I was reading an old tread the other day in which people were commenting on what they did or didn’t like about MR. It seemed that this topic hadn’t been discussed in a while and I thought it might be interesting to get a few ideas on what you’d change if you had the opportunity.
I admit that part of the problem I have with MR is my fault. I’ve been in the hobby for a long time and I now find that a lot of the material seems like old news or just too basic. It would be easy to criticize them for that, but I can appreciate that someone who’s relatively new to the hobby would be quite happy to read anything they can get their hands on.
I used to think it was worth getting the magazine to stay current on new products. These days, I can do better on-line with the newsletters and web sites. By the time the announcement for a new product appears in MR I can already have the product on my layout. I’m not sure if there’s an easy fix to that, but it does lessen the value of this section for most of us.
For my part, I’d like to see a construction project on a layout that doesn’t fit on a 4 x 8 or other small table. I realize that these small layouts allow the series to be covered in a relatively short time, but they’re of no interest to me. Just once, I’d like to see the staff build a really good sized layout. Make it modular if you want, but lets have something that provides a bit more of a challenge.
There are a few things that they’ve dropped over the years that I’d like to see back. Readers that have been with MR long enough will remember the series with prototype plans. They used to have a nice selection of rolling stock, locomotives and structures. After all, the equipment we’re running on our layouts is based, for the most part, on actual prototypes. So why not do a regular feature on the real thing?
A few years ago, there was a great series of articles with full-color renderings of passenger t
As long is it doesn’t feature the MR editorial staff!!!
No, seriously… More N scale.
And I second the idea of doing more non-4x8 project layouts. The On30 one they did was a nice change of pace, but it seemed thin; I was left wanting more.
I understand what you’re saying. Haven’t started my layout yet, but do know that I’ll want to do larger then a 4’ X 8’(doing HO, larger radius curves are a priority). But I think we need to realize that a lot of modelers are significantly space limited, and given that 4 X 8 ply is the size that it does come in, makes sense that a lot of folks are going to want to model in that area. Yes I think bigger is better when possible, around the walls better than a 4 X 8 island, etc., but I’m just saying that having a lot of ideas for those who are limited to the 4 X 8 space isn’t a bad thing and we should expect is going to be frequently revisited in a lot of articles.
I would stop charging small clubs that want to advertise their annual show in the magazine. Small clubs really can’t afford to pay. I still laugh every time I see the “Coming Events” column in MR, the column that the MR staff swore up and down that it was being removed to add more “content” to the magazine. The very column that was put back in a few months later but now clubs have to pay to advertise their shows. Its to bad they couldn’t get an advertiser to sponsor the column for free or something. I know a large number of clubs weren’t happy about it and I know a large number of readers realied on that information.
My suggestions (My wife has not pre-approved the following statements. Read at your own risk):
I second the call to return a section of plans and prototype information. This is one of the most valuable parts of the Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette IMHO. However, the elimination of this section may purposeful on Kalmbach’s part to increase subscriptions to Trains and Classic Trains. The other reason may be a dearth of individuals that have access to the necessary information and are capable of and willing to produce the drawings.
I, too, am tired of the quick-hit display projects built in less than a week that have been featured in recent years. This is a throw-back to the projects of the '50s when the December issue featured a 2 article train set improvement that could be built quickly and/or cheaply using the latest materials. It’s not the 4x8 size that is so terrible, but the over-simplification of every aspect of layout construction.
I’d much rather see project layouts modeled after the projects of the '60s and '70s. The layouts were not simple expansions of trains sets, or did not stop when the initial expansion was complete. The project series would last 6 months or more, and would cover in depth the planning, building, wiring, scenicking, operation, and even [#oops] of the layout. Alternatives would be suggested at almost every step. Accompanying, or part of the series, would be articles with suggested locomotives, rolling stock, structures, kit bashes, and even an occasional scratch build that would fit the project layout theme. The final article would often be on how one might enjoy operations of the layout. The series, in essence, was a great hands-on how-to performed by the MR staff that covered all aspects of building a home layout.
In addition to admiring the magnificient photos in
I would say more smaller and medium sized layouts, less 4x8 layouts, more construction articles, more DCC and definitely more track plans, particularly prototyped based but reasonably sized track plans, ie, could fit in a 12 X18 foot room. - Nevin
I want the old MR back, the MR of my youth. Prototype drawings, scratchbuilding articles, Paint shop, Symposium on Electronics, things about model building!
Lately , it seems they are using so much RTR or off the shelf stuff, there is hardly any true modeling going on.
Maybe they ought to change the title to Miniature Train Runner Magazine.
Right! Remember old issues that used to feature in the Trackside Photos section (gasp!) photos of uncompleted models! Unifnished layout areas! Modelers rosters! Not in these days of professionalism. The best and only the best, nothing esle.
my best and favorite issue are all those that predate the 80’s before the big rush of electronics. Seem they were a lot more stuff written from the point of view of the moderate skills modeler. not from the beginners or the super advanced. Lot of scratchbuilding article, and those dollar model articles… those are my favorite, i hope one day Mr would bring those back, even with inflation, i bet many of these model could still be built under 5$… what about E.L moore and those fabulous structures built for pennies on the dollars… man i love those old issues
It didn’t help that the author described how he sent the locomotive out for conversion to On3…now, when something’s not RTR to our specs, we send it to a pro to do the modelwork for us!
What kind of how-to article says, “Step 1: Buy it. Step Two: Pack it up and send it to…”
I like the new MR better than the old. The index could be a little better. I just looked through 2 years worth of issues looking for a lighting article and still couldn’t find it.
