MRJ - Looking back at the early ones (for the first time)

[Captain Kernow]

The Bob Barlow era was for me the best. I still buy it but I dont look at the more recent issues as often. Having said that the latest is a goodun.

I like re-visiting those early editions too, although I don't feel that the quality and level of interest has actually declined over the years.

 

I find it a bit like reading some of the early Wild Swan modelling books. One of my favourites is Iain Rice's 'Etched Chassis Construction', which is still topical, valid and interesting as far as I am concerned, but when it comes to the 'gearbox' section, it was written in the days before High Level (and even before the Porter's Cap range prior to that), so whilst it was definitely valid in it's day, I now find that part of it slightly 'quaint' (for want of a better description).

 

Also, springing of loco chassis is much more popular these days. Clearly there's no mention of Continuous Springy Beams, but then again, it's a book for modelling, not Advanced Physics 

[2mmMark]

I tend to agree - and when the "Finescale Review" started it was such a breath of fresh air, it was like discovering MRJ back in the mid-eighties. It would have been interesting to see what MRJ would have done if Bob Barlow had not been taken from us too soon.

 

We'd have had two very good magazines instead of one.  Bob intended the Finescale Review to complement MRJ, not compete. Bob was aiming for a gap in the market between MRJ and the mainstream model railway press.

 

I believe the mainstream magazines would have needed to up their game, not MRJ.

 

Mark

[davknigh]

As to subscriptions I took John B's suggestion and visited http://www.newsstand.co.uk/ and found very good rates. Finding MRJ in Canada has always been a bit iffy with previously reliable sources going under so I've decided to go the sub route. Usual disclaimer etc..

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Phil Parker]

We'd have had two very good magazines instead of one.  Bob intended the Finescale Review to complement MRJ, not compete. Bob was aiming for a gap in the market between MRJ and the mainstream model railway press.

 

I believe the mainstream magazines would have needed to up their game, not MRJ.

 

Mark

 

In what sense "up their game"? All the mainstream magazines outsell MRJ by quite some considerable margin, mostly because the greatest numbers of people in the hobby are those who have a pretty basic enjoyment of model railways. They are largely interested in RTR models and don't see any point in fiddling with them. Even weathering powders are viewed with suspicion and brass kits with horror. It's why Oxford Rail sell well to the consternation of many here, they are perfectly good models at a price that is right for those who just want to put something on the track and run it. Absolute fidelity to the prototype isn't that important if it looks right. 

 

Does this matter? Not to me. I like the idea that different mags cater for different sectors. I buy a classic car mag to satisify my interest in spannering old automobiles and MRJ for my finescale model railway interests. I like it because it IS different. If the day comes when they review every new RTR product then I'll be a whole lot less interested. 

[lmsforever]

Every so often I sort out issues one to ten and have a browse still a very good informative but I must admit I tend to have leaf through before I buy now don't always purchase but still an excellent magazine.

[Captain Kernow]

Another thought, I do really like MRJ, and I do think that it's the leading magazine out there for the serious UK modeller, but I also find that I hardly ever look back at my old copies (I also have the full collection from the very beginning).

 

There have been articles too numerous to mention, where I've thought, 'Yes, that could be very helpful when I come to build 'x' or 'y' model', yet in truth, I've hardly ever used any of it's articles as a 'manual' or set of modelling instructions.

 

I'm now in the process of having a (rather leisurely) clear-out of modelling stuff that's just taking up room and not really forming any input into my current and future projects, and for the first time over the last few days, I've seriously wondered whether to get rid of my MRJ collection (no PMs yet, though please, as it will take me ages to decide!).

 

Having said that, I would still continue my subscription.

