From the messages below, we’ve discussed what was right and wrong with MR. Now, for all interested parties, what kind of articles would you like to see in MR? This type of question can be answered by both sides…those who think MR is fine and those who think MR needs improvement. This topic came to mind as I read over back issues of MR from the 1980’s. A significant portion of the articles dealt with improving the apperance and/or performance of rolling stock and locomotives. It seems that today those articles are “less necessary” because of the types of products being offered today by companies such as Life-Like, Intermountain, Kadee, Athearn, Atlas, Kato, Red Caboose, etc, etc, etc. I guess my point is that since the plastic models are so darned detailed and perform so well…as compared to 10 or 20 years ago…that a large segment of articles have disappeared. I’m not saying that all of the current kits/RTR models are perfect and can’t be improved, but with all of the detailing that goes into them today, articles about detailing aren’t necessary or as necessary. Chime in with your responses and maybe it’ll spark a good idea with someone who can produce the article. I know that every issue can’t please everyone and everyone will have a different opinion on what MR should contain. But maybe oberserving a cross-section of ideas will be productive to either MR or a future contributor to MR.
That’s a great idea! Here’s my spin on it: Each month, have a kit (craftsman type) made up in a regular MR department. The author building the kit would walk you through the steps. They do this on occasion for new products, but it’s hit and miss, and generally it pertains to all types of kits. Each month, do a kit in HO, N and O from any number of the familiar brands out there: Campbell, SS Ltd, Master Creations, Sierra West, Fine Scale Minieatures, etc.
Just think how this would impact the manufacturer if one of their kits is picked. Each month there would be a rush on placing orders for that particular kit because everyone would want to follow along, especially if it’s a kit you’ve been waiting to build but haven’t had the nerve and now there’s a step by step guide and tips in MR.
My 2 cents.
I agree about Olson & Furlow. Both the J&S and SJC are classic series. Unlike the build-a-layout “summaries” for last 10 years, these series actually gave you enough information to build it. And here’s the thing – they did this in the space most of us have with typical low cost kits. They were achievable by begineers but with enough potential for years. And the writing styles made the railroads more “real” than many prototype articles. Another classic is the Clinchfield in N from the 70s. Even after 30 years, I would still love to read those style of articles more than the “If I had a million” photo essays.
This is a great idea. Based on all of the threads about MR, these articles would have great acceptance. The classic articles could be done on kits that are NOT limited production items.
My spin on this would be to ‘Bash a Classic Kit’
Find a classic and mate it with some newer detail parts and show what is reasonably obtainable today. This would benefit those who are thinking of buying the kit (or a kit of some general description) as well as many who already own it.
I personally am working on an article to ba***he HO Scale MEI 50 ft thru girder bridge by building it on a skew. The problem is mostly in that I have little photography experience and it will be important to have some good photos for this article. I think alot of modelers would benifit from knowing how to build a railroad bridge on a skew and others might just like it for the novelty.
I personally would like more articles on creating operation opportunities in limited spaces. I want an operating railroad to share with my wife and son.
One of the most emjoyable features for me in the past few years was MR’s small layout contest. The majority of the articles in MR focus on large, permanent layouts. There are large numbers of modelers, however, who do not have space or finances for such a layout. These modelers still enjoy this hobby immensely through much more modest modeling projects. I would like to see the small layout contest repeated in the future along with other programs that encourage participation of these smaller yet committed model railroaders.
Ron
I seem to recall Art Curren doing this on a regular basis way back when. He would usually kitbash lower-end plastic/styrene kits but they would alsways turn out beautiful and something I would be proud to have on my layout.
I agree, Ron. In fact, it’s been my impression for all of the years that I’ve been a model railroader that the vast majority of of folks in the hobby are the very sort you describe, rather than those who have seemingly unlimited finances, time, and space for their layouts.
Just out of curiosity, is anyone from MR/Kalmbach reading the postings here? Or are we just indulging ourselves in a lot of wishful thinking that will go unnoticed?