How about some some hot looking woman in bikinis holding up trains like that RC Airplane magazine has![:P]
MRR Mag is the only monthly periodical that has any real appeal to the new model railroader. There really is nothing else out there that can appeal to this important segment of modellers. If they don’t get motivated and interested by the magazine how can the hobby grow? On the flip side there are all us old wizened modellers that have been at it for years. Having just gone back through all the issues back to 1999 I realize that I really am not a newbie anymore! Having spent the last 3 days clipping the back issues for information it is really rather fresh in my mind. The magazine is clearly struggling to put content together that appeals to modellers of all skill levels and interests. I would say that they are more focused on the beginner/casual modeller, but also clearly trying to give meat to the rest of us as well. Most of the regular columns are aimed at the novice modeller. The meat for the rest is contained within the layout articles. I think that this is why I find Model RR Craftsman to be such a complimentary publication. I honestly think I get more out of it each month now than MRR.
MRR also reflects the state of the hobby. Lets face it we are moving into a world increasingly dominated by R-2-R and ready made structures. That is the reality on the LHS shelves, and so it is what is shown in the magazine. It won’t be long until they are running a 3 part series on the lost art of assembling a Blue Box freight car, let along scratch building anything. That last project RR is totally indicative of where the hobby is for many. It also might be the very trend that brings more folks into the fold.
I would liken the current state of the magazine to Headline News. Small sound bite sized articles with hints and tips that don’t have a lot of depth. I will keep subscribing because I enjoy the look and feel and the quality production and photos. I enjo
Every once in a while I find a good article but it is rare. My sole use for this magazine is scenery how-to. The articles by Pele are fascinating. The guy is a wizard. Other than that it just really seems dumbed-down. Like it is geared toward people that don’t know what a coupler does. Does anyone remember the article on Trucks? It was like 8 pages long on the different types of trucks. Did anyone find this the least bit useful or entertaining?
I do think the magazine is a reflection on the current state of the hobby. I hate to say it but I truly do feel the R-T-R mentality takes so much away from this hobby. While it may get more people involved, I think the quality of their involvement is much less. I had a friend that scratch built Oscale. Probably 50% of his rolling stock was scratch built including 2 steam locos. His layout had 1 structure, no scenery and no bacdrop. Just a doubletrack loop with a large staging yard. Yet I could spend hours at his house enthralled with the level of craftsmanship that went into these models. Talking about how did you do this or what are you currently working on. Can you imagine this layout if it was running today’s assembly line trains? It would be entirely boring because it would look the same as everyone elses layout.
I am still holding on to the past in most areas, not all. I have purchased several R-T-R locos and cars. The level of detail on these has gotten so much better and my scratch-building skills have yet to be tried. Also I am trying to put as much time into my layout as possible. There will be time for scratch built rolling stock later.
I still put together kits, brass and plastic, but these are becoming increasingly hard to find. My biggest fear is that decal companys will go out of business due to all the R-T-R stuff.
I hand lay my own track. I scratchbuild my own switch frogs and points. I cut my own ties. Some people can make flextrack look pretty realistic but I don’t think anything compares to handlaid track. My
Since I’ve been in the hobby for over 40 years, I’ve realized that many articles in MR are rehashes of older articles. I’ve also noticed most of the newer Kalmbach books are a compendium of articles that have been in past issues of the magazine. This is good in that it helps newcomers to get started on the right track in the hobby but not very informative for me. I get a great deal of information about modeling, products, scratch building, plans, construction articles, etc on the internet, special interest magazines especially Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, and old issues of MR.
I’d like to see more construction articles and plans, humourous columns such as “Looking Back With John Page,” Student Fare, “Ask Paint Shop” and more in depth articles about model building and building small to medium layouts - geared toward the beginner and advanced modeler. I’d like to see much less showcasing of mega layouts that only unlimited time and money can create.
I still follow Linn Westcott’s concept of “Growing a railroad” not because it is prototypical but because you can start small and get your feet wet with a track plan, scenery, structures and gradually - at your convenience - expand and revise while being able to run trains at any stage of construction.
As said earlier, the beginer type stuff is important. I still remember the issue of MR that started it all for me. When I looked inside, I was confused on a lot of stuff due to me not even knowing the lingo. So, remember, the next generation has to start somewhere. We’ve grown in our skills, but newbies have to get the basics. If the mag kept up with “our” skills, no one after us would have a snowball’s chance.
That being said, I agree the 4x8 stuff gets old. How about room sized layouts, prototypically based, that cover the basics, but also dip into more advanced aspects that grabs the attention of more experienced modelers? These projects would be “basic” enough for a beginer-intermediate guy to tackle, but the prototype, operation, etc, would make the layout a viable option for a veteran. That’s what I’d like to see.
As far as the RTR debate, here’s my $.02. I am fully capable of building kits( even advanced). I use a mix of RTR and kit stuff. But, working 6 days a week at 10-14 hrs a day('cept Sat), I appreciate the fact that mfrs put out the quality RTR stuff. Maybe it’s just me, but since I do know how to assemble a quality kit, I like just being able to pop a box and run it.I know what it takes to build a model of that calibre at my bench, so I can appreciate it. I’ve custom painted some of my rolling stock, can decal like a pro, weather regularly with my airbrush, know how to stain stripwood, make trees from dried plants(some) and my cars are all up to NMRA weight standard with real Kadees. But in todays world, time is at a premium. And it’s not insulting to me, because I know the mfrs are producing prototypical models, and I know the difference most of the time. I live in an average middle class suburban neighborhood. Almost all my nieghbors either work 6 days, or long hours, etc. Time is precious.(whew)