November Model Railroader

[Smike]

For all the bashing and what not they get (which I have contributed to myself) I must say the Nov weathering special issue has come a long way from that  previous article of ‘7 minute weathering’ (as in who the heck needs to weather something in 7 minutes, only to have it look like crap) They have made significant progress and came out with a worthy edition of their mag.  Also doesn’t hurt to see N scale represent about 50% of the layouts and tutorials in this issue either.

I hope this is a sign of things to come, where they focus on more high level techniques and concepts then just the same old basic stuff done over and over again.  Even if one feels they don’t have the technique to pull off some of the stuff they are showing, it’s hard not to get motivated by it.

[mmagliaro]

I got mine in the mail.  Haven't read it yet.  But I have been noticing a slow and steady trickle
toward more and more craftsman-style work in MR for about 2 years.  It has been subtle,
but it is becoming less and less of a "coffee table" magazine.   I was buying an occasional issue off the newsstand
until about 3-4 months ago, when I finally decided that there was something useful in it often enough that it
really was worth re-subscribing.  I haven't had an MR subscription since... um,,, wait let me see...
no, I truly cannot remember when it was.  It's been a long time.

I hope the trend continues.

[Rossford Yard]

It makes sense they go this direction, as newspapers did when TV and net came out to give instant, but shallow news, and they focused on the in depth stuff neither would really cover well. 

Of course, I doubt they ever give up being a resource for newbs either.

BTW, I agree it is a very good issue.  I have never really had the problem with MR that some have, but some issues appeal to me more than others.

BTW, from the Kalmbach book dept., anyone notice the new offering of "Model Railroads Go to War?" Thought that seemed pretty limited topic, but then, we have books devoted to just one model of proto freight cars, too.

[Philip H]

That model railroads go to war book is written by our own Bernie Kempenski. He doesn't post as much as he used to, but he's a stand up guy. Buy the book.

[OldEastRR]

The current editor of MR said he wants to focus on basics for all the newcomers just starting to read MR. That was a couple of years ago (in an e-mail response to me). What I see of current MR's that policy is still the main directive. The only difference I've seen is they don't have "how to make coal loads" articles 3-4 times a year.

[sirenwerks]

The current editor of MR said he wants to focus on basics for all the newcomers just starting to read MR. That was a couple of years ago (in an e-mail response to me). What I see of current MR's that policy is still the main directive. The only difference I've seen is they don't have "how to make coal loads" articles 3-4 times a year.

And this is what I don't get.  I understand MR might feel the need for a new series of beginner articles for a new crowd of modelers but it already has recycled so many of its old articles into basic how to books, that the new articles seem like overkill, like their marketing department (if there is one) has a one-track mind, and then we get repeat article types, like on how to build a treed hillside.  The only thing that changes is the pics and the name on the article.  Not sure why they don't capitalize on the tech and point newcomers to a paid beginners' web resource on their site or towards their recycled article books, rather than making everyone else suffer through it.

[JoeD]

Those of us who have built military models and subscribed to Fine Scale Modeler have seen the same trend towards "beginner" heavy articles.  Seems every issue touts how to use an airbrush, or build a better P 51.  I have old issues and they were heavy towards scratch building/bashing as were the older MR's.  Before their demise I thought RMC was keeping true to those who wanted to make our layouts unique and not something that looked like an AD out of a Product Guide.   I think some of this is owed to the amazing array of ready built, kit products out there and the lack of time of folks to scratch build when most of it can be bought off the shelf.  To that end I was given a box of N scale stuff that Eric gave me after going through Keith Edwards closets I guess and there were a lot of old Bachmann kits.  I've been noodling around with those, upgrading and adding some of the new details available...partially to do this gift some justice and partially because I don't have a lot of time to scratchbuild everything.  So far it's been fun. 

I would also ask the question...are we measuring MR against the flood of internet resources available at our finger tips?  Maybe.  Frankly we need a gateway magazine to lure new modelers into the fold and can't assume, like us, have all the techniques and knowledge gained over the years.  MR is what MR needs to be these days.



Joe

[bbussey]

Sidebar — RMC is back on line, under the White River Publications banner.  First issue has a July-October cover date to get back on schedule.  The digital version is online, and the hard copies are in the process of being distributed.



And yes, RMC remains the primary outlet for kitbashing and scratchbuilding articles.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Also, that U25B looks delicious. I need to get me a copy of that.

[ednadolski]

The current editor of MR said he wants to focus on basics for all the newcomers just starting to read MR. That was a couple of years ago (in an e-mail response to me). What I see of current MR's that policy is still the main directive.

