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

[gwrrob]

On the subject of articles, I have noticed an increasing tendency for layouts to be described by staff writers in conversation with the builder.  Is there any particular reason for this development?

 

Chris

 

Model Rail do a telephone interview with the layout owner for their articles whilst BRM and HM require you to put in writing with some guidance on what's required.

[Phil Parker]

Thanks, Phil.  It was Model Rail that I had in mind.  I do read BRM as well, honest guv [and Hornby Mag, and the Modeller, and MRJ ...]

 

Chris

I should hope so. There will be a quiz later...

[Andy Y]

The only reason we've done this in BRM is for an owner who dyslexia meant he didn't feel confident to write the article but whose layout we still wanted to bring to our readers. Generally though, we don't do this. You must be reading other magazines and would need to ask them. 

 

Generally we don't but I have just done a Q&A with Geoff Taylor to cover certain angles on the next instalment of his excellent ex-Cambrian empire to fit in with other content in that issue of BRM. Geoff's writing is top notch so I wouldn't want anyone thinking that was the case in this instance.

[Andrew Young]

I'm someone who buys their Model Mags by going into the Newsagents, perusing what's on offer and buying whichever issues have enough content that appeals to persuade me to part with my money, whether it's MRJ, RM, BRM, Hornby, Model Rail etc.

 

Whilst I Model in 7mm scale, the articles that make me buy a mag can be of any scale or region, it's usually the skills being talked about that could inspire that makes me spend my money combined with good quality photos and a debt photos / text balance. Sorry that's not more specific to aid the editors on here. But generally any article where some form of building or modifying has taken place rather than out of the box buildings or stock won't sell me your magazine. Some combination of building or bashing and the modeller putting their mark on the Model will get my vote. My favourite articles of late have been the ones in MRJ and RM about Penhydd and Llangunllo.

 

My biggest bug bears regardless of the quality within which won't see me buy your magazine are poor quality paper, afraid I've not bought BRM for a while because of this, was tempted by a recent issue in Smiffs but I couldn't bring myself to buy it, such was the feeling of the mag in my hand and putting the magazine in a plastic bag so I can't see what contents lie within. But best not to start that debate again...

 

Cheers,

Andrew

[brack]

in terms of finding content, the few articles I've written were all where editors contacted me out of the blue (emails, forum messages etc) and asked me to write something about a loco I'd built.

For my Review article there were several emails back and forth to Bob Barlow to make sure he'd really seen what I make and definitely wanted an article - I certainly didn't class myself (and still don't) as being of the requisite standard for the magazine. I'm not sure how pleased other folk were to read it, but I didn't mind writing it when asked. The issue of good photos was solved by me dropping the loco off with Bob at an exhibition in order for him to get photos of it (little did I know he was giving it to Roy Link for the photos - I nearly died! - I knew he'd been working on a scratchbuilt 16mm model of a very similar loco for over a decade in order to try and get parts of it right). The loco arrived back via Royal Mail a couple of months later.

 

For another article I made the mistake of giving a new scratchbuilt loco an impromptu runabout on someone else's layout at an exhibition and was pretty much committed to writing a how to by those present at the time - you never know who is in the crowd.

 

The point here is that I wouldn't have ever put my own work forward for publication as to my mind I'm certainly not working at the very high standards I see (and enjoy reading about) in the magazines I get - generally I read them and it pushes me to work to a slightly less slapdash manner. If editors wish to see more varied content then I'd think that looking around forums and exhibitions they might find a lot of people who wouldn't have considered what they do worth writing about but who are prepared to contribute.

[grahame]

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.

 

 

I think you might have missed the point I made earlier. It's not so much suggesting new and different articles (and dreaming up a list however nice) but in how they are pitched. That's probably why you've not seen any here.

 

By your own admission articles tend to be simplified for the current main readership and thus targeted at beginners and RTR enthusiasts. This is borne out by your comments and others about the trend these days in commercial magazines to have less emphasis on explanation text and an increasing reliance on large pretty pictures and reviews to fill space. However, there is good basic content in magazines but it is limited in it's ambition and depth. That's probably why many these days browse in store before buying to see if there is anything that covers their modelling requirements (as well as region, era, scale, etc.,).

 

But if some of those existing articles were pitched at the market (that many seemed to have identified and agreed on - between the beginners sector and the fine-scale modeller sector for those who want to bash kits and improve their modelling but not to go the whole fine-scale hog of scratch-building track-work and compensated chassis from brass sheet) then the magazine will be more inclusive and appeal to a broader cross section of model railway enthusiasts. For example by covering more advanced specialist techniques/skills and finer detailing modelling. That's the type of articles I would like to see/read in magazines. IMO the real issue is for the magazines to rise to that challenge otherwise potential customers will go elsewhere such as MRJ, forums/internet and a greater reliance on specialist society membership magazines.

