So How About That Model Railroader???

The "greats" are dying off because the magazines aren't actively developing the younger versions of Allen McClelland and so forth. McClelland himself, for instance, is over 70. But he only became a "name" in the hobby because Tony Koester encouraged him in RMC, as he did a number of others (such as Hayden and Frary). There are some younger, good modelers getting published, like Mike Rose, though Mike doesn't focus as much as he ought on the whole layout, rather than rolling stock.

For some reason, the editors seem to have lost initiative. Unfortunately, they give a lot of "serious" space to the prototype modelers, who obsess on pedantic details but don't build layouts where those details would be lost.

All the magazines are at fault here, not just MR. They're all frightened of varying from their formula, bad as it is in some cases. Somebody ought to be pushing the other mags and asking them why we just get same old same old from them -- what's wrong is as much Schaumburg's, Hundman's, Schleicher's, and Lee's fault as it is MR.

Why does the Table of Contents have to take up two pages, when one used to suffice? Also, I now have to hunt for the columns such as Product Reviews and Coming Events, since they are now mixed in with the major features and listed in the same bold type.

jwb1323,

I'm with ya on that. But then again, what can compete with video games and other electronic media or even organized sports or other "after school activities" that kids today are involved in. It seems like nobody has any time anymore (or so they seem to hype and melodramatize in the media), and I think we can all agree that model railroading is a very time intensive hobby. And in today's society where "instant gratification" is the norm, time/labor intensive hobbies have lost favor for more "quick fixes."

Personally, I've gotten sick of it myself. I don't know if anyone here read my thread on the "great experiment" (as I call it), but I'm now building a layout that is going to focus on craftsmanship and experimentation with various scenery and construction techniques. Handlaid track, scratchbuilt/kitbashed structures, superdetailed locomotives and rolling stock. A 2.5' by 12' layout that is going to emphasize the whole, not just the parts. My hope is that I can hone my skills building this layout, then build something bigger, and hopefully better, the next time around. Hopefully in the next decade or so, I can be at the same level as say Lynn Wescott, W. Allen McClelland, TK (Tony Koester, not Toby Keith) or maybe even Ben King, who's Timber City & Northwestern has had a big influence on this new layout. Maybe as things progress, I may write an article or two about what I'm doing (either the layout as a whole, or a couple of construction articles). (How 'bout it, Otto?!?!)

But how many of us twenty-somethings not only feel the same way, but are willing to act on our words? To try to become the next "old timers" that will influence the next generation or two of model railroaders?


Dreamin' big, building small and aspiring to fill some mighty big moccosans in the future.

An other threat to the mags, because it is a threat to the hobby in general is the large amount of rr computer games out there. After all you can get the same experiance of running the trains in Train Simulator, and I also assume the two versions of Trainz, you can do dispatching in the Train Dispatcher games (and in Trainz?) and you can get the creative feel in MSTS and Trainz. As well as the whole baron side of railroading which is difficult to establish in models but very easily established in games like Railroad Tycoon. Many more people have the space for a computer then even a small 4x8 layout (including me) and already have one avalible to them.

I know that in the computer/video gaming world, theres a good deal of dislike for the same process where the game maker is clearly favored by the mag in relation to the amount of advertising ( this is often reffered to as pimping).

I wonder if any of the other specialty nitch market magazines have the same problem, like the ones for knitting or bird watching.

I guess that its an easy trap to fall into in a hobby type of magazine marketing area where you have a limited number of readers products to cover and product producers, unlike say Time or News Week which have huge readerships with far more varying tastes and can attract a more diverse advertising pool.

For those who talk about other hobbies or computers or whatever competing with model railroading, keep in mind that the hobby had a very similar perceived "crisis" about 1960, when "all the right people" decided slot cars were going to kill off mocel railroading. This coincided with some of the major hobby suppliers -- Varney, Penn Line, and Mantua -- sort of running out of steam and not producing stuff that modelers could be inspired by. I certainly remember that for a time there, Athearn was just about our only good supplier.

I think ALL the mags, not just MR, are now in a similar place. That hasn't been recent. In the early 1980s, the publisher who put out what are now Kalmbach's Hobby Retailer and Dollhouse Miniatures (Kalmbach bought these mags later) was thinking about putting out a mag to compete with MR. The publisher at the time said nobody was really trying to compete with MR (except for RMC up to the time Koester was fired in 1981). He thought a publisher with the deep pockets could take MR on. His own poor health stopped that effort, and he sold his business to Kalmbach, who of course isn't going to compete with its own mag.

I got an e-mail a couple of weeks ago from a guy who works in the magazine industry who says the MR redesign -- not the old look, the new one -- is from 1985. Someone needs to kick Kalmbach in the butt.

I also wonder what will happen with RMC, since Carstens must be about 80 years old at this point, and from what I understand, his son Henry is not really equipped to run the business. So there are opportunities there!