[justin1985]

In what sense "up their game"? All the mainstream magazines outsell MRJ by quite some considerable margin, mostly because the greatest numbers of people in the hobby are those who have a pretty basic enjoyment of model railways. They are largely interested in RTR models and don't see any point in fiddling with them. Even weathering powders are viewed with suspicion and brass kits with horror. It's why Oxford Rail sell well to the consternation of many here, they are perfectly good models at a price that is right for those who just want to put something on the track and run it. Absolute fidelity to the prototype isn't that important if it looks right. 

 

Does this matter? Not to me. I like the idea that different mags cater for different sectors. I buy a classic car mag to satisify my interest in spannering old automobiles and MRJ for my finescale model railway interests. I like it because it IS different. If the day comes when they review every new RTR product then I'll be a whole lot less interested.

 

I don't know if this is what Mark was originally getting at, but I think the issue with the mainstream magazines is that there is much less differentiation between them than there has been. I can remember (I guess early 2000s) when BRM was much more of a "serious" magazine, with detailed articles on things like etched kit chassis builds and pre-grouping liveries (way before the RTR manufacturers started paying more attention). It was, in a sense, a half way house between the beginner and the MRJ type modeller. Now, it seems like there is very little to choose between Model Rail, BRM, Hornby Mag, with only Railway Modeller being that distinctive and that is perhaps more a matter of style rather than pitch.

 

You could argue that this is a result of improved RTR and RTP making less demand for more in depth articles (and that might be a part of the story) but I think this is more a case of what economists call "minimum differentiation". This is known as "Hotelling's law" - the easiest and most stable way of maximising profit is to make your product as similar as possible to your competitiors. Minimising differences between products disadvantages the customer, but allows the producer/retailer to steal as much custom from their competitors as possible.

 

Bigger differences between products and more choice obviously benefit the customer, but this requires more skill and risk on the part of the producer. The impression I get is that as the mainstream modelling magazines have become more corporate, presumably with more intensive "management" from non-specialists, minimum differentiation became more attractive.

 

I find this principle explains an awful lot about the nature of modern Anglo-American society, and especially retail. So much apparent choice is illusory, as "managerialised" companies default toward the easier, safer option.

 

Justin

[grahame]

Bob was aiming for a gap in the market between MRJ and the mainstream model railway press.

 

I believe the mainstream magazines would have needed to up their game, not MRJ.

 

 

. . . the greatest numbers of people in the hobby are those who have a pretty basic enjoyment of model railways. They are largely interested in RTR models and don't see any point in fiddling with them. Even weathering powders are viewed with suspicion and brass kits with horror. It's why Oxford Rail sell well to the consternation of many here, they are perfectly good models at a price that is right for those who just want to put something on the track and run it. 

 

There is most likely a viable market sector where Bob was pitching his magazine (between MRJ and the commercial glossies) albeit not (currently) big. Perhaps one magazine could fill it. 

 

Certainly many of the mainstream commercial magazines have vacated that space to concentrate on the large (and growing) RTR 'modelling' market - witness what seems like a reduction in article word count and an increase in size and quantity of glossy doctored photographs to present the pretty side (as Justin1985 alludes to in the post above). But there are still those who would like to see more real modelling with fidelity and accuracy without going the whole fine-scale hog of hand building track and scratch-building compensated chassis' out of brass sheet, rather than be fed a continuous diet of how to unpack a new loco and place it on the track. And that market probably includes those 'many' people on this forum who view OR products with 'consternation'.

 

It might well be that Mark's comment of needing to 'up their game' is something they would need to do to bridge that gap, grab a share of that sector and appeal to all railway modellers.

 

G

[2mmMark]

I don't know if this is what Mark was originally getting at, but I think the issue with the mainstream magazines is that there is much less differentiation between them than there has been. I can remember (I guess early 2000s) when BRM was much more of a "serious" magazine, with detailed articles on things like etched kit chassis builds and pre-grouping liveries (way before the RTR manufacturers started paying more attention). It was, in a sense, a half way house between the beginner and the MRJ type modeller. Now, it seems like there is very little to choose between Model Rail, BRM, Hornby Mag, with only Railway Modeller being that distinctive and that is perhaps more a matter of style rather than pitch.

