| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ray Schofield
|
 Posted - 11/06/2009 : 19:58:04
|
|
I cannot believe tha article in the December MR on backdrops. This looks like a 5th grade class painted it. How can the people picking the articles to print possibly have selected this. Maybe the editor of Toy Trains got lost and wandered into the MR offices. I have always said there are two ways too learn and this makes my case. If I could not do better than this I would find another way.
|
| Ray Schofield |
Country: USA
| Posts: 379 |
|
|
Mark R.
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 21:00:50
|
Glad to someone else who shares my same thoughts. To be perfectly honest (and no offence to the fine folks who had their layouts featured) the December issue was a total waste. Even Tony Koester's Trains of Thought column had to be the worst effort on his part that I've ever read.
I've enjoyed Tony's column for years with his thought provoking ideas and humerous touches, but this one was a real cop-out in my opinion.
For a December issue, it was surprisingly weak .... didn't even have the usual Christmas card / winter model scene from the staff !
I've been hesitant to purchase MR every month for the last six months .... it ain't getting any better by no means - I think I'm done wasting my money.
Mark.
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 858 |
 |
|
|
Edwardsutorik
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 21:23:19
|
I agree that the issue wasn't too impressive, but I REALLY liked the Trackside photo with the Amtrak train. Very nice work!!
Ed
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 891 |
|
|
|
Ray Schofield
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 21:36:19
|
I agree there were some good things. It would be a bad day if there weren't any redeeming social value. I just find that article so poor to be unbelievable, especially the clouds. A spray can of white paint and some templates would have solve the cloud problem at least.
|
| Ray Schofield |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 379 |
|
|
|
MoPac1
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 21:36:25
|
I stopped my subscription for these very reasons...plus I would ALWAYS get my magazine two weeks after the local Wal-mart got theirs.
So, now, I can go out there and peruse the magazine...if it suits me...I'll buy...if not...no sale.
They've (MR) been doing their better stuff lately as books...Articles that used to be in the Magazine are now in book form that costs extra...so subscribers have to pay extra for the better articles.
I buy the annual issues: Great Model Railroads and Model Railroad Planning...but I'm done with MR as a monthly delivery.
|
Tom Austin
Centralia IL
www.joppasub.com |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1594 |
|
|
|
B_A_R
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 22:51:59
|
The December issues is usually dumbed down to attract the holiday trainset buyers, but some years it loses more IQ points than others.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 290 |
|
|
|
Nick
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 23:13:11
|
The only reason I picked up this issue was for the "modelers guide to gondolas" article mentioned on the cover. I love modern gondolas so thought this would make it worthwhile. Open the sealed bag at home to find out the article was limited to transition era gondolas. Feel gutted that I wasted my money on such a lame magazine. I will NEVER buy another sealed-bag issue ever again.
|
Edited by - Nick on 11/06/2009 23:13:45 |
|
Country:
| Posts: 365 |
|
|
|
Paul Cutler III
|
Posted - 11/06/2009 : 23:32:47
|
Oh, goodie! An MR bash thread. It's been awhile since the last one. Anyways...
C'mon, the December issue isn't a total waste. Just look at Page 14...there's a great club car for sale that was partially designed by yours truly.  http://www.ssmrc.org/store.htm
Seriously, the issue isn't that bad. Pages 24-26 has some prototypical tidbits, the dust covers on Page 28 are new to me (usually I've seen folks use sheets of plastic, not clear roof panels) while the modifications to L-girder don't do much for me but might be useful for newbies.
The building a backdrop story on pages 34 to 37 isn't a bad article. Some handy tips and techniques for those who haven't done it before. The 2nd article on page 38 on backdrops is not a finished backdrop. The article states that the rather crude rolling green hills are supposed to be hidden in part by a row of trees. With that being the case, it doesn't have to be of Bob Ross quality. BTW, has anyone pointed out that this is the author's first attempt at a backdrop? The idea being that if he can make one, so can you...but I guess that's lost amongst the comparisons to 5th graders. Sigh.
The Switzerland layout on page 42 is a total blah for me, but that's just because it's Euro railroading which always leaves me cold.
The troubleshooting with DCC article on page 50 is pretty basic stuff for me since I've been chasing down DCC shorts for almost 10 years at my club. But for those who aren't techincally inclined, I can see the use of it. Heck, I might just photocopy it and leave it laying around the club.
The gondola article on page 52 looks pretty useful for more advanced modelers. I bet a lot of people don't even know some of these types of gons even existed, nor the types of loads they hauled. I don't see how many people can complain about this one.
