One thing that really gets me is when minority-scale modelers complain about supposed HO-centric magazines when the only model railroading magazines devoted to a specific scale cover S, O, O-toy, G/outdoor (not a scale) and N scales, but not HO. Gimme a break, there are at least TWO magazines exclusively devoted to N scale! I conclude that scale-centric magazines only cover minority scales.
Complaints of Model Railroader magazine’s lack of minority scale coverage are totally distorted by “minority scalers” because not all articles focus on their scales. Check out the September Model Railroader magazine. Don’t tell me that minority scales are ignored there. The only HO-centric articles discussed in September are a couple of HO track plans and installing decoders in HO models. Much space was spent on N- and O-centric articles.
This reads like bait to me, Mark. [;)] I can’t recall reading complaints, maybe only comments or suggestions for more non-HO coverage. Is this a big issue?
Well, there’s “Model Railroad News, The All-Scale News Monthly”
Would that magazine been created if MR was alreay covering the niche of “the All-Scale News Monthly”?
Also, you mention the most recent issue of MR. What about MR prior to the creation of MR News? Maybe the lesser degree of HO-centricness in MR currently is in response to MR News?
Here’s an idea: Someone get out thier September 1998 MR and compare it to the September 2008 MR: count how many non-advertisement pages are in reference to each scale. I’d bet a new Atlas RS-7 that there was more HO in 98 than there is now.
I personally read three mags a month: MR, Model Railroad News, and MR Craftsman.
I’m not sure what the problem is either. If you really are only interested in non-HO stuff, there’s a ton of publications (poetic license). O scale has three, two in three rail and one in two rail, plus multiple (as in four) national club publications focusing on three rail (LCCA, LOTS, TCA, TTOS). There’s one S gauge, three N gauge (one is a national collecting club), two large (G) scale (one is LGB club) and one Z gauge publication I can recall.
Complaining about the lack of Z coverage (and I like Z gauge) in MR is silly. Subscribe to Z Track and get over it :).
I like MR because it is a generalist publication and has a diversity of articles. But do remember that most articles are subscriber generated, so the fault isn’t in your stars if your scale isn’t covered, it’s in you. Sorry.
Perhaps if non HO modelers would submit quality articles to MR and other pubs, then MR could have coverage of other scales. Truth is more modelers are into HO, therefore more articles are submitted for publication about HO than other scales.
I model mostly in G (whith a dabble into HO), yet I always find something useful in MR and other mags regardless of the scale the article was written about.
I don’t see a problem here and I am in one of the smallest minorities - S scale (not S gauge or hi rail) and I don’t have a problem. The niche magazine for S scale has gone out twice (there’s another resurrection attempt going on). MR provides some coverage of S and most of their how to articles are applicable to all scales. Others like RMC and MRN provide some coverage. Frankly, given our numbers we probably get more coverage than is our due. As for layout stories I enjoy them all regardless of the scale.
I think that MRR covers the scales by percentage of popularity. Mostly HO because that is what most guys model. It would be stupid of them to devote more coverage of lesser popular scales,not many HO guys want to read about other scales because it don’t pertain to what they are into. The one thing that does bug me though is advertising. A lot of HO ads don’t even say what scale theyr’e selling.
There are N scalers,HO scalers,O scalers,S scalers,and Z scalers,(I’m in the first two and the last one) and then there are model railroaders.
I prefer to think of myself as a model railroader first and the other 3 second.I too would like to see more coverage of N and Z in MR ,but the funny thing is I can get as many ideas from other scales as my chosen ones and sometimes even more.
The biggest problem I have is someone looking down their nose at some one else’s modeling because it is in the wrong scale.[:O] Personaly I don’t believe there is such a thing.
So why does MR run a review of an Atlas O scale freight car, but if I want to view their video review of an O scale 0-6-0 I have to be a subscriber to Classic TOY trains? Why the double standard - why can’t I see both (the 0-6-0 is available in 2-rail “SCALE”, not just a highrailer three rail version)
It seems to me that the coverage in MR has always been on average pretty much on par with the percentages of scales modelled.
