Railroad Model Craftsman

AKA RMC.

This was brought up in a thread last year, but I can't seem to find it. As I think it was a more general thread anyway I thought I'd just put a new one up.

After considering what was said in that thread, and being a current Model Railroader subscriber, I decided to give RMC a try. As I live in the UK picking one up locally is unlikely, so I took a one year sub. After getting a few issues these are my thoughts.

Delivery was/is very slow. The first issue took nearly 3 months to come, and I generally get each issue about the beginning of the cover month. But that isn't really a big problem as there isn't much 'news' in RMC, so date isn't that important

I was a bit concerned about the 'no show' first issue, so I emailed Carstens customer service, twice. Never got a reply. OK, email can be flaky ... but ...

The magazine itself is quite different to MR. The 'Craftsman' of the title is not just a good name - most of the content is heavy duty modelling. The general order is similar to MR: Editorial, letters, new products, articles, product reviews, small ads; but the treatment is different.

Scratchbuilding, obscure loco kitbashes, etc, are the staple articles in here. There is no 'How to build this 4x8 in a week' type stuff (so far). Perhaps a bit more about prototypes than MR has.

Product reviews are very long and detailed (often over several pages). New products is similar to MR, but not as clear - the scale sections have headers, but each product has no heading as such, just a few words in italics. This makes it hard to skim through looking for things that might be interesting.

Following that comment along, I do find the text generally rather dense. Comparing side by side with MR the text does look smaller and closer spaced, but counting the lines there are not that many more - about 24 MR to 25 RMC. It may be a typeface thing as well, though both use serif faces for body text. If your eyes aren't too good you may find MR easier to read. They don't use 'box-outs' as much as MR either, which also contributes a bit to the feeling that there is a lot of reading to get through.

I think there is a difference in the adverts. As one might expect there are more ads for bits and obscure scales, or perhaps I expect that so I'm seeing that. I'm not certain

Overall I'd say there is more editorial content in RMC, but it is more specialised and detailed than MR. As a result I find I tend to read the first part of an article to get the gist, and then if I'm not into the minutiae of (eg.) converting an Athearn RS3 into an RS3m, I skip on a few pages to the next item. In MR, that sort of article would be much shorter, so I might actually read it all. Hence, of the three RMC issues I've seen so far I think I've actually spent less time reading them than MR.

So personally RMC is not for me in the long term - it is a bit too wordy and rivet-countery (?). (And by way of evidence for that last statement, in the Feb 2009 issue there is an article about UP 'ACR' boxcars: ACR = Alternate Center Rivet which is how these cars are recognised).

Oh, and for you guys with good eyesight, I don't think RMC covers 'N' any more than MR does

 

I found MR has fallen into the "USA Today syndrome- 3 paragraphs and 4 or 5 color pictures gives you the news of the world. RMC is wordy, there's meat and some real modeling. I generally find more info in RMC.
Dave

 

My dad was the subscriber to both MR and RMC and I would take the issues when he was done.

He died in June and I've let both subscriptions lapse.

When I have a little more money I may start up MR again, but I'm more likely to get trains and just buy an MR or whatever magazine if I see an interesting cover.

 

I agree with dottney and consider RMC a "serious" model railroader's magazine (the way MR once was). RMC is aimed at those who are essential skilled, experienced modelers who wish to learn every hobby facet, model at a very high level and aren't afraid of a challenge. RMC's articles go into considerable detail and complexity, typically providing all the information necessary to complete any outlined project. Likewise, its advertisers are largely craftsman companies...who do not advertise in MR simply because they appreciate that the average MR reader is not really ready to tackle their products. The staff of RMC is very small and its printing schedule seems to vary two weeks either side of the the end of the first week of the month preceeding the cover date.

MR has evolved over the past 15 years or so, to become a magazine largely aimed at the entry level and "dabbler" hobbyist. Its articles are far more simplistic than in the past (when it truly was the hobby's premier magazine) and its presentation splashy and colorful, rather than extremely informative. Rarely do projects appear that are beyond the entry level modeler and when they do, they are often too sketchy to allow the project to be accurately replicated by the reader. Advertisers are those aiming largely at the RTR market hobbyist, as are the reviews. Kalmbach Publishing is a company of significant size and has much greater control over its publication date and you can count on receiving MR within a day or two of the same date each month.

In short, the two magazines are aimed at entirely different audiences and since the hobby today is likewise largely dicotomized into the skilled modelers and the dabbler/RTR hobbyists, it's wise that both magazines exist.