 

And surely the issue about some good modellers not being good writers is a bit of a red herring. Can't the editors bash the text in to shape and make it readable?

 

G. 

[Regularity]

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.

OK, I'll bite.

 

It isn't so much what, as how and why. Layouts are the lifeblood of the hobby, so I am interested not just in how - although I probably don't need to know how to make a box joint, just that they were used - but more in the inspiration and "philosophy" behind the layout. What was it about the prototype which inspired the builder? Which facets of the prototype were deemed more important than others, and how did they influence the layout (not track arrangement) design process? Was this a slow developmental path, or one of sudden revelation? If you want a great example, then look at the article on "Weekday Cross", MRJ 177, By Robert Sharp. Not a big layout, nor is it complicated, but it spoke of a time before [current, at least] living memory, and of how the builder's personal roots were entwined with the area that inspired the model. As one of my grandparents grew up in that area at roughly that time I felt a personal connection with the scene.

 

But also pieces like Philip Hall's article on modifying the Spratt and Winkle coupling to provide a delayed action. I don't personally like the way it operates, but it was something which got me thinking about the whole issue. Or again, Phil's use of the spent contents of chamomile tea bags to represent weeds. Simple, but brilliant.

 

I have a digital subscription to Model Railroader, which also provides me with access to every single issue in their digital library. I can only say, "Wow". 70 years ago there were a series of articles on building your own engines which knock Guy Williams' articles and books into a cocked-hat (which is not to denigrate Guy one iota). The nearest I have seen over here was in Model Railways, firstly with John Harrison's series on building 4405 in 0 gauge, and then with "B Fesank" during 1975, where he took readers step by step through building a Midland 1F 0-6-0 tank, including how the tools work and how to use them. I have sent copies of this series to a few friends, and one of them at least has built a handful of locos since. The articles de-mystified the whole thing, and gave him the confidence to have a go. But as an editor, how often can you run such articles, particularly now where the quality and range of RTR is so much greater than it was 40 years ago? And yet, there is a gap...

 

Model Railroader is an interesting case. They tend to pitch the December issue (out in November) to get potential entrants considering an appropriate start in the hobby (i.e. What sort of trainset they should buy "for the children") and then start a project layout in the January issue (out before Christmas, but it gets people thinking about buying a sheet of plywood and some lumber for building a baseboard) which evolves over the next few months. These are not stale projects: they take different themes, and will introduce relatively up to date techniques (nothing brand new: they like it to be proven). Around these regulars, there are updates and revisions to past projects, reviews and monthly columns e.g. DCC Corner, and regular articles on the prototype, both railroads as layout inspiration and also historical and technical information including scale drawings. A varied approach, covering a lot of bases. And they have also included such notables as Iain Rice, introducing a Proto:87 layout. Not afraid of finescale, either!

 

A varied diet, with interesting points of view, covering different techniques and catering for a broad spectrum of tastes and inspirations, is all I ask. The subject matter is, as Not Jeremy said, of secondary importance.

 

Hope that helps, Phil?

[Nearholmer]

Ah, I'd missed that request for suggestions, so ......

 

Some years back, the Rev Alan Cliffe used to provide a regular column to one of the mags, it wasn't RM, but I can't remember which it was, in which he used quirky stories set around his own layout, as a vehicle for talking about the history of our hobby. It was called 'Chronicles of Lockes Siding', IIRC.

 

I assume that the readership was small, because it was dropped to make space for other things. The rest of the magazine was soso at the time, so I ceased to buy it on a regular basis.

 

My suggestion then is a regular column about the history of our hobby. Perhaps not as quirky, because I know that a lot of people prefer a more serious tone, and not confined to 0 gauge, which I think it was.

 

Would people like that sort of thing? I think so, at three levels: 'Ooh, I had one of them when I was a boy!', which would especially apply to models from the 'boomer' generation's youth; genuine interest in how things developed, a lot of which is actually quite misunderstood by many modellers; and, it would play to the, quite significant, 'collector' constituency, which 'real' modellers tend to sneer at, but which is probably playing a large part in keeping the current r-t-r production-fest afloat.

 

There's c120 years worth, so no shortage of material!

 

Well, if no one else read it, I would.

[Argos]

I should very much like a magazine entitled Pre-Grouping Pedant,

 

Sounds fantastic, where do I pay my subscription?

[Nearholmer]

You have to go to the office of the periodical, in person, and pay in cash (guineas).

 

Your subscription will be entered into a huge, leather-bound ledger, in copperplate handwriting, using a scratchy pen, by a clerk, who sits at a high stool, inside a sort of booth, with a wire-mesh window, having an aperture barely large enough for money to pass through.