Hi guys,
We are indeed reading the posts. Everyone is offering great ideas. Keep the discussion going. Unfortunately, we aren’t able to respond to everything that’s posted because of the daily duties involved with publishing Trains.com and our magazines.
Regards,
Jim Schulz
Associate editor, Trains.com
Since you guys are “listening” in on this discussion, someone raised the point about having all past issues of MR on CD-ROM. I don’t know about others, but I would CERTAINLY pay good money to have a treasure like that to access whenever I want. I was out of the hobby for 15 years and I know there are a lot of good issues I missed and would love to read. I know you can order back issues individually but that is very tedious and time consuming. Why not make everything available in one database that hobbyists can buy and purchase updates every couple of years.
I miss the old “dollar model” series and other articles of this type that focused on scratchbuilding small detail items. Track bumpers, gates, box car loading ramps, barrel racks etc. These were great features that gave any modeler, with a small layout OR a basement filling empire,a project that could be completed in one or two evenings. Think about bringing some of these type articles back!
Thanks, Matt
Have we fallen into that mentality or is than just an assumption we’ve all come to believe? Afterall, look at the kits by FSM and others for structures and the high quality rolling stock kits out now. Look at the quanity of detail parts available. I suspect there are many who would like to grow from shake the box to scratchbuilding if they knew where to start.
I agree that there are probably a lot of modelers who would like to try their hand at scratchbuilding. But I also suspect that the whole concept is pretty daunting for many of those same modelers. There seems to be a whole mystique built up around scratchbuilding, an assumption that you somehow have to be more talented, have more imagination, and have more time available than the average kit builder. But what I’ve discovered in my various scratchbuilding “ventures” is that the same skills and time frames are involved, whether kit building or scratchbuilding.
I still remember my first scratch project: it was based on an E.L. Moore article in RMC back in the '70’s. It required no “imagineering” on my part, but it was sure a confidence booster in terms of my modeling skills and the time it required. And once I had finished the structure - per the article - my imagination really took over. Suddenly all of the “superdetailing” parts in the Walther’s catalog held a whole new fascination for me, and I found myself adding a whole slew of “clutter and junk” parts. That’s when I realized that scratchbuilding was little different from kit building. All I had to do was to create my own “kit.”
Speaking of E.L. Moore articles–a wonderful MR piece (or series)would be to reprint an old E.L. Moore article and follow it with an article on how build the structure using todays materials. With all of the advances over the past 30 years w/ styrene, detailed parts, etc. wouldn’t those E.L. Moore projects be even better today?
You are confirming my thought that there is a HUGE market for the CD rom version of the MR library. I think it would be great if MR floated a question to its readers and solicited responses. Heck, if this became profitable enough, may MR would resume sending subscription copies of the hardcover magazine in plastic bags. Whoops, that’s the subject of another thread.
I also like the small layout design competition. I started thinking after reading these 2 messages and a couple of others about the current project layout. How about having the small layout design competition again but with a different twist. After the winning design is chosen, it would then become the basis for the next project layout. A reader would design it and the fine folks at MR would build it. Any thoughts?
Yikes! That’s a great idea, Jim! I really like it.
About three or four years ago I tried to talk one of the limited edition kit manufacturers into producing a series of kits based on E.L. Moore’s articles. After a good deal of hemming and hawwing, he finally admitted he didn’t know anything about E.L. Moore or the articles. What a shame.
The pretext for E.L.'s structures were kind of hokey, especially by today’s standards, but the structures themselves were (are?) classics.
(After just reading my last sentence, I realized that the “hokiness” of the Moore articles was always what initially hooked me: they were humorous. Sorry, E.L.)
I think it’s a great idea! A reader-designed, small layout project sounds really neat. I would imagine such a project would have the potential to be really popular with readers.
Reflecting back on some of the projects that have been published over the years, it seems - in my mind, at least - that the most popular ones were those built by well-known modelers (i.e., Olson, Furlow, Frary, etc.) I wonder what would be the chances of some currently “high profile” modeler doing the same with a winning layout design. It’s a neat idea, J.D.
MikeC.
So’s the CD ROM idea, and I’m starting one now!