december 1977
this thing was huge
what do we call the issues we get now ?
there a lot smaller
is there less to wright, we need to spark there intrest (the writers)
are there more cost to fill a large volume
you know we want more
Ken
The December issue is usually the biggest simply because it has the most ads, what with the whole Christmas thing and all.
excellent point
December 1978 - 188 pages. December 2006 - 138 pages.
Lots more ads from smaller advertisers, LHS and basement manufacturers.
Lots more multi-page ‘catalog’ advertising.
NO, “Visit us at ‘www.whoorwhatever.com.’”
More content? maybe. I didn’t read either issue all the way through to formulate this post.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I read MR all through the 80’s (even had a sub!) and have only lately in the last year gone back to reading to regularly every month.
Besides what Chuck mentioned, the magazine is markedly different now. It reads as more of an exhibition and how-to magazine, where 25 years ago it had much more of a community feel, and the columns to match.
I don’t know if one is better than the other, just my [2c] on the differences I’ve noticed.
The magazine is more “professional” now than it used to be.
“Professional,” in this case, is a euphemism for “colder.”
Much closer to dramatically curtailed in content, I’d say.
Of course, it’s not actually MR’s fault but rather the lack of (believe it or not after looking at some recent issues!) advertising. MR runs a certain ratio of editorial content to ads space and as ads decline, so does editorial content (articles). At the rate advertising is transferring to the Internet, MR’s with a total page-count of 100 pages or less are, I’m afraid, right around the corner.
Incidentally, re page-counts, for the record here are January issue page-counts from alternating years over the past three decades:
1978 164 pages
1980 188
1982 180
1984 268 (50th anniversary issue)
1986 196
1988 200
1990 220
1992 216
1994 226 (anniversary issue but also the peak of average issue size)
1996 214
1998 204
2000 212
2002 172
2004 194 (anniversary year)
2006 140
(2007 132)
Will the January 2008 issue perhaps drop below 120 pages, with a sub 100 page issue sometime later next year? Worthy of note, it seems quite possible that RMC, with its smaller staff to support and far more stabile readership numbers, will exceed MR in average monthly page-count within the next year or two.
CNJ831
Three points.
Let’s not forget that once you include Great Model Railroads, Model Railroad Planning, and the special issues on yards, trackside industries, etc., in a sense Model Railroader is now a 14 or 15 issue a year magazine. Total up the page counts and I suspect the total for a year is close to what it ever was.
Second, MR/Kalmbach now publishes a lot more booklets on basic wiring, benchwork, scenery, DCC, and the like. When you look at those high page counts of years past, often times the pages were taken up with yet another article on how to buy a trainset, how 2 rail wiring works, and other basics. A true beginner has so many questions that no one issue of MR or RMC could answer all of them. Now they are in booklets where they probably always belonged. Stated another way – and this may sound heretical – maybe in years past some people were subscribing to Model Railroader who would have been better off spending the money on beginners books and waiting a year or two to subscribe.
And third, this website supplements a great deal of what otherwise might be in the magazine, such as the lists of historical societies, the events column, etc. And that does not include the forum contributions, not just in terms of pretty photos of good modeling but also how-to clinics and other features.
When you combine it all, I suspect we are more bombarded with model railroad information at varying levels of sophistication and complexity than we have ever been.
Dave Nelson
Indeed, Dave, but only at a decided additional cost beyond what we used to pay for that same content in just MR. What was once standard MR fare now often appears in multiple “special” publications. I do agree that some subjects are better off in a separate publication (especially the rank newbie stuff) but an ever increasing amount seems to be the old bread-and-butter topics that used to appear in the magazine. And I’ll be quick to point out that if you go back well before the largely newbie orientation MR adopted in the 90’s, MR’s target audience was most decidedly the advanced hobbyist who thrived on the far more technical and modeling skills-oriented articles (and I think which was reflected in the ever increasing readership up until '94 or so). It can be argued that it was largely following MR’s shift in direction that we saw the readership numbers begin to plummet. Only with the last few issues has MR seemingly begun a turnaround, harkening back more broadly toward the more serious content of its earlier days.
