Model Railroader
January 1945
52 pages
Editor: Frank Taylor
In 10 years, MR almost doubled in length. In January 1945, A.C. Kalmbach was the listed publisher while Frank Taylor was the listed editor. Managing editor was W.V. Anderson.
On page 3, there was an announcement that the NMRA had a standards vote to increase HO scale wheel flanges from .29” to .33”. There had been talk of .39”, so some felt .33” to be a good compromise. This change was causing consternation amongst two factions: the operators and the modelers. The operators want the bigger flange size for reliability while the modelers wanted the smaller flange size due to its better appearance. There really is nothing new under the sun nor in model railroading is there?
The first layout feature in this issue was for an O scale 17-ft x 12-ft L-shaped traction layout with superelevated curves. I thought MR only ever published large layouts? And what is this superelevation thing on layouts being discussed 80 years ago?
Next up there was an article for building industrial storage tanks to add scenic interest and additional switching to the layout. What caught my eye? They used rivet-detailed aluminum paper to wrap the tubes. Rivet-detailed aluminum paper? Hmmm. I might need some of that as long as it doesn’t have asbestos or something similar in it.
A neat feature followed next. It was a color chart for C&NW. OK. A color chart in a black & white magazine? Well, they did what they could, they described the colors. For example, streamlined diesel locomotives had a green roof and letter board, yellow sides, black striping, aluminum (painted) letters and numbers, and Pullman green trucks. This may not give you exact shades, but it does help as you look at black & white photos of what the colors were.
In the Track and Signal Clinic regular feature conducted by Linn Westcott, a reader submitted a diagram of a real location whereby 2 railroads crossed a river and 2 railroads paralleled the river. Linn drew up a sketch of a possible out and back layout focusing on this prototype feature. He said, “a model railroad built around a prototype is much more likely to appeal to visitors as well as operators because of the realistic touch so often lacking in a more synthetic plan.” That sounds a little like a very early Layout Design SIG. MR staff pushing the boundaries 80 years ago? How about that. This regular feature also had the Layout of the Month. It was a track plan for a folded dog bone plan (sort of) with a reverse C-shaped layout. I bring up the shape as many layouts back then were rectangular or crawl-under and stand in the middle to operate trains. This one is a walk-in design, What is interesting, it gave you the layout size based on the radius you chose. If you chose 24” radius, the layout would be 11 x 12. If you chose 30” radius, the layout would be 13 ¾ x 15, and so on. The layout was intended for continuous running and had the imagined features of eastern U.S. or Canadian mountains to act as some viewblocks for the tracks and to create the elevation changes. Another smaller layout from MR. A little more track than may be necessary, but not a bad little design.
In the Construction Kinks column, there was one that caught my eye. It was the Rock Ledge from Trees. The modeler took tree bark and dipped them in thin plaster to coat them to make “rocks”. I’ve seen layouts today (and read articles about) whereby rock faces were created with tree bark laid horizontally to create rock striations and so forth but I don’t recall that they were dipped in anything. This one from 1945 could be brought up to modern specs for rock faces or outcroppings. I may have to ponder this one.
The centerfold consisted of beautiful drawings and prototype photos of a Lackawanna 4-6-0 camelback. I won’t ever build one (at least I don’t think I will), but I sure do admire the drawings and photos.
MR had the readers wound up in the mid-1940’s. Here is a sampling of what some of them wrote:
- “I am inclined to agree somewhat with “A Disgusted Reader.” I used to receive my copy of the magazine around the 10th of the month; now it arrives near the end. If I want to buy a scarce item, it’s gone before I can order.” Or in today’s terms: pre-orders and limited runs.
- “While Linn Westcott can design a good layout, it is too fantastic for the average guy. Few are applicable to anything but a club layout.” Or in today’s terms: we need more small layouts!
- “I am inclined to agree with “A Disgusted Reader” but I would not put it as strongly as “stinks” – just say The Model Railroader is only about one-half as helpful as it used to be two and three years ago…I can understand issues being late and the quality of paper not so good. That is to be expected, but when I do get the magazine I would like to find something worthwhile in it.” Or in today’s terms: dissatisfaction with content and paper.
- “I agree with “A Disgusted Reader.” I think “The Art of Model Railroading” was a waste of critical materials that took us away from facts into the realm of fantasy.” Or in today’s terms: I think the words “serious model railroading” or “serious modeler” would have been stated at some point.
I think some of these guys may still be around posting on forums. Have I said lately, the more things change, the more they stay the same?
Jeff