an N track plan is of limited use to an HO person and vice versa, without modifications.

I thought the recent reader survey was interesting -- something like 8 of 10 are in HO, about 3 in 10 are N. So maybe the N types have all fled to scale specific magazines since I am pretty sure N is more popular generally than those numbers would suggest.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

When Linn Westcott took over as editor he said one of his goals was to stop printing articles like "Build an S Scale Gondola" in favor of "Build a Gondola." His reasoning was why exclude an audience by being scale specific when it is not necessary.
It seems to me that N scalers want their articles to be very scale specific -- not being an N scaler myself I assume the reason is that the problems and challenges are unique (which the Z or TT scale guys might dispute). I guess I can see the point for track plans -- an N track plan is of limited use to an HO person and vice versa, without modifications.

I thought the recent reader survey was interesting -- something like 8 of 10 are in HO, about 3 in 10 are N. So maybe the N types have all fled to scale specific magazines since I am pretty sure N is more popular generally than those numbers would suggest.
Dave Nelson

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MAbruce

Erik - thanks for sharing your observations. However, I think some of what you said is a typical HO modeler’s perception of other scales.

Don't assume just because my primary scale is HO, that I haven't done anything in other scales, thus having "a typical HO modeler's perception." See the April 1998 issue of MR and my article, Modeling Montana Rail Link's SD40-2XR in N scale. Yes, N scale! [:)] I also have an N Trak modual.

QUOTE: I agree with you that most concepts can be learned from in any scale, but I’d have to add that there is a limit to this. You cited examples of adapting layout and how-to articles. Yes, I agree that they can provide a starting point and inspiration. However, not all layouts can easily be adapted to other scales without extensive modifications (assuming you want to use the same space). When you start to talk a how-to article, then the scale difference becomes much more apparent. Some of these projects are scale specific as they relate to a specific loco/car/product that may not be available in another scale. Scenery materials can differ significantly. In fact, the whole approach to scenery can differ. These are issues that I think most (exclusive) HO modelers have a mindset that anything they model can be easily adapted to other scales.

Read my post again. I do understand that. It's why I wrote this in my original post: ...but it might be a little more difficult depending on the materials required to complete the project and the materials that are actually available to you. Again, I've done some modeling in N scale, so don't jump to the "HO modelers mindset" conclusion.

The two things I notice most throughout this entire forum is that Canadians think Amercian's have it out for them (since we don't always include a Canadian choice in certain polls) and that N scalers think HO scalers have it out for them. Neither could be farther from the truth. I my experience, HO modelers don't have it out for N scale modelers. Believe me, one of my best friends, MR's art director Tom Danneman, is in N scale. I don't look down upon anything he's done. Actually, I've taken some of his ideas and addapted them to HO scale. Tom and I were at a gathering at an HO scale layout recently when an N scaler in the crowd got all defensive about scales. This N scale chap made the comment that "anyone can model in HO scale." Tom and I both chuckled about it after we left and agreed that he was a little too paranoid about HO scale.

Bottom line, can't we all just get along? [:)]

Erik

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MAbruce

Erik - thanks for sharing your observations. However, I think some of what you said is a typical HO modeler’s perception of other scales.

Don't assume just because my primary scale is HO, that I haven't done anything in other scales, thus having "a typical HO modeler's perception." See the April 1998 issue of MR and my article, Modeling Montana Rail Link's SD40-2XR in N scale. Yes, N scale! [:)] I also have an N Trak modual.

QUOTE: I agree with you that most concepts can be learned from in any scale, but I’d have to add that there is a limit to this. You cited examples of adapting layout and how-to articles. Yes, I agree that they can provide a starting point and inspiration. However, not all layouts can easily be adapted to other scales without extensive modifications (assuming you want to use the same space). When you start to talk a how-to article, then the scale difference becomes much more apparent. Some of these projects are scale specific as they relate to a specific loco/car/product that may not be available in another scale. Scenery materials can differ significantly. In fact, the whole approach to scenery can differ. These are issues that I think most (exclusive) HO modelers have a mindset that anything they model can be easily adapted to other scales.

Read my post again. I do understand that. It's why I wrote this in my original post: ...but it might be a little more difficult depending on the materials required to complete the project and the materials that are actually available to you. Again, I've done some modeling in N scale, so don't jump to the "HO modelers mindset" conclusion.

The two things I notice most throughout this entire forum is that Canadians think Amercian's have it out for them (since we don't always include a Canadian choice in certain polls) and that N scalers think HO scalers have it out for them. Neither could be farther from the truth. I my experience, HO modelers don't have it out for N scale modelers. Believe me, one of my best friends, MR's art director Tom Danneman, is in N scale. I don't look down upon anything he's done. Actually, I've taken some of his ideas and addapted them to HO scale. Tom and I were at a gathering at an HO scale layout recently when an N scaler in the crowd got all defensive about scales. This N scale chap made the comment that "anyone can model in HO scale." Tom and I both chuckled about it after we left and agreed that he was a little too paranoid about HO scale.

