I just got the May issue of the magazine and at least from my viewpoint it is one of the best I’ve seen. I’m particularly interested in the section on switching and hints on how to build a good switching layout.
It is indeed a good issue.
There was a couple of switching moves I had to say “say what?” to but,maybe that’s the way NH did things and I question some of the switching times…Overall its good switching information.
Send me a copy mail or MRR are dragging their feet.
I liked David Popp´s feature on switching very much. In general, though, I´d like to see more about N scale MRRing, which still seems to be a kind of a stepchild to the MR folks.
MR is bascally an HO scale magazine.
They will occasionally have some references to G scale and S scale with a Z scale new offering in the wings,like N scale.
There ARE, at least here in the States, plenty of magazines, both in print and online which cater exclusively to N scalers. You need to Check them out for better satisfaction.
Concur!! May’s issue was one of the best I’ve ever seen. David Popp´s feature on switching was especially well done. More operations articles if you please! [:D]
Joe
That is a similar complaint about the Claasic Toy Trains magazine which seems to cover only O gauge model railroading.
As an HO guy who still has his old American Flyer stuff from childhood, I can see the objections on both sides on the way magazines cover certain scales to the virtual exclsuion of other scales. But the fact of the matter is that these magazines cater to the predominant scale in each branch of the hobby.
Rich
The Popp article was OK, but the illustrations were confusing. With the color scheme used for the cars and the lack of “before and after” illustrations, it took a lot of concentration to see what being accomplished on the three types of switching operations: trailing point, facing point, and runaround.
Rich
Hmmm…an interesting take by most posters. Just what are folks finding in this issue that seems to make it “one of the best in a long time (or even ever)”? Would those posting further perhaps care to elaborate a bit on what they are finding so impressive about the May issue? Certainly, it’s better than many of the examples from say 8-10 years ago, which essentially centered around RTR, but I thought the latest content was pretty much just average. Perhaps it’s the fact that many, or even most, folks here never saw the content of issues from long years ago (60’s, 70’s, 80’s)? Personally, I regard several other recent issues as having been superior to May’s.
CNJ831
It’s funny that you should mention that. I was antique shopping with my wife yesterday, and I came across a Model Railroader; February 1974. And in the “Railway Post Office” feature, there was a letter called “Format gripes”. In the letter the writer comments about a letter that had been written by another modeler that appeared in the November 1973 issue.
“…It seems that every month there is a letter or two concerning gripes over MR’s format and content. Every letter writer wants more space devoted to his (her?) pet interest. Why? Because that is obviously his favorite part of the hobby. One wants more in modern diesel power, ad infinitum.”
It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Not much has changed in 37 years.
John,Get right down to it may be futile to compare yesterday’s hobby with today’s…Its a whole new hobby…We just don’t have the craftsman like we had back then…
I seriously doubt if the majority of today’s modelers (including me) can build a steam locomotive out of brass or tin stock like Mel Thormberg and others including my Dad did back then.
The hobby has switch paths and the old days is just that old days that belongs to us old timers…It doesn’t make today’s hobby bad just different then the one we was accustomed to…
The days of scratchbuilding is fading into the sunset and I suspect Craftsman kits will follow suit in the years to come as the baby boomers fade away.
I don’t know of any current locomotive kits available today like we had back then…
MR has always been the trend setter and had the need to stay current as the hobby shift gears through the years.
I have looked though those old magazines and while the articles was excellent in their day I found them boring in today’s hobby…I even seen a article on super detailing Athearn locomotives and with modeling information available with google and a click of the mou
Larry, I’m not for a moment trying to make any case of long past issues addressing scratchbuilding, or similar topics, as compared with today’s content. However, I would take exception to the implication that the hobby has drastically changed, or that magazine content necessarily has become more simplistic because of a supposed lessening of hobbyist’s talents. Neither in my current opinion is scratchbuilding vanishing. It is simply that this forum and MR itself have become much more entry-level oriented. RMC is 100% old fashion hands on modeling and it enjoys a considerable circulation (about 50k readers), so there must still be a very significant ongoing interest in that part of the hobby.
Getting back to my post, I simply don’t see anything that I would regard as being outstanding about the May issue. I saw nothing that I would consider as new and innovative modeling, unusually impressive construction methods, layout design concepts, or extensive prototype information. Even the layout tours were not anything above the norm to my mind.
So just what are many seeing that is exciting about the May issue? Everything I saw looked pretty much just run-of-the-mill and that is what prompted me to ask the question. Honestly, it was only Andy’s column on the magazine’s last page that drew any attention from me this month. To my mind, it was the March issue that definitely stood out with fresh new content worthy of special comment…and I posted about that.
CNJ831
So just what are many seeing that is exciting about the May issue? Everything I saw looked pretty much just run-of-the-mill and that is what prompted me to ask the question. Honestly, it was only Andy’s column on the magazine’s last page that drew any attention this month. To my mind, it was the March issue that definitely stood out with fresh new content.
CNJ831
I suppose that will depend on the reader.
Even though I don’t agree with all the unneeded switching moves and the nice off spot tracks(be nice if we had such on the PRR or the Chessie(C&O)) I still enjoyed the article on switching because its one of the better switching articles in quite some time…
Of course I am always happy to see articles that promotes realistic operation and I have enjoyed the past few issues.IMHO MR is improving.
This may come as a shock, but I totally agree with CNJ’s analysis of the issue. I read it through over a cup of coffee, it now reposes in the throne/reading room with other mags, but I just didn’t find anything too mentionable in the issue. Nice, but not inspiring. Guess I really am getting old.
Oh, the article on switching wa interesting, but for me, hard to read. The numbers on the little car symbols were hard for my bi-focals to pick out. I was about ready to get the magnifying glass out, but finally finished the article. Subject good, execution a little shaky.
Bob
Note the first town in the article. IMHO, a single switchback is fine as long as it is solely a switching lead serving on or more trailing spurs. Double industrial switchbacks are for the “gamers” and the “birds.”
The magazine press overall has greater coverage of N than of HO. There is too much coverage of N in Model Railroader for my liking. N-scalers have at least two magazines solely devoted for their scale. Since HO modelers don’t have a magazine devoted to their scale, those of the N persuasion have little/nothing to complain about.
Look at this way…There are thousands of N Scalers faithfully reading MR every month.Dropping N from the magazine could result in lost readers something MR can’t afford with their dwindling readership…
I don’t disagree with you, Larry. My point was that N-scalers should be the last to complain about coverage peculiar to their scale.
Except for the advertisements, most of the content in MR is relevant to all scales, such as the switching article.
Agreed…Like those “off spot” tracks…There lots of room on the industrial leads to leave these cars…
Why uncouple the caboose for a simple run around move? Since the train is a turn why bother to switch it when it can be easily switch on the return trip?
Why leave those Torrington cars in the yard…Why not save the unneeded work by taking those cars with you?
Of course that is the NH and they may have had specific operating rules to go by.
[:-^]
If this is so, why not mention it…?
Johnboy out …