Old Model RR mags - Worth saving intact?

[Anonymous]

I've just learned that even in the (sometimes) ultra backward U.K. the Peco Publications have started to publish old "Railway Modeller" and "Continental Modeller" magazines on CDs (volumes 2002 onwards). 

http://www.peco-uk.com/?p=Tech#annuals

Hello Kalmbach: Forward!

pekka

[on30francisco]

I have old MRs from the 60s through 06 and some from the 50s, 40s, and 30s. I enjoy reading a lot of the scratch building and "how-to" articles in the older magazines. I find these articles much more interesting and informative than many of the "can you top this" or "look what I done" articles on layout showcases that are featured in the more recent issues. Although a lot of techniques and materials mentioned in those articles are obsolete, many of those scratch building and "how-to" articles are still very informative and can easily be adapted to today's higher standards by the use of  the modern techniques and materials that are currently available. As for collecting the older MRs, all the issues are available at our public library so there is no need for me to search for any particular issue. If there is an article I need from an out of print issue, I look it up at the library and make a copy of the article.

[Anonymous]

Well.

I find it disappointing that some of you dont find the old magazines revelant.

I value them for small peek into past way of life in industry and what have you.

For example, they showed the Segrams Facility in Maryland some years back. "Here are the tank cars, here is the storage building, here is the elevator and nice landscape." Wonderful model possibility. A bit dry but not a very good look.

Previous issues going back 20 years immerse you in the art of distillery work and take you into the industry and when you finish you have lots of ideas for the railroad. I dont know if the today's Patriot Act and time of war or trade secrets kill the freedom in information or not.

So what if they refer to materials we dont use much today? Or perhaps not have articles you value.

I say that we can scan, upload and host these articles ONLINE as a community effort by Month and year.

If MR or Kalmbach feels it's too expensive to scan all MR and related magazines into a internet accessible data base then the Community is going to have to find a server, bandwidth and have people around the world scan the magazines, convert to PDF file and upload them to the server.

Then you can toss the paper. One person or company may not be able to do it but surely a large group around the world can.

Or I fear that within 5-10 years we will lose the magazines in the trash dump and save for a very few select libraries scattered around the Nation, no one will have access to these articles that are so valueable to our hobby. We would have to re-invent the wheel all over again.

[rrebell]

Well if anyone is throwing out tall timber mags, i will pay for shipping, lot of good logging info. Otherwize I got lots to give!!!!!

[edkowal]

  ...Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, what was done forty or fifty years ago can be very relevant.  Not everything in those magazines is laughable now...  ... More than once I've seen someone relatively new to this game assume, incorrectly, that a technique had been invented only recently.

Well, a sense of history may be interesting in 2006, but I wouldn't say it's relevant.  Really now, knowing that Strathmore board was the weapon of choice in 1955 doesn't help me make a better model or enjoy the hobby in 2006.  Scratchbuilding like they did back then is certainly relevant/useful today, but I would find a similar scratchbuilding article from 1965, '75, '85, '95, or '05 just as or more useful.  (I think one reason articles aren't as complex today is that you can buy styrene board and batten stock or plastic window frames, for example, and start there rather than having to use pages explaining how to select a tree for felling, how to split the log, how to cut the wood into strips, and how to make board and batten. . . :-)

Although it is very prestigious to have models in the Smithsonian (I'd love to be able to claim that myself), time still moves on.  I was at the NASM a few years ago and looking at some of the models I couldn't help but think that many modern airplane kits out of the box are better than what was on display, and the top 20% of entries at an IPMS convention are an order of magnitude better.

KL

My main reason for pointing out Bill Clouser and Bob Hegge was to demonstrate that modelers of high abilities, whose work would compare favorably with those of today's best modelers, can be found in old magazines.

There _are_ articles which tell how to split your own shingle stock from cedar cigar wrappers, which have been made "obsolete" by the availability of laser cut versions of the same thing.  However, if someone complains about the high cost of the hobby, the "obsolete" method will save him some money, since it can be used with readily available wood veneers.   (By the way, 1965 is over forty years ago, which is part of the period I was referring to.)