 

You will, at all times, be addressed by the clerk as 'Mister xxxxx' ( unless you are a woman, Doctor, reverend etc, in which case the appropriate formal title will be used).

 

PS: naturally, you can't just turn-up and pay. First you must apply, in writing, to be permitted to become a subscriber, and, if your request is granted, following review by The Board, you will be advised of an appointment time.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Argos]

What no interview by the approvals committee?

 

How decidedly slapdash, they'll be letting any riff-raff in.

 

I withdraw my application.  

[Arthur]

 

The Chronicles of Lockes Sidings by the Revd. Alan Cliffe ran for several years in British Railway Modelling.

 

IIRC it really ran for too long and was dropped after feedback from readers who had tired of it.

 

.

[davknigh]

You have to go to the office of the periodical, in person, and pay in cash (guineas).

 

Your subscription will be entered into a huge, leather-bound ledger, in copperplate handwriting, using a scratchy pen, by a clerk, who sits at a high stool, inside a sort of booth, with a wire-mesh window, having an aperture barely large enough for money to pass through.

 

You will, at all times, be addressed by the clerk as 'Mister xxxxx' ( unless you are a woman, Doctor, reverend etc, in which case the appropriate formal title will be used).

 

PS: naturally, you can't just turn-up and pay. First you must apply, in writing, to be permitted to become a subscriber, and, if your request is granted, following review by The Board, you will be advised of an appointment time.

Needless to say you should be properly dressed for the occasion and have suitable references. Oh, and pass a skill testing quiz.

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Craigw]

OK, I'll bite.

 

I have a digital subscription to Model Railroader, which also provides me with access to every single issue in their digital library. I can only say, "Wow". 70 years ago there were a series of articles on building your own engines which knock Guy Williams' articles and books into a cocked-hat (which is not to denigrate Guy one iota). The nearest I have seen over here was in Model Railways, firstly with John Harrison's series on building 4405 in 0 gauge, and then with "B Fesank" during 1975, where he took readers step by step through building a Midland 1F 0-6-0 tank, including how the tools work and how to use them. I have sent copies of this series to a few friends, and one of them at least has built a handful of locos since. The articles de-mystified the whole thing, and gave him the confidence to have a go. But as an editor, how often can you run such articles, particularly now where the quality and range of RTR is so much greater than it was 40 years ago? And yet, there is a gap...

 

 

 

MRJ have run two series on loco scratchbuilding - one in 4mm scale and one in 7mm scale. They even arranged for the supply of castings and wheel sets for both of these as well as providing a list of all other items required.

 

Surely they could be considered as pretty comprehensive?

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[LBRJ]

I find MRJ to be rather like a decent wine - The older ones are often the best ones . A ten-years-later subscription would be a good thing to me !

[4003]

I would have thought there were people on this very platform who could write excellent articles if they chose, or were asked. They would presumably write about the stuff they write about on here. Indeed, it seems to me RMWeb is a commissioning editor's dream!

It is, the article about that 7mm RC auto crane in the last MRJ was a thread here quite a while ago. I'm sure there's more RMweb to MRJ conversions around...

[kandc_au]

 

 

And surely the issue about some good modellers not being good writers is a bit of a red herring. Can't the editors bash the text in to shape and make it readable?

 

G. 

Grahame,

I didn't say it as a red herring....I was being QUITE serious.

 

There have been articles about weathering and books of course. And I do have a few of these in the book shelf.

I am one of those who needs to see things done usually to fully understand how to do things. This is what seems to be lacking in a lot of articles

The issue of weathering has me stumped. There always seems to be bits missing, to my mind how they got from one point to the next. It is like great leaps and bounds from one point until the next..

Model Rail had an image on one of their front covers, a few years ago now of a model loco, and the weathering on the rods was superb. I duly contacted them

 and they responded that they had done some articles on weathering previously and directed me to said articles.

BUT they still lacked in info that I felt I wanted/needed.

 

I am NOT knocking Model Rail as whenever I have contacted them they have responded quickly and efficiently...Lets just make that clear.

 

But the detail in the article/s was lacking for what I wanted.

This is an item that would be ideal for a middle range mag where it would be discussed in more detail.

 

Just my thoughts FWIW.

Khris

[grahame]

Grahame,

I didn't say it as a red herring....I was being QUITE serious.

 

 

No, I'm saying it's a red herring: if the structure is poor and the grammar is mangled then editors can correct that, and if details are missing or it doesn't make sense they can contact the author for clarification and included it. Currently it seems that magazines pare down articles to be simplistic and appeal to just their base market sector (as Phil has indicated) but overall what I've said is that I'd like to read about modelling techniques in greater depth and detail.

 

G.

[Regularity]

MRJ have run two series on loco scratchbuilding - one in 4mm scale and one in 7mm scale. They even arranged for the supply of castings and wheel sets for both of these as well as providing a list of all other items required.

