Model Railroader to have a N Scale Column

[wm3798]

Maybe that's one of the problems... While it might drive some of us batshit, why would an article be disqualified because of a bit of whimsy?  I recall an article in MR a few decades ago that featured an N scale layout based on locations and names found in the Lord of the Rings.  The modeling was decent, the back story was interesting, and it definitely made an impression on my fledgling N Scale mind...

An author is already under enough pressure to execute reasonably good models, then challenged to provide flawless photography.  And Thompson further expects you to become an authority on the prototype as well?  I would write a paragraph that explained my take on why the hi-cube was in the picture and be done with it.  If proto fidelity was that important, then why would they publish Malcolm Furlow and George Selios with such reckless abandon?

I suppose this is another strength of our N scale press, which does make allowances for the less-than-perfect.

Suddenly, Unitrak Heaven, a solid orange Bud Lines F unit, and a dumb article featuring a hundred views of the same stupid bridge seem downright democratic.

Lee

[Mr. G]

I do recall ages ago they ran a piece about a Disney employee's pike that featured steam engines running alongside ATSF geeps and a WP Zephyr-schemed RS-3. There was also a piece back in December 1990 or January 1991 with a GN layout by an artist that was a fantastic collection of jagged mountains, dizzying trestles and Big Boys and Challengers.  It was not really prototypical but it was gorgeous.

To briefly play devil's advocate, if MR ran too many of these articles, N scalers would complain that the magazine was consigning the scale to whimsical toy layouts and novelty coffee tables, ignoring it as a medium for serious modelers.

[DKS]

An author is already under enough pressure to execute reasonably good models, then challenged to provide flawless photography.  And Thompson further expects you to become an authority on the prototype as well?

I would imagine they probably take such things in degrees. Obscure foobs (the PRR never had an XYZ boxcar with Yadda-type doors) may slip in unscathed, but 30-year temporal differences into the future would raise some flags. At the other end of the spectrum, a fantasy layout may be admitted to the hallowed halls of MR on rare occasion, assuming it's clearly described as such and well-executed, of course. It may all seem extreme, but I do think there's wisdom in such policies, particularly if one's mission is to promote the precepts of better modeling and constant improvement.

If proto fidelity was that important, then why would they publish Malcolm Furlow and George Selios with such reckless abandon?

I suspect because they're popular--i.e., they sell magazines. Somehow it brings this to mind... don't ask, no idea why.

[lashedup]

I don't think it is all about strict prototype fidelity so much as it is a consistency on behalf of the publication to highlight the best and most consistent modeling. Are there exceptions? Sure, there should be diversions from time to time so long as they are well done and meet the higher standards that MR needs to have.

MR has to bridge a WIDE range of readers and scales and there is no way they will make everyone happy, nor will they be able to pull off the complete diversity of coverage that would be necessary. How do you get new people into the hobby without overwhelming them with a George Selios layout? How do you keep the rivet counters happy showing a layout that doesn't have proper prototype fidelity? How do you keep 0-scale and Z-scale guys happy? Running a publication like that will always have compromises and whoever is running the ship there has to decide the best way to handle that with the resources on hand and submissions they have coming in.

- jamie