I am looking for ideas on how to make the print magazines better.
What would you like to see?
Better paper, photography, more pages? What is your preference?
What topics would you like to see us cover deeper, more often?
4 Likes
I really think you’re on the right track. I applaud your efforts.
As long as the emphasis is on producing a great print magazine, and not trying to force readers to go digital. I tried digital, but nothing feels so luxurious as holding a great magazine in your hands, and flipping pages.
Thank You again.
Paul
2 Likes
Would like to see larger pictures of layouts. Also too me some of the best layout articles were when a train would be “followed” Not sure why we need multi paragraphs on how scenery was done, what command control system they are using, etc…
3 Likes
** better paper and yes more layouts & ideas for locos & rolling stock & places for reader photos & such.
**
for trains mag i think better paper & smaller railroads like 2nd class roads even modeling idea pics
2 Likes
For Trains magazine one topic I would like to see in depth is the AC traction system on locomotives. The technology for traction inverters is evolving rapidly, and I would be interested in what the future holds.
As for better paper, while the paper used for Flying magazine is nice, I’m comfortable with sticking with the paper currently used for Trains.
Finally, kudos to you for taking an active interest in the customer.
1 Like
Im here to learn. I would have come much earlier, but the forums were such a mess to use that it felt that was a much bigger priority.
Now, we can focus on the digital conversion of the websites and upgrading the print magazines.
4 Likes
Model Railroader:
Heavier paper for a better feel. Not the thick archival type paper. Just a bit heavier than what is being used.
It seems like the layout features have gotten shorter with fewer and smaller pictures. Photo quality has always been top flight, so let’s get back to more and bigger photos. I think for the technology connection between the paper magazine and the online experience would be to put an expanded layout tour with unused photos, layout videos, and owner interviews if they are willing.
Here’s something not everyone will agree with but hear me out. New product announcements belong online and not in the magazine. Why? Limited runs and quick sellouts. With the lead time of print, how many new products are unavailable by the time the mags hit mailboxes? This is another way to complement the paper magazine with an online experience. Maintain a new product announcement section online that gets updated almost in real time.
I could see product reviews also going online rather than paper. The concept is kind of the same. What good is a product review on a “new” release that sold out three or four or five months ago? By moving them online you can get a review out quicker plus you get the benefits of video. I do appreciate the prototype info included in the product reviews which will get me to read at least part of the review when I have no interest in buying the actual product (i.e. it’s not the scale I’m modeling). Moving new products and reviews online opens up pages for articles and columns plus give you more magazine and online linkages.
Bring back Paint Shop but expand the concept from how to paint and letter specific locos and freight cars. In addition, expand it to cover other painting related topics such as weathering and techniques. Have articles showing weathering a model based on a photo of the prototype (think about a Railroad Prototype Modelers meet whereby the photo of the prototype is sitting next to the model of that specific prototype right down to the road number. Also expand the column to cover not only locos and freight cars, but painting and weathering buildings, track, details, etc…
Add a regular column or feature regarding layout design. It would be a place for concepts, track plans, design elements, etc. One of the things I’ve seen done by the Layout Design Special interest Group is they took a prototype location and translated it into a layout design (not an entire layout but just one area that had a few industries, sidings, passing tracks). It was neat watching how they took this area and chose the elements and arranged them to keep the overall spirit of the prototype. This could also be a place to resurrect A Railroad You Can Model. I always liked these even if I never planned on modeling them. It goes back to how to translate a prototype into a layout design. This regular feature would nicely complement the monthly column you have on operations.
For further linkages between the magazine and online experience, link the mag articles with online features. For example, if there is an article on weathering a boxcar, have online features with video of the author or staffer actually following the instructions and techniques from the written article. Also, you could have additional links to other online features on using the tools from the articles. Going back to weathering the boxcar, have a video not only of someone actually wreathing the boxcar, but have other links to how to use an airbrush, how to airbrush with the various brands of paint on the market, using pan pastels to weather, etc…
Bring back meatier articles. Over the last several years ( or decade or two) It seems the balance shifted to lighter weight, shorter, and easier topics in the magazine and heavier topics got turned into books. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve enjoyed the books but it seems like the content in MR paid the price. For example, MR used to have articles on industries you can model. That then turned into a series of books and you really never saw that kind of topic in MR again. It also seems that Great Model Railroads and Model Railroad Planning may have cannibalized MR content. And please, please don’t get me wrong on this one….i really enjoy those two and am not in favor of ending them, just make sure that content doesn’t get sacrificed in MR for special issues. It does no good to sacrifice the flagship for special issues.
