Not a troll, just some observations, and a question or two.
Last month I received a mailer from Kalmbach with an offer or a "free issue" of MR. The offer was supposedly extended to former subscribers. I had subscribed to MR from 1972 through about 2000 and due to budget issues let MR lapse while keeping up Railroad Model Craftsman and the Gazette.
I sent in the postcard out of curiosity. The "free issue", labeled December,
2005, arrived yesterday.
One of the things I used to like about MR was the list of club open houses at this time of year. Its mostly gone, unless he organization pays an ad fee. Funny way to grow the hobby.
Rest of the content, compared to 5 or 7 years ago, was disappointing at best. he produc reviews are for what are essentially toy.
The articles, excepting the DCC article, were just plain poor.
I only occasionally pick up a copy from the magazine rack, but so far, it hasn't been too bad, I'd say fairly good. I'd be hesitant to judge them on one issue. They've also published a special, on modelling the '50s, excellent and accurate. Nothing there I'd say "toy" to.
I'd blame the writers rather than the publisher. They publish what the writers write. Seems to work better that way. Haven't seen the Dec issue yet, should come up pretty soon, but with my penchant for the KISS principle, sounds like there might be nothing in it I want.
Or, maybe there is.
Depends on what you're interested in. I could care less about the latest kilobuck brass or superdetailing a specific engine of a specific road, I'm more interested in trying to reproduce a particular "feel" of a time period at least halfway accurately. Different strokes for different folks.
MR covered that when they dropped the schedules from the magazine (...was it about a year ago?). As explained, they felt that putting the schedules on the Trains.com web site was more effective, considering the cost of publishing those pages and the lead time required.
Open houses etc listed on their web site, and more timely, too, since clubs don't have to plan so far ahead.
I don't think P2000, BLI, Kato, Atlas, etc make toys. :-) The kits reviewed are mostly resin or laser cut craft kits - not toys by any stretch of the imagination.
I haven't seen the Dec 05 issue yet, but that one traditionally reviews entry-level train sets, etc, so maybe that's what you have in mind. In fact the Dec issue tends to be very much aimed at the beginner. Good thinking, IMO.
Mr has gone to shorter articles with more pictures, presented in step-by-step fashion. For the seasoned modeller they are reminders of techniques (s)he already knows, with occasional new tricks, and for the beginner are just right.
Fact is that if you've been in the hobby for a few years, you've encountered just about every method there is. You're more likekly to want proptoype information about your road, era, or region.
No, I've seen this yearning for the Good Ole Days many, many times here. I think it's nostalgia for the time when you and the hobby were young, and every issue of MR, RMC, etc contained unexpected treasures. Now you're older, wiser, know a lot more, and you notice the repetition in the material printed. You also notice that most of it is at a level that you reached or surpassed a long time ago. C'est la vie: you get older, sometimes wiser, and usually more skillful.
The same as to every other special interest magazine: it recognised that the market is chnaging. Did you know, for example, that ready to run cars outsell kits by about 10:1? And that Walthers sells several times more ready-built structures than kits, and that the ratio is increasing?
I operate a small, mostly-trains hobby here in a very small market. Recently, a family showed up who had visited friends near here, and were pleased with what I have on offer. But they turned down _all_ kits, even the Athearns and Accurails, which surely don't take much skill. Ready to run and ready built only, that's all they wanted. The boy was about 12, and the father in his 30s. That's the future of the hobby. MR has recognised it.
One other thing: an increasing number of people want on-line info, and ignore print. The effects of that are not clear, but they don't look good for the magazines.
Actually in the case of MR that's not true. All the articles they get are totally rewritten by their editors for "same-ness"! Other magazines such as Craftmans do little editing to the authors input. It's one reason _some_ authors will not write for MR.
I think some people just outgrown MR. If someone gets into the hobby and starts getting really serious about it they learn much in 5 to 7 years. MR is written for mostly a lower lever or entry level (not all but mostly). This is why you seem to think it's changed. It hasn't but probably you have.