A better understanding of what makes a building function would prevent some of the ridiculous excuses for industry buildings which have appeared commercially.  In the past, some, but not all of the projects presented were based on real buildings, and it showed in the finished product.  Then came kit-bashing and collector kits, many of which are fantasy based, and that shows too.  Charging a lot of money for it doesn't make it any more prototypical.  My point in mentioning this is that there were articles in the older issues which addressed this (building function) and plans based on prototypes to use.

To my mind, when mentioning how you built something, it's only polite and fair to mention whose techniques you're using.  Very often in the internet age, the originator of a technique gets lost in the shuffle.  That's also part of being complete in your description.  Besides which, the original article may have other related techniques which you didn't use, but the reader of your words might be interested in knowing.

You may be interested to know that a recent ad by one of the laser kit manufacturers recently featured laser cut card (Strathmore type) for window frames as a replacement for injection moldings.  (They're closer to scale than the injection moldings, which are too thick, due to the necessities of the manufacturing process.)

-Ed

P.S.  Actually, now that I recall the ad better, those laser cut card window frames and doors are being marketed as a replacement for laser cut plywood parts.  The plywood doesn't have the grain running in the proper directions at all times, and both the mullions and the overall thickness are too large in laser cut plywood parts.  But both of the last two criticisms are also true of injection molded parts.  The ad is for O scale parts by Crystal River Products.
 

[Kurt_Laughlin]

It's a shame Kalmbach believes that way - this thread and plenty of hobby shops' old magazine bins are compelling evidence that the old magazines have pretty much lost their value except to a rare few collectors.  Even if there are some collectors out there. . .

. . . they are looking for paper issues, not CDs.  The only market change a CD release would cause is a depression in the price info-seekers will pay, and that's already down to about 10 cents an issue.

KL

[Kurt_Laughlin]

Have talked to mr about coming out with cds for old mags, they say they are not interested as it will hurt the collectors value of old mags.

Pfft!!!  As I said when I started this thread, the "collector's value" is scant.  Even old issues go begging - unbid - at 50 cents per.

Probably somebody who thinks that because they "wouldn't give up their collection for anything", there are tons of people who would pay anything to get one.

KL

[fwright]

Have talked to mr about coming out with cds for old mags, they say they are not interested as it will hurt the collectors value of old mags. Gazzett says they cant because  their rights to things are for one printing only so for legal reasons can't. Now any lawyers out there that can see about copyright laws regarding old issues of mr as in the old days you had to file papers to copyright say a book, not so anymore but alot of stuff from mr was never copyrighted, i cheaked.

It's a shame Kalmbach believes that way - this thread and plenty of hobby shops' old magazine bins are compelling evidence that the old magazines have pretty much lost their value except to a rare few collectors.  Even if there are some collectors out there, there are just too many copies in circulation from the '50s on for the market to ever become what it once was.  Trouble is that the way people obtain information about the hobby has changed significantly in the last 10 years.  Used to be, the only way one knew about products, how-tos, reviews, etc was by reading magazines and newsletters.  Now, a good percentage of the information is stored and transmitted digitally.

Since I am in the middle of a move, and facing significant costs to store and later move my magazine collection, I will be seriously weeding through it.  Chances are very little of it will actually move.  I'll scan the important stuff, and the rest will be given away or tossed.  The market is going to really flooded as both the magazine collectors and MRs old enough to have bothered keeping all their old issues start dying off, and the estate executors try to sell those old mags.  I really wish Kalmbach would reconsider - keep the last 5 or even 10 years in print only, and if need be keep the '30s and '40s off the market (those are the only rare ones I know of).  But please put the rest on DVD or similar digital medium so I can enjoy those old issues without the scanning, storage, and filing hassles!

my thoughts

Fred W 

[rrebell]

Have talked to mr about coming out with cds for old mags, they say they are not interested as it will hurt the collectors value of old mags. Gazzett says they cant because  their rights to things are for one printing only so for legal reasons can't. Now any lawyers out there that can see about copyright laws regarding old issues of mr as in the old days you had to file papers to copyright say a book, not so anymore but alot of stuff from mr was never copyrighted, i cheaked.

