Ok, this is kind of an offshoot of that thread and I didn’t want to hi jack the original. The comment is often made the magazines publish what they receive. This doesn’t only apply to MR, but other genre’s as well (seen this same discussion in woodworking and flyfishing magazines). Someone in the other thread mentioned that owners of small layouts should write articles on the small layouts, so why don’t we. That got me to thinking, so here is a reason I can think of (you can disagree or subsittute your own).
My layout is nothing to be proud of by the standards magazines currently print. I run one train at a time, of at most four to five cars. No DCC system. I don’t have an engine terminal with 50 locomotives with sound decoders in them. There are 12 turnouts, including the staging yard in my system, all manually operated. There is no signal system, no CTC board, no dispatcher. My layout shares room with my wife’s sewing stuff, and kid’s toys. There is no crew lounge, heck the crew is me & my 9 year old. No grand vistas, just shelves one foot deep. In comparison to the standard, why would the magazine print anything?
When I look back at the almost 40 years I’ve been reading MR, some layouts/track plans stand out. They are G&D, V&O, SV, AM, KR&D, Clinchfield, Whitehall & Valley Junction, JM&N, San Jacinto District to name the first ones to pop in my head. The first four are all large, by well known model railroaders and have had many column inches. The latter are all small and get little press. Yet they are among my top favorites of all time. So I truly believe the audience is there for small railroads, but I’m not sure the editors see it.
Respectfully, I think you are wrong. Many layouts are published in MR and other Kalmbach publications that have none of the things you listed. But the layouts featured in MRdo typically have excellent modeling and photograph well. That’s what people want to see in a magazine, not a grass mat 4X8 – there are plenty of those on the Internet. I really don’t see that size matters. As proof, consider Tom Miller’s HO Meramec Valley in the April 2008 MR. DC, 28"X94", short trains, no signals, no dispatcher, no CTC board, not even a passing siding. But it’s well done and photographs well. There are many others. What they share is an appeal that has nothing to do with size and complexity.
Again, respectfully, I’ll disagree, partly because you are comparing apples and oranges. The N scale Clinchfi
They do seem to want the articles. The question being asked in this thread is why we don’t write them, and I think that’s a good question, and not a tedious criticism. I would say, in turn, that the “inferior craftsmanship” strawman is a little shopworn, too, but does raise some interesting questions. If there actually are fewer small pikes than large ones that exhibit good craftsmanship, why? If there are good small pikes, why don’t people write them up and send them in?
I know why I don’t. My layout just isn’t ready to photograph yet. Maybe it’s just this, and bigger unfinished layouts tend to have a larger finished area that can be used in pictures. I think, however, that most small layouts are seen as starter pikes, and people with N on a hollow-core door or a 10x12 HO shelf layout don’t often see it as an end in itself, but the first step on the way to the big dream empire.
With this in mind, it makes a lot of sense that MR has lots of small projects, but not a lot of small-layout features. I do like it when somebody sends one in, such as tha 4x8-with-ell using a western theme, in a recent article that covered its operations. It was a great article. The layout was not exceptional, but
Let me enlightening some of you folks about what the popular magazines are interested in publishing today, speaking as someone who spent nearly twenty years as a columnist for a hobby magazine of fully the size and circulation of MR, not however associated with model trains.
Armchair hobbyists typically outnumber the actual practitioners, more so today then ever before. Thus, hobby related magazines will tend to lean their feature articles more often toward the dreamers than the actual doers. Likewise, lest anyone has somehow missed it, glitz and over-the-top subject matter is what sells today. Just look at covers of any of the rags to be found on news stands if you doubt that. Because of the make-up of their readership, there is always going to be a greater proportion of interest in seeing something extravagant, unique and either priced beyond the range, or outside the skill level obtainable by the readership. This is true whether we are talking golf, home restoration, hot rods, fishing, or model trains.
Knowing what sells their particular magazine, given a choice between a submitted article addressing a well done mega-layout and one of equal quality but of a size the average hobbyist might be able to build, the editors will consistantly go with the article about the thousand square foot example. Believe me, magazines are far more selective in what they choose to publish than simply publishing whatever they get through submission. The over used saying that,“If you want to see modest-sized layout articles published, submit some yourself, because the magazines can only publish what they get from readers” is largely myth.
