Why is their no budget range for the younger modeller to get into this hobby?

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

Agreed, I suppose the question we could be asking is should there be a range between Hornby Junior and Hornby Railroad/Train Sets or are we satified that the jump is fine.

 

Junior track looks very basic from looking at pictures. Maybe if it was more like the Kato track? Still made with metal rails, easy to slot together, no sharp fish plates, somehow compatible with standard 00 gauge track if you buy an adapter?That way all someone would need to do is buy a controller and some Locos that operate on DC as opposed to battery. That would make the Hornby train packs more viable. Loco's could be slighty more detailed than Junior with better paint jobs, maybe wire handrails.

 

 

Looking at both the relatively high cost of set track (generally more expensive, per length, than flexi although the latter is less suitable for beginners), and the extremely low price of cheap battery-powered train sets you see online and in gift/toy shops, I get the impression that all-plastic track allows costs to come down, although this type of track has its limitations (some of which would apply to diecast track as well). Obviously both of these could theoretically be excellent for battery operation but would be useless for two rail, although in future track power may not necessarily be the default method for serious model railways.

[009 micro modeller]

5 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

Is it really a "steam centre" though? Even so it might have survived, but has it thrived? 

 

Perhaps not - I may be missing the subtle distinction as I’m not old enough to remember Carnforth as a public location. However, if I’ve got the right idea a ‘steam centre’ would be a place like Carnforth or Dinting (based on former steam sheds iirc) that is mainly a place to see locos (mainly large main line ones like those you mentioned). On the other hand I do have a lot of memories of visiting Quainton Road as a kid - this is a ‘railway centre,’ a kind of museum preserving various aspects of railways (not only focused on locos - Quainton Road is a former junction station for example) but where people can also ride on the trains (albeit only over a short demonstration line). Didcot has probably done well because it covers the GWR’s history so well - and the broad gauge line, for instance, is something unique, not seen elsewhere in preservation. Being more museum-like they probably have more educational value, which can help when obtaining grant funding (which helps them survive) but I’m not sure how relevant it would be to the average family looking for a day out. Perhaps another ‘steam centre’ is Bressingham although that also has the gallopers, multiple different narrow gauge lines and gardens so is slightly different.

 

Edit: sorry, this really is getting a bit off-topic...

Edited September 7, 2020 by 009 micro modeller

[Steamport Southport]

20 minutes ago, MyRule1 said:

This brought to mind the original Rovex / Triang standard track.

 

As this was my introduction to model railways back in the 1950's I thought I'd look up the cost of the "entry level" Princess _ two coaches: this was around £3 which with inflation is £103 today.

 

 

 

Or £250 if you want one now.  

 

https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/shop/new-for-2020/Hornby-s-centenary-year/celebrating-100-years-of-Hornby-train-set-centenary-year-limited-edition-2020.html

 

 

Unfortunately when we come to price comparisons we don't know how much money people had to spend. For the average family it probably wasn't much.

 

 

Jason

[Rockalaucher101]

13 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Looking at both the relatively high cost of set track (generally more expensive, per length, than flexi although the latter is less suitable for beginners), and the extremely low price of cheap battery-powered train sets you see online and in gift/toy shops, I get the impression that all-plastic track allows costs to come down, although this type of track has its limitations (some of which would apply to diecast track as well). Obviously both of these could theoretically be excellent for battery operation but would be useless for two rail, although in future track power may not necessarily be the default method for serious model railways.

So are we satisfied that there doesn't need to be an alternate track type between junior and set track?

In which case the next question to ask is whether or not the railroad range is an acceptable jump from junior, or does that need a stepping stone?

Speaking from experience I went from Brio to Hornby albeit with airfix aircraft kits as a sort of bridge.

[009 micro modeller]

25 minutes ago, Rockalaucher101 said:

So are we satisfied that there doesn't need to be an alternate track type between junior and set track?

In which case the next question to ask is whether or not the railroad range is an acceptable jump from junior, or does that need a stepping stone?

Speaking from experience I went from Brio to Hornby albeit with airfix aircraft kits as a sort of bridge.

