First, let me say that I believe that MR is a fairly well done, high class reflection of our hobby.
That being said, have others noted that the layouts featured and the opinions offered seem to represent a fairly narrow field. I live in the Chicago area, and have been to over a dozen outstanding layouts just in my area which have never seen the inside of an issue of MR. I know many modelers who are outstanding and whose contributions would be well received,some of which are personally known to the MR staff. I would imagine there are hundreds within the US alone.
Yet what we get is, for the most part, the same small inner circle (clique) of friends whose work (some is outstanding, I’ll concede) shows up over and over. Be honest, how many times do we need to see David Popp’s layout? I realize he is a senior editor now, but after his editorial, his reviews, and the almost requisite “here’s another look at David’s layout”, must we also go online to find yet another view of his layout via an “online bonus”? I just went to their website, and the new issue is up, with another online “bonus” of his layout right there.
This wasn’t the situation in the past, but lately it seems that the name should be changed to the “Model Railroad Staff and their friends News”. And while I’m on a (polite) rant, anyone else notice that the only products reviewed seem to be those which buy advertising in MR?
If you have people in your area with great talent, have them write an article with pics. They accept that type of input. I don’t have enough talent to do that, but some of the people right here in this forum have been published. As far as products go , oh well money talks everwhere.
At least they’ve moved away from the Santa Fe articles every month. As much as I like their paint scheme, seeing it constantly was annoying. Speaking of variety, why not run some P&LE articles? I don’t even recall seeing anything on P&LE in MR over the years…unless you count that track plan for the Montour RR, one of their subsidiaries.
I agree with both of you. First, MR does seem to re-visit the same layouts over and over. But, how are they to find all of these terrific other layouts if nobody tells them?
If you have a great layout, take pictures and send them in. Well-written material and good photos are always welcome at any publication.
Bergie will tell you - and probably quickly - that there are no connections between the advertising and reviewing departments. The pool of large-circulation manufacturers isn’t that large, so regardless of whether Bachmann buys a lot of advertising in MR, their products show up on every online retailer and in most hobby shops. It makes sense to review something that a lot of people see. The reviews also have utility in the hobby beyond their insight into the quality of the item that’s reviewed - I used them (when returning to the hobby after a break) to gauge the “expected level of quality” of similar items.
Gappleg,
You know, I never looked at it that way. As busy as we all seem to be, maybe MR just doesn’t get enough quality material from people who are stretched too thin, and have to make do with what they have. I know I’m too busy, and not good enough yet, to make a MR level contribution.
Maybe we need to be sending in suggestions as to modellers and layouts they should look into? I personally know of one really nice guy who, along with a group of fine, skilled friends, is building a layout filling a 5000 sq.ft. basement right down the street from me (Bob P., call your office). With 2 levels, no less!
How about it, guys? If you are paying for the magazine, that kinda makes you part of the team. Anyone think a thread recommending layouts and/or modellers who might be non-writers or non-publicity seekers, but whose work might help all of us, would be useful?
You all make good points - articles hashed and rehashed; prime example is the bi-annual tool articles.
What about the railroads that don’t make the ‘oh my gooodness’ photographs - how about just plain good work from the regular guy or club.
Those modellers out there who are further along than I am - stand up and amaze us.
At one time, layouts articles featured in MR were all submitted by readers; they used the best of what they received.
In the past while, it appears they are mostly commisioning photographers to do layout articles for them, usually Lou Sassi and Paul Dolkos. Their work and modeling is first class, and they do produce quality articles. But their bylines are almost everywhere - in the layout articles, Trackside Photos (once used for reader’s photos), MR’s many annual magazines, and of course their own layout items that are used semi regularly.
So to me I do agree there is a “clique” of those whose work MR depends upon, leaving many out of the loop.
Gappleg,
You got me. I have been a Master Lurker, as I’m on almost every day. I don’t comment much, as I’m more interested in what others here have to say than what I have to say.
