birdseyecircus Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 The Rex site has been updated to accomodate the forthcoming issue http://www.railexpress.co.uk/ New mag is listed as available at Warley, whilst subs and newsagents will follow in the week. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
66540_ruby Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Recieved my sub today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueeighties Posted November 24, 2009 Share Posted November 24, 2009 Got mine today through the post. Is it me, or is the content looking a little 'thin' these days? Or maybe just a lack of all things BR blue, can't get away with all these new fangled 'dayglo' coloured thingies Lee Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaGrange Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 They certainly are not ones to hold back on opinions, good or bad! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold BoD Posted November 28, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2009 My newsagent gave me mine today, I was quite surprised as it is still November. Is it me, or is the content looking a little 'thin' these days? Another Modelling section without a layout. I feel that the modelling section is little more than the news/review pages of the modelling only mags, albeit with a D&E only slant. It is just as well I enjoy the other content too. Perhaps it is time to go back to a bi-monthly, or whatever it was, supplement. I know the argument is, that if we want layouts featured in magazines it is up to us to build them and submit articles, but I wonder if their high expectations of accuracy, perceived or otherwise, actually deter people from submitting. I also wonder how many people take the easier option of 'publishing themselves' on sites like this rather than submitting articles to the magazines. Although this possibility apples to all magazines rather than just Rail Express. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 ".... They certainly are not ones to hold back on opinions, good or bad! ....... " . Yes, I sometimes cringe at the views and opinions expressed by certain REx staff. . A recent three-parter has seen the re-working of two Hornby Cl.56s - which when first released received quite reasonable reviews from REx. . However, the author of the article in question chose to use some 'new' grilles and etchings from a well known, and well respected supplier (of whom I am a satisfied customer). . However, the etchings were not the same size as those on the existing Hornby model; so, the author chose to criticise Hornby for this glaring error. . I would have thought that if one were preparing replacement parts for specific models one would prepare the etchings to the dimensions of the model, not the real thing ? . Whilst I purchase REx every month, it is printed to a very high standard, I do find the attitude / tone of certain articles grates with my upbringing. . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted November 28, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 28, 2009 However, the etchings were not the same size as those on the existing Hornby model; so, the author chose to criticise Hornby for this glaring error. . I would have thought that if one were preparing replacement parts for specific models one would prepare the etchings to the dimensions of the model, not the real thing ? . Brian R Given the parts were from their 'Extreme Etchings' range, its expected that it matches the prototype not the model. Certainly thats the way that Brian works on the new stuff! Whats the point of replacing a part thats wrong with something else thats wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 There are several avenues open here ..... one being that when the same magazine first reviewed the model, it was fine, almost very good, but when one of the authors decides to detail it, it becomes poorer .....? . But, let's be brutally honest here, how many modellers that buy off the shelf even renumber their purchase, let alone fit new grilles, chimneys, lamp irons .... infact, how many would know if the details were wrong ? . How many, including those on this forum, look at a new offering and say "I like that, it's just as I remember it" and viewing the model from the usual 3'0" can live with it ? . I'd hazard a guess and say most modellers, and they aren't the vociferous ones, and generally most are still quite 'British' they are reserved in the way they pass judgement. . If we want to drag people away from their Wii or PS3 or any other entertainment, we should be coaxing them along, not telling them the ??100 purchase they just made is cr@p. . Or perhaps I'm from a different era, with different values ? Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pennine MC Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 There are several avenues open here ..... Indeed there are. I can see both sides of the argument with relation to Brian's etchings, but to that, there aint no easy answer. Modellers have always been confounded by dimensional inaccuracy when looking to improve a given item, and despite the evident advances in recent years I dont see that changing overmuch. When all's said and done, when you improve a RTR model in even a small way, what you're doing is using a consumer item in a manner in which its manufacturer didnt necessarily intend; therefore they arent obliged to make it p*ss easy for you (although it's obviously nice when they do). Perhaps the real problem is with expectations - the said mag has long promoted an attitude that its reviews are the last word, which they clearly arent. Maybe they should just take on a little humility and admit as much Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Hilton Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I enjoyed the read! I'm not sure all the effort on the 56s was worth it to be honest, but I appreciate it's another level of modelling. It's something that's been in the editorial a bit lately, that they realise themselves that although on first inspection the 56 impressed, it's not until they've come to work on it that they realise the shortcomings and errors... such is life. The one thing is, it's still OO!! I've tried submitting material to them in and never received a response - the exact inverse of Model Rail who literally snapped my arm off - I'll still buy it though for the graphic and design aethetic - it's my favourite mag for layout and paper quality (hint hint Model Rail!!!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Steven B Posted November 29, 2009 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 29, 2009 Another Modelling section without a layout. I feel that the modelling section is little more than the news/review pages of the modelling only mags, albeit with a D&E only slant. It is just as well I enjoy the other content too. Perhaps it is time to go back to a bi-monthly, or whatever it was, supplement. Why should the modelling section have a layout in it? Rail Express Modeller has made itself a nice niche for articles on modelling real trains. These articles are facinating, give lots of background information and contain prototype train formations. I can't think of another magazine that has done this on such a wide range of trains as RExM. Most magazines go for features on the big noisy thing at the front, not the bits of the train that are actually earning the money. Happy modelling. Steven B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Reid Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why should the modelling section have a layout in it? Rail Express Modeller has made itself a nice niche for articles on modelling real trains. These articles are facinating, give lots of background information and contain prototype train formations. I can't think of another magazine that has done this on such a wide range of trains as RExM. Most magazines go for features on the big noisy thing at the front, not the bits of the train that are actually earning the money. Happy modelling. Steven B. Plenty of articles on "trains" as well as loco's in Model Rail - and layouts too........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I enjoyed the read! I'm not sure all the effort on the 56s was worth it to be honest, but I appreciate it's another level of modelling. It's something that's been in the editorial a bit lately, that they realise themselves that although on first inspection the 56 impressed, it's not until they've come to work on it that they realise the shortcomings and errors... such is life. The one thing is, it's still OO!! I got a lot of enjoyment out of converting a Hornby Cl.47 into a Cl.56 some 30 years ago. There weren't many models of Cl.56s around then..... Of course it doesn't stand up against today's offerings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 "..... I've tried submitting material to them in and never received a response .......... " . Me too, despite being complete with my e-mail address, but nothing to tell me (a) it's cr@p (B) it's not topical, or © ..... . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I thought that the mag and editorials have eased in tone slightly. Certainly away from the fact that everything in the modelling section had to be blue to be good. I got tired and sick of reading about other engines in grey or a 66 being slated. The arrival of the Heljan class 33 was greeted with a scalthing attack by the team when it has been a capable and fine looking model. All of a sudden because they think the models roof "looked wrong" the model gets a stigma attached. Dont get me wrong, Im in favour of some models being shown to have flaws. But when you read about Vi-trains engines being good and value for money, then see the competition with the Bachmann 47 and reworked 37s - you wonder how some people can see that reworked Lima engines match? Yet this is true of another magazine too... I think this could be due to the fact that some companies are using Vi-trains to get new models comissioned, in different liveries, but I dont think they are as accurate. Still, they are flouted and praised by a lot in the press, when they obviously have some failings and not as much detail. I have stopped buying RExM because of the obvious differences in the editorial views it expresses. While I like articles that lead or challenge views I dont get a magazine that I read to relax to tell me what to think! