Another MR garden railway.

Sounds just like me down here in the South Carolina hill country. Only my period is Sepember 1905.

Howard

Didn't warrant one. Still doesn't.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

Wolf, MR does cover SOME Eastern roads, including NYC and alot of PRR, and Conrail, but coverage of the other Pre Conrail roads and other regional carriers that I am interested in, are much more sparse, escpecially compared to the coverage of those roads in the other magazines I mentioned previously, and also compared to MR's coverage of the UP, ATSF, BN, BNSF and to a lesser extent, NS and CSX. For my own personal interests, MR just does not cut it, and has not done so in a very long time, where as the other "less popular" magazines, do a much better job, in my opinion. I even enjoy the articles better, in those other magazines, even when they don't specifically address areas of my own interest, I can usually find good usable information that I can relate to my own interests and needs, whereas, for the most part, I cannot say that about most issues of MR. Jeff

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:37:47 UTC, "Roger T." wrote: 2000

Conceptually I am right there with you. My problems are:

1. I have no place for a layout
2. My module storage doesn't allow scenery
3. I am lousy at scenery
4. I have problems weathering a pretty paint job

Actually I recognize that I am out of the mainstream (in almost everything) which somehow does not invalidate anything I do. I am planning to implement most if not all of your points if I ever get my energy back. Not only do I not use code 100 but my present modules have code 83 mainline, code 70 sidings and code 55 spurs (I am in HO). I made an experiment with flextrack and am going back to handlaying.

This was an ingenious way of extending the mainline and insteading of wasting the space including a well modeled station scene. The tolilet was not more part of the scene than the rest of the benchwork.

A 1:1 scale tree towering over a garden railroad can't be anything but a visual distraction.

A garden railroad will alway be just landscaping.

Eric

Robert Heller wrote:

Or a H0 scale train making it way past a 1:1 scale toilet (See page 26 of "How to OPERATE your model railroad", by Bruce Chubb, Model Railroad Handbook No. 30)?

"Now, what I want to know is: Why make all this flap about MR having a garden railroad article inside? Malcomb Furlow's stuff is the same thing in HO scale."

Didn't you see the thread roundly critizing Malcolm's Mistake a few weeks ago?

"And MR has trolleys and rapid transit from time to time, neither of which is a railroad At least not in the sense that the Atlantic Coastline was a railroad."

There's a long tradition in model railroading of modeling trollys and electrics railroads.

"You just have to make room for stuff that you don't have an interest in or understand in a magazine like MR."

Not when they [Kalmbach] have a magazine specifically dedicated to garden landscaping with toy trains. I don't subscribe to that magazine for a reason.

"IMO, it is not nearly as good as it was before Larson and this new guy, but it is the best thing for sparking an interest in someone who picks it up in a book store or supermarket magazine rack. MR is not a specialist magazine. It is a general interest rail-hobby magazine. This means that it cannot always have just those articles that we in the hard-core cadre deem proper model railroad oriented articles."

I take issue with the idea of Model Railroader not being a specialist magazine. I think that's what it become. It become a magazine that specializes in the lowest common demoninator shake the box buy it not build it mentality.

As the editor during the late 1970s and through the 1980s I don't think that Larson did a bad job. The magazine had a nice mix that appealed to wider range of modelers. You might not find something you were really interested in every issue but a majority of them each year.

It's no longer like that it's harder and harder to find things of interest to anyone who isn't approaching the hobby like having a fish tank, where you buy a new fish and plop it in the tank and that's the extent of your involvement.

Eric

=>> (His head-up-his-butt elitism is rarer still, thank goodness.) =>

=>Is that what you regard as being elitist - having an opinion and =>expressing a preference? =>

=>And BTW, Wolf - if you intend to insult an Australian, telling him he =>has his "head-up-his-butt" is meaningless. =>

=>All the best, =>

=>Mark.

It's not your opinion, it's the way you express it -- your choice of words implies that other notions of what constitutes model railroading are somehow lacking. Anyone who claims that some other way of having fun with little trains is not model railroading is an exclusivist elitist. It's _all_ playing with toys - just people's tastes in toys differ.

And yes, I did intend to use "eclectic." I also used the qualifier "more" -- think about what I intended by using that word.

As for insulting you, h'm, I guess I'll have to get a handbook on Aussie insults. Can you recommend one? Or is there perchance a web site? :-)

LOL! You aren't capable of making one.

All the best

Mark.

Those bastards better drop that whole "Prototype Info" column too. Kalmbach has a magazine devoted to prototype railroads.

So, why isn't the prototype info featured in THAT magazine?

"Mark Mathu"

Other than stating the bleeding obvious, that to model a railway, you need to know how the real thing works, the above is not worthy of a reply Mark, you're just being antagonistic.

-- Cheers Roger T.

But... Kalmbach has a different magazine devoted to prototype railroads. So, why isn't the prototype info featured in THAT magazine? Get that crap out of Model Railroader, right?

You can subscribe to Trains if you want to see how the real thing works. Model Railroad doesn't need to pollute their pages with that garbage.

Oh my God... a magazine about model railroads having a garden railroad in it? How can that be so? ... Ohhh... wait a minute.. I get it now... It's because it is an article about a type of layout you don't like? Isn't it?

Silly us, we couldn't figure that out.

Well... let's make sure those bastards at Kalmbach don't publish any more articles about garden layouts (since they DO already have a magazine devoted to that -- who cares if garden layouts are a type of model railroad? If you don't like it, well by God then the rest of us need to follow your guidance.).

No, he's just using your own argument against you, Roger.

You can't have it both ways. If it's not right to publish a garden layout in MRR simply because Kalmbach has a magazine devoted to that subject, then it's not right to publish anything from Trains in MRR either.

The issue of whether a garden railroad is a "real" model railroad is a separate argument, but you seemed to hang your hat on this one.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

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 Menke

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 model railroaders!

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.

Bruce West Main Street Heritage Models

"Mike Tennent"

I've not argued one way or the other on that issue.

Cheers Roger T.

Really?

Well I am Mark, and I agree with The Iron Penguin on this one. It doesn't warrant further comment IMO either. The statement is purely speculative in nature, and any ensuing commentary would be equally speculative and wasteful of time and energy.

Cheers........

Captain Handbrake

Are we to infer then, that having one's head up one's arse is a normal and accepted state of affairs in Oz? Perhaps there's more to the phrase "Down Under" than any of us heretofore realized. LOL.....

Captain Handbrake

Yes I did, but that's not the point here. I don't like Furlow's stuff, but I don't bitch about it either.

Has it been this way since the big bang, or did the inclusion of trolleys, interurbans and rapid transit have a point of genesis? Every tradition has a beginning, and every one of them gets bitched about by the currently incumbent group.

I don't subscribe to it either, but I do not object to the idea that MR is a broad spectrum product, while Garden Railways is not.

That's because Larson inherited Linn Wescott's legacy. He had a goose that laid golden eggs with which to start. Larson also has the benefit of Wescott's staff to prop him up and help him. When those people began to move away through retirement, resignation and death, Larson was left to survive on his own merit; something that he has clearly not been able to do.

It is increaasingly clear that such is the trend of the hobby. While I agree with you that MR should have more in-depth articles on painting and building, they have to consider the business aspect of catering to the widest possible cross section of readers. I would suggest that you submit an article to Kalmbach of the type that you would like to see published. Take some photos and write the text on your computer. send them the text file and the jpegs and see what they say. I guarantee that you'll hear from them.

Captain Handbrake