Wright writes.....

[grahame]

51 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

By no means everything written for model railway magazines “in the good old days” was interesting and well written. There was a fair bit of pompous windbaggery alongside the good stuff, and a fair few of the ‘constructional’ articles left out important steps in the process and/or assumed that everyone had both infinite skills and a ready supply of unobtanium.

 

In short, not every amateur author was a Beal or an Ahern then, any more than they are now.

 

For me it's not that (and I don't think anyone is suggesting it either) articles were better written and of a higher standard (quality?) in the past. Of course there was a fair share of duds and the less interesting - just like there is now. However, it's more that there has been an overall change in content and style with magazines now being more picture heavy and text thin, and that the emphasis seems to be less about constructional and complex modelling projects and more about tinkering with RTR and how to use RTP buildings.

 

G  

[Nearholmer]

But, doesn’t MRJ in one edition contain as much “high fibre” content as would have been spread between several magazines “back in the day”? And, if you add in things like G0G and NG&IRM, isn’t there actually more “high fibre” published overall?

 

Isn’t what we see ‘market segmentation’ in a large and mature market? Different styles of magazines, appealing to slightly different, if overlapping, reader-groups?

Edited March 10, 2019 by Nearholmer

[grahame]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

But, doesn’t MRJ in one edition contain as much “high fibre” content as would have been spread between several magazines “back in the day”? And, if you add in things like G0G and NG&IRM, isn’t there actually more “high fibre” published overall?

 

Maybe, but those aren't exactly high street/station newsstand commercial monthlies - the sort that can be easily and regularly picked up without membership of a club, society, or group. And you'd need to arrange the purchase/membership/subscription of them all to get a good balance of content regarding scale, era and genre.

 

G.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

MRJ appears in WHS on a monthly basis, doesn’t it?

 

And, for balance of coverage, you’d go a long way to beat RM under its current editor, and that isn’t exactly niche.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Nearholmer

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

MRJ appears in WHS on a monthly basis, doesn’t it?

 

And, for balance of coverage, you’d go a long way to beat RM under its current editor, and that isn’t exactly niche.

 

Unfortunately not my local WHS or the supermarkets where the mainstream commercial monthlies can be picked up.

 

And although RM might have good coverage the scale society ones dont and RM doesn't generally have the more constructional and in-depth articles. But it could be considered one of the 'better' mags along with MR IMO.

 

G

[CF MRC]

5 hours ago, Anglian said:

 

 

Equally there should only be a single word space after a full-point – not the double word space you've used.

 

Anglian, I disagree.  I was taught to use a double space when writing my PhD and much prefer this style.  There is not a right or wrong in this respect.

 

Tim

Edited March 11, 2019 by CF MRC

[St Enodoc]

10 hours ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Well I never, every day is a school day.

 

It took me well into my forties before I plucked up the courage and say to someone who was ridiculing my poor written English to say to them, "Did you understand what I wrote?" They answered "Yes" with a quizzical face. To which I said "So what is your problem".

 

Please can all the English teachers on this thread remember some of us have difficulty with English and would rather see nice modelling than have another lesson which we don't understand.

Clive, I do understand your situation but there is a world of difference between reading something that is not perfect grammatically and reading something that is written so poorly that it is ambiguous or, worse, just can't be understood.

 

I have no problem with the former but I have a big problem with the latter. For example, there's an information sign at Southern Cross station in Melbourne which, to me, can be read in at least two ways but in fact is probably intended to mean something else altogether. Not good if you are relying on it to know when your train departs (or doesn't). I'll check the exact words later this week and post them here, if Tony doesn't mind, so we can have a bit of fun.

[Enterprisingwestern]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I think I'm inclined to agree.

 

But, where are the current successors to the Beals and Aherns, I wonder?

 

Please list, and then we can agree or disagree as we see fit. There are some very good authors out there now in my view. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I would contend that there is no place for the likes of Beal and Ahearn in the current world, the virgin furrow having been ploughed.

To take a religious analogy, we have had the missionaries and we are now all building our individual churches.

 

Mike.

[Nearholmer]

There’s always a place for people who can communicate well, inform, educate, and entertain, if you like, whether to topic is furrow-ploughing, church-building, or anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Nearholmer

[Enterprisingwestern]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s always a place for people who can communicate well, inform, educate, and entertain, if you like, whether to topic is furrow-ploughing, church-building, or anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which thankfully we already have plenty of, the need for pioneers the likes of Beal and Ahearn is not so great though.

