My initial impression...

[Miss Prism]

Do more articles on more complicated items of modelling. They do not have in one magazine issue. Copy MRJ and do parts in ongoing issues. If they are good they keep the punter buying the following months issues.

 

BRM's stated and understandable intention is to be purposely different from MRJ, both in content and market. And even MRJ doesn't seem to go in for many multi-parters these days. If one is after a serious blow-by-blow, one of Colin Parks' EMUs could fill up a whole year of any magazine. The spectrum (of subject depth treatment) is now very wide across the various media.

 

I'm a big fan of what Andy can do with a pic, albeit that it is unashamedly eye-candy. His 'eternally clear blue June' skies could do with a bit of variation perhaps, and an occasional robmcg-style 'threatening rain gloomy' might be adventurous, although at the risk of being more contentious with some readers. On steam effects, if there is to be steam, give it a bit of wellie:

 

[robmcg]

Careful, I'll steal that and use it in my upcoming Clan-72008-in-trouble on Ais Gill picture! <g>

[TheQ]

One for the typo collection: on page 4 Gloucester is mis-spelled.

 

The magazine now looks like a cross between Model Rail and Hornby Magazine with all the panels such as "Fact file", did-you-knows and other asides sprinkled through the articles.  Maybe I am a lone voice but I find this so irritating.  Even the idea of random quotes in larger type, such as "shows are the only time I get to play trains" on page 21, has been lifted from the competition.  Why?  Are there no more original ideas to be found?

 

It's a pity because there is some good stuff amid the cosmetics and some of the photography is stunning.  Howard Smith's article on doing up a Corgi is marred only by an ambiguous use of the apostrophe: did the Peugeot belong to one or both parents?!  The layout plans are welcome and well executed.  Phil Parker has brought some good ideas with him and I liked the way he encourages kit-building.

 

I dare say we will all get used to the new look.but for now it comes across to me as a missed opportunity. 

 

Chris [infected by typos!]

 You are NOT alone I concure completely, I was also deeply irritated by the "one we made earlier"  and "turnover to the next page to see"  stamped all over the place, both totally pointless remarks and a waste of ink . Everything on every page was made earlier, and if we don't know to turn the page to read the next piece we'd never get past the front cover!!

 Whilst at least there are less headline duplications than before, it looks to me to be  a general dumbing down in the production magazine layout.

The Q

[Enterprisingwestern]

Talking of the front cover, where is the price, or is BRM free now?

 

Mike.

[Andy Y]

Talking of the front cover, where is the price, or is BRM free now?

 

Mike.

 

Therein hangs a tale; shop purchasers have some added value with an extra sticker this month.

[Enterprisingwestern]

Therein hangs a tale; shop purchasers have some added value with an extra sticker this month.

Subsidised by us poor saps with subscriptions then?

 

Mike.

[Mike Bellamy]

. . . shop purchasers have some added value with an extra sticker this month.

 

 . . . . but what about the plastic bag - oh! sorry wrong topic  

[Andy Y]

Nah; sales of stickers are subsidising our poly bags.

[Andy Y]

His 'eternally clear blue June' skies could do with a bit of variation perhaps, and an occasional robmcg-style 'threatening rain gloomy' might be adventurous, 

 

I do agree on this one, Steve wanted some blue skies compared to my original broken cloud (taken in North Notts) shown in Redgate's earlier pic with the Spit. It's one of my daft foibles to include a sky which has been taken in the vicinity of the model's location. I've got some 'interesting' skies coming up in future months, including some night skies.

[Bernard Lamb]

For those with specific learning difficulties the choice of colour can make the difference between being able to read it and not being able to do so. I actually had to give up on one car magazine about ten years ago for sometime because their choices of text and background colour made it impossible to read.

I would not say I have specific learning difficulties but I do find some colours disturbing. On an ancient version of the forum I did write to Andy as I found a particular shade of blue gave me a headache.