An idea I suggested to MR years and years ago that they did not use was to rotate three regular columns 4 times per year. RMC picked up on this (which I had nothing to do with just so no one thinks I’m trying to take credit for something) and I think it works well. It can help keep things fresh, especially if running a column or topic every month starts getting repetitive. And by rotating the three columns you are also maintaining your page count while simultaneously expanding the topics covered in a 12 month period.
I miss the old Bull Session column. Maybe that could be quarterly or maybe that could be an online regular feature. It was a place for odds and ends. RMC resurrected Editors Notebook which is in the same vein. I find the “inside information” or behind the scenes info to be interesting.
I strongly believe there is room in the market whereby MR, RMC, and MRH are all successful. I think that it is not only good for the hobby, but necessary, to have all three publications be healthy. It’s not easy to find balance and maintain engagement between providing content to those new to the hobby all the way up to those grizzled hobby veterans and also standout from the other hobby publications. It is also difficult as much of this is based on potential authors sending in content. But you have a good team and you’re engaged so things are moving in the right direction.
Thanks for reading this far.
Jeff
5 Likes
These are interesting ideas, some of which we’ve kicked around in the past. With our new leadership, we’re looking forward to keeping MR interesting and engaging for our entire audience.
Thanks for sharing.
Eric White
2 Likes
I have an ask:
I subscribe to CTT. The frequency of issues went from 9 per year to 4 per year now. I know you have a lot on your plate, but is there any thought of returning to a larger frequency?
Paul
I always thought that something that would be cool to do is a layout design contest with some fixed parameters like you used to do. The twist would be that the MR team would take the winning design and make that the project layout for the next year. On the other hand maybe the contest went away due to lack of interest…lol. Not all of my ideas, or any of my ideas, will be worth a darn. I’m just throwing different things out there trying to pick some of the best things from the past and marrying them to the future. At any rate, I’m looking forward to see where it all goes. I’m just happy that ol’ blue and white masthead has a future…and I think a bright one at that.
Jeff
2 Likes
I don’t see (or feel) anything wrong with the quality of the paper. To me that is a very odd thing to focus on.
Longer layout articles comes to find, including “behind the scenes” information and photos.
More articles, although I realize quality content may be hard to find. The hobby is so well established that it’s hard to find something fresh or new to write about. Step by step construction articles bore me for that reason. I want to read about new products, techniques, or unique problem solutions. 74 steps of gluing commercial detail parts to a model is a waste of paper.
I do recognize that the size and quantity of photos may be a result of needing article authors to take their own pictures. It’s kind of hard to ask an author to go back and retake pictures from step 3 of a modeling project.
Please, please, please… NO ADDITONAL OPINION COLUMNS. I dropped my RMC subscription when I counted 12 pages of opinions in one issue after the WRP revamp. I pay for modeling info - I can get all the opinions I need online. (I don’t need opinions.)
I would like an expanded new products section that doesn’t focus on locomotives and rolling stock. I am particularly interested in scenery products and scratch building supplies.
It’s a slippery slope when content is moved online - inevitably the question is asked, Isn’t everything more accessible online? Click to see bigger pictures, click for direct links to products and services from articles, click to ask questions on an article.
1 Like
I almost forgot to ask:
any plans to bring back Garden Railways? There is still a dedicated following that are underserved. Just wondering if you any plans.
Thanks,
Paul
I love Garden Railways; I want to build one at my house and would love to bring Garden Railways back to print in some form.
I am not committing, however.
There are far more pressing needs that we want to address before we restore older titles, but Garden is on my wish list.
For now, our investments will be centered on investing significant updates to the the flagship titles - MRR, CT, and Trains…
But appreciate the interest and something to consider once we get further along in our journey.
Hey Jeff - I’ve shared your comments with the hobby leadership. Many of your ideas have been echoed by others and will be looked at in our redesign…
1 Like
I love Diesel Locomotives. I love reading about different builders - both current two and those from the past. I love reading about engines, mechanics from brakes to couplers to controls to… well all of the parts.
Now, I enjoy all the other facets; don’t get me wrong.
Blessings and happy holidays.
1 Like
It would be nice to see a lot more articles about operations in Model Railroader as well as ones about kitbashing and scratchbuilding.
2 Likes
As for Trains Magazine, I would like more coverage on technical details–how things work on locomotives, brake control, etc. I am fascinated by track work–tracklaying, maintenance, and the machines that do that work.
3 Likes
On track plans maybe including a breakdown of the needed parts and pieces to build it for the smaller layouts say anything under 60 square ft in size. Also helpful hints for more budget friendly models not everyone out here can afford 70 dollars a car 400 bucks a locomotive anymore. That’s why Menards is making massive headway in the O Guage marketplace 25 30 bucks a car is easier on a budget.
1 Like
This is a great idea!