[Kurt_Laughlin]

One of the things which it would be useful for more people to have, and which I believe has been mentioned only by  CAZEPHYR in the post immediately preceding this one, is a sense of the history of the hobby.  You can gain a fabulous knowledge of what people did years ago by reading old magazines.  Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, what was done forty or fifty years ago can be very relevant.  Not everything in those magazines is laughable now.  For instance, both Bob Hegge and Bill Clouser practiced and promoted 1/4AAR modeling many, many years before the Proto:48 and Proto:87 movements.  Their work, and that of many others, will stand up to close scrutiny.  Some of Bill Clouser's model work is in the Smithsonian Institution.  And it's just interesting to know how the hobby developed, and who had a hand in developing it.  More than once I've seen someone relatively new to this game assume, incorrectly, that a technique had been invented only recently.

Well, a sense of history may be interesting in 2006, but I wouldn't say it's relevant.  Really now, knowing that Strathmore board was the weapon of choice in 1955 doesn't help me make a better model or enjoy the hobby in 2006.  Scratchbuilding like they did back then is certainly relevant/useful today, but I would find a similar scratchbuilding article from 1965, '75, '85, '95, or '05 just as or more useful.  (I think one reason articles aren't as complex today is that you can buy styrene board and batten stock or plastic window frames, for example, and start there rather than having to use pages explaining how to select a tree for felling, how to split the log, how to cut the wood into strips, and how to make board and batten. . . :-)

Although it is very prestigious to have models in the Smithsonian (I'd love to be able to claim that myself), time still moves on.  I was at the NASM a few years ago and looking at some of the models I couldn't help but think that many modern airplane kits out of the box are better than what was on display, and the top 20% of entries at an IPMS convention are an order of magnitude better.

KL

[Kurt_Laughlin]

Some follow-up, replies, and thoughts. . .

I am about half way through the harvesting.  I decided to save the MRs with a 100,000 or less production run, essentially those pre-1970. . .  I have reduced a stack of mags about five feet high to a stack of articles in folders about 16 inches high. . . I have been filing the articles in folders based on subject.  As the folders get too big, I make more of smaller scope.  (An article on the PRR X33 boxcar went from a folder titled Freight Cars to one called Box, Stock, Reefer, Caboose, Passenger; then to a folder labeled Box and Stock.  I expect it will be just Boxcars eventually.)  I don't need an index because I can comb through an inch thick subject folder in less than a minute. . . As rule, looking at MR and RMC issues up to about 1983, it seems that there's little worth saving in the first 50 or last 25 pages of most issues. . . Sorry guys, but techniques for using linoleum paste for scenery or making freight cars out of Strathmore board aren't making the cut.  (Nor is a build-it-yourself DCC system - maybe it was ACC?). . . Reading the letters, I'm surprised how mad people got about MR giving a measly page per issue to teenagers.  Now we cry about "No young people in the hobby."  Also funny is the approximately five year cycle between the "Doesn't anybody scratch build anymore?" letter series. . . Yes, I'm going to recycle the husks. . . I'll probably save the Odegard series on scratchbuilding a Mikado out of brass, but other steam and brass fab stuff is outta here.  It's interesting to note that even G.O. (or maybe it was Russ Larson) downplayed the value of scratching when a kit or something close was available. . . "How they used to do it back in '38" is somewhat interesting from a historical perspective, but it's not how I did it or would do it in the future, so it doesn't have much connection to me nor value in helping me enjoy the hobby, hence no staying power. . . I'm probably keeping more than most people think, so many of the issues and what-ifs mentioned in this thread are probably moot.  I can honestly say that 95% of what I throw out just ain't worth keeping in 2006.  The other 5% probably would be really useful to somebody at some point (like some of the non-PRR steamer drawings) but I just can't justify keeping them now, for me. . . There's a good bit of repetition.  I must have clipped five SD45T kitbash articles already. . . The most consistently clipped series has been the MR Clinic.  Seems there's always one or two little prototype or model items that are useful. . ."Don't confuse cost with value.", someone said.  However, I believe: "A thing is only worth what someone will pay for it."