Going back to the time when I printed wedding photographs I would always keep them on the warm side, colour temperature wise, rather than show any hint of blue. I did once print a Kodak Bride of the Month competition winner so I do know something about producing pleasing photographs.

Looking at the example photograph. To my eyes while the sky is a vast improvement the foreground has been wrecked. That green tinge from an industrial town has gone. The murkiness in the shadows has been lost in the brightening. It just looks so artificial. But then a Constable landscape is wrong, in respect of the use of different lighting for individual elements of the picture. His trees can be a morning view while the clouds might have been sketched in early evening.

A subject on which you will never get agreement.

Looking forward to seeing the mag.

Bernard

[Tony Wright]

May I thank the one commentator for his praise of the close-up photos in some of the reviews in the relaunched BRM? May I also thank The Stationmaster for his praise of the writing of my reviews? His point about copying the visual style of MR is valid, though, I imagine the writing style is different. I'm sure he knows that I've been providing reviews, the literal like of which have manifest themselves in the current issue, namely the LMS twins and the 4F, for over 20 years? How old anyone was in the MR team in 1990, I really don't know (with the exception of Chris Leigh, and I'm older than him) but if anyone has been copying a style of conducting an in-depth review, then may I suggest it's the other way round? I'm sure he also knows that, as a freelance photo-journalist, I've written new-product reviews for every model railway magazine since 1990 (many for Model Rail in the past), with the exception of the RM and MRJ (though I've had several articles published in both where I've reviewed kits or used kits). I'd been writing general articles in the model press for more than a decade before that. I state the above as matters of fact, not, I hope, in an arrogant fashion. If the visual style has changed over the years (or more recently), then that's not been up to me. Anyway, even if it's a more 'trendy' visual style, with highlighted 'bubbles' and the like, shouldn't it be the quality of the photography and the accuracy of review which are paramount, and I'm abstracting myself from claiming credit here? I personally think the pages of my reviews were well-designed (at least with regard to the modern approach), but, I admit, I'm not too much of a fan of quote marks or boldly-highlighted points of importance. I think stuff like that can insult the intelligence of the reader. But, which sells more - The Sun or the Times? As to dumbing-down, I learnt yesterday that standards of basic literacy and numeracy were lower amongst young people in the UK than almost all equivalent developed nations. As an ex-teacher I'm not surprised, but it does make you wonder which way all publications will be heading in the near future.  

 

Other than the Hornby and RM reviews of the Bachmann 4F, I've not seen any others. I hope nobody suggests BRM copies Hornby's practice of out-of-focus pictures and a 'rushed' review style, in my opinion. Since, as admitted, I haven't seen MR's review of the 4Fs (I assume they've done it), did its team review all three manifestations of the class? If not, how is BRM copying that mag's review, other than visually? I also haven't seen MR's review of the Bachmann Ivatt diesels, but how similar is BRM's to that? Is it a copy? Through RMWeb I've learned that the roof above the cab might be slightly wrong, and that MR picked up on this. If it is, and I missed it, then my apologies. But, did Ben Jones (consummate professional that he is) notice the incorrect spelling of 'bulit' on the worksplate of 10000, the differences between the bufferbeams, the addition of boxes for an electrical shore supply on 10001 and the different arrangement of cornice rivets. If he did, then well done, because it took me hours of research.

 

With regard to the product review photographs, other than taking out a background to pure white (not in every case), I can assure readers that the pictures have had the minimum of Photoshopping - no more than the digital equivalent of the dodging and burning-in I used to do in my darkroom when really good photography required high-quality (medium or large format) cameras, high-quality enlargers and no computer skills. I still use a high-quality digital camera (a Nikon D3) with a specialist lens (a 55mm Micro), which enables me to focus to within half an inch of a subject (how else do you think I was able to spot the mis-spelling on the plate?) and stops down to below F32 for maximum depth of field. If anyone has copied my style of product photography, I'm flattered, but I can assure readers that I haven't copied anyone. 