You made my point for me more eloquently than I was able. There are a number of great works-in-progress which we have been virtual guests at here. Since this forum is run by Kalmbach, why don’t more of these get featured in MR (some do, but not many)?
If you want to prove or disprove if a clique exists look no further than Malcom Furball who was the darling for awhile. He got to write articles followed by ads for the buildings on the layouts he was commissioned to make. When I voiced my displeasure I was told by Russ Larson (have the letter yet for anyone who wants to see it) that he was, “A breath of fresh air in the hobby”. That is when I decided I would read MR at the library. It is the same thing at Trains in my opinion. Ever had a picture accepted? I witnessed a wreck and got pictures while it was occurring. I immediately called to ask if they were interested based on my past experiences and was told, “No thanks we already have them”. That woke me up to the real situation. My opinion is not one of great interest or usage any more. In my lifetime we have gone from paint a car or engine in every paint scheme possible and concetrate on making curves more prototypical to now where we have $400.00 engines people get upset of they won’t run on 15" radius curves in HO. I think that reflects the toy train interest of the current group who think super O gauge curves are broad. Sorry for the rant.
One other thing. When I decided to not renew my subscription I had been a subscriber for alomst 30 years. They didn’t even consider sending a card or ask why I dropped it so I guess they don’t need my money.
My problem with the layout articles, other than what has already been said, is that they seem to be written using a template; they’re all pretty much the same. I think that’s because most of the articles have no depth, that is they don’t explain how the owner built that bridge or why that industry is so important to the layout’s operation, etc. I guess space is an issue alone with the fact that Model Railroader is more of a visual magazine than technical.
rripperger,
I misspoke a bit. When I referred to “reviews”, what I meant to say was “new product reviews”. My intention was to refer to the new products introduction each month, which is also available online at MR’s website, not the in-depth tests.
I’m associated with a 3 year old craftsman type laser kit company, which is really managed by a small group of master modellers (no intent to advertise here, so no name).[:I] We have introduced or will introduce over 150 new kits this year alone, and have won best-of-show awards at train shows for our products and displays. We are good enough to have met the high standards of Walther’s, yet we have had very little exposure in MR, and have come to understand that we will never get much unless we pay the exorbitant fees for an ad. I understand that the magazine is a business, but we are selling our products worldwide, and yet I cannot tell you how many times folks have come up to us at a show and said “Wow, how come I haven’t heard about you”.
Before anyone says the obvious, we cannot justify the expense for a MR ad, and have gone to other venues (magazines and online). However, instead of just reviewing the products which can be seen anywhere, and are generally reviewed in multiple places coincidentally at the same time or just before th
My current beef (beefs??) with MR have to do with them dropping the schedule (of flea markets, open houses, etc.) and the way their product announcements are now so worthless. In HO they usually have 3-4 headings of “Miscellaneous Freight Cars” for example. That doesn’t tell me much!! Or else I see something interesting (“Northern Pacific 4-8-4”) only to find it’s from a brass manufacturer, and costs $2000. I’d rather see them go back to headings by company. I know I want to see what Atlas, Walthers, Stewart, Kato and others are announcing, not so much the PSC or Oriental.
If you go online, they have moved the schedule of events to their website. It was a controversial decision, and got a lot of comments here.
In my post right above yours, I make the same point about the new product releases. Rather than listing the latest 50 ready-to-run boxcars Athearn is introducing this month, wouldn’t it be more useful to see the latest club cars or limited run structures which you likely won’t see on the shelves of the LHS? The point was made above that they do reviews of the items most likely to be seen at all the LHSs, like Bachman, but it would seem that if they are in every LHS, where you will see them on your next visit, why choose those items to review?
When MR buys an article from someone outside the loop, you have to sign an acceptance form that states the material may be rewritten in the “MR style”. MR Style = template!
By George, I think you got it! Pretty pictures everywhere, perfection all over the place, not a piece of unfinished benchwork anywhere!