A survey reported on p. 10-11 in the Nov. 2014 MRH showed that modelers having 2 or less years in the hobby make up ~ 5% of the 3000 responders to the survey.  Approx. 40% have been in the hobby for 40+ years.

If that is a generally representational demographic, then this "cater to the beginners" strategy that MR espouses seems less like a viable long-term approach and more like a rationalization for filling the monthly mag with diluted and recycled content while leaching out the more in-depth material for use in special issues and videos (at extra cost, of course).

Ed

[Roger Holmes]

I have noticed a trend in MR back to having more "civilian" authors.  Over the years the trend was that the vast majority of articles were written in-house and from a small cadre of frequent repeat authors.  I am not commenting on the quality of these articles, just the scarcity of outside material that was being printed.  I am also not a disgruntled author since one of my articles appeared in MR a few years back.

I do think that it is a healthy trend to see more outside by-lines.  Even the best editors can only come up with a given number of topics and those tend to reflect an editorial slant.  I remember RMC's Bill Schaumburg telling me how he was often amazed by the concepts in articles submitted by outside authors that they would have never thought of in the editorial office.

I hope the trend continues.  I may even get off my butt and write something new to submit...eventually.

[peteski]

I have noticed a trend in MR back to having more "civilian" authors.  Over the years the trend was that the vast majority of articles were written in-house and from a small cadre of frequent repeat authors.  I am not commenting on the quality of these articles, just the scarcity of outside material that was being printed.  I am also not a disgruntled author since one of my articles appeared in MR a few years back.

I do think that it is a healthy trend to see more outside by-lines.  Even the best editors can only come up with a given number of topics and those tend to reflect an editorial slant.  I remember RMC's Bill Schaumburg telling me how he was often amazed by the concepts in articles submitted by outside authors that they would have never thought of in the editorial office.

I hope the trend continues.  I may even get off my butt and write something new to submit...eventually.

I don't know about that.  Shouldn't that "small cadre of frequent repeat authors" be really considered as in-house authors?  While I have no inside info, I suspect that the proliferation of Pelle Soeborg's articles lately wasn't all his idea. I suspect that he worked closely with the MR staff to come up with these.  But maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Chris333]

What I find odd is mixed in with all the beginner stuff they often have advanced electronics too 

[jwb]

Actually, I think MR has steadily been becoming more intermediate-advanced since Besougloff has been editor. Many features assume the modeler has an airbrush, for instance. And the project layouts involve fairly advanced carpentry -- no more going down to Home Depot and picking up a 4 x 8 and folding legs. Look at the whole Virginian project layout series -- advanced carpentry, serious operation, hardwire DCC install, structure kitbashing, advanced scenery.

In the MRH forum thread on RMC stopping publishing, Fugate harped on the idea that he sells MRH ads on the basis that MRH is for more advanced, MR for the beginner. That may have been the case 20 years ago, but things have been changing for a while.

[mmagliaro]

+1 I agree on the diversification of authors.  I also have noticed less of each issue being filled up with
stuff written by the MR staff.   I'm pretty tired of seeing articles by Cody Grivno or Tony Koester filling up
every issue.  I have nothing against either of them.  But publishing from the same stable all the time makes
a magazine stale and uninventive.   I'm also not fond of Grivno's construction articles being so heavily laced with
product-placement ads for MR's major sponsors.   But part of that is showing non-scratchbuilders how
to make something nice using commercial products.

So diversifying the authors is an improvement.

As for the repeat topics and beginner articles, remember that every year, a new crop of potential customers picks
up MR for the first time.  It doesn't help them if something they would have liked came out 2 years ago.
MR pretty much has to do a certain amount of "recycling of the basics" to keep appealing to the potential
new modelers (and subscribers).   Remember how you felt when you picked up the first issue of a magazine.
If it didn't have things in it that appealed to you and taught you something, very often that's the last issue you'll try.
So we, yes, have to put up with a certain amount of "repeat of the basics".
But they are mixing in more advanced pieces with the beginner pieces and that is an improvement.

As for Chris' demographic about only 5% of the readers being beginners...
That may be true.  But that 5% represents the most critical growth in readership that MR needs.
That's where the future growth is.
If they don't do that, they will die no matter how much the long-standing readers enjoy their magazine.
Perhaps that's really what eventually took out Carstens.  RMC did their beautiful craftsman-style articles
year-after-year, but that appealed to an every-shrinking audience.   I certainly don't want them
(or MR) to ever abandon those articles!  But I think we have to live with a balance in order for
a magazine to survive.

To me, it looks like they are striking more of that balance between craftsman in-depth pieces and beginner pieces.
Some of you may not like the balance, but I still see it as an improvement.