There have been times when one scale has been featured in a streak of articles, but it all evens out through the course of a year’s content. Perhaps G, S, and Z scales have been less represented for their respective percentages of readership, but certainly not N or O.
MR has been promoting N for a long time (remember the Clinchfield project layout from 1978?), and it’s certainly still growing, and O has been well represented for even longer. There certainly have been many fine O scale layouts featuring realistic operation over the years.
HO is simply still the most popular scale, as a compromise between operation potential and detailing potential.
There has been plenty of narrow gauge modelling in several scales featured over the years as well, mostly Colorado mountain railroading, but some Maine 2 foot gauge too. Always interesting, with it’s own charm.
I also notice more new products being advertised for N and O than in the past. Perhaps more people are modelling in more than one scale, but manufacturers are obviously catering to an increased market in these scales.
Of course, as already mentioned, it’s the submission of quality articles that determines to an extent what gets published, so if you want more content about one of the lesser represented scales, then submit something!
We’re all in this together, and we can all learn from articles about any scale featured to apply to our own projects.
I model in an even less common minority scale that hasn’t been mentioned in MR since Linn Westcott was the editor. That doesn’t mean that I can’t get inspiration and ideas from photo articles (and even scratch-building projects) that aren’t in my scale. If the advertisers aren’t selling things that I want, I simply save my money.
As for the, “Majority scale,” EVERY scale is the majority scale in each individual modeler’s home. The perception problem comes when the lemmings try to draw some conclusion about the greater or lesser number of non-lemmings who aren’t charging down to the cliff overlooking the fjord, or why the media aren’t giving more coverage to the great run…
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in 1:80 scale, aka HOj)
With the exception of product reviews, most if the informational articles are not scale specific, and as far as layout tours are concerned, I enjoy viewing all of them, regardless of scale. I subscribe to the Gazette to get my backwoods teakettle homebuilt railroading fix.
Any baiting aside, I just want to point out that G is an actual scale, corresponding to meter gauge track in 1/22.5 scale, we also have F scale which is 1/20.3 scale most commonly used with 45 mm track for 3’ narrow gauge yeilding a scale of Fn3. No different than the way HOn3 in designated. And we have one of the grand daddy of scales, gauge 1. There are other scales as well, just want to get the facts straight…
There’s a full staff at MR. It’s their job to write.
The “if you don’t see what you want, write it” argument is ridiculous. If I want to know how do something, I can’t write an article about it, because I don’t yet know how to do it. That is why the magazine exists.
If I want to see more n scale layout articles, for example, it does no good for you to tell me to write an article–if I just have to go see them in person, it defeats the purpose of the magazine.
And besides all that, you never offered any evidence that MR isn’t getting the articles in the first place; they could simply not wish to publish them because they want to focus on the more-popular scales. So writing and submitting one’s own wouldn’t help at all.
Obviously those that don’t have information aren’t expected to write about it. But there are a number of accomplished modelers in all scales that could write about some projects and let the pro staff at MR fine tune the article for publication.
MR and other mags have over the years sent out appeals for articles of all kinds. They can’t write about a layout they don’t know exists, nor can they cover an individuals model project if it stays in the garage or basement of a private home. MR knows nothing of my garden layout, but maybe they will if I take the initiative to write a small synopsis of what it’s about and then, if they are interested, a pro writer and photographer can be sent out to do a proper article.
A letter to the editor, asking for a specific scale to be covered may not yield much, but if three or four dozen people ask the editor for the same scale coverage, then who knows? Perhaps they do have a treasure trove of unpublished work in multi scale that they didn’t want to publish because they thought there was no interest in the subject matter.
Personaly I find value in every article, regardless of scale. I can get ideas, adapt them accordingly, and use what I need.
Yes, I understand fully your frustration with the pat answers to a difficult question. The solution is for those who are “in the know” to write about what they have done, then let the pro staff at a magazine finish the article for publication.
The challenge is to pull these knowledgable modelers into the light of day and convince them to share the work they have done. The pro writers at the magazines can do the rest.