 

Surely they could be considered as pretty comprehensive?

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

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

[Nearholmer]

Thinking about Khris's post:

 

It is seriously difficult to convey techniques in print, which is why even the best 'how to' manualsbin any field sometimes feel as if they leave off, just at the point where you actually need help!

 

Nowadays, we are lucky enough to have a vast resource of on-line video, which can be a better way of conveying technique, although many amateur offerings are a bit, well, amateurish.

 

Best of all, of course, is a face-to-face tutorial, from an established practitioner.

 

I've noticed that my young son and his mates search YouTube first when they want to find out how to do anything, and I'm beginning to do it too (saved about £200 for a new microwave, by finding out on YouTube how to access the turntable motor, which had hitherto foxed me!)

 

To be honest, I'd rather people who were trying to pass on techniques made videos, rather like than wrote articles or (these I really don't like) step-by-step photo features.

 

That is not to decry print. It is far, far better than 'on screen' for images of finished work, drawings, articles describing the what and why, philosophical stuff, fairly deep prototype information etc.

 

Kevin

Edited September 8, 2017 by Nearholmer

[Phil Parker]

Currently it seems that magazines pare down articles to be simplistic and appeal to just their base market sector (as Phil has indicated) but overall what I've said is that I'd like to read about modelling techniques in greater depth and detail.

 

G.

 

That is not what I said at all - it may be how you wish to take it for your own reasons, but it's a long way from what is happening. 

 

The mainstream magazines have to appeal to the mass market, that's how they stay in business. This is done by giving the readers what they want, not what some people think they should be served up - based on both reader feedback and sales figures. As I said, an average modellers pound is worth the same as fine-scale experts and there are more of the former. Being commercial isn't wrong. There's plenty of space in the hobby for those willing to publish for free as shown by many of the society magazines and private websites.

 

Popular mags, at least when I'm writing, know they have to explain everything as we have a wide range of abilities. We try not to leave anything out, and thanks to RMweb, if anything has been skipped or not covered in enough detail you can often ask the author. Is it wrong to be inclusive? Are beginners to be locked out of certain activities? I've always said that there's nothing in this hobby that can't be conveyed if presented properly. Maybe the techniques require practice but everyone should be able to grasp the basics. 

 

You prefer words to photos, I get that, but most people don't, so magazines take advantage of modern technology to provide quality photos. To quote the popular phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Sometimes we'll even use video to demonstrate techniques that can be better conveyed than with writen or even photo explanation such as dry-brushing.

 

To return to the original discussion, there should be room in the market for different magazines with different takes. At present, the least mainstream is MRJ and that IMHO is a good thing. Attempts to firm up and idea of a magazine to bridge the gap between mainstream and MRJ founder on circular blue sky discussions with nothing solid anyone could actually bang on a page, almost certainly because of the way the hobby has changed in the last 20 years.  If anyone manages to launch such a publication though, I'll certainly buy it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[grahame]

That is not what I said at all -

But you did say "we all do our level best to pitch them in a way the average reader can follow" which is pitching at a lower level that the identified market sector of those wanting more complex and detailed articles. And my experience is that articles are significantly edited down (pared back) in word count. 

 

You prefer words to photos,

That's not what I said or prefer. Photos do help visualise ideas and models - I appreciate and understand that - but they can't simply replace words. I prefer both, but there needs to be an appropriate balance and these days it seems that photos are displacing explanation text.

 

There seems to be little point in asking for example article suggestions if they are then just going to be pitched at a different level and the words replaced with photos.

 

G.

[BG John]

Nowadays, we are lucky enough to have a vast resource of on-line video, which can be a better way of conveying technique, although many amateur offerings are a bit, well, amateurish.

A BIT amateurish!! There are some very good videos, but you have to wade through some rubbish to find them. Some have a few seconds of great stuff buried in half an hour of incomprehensible waffle, while others that promise great things in the title, are just someone waving a poor quality video camera around the finished project, without the slightest hint of how it was done!

 

I failed to find a solution to the blue LED not working on my cheap and tiny SQ8 mini DV camera last night. But I had to watch a few waving the camera around and waffling videos while searching! It's a good thing I got a full refund from the dodgy eBay seller, so I can consign it to the bits that might come in handy one day box!

[chris p bacon]

There seems to be little point in asking for example article suggestions if they are then just going to be pitched at a different level and the words replaced with photos.

 

 

Phil asked for examples of what would fit between the 'mainstream' (BRM, HM etc) and MRJ. You're just having a dig at what makes the mainstream popular and the most read but you don't like.

 

The usual answer is to submit articles you find interesting and you think others might to MRJ. 

[grahame]

 You're just having a dig at what makes the mainstream popular and the most read but you don't like.

 

 

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.