 

I think so yes, provided that conventional track (plastic sleepers with nickel silver or steel rail, rather than all-plastic) can be made cheaply enough to be within a reasonable beginner’s budget. For younger children though, attaching track pieces to each other with fishplates may not be particularly good. I’m not sure another ‘stepping stone’ is needed, as it seems to potentially be a way of creating yet another slightly different system that may need to be replaced or become less useful later on.

[GlenPudzeoch]

If a manufacturer were to consider producing stock to a lesser degree of detail to cater for the market suggested by OP what level the market would accept compromise in detail for cost?

 

Taking the Hornby P2 as a example, they retailed the standard detail version and a railroad version which were pretty close in price. 

 

In all fairness the cost or research, planning construction, setting up moulds, casts and readying for production, as well as the raw materials, compromising on detail would I suspect have any great impact on production costs, and even if a lower profit was expected (and why?) the cheaper cost would probably not be cost effective.

 

Equally for modeller starting off in a budget mode, they would hopefully want to scale up to the more detailed version.  If this required a greater spend many would say Why bother?

 

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, GlenPudzeoch said:

If a manufacturer were to consider producing stock to a lesser degree of detail to cater for the market suggested by OP what level the market would accept compromise in detail for cost?

 

Taking the Hornby P2 as a example, they retailed the standard detail version and a railroad version which were pretty close in price. 

 

In all fairness the cost or research, planning construction, setting up moulds, casts and readying for production, as well as the raw materials, compromising on detail would I suspect have any great impact on production costs, and even if a lower profit was expected (and why?) the cheaper cost would probably not be cost effective.

 

Equally for modeller starting off in a budget mode, they would hopefully want to scale up to the more detailed version.  If this required a greater spend many would say Why bother?

 

 

Exactly. The various starter 0-4-0s and ex-Lima Railroad items are probably cheap because they are old and the development costs have already been recovered.

[Rockalaucher101]

1 hour ago, GlenPudzeoch said:

If a manufacturer were to consider producing stock to a lesser degree of detail to cater for the market suggested by OP what level the market would accept compromise in detail for cost?

 

Taking the Hornby P2 as a example, they retailed the standard detail version and a railroad version which were pretty close in price. 

 

In all fairness the cost or research, planning construction, setting up moulds, casts and readying for production, as well as the raw materials, compromising on detail would I suspect have any great impact on production costs, and even if a lower profit was expected (and why?) the cheaper cost would probably not be cost effective.

 

Equally for modeller starting off in a budget mode, they would hopefully want to scale up to the more detailed version.  If this required a greater spend many would say Why bother?

Your last point certainly stands out, especially as like you said with the P2 there was a main range and railroad range equivalent. Railroad isn't hard to detail to a high standard so your point about why bother certainly carries weight. I bought a railroad scotsman because I felt that a better paint job and some additional details can really improve the look of it.

I must however say though that some modellers may want a highly detailed model but not have the knowledge to detail it themselves. A nice idea might be to have a low end and high end for almost every model offered.

I feel like as long as manufacturers offer a high end and low end model of the same loco then that's fine to me. Like the Hornby/Lima 37 sitting at £75 direct from Hornby and the Bachmann 37 at £145 from rails (soon to be accurascale I think for high end), is almost half the price low enough for what is an older tooling albeit with a better mechanism?

 

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, GlenPudzeoch said:

If a manufacturer were to consider producing stock to a lesser degree of detail to cater for the market suggested by OP what level the market would accept compromise in detail for cost?

 

Taking the Hornby P2 as a example, they retailed the standard detail version and a railroad version which were pretty close in price. 

 

In all fairness the cost or research, planning construction, setting up moulds, casts and readying for production, as well as the raw materials, compromising on detail would I suspect have any great impact on production costs, and even if a lower profit was expected (and why?) the cheaper cost would probably not be cost effective.

 

Equally for modeller starting off in a budget mode, they would hopefully want to scale up to the more detailed version.  If this required a greater spend many would say Why bother?

 

 

Not quite. They released a Railroad version and the same version with a better paint job which cost about £20 more.

 

Same applies to a few others such as Duke Of Gloucester and Tornado. They've never released a detailed version.

 

If they did it would be in the same price range as the new W1, about £180 to £200 range.