Huh? How long have you been reading it, Rich? Maybe it hasn't changed much in the last 10 years, but older issues (60's thru '80s) had much more construction and how-to material and much less buy it and run it material.
That's not necessarily a criticism, I suspect they know their intended market pretty well. Most folks just don't have the time for scratchbuilding any more and those of us who do have been doing it long enough that we don't need the beginner level articles in MR.
That's why I no longer subscribe. But I still recommend MR to any and all new modellers. I also suggest they pick up some old issues from the days of E.L.Moore and the like just to see if that appeals to them.
And those of us who are "modellers" rather than "operators" are faced with an ever dwindling supply of our addictives :-). I hope you still carry some scratch building supplies for the silent minority :-).
But your expertise confirms what I said in an earlier post. Very few people get any joy from building things any more.
I wonder how much is due to the "buy it, use it, replace it" mentality of todays consumer culture?
of todays consumer culture?< Actually I think it's due to less time for leisure pursuits. We are worked more and therefore have less time for our hobby. Of course the additional work seems to generate more funds (for some) and the tradeoff is in building vs using!
Probably since some time in the 70's, and I've also noticed the shift from scratch building to kits or already built. Most frustratingly, in not being able to get things I want without unreasonable delay. Have to buy my scale wood in full packs instead of individual pieces as I used to, still not expensive, but the delays can be longer than I like. Drawings, no problem, if I see a building I like, I can usually get measurements, then put them in CAD and out comes the drawing, to better accuracy than I can cut wood.
In the last two months I've probably spend sixteen or more hours looking through back issues that were brought in to the LHS, looking for one, I don't know if it was in MR or RMC, two story company style house, I have several I scratch built, now can't find the drawing again and I need half a dozen more.
I don't subscribe to any, and don't read any of them religiously, but still find something of interest in every one I've bought.
Yes, I do, but it sure sits on the shelves a long time. :-)
That's why the NMRA's workshops for kids at the National Meets are so important. I helped out at the one in Toronto in 2003 (you know - the one that was jinxed by SARS), and found the kids loved getting their hands on the kits. Some of them needed a bit of help with the tricky bits. but Athearn and Accurail kits were done 90% or more by the kids themselves. Proto1000 kits were bit beyond them, though - too many small parts. -- I trust that regional conventions run similar workshops.
Oh sure, I've no doubt that's part of it, but you should remember that a lot of scratch building and kit building in the "golden era of modelling" was prompted by the lack of cash. Now that people have more disposable income, they are more willing to pay for finished goods rather than building them from kits or from scratch. When a car kit cost a couple hour's pay or more, the "Dollar Model" articles were very welcome. When a locomotive kit costs between a day's and a week's pay, you welcome the "Kitchen Table Locomotive" series. I still have a copy of that series, it is very detailed and thorough. But I don't think I'll build one now.
Price increases in recent years seem to have maintained the status quo somewhat. A Kadee RTR model is *still* a couple of hours pay. A locomotive with DCC and sound is *still* a couple of days or more pay. It's a good think there's still Accurail and Walthers kits in the $10 range for those of us that aren't MDs or lawyers. Then there's the craftsman kits, or the nearly complete lack thereof, for those of us that prefer them. Unless a hobby shop is also in the business of buying up estates and selling them you can't find a nice wooden kit in one any more. Thank the Force for club swap meets where you can still find the *really* good stuff.
Hey Jim, If you think Model Railroader has changed wait till you run across an old girl friend that was the hottest thing on legs 30 years ago. Makes MR look pretty sweet. Bruce
I guess I originated this thread, so I'll point out that it's wandered a little bit. I wasn't complaining about the lack of kits from a point of view of saving money, I was talking about myself and others like me who enjoy the building process.
Nor was I claiming that yesterdays kits were "better" than todays - they aren't.
As long as I can find scratchbuilding supplies, I'll be OK. But that is getting harder and harder, especially detail parts.
Do you mean Jim Strangarity's Potterfield company houses? I clipped that
2-part article, RMC December 1978. I can snail mail a photocopy if that's the one. Mail me of group (there's no 'e' in the correct address), and let me know.