Page 58's about adding operations is, again, a useful article. Naturally, that only applies to folks who want to operate their RR that don't aleady do so in a satisfactory way.
The logging article on page 64 is rather thin on detail. I guess it's a "blah" article.
The B&M layout on page 68 is your typical layout tour in MR. I think the layout is very well done for the size it is, and the pics show it off well. Tight curves, but it's only 18' x 15'. Not the usual monster layout that anti-MR folks complain about.
The DCC Corner on page 76 is a re-hash of old data, but still useful for those who don't know this yet.
The product reviews on page 78-88 are typical MR fare, and haven't changed much in a generation.
The Trackside Photos on page 92-95 look pretty good overall, with the first pic showing some great detail in the city scene.
The Trains of Thought column is probably the weakest part of the December issue. The first 1/2 is telling us things we aleady know. The last 3 paragraphs are about the only useful things in it. At least he does give his opinion at the end there, but the rest is all but wasted space.
The cartoon on page 100...took me a second to "get". Meh.
The last column on page 114 from Andy S. is geared to operators and prospective operators. Definitely for newbie operators.
So really, what's the problem? Some articles are good. Some are "meh". Some are new and fresh. Others are old and tired. Sounds about normal for just about any periodical.
|
Paul A. Cutler III
**********************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
********************** |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1317 |
|
|
|
ATSFAN
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 09:35:57
|
Print media in general is in a fairly rapid decline in terms of $$ and subscribers. Look at other magazines that are gone, or now monthly, or other.
The future is online and in special editions, which Kalmbach is full on already. Each issue of Trains for example is wrapped in a cover advertising a new special (and higher priced) magazine. MR puts most of it's items in paperback books priced at $17+ for example.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 1078 |
|
|
|
riogrande
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 09:49:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by ATSFAN
Print media in general is in a fairly rapid decline in terms of $$ and subscribers. Look at other magazines that are gone, or now monthly, or other.
The future is online and in special editions, which Kalmbach is full on already. Each issue of Trains for example is wrapped in a cover advertising a new special (and higher priced) magazine. MR puts most of it's items in paperback books priced at $17+ for example.
Yes, magazines are going to become victims to the internet and online content. I wonder if the cash income is as good with online because much of online content is free with advertising costs paying the bills. But it's undeniable that subscription of hardcopy magazines is declining rapidly. I've always found it hard to pay the cost of a magazine which is something I read a few times and then set aside. I've got boxes of them I've saved over the years and have been pruning them down as they are mostly dead weight anymore. So much of the value of what is in magazines is now online so its hard to justify paying $17 for a magazine style book, especially with the economy in the dumps, that is an expense that many can jetison and instead put food on the table, or maybe still be able to afford a loco.
|
Rio Grande - The Action Road
Atlas forum member since 1994 |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 4186 |
|
|
|
red P
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 09:56:12
|
Maybe they had a deadline to meet?
P
|
member of the PCRRHS since 2002
Hey Atlas, how about some F50 coil cars?
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 443 |
|
|
|
D.Harrison
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 10:09:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Cutler III
Oh, goodie! An MR bash thread. It's been awhile since the last one. Anyways...
C'mon, the December issue isn't a total waste. Just look at Page 14...there's a great club car for sale that was partially designed by yours truly. http://www.ssmrc.org/store.htm
Seriously, the issue isn't that bad. Pages 24-26 has some prototypical tidbits, the dust covers on Page 28 are new to me (usually I've seen folks use sheets of plastic, not clear roof panels) while the modifications to L-girder don't do much for me but might be useful for newbies.
The building a backdrop story on pages 34 to 37 isn't a bad article. Some handy tips and techniques for those who haven't done it before. The 2nd article on page 38 on backdrops is not a finished backdrop. The article states that the rather crude rolling green hills are supposed to be hidden in part by a row of trees. With that being the case, it doesn't have to be of Bob Ross quality. BTW, has anyone pointed out that this is the author's first attempt at a backdrop? The idea being that if he can make one, so can you...but I guess that's lost amongst the comparisons to 5th graders. Sigh.
The Switzerland layout on page 42 is a total blah for me, but that's just because it's Euro railroading which always leaves me cold.
The troubleshooting with DCC article on page 50 is pretty basic stuff for me since I've been chasing down DCC shorts for almost 10 years at my club. But for those who aren't techincally inclined, I can see the use of it. Heck, I might just photocopy it and leave it laying around the club.
The gondola article on page 52 looks pretty useful for more advanced modelers. I bet a lot of people don't even know some of these types of gons even existed, nor the types of loads they hauled. I don't see how many people can complain about this one.