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I do still like Rex but I would like to see more layouts, I gotta say RM is still the best for quantity of layouts each month and I can get inspired by anything from narrow gauge to the eurostar.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edinburgh Junction Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Fantastic! I've just got it! Looks great! Another good edition. Right, now need to subsribe, and get rid of my Modern RAilways subscription... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted December 2, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2009 The arrival of the Heljan class 33 was greeted with a scalthing attack by the team when it has been a capable and fine looking model. All of a sudden because they think the models roof "looked wrong" the model gets a stigma attached. Dont get me wrong, Im in favour of some models being shown to have flaws. But when you read about Vi-trains engines being good and value for money, then see the competition with the Bachmann 47 and reworked 37s - you wonder how some people can see that reworked Lima engines match? Yet this is true of another magazine too... I think this could be due to the fact that some companies are using Vi-trains to get new models comissioned, in different liveries, but I dont think they are as accurate. That is correct with the 37, but the 47 is (shape wise) the best out there of the new generation 47s, and even the livery errors they have modelled are for the most part easy to correct. The most recent Bachmann 47 runs it close, but the errors around the headcode box (principally the over large markerlights) just spoil the look. There's nothing reworked lima about the Vi 47 other than maybe some of the design team that worked on it once worked for lima! Given that both Rail Express and Model Rail who have comissioned Vi Trains 47 ltds also have released a lot of Bachmann models, so if the Bachmann model was so much better (it isnt) they would have no reason not to have gone to Bachmann, to imply that the reviews are somehow biased because of that just sounds a tad odd.... As for the 33, theres nothing subjective about the Heljan 33/0 errors. the roof is completely the wrong profile (in the same way that the origonal Bachmann 37 roof was completely the wrong profile.) This is why Heljan completely retooled it for the 33/1. Whats wrong with a review pointing out these glaring errors, that is after all the point of a review... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Black Hat Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I take your point about errors being needed to be reported, but hasnt one of the limited editions that the magazine commissioned got completely the wrong roof. Should 37510 not be a 37/6 because of the way that the roof profile doesnt match. Personally I dont mind - only something as glaring as a reworked roof for a 37/0, 37/4, or 37/9 really stands out. But it was the fact that not one thing was mentioned about it. How come the Heljan 33 got slated for being the wrong shape, when a DRS limited edition, checked by RExM and sanctioned then appeared with completely the wrong roof! Thats just hypocrasy... for shouting about these standards and then not maintaining them yourself. I acknowledge my faults if I get something wrong, but the way in which they seem to preach from on high and then sold you an inacurate engine that they sanctioned and checked. With regards to the Vi trains 47 im sorry I think it really looked chunky, lacks details on the bogies and I dont like the plastic used for the body. I think its devoid of detail and cant measure up. I think magazines heaped praise on the engine as they needed something to write about and a new model from a new manufacturer is better to write about than slagging everything off. I think Vi trains are much better than the Lima they were before and think that given the jump from the 37 to 47, their next project should be interesting. With regards the Bachmann engine, I find the motor is better, the haulage capacity and running characteristics better - especially given Bachmann upgrade their models batch after batch and dont just keep making the same ones. I think these new 47s will eclipse Vi trains models, and I think there are a few magazine orders for Limited edition runs already with Bachmann waiting for production. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted December 2, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2009 I take your point about errors being needed to be reported, but hasnt one of the limited editions that the magazine commissioned got completely the wrong roof. Should 37510 not be a 37/6 because of the way that the roof profile doesnt match. Personally I dont mind - only something as glaring as a reworked roof for a 37/0, 37/4, or 37/9 really stands out. But it was the fact that not one thing was mentioned about it. How come the Heljan 33 got slated for being the wrong shape, when a DRS limited edition, checked by RExM and sanctioned then appeared with completely the wrong roof! Thats just hypocrasy... for shouting about these standards and then not maintaining them yourself. I acknowledge my faults if I get something wrong, but the way in which they seem to preach from on high and then sold you an inacurate engine that they sanctioned and checked. I'd agree its not good going, and I did criticise that decision both in person and on the internet at the time. In the end their reasoning for it was that DRS would only give them the licence for a pair, and they couldnt do the original loco they had intended to do because it was involved in a (fatal?) crash just after they made the commission (hence the change.) At the end of the day there is a fairly major difference between a roof being the wrong radius (and hence all of the detail being wrong as well) than having a single panel on one end have some riveted strips across it. In terms of whats needed to correct some minor modelling fixes the DRS 510 and some weathering patches up the paintwork. with the 33 its always going to be wrong (hence a fair number of people have converted the 33/1 to get a decent 33/0 With regards to the Vi trains 47 im sorry I think it really looked chunky, lacks details on the bogies and I dont like the plastic used for the body. I think its devoid of detail and cant measure up. Each to their own I guess, but I know a fair number of people who are very knowledgeable on class 47s and are now standardising on the Vi Trains model. As for lacking detail on the bogies, silly question but have you actually looked at one? Certainly there is room for improvement (just as there is with the Bachmann one) but in terms of detail the bogies are about the same. The body is the right shape, particularly the nose end. other than the frankly rubbish roof grills (where the Bachmann one is an improvement, although still only has a passing resemblance with the real things grills) the roof is pretty much spot on. Finally in areas like the headcode box, or the buffer beam cowling Vi Trains have accuracy whereas Bachmann have dropped the ball somewhat. In comparison with the original Bachmann 47 with its Class 57 bogies, underframe and windscreen, and hugely overscale bufferbeam cowling, well its just not in the same league. I find the motor is better, the haulage capacity and running characteristics better - especially given Bachmann upgrade their models batch after batch and dont just keep making the same ones. I think these new 47s will eclipse Vi trains models, and I think there are a few magazine orders for Limited edition runs already with Bachmann waiting for production. As for the motor, its a mixed bag there and I guess a lot depends on what you want from it. Bachmann's all wheel drive chassis is a particularly bad design, that suffers from poor manufacturing (often resulting in a chassis that pivots on the centre axle.) in OO I guess this isnt a problem, but modelling to an accurate gauge then it causes poor running. The Vi Trains non powered sprung centre axle is a much better solution. slow running of my first Vi model (tested on DC) is just as good as anything else I have (with a very very slow crawl), and haulage seems to be up to anything that would be expected of the real thing. _______________________________________ Anyway, I'm really going off topic now, so getting back to Rail Express, having flicked through the last couple of issues it does seem to have regained what ever it was that it had lost when I cancelled my subscription a couple of years back after a prolonged dull patch. Someone earlier mentioned that a return to a bi monthly modelling section with greater substance would be a good idea, something that I completely agree with (and would probably tempt me to start buying it again). The class 56 feature in particular grabbed my attention as a fantastic bit of modelling and has resulted in a major temptation to start upgrading my Fastline 56...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 "...... The Vi Trains non powered sprung centre axle is a much better solution.......... " . I seem to recall REx all but pilloried Bachmann for a similar drive when they first introduced the Cl.37 . Personally it's the "we are the only magazine that's right" attitude - sometimes expressed in an almost 'rude' manner that grates with me. . I don't model 'kettles' but I must say the 'chaps' who do, and write in MRJ appear a tad more skillful, but are more gentlemanly when they do find faults with a product. . Perhaps I'm from a different age Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Fatadder Posted December 2, 2009 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2009 "...... The Vi Trains non powered sprung centre axle is a much better solution.......... " . I seem to recall REx all but pilloried Bachmann for a similar drive when they first introduced the Cl.37 . Brian R Not quite, the original 37 had an unpowered (but sprung) rear axle, and the pivot was slightly too far forward, end result something rather unstable (with even some people on OO having issues with it on gradients) The Vi Trains design is much like what Heljan have done (again with very good running) where the power is applied on the outer axles of the bogie and the centre axle is left powered with freedom to move (where the Vi Trains has its spring to keep it on the track being an advantage). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well no problems with my fleet. . Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I know what you mean Brian, the language can be a bit emotive at times - I re- read their initial review of the bachy 47 the other day: it was like someone had come into their house and shot their dog ! I do get fed up with the kind of attitude that 'we are SERIOUS modellers' and if you don't aspire to their level of detail you don't count as such, this is furthered by somewhat pompous angle (at times) of the guy who does 'Mostyn'. For me the recent vilification of the Hornby 56 has been a bit of a waste of time, as I don't have the time, energy, or interest to do 'extreme' detailing to this level. I bought some older bachy 47s cheap, I can live with the bogie/fuel tank faults ( short sighted anyway), they will be renumbered and maybe weathered and I'll be happy. But I,m not a SERIOUS modeller am I ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 I'm not a reader of Rail Express, for various reasons , some of which have been touched on above. However I do think the supplement format is a mixed blessing. (And this is something which has implications for Traction's efforts in the same direction). Railway Modeller runs out at about 75 pages of editorial material per month. REx , once adverts are removed is about 16-18 pages a month I believe, sometimes less. But what might be called the "editorial overhead" - editorial, cover page, contents list, takes up nearly as much space. Although REx reviews a more limited range of stuff than RM, it does so at rather greater length. Although REX has 20% of the editorial pages of RM, it's reviews occupy a lot lot more than 20% of the pages devoted to reviews in RM... And reviews are essentially opinion and comment The Mostyn column is, broadly speaking , a comment/opinion feature. SS3 is comment/opinion and news. Take all this out and you have very few pages left for constructional articles, layout feature articles, prototype background etc. One decent feature on a layout and you've used up the lot. Rebuilding a 56 has to be run over 3 months. (So if 56s don't interest you, that's a quarter of the year that's a blank on the constructional front). Etc Traction is of course squeezed even more severely because its supplement has only about 2/3rds the number of pages of REx's - it suddenly becomes clear why Traction's efforts don't register . As I don't really feel like buying a mag for one article, this means I'm unlikely to buy REx , regardless of other considerations. However, the key point for this discussion is that REx , because of its format, is inherently a comment /opinion driven mag This of course makes it more vulnerable to debates and objections about it's editorial line - that represents a much higher proportion of the total pages than in any of the competition. If you disagree with them , it will bulk much larger in your eyes. It also suggests why they may need to supply more dramatic or controversial comment and opinion than the other mags - if opinion is a large part of what they sell, then the opinion had better be eye-catching and provoke reactions There has been a reduction in the number of new D+E releases. Prior to Warley we had essentially seen just 3 items of 4mm traction released all year - 17, Kestrel , and 150. This is hardly going to fill the pages of a mag heavily focussed on product reviewing, for 10 issues. Even the releases we are getting are hardly the subjects that spark froth-fests: multiple units, especially 3rd rail, and shortlived classes that much of the target readership hasn't seen in the flesh (This applies to the Javelin too) . The economic climate also encourages sobriety. Compare the feeding frenzy when Falcon appeared or even Deltic with the quiet arrival of Kestrel. Where are the silly prices on ebay as the "ordered 5 and selling 4 at twice the money" brigade pile in? "Flipping" of this kind is classic top of the wild boom behaviour. We are now in the worst global recession since the 1930s and people are starting to worry about job cuts and future tax increases And many of the subjects being announced are very esoteric and it's surprising to see them at all - there won't be a rival version (Baby Deltic - class of 10,12 year service life, limited geographic range). In the present climate everyone expects manufacturers to be more cautious and avoid projects that aren't cast iron certainties - the confidence isn't there (I know no-one seems to have told Heljan or Kernow but these specialist types haven't yet reached the shops barring Falcon and Kestrel, and it isn't yet proven that the market is really there...) Roco Fairlie anyone??? This must raise issues if your magazine's formula is heavily focussed on strong comment and extensive product reviewing. It's not necessarily so well suited to the current environment as opposed to that of 3-4 years ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.