Anyhoo,

KL (nee aardvark)

[conagher]

There are collectors and there are non-collectors. I accumulated 50 years' worth of MR and hardly ever read much old stuff beyond a few years at any one point. One day I decided to finally free up the wasted space and took all but the previous 3 years to the local model RR club.

To my surprise, they did not want them because they too needed space and already had given away countless issues to visitors. So...being a good Marine, I took them to the local Veterans Hospital and guess what, they didn't want them either.

The local library and local hobby shops? The same answer---Uh, thanks but NO.

I put them on a table with a FREE--TAKE ONE sign at the last local train show. By day's end, I still had about 7/8s of them to load back into my truck.

As a last resort before the garbage dump, I took them to a retirement home. They took about 50 copies so I went to another place and got rid of some more. By day's end, they were all gone...probably to guys too old to remember much of anything except how much fun their model trains had been all those years ago. I felt pretty good as I drove home.

So before you toss 'em, take the time to see if someone else would like them as a gift. If nothing else, you'll end the day with a smile.

[modelmaker51]

I guess I come down on the side of saving them. My library goes back to 1965 for MR and RMC and Mainline goes back to issue #1 (I think 1980). On a more irregular basis, I also bought Trains (also back to the late '60s) and Railpace back into the 80s.

Back when I was in my teens I started off snipping out the "favorite" articles, but found it too much trouble to keep it all organized, (I was a teen at the time!), and within a year quit that and just kept the mags. Boy, am I glad I did. I have found them invaluable over the years, not just for the information, dated or otherwise, drawings and photo spreads, but for the sheer inspiration and stimulation of ideas, especially when spending time in the throne room. And I just like have the actual magazine in my hands when I'm reading for enjoyment.

For projects, I scan what ever I need into a project folder on my computer along with appropriate photos scanned or downloaded, I have a monitor above the workbench which is easier to work from than a magazine. If the mags did put all their back issues on DVDs I would buy them, (I wouldn't have to scan anything anymore) but I would still keep buying the mags for the above stated reasons.

Maybe I'm just a packrat. Eventhough I've digitized my LP collection and ripped all my CDs and stored it all on about 1 terabyte of hard drives, I still have all the LPs and CDs. I still like to hold the sleeve or CD cover in my hand. It's no different with the mags.

But everyone's priorities are different and that's as it should be.

Edit: I don't know why the font changed! So, far I have not really seen any technical improvement on this website, in fact it's actually worse

[fwright]

I, too, find value in the older magazines and enjoy reading them - I have MR since 1962, and most of the '50s in issues picked up here and there.  But transporting them through all my moves, and storing them has become a very sore point with my better half.  Especially now that they are worth nothing as a sale item.  She thinks I could toss them and replace them after completion of next move instead of paying to transport them.

I would very much like to see Model Railroader scanned to DVD's, similar to what National Geographic did a few years back (on CDs but too low a resolution/contrast on the jpegs).  Obviously, it would great to have an in-depth search capability, but I'd even settle for indexing by issue - that's better than what I have now.  If Kalmbach added table of contents indexing and search - I'd think that that would be reasonable when coupled with decent resolution jpegs of the article pages.  The entire set - say 1934-1999 for $90 - I'd buy in a heartbeat.  Of course, it would drive down the value of the existing hard copies to almost nothing.  But each succeeding year could be sold a few years (5?) later after production for a fresh revenue stream.  Might even be more profitable than rehashing articles into books (I've stopped buying those since I have the original articles).