 

You could argue that this is a result of improved RTR and RTP making less demand for more in depth articles (and that might be a part of the story) but I think this is more a case of what economists call "minimum differentiation". This is known as "Hotelling's law" - the easiest and most stable way of maximising profit is to make your product as similar as possible to your competitiors. Minimising differences between products disadvantages the customer, but allows the producer/retailer to steal as much custom from their competitors as possible.

 

Bigger differences between products and more choice obviously benefit the customer, but this requires more skill and risk on the part of the producer. The impression I get is that as the mainstream modelling magazines have become more corporate, presumably with more intensive "management" from non-specialists, minimum differentiation became more attractive.

 

I find this principle explains an awful lot about the nature of modern Anglo-American society, and especially retail. So much apparent choice is illusory, as "managerialised" companies default toward the easier, safer option.

 

Justin

 

I've been working out a reply to  Phil but you sum up my thoughts very well.  I'd also add that I find the visual design of Model Rail, BRM & Hornby magazines uncomfortable, feeling a kind of shouty tabloid "hey look at this" style.  That's a shame because they have some nice content at the core of the magazines and the photography is excellent.

 

Proof of the pudding is that I keep very few of the MR, BRM & Hornby issues I do buy for future reference.  They end up in recycling.  Which of course means they'll undoubtedly become sought after collectors items...

 

I will freely admit that I may be out of step with the mainstream but that's OK, I've got MRJ, NG&IRM and 3 tantalising issues of Finescale Review.

 

Another thought, I do really like MRJ, and I do think that it's the leading magazine out there for the serious UK modeller, but I also find that I hardly ever look back at my old copies (I also have the full collection from the very beginning).

 

There have been articles too numerous to mention, where I've thought, 'Yes, that could be very helpful when I come to build 'x' or 'y' model', yet in truth, I've hardly ever used any of it's articles as a 'manual' or set of modelling instructions.

 

I'm now in the process of having a (rather leisurely) clear-out of modelling stuff that's just taking up room and not really forming any input into my current and future projects, and for the first time over the last few days, I've seriously wondered whether to get rid of my MRJ collection (no PMs yet, though please, as it will take me ages to decide!).

 

Having said that, I would still continue my subscription.

 

I've got my MRJs in wirex binders of 20 from Modern Bookbinders. This makes them a bit unwieldy to refer back to or simply read for pleasure.  With hindsight, I should have been having them properly book-bound by volume.  Bit too late for that now with 250+ issues to deal with.  NG&IRM are in the slip cases sold by the publisher.  Any suggestions on how to store them more conveniently & accessibly gratefully received.

Edited September 3, 2017 by 2mmMark

[kandc_au]

There is most likely a viable market sector where Bob was pitching his magazine (between MRJ and the commercial glossies) albeit not (currently) big. Perhaps one magazine could fill it. 

 

Certainly many of the mainstream commercial magazines have vacated that space to concentrate on the large (and growing) RTR 'modelling' market - witness what seems like a reduction in article word count and an increase in size and quantity of glossy doctored photographs to present the pretty side (as Justin1985 alludes to in the post above). But there are still those who would like to see more real modelling with fidelity and accuracy without going the whole fine-scale hog of hand building track and scratch-building compensated chassis' out of brass sheet, rather than be fed a continuous diet of how to unpack a new loco and place it on the track. And that market probably includes those 'many' people on this forum who view OR products with 'consternation'.

 

It might well be that Mark's comment of needing to 'up their game' is something they would need to do to bridge that gap, grab a share of that sector and appeal to all railway modellers.

 

G

Personally I think there is a need for a mag inbetween MRJ and the others.

As soon as the guy moved over to BRM from Model Rail, both mags were the same to me, for the period that he was there. (Not being rude but just cannot remember the name)

The first issue I have had since has seen a change and the mags are seperating as far as layout/content goes again.