I'm still torn here....To me, any way , the magazine isn't all that bad, but it does sem at times they've sold their souls to the manufacturers. After all, Athearn being sold is a big deal, and yet all they seemed to carry was an official press release. I KNOW there was some lively discussion here, but no one seems to be carrying any letters or e-mails about it, RMC or MR included here.

I have seen the same discussions in Germany (MIBA) years ago, also in other fields of hobbies. The market is changing, the customers are changing (not only the authors are dying!), product manufacturing is changing.
I own copies of MR back to '49, Model Trains, MRC somewhere around there, too, and some other RR magazines nobody knows about anymore(?). I enjoy reading them, looking up how that generation solved their problems and check if anything is still valid nowadays. But I would not go buying a Model Railroad magazin today, demonstrating how to build cars from card stock. And also why would I trust the authors' expertise, if they would not be able to utilize computer techniques to a certain degree? Who would really buy a black&white magazine with pencil sketches today either? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or even better, start your own magazine. I have seen MIBA folks in Germany doing it, they all belly-landed, and returned to make this magazine better, or another one.
What I like to see is, how modern (building) technologies make our MRR life easier. I enjoy articles about building scenery etc. with materials different than plaster/gypsum, actually, I prefer the old paper machee, done right, it's hard as a rock and still lightweight.
Or building trees from herbs, wires... and refining pre-manufactured ones.
I don't have to scrap build everything, but I don't mind giving pre-manfactured kits my own touch.

And one more reason why I'm sticking to MRR: Even if I can't find one
article really catching my interest, after my copy has been delivered, 6 month later, looking for something in particular, I will find it in just these copies.

And as an N-railroader, there are more than one issues per year, I'm just glancing over at first sight and put them into storage (shelf), for later use.

I'm not going to comment too much on RMC since this thread is about MR... but... RMC competes well... but could compete much better if Hal invested some money in new computers and maybe hired a small art staff to take the pressure off the editors... but NOT in the way like Railfan... they hired an "art staff" with "graphic designers" who did nothing but ruin the clean look of the mag and make Jim Boyd mad enough to "retire." <end RMC rant>

I dont know about you all, but I'm a 20-something, and MR inspired me way back when I was eight years old to someday become one of these "greats" of model railroading. I may not have the resources to do it now, but I hope to develop some new projects as I get older and try to make some contributions to the hobby (writing, photography, serving on NMRA and local club boards)... and I think the definition of a "great" is changing. Who will be the greats of our generation? Who are the greats right now?

And with a few exceptions, didnt most of the greats come from the pages of MR?

-otto-

Let's think about some of the "greats":

Overall layout greats:

Frank Ellison
John Allen
Whit Towers (RMC)
Paul Larson
David Barrow (started in RMC)
Allen McClelland (started in RMC and was there for 20 years)
Bob Hayden (started in RMC)
Dave Frary (started in RMC)
Ron Kuykendall
F@rlow (arrgh, started in RMC)
Reid Brothers (not sure if they started in RMC, maybe in MRG)

Model builder greats:

Eric Stevens
Jack Work
Bill Schopp (RMC)
Len Madsen (apparently had a nice layout, but it was never published while he was alive)
Richard Hendrickson (Prototype Modeler, MM, not the mainstream mags)
Jock Oliphant (RMC, but also has an unpublished layout)
Mike Rose (RMC)
Jim Six (started in RMC, has been coasting for many years)
"Sharpe Delaney" (pseudonym for Don Sims, RMC)
David Bontrager (started in MR, now part owner of MRG)


List is incomplete -- other nominations welcomed.

I would say that a surprising number of those we think of as "layout greats" were in RMC, especially while Koester was editor. But then went to MR when they established credibility. But see how hard you have to look to find new people under about 60. Koester was developing new people (Hayden and Frary were probably about 40 when they were big in RMC, for instance) in the 1970s. But nobody is actively working on new talent.

In my own case, my modeling work is at least publishable, but the mags simply haven't made it easy or worthwhile for me to put myself out. For a few hundred bucks, I get to lug around the camera and lights, clean off my layout, dust off everything, take a bunch of photos, spend many hours writing, doing rough artwork, etc. etc. -- and have the mag lose my submision, not pay until 60 days overdue, not answer my queries, etc. etc.? You gotta be a mental defective to waste time and effort on that. My guess is this is one reason you're not seeing new people come in. The editors and publishers are coasting.

I do think this hurts the hobby. I don't buy most of the mags, in fact -- Railpace and RMC are the only ones I buy nearly every issue (but sometimes RMC doesn't make the cut). But the hobby would be in better shape if people could get inspired by a mag the way they used to. Otto was inspired in the 1980s and 90s. I was inspired in the 1960s and 70s. I don't think it's happening as much. Not buying the mag is part of the solution (and lots of people are helping with that solution now, apparently), but not all of it.

