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

[chris p bacon]

Rubbish - I've never said I 'don't like' commercial magazines. In fact I subscribe to some and selectively purchase others. I even contribute to them.

 

But if we are making suggestions of articles that fit the 'gap' between the commercial mainstream and the fine-scale market sectors it's no good to then to apply the commercial magazine requirements and replace words with pictures and edit them to only be appropriate for beginners and RTR enthusiasts.

 

G.

 

If you go back to Phils original question it was for articles that would fit in a magazine that sat between MRJ and the Mainstream not for the Mainstream.

 

You were still having a dig.

Edited September 8, 2017 by chris p bacon

[kandc_au]

Can't we have a sensible discussion without bitching and accusations.

Maybe one or the other has misread what was said or written.

Unfortunately this discussion is going the way of some Facebook groups.

 

Khris

[Captain Kernow]

Point taken, but they weren't quite as good as Mr. Fesank.

Wasn't B. Fesank a real person, then?

[Compound2632]

On topic but related to the foregoing: for me, the ideal magazine article (or RMweb topic, for that matter) shows me (a) modelling of a high standard and (b) how it was achieved in a way that leaves me thinking, I could try that. 98% of the time I won't actually do so - usually because it's not directly relevant to my modelling interests at the time (unless distracted...*) That's what early MRJ had in spades - inspiration. That was, largely, due to the talents of the contributors both as modellers and communicators. I doubt there's a magic formula - more a happy conjunction of individuals and circumstances. Most model railway magazines I look through have at least something in each issue that works for me like that but MRJ continues to be the only one I subscribe to.

 

*I didn't want a SECR H Class 0-4-4T then and have resisted pre-ordering one now; nevertheless I look back at that pair of articles as one of the highlights of early MRJ. (I do have an unfinished Craftsman MR 0-4-4T and have pre-ordered...)

Edited September 8, 2017 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

Wasn't B. Fesank a real person, then?

Nom de plume, for reasons I am not at liberty to explain. Likewise his real identity...

[Regularity]

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.

 

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.

 

Simon is so on the ball. A good magazine will probably sell quite well to purchasers of existing magazines without affecting their sales.

Which brings me back to my challenge for people to suggest actual articles they would like to read. The results after nearly two days are: none.

 

Do you remember "Modeller's Backtrack"? In the very first issue, the editorial "leader" clearly stated a lack of direction, and asking for the readers to define it. I am frankly surprised that it didn't fold sooner.

 

People buy magazines because they feel it speaks to them. This requires the publisher to know what the target audience is, and to then tailor the style and content to meet that target audience, and to know how to get to them: high street newsagents (national distribution required), model shops and railway book shops (by sending boxes via a parcel company?), WWW, etc.

 

If you (or anyone) sit around waiting for people to tell you what they want before proceeding, then you will stay sat down.

 

Magazines get produced in response to a clearly identified need, but the producers of the magazine need to work out how they are going to do that, and how they are going to do it without losing money.

We are simply engaged in a circular "blue sky" thinking discussion where everyone wants "something" to be done, but can't actually pin down "something" in any meaningful way.

 

It's like great sex: hard to put it into words, but you know it when it happens.

(Or have a really good memory...)

I'm not surprised, the model railway world has moved on a great deal from the early days of MRJ. You would be less likely to do a Rice style re-working of a 14xx now, most people just buy the Hattons/DJM version instead and there are loads of similar examples.

 

Which is scary, as it isn't any great improvement on the Airfix/Hornby model.

 

Imagine you are presenting your proposal to a panel such as Dragon's Den.

 

Have information on (in no particular order):

1) the size of your target audience;

2) the content you intend to include;

3) the style you will use in communicating with your audience;

4) how you intend to publish the magazine (existing publisher, new publisher, self-publish);

5) how often you intend to publish;

6) how many authors you have lined up for the next year;

7) how you intend to distribute;

8) how you will create the magazine - publishing software, etc;

9) anticipated advertising revenue;

10) production and distribution costs;

11) break-even schedule (time and volume);

12) money in the bank/backing/sources of funding until break even point;

13) how the magazine is to be run - the role of the publisher, the duties of the editor;

14) how to cope with customer churn, as you can't please all the people all of the time.

 

Compared to that lot, content is a small part of the picture, but without a clear idea about the type of what, and more importantly about the how, nothing can happen.

 

If you, or anyone, thinks there is a reasonable chance to fill a gap, then ask yourself why you think there is such a gap, and what it is that is missing. Chances are, what works for you, will work for others.