I find 4pages for a loco review a bit over the top by at least 50%...but that is just me. I see a need for them but NOT 4 pages/item reviewed.

 

2mmMark....have you considered a filing cabinet using hanging files to hold a mag on each.......They will fit under layouts if that is any help.

 

Khris

[chrisf]

 

It might well be that Mark's comment of needing to 'up their game' is something they would need to do to bridge that gap, grab a share of that sector and appeal to all railway modellers.

 

G

 

Hornby Mag has a secret weapon, named Tim Shackleton.  His was the last name that I would have expected to find in its pages given his former life as editor of MRJ but he has been there doing good works for a couple of years now.  His latest pleasant surprise may be found in the current issue where he describes the rehabilitation of the SEF whitemetal 94xx loco kit with among other things a High Level chassis.  In the process he shatters another HM taboo by mentioning the Lima version.  Since HM is or was intended to be entry level I find this most encouraging!

 

Chris 

[2mmMark]

2mmMark....have you considered a filing cabinet using hanging files to hold a mag on each.......They will fit under layouts if that is any help.

 

Khris

 

Not something I have room for but it's a good idea.  I'm contemplating approaching Modern Bookbinders to find out the costs for slip cases.

[Phil Parker]

OK, so assuming there is a massive demand for a magazine that sits between the current mags and MRJ, imagine you are the editor and suggest some specific articles that should be in it.

 

You can't say "something like" it needs to be a workable idea such as "build a 14xx from a sheet of tinplate". Ideally each suggestion needs to appeal to more than just one person and be achieved without recourse to the scrapbox or very obsolete products not easily found by the readers.

 

No suggesting looking at MORIL either, I wrote for it several times and very few of those would be needed in the modern world.

[Phil Parker]

Not something I have room for but it's a good idea.  I'm contemplating approaching Modern Bookbinders to find out the costs for slip cases.

Readers of my blog have already seen the solution...

 

http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/binding-magazines-cheaply.html

[grahame]

OK, so assuming there is a massive demand for a magazine that sits between the current mags and MRJ, imagine you are the editor and suggest some specific articles that should be in it.

Rather than a new magazine the alternative is, as Mark suggested, for the current commercials to 'up their game' and bridge that gap. That way they become more inclusive and appeal to a wider section of model railway enthusiasts. Currently the observations appear to be that they are going the other way and reducing appeal to just collectors and RTR users, rather than modellers. And that would mean there is no need for a whole magazine's worth of article suggestions (however nice that might be).

 

G.

[2mmMark]

Readers of my blog have already seen the solution...

 

http://philsworkbench.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/binding-magazines-cheaply.html

 

I've got some of those for larger magazines (Bylines & GERS Journal) but they're not exactly space-efficient. The ones I've got are about 2.5mm thick and they need a lever-arch file which aren't as compact as I'd like.

Edited September 6, 2017 by 2mmMark

[Nearholmer]

A contribution from a person who is, these days, very 'coarse', and definitely not re-'fine'd, if I may?

 

I was seriously "wowed" by MRJ when it first appeared, and bought probably the first 50 or so (all subsequently re-homed at the local MRC).

 

At the time, it was very fresh, energetic, and good-humoured, and it included a fair bit of 'railway modelling history', which I've always found interesting. At the time, I was into US H0 and LBSCR EM, both in a fairly 'fine' way.

 

Slowly, very gradually, it seemed to lose its verve. I'm not sure now whether that was coupled with a change of editor or not.

 

Nowadays, most copies come my way for a read about a month late, and I have come to regard it as rather "dull, but worthy". To be sure, some of the models, in fact most of the models, are stunningly hi-fidelity, and some of the scenic work is absolutely superb. Unfortunately, high quality models in a publication of that kind are 'necessary, but not sufficient'; they don't of themselves make the magazine interesting to read, they make the pictures nice to look at.