I let my subscription to MR expire this month simply because I don't find them interesting anymore. Maybe that's because I have been a subscriber since approx 1990 and there's little new MR hasn't already told me.

I recently leafed through my saved articles from magazines through the years, my more recent articles mostly come from magazines other than MR. There are very few layouts published that catch my eye. I think if MR editors surfed the pages of the web they'd find dozens of excellent layouts to publish, not just Sassi, Speredeno, Koester year after year. One example is the Wolverine Lynx RR.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~keay/wlxhist.html

http://cwrr.com/nmra/

I have seen the progressive changes to more commercial influence rather than content influence. I think MR is doing what it has to do to survive and change with the times. The truth is that trains are gaining popularity especially in the last 2 or 3 years. Perhaps the real issue is our perception of what was and is going to be.

Also the best action to protest changes in content is to not buy the magazine, eventually when circulation drops - they'll hopefully get the message.

I've been keeping up with this thread for a week or so now and I just thought I'd throw in my opinion.

As far as over-exposed layouts go, how about the New England, Berkshire and Western? Digging through old MRs and RMCs there's a story about the Rensslaer crew in what seems to be every issue between 76 and 86. You can't blame just MR on that one... there definitely was some coasting going on with the editorial crews.

But as far as MR goes now, I think it can be summed up in this issue, where the number one city of model railroading is.... da da da daaa... Milwaukee! Jeese, there's no getting away from the fact that there are interesting layouts and prototypes in places OTHER than the Midwest.

Otto, I hear you. I too am a 20 something... I've been in model railroading since the age of 7 when I recieved from Santa Claus a Bachmann "CN Hustler" set with the infamous F9. But I had no mentors while growing up... my father certainly wasn't interested in trains, my brothers aren't, no one in my family I can think of, and while I was growing up, among my friends I was the only one into trains in any degree. So to get inspired, or see what was new I'd have to save my money and buy MR and RMC at the local supermarket and see for myself. There was no local hobby shop in my town until I turned 14 (and even then it went out of business within 2 years, but the shop owner certainly earned my money what with my endless questions and nose pressed up against the HO display case). But now I have noticed the downhill slide... MR seems to be dumbing down it's content for the benefit of the new modeler. Now this is okay, to a degree, because of the graying of the hobby, but the average modeler doesn't need articles upon articles of fluff.

Just my 2 cents.

Hey guys,

I just noticed something interesting this evening as I was browsing through the latest issue (that I have... April 2004) of MR and researching one of Tony Koester's articles on scratchbuilding turnouts in the December 1989 issue of MR (I'm getting ready to start handlaying my track, needed the demensions for cutting ties for turnouts). As I held them together to haul them to the living room to read, I noticed that there was a bit of difference in thickness of the two issues. At first, I thought it might be difference in the thickness or type of paper used in printing the issues. However, in flipping to the last pages of each issue, I noticed that the 2004 issue has 130 pages, while the 1989 issue has 240 pages... a difference of 110 pages!

Talk about reducing content (or is it advertisers... or both?)! I'm going to have to go back through my "library" and see what the average page amounts are per issue to see if that's just an anomoly (as Joe pointed out earlier, the January issue usually has more pages) or the standard.

Anyone else notice this?

I didn't get the Feb 04 issue until I found it second-hand at a swap meet (guy was selling back issues of RMC for $1, issues of MR for $0.10). It had 148 pages. The decline in page count is mostly due to loss of ads, has been going on for a long time, and was apparently a big reason Sperandeo was demoted -- possibly also why Russ Larson retired at 60. The problem is that if your count is correct, the problem isn't being fixed. But 132 I think is no bigger than RMC. THAT is a milestone.

The question is how they can justify the enormous staff they have with a shrinking mag. Something's got to give at some point.

Take one look at MR's rate card and you'll wonder how they get as many advertizers as they do. I kept asking the ad salespeople how they justified the steep increases in ad prices during the 1990's. Their standard reply was its based on circulation. As their circulation climbed the ad prices followed. So when their circulation tanked 3 or 4 years ago I asked them when the ad rates were going down to reflect the new lower level of readership. First I got a long pause( a sure sign of a Gotchya!!) then a bunch of corporate doubletalk. Needless to say the ad rates kept climbing.
I know a lot of small mfgs who won't advertize in MR simply because they can't afford to. I guess you gotta pay for the corporate tower somehow.
Dick Yager

"However, in flipping to the last pages of each issue, I noticed that the 2004 issue has 130 pages, while the 1989 issue has 240 pages... a difference of 110 pages! "

Not trying to defend MR, but.. the 1989 issue was the December issue which is always significantly bigger than other months due to the Christmas stuff (more ads, bigger expected circulation, etc.)

That being said, I have no idea about the April 1989 issue's page count.