Some interesting things regarding the September 2005 issue. . .
I glanced through the Pelle S. article. That guy is hard core to purchase his own computer controlled styrene cutter.
I noticed the add for the GMR 2006 issue showed the Utah Belt running GE units. This is a first for the UB.
Any comments from yall’ regarding the Sept. issue?
My local HS calls me when the latest issue has come in. They called today. I will be glad to get my hands on my copy to see Jim H’s work and also want to see the 1950s Special Edition coming up soon. I have to admit though, that I have dropped from buy MR everytime to maybe sometimes. MR magazine is no longer a “really have to have” modelling tool.
I seen life-likes new ho scale gp38-2’s i want the Santa fe ones[:D][:D][:P][:P]
Seeing Pelle’s machine made me wonder if I couldn’t make a smaller version of the same thing using an old flatbed plotter - such devices have precision X-Y movement control plus an option to raise and lower the pen. Fabricate a mount to hold a Dremel tool, and there you go, at least for sheets up to 8 1/2 x 1. I had the opportunity to aquire a plotter for the cost of shipping but passed it up at the time. Now I have to start looking again.
–Randy
Pelle’s article was definately thought provoking. Yeah, my initial view was “wow - that thing sure costs some bucks!” but then I thought a little more. Will the price of these things go down in the future? Is an idea like Randy’s possible? How 'bout if a club were to puchase one for use by all it’s members? Remember early articles concerning DCC were met by responses of “man, that way too expensive.” Although such a set up is out of the question right now, I still enjoyed the article as it may be the tip of the iceburg. Cutting edge stuff is great to read about. Oh yeah, I did love the method that Pelle used to simulate the stucco finish. That’s something I can use now!
Jim Hediger’s layout? Fantastic layout! Great philosphy on layout building! It’s about time we got an update on this groundbreaking design.
The article on passenger station operations was also good, but I wished it went into a little more detail. Perhaps some sketches on how to fit some of the stations into a layout. This could perhaps be an interesting topic for a quarterly column. Each quarter pick a station. Describe its operations. Give a sketch of the actual station like this article did on the Smithfield station) and then do a “how it can be modeled” on our layouts. Kinda like the old “Railroad You Can Model” articles of the past.
Although I don’t model G, Tony’s article was a good read. The only question I have is - are the vehicles to scale? It seems the roads are only slight wider than the track gauge.
Finally, I was blown away by Mike Danneman’s scratchbuilt Krauss-Maffei locomotive. Fantastic job!! Although I don’t model in N nor D&RGW, I wouldn’t mind an article where Mike can show off his scratchbuilding skills. I’m sure I could learn something from it!
The article on Tank Cars was informative, but it would have been nice to see somesort of cross reference between the actual tank cars and available models.
Of course these are only my o
I enjoyed Tony K’s G-scale article too, but I was disappointed by his Trains of Thought column. Usually, I enjoy reading his column, but it seems like he brings up the issue of layout height two or three times a year (It’s probably not that often, but it sure seems that way). I wonder if he’s running out of new things to say.
I can’t help but think that MR could cut Tony’s column down to six times a year, then on alternate months use that space for the schedule of train shows that they have completely dropped from the magazine.
Terry and ***, are you listening?
Tom
This issue was good. The OS article was amuzing, and I really enjoyed reading the review on the Kato F40PH. Also, on the last page, that Kato trackplan was awesome!
September’s MR was like August’s,July’s, etc,pretty much middle of the road,it doesn’t have the bang it once had. when my subsriction runs out, I;ll take a year or so off, most info is on web somewhere anyhow. Tony K’s been mailing it in for well over the past year…there whole editorial staff should be swept clean.
I liked the photo backdrop concept but needed more info. The artical presupposed I already knew how to do it, especially the computer stuff.
Art,
I agree. I wi***he photo backdrop article had been a little more indepth. I’ve read here there’s some software that will allow you to construct a backdrop by using bunches of 8 by 10 pics. A list of different approaches would have been great.
In any event - if I wasn’t convinced that a photo backdrop can improve a layout’s appearence before, the before and after shots in the article has certainly convinced me!
…this idea rocks (compared to $5,000 new) and if you pull it off - post how you did it here, or better yet get someone to shoot photos and write an article for MRR. I had tinkered with same concept, but using an airbrush rather than a Dremmel tool!
