I have given up on CTT as it just isn't what it use to be. I understand there is just so much you can write about classic trains, but that is what I thought the magazine was suppose to be about, but really isn't but they sure come up with special issues/documentaries about classic trains that they want $12 - $30 a pop for that I feel should be in the magazine. Anyway I now buy OGR and like it better. Oh and they just recently cut another months edition out of the yearly subscription. And as been stated it's been getting on the thin side also. Just doesn't worth it to me anymore. 

I might add that there is more info on this forum than you could get out of a couple of decades of reading both magazines. In truth, the ease of posting photos and the ability to post video are  game changers for online forums. Take just tinplate for example, my current interest. The extensive photo documentation that forum members post of every conceivable variation by manufacturers I was barely aware of is impressive and couldn't be duplicated in a print magazine.

In fact, I could see OGR going to a digital magazine format in the future where video will be an integral part of every issue. The only thing keeping this from happening now is curating and organizing the material and adding writing and editing.

I subscribe to OGR as much as a payback for the forum as for any content in the magazine itself.

I've been a subscriber to CTT and OGR for a long time. I view CTT like Popular Science and OGR as Popular Mechanics.  CTT feels slick and glitzy while OGR is more down to earth with a lot of project ideas!  But, you know, I look forward to pouring over both magazines!

@Rich883 posted:

I agree with a hot Water, I subscribe to both, but I don’t know how many more Lionel dealer layout articles or a recap of what was new in 1952 I can consume...well befor I was born.....and I am not young.

 

I actually disagree. CTT for me is an opportunity for the history of Lionel, much of which we will never know. I would rather read about old trains, construction techniques, in depth articles on the many different dealer displays etc. For operating go get your modelling magazines. I collect for the pure toy value and connection to past owners and culture. No interest in electronic sounds, digital control with the lionel stuff.

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Also, don't forget that you have the ability to access all past issues from OGR. 

You're right, Trainmaster.  Unfortunately, I can't search through them.  I was trying to dig up an article I had published back when Myron Biggar ran OGR. 

@RJR posted:

You're right, Trainmaster.  Unfortunately, I can't search through them.  I was trying to dig up an article I had published back when Myron Biggar ran OGR. 

That's a shame. Also, I am very surprised that my old post popped back up. I figured that the firestorm of comments was over but I am mistaken. 

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Gave up because of a typo/mistake?  I'm positive they know what a Pacific is. 😀

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

@RJR posted:

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

Ok, now that is odd. Very odd for CTT since they have multiple minds who know about Lionel history. It makes sense for you to give them up because I have noticed the same thing when I had a subscription with them.

I don’t think either is better. I’m totally relaxed reading either one while sitting in my easy chair. I wish both had enough followers to permit monthly offerings. I also enjoy model railroader to fill in the empty month. 

@RJR posted:

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

Didn't Lionel refer to their 675 and similar postwar locos as Pacifics? That is my understanding. Incorrect, of course, but perhaps CTT was simply referring to the Lionel designation. CTT was always a collector magazine more interested in the history of Lionel than prototype trains.

I subscribe to both as they both are good resources. Which is my favorite? OGR, of course and for my own personal reasons!

Joe Gozzo

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Prior to 1997, Lionel's post-war "pacifics" were 2-6-4s.  I got back into the hobby in 1995 and the only current, accurate K4s was MTH's (a PS-1 locomotive).  Lionel couldn't be bothered to produce an accurate K4s as they were too busy churning out Hudsons every 15 minutes.  Weaver and Williams had made accurate ones in the past, but I was unaware of them.

Lionel made the 2025, 226E, 2035, 2037 - all 2-6-4s.  Good grief, how many chances to get it right do you need?  CTT called it correctly.  Lionel didn't care - they sold.  It was that inaccuracy and MTH's $700 price tag led to my discovery and purchase of my first Williams K4s.

George

 

Last edited by G3750

No matter what Lionel said, a 2-6-4 was still an Adriatic.  Some of those 2-axle trailing trucks looked lousy.

I think possibly why Lionel called their 2-6-4 a "Pacific" is because when they produced 2035 they loosely based it on a Pennsylvania k type locomotive. In order to save money, they used the same frame/wheel arrangement from their 2026 or 2036 locomotives. Instead of calling it an Adriatic they called it a Pacific since it has a Pacific styled body. Similar to their General. They called their 4-4-0 a General because that was what it was based on, instead of calling it an American class. On the situation of CTT, I think that why CTT called it a pacific is because that is what Lionel labeled it. 

@RJR posted:

No matter what Lionel said, a 2-6-4 was still an Adriatic.  Some of those 2-axle trailing trucks looked lousy.

I think you and CTT were not a very good match, anyway. CTT is (or was) for collectors of prewar and postwar Lionel and Flyer. People who don't take the accuracy of their trains too seriously.

I agree, though, some of those trailing 4 wheel tracks with the different size wheels almost touching look pretty silly in retrospect.

Add Reply

Post
OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
330-757-3020

www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×