NYW&B

 

I am in complete agreement with Dottney and NYW&B. The two magazines really do complement each other and I find good articles in both. I just happened to have a few of my 1980-85 issues of both out today. MR has definitely changed to that USA Today approach compared to 15 - 20 years ago.

Have subscriptions to both, and will continue to do so.

 

I subscribe to both MR and RMC and enjoy both for their strengths. I think MR is better at showcasing a featured layout with typically more photos, good layout drawings, and detailed description of how the layout was constructed.
RMC is better when it comes to kitbashing/scratchbuilding type features...

 

Being overseas definately adds to the problem. I buy both at the newsstand depending upon content. I quit subscribing years ago and only keep up on N-scale and NSR magazine regularly.

 

ALL of us N-scalers should support N scale mags and dealers to enhance our clout.

 

Interesting replies.
The points about RMC production are taken - my only real criticism of the publication itself are some issues with the page design and clarity. I feel some small changes in layout and text styles could make a big improvement in readability, and whatever else you may think, a magazine is for reading.

I'd certainly agree that RMC targets the 'skilled' modeller, but I'd not say that MR doesn't do 'skilled'. MR does articles on scratchbuilding, just not as many as RMC as it covers a much broader spectrum of the hobby which requires space.

This has now made me think. Isn't there a paradox here? Surely a skilled modeller would not need detailed instructions to complete a project - they can work it out themselves at the detail level and probably only need the basic ideas outlined (much as you'd get in MR ). So maybe RMC is actually aimed (deliberately or not) at wannabe skilled modellers.

 

..which is how MR used to be.

RMC tells you exactly how to accomplish the project; MR is so dumbed down that it barely scratches the surface.

I used to avoid RMC because of the cosmetic issues listed in the OP, but now I overlook those issues in favor of the actual content the magazine offers.

 

Here's how I see it: MR is for the beginner to intermediate modeler (very light on the intermediate) who likes lots of adds and moderate amount of content. RMC is for the intermediate on up that want lots of detail. The more you model the more you will lean towards RMC. Both are good magazines for who they are marketing too.

 

MR was certainly better at layouts; I can look back at my 80s issues of both, and RMC particularly suffered in the trackplan department.

 

When it comes to the smaller scales, RMC may have a few more pages than MR. MR may have a few more pretty pictures than RMC. I don't subscribe to either, but may pick up an issue at the local bookstore. We don't have a real RR hobby shop in Nashville. I have never seen a copy of either Nscale mags sold here. Gotta get it on the Net. Most purchases are via the Net.

 

This month's issue must be attracting a lot of attention, Two of the stores where I normally pick it up are already sold out so I had to go on a hunt. I finally found a copy today but have not had time to look at it yet.

 

Go back 30 years and MR starts looking the same. Go back 50 and the two are indistinguishable.

Back 50 years and you see arcticles like "Build this 4-6-0 in Brass - From Scratch!"

And they truely meant "from scratch!!"

What has happened is a general dumbing down of the general modeler. Before the era of everything RTR [the 70s], you had to build everything - and I bet you had to build other things in life too.

Convienience and Necessity change people.

Times changed...we have a wonderful computer these days.

 

Back 500 years? hahahawhaw hee heehee

Back 50 years maybe! Ok, let's say 60 years ago. Much more and you'd be hard put to find a magazine.

You funny guy!

I don't know what I would have done if it hadn't been for RMC. At the age of 12 I could find it for sale down at the candy and newspaper shop. Some of the most intriguing and interesting how to articles. The periodical helped me to form up my present day outlook toward modeling and operations. To rate the wig wag; It's earned a triple star rating. The best I can give.

You'd of had to been there to appreciate it.

Have fun!

 

Railroad Model Craftsman has always been my magazine of choice since Tony was Editor.

 

Regarding MRC. The key word is craftsman. If you happen to ever find a single project that consumes you, you will understand the details that the MRC people are interested in going into. I once saw a hopper car, sitting on a siding, and it was unique. I anted one. I researched it, and found it to be a SP H-29-100, of which there were few. I built 3 of them, and they are so cool. I get comments about them all the time when guys see them sitting with a bunch of "Plain out of the box hoppers".
I have 2 flatcars, equally unique. People love the unique stuff. You are more likely to see unique in the Craftsman, than the MR magazine. I quit reading MR cuz I outgrew it. Hundmans mag, RMJ was really great, and I loved that too. Steve