 

 

 

Jason

[Rockalaucher101]

Tell you what, I'd love a high detail Duke of Gloucester

[PatB]

I think the thread (and others like it) has morphed into a more general encouraging newcomers type discussion is because it is very easy to demonstrate that cost is not a new barrier to entry to the hobby. Certainly there are now many more products to spend money on, but the basics needed for a proper layout (couple of yards of track, controller, loco, handful of wagons/couple of coaches) cost about the same now as, or even less than, they have done for the last 70 years, once you adjust for inflation, disposable incomes etc. To suggest that there are fewer new starters because of this cost is, pretty clearly, not the full story and maybe not any of the story. 

 

So it inevitably becomes pertinent to discuss other possible reasons for the perceived atrophy of the hobby. 

 

Personally I'm not entirely convinced of a problem. A flick through any copy of RM reveals swathes of expensive ads from numerous suppliers, offering an immense range of items at prices that are definitely not pocket money. I have experience of the trials and tribulations of retail (not model railways), but I'd still assume that the majority of those advertisers are making at least some profit. Hence, I assume that somebody is buying this stuff in quantity, even 50 years after it ceased to be socially acceptable to play with toy trains beyond the age of 8.

 

As I've said, an examination of the printed record suggests that the number of "serious" railway modellers was actually quite limited, even in the fabled Golden Age. I'd hazard a guess that there are more now than there ever were, although I've no idea how you could get accurate comparative numbers. 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, PatB said:

I think the thread (and others like it) has morphed into a more general encouraging newcomers type discussion is because it is very easy to demonstrate that cost is not a new barrier to entry to the hobby. Certainly there are now many more products to spend money on, but the basics needed for a proper layout (couple of yards of track, controller, loco, handful of wagons/couple of coaches) cost about the same now as, or even less than, they have done for the last 70 years, once you adjust for inflation, disposable incomes etc. To suggest that there are fewer new starters because of this cost is, pretty clearly, not the full story and maybe not any of the story. 

 

So it inevitably becomes pertinent to discuss other possible reasons for the perceived atrophy of the hobby. 

 

Personally I'm not entirely convinced of a problem. A flick through any copy of RM reveals swathes of expensive ads from numerous suppliers, offering an immense range of items at prices that are definitely not pocket money. I have experience of the trials and tribulations of retail (not model railways), but I'd still assume that the majority of those advertisers are making at least some profit. Hence, I assume that somebody is buying this stuff in quantity, even 50 years after it ceased to be socially acceptable to play with toy trains beyond the age of 8.

 

As I've said, an examination of the printed record suggests that the number of "serious" railway modellers was actually quite limited, even in the fabled Golden Age. I'd hazard a guess that there are more now than there ever were, although I've no idea how you could get accurate comparative numbers. 

Looking at older Railway Modellers (I've picked out the 1960 November issue), there seems to be few ads then based specifically at beginners. A couple of ads do list 'x number of months to pay' (terms are now replaced by credit card details, with the resulting debts to banks).

Even the giants of the hobby didn't usually take out more than a full page ads. Southgate Hobbyshop did in this issue, as did Wrenn.

 

Advertisers with full page were Trix, Hattons, Tri-ang, Peco (for Perfecta kits), Bradford Model Railway Centre, Hornby-Dublo, Taylor McKenna, Bassett-Lowke, John Underhill, Airfix, Liliput, Wrenn, H&M, Finisters, Dyke & Ward.

 

Note many of these were either manufacturers or importers and only a small number of retailers, unlike today, where several retailers take out multiple page advertising.

 

Most of the advertising is advising that the reader of what product range they stock, rather than long lists of items - probably a lot to do with the real cost of adverts has gone down, significantly.

What I don't see is much advertising for low cost items, it's all standard ranges, or getting people to change scales/standards (3 rail to 2 rail) . So I'm not quite sure where the idea comes from some posters here, that it's much harder to get started than it used to be.

 

There are some blind alleys, such as Airfix and Kitmaster kits with Perfecta motorising kits. By the time you messed about buying kits, motorising kits and motors, were they any cheaper than buying an equivalent Tri-ang loco - not really. Not even considering that a Tri-ang loco would have a vastly more robust chassis.

 

I write this as a person who is slightly younger than the readers of a 1960 magazine, I was 4, but my parents only had a very limited budget.