I have the big picture program. I have tried one application of a falls scene I found in AZ. I have not tried another yet because my pics are a bit fuzzy. I don’t think it will ever be what they were talking about. I would like a thread to discuss big pictures if anyone has had a good result.
I am beginning to have the same feeling about the MR. I have a subscription and have had one for many years now. I was reviewing an old back issue from February of 1991 and it has over 100 more pages in it than todays issues.
I do find Pelle S. articles very informative, he does a great job. Yea, that machine is great huh!
I do have one comment on how MR does articles on layouts. Don’t get me wrong, I love the layouts, but I am always left with the feeling that I could have seen more. I would like to see them with more detail, like how about more info on the benchwork, or details on how they wired the layout and electical info, sometimes a little more info on how they do their scenery would be nice. And it seems like they sometimes only concentrate on a few areas of the layout with photographs, sometimes I want to see more photos of the layout too.
Just my two cents [2c]
Tony Koester is one of my favorite authors, and his contributions to our hobby are tremendous. But Tony has so much on his plate. If Tony is willing, why not have his column every other month with the alternate months filled with a column by guests or a second regular author?
I remember reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back that Mr brooman would never let GE’s on the Utah belt, and there in plain sight: GE’s on the cover on the Utah Belt.
I greatly enjoy Tony’s collum and I’d be disapointed if it wasnt month, its usually the first thing I read.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by SilverSpike
I wonder if the reason is that some of those layouts are only half completed and we are only seeing the finished part. I remember Rick Rideouts LN had great shots but he only had 1/4 of it done with scenery. By only showing us the finished stuff we walk away with the allusion of a larger layout???
Having done a little commercial model railroad photography, I can tell you some of the problems getting layout picture. I’m not trying to offend anyone, just pointing out a few facts. Many layouts are literally crammed into the room so it can be very difficult to work in that confined space. Remember you have to have room for a camera, tripod and the photographer. Lighting is always a problem as few if any layouts are sufficently lighted for photography. Photo light are VERY HOT and can melt scenery and models in a scant few minutes - far less time than it takes to get a shot. Flash can be very unpredictable and is problematical for any depth. Sometimes the wrong thing will show up in the background and may not be able to be cropped out. The photographer always tries to be kind to the owner, so if say his control panel looks really bad, that may ruin an otherwise good shot. Sometimes there is something on the layout just not photogenic - such as an out -of-scale truck. The last thing is time - there are always other appointments, assignments etc.
dthurman and jsoderq,
Great points you both made on the issues with photography and layouts. I know that we are going to try to cram as much layout into my 14’X15’ room as I can, and the intricacies of creating a photogenic layout have not really played a big part in it’s design.
I suspect on some of the layout articles that they are just are not fully completed, but that is OK for me. I enjoy seeing the progress of building layouts too, that is one of the missing pieces of the articles and I would like to see more of the “behind the scenes” or how they design and build their particular layout.
Thanks,
Ryan
dthurman - I’d say you are probably very close to the truth, at least in many cases. A good photographer will choose his shots to bring out the very best aspects of a layout and avoid any scenes/areas that are average, mediocre, or downright bare. Believe me, a person who really knows their way around model photography can make just about anybody’s layout appear to be grand! I’ve had the privilege to visit several layouts that were featured in MR over the years and tended to come away in most cases thinking, “Is that all there really is to them?” I think that in many cases, when you see an article that includes just very tight shots, there honestly isn’t all that much that will impress on the layout. Of course, there are marked exception to this!
And likewise, skillfully shot images can totally mislead the viewer as to how good and believable a particular scene is in reallity. Images are in 2-D and you can get away with an awful lot when you remove that aspect of depth. Scenes where a road runs up to, then leads off into, the backdrop - urban scenes that seem to be composed of endless layers of buildings - harbor vistas with distant shores or shipping - all can look great in photos. But view them in person and the entire illusion vanishes and the scene becomes almost silly looking.
The camera can always fool the eye.[;)]
CNJ831
Ah… But then aren’t we all in the illusion business here. I remember reading Frank Ellison’s “The Art of Model Railroading” series (last reprinted in full in 1964 IIRC). One of his points is that the model railroad is the stage and the trains are the actors and it’s all illusion.
Enjoy
Paul