Re: Ztrains.com: The Brief Rant
- I have been getting Model Railroader for about 50 years now. I think they have a very
strong bias towards fully operational miniature transportation systems designed to be
operated by several people with card order systems and the like. I think that anything less
is not considered real model railroading by them. They have frequent articles showing
such layouts - often taking up enormous chunks of space.
If I recall correctly (a long time ago now), they looked down on N-scale at first also. They
probably will continue to ignore Z-scale until some people start doing operations with
complex switching, card orders, and such. This bias shows up in other places besides
Model Railroader itself. Their new 2009 book on designing layouts doesn't have Z listed on
the cover.Model Railroader still has lots of good info in it though.
I also think you see bias against Z in the NMRA. even though Z has done quite well in
awards at recent NMRA Conventions, there is still litle mention of it in Scale Rails. All the
more reason to keep getting Ztrack. :-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "uptoolateny" <jcubbin@...> wrote:
> > There, top that tirade!!!
> > Loren
> I don't think I could Loren... LOL!
> For those who just came across this post and are not sure what the
> fuss is about, I have written a very brief rant on Ztrains.com
> regarding Model Railroader magazine and their seemingly oblivious
> attitude toward Z scale. I've written to them several times regarding
> Z scale topics and I know for a fact others have as well, all to no
> avail. Not even a dismissive form reply... just silence.
> I'm not suggesting that MR dedicate half the magazine to Z, but it
> seems as if Z is still viewed as a pure novelty rather than a
> legitimate area of the hobby. I am aware that MR has covered some
> layouts but they are incredibly few and far between.
> We've seen plenty of 4' x 8', HO project layouts in MR. Yet if it were
> suggested that a 1' 7" x 3' 2", Z scale layout be covered in a MR
> project layout, they'd likely call out the men in the white coats. I
> use this small size to illustrate what a typical HO layout scales out
> to in Z. To many of the people in Z, a layout of 1' 7" in depth would
> be far too narrow, yet MR has covered this size (proportionally
> speaking) again and again in HO and it's... valid?
> So, good for the goose but the heck with the gander?
> Last note... I'm most definitely not knocking big layouts, small
> layouts or any of the other fine model railroading scales we have to
> choose from... I am saying that the world's largest model railroad
> magazine should be aware of them all and make their fine publication a
> bit more inclusive.
> John Cubbin