 

I have to ask: does anyone actually find those long 'rivet-by-rivet' descriptions of how something was made really, truly interesting? sad if not, because they must take ages to write!

 

The problem might be that the passion is spent, because the campaign for 'fine-ness' has been won, so that it no longer feels like a publication with much of a purpose. A Nigel Farage among magazines? Oddly enough, the 'Railway Modeller now feels as if it's the one with the passion born of a mission, the mission in that case being ecumenicalism.

 

Having read waaaay more railway modelling magazines than is healthy in my time, I'd say that the best reads come when there is a clear sense of purpose, and an editor with personality, and when the publication has "got into its stride, but not yet got puffed-out". MR&L was excellent c1911; MRN was really going for it in 1926/27; MRC immediately before WW2, and, oddly enough, again in the late 1960s; RM under Freezer in the mid-to-late 50s; NG&SLG in the early 80s; NG&IRMR was brilliant during RCL's first term; MRJ in its early flush ........

 

So, if there is a space for a 'slightly to the left of MRJ' magazine, as some are suggesting, what would be its purpose? To spread the gospel according to MRJ to the wider masses? If so, surely MRJ could do that itself, if it decided to do that, rather than debating how many angels can fit on the head of a rivet with its already existing congregation.

 

What we really need, of course, is a magazine devoted to long-outmoded kinds of railway modelling!

 

Kevin

Edited September 5, 2017 by Nearholmer

[BG John]

What we really need, of course, is a magazine devoted to long-outmoded kinds of railway modelling!

 

Kevin

Like scratchbuilding, kitbashing and bashing cheap secondhand stuff for the "Average Modeller", and below average/beginner? If the only options are the perfection of MRJ, or (mostly) open a box and plonk it on the layout of mainstream magazines, maybe something that encourages achievable "proper" model making might bring in new recruits to the hobby, as well as encouraging existing ones. It would also benefit those on a limited budget.

 

It could have a Vintage Models section to keep Kevin happy!

[Not Jeremy]

It strikes me that the main difference between the mainstream magazines and MRJ, NG&IR and Bob's Finescale Review is really more one of style than content.

 

If I were Phil Parker I might by now be banging my head against a brick wall after receiving endless advice to try doing something that I was already doing(!) I suspect that style-wise if you work for a commercial organisation then you are bound to be more or less producing things to their "style" and quite possibly have little influence in this area.

 

Whereas MRJ NG&IR and actually Railway Modeller too do not have this "problem". (If such it be)

 

Rotating MRJ editorwise, yes I agree if a brilliant full time editor were available, but I've got a feeling that such an individual doesn't currently exist. The rotating editors do bring lots of benefits though, and generally I try and see life from a "half full" perspective. No it isn't the same as it was under Bob Barlow back in the 1980s, but then neither is the hobby, nor am I, and Bob was also an exceptional individual in many ways. I still love MRJ though and more generally think that we are all incredibly lucky to have so many "comics" available to us in this glorious hobby of ours.

 

What we "need" is fresh ideas and enthusiasm, and it seems to me that as a hobby we do pretty well on both counts.

 

All that said, I do myself think there is scope for (another) magazine in "MRJ territory" as I believe Bob demonstrated before his very sad passing. I doubt such a magazine would "damage" any other though, it's highly unlikely to be on the shelves of WH Smith and as far as MRJ readers go, I suspect they'd buy both.

 

When Finescale Review came out and I was selling quite a lot of it, I didn't notice any corresponding drop in sales of MRJ and don't think there ever would have been. I doubt very much that it touched any of the mainstream magazine's sales either.

 

In any event, I've always bought magazines that appeal to me on browsing rather than slavishly buying all of one or the other. OK, two exceptions, I bought every Railway Modeller back in 1973 and I do have a more or less complete set of MRJs, oh and quite a lot of "Model Railway News" and "Model Railways" which I loved and I think is the progenitor of MRJ.