 

Mike.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Clive, I do understand your situation but there is a world of difference between reading something that is not perfect grammatically and reading something that is written so poorly that it is ambiguous or, worse, just can't be understood.

 

I have no problem with the former but I have a big problem with the latter. For example, there's an information sign at Southern Cross station in Melbourne which, to me, can be read in at least two ways but in fact is probably intended to mean something else altogether. Not good if you are relying on it to know when your train departs (or doesn't). I'll check the exact words later this week and post them here, if Tony doesn't mind, so we can have a bit of fun.

I don't mind at all, John.

[Chamby]

44 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There’s always a place for people who can communicate well, inform, educate, and entertain, if you like, whether to topic is furrow-ploughing, church-building, or anything else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Which thankfully we already have plenty of, the need for pioneers the likes of Beal and Ahearn is not so great though.

 

Mike.

 

Maybe for us old lags, the need is not so great.  Those taking up the hobby more recently however will probably still appreciate foundational articles.  

 

They won’t be looking on the shelves of WH Smith though, but to newer media sources such as YouTube, where they can find video clips that are far more effective at demonstrating stuff than print/still photography will ever achieve.

 

Phil

[grahame]

6 hours ago, CF MRC said:

 

Anglian, I disagree.  I was taught to use a double space when writing my PhD and much prefer this style.  There is not a right or wrong in this respect.

 

 

I think the use of double spaces after a full stop (period, full-point,) was something typists were taught in the era of typewriters. These days WP, DTP and electronic type setting seems to automatically account for putting a slightly wider space after one although not a full double space (and if not the space over the dot certainly makes it look larger so the second space is unnecessary). A double space can look too big and out of place with margin to margin justification (something typewriters never offered). It's certainly a 'modern' convention not to use double spaces and part of the accepted publishing rules these days. But, of course, there is never a need to follow them.

 

G

 

[Tony Wright]

52 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Which thankfully we already have plenty of, the need for pioneers the likes of Beal and Ahearn is not so great though.

 

Mike.

Mike,

 

Good morning.

 

We probably don't have the need for model railway pioneers any more, but writers of the calibre of Beal and Ahern are still required, if only to keep the actual craft of railway modelling going. 

 

I tried to encourage folk to have a go at actually making things for themselves and to always observe the prototype before making a model in my recent RM piece, and was soundly castigated for it in some quarters. I wonder, had social media been around 50/60/70 years ago, whether the likes of the 'pioneers' would have been 'put to the sword' for suggesting personal creativity, care, pushing the boundaries and observation should be encouraged in modelling? 'One can almost hear the righteous indignation from the past - 'Who are these chaps dictating to us? My Hornby O Gauge clockwork is all that's needed, and that's that!' 

 

Would the great Peter Denny (the finest of gentlemen, and far more important in the hobby than the two pioneers already mentioned in my view) have been criticised for his modelling approach (brilliant then, and still brilliant) when 'most' contemporaries might have been happy with the emerging Tri-ang, Hornby-Dublo, Trix Twin and Graham Farish in 4mm Scale? Please don't think I'm comparing myself with any of the pioneers, but in the days when the only means of model railway communication was the printed page, I cannot recall anything 'nasty' ever being written in response to articles which encouraged folk to have a go and improve their personal model-making. Editors, quite rightly, would have used their discretion. 

 

Granted, the current RTR standards are in a different universe than those from the past, but am I alone in getting a bit bored at seeing so much of the same stuff in the model railway press, at shows and online? 

 

My apologies for 'shouting'.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Tony Wright
to clarify a point

[Atso]

I made the decision at the end of last year to cut down on the number of railway modelling magazines I was buying. The biggest issue for me is that some (most?) of these publications now come in a sealed plastic bag which prevents the potential purchaser from flicking through the pages in the shop to decide if they wish to buy the magazine. While I can see the benefits to placing publications in plastic bags (who buys the dog-eared issues that are missing the free gifts?), it has put me off purchasing as I was frequently finding that the magazines held nothing of interest for me within their pages.

