Another MR garden railway.

Mark: So, if I understand you correctly, the garden railroad shouldn't have been in MR, because, quality of layout aside, Kalmbach publishes a garden railroading mag? So, by that logic, MR shouldn't carry narrow gauge articles because there is a narrow gauge magazine (Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette)? They also shouldn't publish S gauge articles because S-Gaugian magazine exists? Or they shouldn't publish N scale magazines because there are two N scale mags? One can draw inspiration for a layout, whether it be a building, rolling stock, or such by looking at articles done in not just one's particular magazine. It would also give people that are on the fence about trying out another scale some idea of what can be done in that scale.

Reply to
Jack
Loading thread data ...

Not to speak for anyone else, but Kalmbach doesn't publish those magazines, so your argument just doesn't fly.

However, Kalmbach DOES publish a garden railway magazine, where, in my opinion, the article should have been printed.

My main gripe is that this is two garden railway articles in the past few months that would have been better published in the garden railway magazine. Especially now that MR's articles are, in general, much shorter and less detailed than they used to be. The "People Magazine" style of photo journalism.

-- Cheers Roger T.

formatting link
of the Great Eastern Railway

Reply to
Roger T.

=>And many of us couldn't give a toss. Many of us would regard garden =>railways as a separate hobby entirely. =>

=>All the best, =>

=>Mark.

This is the sort of exclusivist crap that makes me wanna fwow up.

Reply to
Wolf Kirchmeir

I buy the magazine hoping for useful information. There is very little information in garden railway articles - whether about track laying or structures - that is useful to me, while articles on layout design, scenery techniques, scratchbuilding or superdetailing projects are useful regardless of scale, when they deal with indoor model railroading.

Not a matter of exclusivity, just utility. I'd rather see garden RR articles in Sunset, or buy Garden Railways if I wanted them.

Reply to
E Litella

Hmmm, let me see...

Model Railroad magazine... Articles on all scales... Garden model railroad is model railroad... Model Railroad magazine publishes article about it...

Sorry, but I guess I think a magazine about model railroads can publish an article about a garden model railroad.

Wrong. Garden Railroading is landscaping. I'm personally waiting for them to publish an article on how to kitbash a standard lawn jockey into a model of a pullman porter. Maybe Martha Stewart could write it.

modeller is

And you know this with such certainty because...?

They think that associating a noted quasi-celebrity with their inane greatest hobby money can buy..er..in the world campaign would be good for business.

Eric

Reply to
Eric

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote::

Wolf, you make being exclusive sound like a bad thing.

"Garden Railways" is a magazine exclusively about garden railways - why shouldn't "Model Railroader" be exclusively about model railways?

All the best,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

I'd say you don't understand me correctly. Kalmbach doesn't publish any of the titles you mention*. But they do publish a specialised garden railway magazine. Which doesn't feature articles on indoor model railroads.

No doubt. But as a dedicated indoor model railroader, no amount of inspiration is going to make me build a pond, plant miniature pine trees, or build squirrel-proof structures. Articles that address my interests as an indoor model railroader will, however, inspire me.

In that case, "Garden Railways" should feature articles on indoor model railroads from time to time, eh?

All the best,

Mark.

*Which is just as well, or they too would suffer a decline in quality. And NG&SLG is one of my regular magazine purchases, I'd hate to see it go the way of MR.
Reply to
Mark Newton

Reply to
Charles Kimbrough

No, it isn't. What's your point?

Cheers,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

The title of the magazine is "Model Railroader," This would infer that it caters to enthusiasts who enjoy models of railroads, The infamous railway in question is a model of a railroad. I do not see the problem here.

Many say, in a manner of argument, "...then why aren't there HO scale layouts in 'Garden Railroads?'" Well, if we repeat as above then we find that it cannot feature layouts of that type; it is not a publication that can universally feature all types of scale and modeling. Model Railroader, I believe we can reasonably agree, can publish articles on all kinds of model railroads because of the intrinsic implications of its name.

"Well, Garden Railroads aren't real modelling...." Why? That is just a snob issue. Just because they are not exacting recreations of prototypical situations or do not feature operating sessions where traffic is moved, does not mean that they are not model railroads. Many of the better garden layouts have a unifying theme which keeps consistency and believability.

This is about how each person derives the most enjoyment from each facet of the hobby. None of us can really enjoy participating in it if we divide up into our subcamps and frantically naysay anything that steps out of or falls short of our expectations. And, above all, let's just try to agree that this is a hobby, and it is about having fun.

-Tim Gill swap "0"'s and "o"'s to reply.

FWIW, I think the most intriguing part about the article is that the author started at one point and laid track through undeveloped land to reach another point, much like (dare I say it) a real railroad does. Hauling gons along with real ballast and laying track foot by foot to reach somewhere else sounds like a fun challenge.

Reply to
Tim Gill

Reply to
Charles Kimbrough

This is precisely why there was a discussion recently on what constitutes a model railroad. Perhaps if the wowsers and censors hadn't been so determined to stifle that discussion we might have developed some ideas that extended beyond 'model railroading is fun'.

