November Model Railroader

[kalbert]

I picked up this issue, haven't looked at one since my subscription lapsed last winter. It was worth picking up, I enjoyed the content. Nothing I couldn't have learned online, nothing groundbreaking, but well written articles and professional photography. Both things I enjoy about it. I'll be renewing my subscription this winter, I want to read about the new project layout and having a subscription seems like the best way to do that.

The article everyone loves to hate about weathering in 5 minutes was mostly lost on this group. It wasn't beat the clock. The goal wasn't to weather in under 5 minutes. It also wasn't to make a masterpiece. Not something I would expect most of the audience here to understand. The point of it was to see how long it takes to dirty up a car that will see regular service, and as it turns out it only takes about 5 minutes. Cars weathered this way are not foreground photogenic pieces of art, they're mid train commodities that fill out the roster. The article wasn't written for this audience, it's no wonder most of you don't like it.

[ednadolski]

The point of it was to see how long it takes to dirty up a car that will see regular service, and as it turns out it only takes about 5 minutes. Cars weathered this way are not foreground photogenic pieces of art, they're mid train commodities that fill out the roster.

This is the "point" that I think only serves to perpetuate a long-standing popular myth:  that a train full of poorly or hastily weathered cars is somehow supposed to be more "realistic" than a train made up of unweathered out-of-the-box models.  That thinking seems to me more like a throwback to decades long past, when OOTB models were not nearly as well made as the ones available today.

Certainly not every model needs to be a showpiece, but I question the logic of taking scores of models that may cost $30 or more apiece and just trying to "fill out the roster" by making them look "dirty", as opposed to some decent resemblance of proto appearance.  What does one gain by that approach, other than a train that ends up looking like a string of dirty models?

The hobby is supposed to be fun, and weathering should not be just some kind of perfunctory duty or chore for modelers who would rather do other things.

Ed

[sirenwerks]

I agree with you Ed.

[mcjaco]

The hobby is supposed to be fun, and weathering should not be just some kind of perfunctory duty or chore for modelers who would rather do other things.

And do you enjoy every aspect of the hobby?  And look forward to all of it?

I certainly do not.  I detest wiring, and soldering.  It's not the part I like.  That was the purpose of the article.  You may not like to weather, or be good at it, but each piece does not need to be a work of art.  Again, the premise of the article was missed by most here.  Then again it was by Koester, whom many of seem to detest anyway. 

[mmagliaro]

I don't think the article said you had to dirty up $30 cars.  Maybe you have a bunch you got on the cheap, and you want
to quickly weather them up. 

Folks, step back.  Realize that out of the 140,000 odd subscribers to Model Railroader, and the many many more
who read it or borrow it or learn from people who read it, that article was darn useful, and I would even say,
helpful, in that it will make people happier with their trains. 

This has gone around in a big circle, hasn't it?
Railwire, and the meticulous brethren contained herein, do not even remotely represent the masses of
people who play with model trains and read Model Railroader. 

Some of us are meticulous about weathering.  Some are not.  I bet
tens of thousands of modelers would be extremely happy with a string of very simply weathered cars
done the way that article described.  Is that wrong?  Somehow bad?  Are they not having more fun with their
trains because of that article?

[kalbert]

Ballasting sucks big time. It is a perfunctory duty or chore for me. I would way rather do anything else. If there were a 5 minute method to ballast we'd all be doing it. Of course we'd never admit to doing it that way either.

[ednadolski]

I don't think the article said you had to dirty up $30 cars.  Maybe you have a bunch you got on the cheap, and you want
to quickly weather them up. 

Ostensibly the purpose of weathering any car is to make it more like a prototype.  Otherwise why bother?   But honestly, a 7-minute weathering job is going to look like, well, a 7-minute weathering job -- regardless if it is done on a $30 car or a $3 one.  Does a train full of 7-minute cars really look all that more convincing than a train full of unweathered cars?

My point is that the notion that every car on a layout must be "dirtied" is both oversold and outdated.   For folks who are not into weathering, there is nothing wrong with running trains full of clean OOTB models, despite what they say in the print press.   So they would be better served by spending their time on the parts of the hobby that they do enjoy.