If you can recall, way back when, Kalmbach had a totally separate monthly publication mainly for the entry-level and newbie folks. Perhaps that needs to be revived and the “special” content returned to the pages of the regular magazine(s), especially considering how badly MR’s longtime readership has faultered in the past decade.
CNJ831
I don’t think we really need more articles per issue.
What I’d really like to see is more depth in each article in the magazine.
I find that by two or three days after MR’s arrival, I’ve already read the whole thing and re-read all in which I was particularly interested.
I want meatier articles that take more time to fully absorbed.
I would have to agree completely. Unfortunately I didn’t start reading MR until the late 90’s and I have therefore not seen many issues before the “shift”, so I have very little to base my opinions on. However, in the short time that I have been reading the mag, I have noticed an increase in the short, 2 page how-to articles. What happened to the all out step-by-step six page articles? It now seems like the articles are more generic and focused on the basics.
This is a very interesting thread. Many good points have been made. The folks at MR have their work cut out for them.I feel that the internet is a huge reason for the magazine getting thinner.More layout photos are available from a variety of websites,as well as nicely done articles.All for free.
Which is great! But I also like printed material so I can sit back and relax while I read.I still get inspiration from MR. But it seems like most people nowadays want everything instantly. It’s a new era and I’m sure the staff at MR probably are pulling their hair out over a workable solution.(Just like other magazines and newspapers).
How to attract new subscribers and maintain the existing base,while losing revenue from advertisers.
I’ll play devils advocate here:
Yes the magazine has gotten a lot more professional over the years, however this could be a good thing. New modelers could be more used to reading magazines like Time or National Geographic which are very professionally done, the same with modern tech magazines like Wired, Macworld and PC Magazine. The language and highly visual nature of MR draws more casual readers in, and introduces them to the hobby. After all the more model railroaders, the healthier the hobby stays.
Second, there used to be tons of mail order wholesalers advertising with multi-page catalogue like spots in MR. In my oppinion the internet has replaced the need for these advertisements. No longer is it nessisarry to wait a month to find out what the wholesalers have in stock, instead large websites with live updating allow one to see what is avalible at the moment they wish to purchase a product.
Third, the number of manufacturers has consolidated. Life Like’s model railroading was purchased by Walthers and so on. While this has created, in my oppinion, a less compeditive market in pricing, it has increased the quality of models, especially rolling stock, exponentially. 20 years ago the backbone of model railroading, even on many of the superlayouts featured in MR, were the Athearn BB line. The unprototypically wide, and fairly crudely detailed Athearn BB GP9 (mislabeled as a GP7) was very common. Nowadays Atlas and P2K GP9s are a quantom leap above what once was both internally and externally.
Fourth and finally, I’ve noticed MR starting to focus more on how to create realistic operations. Personally I like this aspect, as technology has allowed us to create the most prototypical operating standards in the history of the hobby, thanks to things like DCC and magnetic couplers, it’s good to see the magazine still showing what has become possible with this.
Cheers!
~METRO
I have to agree. The sheer number of articles or whether the articles cover construction or operations (preferably a mix) doesn’t matter as much to me as the depth of the content.
I am often left wanting to know more. I guess that makes an issue at least partly successful.
Karl
At the risk of insulting our hosts…
I recently “rediscovered” Railroad Model Craftsman (RMC), owing to this month’s article (first in a series) by Max Malagrio on kitbashing an N scale PRR 2-10-0. Trust me, this is craftsmanship at its best! Short of scratchbuilding (an almost lost art when it comes to steam engines), this series promises to be challenging and exciting. I’ve seen video of Max’s completed loco; it’s amazing!
Anyway, my point is RMC seems to have a lot more craftsman projects than MR currently does. That, and RMC seems (based on a few recent issues) to treat N scale more seriously than does MR. RMC’s articles seem to be deeper than those that start with “open the box” and end with “place on layout.”
I still get MR, and will through 2010 (thanks honey!). But in the interim, I’m finding that RMC (which I quit reading back in the early 1990s for the sake of saving a hobby dollar) is doing more for the modeler in me than MR’s fare. I think what really started my heartburn with MR is when they started featuring so many custom-built layouts.