Ah, but back then it was a *** kit ***, not a RTR, and the level of detail was merely acceptable, even then - that's why there were several suppliers of detail parts (most of which have shut up shop.) And a current loco with DCC and sound is way better quality in every way than the die cast loco kits of 40 to 50 years ago.
Price-quality ratios have improved enormously in all manufactured goods. The belief that They Made Quality Back Then is a distortion of reality caused by a haze of nostalgia.
Item: Tom McCahill wrote a column for Popular Mechanix or Mechanics Illustrated, I can't recall which. He routinely advised ring and valve jobs on engines with a mere 20,000 to 30,000 miles on them. Nowadays, we expect an engine to last a minimum of 100,000 miles with no major work, and are in fact annoyed if it does need more than an oil and filter change.
Item: A 17" b/w TV set with 12 channels of fuzzy reception cost about a month's wages. You can buy a 21" colour TV set for about a day's wages now. (The first colour TV sets coat almost as much as car!)
Item: my first pair of dress shoes bought with my own money cost me a week's wages at 1-1/2 times minimum wage. Now you can buy a pair of dress shoes for only a day's wage at 1-1/2 times minimum wage. At least in Canada you can -- the minimum wages in the US are pathetic.
Item: The best locomotives in the 1950s were Tenshodo's brass locos. I recall drooling over a Big Boy, painted, and with lights yet. It was marked at $400Can - or $4,000 to $8,000 in today's money, depending on whose calculation of inflation you believe. I would rate current Big Boys and Challengers as superior to that offering by Tenshodo, yet they cost a good deal less than $1,000. $400 was ten weeks wages at the rate I was making then, $1/hour. Min wage was 65 cents. (An Athearn kit cost
98 cents Can.)
I know there are people who prefer craftsman wooden kits. But the market for them is very, very small as a proportion of the total. And it's dwindling. That's why they are hard to find, that's why they cost so much, that's why the maker's website may be the only easily accessible source. And for them too, price/quality ratio has improved since the advent of CAD/CAM driven laser cutting tools. I have a couple wooden kits that have been sitting on my shelves for over 20(!) years; at the time they were made, they were considered state of the art. I have only one local customer who prefers wood - he hates plastic, actually. He buys on average two kits a year. I no longer order wood kits for stock - I special order what he wants when he wants it.
Fact is, market economics dictate prices for hobby goods: they are after all paid for with disposable income. A large proportion of the market is willing to pay what old-timers consider premium prices for quality models, so that's what's made. There are still entry level goods, but in my experience, once people get bit by the bug, they go for the quality stuff, and don't blink (much :-)) at the prices.
In comparison to other pastimes, such as golf and hunting, model railroading is cheap. It's cheaper (and healthier) than smoking. An evening "enjoying" the latest blockbuster movie at the Cineplex will cost you upwards of $25 per person, what with ticket, popcorn, soft drinks, and "souvenirs" that the (grand)kids just have to have or else they'll die of disappointment. And have you priced a season's ticket for any major-league sport lately?
Overall, this is the best of times for model railroading. Enjoy it while you can.
I can't say a positive no, but remember that it was the center pages in the mag, Just pull the staples and I had all of the drawings. Wasn't highly detailed, very simple to build, no interior. IT's not really a problem, it wouldn't take much for me to measure one of the completed ones I have and redraw, maybe an hour, probably what I'll do.
Not that my search was for nothing, I did find a couple of others that are of more than passing interest, a small jail I can make latex molds and cast in plaster, and the "house at the end of the dead end street in the oldest section of town".
Wolf Kirchmeir ( snipped-for-privacy@sympatico.ca) wrote: : : Item: Tom McCahill wrote a column for Popular Mechanix or Mechanics : Illustrated, I can't recall which. :
Uncle Tom, as he called himself, wrote for Mechanics Illustrated.
IIRC, he was fired by Reader's Digest because of his favorable review of the Tucker, and went to work for Mechanics Illustrated.
--Jerry Leslie Note: snipped-for-privacy@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
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.