outnumbered by those who think it's just fine<
The change of editor was a content direction change. So from now on
it's simple a matter of watching the income/circulation. If it goes down
farther then this editor _may_ not last if it goes up he will probably get a
raise in salary.
IMHO the income/circulation won't do anything it wouldn't have done
anyway as the fact their sales went down was simply what happen to everybody
There were numbers and percents reported on this group back when MR
changed editors. I don't remember exactly but the changes for all were
about the same. It's hurts MR more because 3%* (in terms of number of mags)
is a lot more than 3% for the others.
*I just picked 3% out of the air for a point.
I posted the MR numbers. I requested the RMC numbers at that time also, but
there was no reply.
I'm not an RMC subscriber so I don't have the information handy -- and as far
as I can tell - no one has posted RMC circulation figures, hence the
I have stacks of magazines including MRing, RMC, MM, RMJ, etc. I am
certainly not going to waste my time going through each page by page hunting
for that little 1" x 2" information. Tell me the month and I will help get
data otherwise forget it. I have a basic understanding of what is happening
talking to the editors so I would be doing research for you. I charge!
I disagree that Garden Railroads aren't model railroading. I also feel
that arbitrary exclusion of Garden Railroads for the hobby of model
railroading is arrogant on your part. I also think the quality of Model
Railroading Magazine is just fine, thank you very much.
Bury your head in the sand, then. I don't care. I like to know what is
going on in the world, even if I don't like it. I'm starting to get a
much clearer picture of the kind of person you are.
Nice to know I'm passive and compliant. Not only are you willing to
arbitrarily exclude a substantial portion of the model railroad hobby,
you now choose to insult the majority of the hobby by questioning their
taste in magazines.
What next, my scale? My choice of railroad? My car? My Mother?
Yes, the picture is very clear now.
Doug, I think many of us would agree that garden railroads that run scale model
railroad equipment are worthy of being considered model railroads.
The hobby is certainly open to railroad modelers of all scales, and that
includes those who may prefer large scales of 1/2 inch and larger.
It is arrogant in the extreme IMHO to arbitrarily exclude the efforts of those
whose enthusiasm leads them to larger scales but whose financial means preclude
them from modeling a layout at 1" to the foot inside a home or building.
I am also of the opinion that Model Railroader magazine is for those who are
enthusiastic about railroad models. The title refers to the persons, not the
layouts or other means of display. It is a magazine for the people--they are
I see Model Railroader as a sort of "Sunset Magazine", and for those of you who
do not live in the Western U.S., "Sunset Magazine" seldom has an article longer
than one page, tries to cover all topics of interest who has a garden, cooks,
travels, or shops in the West or Southwest. It also recycles itself every two
years--same topics, different pictures.
Model Railroader does its job very well--presenting topics of interest to all
Model Railroaders what ever the experience or scale. It covers some things in
more depth, but is not intended to appeal exclusively to the "serious modeler",
what ever that may be.
Main Street Heritage Models
Toss "wospam" to e-mail
Who is exluding whom? I regularly visit a friend with a garden railway,
and enjoy being part of a running session. I also regularly operate 5"
gauge live steam. But even when I'm actively participating in either
pursuit, I don't regard one or the other as model railroading. So, am I
arrogantly excluding myself?
Mark, I regard anyone who is "into" the hobby of modeling railroad equipment,
and perhaps operating it on a layout, as a model railroader. The scale or
location of their activity is not a determining factor IMHO.
I agree with your notion that a model railroad built inside a building on
tables or benchwork is entirely different from a garden railroad built on
graded earth. But the enthusiast building each type of layout belongs to the
fraternity of model railroaders. They just are working in different scales, and
in different circumstances.
Model Railroader--the Magazine--is for all model railroaders. None are
excluded from discussion and presentation because of where they build their
layout, or what scale they work in.
I sense that you may feel that a person who carefully builds and operates 1" to
1 foot models is not a model railroader. Is that true?
As to who is excluding whom, I sense that there are a few who object strongly
to modelers in scales of 1/2" per foot or larger being considered as model
railroaders. They want to exclude them. And they certainly don't want any
mention of larger scaled efforts in Model Railroader magazine!
Finally, I'm reminded of comments you made back in the Froggy/ Terry Flynn/ DCC
discussion of last year. You pulled us aside and explained that Australians
love to argue and will do anything to prolong an argument.