Bottom line, can't we all just get along? [:)]

Erik

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bergie

Don't assume just because my primary scale is HO, that I haven't done anything in other scales, thus having "a typical HO modeler's perception." See the April 1998 issue of MR and my article, Modeling Montana Rail Link's SD40-2XR in N scale. Yes, N scale! [:)] I also have an N Trak modual.

Sorry, but you only said that you were an HO modeler in your first post. I made a conclusion based on the information you gave (and I was not a subscriber back in 1998, so I missed out):

QUOTE:
I'll freely admit that I'm an HO scale modeler, but that doesn't mean I flip past articles on other scales...

As far as "getting along", I was not trying to start anything. I was only trying to bring the perspective of MR from the N-scale modelers point of view. I don't think that HO modelers have it out for anyone, nor was I trying to say that.

So I’ll stop here, because it’s only a hobby and I’m really not interested in debating this any further. If you don’t get it, then fine, you don’t get it.

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Bergie

Don't assume just because my primary scale is HO, that I haven't done anything in other scales, thus having "a typical HO modeler's perception." See the April 1998 issue of MR and my article, Modeling Montana Rail Link's SD40-2XR in N scale. Yes, N scale! [:)] I also have an N Trak modual.

Sorry, but you only said that you were an HO modeler in your first post. I made a conclusion based on the information you gave (and I was not a subscriber back in 1998, so I missed out):

QUOTE:
I'll freely admit that I'm an HO scale modeler, but that doesn't mean I flip past articles on other scales...

As far as "getting along", I was not trying to start anything. I was only trying to bring the perspective of MR from the N-scale modelers point of view. I don't think that HO modelers have it out for anyone, nor was I trying to say that.

So I’ll stop here, because it’s only a hobby and I’m really not interested in debating this any further. If you don’t get it, then fine, you don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Well then i'm an odd ball, i use mr to help me make my three rail railroad more scale in appearence. I've used scenery blocks, foam board, and i have a great switching layout under construction based on inspiration from the Federal Street Project in Proto 87. So though my track is not scale, and has a third rail, my efforts to create a scale enviroment have been greatly helped looking at all the MR mags. I picked up 4 years worth and they have been a great help. So if you've lost a subscriber, you've gained one also. Bill

[Anonymous]

Well then i'm an odd ball, i use mr to help me make my three rail railroad more scale in appearence. I've used scenery blocks, foam board, and i have a great switching layout under construction based on inspiration from the Federal Street Project in Proto 87. So though my track is not scale, and has a third rail, my efforts to create a scale enviroment have been greatly helped looking at all the MR mags. I picked up 4 years worth and they have been a great help. So if you've lost a subscriber, you've gained one also. Bill

[Anonymous]

I am an N scaler, but I enjoy MR. In fact it was MR that got me into N scale. It was an MR project layout in N that helped me set standards and understand issues ('wisconsin Central). It was an editorial by Andy S that let me know that N had come a long way and that quality modelling and running could be accomplished in N scale.

It was N layouts in MR that inspired me to move towards N. I know that in the past couple of years there has definitely been more of an emphasis on N.

But I also believe N scale isn't just a smaller HO scale for some of the reason's touched on above and for other reasons as well. But I will fight that battle another day.

[Anonymous]

I am an N scaler, but I enjoy MR. In fact it was MR that got me into N scale. It was an MR project layout in N that helped me set standards and understand issues ('wisconsin Central). It was an editorial by Andy S that let me know that N had come a long way and that quality modelling and running could be accomplished in N scale.

It was N layouts in MR that inspired me to move towards N. I know that in the past couple of years there has definitely been more of an emphasis on N.

But I also believe N scale isn't just a smaller HO scale for some of the reason's touched on above and for other reasons as well. But I will fight that battle another day.

[Anonymous]

I guess I should go buy three yeas worth of back issues.

[Anonymous]

I guess I should go buy three yeas worth of back issues.

[cp1057]

Here's my two cents:

I agree with Erik in that ideas can be transferable from one scale to another. And yes sir, I'm a confirmed HO modeler.

But here is my proof: I have been inspired by past articles published by N-scalers like Lance Mindheim and the Reid brothers. I just like to see great modeling in any scale.

Happy modeling

Charles
Hillsburgh On

[cp1057]

Here's my two cents:

I agree with Erik in that ideas can be transferable from one scale to another. And yes sir, I'm a confirmed HO modeler.

