Jump to content
 

Hornby mag ownership


Kiwi
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

I wasn't intending to "tar all magazines with the same brush", but even 25 years ago there were plenty of manumfactuters and especially distributors which did withdraw advertising if they didn't like the editorial coverage of their products - in all sorts of fields. 

I should also have clarified that the reason for letting the manufacturer see the review in advance was to ensure that the author had not made any errors - even famous engineers are not infallible. It was not to allow the manufacturers to approve the articles.

And yes, I am well aware that at the period when Dibber was editing magazines the mainstream magazines in the model railway field were independent and pretty honest in what they published, though I don't remember even in his magazines ever reading a really adverse review - and I was reading most of them at that time. We were lucky as things were not so easy for editors in some other fields.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't intending to "tar all magazines with the same brush", but even 25 years ago there were plenty of manumfactuters and especially distributors which did withdraw advertising if they didn't like the editorial coverage of their products - in all sorts of fields. 

I should also have clarified that the reason for letting the manufacturer see the review in advance was to ensure that the author had not made any errors - even famous engineers are not infallible. It was not to allow the manufacturers to approve the articles.

And yes, I am well aware that at the period when Dibber was editing magazines the mainstream magazines in the model railway field were independent and pretty honest in what they published, though I don't remember even in his magazines ever reading a really adverse review - and I was reading most of them at that time. We were lucky as things were not so easy for editors in some other fields.

Jonathan

I don't think there was ever any need for 'a really adverse review'. I hate the idea of 'panning' someone else's work in the way that often happens with the 'no holds barred' comments seen on the internet  these days. My predecessor at MRC reviewed the Tri-ang Pullman that was dressed up as a CIWL car by opening with a sentence to the effect that there was little point trying to review a model which bore no resemblance to the prototype. I think that was about as adverse as you can get. We also had one model which we were asked to review that was so bad that the we advised the manufacturer not to proceed with it. He was new to the market and the model was never reviewed and never launched. 

Manufacturers view even a minor adverse comment as a 'bad review'. You might have three pages of glowing comment but its the one sentence that points out an error that will cause an Editor to receive a difficult phone call and I certainly had a few of those from all the major manufacturers over the years. (CJL)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect if you asked many people  they would probably think that the magazine did have strong links with Hornby, some may well think that Hornby actually published it.

When I started buying UK railways mags again, I looked through them all, tried them all, but now don't usually get Hornby magazine as it appears to be aimed at  the more traditional model railway person, mainly OO, and rarely has anything that inspires me. It does amaze me that the hobby can sustain so many magazines, but they must sell enough, otherwise they would stop publishing. I find a good test is to see if you go back to older issues, and which ones sell quickest second hand. I bought a few back copies of MRC yesterday as they had some interesting scale drawings. Reviews of models from the big companies  don't interest me, I would much rather be informed about items from smaller companies as they don't tend to get as much attention.

I have come across negative attitudes towards critism, but mainly online. Critising the products of a company which advertises in magazines published by the owners of some forums can result in trouble. It is one reason I am now more careful about which online forums I use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Quote - "the model was never reviewed and never launched"

 

 

Chris,

 

I realise that it may not be possible but as a lover of model railway history, are you able to reveal the identity of this model? I am really intrigued!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I don't think there was ever any need for 'a really adverse review'. I hate the idea of 'panning' someone else's work in the way that often happens with the 'no holds barred' comments seen on the internet  these days. My predecessor at MRC reviewed the Tri-ang Pullman that was dressed up as a CIWL car by opening with a sentence to the effect that there was little point trying to review a model which bore no resemblance to the prototype. I think that was about as adverse as you can get. We also had one model which we were asked to review that was so bad that the we advised the manufacturer not to proceed with it. He was new to the market and the model was never reviewed and never launched. 

Manufacturers view even a minor adverse comment as a 'bad review'. You might have three pages of glowing comment but its the one sentence that points out an error that will cause an Editor to receive a difficult phone call and I certainly had a few of those from all the major manufacturers over the years. (CJL)

 

Funny thing is....I have just been reading through MRC from 1963 and 1964, and have seen this very review! It was indeed a very fair review.

 

The Tri-ang Railways "Action" accessories reviwed by MRC all had very fair reviews. Someone had a very clear idea of what the maker was trying to do, and did not "slate" them, despite the models bing mainly "freelance".

 

The Tri-ang Brush Type 2 (A1A-A1A) review about hauling capacity on Nickel Silver Rail, and doubts about how effective the magnahesion traction magnets would be on steel rails caused some letters, and the model was re-tested using steel rails.  More fairness there.

 

The Hornby Dublo "Starter Set" (The Diesel Shunter one...) with the new type 8-to-a-circle steel rails was critised both in the editorial, and the review.

 

It was "not reccomended"......

 

Can someone confirm what the track in the earlier starter sets issued (Steam Loco-12-to-a-circle) was made from?

 

The Steel rail in the diesel set was looked down on....but I thought the earlier starter sets also used steel rails, but using the standard HD sleeper bases?

 

We have some HD track sections, standard straight and curved, with steel rails instead of Nickel Silver.....when were these made??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magazine reviews do not seem to have much effect on the demand for models. The Tri-ang Continental sleeper is now worth twice as much as the Pullman cars in the correct Pullman livery that received glowing reviews at the time. If you have pre-ordered a model it is too late to do anything about it if the model receives a bad review anyway. The Hornby magazine often gives the first review but I have probably received the model before I read the review unless demand exceeds supply as with the Hornby Maunsell pull-push. Then a glowing review makes me even more annoyed that I had to wait two years before getting one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...