 

That is how Bob Barlow often got people to write articles: by insisting that if he was interested, then so would others be. That is a massive compliment, and hard to argue against if delivered with sincerity.

 

And the only way to be sincere, is to know what you want to achieve, and not rely on others' opinions.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Regularity

[brack]

"That is how Bob Barlow often got people to write articles: by insisting that if he was interested, then do would others be. That is a massive compliment, and hard to argue against if delivered with sincerity."

 

Thats pretty much exactly what my rather more verbose comment earlier was getting at. You need someone with enough conviction and charisma to a) know what they want to have in their magazine and b) find people doing those things and convince them to write something. The best magazines tend to be associated with a known strong personality for that reason. Something put together by committee to try and appeal to all will be bland and less interesting almost by definition. It'll put less people off and get a decent amount of money in, but I don't think such a magazine will get a devoted following or excite anyone, and the back issues will likely be as valuable and useful as last week's free paper.

Edited September 8, 2017 by brack

[BR60103]

I am finding more and more that I look at a magazine on the rack and wonder whether I have bought it -- are the articles ones I've read or are they just like the ones I've read.*

There are an awful lot of pictures of layouts that might actually be pictures of the prototype and not many of the underside of the baseboard. We're all in this together and most of us understand that there's an end to the backscene ... somewhere.

 

Articles I'd like? A long series on "Removing Material" covering everything from sawing lumber through lathes and files down to sand and emery paper (wet-and-dry sandpaper--when do we use it wet?)

 

*I just sorted out my MRJ collection and found 3 duplicate issues -- that's the price of a coach! I just gave away my duplicate copy of #0.

[chris p bacon]

I just sorted out my MRJ collection and found 3 duplicate issues -- that's the price of a coach! I just gave away my duplicate copy of #0.

 

Sam here with a couple of copies, I put them on Ebay and got a few quid back (enough. for a wagon kit)

[Arun Sharma]

Moving around the topic a bit [and following a perusal of MRJ 257] I think, in no particular order, the journals that have really impressed me over the past few years have been:

MORILL - defunct,

Modeller's Backtrack - defunct

MRJ,

Finescale Review- defunct

Rail Model Digest- defunct

MRC - defunct

RM

 

Leaving aside the obvious fact that most of these magazines are defunct, they have/had a certain common editorial ethos & style.

They struck me as being geared to modellers who wanted to make things - To that end there was no shortage of prototype information/photographs as well as large diagrams. Many of the MRCs [especially those edited by SW Stevens-Stratten] also contained drawings of road vehicles [as well as railway rolling stock] drawn to a standard of draughtsmanship that remains entirely acceptable today. Indeed it seems to me that the absence of drawings suitable for scratchbuilders/RTR converters/kitbashers in today's magazines [less MRJ & RM] perhaps reflects an editorial self-fulfilling prophecy that readers are no longer prepared to build anything other than background scenery nowadays.

I also note that the specialist scale journals such as the Gauge0Guild Gazette and Scalefour Journal have retained drawings and articles relating to kit building/converting rather than concentrating on respraying and building scenery. Whilst that may reflect the relative lack of RTR rolling stock/locos in those scales I believe these editors are fighting back against an encroaching blandness and poverty of imagination amongst proponents of our hobby.

Edited September 9, 2017 by ted675

[Junctionmad]

Just bring back " the constructor " I miss MRC

[Compound2632]

Moving around the topic a bit [and following a perusal of MRJ 257] I think, in no particular order, the journals that have really impressed me over the past few years have been:

MORILL - defunct,

Modeller's Backtrack - defunct

MRJ,

Finescale Review- defunct

Rail Model Digest- defunct

MRC - defunct

RM

 

Leaving aside the obvious fact that most of these magazines are defunct, they have/had a certain common editorial ethos & style.

 

Why do we suppose these magazines failed but MRJ continues? (Setting aside the special case of Finescale Review.)

[Regularity]

Why do we suppose these magazines failed but MRJ continues? (Setting aside the special case of Finescale Review.)

Don't even think of going there.

[chris p bacon]

Don't even think of going there.

 

Where?

[Bernard Lamb]

Thirty years or so ago who would have predicted that MRJ would still be going strong, while the power station just down the road would be nothing more than a pile of dust.

Funny old world isn't it.

Bernard

[kevinlms]

I suspect one reason there are fewer scale drawings about these days is that there are fewer people are capable of drawing them. It's rather like finding someone capable of making a master for casting purposes - they exist, but are increasingly rare, like clog makers.