Again, no offense to Kalmbach. I understand MR has a much bigger circulation than RMC, and as such, has to appeal to a broader base (many of whom are just fine with “open box, place on layout”).
I started in HO in 1958 (Had Lionel from age 6 months before), so at almost 50 years in this hobby, I find my taste and needs have changed. I might add I have been reading MR since the 50’s. I am more interested in articles on operations than how to lay a switch (having built my own switches for a period while working on my MMR), my DCC system is working fine, and certainly the range of kit buildings and cars, along with ready to run, means all the old things I used to be concerned with are no longer a concern. My current layout is done, I won’t be replacing it, I might make a change here and there, but it still comes down for me to operations and good layout photos.
I like to see photos of other layouts, and I like to read about how they operate. New products? I am logged in every day, I am my own boss so I can go out and look at the internet and providers through out the day.
I have a final thought that I see the press kind of dumbing down their product because of the ready to run crowd, which I imagine is the largest spender of bucks. Nothing wrong with it, I quit building most things when uncle Arthritis came to live at my house.
There is nothing in our world that will appeal to every human being either the same way or with variety. So enjoy what you can get, the pot of gold is still lurking somewhere.
Bob
I recently re-read my collection starting in 1981 to “ramp up” after I finally bought a house with a bona-fide layout space and started unpacking my train stuff.
I think the quality of the print, layout, and images are much higher now. As they should be… modern publishing is a wonderful thing.
The how-to articles have shifted a little towards the novice where it seemed there used to be more higher-end modeling articles and more plans and such of prototypes.
Articles about custom electronics have made way for articles about DCC.
Advertising by large discount mail order companies (“Atlas 40’ boxcars, mixed roads”) have given way to small specialty vendors and manufacturers. The large manufacturers are now updating ads with their monthly runs rather then relatively generic ads.
The student fare column has dissapeared. A sign of the times.
There is a lot more “in-line” advertising for large manufacturer products. In the past, there was more emphasis on what you could find in a craft store or out in your yard. Now the how-to articles seem to feature a lot of branded stuff from glue to tree trunks. I am not a fan of this development. I would be curious to know if there is a financial arrangement with Woodland Scenics and Kalmbach.
There is a much greater emphasis on operation and prototype operation… sometihng that has been on the rise with modern layout design and DCC in my opinion.
Over all, I prefer the new issues. Just the improvement in the layout photos alone helps… there are some aspects of the “new” magazine I am not as fond of but it still does what it does well. For my specialty interests the internet fills the gaps.
Chris
I have to agree with much of what Dave says. I have been a regular subscriber to both Model Railroader (Since Jan 1996 issiue) and Railroad Model Craftsman (since March 1998 Issiue). When I started getting both magazines The content on terms of meatyness was about the same. Both Magazines published plans for something on an if not monthly basis, it was darn near it. Then they Kalmbach decided to make a few changes. I peg the change somewhere in the fall of 1998. My two favorite features. Student Fare and Paint Shop were quietly dropped. Granted there does seem to be
Amen to that! That’s why I dropped my longtime sub to MR in favor of going to RMC. MR has lost it’s way with those of us who have been in the hobby for many more years than we’d care to admit. And MR has the same articles every couple of years to boot. You don’t see that in RMC or Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette.
Both Dave and James make legitimate points - Model Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman are more complement than competitor. Clear back to the days before there was a Railroad in RMC, the emphasis in New Jersey was on the craftsmanship of building models - individual cars, locomotives, buildings (a moment of silence to respect E.L. Moore) - either from scratch or detailing a generic kit or RTR into an exact model of (fillintheblank) as it appeared (date and place.) MR, while it, too, used to have a lot of that (a moment of silence to respect Mel Thornburgh and Jack Work) always was angled to running a model railroad, of which the finely-crafted models were parts, but the system was the whole.
I personally subscribe to both, and (honestly) find little of use in either. OTOH, (Dave! Listen up!) this month’s Tetsudo Mokei Shumi has a four page spread, including exquisite photos, on the Pennsylvania Railroad Museum and the locomotives found therein. I expect to be history before either MR or RMC offers similar coverage of any ‘beyond the ocean’ establishment.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)