[PatB]

1 hour ago, kevinlms said:

Looking at older Railway Modellers (I've picked out the 1960 November issue), there seems to be few ads then based specifically at beginners. A couple of ads do list 'x number of months to pay' (terms are now replaced by credit card details, with the resulting debts to banks).

Even the giants of the hobby didn't usually take out more than a full page ads. Southgate Hobbyshop did in this issue, as did Wrenn.

 

Advertisers with full page were Trix, Hattons, Tri-ang, Peco (for Perfecta kits), Bradford Model Railway Centre, Hornby-Dublo, Taylor McKenna, Bassett-Lowke, John Underhill, Airfix, Liliput, Wrenn, H&M, Finisters, Dyke & Ward.

 

Note many of these were either manufacturers or importers and only a small number of retailers, unlike today, where several retailers take out multiple page advertising.

 

Most of the advertising is advising that the reader of what product range they stock, rather than long lists of items - probably a lot to do with the real cost of adverts has gone down, significantly.

What I don't see is much advertising for low cost items, it's all standard ranges, or getting people to change scales/standards (3 rail to 2 rail) . So I'm not quite sure where the idea comes from some posters here, that it's much harder to get started than it used to be.

 

There are some blind alleys, such as Airfix and Kitmaster kits with Perfecta motorising kits. By the time you messed about buying kits, motorising kits and motors, were they any cheaper than buying an equivalent Tri-ang loco - not really. Not even considering that a Tri-ang loco would have a vastly more robust chassis.

 

I write this as a person who is slightly younger than the readers of a 1960 magazine, I was 4, but my parents only had a very limited budget.

 

All valid points, and your comment on the motorising kits for Airfix/Kitmaster leads me to another aside about the perceived greater affordability of kits in general, once upon a time, which seems to be another widely disseminated furphy. A while ago I looked at the relative prices (in the early 60s) of a K's kit for a small 0-6-0 tank (can't remember which; maybe a J72) and a Triang Jinty or Dublo R1. IIRC the kit was roughly double the price of the R1 and triple that of the Jinty. Looking at 0-6-0 r-t-r tank loco prices now, I guess that puts the K's product in the GBP150 range now, which is probably about what you could build a hypothetical kit for, once you've bought motor wheels and gears. Then you had to build and paint it, of course. Not a trivial task in the days when the range of tools, equipment and advice available to the average modeller was so much smaller. Hardly a "budget" solution.

 

I agree that there seemed to be few adverts aimed at a beginner. You mention Wrenn, and, coincidentally, I've been rereading a bundle of MRN issues from about 1958 to 1962. A number of them have ads from Wrenn showing an "oval with sidings on a board" type track plan, and quoting a package price for all the track required to create the layout. I haven't been really keeping track of the dates, but I get the impression that such ads seemed to cluster around Christmas, so clearly aimed at fathers looking to provide Junior with a means of moving on from last year's train set.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, PatB said:

 

All valid points, and your comment on the motorising kits for Airfix/Kitmaster leads me to another aside about the perceived greater affordability of kits in general, once upon a time, which seems to be another widely disseminated furphy. A while ago I looked at the relative prices (in the early 60s) of a K's kit for a small 0-6-0 tank (can't remember which; maybe a J72) and a Triang Jinty or Dublo R1. IIRC the kit was roughly double the price of the R1 and triple that of the Jinty. Looking at 0-6-0 r-t-r tank loco prices now, I guess that puts the K's product in the GBP150 range now, which is probably about what you could build a hypothetical kit for, once you've bought motor wheels and gears. Then you had to build and paint it, of course. Not a trivial task in the days when the range of tools, equipment and advice available to the average modeller was so much smaller. Hardly a "budget" solution.

 

I agree that there seemed to be few adverts aimed at a beginner. You mention Wrenn, and, coincidentally, I've been rereading a bundle of MRN issues from about 1958 to 1962. A number of them have ads from Wrenn showing an "oval with sidings on a board" type track plan, and quoting a package price for all the track required to create the layout. I haven't been really keeping track of the dates, but I get the impression that such ads seemed to cluster around Christmas, so clearly aimed at fathers looking to provide Junior with a means of moving on from last year's train set.