 

There's nothing I like better than a good drawing. Even if it's of something I have no prospect of ever wanting to build. The best place to find them though is in old magazines, including old magazines relating to the prototype. New ones are few and far between.

Just catching up with this discussion. I was under the impression that drawings were easier to create these days with CAD. Certainly some magazines depict lovely full colour plans of owners layouts, or details of modifications to rtr or kits. Sometimes they are by magazine staff, but often not.

 

Sorry, but I'm not one that can master drawing,always has been beyond me!

 

However, I suspect part of the problem is that many drawings in magazines create a series of letters/emails pointing out errors or omissions and end up putting would be draftsmen off.

 

But I never see comments made, where the supplied track plan of an author's layout misses out an essential crossover.

 

 

Edit to make more sense.

Edited September 12, 2017 by kevinlms

[Poggy1165]

Funnily enough I have just been looking at a practical example of a drawing with errors, and a letter in the next edition which corrected those errors. I am equally obliged to he that drew the drawing and he that troubled to write with the correction. Though a moment's glance at a photograph would have served just as well as the latter.

 

I do think though (and this is true of articles in general as well as drawings) that many potential authors are indeed put off by the fear of criticism. Because one thing the model railway world does not lack is its full share of critics. But critics are not necessarily a Bad Thing, if they offer new information. The ones that just carp are another matter.

[Regularity]

The ones that just carp are another matter.

They're not critics, in the best sense of the word.

There is another word for them: it is an anagram of Newark. (No offence intended to inhabitants of said ancient borough.)

[Regularity]

There has been the same managing editor since issue 0, Paul Karau. Whoever the editor is, be they guest editor or permanent as in the past, the way the magazine is designed and put together has changed little. Long may it continue that way.

Jerry

Paul is the publisher and owner: that is his primary role.

Whether or not he is also the managing editor is another matter - de facto, he is, but he doesn't have to be.

 

I agree that the way the magazine is designed and created is something to cherish - I am not disagreeing with you, but it is well to distinguish between what is, and what happens to be.

[queensquare]

Paul is the publisher and owner: that is his primary role.

Whether or not he is also the managing editor is another matter - de facto, he is, but he doesn't have to be.

I agree that the way the magazine is designed and created is something to cherish - I am not disagreeing with you, but it is well to distinguish between what is, and what happens to be.

I'm afraid you've lost me completely there

 

Jerry

[Regularity]

PK owns Cygnet and MRJ, and also takes on the duties of managing editor - which are not the same as publisher or owner - but he doesn't have to.

 

I think you have confused what Paul is, with what he does*. As things stand, they are the same thing, but they don't have to be.

 

My original point was - in the absence of any knowledge of the situation as I am not part of the MRJ inner sanctum, or indeed of any sanctum - that without a permanent editor, some of the creative tension/kicking around of ideas will be absent. Thus may or may not be an issue, but I personally think it shows at times and having a permanent person would help support greater continuity. A good captain benefits from a good first officer, that's all. I simply called the "first officer" managing editor.

 

I am not disagreeing with you about how things are, but suggesting how they might be arranged more smoothly.

 

* I have no desire to get into Socrates vs Sartre, with the addition of Sinatra, as in (respectively):

To be is to do.

To do is to be.

Dee-dooby-dooby do.

[Captain Kernow]

* I have no desire to get into Socrates vs Sartre, with the addition of Sinatra, as in (respectively):

To be is to do.

To do is to be.

Dee-dooby-dooby do.

Are you sure that the 'Dee' bit is strictly prototypical?

 

 

 

 

 

Edit - to add grown-up comment - having read a fair bit of this issue now, I'm very impressed. The Geoff Kent article on 'Herrings' is very informative (I'd forgotten about the Cambrian kit), and Brettall Lane is just sublime.

Edited September 13, 2017 by Captain Kernow

[BlackRat]

Welcome back.

[Regularity]

Are you sure that the 'Dee' bit is strictly prototypical?

I was distracted, thinking of sausages from the Dee Valley.

 

No criticism of Geoff Kent, but I drifted off to sleep whilst reading about the herrings. Unfortunately I was in the bath at the time, so my shoal of herrings went for a swim... (and I had to buy another copy. Doh!)

Edited September 14, 2017 by Regularity

[Captain Kernow]

I was distracted, thinking of sausages from the Dee Valley.

 

Thank you for that link. Unfortunately the 'page could not be found'. Perhaps they have sold out?