Done with MR Mag?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[csxns]

GO HO.

[csxns]

GO HO.

[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?