Yes and of course the issue I picked up November 1960, was in the lead up to Christmas. Certainly families might want to 'put aside' cash for Christmas presents.

 

[009 micro modeller]

6 hours ago, PatB said:

I think the thread (and others like it) has morphed into a more general encouraging newcomers type discussion is because it is very easy to demonstrate that cost is not a new barrier to entry to the hobby. Certainly there are now many more products to spend money on, but the basics needed for a proper layout (couple of yards of track, controller, loco, handful of wagons/couple of coaches) cost about the same now as, or even less than, they have done for the last 70 years, once you adjust for inflation, disposable incomes etc. To suggest that there are fewer new starters because of this cost is, pretty clearly, not the full story and maybe not any of the story.

 

The availability of disposable income definitely doesn’t apply to everyone/all age groups equally, although I still agree that cost is not necessarily a new issue. One thing that perhaps is new is the quality, variety and detail level of modern RTR, so that it might be possible for someone with a lot of money but not much skill to put together a reasonable layout. Conversely, it could be slightly off-putting for someone who is either skilled or unskilled but doesn’t have the same access to funds, and therefore can’t hope to achieve the same standards by making everything themselves. In contrast, some older model railway magazines seem to create a picture of almost everyone modelling using the same basic ranges of RTR and kits, with a few very skilled people scratchbuilding almost everything to a much higher standard.

[Chrisr40]

Is it worth considering if the continual publication of almost exclusively layouts to such high standards has a negative as well inspirational effect ? Provided you could stop the trolls why would it hurt to have a first layout of a new member of the hobby in each magazine ? If you dont like to see people starting out and learning technique then skip by it and remember you were them once. I was fortunate enough to actually achieve this many years ago with my layout and it was daunting to compare my early effort with the others in the magazine.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Chrisr40

[grahame]

3 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Conversely, it could be slightly off-putting for someone who is either skilled or unskilled but doesn’t have the same access to funds, and therefore can’t hope to achieve the same standards by making everything themselves. 

 

Generally you don't need access to large funds for constructive modelling as basic modelling materials are mostly very cheap.  And often some can be sourced free.

 

Skills are not inherent - they are learnt through application and improved by practice, although that can take time. Making things for oneself is far more satisfying and rewarding. However, I often get the impression that youngsters want instant gratification and don't like investing time and patience in a project by spending time building things. That sort of approach seems to more suit those of more advanced years. 

 

And there is, of course, no law or requirement that anyone has to make models to a particular (high) standard or match that of RTR  products. That is where youngsters score well - they have the imagination to believe that what they can produce is representative. 

 

 

 

 

[PatB]

22 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

The availability of disposable income definitely doesn’t apply to everyone/all age groups equally, although I still agree that cost is not necessarily a new issue. One thing that perhaps is new is the quality, variety and detail level of modern RTR, so that it might be possible for someone with a lot of money but not much skill to put together a reasonable layout. Conversely, it could be slightly off-putting for someone who is either skilled or unskilled but doesn’t have the same access to funds, and therefore can’t hope to achieve the same standards by making everything themselves. In contrast, some older model railway magazines seem to create a picture of almost everyone modelling using the same basic ranges of RTR and kits, with a few very skilled people scratchbuilding almost everything to a much higher standard.

True, although I think it's been pretty standard for the young to be both broke and space limited for several generations.

 

As for your take on the older magazines, I sort of agree, except that, in RM at least, there has been quite a bit of coverage of scratchbuilding to, shall we say, somewhat less exacting standards. I would commend articles c1970 by a Mr Sankey who built an LNWR layout (pre-Grouping being, itself, a rarity in those days) with very little money and, it must be said, a limited skillset, but a "get it done" attitude that was hugely admirable. I'm sure he was very pleased with it. Other contributors, particularly on unusual subjects or in minority scales, also showed models which were definitely in the "I could do that" bracket.

 

I must confess that my current interests in 1:35 narrow gauge (I see that Smallbrook Studios posted my loco kit a few days ago, so I'll be waiting by the mailbox shortly) and US tinplate are, at least partly, because my efforts in either cannot be directly compared with current r-t-r and will not create a "why did I bother?" feeling.