 

Who knows what the future holds, I for one sure hope it isn't the same as the past - wouldn't that be a bit boring?

 

Simon

[Poggy1165]

I suppose the people who ultimately decide which magazines are successful are ourselves, collectively. The hobby is changing quite rapidly and almost certainly shrinking with time. MRJ (or its equivalent) can only survive while there are a reasonable number of folk who are at least interested in (if not necessarily doing) stuff which goes way beyond opening boxes. I suspect this is actually quite a limited audience, and that MRJ is in effect a niche product. You might be able to squeeze a living out of a similar sort of magazine, but they will never get near the circulation of RM.

 

I should very much like a magazine entitled Pre-Grouping Pedant, to sell at 5 Guineas an issue and be printed on best art paper. However, I suspect the circulation would be minimal.

[grahame]

I was seriously "wowed" by MRJ when it first appeared, and bought probably the first 50 or so (all subsequently re-homed at the local MRC).

 

[. . . . snip . . . .]

 

Having read waaaay more railway modelling magazines than is healthy in my time, I'd say that the best reads come when there is a clear sense of purpose, and an editor with personality, and when the publication has "got into its stride, but not yet got puffed-out". MR&L was excellent c1911; MRN was really going for it in 1926/27; MRC immediately before WW2, and, oddly enough, again in the late 1960s; RM under Freezer in the mid-to-late 50s; NG&SLG in the early 80s; NG&IRMR was brilliant during RCL's first term; MRJ in its early flush ........

 

 

Hmmm, sounds to me like you're suffering from burn-out, a kind of magazine fatigue, too many, too often, over too long a period . . . . a kind of modellers law of diminishing marginal returns.

 

Certainly one can tire of the same over a long period, that's why mags (and particularly the commercials) regularly re-invent themselves with new editors, new designs, a change of livery, size and so on. It strikes me that MRJ hasn't done much of that over time. But it is still going - someone must like it and be buying it.

 

G.

[Nearholmer]

"Hmmm, sounds to me like you're suffering from burn-out, a kind of magazine fatigue, too many, too often, over too long a period . . . ."

 

I like to believe that it's made me a connoisseur of railway modelling mags, but the shameful truth is that I'm actually what you imply: a hopeless addict, a husk of a man, twitching and groaning, as I restlessly hunt for the next fix.

 

K

[grahame]

I like to believe that it's made me a connoisseur of railway modelling mags, but the shameful truth is that I'm actually what you imply: a hopeless addict, a husk of a man, twitching and groaning, as I restlessly hunt for the next fix.

K

Yeah, we're all hopeless model railway junkies, like to think that we know something about the market, and hoping the next model fix will be the greatest ever . . .

. . . but in reality we're only . . .

. . . what was I saying, what's this thread about?

 

G.

[Captain Kernow]

Truth is, many of us keep all these magazines, in the no doubt earnest belief that this article or that plan will come in handy one day. But when I think of all the sheer paper that I've got, taking up room and not really contributing much to my hobby output, I do begin to wonder why I kept it in the first place.

 

However, just occasionally, an article and a loco scale drawing from the dim and distant past, for example, gets mentioned on this forum, and I can then send the person concerned a copy.

 

So perhaps it's worth it after all?

[corneliuslundie]

I looked into the un-nameable shop this morning to see if MRJ had arrived (I expect it tomorrow as that seems to be the delivery day for specialist mags). What astounded me was just how many railway and model railway magazines there were on display, each with multiple copies, including a fair number of "bookazines" (is that the name for the one-offs in magazine format?). Newtown only has a population of 12,000 which means that about one in 100 of the population must buy a magazine or bookazine a month! Yet our club has just eight or nine members. Oddly, the same store's branch at Birmingham NS had just five titles last week. Admittedly the majority of those titles are prototype rather than model, but it indicates a considerable interest in railways - and that in a town which sees nothing but ATW class 158s 99.9% of the time (or is that why?).

Jonathan