my thoughts, Kalmbach's choices

Fred W

[Anonymous]

Boy there, aardvark, this topic had a mind all of its own, didn't it?  I posted to the subject twice in the first forty-eight hours and then followed it for a few days and then it disappeared; I figured it had gone to that Valhalla of dead posts; I've been wandering around in the Layout and Layout Design section for the last few weeks monitoring a topic I put up there for discussion and I just came back here to this General Disussion section late yesterday, and, wah-lah, guess what I discover.  Seems it went from 24 June to 28 July and then was resurrected by PSi.  Well, I have another two cents worth to weigh in with!!!!

Just before the forum was taken down on the 10th I responded to a post from a guy looking for an article from the August, 1954 MR;  I just happened to have that specific volume handy at that particular moment  - I had acquired it in the Silent Auction at Seattle two years ago - and so I took a day or two to browse through these back issues - they are, remember, over fifty years old and their very age lends them a certain fascination - I just kind of wanted to familiarize myself with those good old days of yesteryear - no, I don't go back to 1954; I got in the hobby in 1962 - and, I suppose, there was a hidden desire to tap roots with the world as it existed when I was in my early twenties. And as I browsed I thought about the discussion your posted topic had generated about the merits/demerits of retaining back issues of this, or any hobby's, periodicals and I suddenly realized just why I have 47 continuous years of both MR and RMC and other full years before that;  they are invaluable as research tools.

Example:

In 1954 steam may have been dying but, as Kalmbach's recently published Diesel Victory outlined, in 1954 you could probably have counted on the fingers of two hands the number of railroads in this country which no longer maintained any steam locomotives at all on their rosters.  And even those that did were most likely going to have their steam servicing facilities intact - or nearly intact, anyway.  In 1954 Model Railroader was running a series titled Model Railroader's Special Handbook Series.  The August issue dealt with Engine Servicing Facilities.  In 1954 guess what an Engine Servicing Facilties was?  The author of this particular article, a Mr. John Armstrong, didn't have too awfully much to say about them thar newfangled Infernal Combustion machines - there was something almost sinister in standardization.  There have been, admittedly, several publications of late dealing with steam locomotive servicing facilities, but if your prime interest is the steam locomotive then these magazines from this, what we today refer to as the "transition" era, can be - and are - of immeasurable value.

Santa Fe fan??? I'm sure that Uncle John's Historical Society has published plans for the M190, Santa Fe's famous articulated gas-electric.  There it is on page 38 of that same issue and I cannot recall having seen any drawings of that specific unit in the intervening years.

O-Scale was alive and well and still kicking strongly in those days and there were numerous articles devoted to modeling in that particular scale - in fact it was an O-Scale article which brougt this particular volume of back-issues off of the shelf in the first place; N-Scale?  Ain't no such animal; HO-Scalers had to level their derision upon TT which had gained a substantial following since its inception but eight years before but was already beginning to show signs of its demise; in ten years it would be practically dead and the hobby press would begin to pick up on this new 1:160 phenomenon being imported from across the Atlantic.  S-Scale was getting about as much attention then as it does now.

Don't know about you but I have decided to hang onto my back issues.  They are much too valuable to get rid of.   

[Anonymous]

Gap,

I'd say your project could have been more worthwhile if you only saved the articles that really "spoke" to you.  The cream of the crop only.  That way, maybe you'd have only 3 or 4 binders, and you'd look at them more often.

I cut out only the "cream of the crop" and scanned them.  Not tons of articles, just my favorites.  The majority are layout stories, all the how-to stuff comes up all the time so you know you'll see just about everything again, or you've read it so many times you don't even need it.

[GAPRR]

As everyone knows I advertised all my MRR magazines on this forum & never got any takers. They do take up a lot of space & at some time from the 1st issue(about 1934) they do repeat articles over & over. I've found articles that were in the 1978 issues in some of the more recent magazines. I think sooner or later they will run out of new articles, maybe not in my lifetime & w/all the new electronics they have more & more to say & to advertise.