 

I've been told by manufacturers that I'm the only reviewer who sends out a copy before publication. Not to give a manufacturer a right to have anything changed, but to give them a right to reply. If this is true, which other magazine is BRM copying, review-wise? 

Right now I'm doing most of BRM's product photography (though I'm not always credited). In the last issue, the pictures of the Golden Age 'MNs' were mine. If, by producing razor-sharp imagery, well-lit, with everything in focus, I'm copying someone else, then I can only say it's Brian Monaghan. I don't know how old Chris Nevard is (he's a brilliant photographer, by the way) but I bought my medium/large format camera equipment in 1990, so if I'm copying him then I can only say he must have been a child prodigy!

So, please, though I'm not asking for praise, at least give me the credit for copying no other model railway publication in my photographic style or my journalistic style. With regard to the latter, how many other reviewers have been threatened with legal action over what they've had published? 

 

Historically, BRM has always been the magazine which had the most thorough reviews. It's my intention to carry on in this manner for the future. However, you won't see my mugshot in the mag, nor a brief description of who I am. That is one development I don't agree with at all - I think it's puerile. Do we really need to know what a team looks like or know its pedigree? The words and pictures should describe and show everything that's necessary.

 

I know over-long posts are to be discouraged, so my apologies on this score, but I hope I've given some clarification.

[Mallard60022]

I like the new BRM; change is as good as a rest IMO. I think the on line version might be better value, but I like to sniff the pages when I first get the mag; (yes, I'm bonkers and weird and sad and old and I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks).

Tony Wright's reviews and comments are always superb. The style is comfortable, reliable and readable and the language and grammatical construct used is top class - to be admired by those like myself that have limited skill in literacy.

I'd like to buy all MR mags. Occasionally I buy MRJ, Toddler and Hornby mags because there is an article that is of interest. I'm sorry to say I've not bought others for a long while. 

Well done BRM. 

(Can I have my free loco now please?)

Quack.

[dibber25]

I'm old fashioned and consider it 'bad form' to comment on someone else's competing magazine and I'm certain my employers would not be happy if I did. Just to say, in response to Tony's post, that there was no Model Rail team in 1990. We started work on it in 1996 and launched in 1997, when I was aged 51. Whilst I wouldn't wish to get into a 'who can p higher up the wall' contest, I have just written my 50th anniversary piece for Model Rail, in which I recall starting work for Model Railway Constructor in autumn 1963. My first review was written a year or so later and my reviews in the years since, have always been based on MRC principles. I encouraged those whom I have taught since, including the present MR team, to do the same.

CHRIS LEIGH

(edited to add three sentences)

[micklner]

BRM's stated and understandable intention is to be purposely different from MRJ, both in content and market. And even MRJ doesn't seem to go in for many multi-parters these days. If one is after a serious blow-by-blow, one of Colin Parks' EMUs could fill up a whole year of any magazine. The spectrum (of subject depth treatment) is now very wide across the various media.

 

I'm a big fan of what Andy can do with a pic, albeit that it is unashamedly eye-candy. His 'eternally clear blue June' skies could do with a bit of variation perhaps, and an occasional robmcg-style 'threatening rain gloomy' might be adventurous, although at the risk of being more contentious with some readers. On steam effects, if there is to be steam, give it a bit of wellie:

 

q6-altered.jpg

What exactly is BRM remember its tile is " British Railway Modelling"  intention or remit  then please? I have no idea at the moment , it would appear to little actual modelling and become a Arty picture magazine. What has the second point  got to do with modelling ??

 

Perhaps its aimed becoming a  beginners only magazine? I never suggested articles that ran for a year and I have never seen anything in MRJ longer than 3 parts. I understand it has to cater for all types but i think its going to far the other way instead of mainly covering the middle ground of modelling experience and interests.

[Markeg]

I will have to wait till it arrives in OZ, which will be in 6 to 8 weeks time.  I do not subscribe to BRM, but Hornby and Model Rail which I will not be renewing the later when up for renewal.  I have bought BRM when it has something that interests me.  I am fortunate that a friend buys BRM, Model Rail and RM and the O gauge guild gazette.  So we do a swap.

