Actually, I'm looking for December 1976. It has an article on the
Genesee & Wyoming in it. I recently discovered an interest in that
railroad. So ask her if she'll take $1 plus postage. E-mail me at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Leave out the 1940 for the correct address.
It depends a bit on the issue. There are some issues that were very
popular because of certain articles that were in them.
October of 1986 or so I think it was set a record for sales, because it
featured an article on how to modify a camera lens to take better model
photos. This was popular with both the photography hobbyists and the
model railroad hobbyists.
Prototype information such as the drawings of rolling stock, etc. never
goes out of date. If you want a drawing of a Southern Pacific 4-6-2, you
will only find it in one issue. Even if you want to buy a model off the
shelf that article and drawing will tell you what to do with it to make it
a better looking model.
Certain modeling projects never go out of date either. If you want an HO
model of Burlington's Pioneer Zephyr, it means cutting up a bunch of model
streamliner passenger cars. You might find a brass model for sale
somewhere for hundreds of dollars, but it is very rare. How to build one
yourself was covered in several issues in the spring of 1984 or so.
Otherwise, to get that particular model, you will be waiting a very long
time if you wait for it to appear on e-bay.
Model railroader isn't quite as bas as, say, Newsweek or one of the other
publications that is only good for that particular period of time. This
is because many people model periods of time other than the present day.
Believe it or not there are people who model periods as early as the
1830s. An article about a railroad in the 1950s that was written in the
1950s may be an even better source than an article written in 1990 about
the same railraod as it existed in the 1950s.
On the other hand, some items do go out of date. Reviews of 1950s models
would be quite useless today because few of those are in production now.
Scenery modeling techniques have changed quite a bit because the materials
available have changed.
So, the value unfortunately depends a great deal on the interest of the
person doing the buying. The right issue sold to the right person could
demand a fairly high price because they need a particular article for a
particular project. Some generic issue just sold off at a hobby shop will
be much less interesting because that is just random contact.
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
>> I'm partial to any issue with an E. L. Moore article in it :-). His
>> materials may be out of date (balsa and Bristol board) but the
>> structures are great.
> Those materials are out of date according to ?????
> Have you ever been into a hobby shop that deals with radio controled
> planes? Balsa wood is one of their primary building materials.
I'm quite happy to use illustration board for structure modelling, but
I've never cared for balsa. The grain is too coarse, and the timber too
soft and brittle to be of any use to me.
Balsa works just fine for trestle bridges. I built a 26" long trestle on
a 15" radius and a 3% grade entirely out of balsa in 1965 or
thereabouts. Used dressmakers pins and glue. Stained it all in diluted
creosote first (you could still buy the stuff at the builder's supply in
those days), and spiked code 70 rail to it after it was installed.
Complete with guard rails. A friend tried his hand at spiking rail on
that trestle, decided that building a layout wasn't so tough after all,
and went home and built one.
Wolf, that sounds like quite an impressive trestle!
I can't help but wonder if the balsa you used was very different in
qulaity to the stuff that's currenly available in Australia. I couldn't
imagine using the stuff that my local hobby shop has for building
trestles - it's far too soft and splintery. Come to that, I can't
imagine building aircraft out of it, either...
Interesting. I haven't bought balsa in years, I have a satch that I;m
slowly using up.
The balsa I bought was quite hard, it took a bit of effort to dent it
with a finger nail. That made it strong enough to use. I bought it at
the local hobby shop. I used 1/8" x 1/8" (posts and sills), 1/8"x3/16"
(ties, set on edge), 5/16"x5/16" (caps and footings), 3/8"x3/16"
(stringers) and 1/16"x1/8" (guard timbers and braces.) Not exactly
prototypical dimensionally, but it looked right. :-) the tallest bent
was about 6".
Actually, what makes a trestle strong is all those pieces of wood. They
don't have to be very strong individually. BTW, did you know you you use
a piece of note paper laid across a gap between two books to support a
paperback, if you fold it right? (I'll leave it to to figure it out.
:-)) I often used this trick to demonstrate that properly shaped weak
materials could be quite strong.
Balsa is available in several grades of denseness/hardness. Most of what you
see from Midwest is aimed at the model airplane folks and weight is a priority
with them. You *can* get balsa that is nearly as dense and strong as white
I have some balsa that I bought by mistake as it was mixed in with bass wood
at the local Hobby Lobby. Its quite sturdy stuff and would be fine for a
trestle. The grain is a little more course but you have to look, especially
when not stained. Bruce
Glad you brought this up, as illustration board* is one of my favorite
All except for one thing: it's unfortunate propensity to warp. As soon
as you glue something to it, as you usually must do in order to create a
structure, it absorbs moisture unevenly and warps, usually in the worst
way possible for your model, creating a curved wall surface.
The last model I build using this (actually, using chipboard, what
people usually call "cardbord" instead of illustration board), I ended
up super-gluing lots of peices of cut-up coat hanger wire and clamping
the shit out of it, resulting in a relatively flat structure.
Anyone have any brilliant ideas on how to prevent or fix this problem?
* This is one of the most mis-named materials in our hobby. I'm still
amused and annoyed when I hear this referred to in the model RR press as
"cardstock", because as a printer, I know that's simply the wrong term.
"Card" would apply to what printers call "cover stock", or just "cover",
meaning any of a number of heavy printing papers designed for use as
covers to printed pieces, and widely used for such items as business
cards, postcards, mailers, etc. Much too flimsy to use for modeling
structures. There are lots of finishes and textures available, from
gloss- or dull-coated to vellum to laid to smooth.
What "cardstock" really means is either illustration board, poster board
(but only the heavier types: most of this is still too flimsy), or just
plain cardboard (known to printers as "chipboard" and used for such
things as the backing for pads of paper and for shipping dunnage), not
to be confused with corrugated board used for cartons. Another synonym
is "Bristol board", which is the name of a manufacturer.
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
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.