At 1 time I had issues that went back to 1936. I couldn't get rid of them & I didn't want to throw them away, so, I started cutting out articles & putting the pages in clear page protectors. If you want to spend many, many, many, many hours & many bucks on protectors & large loose leaf binders, then that is the way to go. All of my binders are seperated into catagories. Scenery, Diesel loco's, Steam Loco's, Things to do, pass. cars, freight cars, Proto type scenery, Bridges, & Misc. There are at least 4 binders on ea. cat. & more on others. I haven't looked at them for at least 3 years. That tells you it was a waste of time & money.

The magazines I ripped up were; MRR, RR model craftsman, Trains, Steam modelers, Mainline modelers, TRP, & a few others.

The MRR mags I have now I have spent about a month advertising them in my local shopper paper(free), my ISP, PC classified section & 2 RR forums & still no takers. I have had 2 takers that wanted me to send them to Canada & Puerto Rico & me pay the freight. NOT.

Larry

[edkowal]

I've bought a lot of old mags, mostly '70s on, but with a few back to '47 mixed in. Generally I just cut out the articles I like and throw out the husks, but I'm hesitant when doing it to a mag 60 years old. Given that these things go begging on Ebay at 50 cents per, is there really any value in keeping these old ones whole?

Kurt Laughlin

The value is only in the future use of articles that do not change with technology.  What we knew about PFM sound and its installation in 1975 is not relevant now.  Most of the articles on the latest power paks and related new items are useless along with advertisements.   If you look and find articles that you can use like conversions or weathering or scratch building articles, you could remove them and file them for future use without keeping the whole magazine.   I looked at some of the older issues at a club many years ago and it was interesting to study history of the hobby, but very little good information came out of the searching. 

Keep them for your enjoyment if you have space.       

One of the things which it would be useful for more people to have, and which I believe has been mentioned only by  CAZEPHYR in the post immediately preceding this one, is a sense of the history of the hobby.  You can gain a fabulous knowledge of what people did years ago by reading old magazines.  Contrary to what some folks would have you believe, what was done forty or fifty years ago can be very relevant.  Not everything in those magazines is laughable now.  For instance, both Bob Hegge and Bill Clouser practiced and promoted 1/4AAR modeling many, many years before the Proto:48 and Proto:87 movements.  Their work, and that of many others, will stand up to close scrutiny.  Some of Bill Clouser's model work is in the Smithsonian Institution.  And it's just interesting to know how the hobby developed, and who had a hand in developing it.  More than once I've seen someone relatively new to this game assume, incorrectly, that a technique had been invented only recently.

A lot of the techniques and drawings from years ago are still useful.  Once you've assembled your hundredth laser cut kit  (you've won the lottery, of course)  and have a railroad that reminds you,  subtly, of everybody else's, you might want to try scratchbuilding.  The articles on techniques in the older magazines were much more substantive that you can get now from any source.  As an example, look up Joe Kunzelmann  in the index of magazines for his articles on building structures from the ground up, and on doors and windows.  I don't think you can find better information anywhere.

The reason that those old issues are so inexpensive is due to supply.  There are thousands of copies of them out there, of which probably hundreds are available at any one time.  Don't confuse cost with value.  It's an easy mistake to make.

-Ed (getting down from the soapbox, carefully.  My knees aren't what they used to be, you know.  But then again, nothing else is either, I reckon.) 

[CAZEPHYR]

I've bought a lot of old mags, mostly '70s on, but with a few back to '47 mixed in. Generally I just cut out the articles I like and throw out the husks, but I'm hesitant when doing it to a mag 60 years old. Given that these things go begging on Ebay at 50 cents per, is there really any value in keeping these old ones whole?