 

I love rummaging through old copies of magazines in charity shops, model shops and preserved railways and frequently buy these for interesting articles and drawings; yes, these can be of questionable quality/accuracy but usually a good starting point. Another thing I've noticed is that in the past, layout articles usually contained much more information about how and why the layout operated, the locos built/purchased and sometimes even timetables/sequences. This is something that seems to be lacking from my modern layout articles which generally seem to follow the same basic formula.

 

When the N Gauge Society was having some production problems with their range of kits, the Journal was the only reason I continued my membership. I think that Grahame has turned a good 'membership' publication into an excellent one and seems to find the right balance of articles in every issue - I've yet to receive an issue that hasn't had a least one article of interest within its pages. Otherwise, my most frequently  purchased publication over the last few months is MRJ (thankfully available at each of the three WH Smiths in my area) and I've started taking an interest in Back Track as well.

[grahame]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Granted, the current RTR standards are in a different universe than those from the past, but am I alone in getting a bit bored at seeing so much of the same stuff in the model railway press, at shows and online? 

 

 

Yes, that is a current irritation and concern. But I wonder if there is more actual constructional modelling being undertaken than there seems. I'll give some thoughts as to why they are probably not as widely promoted.

 

• Firstly, it takes longer to get to a stage of 'completeness' and able to be shown (unlike RTR which is simply unpacked) so many such projects are in the construction stage.
• Many magazines these days prefer to display eye candy style images that RTR suits more readily and such imagery is quickly consumed requiring a constant and regular turnover.
• Perhaps the average quality/finish of the models is lower than RTR so the builders (and publishers) are less inclined to promote it.
• Modelling something a little different (not RTR/RTP) is usually less mainstream and not considered interesting and attractive.
• Maybe those who make such models are more fearful of the righteous indignation and castigation that often follows for suggesting and promoting constructional modelling.
• And/or that much such modelling is more likely featured in specialist scale societies/clubs publications and at similar exhibitions rather than the commercial monthlies and generalist shows. 

 

Or maybe that the core of those undertaking it has significantly shrunk.

 

G

 

 

[uax6]

13 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

'Proper modelling', Andy,

 

Great stuff! 

 

Well I thought I should prove I have actually done something:

 

The repaired rods:

 

The slidebars soldered to the inside of the cylinders:

 

The cylinders soldered to the chassis:

The body on showing the width of the cylinders:

 

Looks much better for having the cylinders in about the right location, rather than another 1.5mm further out.

 

Andy G

 

[St Enodoc]

I must put in a good word here for the Railway Modeller (other model railway magazines are available). Over the past year or two, Steve Flint has increased significantly the number of articles on how to 'do' things including regular appearances of scale drawings. Just looking at the January 2019 issue - the most recent that I have read - there is an illustrated artcle on making landscapes from corrugated card in a way that was new to me; an illustrated article on making loads for open wagons; scale drawings of Hull and Barnsley goods wagons (one of a series on that railway's equipment), an illustrated article on building a cassette storage yard in N gauge; an illustrated article on modifying RTR vehicles to make a freelance military train; and an illustrated article on re-liverying (if there is such a word) a Hornby 2-8-0T to represent one of those on the Dartmouth Steam Railway. I've stressed "illustrated" here because all these articles make good use of the techniques available to users of digital cameras, to which Tony alluded earlier. I think that this is a pretty good selection, which is all in addition to 9 layout descriptions of various scales and sizes plus a couple of general feature articles and the usual range of reviews.

 

What else exactly do folk want to see, or not?

[Enterprisingwestern]

13 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

What else exactly do folk want to see, or not?

 

Nail, head, hit.

An impossible question to answer I think.

The world of instant gratification has a lot of responsibility for some people not knowing what they want, even when they've got it.

 

Mike.

[grahame]

2 minutes ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

The world of instant gratification has a lot of responsibility for some people not knowing what they want, even when they've got it.

 

 

Yep, and maybe that instant of gratification is so fleeting that like a drug they want more, more, more. And RTR provides those quick and easy hits.

