First of all kudos to MR for their fine magazine. I have been a subscriber for three years now and always look forward to the quality articles even if they do not directly apply to what I am doing on my layout. There is always a sampling of HO/and other scales with ideas that can be adapted to my layout if only in a little way.
That said, this months Tracklaying article (p.26) was a disappointment to most anyone except maybe a person who knows zero about starting a layout. The information could be easily found with a simple Google search for “tracklaying” without spending $6 for a magazine to find out the same information.
Please continue to give us informative articles that are not at the beginner, beginner level.
Guess there’s no pleasing everyone… I think the past few issues have been greatly improved in the balance by having some real craftsman construction articles. And since this issue came right after Christmas, I can’t think of a better time to throw in a basic beginner article for someone who might be brand new to the hobby.
What’s the answer? 2 magazines? Then people would complain once they got beyond th ebeginner level at some things, that they have to pay for two magazines because they no longer need the beginner tracklaying articles fromt he beginner magazine but the scenery stuff is too hard in the mainstrem mag.
In fact I think this is the first time where they spelled out multiple possible techniques on one article, usually there’s an article on laying track with caulk, or nailing it down. This one showed multiple options, in one short article.
It’s just after Christmas and newly into the New Year, a time when those who have enjoyed a first introduction to scale train sets are wanting to progress to laying some track out on a ping-pong table. It’s a timely, and quite possibibly a welcome, basic article to help people along. Not everyone wants to read their subscription of any kind on a tablet or a PC. Not everyone who gets a train set has access to the world-wide-web. Some prefer the printed word for what they take as a purer veracity. There’s a ton of bull-crap on the www, but a publication such as Kalmbach’s is not one to publish crap easily or lightly.
I think the basics deserve some space now and then, and putting such a one in this edition is probably both shrewd and useful.
I’ve been reading MR on-off-on for a couple decades. Is there reruns, yes. Are they relevant, yes. I think MR does a fantastic job of balancing their content across the wide spectrum they serve.
Agreed. MR serves by delivering quality consensus tested content. This cannot be said of the www.
MRR is often a starting point for someone looking to return or get into the hobby. I often recommend the magazine to beginners. Even though there was one page of track laying 101, I found plenty in the issue to hold my interest.
After a layout in the late 50’s/60’s and one in the 70’s I got back to the hobby with my grandkid’s layout recent years, plus my 3rd this year. I’ve subscribed about 2-3 years now. I’m impressed that MR has maintained itself after not seeing it over 2-3 decades. Unlike other mag’s that get thinner and/or go away, MR serves me as well as I recall many years prior. I have found items like their Virginian project layout (and subscribers accessible videos) spot on for my needs. I pay more attention to some things in the mag than others. Overall, I’m happy with the mag as it relates to my needs and interests. The mag of course is supplemented by lots of good MR booklets, plus this forum.
Nonetheless, it’s fine for the OP to voice an opinion/concern one aspect of how a forum works. And the feedback is likely of use to MR staff in terms of staying balanced in the mix of articles.
Model Railroader does a great job on showcasing layouts but for most advanced or seasoned model railroaders it lacks in how to articles. There are a few I find interesting once in awhile and I still buy it every month. Railroad Model Craftsman is more suited to the advanced hobbiest, it has more articles on stuff that appeals to them.
Empathize with those brand new to the hobby, since it involves having to learn a little about a variety of subjects, from mechanical stuff to electricity. Elementary track laying may seem almost an insult if you have been doing this for a while but even what seems the most simple thing can be bewildering to those who are new, particularly now that fewer modelers are graduating from Lionel or Flyer. Indeed you do not have to go much further than some of the questions asked on these forums to realize that what seems so obvious and second nature to some of us is brand new and un-intuitive to others.
Kalmbach used to have a magazine just for beginners, Model Trains, and it was actually rather good. Its biggest challenge was trying to balance readers who still had Lionel and American Flyer versus those who had made the switch to scale model trains. Indeed some of the “build your own freight car” articles it routinely ran (often aimed at the Lionel set) would now strike us as pretty advanced. Of course the readers probably had more workshop experience, or shop classes in school, than is common now.
But as Linn Westcott once wrote, a magazine is almost inherently unsuited to the needs of a beginner – they can’t wait for the publisher to dribble out a year’s worth of beginner articles, they need it all right up front. And that, he pointed out, is what books are for. Today Westcott probably would endorse that idea of the internet including this website. I guess I’d say that of all the topics of interest to a beginner that are appropriate to the magazine approach, elemental track laying probably makes the most sense for the greatest numbers (assuming beginners begin by subscribing to MR or any other magazine for that matter).
After all the smoke goes away, the same truth stands clear. Beginners deserve stories and instruction that THEY CAN UNDERSTAND AND USE. Experienced modelers can often get by with skimpy articles or information, but a beginner can’t. I have been in HO since 1960 or thereabouts, have my MMR from NMRA, have written a few articles myself, but there is no one person or group of modelers that have all the answers to everything. A balanced magazine like MR should and does try to include a little for everyone.
One of the advantages of revisiting the basics for me, is seeing new materials and techniques. Sure, I have a method that works well for me, but sometimes a new product or technique comes along that’s better than what I’m currently doing.
IMHO their are already magazines that pretty much cater to the more experienced crowd though I hesistate to mention names on the MR forum so the intials RMC and MRH will do
So true, Paul, There are always so many new methods and products.
It is excellent timing right after Christmas, whereas many get their first or returning to the hobby excitement to build a layout. Many newbys will grab that MR mag from a hobby shop and not always end up here initially.
I have always felt that Model Railroader and other magazines concerning the hobby were for all walks of life, that is those interested model railroading. How can we guide and make the hobby interesting unless we revisit techniques that are the basics. It would seem to me that we need to encourage articles that will help educate newcomers, why should they be left out.
My ego, and I have seen ego’s in this hobby, those who alwyas thnik they are above the rest; can be enormous with what I do in life, and it is more than just this hobby. I congratulate MR for keeping in touch with all levels of this hobby. Besides, I truly enjoy articles that cover the basics of this hobby. In fact if it is to technical I turn the page, medical journals are complicated enough so are film scripts.
I’ll keep a lower profile. Thanks MR for seven decades of education. besides I have been reading MR for over fifty years.