Kurt Laughlin

The value is only in the future use of articles that do not change with technology.  What we knew about PFM sound and its installation in 1975 is not relevant now.  Most of the articles on the latest power paks and related new items are useless along with advertisements.   If you look and find articles that you can use like conversions or weathering or scratch building articles, you could remove them and file them for future use without keeping the whole magazine.   I looked at some of the older issues at a club many years ago and it was interesting to study history of the hobby, but very little good information came out of the searching. 

Keep them for your enjoyment if you have space.       

[Anonymous]

As Kalmbach/Model Railroader has always requested/insisted on having all rights to the material (articles/photos) submitted, why won't they start re-publishing ModelRailroader volumes as reprints on CD/DVD? I'd be glad to get rid of all my old magazines (1977--200X) if I could buy them as DVDs.

I fail to see any legal problems, as Model Railroader has for some time being reprinting old selected articles as booklets.

German magazines have done this for quite some time: the oldest issues are scanned into PDF and the latest are (low resolution) PDF versions of the original printers PDF versions (published at 200dpi which is good enough for reading and viewing on screen and even printing at home). Only some advertisements have been blanced out...

pekka

 

[gallagher]

To each his/her own. My wife gets on my case about hoarding magazines and she is right! [^] I started cutting out what was valuable to me and placing them in file folders by topic. I can always reorganize the folders but found that it is so much easier to find a drawing of an engine, etc. rather than trying to recall where I saw it, the particular issue, etc. I have spent lots of time in the past searching for that particular issue of the journal - time wasted or off task.

If you don't sell or give away your cut up journals, don't throw them away. Recycle them, please. [8D]

I do keep some special issues of MRR, the anniversary issues etc. I also keep ones with special topics. I now have lots more space and all of that space occupied with advertizing is available for other uses.

I am in this hobby to build models, build a layout, operate my layout, participate in a model railroad club, be creative, enjoy friends in the hobby, and share with others. That is what we are doing here and it is great.

BTW, you can always order back copies of an article from MRR or, if an NMRA member, you can get back issues from their library. Also, that is another place where you can donate your back issues.

As to copyright issues, a publisher will not go after you for making a copy of an article for personal use. But, you can't sell them, distribute copies - even for free, nor post them on your web site for others to download.

Enjoyed the conversation and the different ways one enjoys the hobby. [:D]

John

[Anonymous]

i have a small box full of the really good issues from the last fifty years. the articles of interest have been copied and filed for quick reference. this i will keep forever.

of the half dozen other boxes full, well, they may change ownership if space becomes an issue. in the meantime, i tend to alternate eight inch stacks of them by the toilet, and since i have "short term memory loss", they seem new to me.

before i would cut them up, or throw them out, i would likely donate them to my local hobby shop so they can be recycled for about a dime each. new guys to the hobby find affordable old magazines useful.

[Tilden]

I keep them intact and in binders labeled by year. They are great for reference...and to "borrow" great ideas from. :-)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

QUOTE:
I strongly suspect...that referencing back issues will be less far reaching as time goes on, due to the "shelf-life" of info described above. When was the last time somebody referenced a 1961 article in MR, other than to say something like "The Gorre and Daphetid was first featured in the June '52 MR. . ."?

Actually, I see it fairly often in the magazine. The July 2006 MR just referred readers to an article appearing in the December 1974 issue, without which the current piece (Perkins) becomes a pointless item of look-what-I-did...but not a how-to-do-it article. There are plenty of times when the author, or perhaps the editors, refer the reader back to some past article, where the subject at hand was typically covered in far more detail than it is in the current issue.

I had lent out my July issue yesterday but after reading the article in question this morning I have to disagree completely. The 2006 article really has nothing to do with the plan from 1974, other than it was the inspiration for the current author. The new article is about using polymer clay and foam core to make buildings - hardly a "pointless look-at-what-I-did" - and the particular building under construction is irrelevant. To top it all off, MR put the original article on-line! They do reference a 1969 article on cutting cedar shingles from cigar wrappers, but the technique does not appear so arcane that the illustrations they give wouldn't be adequate.

