Another MR garden railway.

And Mark Newton responded:

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? :-))

Bruce

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 wish you wouldn't say things like that when I've got a mouthful of coffee!

Roger; I've embedded comments within your note, interesting discussion. regards, Jerry

I agree, it is subjective. Due to the subjective nature, this speaks well for the balancing act that Model Railroader personnel have to straddle when making content decisions.

I have a broader definition of a model railroad. If the railroad is built such that trains transverse a scene, and it looks prototypical, then it fits the bill as a "model railroad", as opposed to a toy train layout.

There have been countless layouts over the years that would qualify under my criteria, but fail under yours. I'm not saying either position is correct, but once again points out the extremely diverse opinions from two individual that near as I can tell have very similar interests in this hobby.

I would say that I belong to the same school. Two of the layouts that had a large amount of influence on me were Dave Barrow's original Cat Mountain and Santa Fe, which was originally featured in I believe a

1978 RMC article. The expired Midwest Rail Modelers in Batavia was another. Both layouts designed for operation, with believable scenery, one size constrained, the other not. For construction techniques, the Washita and Santa Fe series done by MR in I believe 1982/1983 was another great railroad.

Where you and I differ are on layouts such as one of the recent New Haven layouts (not John Pryke's) built by an ex New Haven employee, now retired. Beautiful railroad, but near as I can tell, a two track mainline that ran around the wall. That layout is a beautiful "model railroad" IMHO, well worthy of the space in MR.

I too subscribe to the "Tony Koester / Allen McClellan school of model railroaders". My goal is to prototypically operate my railroad, the Spokane Southern. However, as I get closer to the point of actually accomplishing this goal, I find that the people that I regularily host over on my railroad don't seem to share the same goal. For them, a pleasurable night of operating is simply running trains around the layout, enjoying railfanning while they do. Many of my friends are current or former railroad or railroad supply industry employees (as am I) who don't care to "go to work" when they operate. A day job (or third shift with Tuesdays and Wednesdays off) of saftey briefings, rules, timetables, piss tests, fatigue, boredom etc. more than suffice to safisfy their quest for railroad reality.

So, in conclusion, this hobby is so diverse that a magazine like Model Railroader doesn't have a prayer of satisfying everybody. They definitely play to the mainstream, which to me means that they hit the occasional home run, quite a few singles, and frequently strike out. Furlow's latest fantasy, and the article about a year ago featuring a "G" scale layout that some guy paid somebody to build and install in his basement are examples where MR really struck out. But, all in all, I still haven't found another model magazine that I enjoy as much as MR. MR, coupled with GN and NP hysterical society offerings, pretty much fills my need.

"Jerry Zeman"

I agree completely with all your choices above.

I was really disappointed when MR never completed the Washita and Santa Fe series as they'd said they would. They were supposed to complete the layout as originally designed but stopped after the initial phase. In fact, I wrote to them to express my disappoint and speculated that the reason was, at the time, that MR had discovered computers, given the number of computer based articles that appeared around that time. They never responded nor published my letter. Of course.

-- Cheers Roger T.

of the Great Eastern Railway

yes and the 5 year old Andy S editoral was really worth while, as were the reviews, beldars commments, the letters of praise...............

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 road.

All the best,

Mark

You look at a glass of bourbon and see it as half empty, don't you?

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

If the half full/empty glass is observed frequently in that state then obviously the container is twice as large as it needs to be!

Paul

Can someone report the latest circulation figures and % change for RMC?

Mark. 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 question.

I take RMC so if someone could tell me what month they put that figure in I will check it.

You have the magazine, you should be able to figure it out.

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

Because the historic definition of a model railroad has been broad enough to include garden railways. Model Railroader has included periodic articles on outdoor model railroading for decades, including live steam at times. You are the one who has redefined the term "model railroad" to exclude outdoor railroads. Model Railroader's broader definition is much closer to how the term has been used historically.

Mark Alan Miller

-- Dave

Never leave well enough alone. (Raymond Loewy)

What Mark Newton the expert considers as a model railway is unimportant and as usual is incorrect.

Consider the Oxford Dictionary of English definition of the words Model ' representation of a designed or actual object'. and Railway or Railroad ' road laid with rails for the transit of trains'.

A Toy is 'a play thing' and to Play is 'to amuse oneself'. Thus irrespective of prototype, scale, used inside or outside, live steam, push along or static, coarse scale wheels or exact scale wheels, made of metal, plastic, wood or Lego, scenery or no scenery all are model railways, and when used and the user has fun, they all come under the definition of a toy.