 

All the best to the BRM team in this new style and I look forward to seeing it.  I may even buy it.

 

Mark in OZ

[Tony Wright]

My thanks to Chris Leigh for his comments.

 

Firstly, I should point out that I am no longer an employee of Warners/BRM, and was thus stating my personal opinion (in the way that hundreds of others do on this site every day). 

 

Secondly, I did not imply that the Model Rail team was in place in 1990, merely speculating on how old they'd have been at the time. Perhaps I should have worded the section better. By the way, my first work for Model Rail was when it was as a supplement to the prototype magazine from the same publishing stable. Phil Sutton commissioned me on a few occasions to take photographs of diesel/electric-outline layouts.

 

I might add that I have the greatest respect for all at Model Rail (and know them as friends). If my comments were perceived as criticisms then that was not implied or intended. My point was to illustrate the differences between relative reviews, in the light of comments made on this thread. And, I'm probably as old-fashioned (if not more so) as anyone else in this hobby.

[Kenton]

 

For the sake of those who believe such content should remain unadulterated here's a comparative shot to show what you'd have had at best in years gone by, please believe me that this is a better background than you'd frequently see!

Thanks for an honest comparison. The background retouch is to some extent excusable as it has nothing to do with the modelling. But the smoke is intrusive it simply is not and would not be there on the model. I don't know if other parts of the image have also been doctored but it certainly looks like it - the lighting just looks artificial, and to me simply wrong, and the track bed as if it has been painted it. The whole image has that viewed through a frosty glass look - some may like this and it is certainly very arty almost watercolour painting in appeal but it simply looks wrong to me. It becomes more to do with an appreciation of photographic art than an appreciation of a model. If retouching the background results in all the other effects I'd rather the background be left as is and a raw photo taken. I can appreciate arty photography but not when presenting modelling.

[Andy Y]

It's intended to show the modelling with the greatest clarity. It's bizarre that this has got to the level where people don't want to see any detail in shadows etc. None of that is anything to do with being 'arty'. Smoke is a different matter and if you bought the mag you'd see it's only used in selected shots.

 

Modellers aspire to produce something that looks as realistic as possible and they have an input in whether there are any smoke effects which lend some dynamism to a 2D record of 3D modelling.

[James]

I did not imply that the Model Rail team was in place in 1990

I think it was just Phil at that time who was the 'team'.

 

By the way, my first work for Model Rail was when it was as a supplement to the prototype magazine from the same publishing stable.

I thought it was a shame when the original 'ModelRAIL' disappeared - even know there was some great stuff in there!

 

I would not say I have specific learning difficulties but I do find some colours disturbing. On an ancient version of the forum I did write to Andy as I found a particular shade of blue gave me a headache.

Dyslexia and associated things can be quite complex - it may be that you have some visual sensitivity issues but are simply not dyslexic!

 

It's not simple 'word blindness' or poor spelling thing which many people assume it is - it is essentially just a reflection of different people's brains process the information they see.

[Miss Prism]

Historically, BRM has always been the magazine which had the most thorough reviews.

I'd beg to differ on that one. Although I haven't read it for quite a while now, so cannot make a comparison with BRM's more recent efforts, the reviews in Railway Express Modeller in its early years beat the pants off all the other mags when it came to diesel and electric releases. Admittedly, the REM reviews were considerably longer and therefore more expansive than could be given in the more mainstream mags, but they addressed chassis aspects (for example) that other magazines weren't mentioning at the time. REM's critical, and in some cases highly critical, stance toward D&E products got it into hot water occasionally, but to their credit they stuck to their guns, and I think they genuinely raised the bar in what modellers, or at least a section of their community they were attempting to give voice to, were expecting manufacturers to achieve.