 

G 

[Tony Wright]

55 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

I must put in a good word here for the Railway Modeller (other model railway magazines are available). Over the past year or two, Steve Flint has increased significantly the number of articles on how to 'do' things including regular appearances of scale drawings. Just looking at the January 2019 issue - the most recent that I have read - there is an illustrated artcle on making landscapes from corrugated card in a way that was new to me; an illustrated article on making loads for open wagons; scale drawings of Hull and Barnsley goods wagons (one of a series on that railway's equipment), an illustrated article on building a cassette storage yard in N gauge; an illustrated article on modifying RTR vehicles to make a freelance military train; and an illustrated article on re-liverying (if there is such a word) a Hornby 2-8-0T to represent one of those on the Dartmouth Steam Railway. I've stressed "illustrated" here because all these articles make good use of the techniques available to users of digital cameras, to which Tony alluded earlier. I think that this is a pretty good selection, which is all in addition to 9 layout descriptions of various scales and sizes plus a couple of general feature articles and the usual range of reviews.

 

What else exactly do folk want to see, or not?

I agree John,

 

What's also interesting (to me, at least) is that Steve is very happy to accept any constructional article I write (despite the recent flak!). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[thegreenhowards]

20 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

Things move on, and my time at BRM has passed. When I was full-time at the magazine, part of my responsibilities was to produce an article, at least every couple of months which included some 'challenging' material. I'm certainly not saying 'high brow' (I've never been involved with anything like that!), but quite 'complex' modelling at times, and certainly the construction of some complicated kits or conversions. The last one was published a few months ago in the mag'; my building of an ACE P2 (challenging' is the right description). I asked last week whether there'd been any 'reaction' to it, good or bad? 'Nothing at all' was the reply to my question. Thus, I can conclude that an article on building the likes of a large (and complex) locomotive is no longer of interest to current BRM readers. 

Tony,

 

That ACE P2 article was at the 'more difficult' end of the spectrum. However, you also wrote the J6 article in December's RM. This kit is a good starter kit and I, for one, found the article useful in building mine. Have you had any reaction to that article?

 

On the subject of brass sides on donor coaches, I found your two articles from 2006 and 2015 inspirational and they started a whole fleet of such conversions which I find very enjoyable. I attach a photo of my latest three conversions in progress. These are a Thompson RSO which will fit in my Talisman rake replacing a Comet RSP which currently (incorrectly) resides there, and the SK with Ladies Retiring Room and Buffet to complete my 1957 Elizabethan rake (it currently runs in 1958 formation with 8 Thompsons and two Mark 1s). 

 

These are all Southern Pride sides, which I consider the best, and I would definitely recommend them for a beginner. For a start Thompsons are easier than Gresleys because they have a wider strip above the window which aids attachment to the donor. The Southern pride sides come pre rolled to shape which is a great help, and with all the extra bits you need such as step boards, roof furniture and door furniture (although I often use MJT door handles as they are more robust). They are also excellent value for money at £8-£9 per coach (no connection etc...).

 

One word of warning, the more observant amongst you might notice that the bottom side has some rippled paintwork around the transfers. I used Microscale Liquid Decal Film to fix the transfers, and this reacted to the gloss (car) varnish I used over the top. I tried sanding it back and re-varnishing, but I think this one will need to be stripped back and repainted. Luckily I tested this on one side before I varnished the others!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

[Tony Wright]

18 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

Tony,

 

That ACE P2 article was at the 'more difficult' end of the spectrum. However, you also wrote the J6 article in December's RM. This kit is a good starter kit and I, for one, found the article useful in building mine. Have you had any reaction to that article?

 

On the subject of brass sides on donor coaches, I found your two articles from 2006 and 2015 inspirational and they started a whole fleet of such conversions which I find very enjoyable. I attach a photo of my latest three conversions in progress. These are a Thompson RSO which will fit in my Talisman rake replacing a Comet RSP which currently (incorrectly) resides there, and the SK with Ladies Retiring Room and Buffet to complete my 1957 Elizabethan rake (it currently runs in 1958 formation with 8 Thompsons and two Mark 1s). 

 

These are all Southern Pride sides, which I consider the best, and I would definitely recommend them for a beginner. For a start Thompsons are easier than Gresleys because they have a wider strip above the window which aids attachment to the donor. The Southern pride sides come pre rolled to shape which is a great help, and with all the extra bits you need such as step boards, roof furniture and door furniture (although I often use MJT door handles as they are more robust). They are also excellent value for money at £8-£9 per coach (no connection etc...).

 

One word of warning, the more observant amongst you might notice that the bottom side has some rippled paintwork around the transfers. I used Microscale Liquid Decal Film to fix the transfers, and this reacted to the gloss (car) varnish I used over the top. I tried sanding it back and re-varnishing, but I think this one will need to be stripped back and repainted. Luckily I tested this on one side before I varnished the others!

