Is it just me, or does MR seem to be more like Model Trains of years-gone-by?
Welcom to the forums. [#welcome]. So, there was a model railroad publication called “Model Trains” ?
What is this Model Trains you speak of?
A magazine published by Kalmbach for “beginners” back in the olden days. I have, in fact, the copy of the above that I bought with my very own allowance.
It was discontinued, undoubtedly because it wasn’t making enough bucks. And so Model Railroader, which had been sort of reserved for non-beginners, had to take over that magazine’s tasks, also.
You might notice that, from the list of articles on the cover, it had some pretty useful (and admittedly simple–what’s wrong with that?) info for “old hands”. They also had a “column” about road-testing kits, both locomotives and rolling stock. By the way, kits were boxes of little bits that, when assembled properly, looked just like RTR cars.
Ed
I think Model Railroader does a pretty good job balancing between beginners and more advanced topics. They’re pretty much the only ones with beginner material and a focus on building a layout. So while they cover all parts of the hobby, some aspects come on an intermittent basis. Their main competitors are focused on fewer parts of the hobby and so cover them more frequently.
So yes MR does cover what Model Trains covered, but it is more than just Model Trains with a different name.
Paul
The old “Model Trains” tried to mix what I would call “advanced tinplate” with “beginner scale models” material, together with elements that MR itself once addressed with a column called “student fare.” There was something about the “tone” of the articles that was aimed at young people. Now it might seem cloying or condescending. Nonetheless that era of young modelers was assumed to be taking shop classes in junior high school that introduced them to metal work, soldering, and wood working in ways that should not be assumed now.
There were construction articles which at the time were considered pretty rudimentary but might now be called almost “craftsman” level. Best of all is that Model Trains really instituted the Railroad You Can Model series of articles which has been the subject of more than one nostalgic thread on these forums. Some of those were written by Al Kalmbach himself, long after he had ceased writing for MR.
Linn Westcott, the great MR editor, once wrote that the problem with Model Trains and the reason it was dropped is that the beginner - their target market – needed to know so many things, on so many topics, all at once, that a monthly magazine simply could not serve their needs. What they needed were books that covered those basics of layout building, track planning, wiring, scenery, and basic model building. So Kalmbach offered (and still offers) those books. And perhaps the social aspect that Model Trains fostered was taken over by the TAMR.
So to address your main point, MR does not really have much if anything for the young person with actual tinplate who nonetheless wants to build stuff, and in a sense neither does CTT. But are there such youngsters? And the tone of the writing in MR is nothing like the tone of the writing in Model Trains.
Dave Nelson
I used to read both MT and MR. As I recall, hopefully correctly, the Portage Hill and Communipaw series began in MT and ended in MR. The PH&C has always been one of my favorite project railroads.
Ray
In spite of Linn’s comments, I will maintain that Model Trains was dropped for lack of profits.
Or, put another way, if Model Trains was a “profit center”, it wouldn’t have been dropped. Whether or not various interests were properly served.
Ed
It was a beauty. It had the feel of a Paul Larson touch to me.
Ed
In 2012 Kalmbach put out a Model Railroade Special Issue DVD. One of the special issues is Model Trains Selected Articles 1954-1962.
You are correct
I think Model Railroader is the Popular Science of the Model Train world. In its efforts to “popularize” the hobby, it glosses over many of the more difficult aspects of the hobby with slick photos and one- or two-line captions. It more or less avoids other aspects all together. Like dead rail - has MR provided any sort of in-depth feature on this at all? It’s barely even been mentioned, unless I missed something.
MRVP fills some of these gaps in both an entertaining and informative way, but it, too, tends to gloss over some things. Competitors often do a much better job of in-depth looks at various facets of model railroading.
MR is limited by the realities of paper publishing, but sometimes they could opt for more text and fewer photos to provide more depth on a topic. Not having the limits of paper publishing with which to contend, the competition can spend 20-30 “pages” on an arcane topic, covering it to the nth degree (and they do, in a very effective way).
This is not a criticism of MR. I read it every month, and tremendously enjoy MRVP as well. While taking very different approaches to covering the hobby (this is slap-you-in-the-face obvious when comparing the two video services), MR and their on-line competition wind up complementing each other very well in both the written articles and the video presentations.
Sad but true. However, many of them are taking technology classes, so items like DCC corner and electronic project articles are falling in line with what young folks are getting.
Wow, looking at the photo, that looks rather “dated”. It wouldn’t have hurt if the OP would have introduced us “noobs” to this magazine from “olden days”. And I’m not exactly a “spring chicken”. Just sayin…
Right my friend… At lest you’re not feeling older just by looking at the photo.
I read MT and MR when I was a wee lad since dad bought both magazines. Seems I been reading MR and Trains for eons and still read them monthly.
You missed something. Two somethings, as a matter of fact: “Battery Power and Radio Control” in May 2015 and “Battery Power Without Compromises” in June 2016.
The vast majority of articles in MR are contributed by hobbyists like you. So with any topic, we can only publish articles if writers contribute them. The more hobbyists become interested in dead rail, the more articles people will write on it, and the more we can publish. If you want to see a topic covered in MR, don’t sit on your hands waiting for someone else to write it.
This argument has gotten old. If someone is looking for articles on a particular topic, it is almost certainly because he wants to learn about that topic. Why would you assume somebody that wants to lern about a topic would have the knowledge to write an article about it?
Yes, Model Trains was intended to help younger modelers graduate into more challenging and complex areas of the hobby. In the 1950’s. it was very heavy on three rail toy trains, but by the 1960’s there was more attention to 2-rail scale trains, mostly HO.
I really liked the many aricles covering short lines and prototype locations. Some of my favorites covered the Middle Fork Railroad, the Preston Railroad, and a few others. I have often thought these should be included in a book that would be essentially an updated compilation of MR, MT, and Trains articles to provide inspiration for modelers who want to represent shortlines in the classic era.
Linn Westcott moved the bar considerably with his series on the Penn Line (later Bowser) Decapod. It started out as a simple product review of the basic kit, but was expanded into a fairly advanced tutorial on steam loco kit building in general, and advanced locomotive detailing. After that, there wasn’t much reason to think Model Trains was a beginner’s magazine any more, and there wasn’t much reason to keep it separate from MR.
Tom
I don’t know what tinplate is but I’ve never needed it. What does this mean?
I’ve been on these forums for 4 years and this is the first time I’ve ever seen this term in this context.
Honestly, MR’s paid videos have been a lot more useful to me than the magazine has. The magazine is just entertainment for me as a modeler for the most part.
I learned to build benchwork from David Popp’s free videos on this site about the “Family Train Layout”
We live in a time where it’s easy to deliver information that won’t work between the pages of a magazine, so it’s no surprise beginners get their information elsewhere now (like the videos!)
Old to you, perhaps, but not invalid. MR has an editorial staff, and depends on outside authors to provide the bulk of the magazine content.
The source for an article on a specific topic won’t be the person who seeks the information. It will be someone who has already blazed that trail, built something that works, writes (types) report-level technical English and has high-quality photo documentation, all tucked into a manila envelope and submitted to the MR editorial staff.
Of course, dead rail isn’t exactly new technology. In 1:1 scale, the people who built Boulder Dam (now Hoover Dam) used battery mine motors to move loaded concrete buckets from the mixing plant at Lomix to the damsite. They recharged on the way - from third rail in a 1600-foot hard rock tunnel between the termini. That was the only third rail, so there were no electrocution hazards where workers were on the tracks. The whole business was lifted and removed when Lake Mead began to fill 80 years ago.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)