 

 

[Phil Parker]

I don't mind the built to a timeline type of article (it is a different perspective) and anything to set it apart from a Model Rail clone. Do it with a brass kit and help folk understand it is not an overnight task.

 

But if you are going to have this type of article it really has to be achievable by Mr beginner/Mr average modeller and not what a guru can do when locked in a quiet room with someone threatening to smash his most cherished toy if the deadline is not met. AFAIC Good idea but room for improvement.

 

To pick up on the 2 hour Challenge comments, the idea is to counter the common complaint that, “I don't have the time for...”, something I hear at shows from visitors constantly. If you can complete something in a couple of hours hopefully this spurs you on to tackle the slightly longer jobs. It's also another way to get some kitbuilding rather than “buy'n'plonk” into the mag, something I'm personally very keen on.

 

What I don't understand is how building a Wills kit capable to being stuck together in about half an hour by anyone who can work out which end of the tube glue comes out of be counted as a project only achievable by a guru in a quiet room. I'd be fascinated to know how you come to that conclusion. The models will all perfectly achievable in the time-frame, even allowing for a tea break. It takes me a little longer because I have to keep stopping to take photos but not much.

 

And no-one is threatening any of my cherished toys.

[James]

the reviews in Railway Express Modeller in its early years beat the pants off all the other mags when it came to diesel and electric releases.

Definately!

 

It's intended to show the modelling with the greatest clarity.

I think the 'after' is too sharp - so it almost 'hurts' your eyes as it appears rather un-natural. And I'm pretty sure that good modelling doesn't need heavily processed photos to best present it. And if anything the example with the 4F highlights a couple of missing bits - notably point rodding. But worse it has change the apparent textures - I personally think that getting textures right really adds to a model's appearance, but this is lost through the processing. The before shot shows the ballast being quite mute and soft. Which looks right to me, but the processed one with it's heavy sharpening, makes it appear sharp and jagged and too prominent.

 

This was taken yesterday and shows what I mean about the ballast. It is modern CWR with large pieces of ballast, and from a 'normal viewing distance' (which the signalbox provided!) it still isn't that prominent.

 

66009 hurries passed Broomfleet with 6H28 by JamesWells, on Flickr

[James]

To pick up on the 2 hour Challenge comments, the idea is to counter the common complaint that, “I don't have the time for...”, something I hear at shows from visitors constantly. If you can complete something in a couple of hours hopefully this spurs you on to tackle the slightly longer jobs. It's also another way to get some kitbuilding rather than “buy'n'plonk” into the mag, something I'm personally very keen on.

This is in a similar vein -

 

http://albionyard.wordpress.com/fifteen-minute-heroes/

 

Well worth a look and shows what little things can be done in very short spaces of time. Quite good for those working long hours with pet humans to consider at home too!

[Andy Y]

This was taken yesterday and shows what I mean about the ballast. 

 

That's obviously taken from a much higher angle where the ballast detail is less prominent. So if I take an image from a similar angle the ballast will be similarly less prominent.

 

 

The fact there's no point-rodding in the earlier pic would be just as obvious no matter which angle it's taken from but at least viewers get a glimpse under the station canopy.

 

I honestly think we're getting to nit-picking levels now.

[BlackRat]

It certainly seems now that the camera can lie........and perhaps we just need to view any pics with that in mind.

 

Digi close ups can be quite ruthless, something we need to be aware of, sometimes picking up things which we can't see from a 'normal' viewing point.

 

A need for subtle manipulation then, as I would rather that than some bare back of platforms (like on mine).

 

Point rodding is a good point (sorry) in question as now we really do have to have a go, as close ups of signal boxes etc now look awful if there's no interior or rodding coming out of the bottom of the box.

 

So are we going for highly super detailed layouts where we have to model everything to the nth degree or do we go for the stand off like many military and ship modellers do?

 

To me, the balance with time is somewhere inbetween, and if anything is going to be glaringly obvious by its faults or omissions, a little digi airbrushing won't hurt that much, will it?