I used to criticize MR a lot, but lately they’ve been doing a fine job of making a magazine that is useful and fun to read. This month is especially good. The articles aren’t earth-shaking, but they’re done very well.
The photos are very nice. I used to complain, somewhat unfairly (given my own low skill), of the overuse of a certain type of high-angle layout photo, but once again the MR crew has turned out an issue that doesn’t overuse it. The photos are good and varied, with lots of low angles and interesting layout.
I really like those shots of trains on the MR&T causeway, especially the one inside the magazine. Perspective photo backdrops have their ups and downs, but when the match is so nearly seamless, and the angle is just right, they sure make beautiful photo scenes that seem to stretch for miles. The cover shot is also very fine - the curving train really seems to jump right out of the page at the viewer, and then lead the eye back toward the text, without crowding it. It’s a good, eye-catching cover.
The only “bad” part of the harbor article is that it can’t really imbue the reader with the artistry needed to make the water look that lifelike. That can’t be helped; it takes practice, I’m sure, and the article does give you inspiration and a starting point, which is just what is needed.
Seth Puffer’s new railroad looks great. There’s something oddly compelling about his style, which is somehow timeless without being anachronistic - I think it comes from the skillful way he has combined the various models and details and made them work together. There are elements of fantasy in it, and yet it reminds me of a lot of places I’ve seen. It’s a bridge line, in time as well as space, maybe. [:)]
As I walked past the news stand, I glanced at the cover of the latest edition and decided I would wait until next month for my next purchase. None of the featured articles hold much appeal for me, and I’ll be content to wait another three weeks.
I do, never the less, enjoy the issues from month to month. I feel the imagery is very good and varied, and their how-to articles are likely to appeal to a broad range of people to an extent. Serious modelers will want something more, but they also have ways to get it.
I thought the Feb. issue was pretty good, 4 outta’ 5 stars . I’ve had a 'scrip for years & usually find something in each of interest. For My money it still beats “the other guys”,which I usually don’t buy. I would like to see more in depth dcc articles but they can’t please everyone.
I don’t subscribe to RMC, but I probably should, since I buy it every month. The way I see it, two magazines per month is better than one, and there are enough differences in style to make them both worth getting.
The Feb 2009 RMC is good, too, with a Scratchbuilder’s Corner on making your own windows, of all things.
I too was selective on what months would work for me. But at one time I was finding my self wishing I had a issue that I didn’t have. Now I have filled in all those missing months. Alot of those past articles have become relavent to me after 5, 10, 20 years. Even if it’s a little “How to” article.
I glanced through this month’s, read a few of the articles, it didn’t really grab me. However, i tihnk I read every article in the January issue, especially Pelle’s weatheirng article. I love weathering articles [:P]
I am so behind in my issues I don’t know what month I have, but will make sure to have these two since you fellas are recommending them. I have to get back on track, no pun intended.
Even a one-star issue of MR makes me giddy and I rate the Feb 2009 issue as middle of the road, but overall quality for the last 12 months has been outstanding. Still going through the Jan 2009 and I’m done with the Feb 2009. Jamie
It has been suggested, on more than one occasion, that magazines like MRR, include photos and diagrams of non-professional layouts. I would love to see that. Now, I agree that a shot of a 4x8 piece of plywood with an oval laid out on it, a couple of out-of-the-box structures and a single locomotive would be boring. But, what about fully landscaped layouts, engine servicing facility complexes, large city passenger train complexes, freight yards, etc. All of us read these forums, buy and read MRR, and so forth, but what do our layouts look like? Why does a magazine like MRR resist featuring its own constituents?
Well, they do. Please understand that my comment on professionally-built layouts only refers to the Winter Wonderland pike, which isn’t nearly as good as the Puffer Bridge Lines also featured. The PBL is an amateur project in the best sense possible. Seth Puffer isn’t really one of the MR Illuminati, either. He’s been published 5 times, according to the MR database - this layout, his last layout which was in GMR, and his original modest-sized “The Puffer”.
(There are no MR Illuminati.)
(If there were, they sure wouldn’t tell you about it.)
(Strictly speaking, the Beer Line is professionally constructed, but that’s a project layout, and those have usually been done by staff.)
I think it’s because we don’t submit articles or photos that rate with the publishers. I don’t believe they would turn down the average Joe’s substandard layout if it was presented right. The coffee table article is a good example of an average looking layout with a “gimmick” that makes it look better.
And I thought that article was one of the highlights of the issue…if you look at the layout, its really not anything special (A.K.A. average Joe), but the table is quite a different kind of project for a model railroader, and something totally interesting and fun. Someone who enjoys woodworking or is looking to solve a real estate problem might appreciate it.
Aren’t most of the layouts featured in MR “non-professional” layouts? The Puffer Bridge Lines mentioned above is a good example, and another would be the n-scale UP Rochelle Subdivision featured in Nov. 2008 that made the cover and had a full article devoted to it. Usually they have a little sidebar or box giving a bio of the owner of the layout, and only on rare occasions is the owner’s profession listed as being in the model railroad industry. Of course, to me professional vs. non-professional has nothing to do with the quality of the layout as both above “non-professional” examples are teriffic layouts. Jamie