The problem is that many people - and I am one - don't regard the railway in question as a model railroad. The problem is that for many people who look to MR for useful information relevant to their particular modelling interests, the inclusion of articles such as this dilute the content, and are of no interest or use. So we feel that Kalmbach are not giving us what we paid for.

We can agree. Where we differ is in the definition of a model railroad. I don't regard a garden railway such as the one featured in MR as a model railroad. If we adopt your position, then the content can consist entirely of garden railways, Brio, tinplate, Thomas The Tank Engine, Lego, those vile Franklin Mint Christmas tree sets, large-scale live steam, computer train simulation software, and so on. By implication, they are all kinds of model railroad.

Is it? My mate Leon has a large and quite well-known garden railway - he doesn't claim to be a model railroader. When he issues invites for a session at his place he calls it his train set. Is he being a snob? I dabble in 5" gauge live steam - I don't consider it a model railroad, and neither do my fellow clubbies. Are we snobs?

Here we differ. To me, they are not model railroads, for exactly the same reasons.

I've seen a fantasy layout that had a unifying theme - Tolkienesque hobbits - which was very consistent, if not entirely believable. It wasn't a model railroad. Meeting these benchmarks is not enough to satisfy me.

Can't we? Why not? I belong to a number of subcamps, and I quite enjoy my participation in those subcamps. I don't want, nor expect, to derive enjoyment from all facets of the hobby. Does anyone? And I don't concede for a moment that my position is one of frantic naysaying. MR has seriously fallen short of my expectations, and I have expressed my concerns. Which, as someone who purchases the magazine for specific reason, I believe are legitimate.

Agreed, it's a hobby. I don't recall suggesting that it was anything else. Or does that mean I should not have any opinions that differ from the consensus, or attempt to develop my own philosophy about it?

You reckon it is about having fun. Well, in part my fun comes from having a publication that supplies me with factual, practical information that relates to my interests as a modeller, not wading through page after page of fluff and bullshit. I come here for that.

All the best,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

(Snipped for brevity)

Tim made a number of points - which one are you claiming?

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Mark Newton wrote: \

And I feel the same about O scale, but you don't see me complaining about O scale articles.

Garden Model Railroads are just a bigger scale, that's all.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

Reply to
Mike Tennent

E Litella

So do I, but not just for that.

I enjoy reading about aspects of the hobby I'm not directly involved in. I don't expect to pick up some useful tip in every article.

It's the same reason I subscribe to Smithsonian and other magazines. I like to read and learn about things beyond my doorstep.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

Reply to
Mike Tennent

"Mike Tennent" <

Mike.

Agreed. Garden Model Railroads are just a bigger scale. A bigger scale that has it's own Kalmbach publication, where Kalmbach should have published it.

If this article had appeared in RMC, then I wouldn't complain because Carstens Publications doesn't (AFAIK) have a garden railway magazine., but it appeared in Kalmbach publication, who do have a garden railway magazine.

-- Cheers Roger T.

formatting link
of the Great Eastern Railway

Reply to
Roger T.

Nor do I, as they probably contain something of interest or use to me.

No way! Unless you feel like getting into O scale bonsai trees, that is?

Cheers,

Mark.

Reply to
Mark Newton

Mark, Thanks for your well thought out reply.

Such is, I would suppose, the drawback of having a magazine that covers a hobby with such a wide range of topics. I can definitely understand that viewpoint, but the article was only about 3-4 pages.

Very thought provoking. However, I see the 1" scale stuff and even live steam as "models of a railroad" because they adhere to being a scale replica of an actual locomotive or car.

I didn;t mean to infer that you or your assosciates are snobs. I believe the whole issue, and I have encountered this before in the group, is that we use an overarching decisions whether something is a model railroad or not based on the scale or locale. If I went out, bought a good sized chunk of land, and made a foot for foot recreation of a subdivision of the BNSF in 1" scale, grooming the landscape to fit the correct locale and climate, and operated a timetable, would it then be a model railroad?

Agreed. I too belong to my own share of little "subcamps" as I had put it. I don't believe the problem is in that- I don't actually think that this should be one big melting pot where no one has an opinion or preference. I just think that some (not necessarily yourself, or specifiacally anyone else in this group) people tend to take it to extremes when they refuse to accept or constantly bash on other aspects of the hobby. Again, I'm not saying that that is anyone here in this discussion, but in general.

Granted.

-Tim Gill

Reply to
Tim Gill

OK - there's the bone of contention. No garden railway I've ever seen is a "model railroad" because the scenery is not to scale.

Some of the rolling stock is very well done, but watching it go under a

1:1 oak tree somehow detracts :-).
Reply to
Larry Blanchard

Different? Yes.

Completely Different? No.

If you insist upon having every single page be useful to your modeling efforts, may I suggest you look elsewhere. I buy MR and not every page is relevant to me. I accept that.

Not every article in the newspaper is relevant, nor is every story on the evening news.

Complaining about it here is not going to accomplish anything, and writing to MR isn't likely to, either.

Life's rough, Get a helmet.

Doug Menke

Reply to
Douglas E. Menke

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.