Page 58's about adding operations is, again, a useful article. Naturally, that only applies to folks who want to operate their RR that don't aleady do so in a satisfactory way.
The logging article on page 64 is rather thin on detail. I guess it's a "blah" article.
The B&M layout on page 68 is your typical layout tour in MR. I think the layout is very well done for the size it is, and the pics show it off well. Tight curves, but it's only 18' x 15'. Not the usual monster layout that anti-MR folks complain about.
The DCC Corner on page 76 is a re-hash of old data, but still useful for those who don't know this yet.
The product reviews on page 78-88 are typical MR fare, and haven't changed much in a generation.
The Trackside Photos on page 92-95 look pretty good overall, with the first pic showing some great detail in the city scene.
The Trains of Thought column is probably the weakest part of the December issue. The first 1/2 is telling us things we aleady know. The last 3 paragraphs are about the only useful things in it. At least he does give his opinion at the end there, but the rest is all but wasted space.
The cartoon on page 100...took me a second to "get". Meh.
The last column on page 114 from Andy S. is geared to operators and prospective operators. Definitely for newbie operators.
So really, what's the problem? Some articles are good. Some are "meh". Some are new and fresh. Others are old and tired. Sounds about normal for just about any periodical.
Paul, that was very positive content. Thanks for posting it. You are very brave to make such statements on a forum such as the Atlas Forum known to be populated with so many "bashers."
David Harrison
|
Edited by - D.Harrison on 11/07/2009 10:11:21 |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 2196 |
|
|
|
kog1027
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 10:24:26
|
I was thinking about skipping this months MR at the Books a Million today. Specially since it's a "sealed" issue.
However Paul's overview's convinced me that it will probably be worth picking up.
Thank you Paul.
Mark Gosdin
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 551 |
|
|
|
CBQ Fan
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 10:40:15
|
My dad loves hobby magazines (he is a very activce RC flyer and boater) and he loves to share his passion. So he buys me a MR subscription every year like clock work. I appreciate the thought and enjoy reading through it. But if I had to pay for it myself I would say no thank you.
|
Brian
Way of the Zephyr |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 733 |
|
|
|
Selector
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 11:23:31
|
I'm going to go a bit further than Paul and ask why we have begun to use the term "dumbed down" to describe the vast range and intellects of people for whom this edition might have some appeal. I had an IQ near 130 when I was in high school, went on to graduate work, and now instruct at a university. I have greatly enjoyed the magazine over the years, but, as any sentient, critical, and intelligent person ought, I peruse each issue at the news stand and elect, thereafter, not to purchase some of them. It isn't to say that they disappoint me. Instead, they merely have nothing of what I would term 'value'. I don't walk off in a huff questioning the motives and reasoning of either its editors or those who would stoop, or reach, to find something appealing about them.
The magazine has to sell itself, and it does so by appealing to a broad range of both interest and ability. With edition-to-edition variances, it does what seems right to keep it a viable business. In terms of its ability to keep solvent, there will also be variance from year-to-year. The staff are always looking for insight and for general sentiment to keep their readership loyal and interested to the extent possible. If you find that the magazine is flagging, send them a comment. If enough peoiple do, they are liable to take notice and to effect the desired change, at least as a trial. In this digital age, such things are done much more easily than they were in the past.
But let's stop the judgemental, and baseless, uses of pejorative terms that really have little use or positive benefit.
-Crandell
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 503 |
|
|
|
rdc_jay
|
Posted - 11/07/2009 : 11:53:57
|
MR is, and has long been, a mainstream magazine for the hobby. A such it's not going to appeal to everyone at all times. I suspect that MR's mission is to make the hobby accessible to folks who cannot (yet) scratch build a running GEVO from some transformer windings, old cans and sheet styrene. It's one thing to lament some of the missing bits of MR from years past but quite another to run down someone who has the courage to write an article on his techniques for painting backdrops. Said more directly, if you're technique is better/faster/easier/cheaper then write your own article. I'm pretty sure both MR and RMC welcome contributions from outside their offices.
I still subscribe to MR as seeing it on the newsstand is a rare event for me. Some are more interesting to me than others (I haven't received December yet but my subscription lapsed with November and I was slow to re-up). Like Paul, I take it for what it is, save the articles that I might one day need and recycle the rest. As for Koester's column, I rarely read it. The ones I have read don't speak to me and so I don't quite understand the "cult of Tony" that seems to hold him as an MR god.
|
|
Country: Germany
| Posts: 1098 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Atlas Model Home
Forums
Events Calendar
Rules
FAQ
Register