Primarily on a different forum, there has been a thread continuing on the inspirations spawned from the Carolina Central project the magazine hosting us did many years back. Contributions of photos demonstrate quality modelling in areas less than 4X8.
Perhaps the magazine editors could suggest to readers they would like to quarterly feature layouts of a certain square footage or less. Maybe that would inspire modellers to share their work with everyone by submitting photos to the editors for review.
As we all know, not everyone has 1) space, 2) time, 3) funds and 4) confidence in their ability to undertake an extensive project. However, going smaller, or in another sense, realistic would allow so many to get out of the chair and begin to really enjoy the hobby. Highs and lows to be sure, but seeing the trains move is very cathartic. Success builds on success. Running the trains brings inspiration to overcome the temporary roadblocks encountered in building a layout.
I probably would have agreed with you only a few years ago, but I do think MR has been featuring a lot of very attainable layouts since then. In the current issue, there’s a coffee-table layout and the Puffer Bridge Lines, as well as a small winter-themed pike. The PBL is really nice, and although it’s not tiny, it’s not extravagant, either – and it’s presented as an upgrade to the original Puffer, which was quite modest.
I’m going to ask a question here----how small is small? I tend to think anything under 200sq.ft. is small—I’ve seen a lot of articles that go way over 1000sq.ft. in all kinds of mags over the years. So, by that definition, there are articles being done about small layouts.
And yes, glitz sells----I’ve got 33 old house beautiful mags from the 20’s–and guess what—there are letters in the magazines complaining about the ‘glorification of large luxurious homes—’
From the above then all one can do is keep submitting those articles–don’t fall into the ‘O woe is me-or the world–for we----’ trap. Just deal with it.
I understand and agree with what CNJ831 said, but indulge me for a moment if you will. I too agree that there are equally great small layouts they and probably out number the large pikes. However, a majority of these modelers are either intimidated (may not be the best of words) by the articles they see and just feel that the mag wouldn’t feature theirs. Or they just don’t want to. I will agree that a large railroad is great to look at and I enjoy dreaming of mine looking like one. And I can use any size layout, to enjoy looking at modeling and maybe glean some ideas.
I don’t believe that the point was why don’t magazines publish small layouts, but that small layouts don’t get published because people don’t send them in. I hear the same complaint in car mags, “why don’t you ever feature Brand X you always show BrandY” The magazine response is always the same. Send it in and if its worthy of print we will print it. “Worthy of print” is to be interpreted as if it looks good. Not how big it is. Mine would not make print because not enough of it is done to photograph anywhere enough pics and quite frankly it’s not something anyone would want to pay to see. And let’s face it. We are paying to see these layouts.
Photography is another area that many are afraid of. As well as lighting for photography. I admit the lighting in my “train room” is poor and not at all suited for photography. At this point my money is spent on the layout not the lighting so I can photograph it. I’m sure many are also of the same mindset. As some have said before, a lot of layouts are in spare bedrooms and the ceiling light does not produce magazine quality pictures.
In Trackside Photos you see diorama so they will publish small things but you have to admit it would be near impossible to write an article on a diorama.
I seem to be wandering from the subject so all you folks with a small layout. Photograph them and send them in. Many of us would like to see how someone works a small space. I
Oddly or perhaps justly MR has been catching a lot of flack from 2 of the 3 clubs I am a member and track side chatting over Godzilla size layouts and the apparent “Good ole Boy” club of featured authors.
Of course,many of those guys has long gave up MR over various reasons from dumbing down to the consist bombarment of Godzilla layout to repeated articles that is no more then infomercials.
Do we need to see Godzilla layouts sure why not? We also need to see the small and the more attainable “lone wolf” type layouts.
One fella mention what does the first time prospect think when he thumbs through MR at the local Barnes & Nobles and sees a Godzilla layout with DCC? Interesting when a R/C magazine features a low price airplane,car or boat?
And that’s not those famous Apple/oranges comparisons many counter with.
After all we are talking about seeing a hobby through magazines for the first time.
When my Brother-in-law became interested in the hobby he and I had a very long talk about various things.
Today he has a modest size “E” shape N Scale DCC layout in one end of his basement…
BTW…He perfers to read NSR and N Scale over MR or RMC.