If there were a 5 minute method to ballast we'd all be doing it. Of course we'd never admit to doing it that way either.

If I could do that with decent results, you bet I would admit it.  In fact, I would brag about it, and charge people money to tell them how.   


Ed

[mmagliaro]

Ostensibly the purpose of weathering any car is to make it more like a prototype.  Otherwise why bother?   But honestly, a 7-minute weathering job is going to look like, well, a 7-minute weathering job -- regardless if it is done on a $30 car or a $3 one.  Does a train full of 7-minute cars really look all that more convincing than a train full of unweathered cars?

My point is that the notion that every car on a layout must be "dirtied" is both oversold and outdated.   For folks who are not into weathering, there is nothing wrong with running trains full of clean OOTB models, despite what they say in the print press.   So they would be better served by spending their time on the parts of the hobby that they do enjoy.


If I could do that with decent results, you bet I would admit it.  In fact, I would brag about it, and charge people money to tell them how.   


Ed

I think we are (and I don't just mean you and I, Ed, but the whole group) at a clear divide where we see this
two different ways.  I would say that yes, a train of 7-minute-weathered cars looks more convincing, and
so would the author of the original article.   For people who don't like weathering, a "cheap way out" that
looks better than nothing at all is indeed serving them better if they think it looks better than
no weathering at all.

Now that we have debated this, it is clear there are two camps of thought on this.  That is fine.

Better questions, more relevent to MR and its relative quality, would be, Is it serving the model railroading
community?  Has it been improving?  Is it filling a valuable role by running (and rerunning) introductory
level articles?   Is it helping to attract more people to the hobby?
I believe the answers to all these questions is "Yes". 

Is it writing for intermediate or advanced modelers?  Is it pushing the edge of model railroading by showing
new, exotic, perhaps sometimes difficult modeling skills and techniques?
I believe the answers to those questions is "No, but they are heading more in this direction."

[OldEastRR]

Didn't somebody once sell spray cans of "Instant Weathering"? A sooty brownish gray thin paint? Vaguely remember that ...

[jwb]

Is it writing for intermediate or advanced modelers?  Is it pushing the edge of model railroading by showing
new, exotic, perhaps sometimes difficult modeling skills and techniques?
I believe the answers to those questions is "No, but they are heading more in this direction."

I've been thinking about the December issue, which is more current. But look at the contents on the MR site:

• Koester's Nickel Plate
• RFID for model railroad operations
• Creating mirror magic
• Build an uncoupling tool for passenger cars
• How to model a patched out locomotive
• Build a gate to hide a furnace

Whatever you think of Koester and his approach -- I've mellowed somewhat -- you've got to acknowledge it's an advanced-level project, fully discussed and not dumbed down. RFID is bleeding-edge advanced.
The others assume intermediate level skills at minimum, with an assumption that these are permanent layouts requiring fairly long-term effort. I recognize that impressions last, and MR will need to go a long way to outlive the Russ Larson years and the Sperandeo disappointment. But I'm convinced that Besougloff is more than up to the task.

[wcfn100]

RFID is bleeding-edge advanced.

How's the MR article bleeding edge compared the N scale Railroading article 9 years ago? 

Jason

[mmagliaro]

I don't have the NSR article handy, but wasn't that just an "intro to RFID" as opposed to an article about
how to really use it on a model railroad?

[Albert in N]

At least Model Railroader is right on schedule with both November and December 2014 magazines already in our hands.  New products and event schedules are current.  Remember their late competitor, Railroad Model Craftsman, being months behind before being taken over?  I have already renewed my Model Railroader subscription.  BTW, RMC has never refunded the balance of my cancelled subscription (which predated White River).

[mmagliaro]

Honestly, I have to call "foul" on that one.  RMC was late with their magazines because they were in financial
distress for months before Carstens finally folded.     And that has nothing to do with
whether the content of MR  is worthwhile.   

[John]

I just found out my local library has MR in their Zinio account .. free MR for me