But here is my proof: I have been inspired by past articles published by N-scalers like Lance Mindheim and the Reid brothers. I just like to see great modeling in any scale.

Happy modeling

Charles
Hillsburgh On

[emdgp92]

I sometimes take other scales and convert them to HO. In fact, I was even thinking of converting the N-scale BN layout of a few years back to HO. It could have been done, but I didn't have quite enough space! Oh well.

[emdgp92]

I sometimes take other scales and convert them to HO. In fact, I was even thinking of converting the N-scale BN layout of a few years back to HO. It could have been done, but I didn't have quite enough space! Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Taken from the Atlas forum:

QUOTE: "If I was an editor at Kalmbach, I would be on this forum every Monday morning looking at Sunday Night Foto Fun. Some of the work we (mostly you all) post has been phenomenal. This "nobody sends us any articles" crapola is an excuse."

QUOTE: "Yah... that's there N-scale stance... shame that it doesn't apply to HO as well... a lot of HO articles, layout reviews and the like, are written, in part or in whole, by staffers."

[Anonymous]

Taken from the Atlas forum:

QUOTE: "If I was an editor at Kalmbach, I would be on this forum every Monday morning looking at Sunday Night Foto Fun. Some of the work we (mostly you all) post has been phenomenal. This "nobody sends us any articles" crapola is an excuse."

QUOTE: "Yah... that's there N-scale stance... shame that it doesn't apply to HO as well... a lot of HO articles, layout reviews and the like, are written, in part or in whole, by staffers."

[Anonymous]

Also keep in mind that MR, like the other magazines, binges on particular authors. John Pryke and Pelle Soeborg seem to be current favorites; the problem is that, while they've both done really outstanding work, the editors print their mediocre stuff as well, and they quickly become overexposed. A major reason, I would think, is laziness. In his John Allen biolgraphy, Linn Westcott pointed out that he in fact went many years between John Allen features, and readers still beat him over the head for too much John Allen. In more recent times, MR has decided to tire us out with various authors much more frequently (but so have the other mags).

One thing the editors of the major mags seem to have stopped doing is developing new contributors. I can recall Linn Westcott editorializing about asking submitters to re-take photos. It appears that this was part of Westcott's interest in bringing along a large pool of potential writers. If my experience is an indication, neither MR nor other mags provides feedback any more -- they either publish your stuff, or they don't even acknowledge it.

While I'm not actively in N (I have a display case on the wall with models from an earlier N layout, though), I like to read about good modeling in all scales, and I've felt shortchanged by all the major magazines who seem to be risk-averse about publishing new writers or new layouts.

Compare the current mood in the hobby with the mood in the rail industry (and even the hobby) at the middle and end of the Great Depression: railroads were taking risks and doing new things with streamliners, luxury coach trains, and diesels. People were investing money in new model railroad products and founding the present-day model railroad hobby. While we see investment in new products now, and innovations like ready-to-run high quality products, the magazines are uniformly sticking with known quantities -- same authors in each issue (or in MR's case, staging comebacks of yesterday's mediocrity, Malcolm F.), same old formula.

I can't sympathize if the publishers feel business is bad overall.

[Anonymous]

Also keep in mind that MR, like the other magazines, binges on particular authors. John Pryke and Pelle Soeborg seem to be current favorites; the problem is that, while they've both done really outstanding work, the editors print their mediocre stuff as well, and they quickly become overexposed. A major reason, I would think, is laziness. In his John Allen biolgraphy, Linn Westcott pointed out that he in fact went many years between John Allen features, and readers still beat him over the head for too much John Allen. In more recent times, MR has decided to tire us out with various authors much more frequently (but so have the other mags).

One thing the editors of the major mags seem to have stopped doing is developing new contributors. I can recall Linn Westcott editorializing about asking submitters to re-take photos. It appears that this was part of Westcott's interest in bringing along a large pool of potential writers. If my experience is an indication, neither MR nor other mags provides feedback any more -- they either publish your stuff, or they don't even acknowledge it.

While I'm not actively in N (I have a display case on the wall with models from an earlier N layout, though), I like to read about good modeling in all scales, and I've felt shortchanged by all the major magazines who seem to be risk-averse about publishing new writers or new layouts.

Compare the current mood in the hobby with the mood in the rail industry (and even the hobby) at the middle and end of the Great Depression: railroads were taking risks and doing new things with streamliners, luxury coach trains, and diesels. People were investing money in new model railroad products and founding the present-day model railroad hobby. While we see investment in new products now, and innovations like ready-to-run high quality products, the magazines are uniformly sticking with known quantities -- same authors in each issue (or in MR's case, staging comebacks of yesterday's mediocrity, Malcolm F.), same old formula.

I can't sympathize if the publishers feel business is bad overall.