Edited September 9, 2020 by PatB

[Phil Parker]

4 minutes ago, Chrisr40 said:

Provided you could stop the trolls why would it hurt to have a first layout of a new member of the hobby in each magazine ?

 

Like troll stopping is going to be possible! Anyway, we do have people's first layouts in magazines. The one that comes to mind is the 009 layout "First", but it's far from the only one.

 

I'm not convinced a badly made layout will help or inspire anyone. There are people who know how to make things very well perfectly capable of explaining the methods in simple terms. On the page, I don't want to follow someone's learning curve. Far better to have "This is how I did it and it worked and here's some things that didn't and why they didn't." Communication is a skill every bit as important as modelmaking for a model railway magazine.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the camera can be cruel. I've seen plenty of layout that give their builders a lot of pleasure, but won't photograph very well, leading to online abuse for the builder and an unhappy modeller. From the magazine's point of view, the shelf appeal of a badly made layout is low hitting sales, so yes, people can get hurt.

 

[009 micro modeller]

12 minutes ago, Chrisr40 said:

Provided you could stop the trolls why would it hurt to have a first layout of a new member of the hobby in each magazine ?

 

Didn’t Railway Modeller used to do something like this? And then there’s the BRM ‘readers’ projects’ page.

[298]

3 hours ago, Chrisr40 said:

Is it worth considering if the continual publication of almost exclusively layouts to such high standards has a negative as well inspirational effect ? Provided you could stop the trolls why would it hurt to have a first layout of a new member of the hobby in each magazine ? If you dont like to see people starting out and learning technique then skip by it and remember you were them once. I was fortunate enough to actually achieve this many years ago with my layout and it was daunting to compare my early effort with the others in the magazine.

 

Does the Modeller still have their Student (Junior) section...? Some of those were better than regular articles. And I'm sure I've seen single photos of home layouts on the letters pages in other magazines. The problem then is an established modeller would have little to learn and the publication of such an endeavour is little more than a personal glory trip, a bit like some stuff cobbled together in ten minutes and put on a Facebook group with a blurry photo.

 

Fortunately some exhibitions were a good place to see layouts of varying standards, although how someone compares their own to another is quite subjective as they might not always be able to see the wood for the trees...or the NASCAR oval track plan and jarring geometry that goes with following train set plans. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by 298

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, 298 said:

 

Does the Modeller still have their Student (Junior) section...? Some of those were better than regular articles. And I'm sure I've seen single photos of home layouts on the letters pages in other magazines. The problem then is an established modeller would have little to learn and the publication of such an endeavour is little more than a personal glory trip, a bit like some stuff cobbled together in ten minutes and put on a Facebook group with a blurry photo.

 

Fortunately some exhibitions were a good place to see layouts of varying standards, although how someone compares their own to another is quite subjective as they might not always be able to see the wood for the trees...or the NASCAR oval track plan and jarring geometry that goes with following train set plans. 

Railway Modeller changed it to 'Right Away' in 2002, with the stated aim of 'an exchange of railway modelling ideas for beginners of all ages'.

So 100% bang on target.

 

Later it was changed 'Railway Modelling Explored', with in turn was a rehash of a pull out supplement that appeared in the early 2000s.

 

Again it shows what can be done as starting projects.

 

 

Model Rail magazine has a couple of pages devoted to readers layouts, with a photo or 2 and a brief description.

 

So I don't get, where this ongoing discussion about ignoring beginners comes from - perhaps, it's the use of the word 'beginner', that is the problem?

[Rockalaucher101]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

perhaps, it's the use of the word 'beginner', that is the problem?

Potentually, seeing as a beginner could join the hobby at any point.

Same goes for 'younger modellers'... What by definition would you consider someone to be a younger modeller?

It all seems to be very broad really...

[009 micro modeller]

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Railway Modeller changed it to 'Right Away' in 2002, with the stated aim of 'an exchange of railway modelling ideas for beginners of all ages'.

 

Is Right Away usually written by independent contributors or Modeller staff though? Not that one is necessarily better than the other.

[PatB]

9 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

Is Right Away usually written by independent contributors or Modeller staff though? Not that one is necessarily better than the other.

It's been a while since I read a recent RM, but ISTR it was a mix of the two, usually with two or three short articles under the Right Away banner