Feb 08 Model Railroader

[wm3798]

Well, it's the best of times, and the worst of times.  A couple things stood out as I did my first skim through the pages of America's Leading Model Railroading Periodical...

The good: 
A really cool free-lanced layout in N scale featuring Milwaukee and CNW.  While the prototypes in question have been beaten to death in MR (home field advantage and all that) the layout looks pretty interesting in terms of design and execution.  There was one item I had a problem with, which you'll see below.  Otherwise, I'm looking forward to reading that.

There's a review of the MT drop-bottom gondola, which looks like a very well-done model, but the MR editors are no longer pulling punches on the pizza cutters.  They not only point out that "only deep-flange wheels" come with the model, but they highlight that MT's wheels do not comply with NMRA standards.

They are getting more aggressive about soliciting reader contributions, with a big box providing guidelines for submittals located on the "Trackside Photos" page.  Maybe they've always done this, but this month's seems to be highlighted.  There's also a beautiful shot of an N scale UP layout on the same page.

The Bad.
There's a complete waste of space showing how to make "good looking N scale trees by the bucket".  Don't bother reading it.  Here's my summary. 
1)  Get a bucket. 
2) Pay top dollar for Woodlands Scenics foam clumps. 
3)  Put the clumps, in varying colors in the bucket. 
4)  Shake the bucket.
5) Take the foam clumps out of the bucket and put it on your layout.

There is also a sidebar item related to the Milwaukee Road N scale that basically says the same thing.  The builder made a bunch of trees by sticking WS foam clumps on barbecue skewers, and this gets highlighted like it's the second coming.  To my eye, the trees don't look all that good, and they cost a fortune compared to better looking trees I've seen displayed on these pages.  Just another blatant example of MR promoting their advertisers instead of publishing more creative solutions that can be done quickly and more economically.

David Popp provides the Editorial, and almost endorses internet forums, although he never specifically says it.  He talks about how seeking advice of others is good for your planning and building efforts.  His context is basically the fact that he works in a building full of model train geeks.  By extension, he would have done well to correlate that experience to what most of us do on line.  Post a picture, ask for feedback... etc.

Anyhoo, at first glance I'll give the issue a C+.  As I read through it more thoroughly, I'll let you know if and how my opinion might change.

Lee

[Ryan87]

1)  Get a bucket. 
2) Pay top dollar for Woodlands Scenics foam clumps. 
3)  Put the clumps, in varying colors in the bucket. 
4)  Shake the bucket.
5) Take the foam clumps out of the bucket and put it on your layout.

Oh god, I'm still Laughing ;D

[3rdrail]

No doubt I'll get my copy about a week after everyone is through discussing it here. 

Life in the boonies, y'know.

[chuck geiger]

It arrives later and later. Still don't have it as of this weekend. I think personally these guys are
losing it. Forums like this are replacing what was the template for Model Railroading. They beat
to death the Midwest roads because most Model Railroaders are in Wisconsin and Ohio. I agree
with Lee, the product endorsement is often simple and stupid. No one other than Railwire and
sometime on the Trains MRF is taking the aspects of the hobby Ed talks about on www.conrail1285.com
to heart.

[chuck geiger]

Ryan, you forgot to pay top dollar for a bucket too, like a Homer bucket
at HD for 4.99!

[tom mann]

I would like to see an editorial that makes me think or inspires me.  I mean, just lift David or Ed's blog postings and you got something 1000% better.

I don't like the "recap editorials" that are becoming more and more frequent.  By these I mean a run down of what's inside the issue: "On page 53, we have a nice layout by so-and-so.  On page 57, so-and-so makes some trees from sticks".  This reminds me of the type of writing assignments I would turn in during my middle school years, as in a bunch of crap just to fill the front of a page.

[Mark5]

let's face it, mediocrity continues with this pub ...

[Chulvis]

I had really hoped they were on to something good with the Rod Stewart article and things were on the upswing. Now two issues since and it's back to the same old crap.

[wm3798]

Heh.  What do you know.  I posted this thread on the MR board, and it lasted about 2 hrs before getting nuked.

Lee

[sirenwerks]

I don't know why, but I had high hopes for the right of way detailing series, but it went out with such a whimper. My biggest complaints are that it kinda went all over the place in terms of era without a clear guideline (like a graphic timeline) of what details are right for what eras. I know this is road and line specific but at least address the issue. And it didn't include drawings. Drawings for many of the steam era details have already been provided in back issues of MR and others, but modern details are still not covered very thoroughly.

I always hoped MR would be the NPR of the industry, with thorough and thought-provoking coverage, but they continue to just skim surfaces and point out products that are available, rather than pump up the modeling part of the hobby. Has Woodland Scenics secretly purchased MR or does their CEO sit on MR's editorial board?

[sirenwerks]

I forgot to ask, did anyone see what's do for next month? MR slips back to its "N scale as cute little cousin to HO" mode, building a coffee table layout. Isn't that just adorable? And don't I remember that actually being covered in MR, in the 70s? It was a D&H theme layout. You figure they'd at least use Z scale to upgrade the idea a bit, but maybe its just a reprint of that old article?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I can haz buckit?

http://www.hamsterinthewheel.com/fatalfury/walrus-bucket/



Seriously though, thanks for the review Lee, and thanks Tom for the complements on the blog. I need to get back to work on it.

[chuck geiger]

Miles Hale when he worked for WS told me they get everything they ask for or want for their magazine layout and the editors layout. The same thing exsists in radio and TV advertising. We get a client to adverise and then they get more and more that has nothing to do with the initial advertising run. We call it addd value.

[chuck geiger]

Just got it today, you know Lee, it ain't that bad. The bucket of trees sucks, the shelf layout isn't bad, better than their usual tabletop or foam 4x8 newbie offering, I figure the newcomers will be lost with it, might be too much for a new layout for a newcomer. The N scale layout was marginal. Love the flashback series, Malcom Furlow is great, wish they would have done The Jerome and Southwestern instead of Mescal Lines. Trackside photos looks pretty decent. I give it a B. But I'm an a$$hat in training.

[wm3798]

Ah yes, Malcolm Furlow...


We still have to work on you, Chuck...
Lee