Is that happening here? :-))
Not me - I'd love to see a detailed article on those who build their own
steam engines from rough casting kits, or here about the firing techniques
they use in those [relatively] small fireboxes. Or how they tamp their
ballast and align their track.
But cute pix of birdies and cats and garden dwarves don't generate a lot of
model railroad interest.
I use char, as coal doesn't burn very cleanly or well in a 5" 4-4-0. As
a general rule I fill the box until the char is falling back out of the
firehole, and then burn the fire down. I try to keep the firehole door
shut as much as possible, as the engine doesn't have an arch. Like big
engines, it is largely a matter of practice, experience, and knowing the
All the best,
So we disagree, Fair enough. I didn't elaborate about why why I regard
garden railroads as being a distinct hobby to model railroads, so I
disagree with your opinion that my distinction is arbitrary.
So you think the quality of MR is fine, fair enough also. Presumbaly,
you'll keep buying it - I won't.
You haven't any picture at all, unless you are conversant with the
issues concerning broadcast and print media in Australia, which I very
much doubt. I, too like to know what is going on in the world,
unfortunately the only mainstream media outlets available to me are a
broadsheet and a government-owned broadcasting service that are renowned
for their blatant left-wing bias, or a tabloid and some commercial
broadcasters that are right-wing propaganda organs. So what kind of
person does that make me, if I choose not to read or watch the crap that
is on offer?
If the majority of the hobby who read MR are completely satified by it,
then I'd say their taste is in their arse. But, again, that's your choice.
I don't give a bugger what scale you model in. I'm interested in more
than one scale, why shouldn't you be? Likewise your choice of railroad.
I can't even limit my interests to one country, let alone one railroad.
As for your car, it would interest me about as much as your choice of
washing machine, possibly less. And your mother was not someone you had
any say in choosing, so your taste is an irrelevancy as far as she is
Oh? You haven't had much to do with any Australians, have you?
All the best,
Uh, the logic of this escapes me. Is it a model of a railroad? Yes, it is,
with the limitations imposed by being in an outdoor setting. It has track,
it has trains. It even has a limited amount of scale scenery. Most of the
model railroads of 50 years ago had no more fidelity to the prototype than
this garden railroad has, many of them being spaghetti bowls of track with
almost no scenery and no possibility of prototypical operation. And many
home layouts of today aren't any more realistic than those early efforts.
Many of them have fewer scale miles of track than this garden railroad has.
I still think the distinction between a model railroad and a "garden
railroad" is arbitrary.
Mark Alan Miller
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.
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
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 :-).
I have stayed out of this discussion but I have to admit that Larry's
message has intrigued me.
I submit that outdoor layouts can and often are more realistic than
indoor HO or N scale layouts.
I will use my outdoor garden model railroad as an example. Unlike most
outdoor layouts it has little or no scale scenery as it is a railroad in
a garden. I have operated at a number of outdoor layouts who scenery
blows most small scale stuff away in the detail that can be provided but
that is another story.
Well as I have few other than bridges, Larry is correct that if
structures are the criteria for having a model railroad then I lose.
Scale Rolling Stock
While I have a few non scale locomotives, all the of newer ones are very
scale oriented and will match up to most any of the smaller scales in
appearance and fidelity to scale. So in this category we are about equal.
Scale turnouts, grades, radius
Lets see. Its real realistic to have a Big Boy go around an 18 inch
curve (or even a 30 inch curve) I model in 1:20.3 narrow gauge and a
scale 130' radius is not bad for a small narrow gauge railroad and #6
turnouts again for Narrow gauge while tight but for 3 foot narrow gauge
not bad. Grades are not artificial outdoors as the 12 feet I have to
climb requires distances and a few loop backs. The point here is that
indoors the grades are artificial, outdoors its real railroading to get
from point A to point B.
Lets see now, operating a steam locomotive with a rotary DC knob is very
prototypical. Operating real steam is perhaps more prototypical and the
distances involved can keep many crews operating without bumping into
each other. And the sound, well I have the room for a tad bigger
speaker which sounds much like the real thing. Outdoors we have real
climate to contend with, not that artificial Air Conditioning.
I guess my point is this. We each choose various aspects of model
railroading to concentrate in. To contend that one form of model
railroading is pure and that all others are not is simply silly.
I model a point to multipoint railroad. I have perhaps chosen different
aspects of the hobby to concentrate on. Indoors I model the BR&P in the
late summer of 1950. Outdoors I have a real road road with real
destinations and a real purpose. Is one more pure than the other. No
they are each different aspects of the same hobby.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.