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

In contrast to the lack of response to the P2 article in BRM, I've had a most-encouraging response to the J6 article, Andy,

 

Which might indicate several things, including.....................

 

Readers of the RM are much more interested in an article on loco kit-building than those of BRM (though many read both, I'm sure).

The P2 piece was considered too complicated for the 'general' readership of BRM, and that the J6 piece was considered more of a 'starter-level' type. 

Maybe the J6 piece would have generated an interest in BRM as well had I placed it there.

RM's readership is more broadly-based than BRM's. Certainly, Dave Ellis at SE Finecast reported an increase in sales of the kit after the RM article was published. In contrast, Paul Barker at Millholme Models, after my piece was published in BRM on building his just-released 2P kit some little time ago, reported NO (yes no) sales at all. Until that is a month or so ago, when someone picked up a second-hand copy of the relevant issue, and promptly bought two of the kits! 

 

Who knows? Though I do find it a bit depressing that a mainsteam model railway publication (and it's not alone in this) is no longer interested in an article on building a steam-outline metal kit. Whoever writes it.................

 

Time was, of course, when (almost) monthly a new loco kit would arrive at my door, with a request to 'Please build it and review it'. I used to pop it on the couch until opening it later, whereupon our cat at the time would sleep on it! David Brown and John Emerson grabbed what I wrote with both hands, the manufacturer(s) were usually happy, took out an advert and there was always a subsequent readers' response (almost always positive). 

 

Now, it seems to be almost all RTR/RTP, with the simplest of conversions at best, almost all at the level of the 'beginner'. Or, am I just being ultra-cynical as I get older? That said, if it results in more copy-sales (on which careers depend), then who am I to take issue with it?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

2 hours ago, Chamby said:

 

 

Maybe for us old lags, the need is not so great.  Those taking up the hobby more recently however will probably still appreciate foundational articles.  

 

They won’t be looking on the shelves of WH Smith though, but to newer media sources such as YouTube, where they can find video clips that are far more effective at demonstrating stuff than print/still photography will ever achieve.

 

Phil

Do many of those taking up the hobby more recently want the sort of model making foundation articles which many of those who contribute to this thread may have learned from in the past? Yes, how to create a landscape, apply scenic materials, etc. would be relevant, but only because it doesn't come assembled in a box.

 

Youtube, blogs and other pictorial sources provide educational platforms, but when some of the clips are about unboxing the RTR products, I really wonder if any somewhat more skill related material would be of interest, other than that without which they can build a layout.

 

I believe that there is an increasingly wide separation between the model makers and the model buyers. The former probably tend to research and create a long term project model layout based upon a real location or a prototype railway, even if the location is fictitious. Little Bytham, Retford, Brimsdown, Ambergate are just a few examples. The latter seem to go more into serial layout building, using the fewer skills they have developed more often and reusing their RTU products (and providing justification for buying more). Are the model buyers less satisfied with what they achieve and keep re-doing it, albeit at the same "level"?

[Clive Mortimore]

11 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Do many of those taking up the hobby more recently want the sort of model making foundation articles which many of those who contribute to this thread may have learned from in the past? Yes, how to create a landscape, apply scenic materials, etc. would be relevant, but only because it doesn't come assembled in a box.

 

Youtube, blogs and other pictorial sources provide educational platforms, but when some of the clips are about unboxing the RTR products, I really wonder if any somewhat more skill related material would be of interest, other than that without which they can build a layout.

 

I believe that there is an increasingly wide separation between the model makers and the model buyers. The former probably tend to research and create a long term project model layout based upon a real location or a prototype railway, even if the location is fictitious. Little Bytham, Retford, Brimsdown, Ambergate are just a few examples. The latter seem to go more into serial layout building, using the fewer skills they have developed more often and reusing their RTU products (and providing justification for buying more). Are the model buyers less satisfied with what they achieve and keep re-doing it, albeit at the same "level"?

Hi Jol

 

Unboxing videos are very helpful with today's complicated packaging. The number of times I have got the new toy home, proceeded to unpack it and then BANG as it hits the floor. 

 

Perhaps I should be doing a series of videos on "Bounce Testing Your New locomotive".