All-in-all, it would not kill me to realize that I had tossed these two issues if I was trying this technique.

KL

[steveiow]

I save all of mine intact-MR/MRC/MRG & MM-I pay good money for them here in the UK and have storage space-publishers binders help.
Steve

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by David Foster

Cutting them up is anathema to me.
If you don't want to keep the whole thing and/or want to realise the value why not scan the material you want into your PC and sell the whole mags to someone who would like to keep them?

Because slicing it out with a razor blade and placing a single piece of paper on the scanner is about a thousand times easier, and gets you a way better scan than trying to smash a bound magazine onto the scanner with the inner edge of the page curling up, etc.

Guys, cutting up a model train magazine isn't a sin you know. [}:)]

[:)]

[Anonymous]

Cutting them up is anathema to me.
If you don't want to keep the whole thing and/or want to realise the value why not scan the material you want into your PC and sell the whole mags to someone who would like to keep them?

[cuyama]

As part of the junkectomy needed for the next phase of layout constuction in my garage, I've had to face the fact that I was drowning in train mags. In my case, I decided to keep the Model Railroader magazines (including MRP and GMR) and the Layout Design Journal/News intact, at least for now. These have been very handy and are a good general reference, I find.

Nearly all of the other mags I am tearing/cutting apart and saving key articles in 3-ring binders. These are filed simply by date: all the 2003 articles together, filed by magazine/month, etc.

Once I get on a roll, I'm spending 2-4 minutes to completely process each mag ... that includes paging through, cutting, punching, placing in binders, etc. I have a pad and pen at hand and I'm making very quick notes ... just a line ... on each article I save. Later I may organize those notes further, but mainly I'll just use the Index of Magazines on this site. Since I have organized my clippings by year/mag/month, it should be easy to find anything I have saved.

My sense is that it's taking a lot less time this way than to scan articles and/or fiddle with a database -- at least for me.

In my case, I know my interests pretty well. My own layout concepts have always been focused on California. Some references to the rest of the country I might need when doing designs for others can always be found in the stored MRs, at least. I'm interested in rail/marine, terminal operations and switching, etc. I'm fortunate that i don't need to save a ton of articles "just in case" my interests change.

But still, it's always very hard for me to throw away anything that might be useful in the future. Two parents raised in the depression will do that to you. But I'm trying to focus on:
1) articles that really speak to my specific interests (these are few)
2) information that cannot readily be found elsewhere (some of Culotta's "Essential Freight Cars" articles in Railmodel Craftsman are examples for me)
3) Memorable/inspirational layout coverage
4) Tips and techniques that I had forgotten since I read the magazine the first time -- if I forgot it once, I'll forget again

Most of all, I had to let go of the fear of not having something that I might need in the future (however remote the possiblity). Back issues or copies can always be purchased if something like that happens.

I've reduced several linear feet of stored magazines to four mid-sized binders so far. Very satisfying.

Regards,

Byron

[potlatcher]

QUOTE: It sounds like you're mainly interested in the "how to" type articles, which have little or no value use after 10 years.

JMHO, but I think the how-to articles are more likely to be useful than anything else in the magazine, no matter how old they may be. Not every locomotive, freightcar, caboose, structure, etc . . . is available "off the shelf" these days, and sometimes the "old" way of doing things is the best way to get what you want. Or, at least seeing how things used to be done can inspire you to find new techniques to accompli***he same task.

Take for example the Kizilgoetian Supply/Perkins Produce structure article in the latest MR. I found it very enlightening to read the Smallshaw article from 1974 (that MR posted on their website) then to read the current article and see where the author followed Smallshaw's instructions and where he broke away with newer techniques. By comparing and contrasting the two sets of techniques, I feel more confident that I can take on a similar project and have the skills to get it done.

For me, the layout articles are usually the first to go into the recycling bin (with some notable exceptions), and the how-to articles are the first to save.

Tom