Another MR garden railway.

I had the same happen with another group, namely camping. Trailer Life had many articles on motorhomes and yet there was a Motorhome Life devoted
exclusively to motor homes. Their explanation, which would be the same as MRR is that the "parent" magazine is for all campers/railways, and that the specific magazines are just for those people. Most of the articles in MRR fit any gauge, indoor/outdoor. The principal is the same. I don't intend having a garden RR and yet I see something interesting I could possibly use in the photos.
Chuck Callaghan snipped-for-privacy@virginia.edu

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it makes me wonder. My wife picked me up an issue recently because a Malcolm Furlow layout was featured. (She thought she did a good thing)
I stopped buying MR a couple of years ago when IMHO it became a means of pushing layouts built with all the plastic stuff Walthers, Bachmann, Atlas etc. had to sell.
I'm surprised to see garden layouts in MR. I remember 25 years ago when the magazine would not feature tinplate or 3 rail because it was not scale model railroading. IMHO garden railroads *rarely* look scale either.
BUT, times change and we have to accept the fact that our hobby is mostly driven by the instant gratification types. They dovetail very nicely with the people marketing all the plastic kits. AND, it seems many just don't have the time available for intensive kit building as was done in times past, or so the magazines tell us.
I can understand why things are changing, it's just business trying to survive. But I still miss the layouts built by the craftsmen. They were sooooooo inspirational.
Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm trying to recall any recent tinplate or 3 rail layouts in MR... ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Thank heavens I haven't seen any.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you, my point exactly.
Tim Gill wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charles Kimbrough wrote:

(Snipped for brevity)
Tim made a number of points - which one are you claiming?
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, at least I see that this is generating some traffic. I suppose that's a good thing.
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. 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. You just have to make room for stuff that you don't have an interest in or understand in a magazine like MR. 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. Like the song says: ".....take what you need and leave the rest......."

Captain Handbrake
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Captain snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:

A lot of folks considered the Furlow article a waste of space. Sort of the MR version of the Society Pages.
Maybe it's preparation for the merger with People?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Captain Handbrake wrote:
"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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Sep 2003 16:09:06 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com (Eric) wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
.> Take some photos [To Kalmbach] and write the text on your computer.

that you'll

I did that. They weren't interested.
-- Cheers Roger T.
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra / Home of the Great Eastern Railway
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

All right then. The only choice you have is to do what I do, or don't do, as it were. I do not subscribe to MR. I rarely ever buy a copy in the hobby store or news stand. I do look at each month's issue to see if there is anything in there that interests me. If not, then back upon the shelf it goes. I may go as much as two years without buying an issue. If people would simply learn to talk with their money instead of paying-up and then bitching. things would change. Kalmbach is no better- or worse- than any other market driven business. They are catering to what they believe to be their majority readership. As long as there are enough subscribers they will continue on this track. If you refuse to buy for the reason that you are not interested in the magazine's content, and the magazine subsequently stops publication, you still have not lost anything. What you (this is a collective "you" by the way) ~have~ done is run a bad publication out of business and opened the door for one that is more responsive to the needs and wants of its readership.
I have news for all who are reading this. That magazine is already out there and needs the support of the modeling community. So you don't like MR? Then for God's sake STOP BUYING IT! You do not owe Kalmbach Publishing company anything. Take a look at Rail Model Journal or Model Railroading or Railroad Model Craftsman or Mainline Modeler. Don't just continue to shell out the bucks while you sit and bitch. DO something. Roger, resubmit your article to RMJ and ask them for a commitment. They are not so arrogant as the people at Kalmbach. Neither is Hundman. MM is almost a local call for you, They are only about an hour's drive south. You are a good writer and you should try to find a publisher that appreciates your material.
Dear reader, think of it this way: Kalmbach needs you, you do not need Kalmbach.

Captain Handbrake
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net says...

How could you leave out Narrow Gauge & Short Line Gazette?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Captain wrote:

Yes, that is sadly now the case. I'm probably having a little difficulty in accepting that fact, but it is undeniable, nonetheless.
All the best,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Gill wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Mark Newtons narrow definition of a model railway of course is incorrect. A garden railway is a model railway.
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.

Mark Newton the expert is simply wrong. The garden railway is a model railroad, a simple fact. Excluding garden railways will not improve the content od MR. Quality information will.

All the above are model railroads. There is only a problem when we apply the narrow incorrect Mark Newton definition.

Of course Leon does not consider himself a model railroader, because he has a model railway set in his garden. What Mark Newton consider as usual is incorrect. Your un named mates probably have a different view, after all we only have your word on what they think.

Mark Newton's definition fails again, as he cannot argue the fine detailed garden model railways that exist are not model railways. And again Mark Newton the expert gets it wrong. The fantasy layout is a model railway. A simple matter of using the correct meanings of the words.

And you provide allot of 'it'.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:52:46 +1000, "Terry Flynn"

When Mark tells us his opinion he says its his opinion, differing opinions are interesting to the rest of us.
Your problem, Terry, is that you have no concept of the meaning of IMHO. You invariably insist that your opinion, right or wrong, is the only answer. What is written in the OED is just someone's opinion. Less dogmatism and more opinions and people may actually listen to you. And few of us are so dense that you need to make a point 4 times. IMHO Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/ Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A
His opinion on this subject is incorrect, a simple fact, and don't be fooled by his other stories, unless you like fiction.

IMHO Mark Newton the expert is sufficiently dense to need the point made 4 times, as he repeated his incorrect opinion strongly at least 4 times.
--
Terry Flynn

For HO scale track standards go to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.