In another publication the Narrow gauge and Shortline Gazette routinely features very small layouts, one recently was 2’ x 6’ in On30 and in a very recent issue there was even a 4’ x 8’ in 1/20.3 scale!!!
The one thing that all these layouts shared was not a complex track plan, fancy control systems or adherance to prototypical standards, but simply outstanding modeling . These are very well built and detailed model railroads that were the results of some very obvious hard work, thinking out the composition, constructing, scenicing, and weathering to produce a high quality end product, the size is irrelevant, so is the location as you can crop out everything else in the room and show only the layout.
I’ve often considered that some of these larger size layouts can end up being a waste of time unless you can devote a great deal of time and money to building it, or are rich enough to unleash an army of workers to build it for you. Tha average Joe Modeler simply doesnt have the time to devote to such an undertaking unless they are willing to spend many years, even decades to finishing it. My own layout is only 10’ x 20’ yet I figure it will take me at least 5 years to build it, maybe alot longer.
So while I can’t say why or why not Kalmbach does or doesn’t publish more small layouts, I would suspect the finish quality of most smaller layouts they recieve may not be that high, or are simply too full of generic materials to be interesting. For a small layout to be of interest to a magazine there needs to be that little something extra that reaches out and smacks the reader upside the head.
There’s more commitment to someone with a 500+ square foot layout. He’s got buy-in from the wife, and either he’s highly driven, in which case the layout will be worth showing off, or it’s a Plywood Central gathering dust as we speak.
This kind of investment in both time and money is probably going to be worth taking pictures of, or even hiring someone to do the same. Personally, I’m not going out and spending a thousand dollars for the kind of camera and lighting you need to get your layout in Trackside Photos, but some people will do this. And, the ones with the mega-layout are just more likely to be those people.
I’ll even go one step farther and say that a lot of the photos in MR and RMC, particulary in TP and BT, are not even outstanding, but just good ordinary modeling, carefully photographed.
I’ll go one further…Those Godzilla layouts lacks believability if you look at them closely and understand your surroundings,mother nature and the railroad plant…
Maybe. One thing often done in order to complete a large layout in one lifetime is to do a lot of relatively “typical” scenery - polyball hillsides or giant industrial building flats, for example. These look marvelous as photo backdrops, but sometimes I’ve seen them on actual layouts and felt that they were a little unnatural…maybe it’s because nature and man-made objects always contain something unique along with the typical. Those places or objects that really don’t have features to catch the eye often look alien or unnatural in real life.
Yes,There’s that but,there are other things as well…I wish we could have a open discussion on layout scenery versus believability.
Several years ago I attended a scenery seminare and had my eyes open and since then I take in the whole picture from my surroundings(I already knew that from the Army and working as a brakeman) but,never applied it to modeling.
After that I looked at everything closely and scrutinize pictures.
All of a sudden everything I thought was “correct” scenery modeling wasn’t according to nature and our surroundings-close but,no cigar.
I suppose that is why I perfer industrial switching layouts over (say) Appalachian modeling.Man made versus Mother Nature.
Ah…better check your facts and figures. If one makes an actual comparison, not an assumption, the situation is found to be almost unchanged from that prevailing, “a few years ago.” Counting only actual readers’ layouts (not trackplans, project layouts, etc.) and randomly choosing 2003 (i.e. 5 years past) as an example to compared to 2008, the difference (in sense of the ratio of large vs. small layouts appearing in MR) only suggests an additional two small layouts over the course of 12 months, now as compared to then. That’s hardly significant and could just as easily be a statistical fluke. What looks more likely is that there is more or less a set ratio of large to small layouts planned to appear in the magazine over the course of a year. Certainly, this doesn’t seem to vary randomly, as it would if determined simply by chance submissions.
My 4x8 On30 Pacific Coast Air Line Railway was almost bumped by Bruce Chubb’s “posse”-built extravaganza in the 2007 MRP. It only made it because the layout’s appearance was already advertised. It’s original inclusion was mainly due to the trackplan “sorta” based on a previous MRP idea. The PcalRwy like the original 2002 On30 plan was just a basic two siding oval with a center divider.
Big must sell better to the general public, I like well done small layouts.
