Wright writes.....

[Horsetan]

.... deficient attention spans of 90 minutes maximum.....

 

As long as that?

[Tony Wright]

I suggest that modelling in 4mm but to EM or P4 track/wheel standards can have the same effect. Especially so if you decide to model an era or location (whether factual or fictional) that requires kit building/bashing or adapting RTR products. Joining one of the "scale " Societies can be a most enlightening experience.

 

The 4mm hobby is, for many "modellers" in an inward spiral, driven by the manufacturers and supported, unwittingly or otherwise, by the mainstream magazines. What they are able to "model" is defined by what appears in the catalogues, online manufacturers sites and in the review/news pages of the monthly publications.

 

Just because you model in 4mm, doesn't mean you have to be a RTR slave.

 

Jol

Wise words as ever, Jol.

 

I don't think you have to model in EM or P4 just to 'get out of a comfort zone' or 'improve' in modelling. Modelling in OO can also have the same effect as well, particularly if you model the more-esoteric, where the mainstream trade ventures less (although, as Tony Gee has mentioned, pre-Grouping subjects are now 'under threat').

 

I've mentioned before that, 40 years ago, I wish I'd gone down the EM path. But, I didn't, and I've been down an OO cul-de-sac ever since. That said, the likes of me, and dozens of other modellers have never been 'slaves to RTR'. Why would we be? The groups I've been involved with have always made things for themselves. In fairness as well to OO (despite its visual shortcomings), much time can be saved by buying RTL points. I know this smacks of 'just-buying' stuff, but there are over 70 fiddle yard points on my layout. How long would it have taken me to make all those, especially as they all work perfectly? Granted (and I've had correspondence with Peco about this), OO RTL points don't look right for British prototypes, but as purely functional items they are excellent. 

 

With a huge interest in ECML depictions of late, I can hardly be described as modelling the more esoteric. And, I agree, current RTR stuff has been of great advantage to me. I'd still be building the 100+ Mk.1s I require were it not for Bachmann's superlative product (though taking off the roof ribs is still a pain). But what else? Hornby's Gresleys are rather lacking and need a large amount of work on them to be of use. We still await Bachmann's Thompsons. Last week we ran the railway and two RTR locos were substituted because they didn't run sweetly enough for shunting. 

 

So, please, don't just put all OO modelling under the same umbrella. Without doubt, the rise in current standards has enable many, many more folk to realise their dreams in owning models which previously would have been unthinkable. Unthinkable unless they could make them themselves or have the cash to commission such work. However, RTR/RTP doesn't provide everything, and there's still a lot of modelling needed to be done. Even if it's only in OO. 

[Jamiel]

Just to add to Tony's words, with modelling OO gauge in steam there is also the slight advantage of being able to model curves slightly tighter than would be possible with a true 4mm gauge track. For some not a problem, but if you do want to run a circular layout and don't have a huge amount of space it an make the difference between the layout you want to run, and the layout you simply have space for.

There is also an advantage for those just starting to make their way through detailing RTR models through to first steps of kit and scratch building that you can have a layout to run, without having to jump in at the deep end building everything yourself.

I do still greatly admire those who model in EM,P4, etc. much of the work I have seen done in those gauges is simply stunning.

Jamie

Edited November 4, 2015 by Jamiel

[Allegheny1600]

Magazines have to sell to survive, and if the market is greater with regard to the less-experienced,

Hi Tony, All,

Is this really the case? If so, then why?

What happens once the less-experienced become experienced?

Do they leave model railways behind and destroy/throw away/sell whatever is left?

Perhaps leave their 8'x4' in the garage/spare room either abandoned or used once or twice a year?

I can't believe that magazines who only cater for beginners have much of a future.

I would say that RM & BRM do cater for at least intermediate level modellers while MRJ and perhaps society magazines cater for the experienced modeller but surely the other magazines have to eye up their future market and take an active hand in bringing the beginner on with regards to skill level?

I once made a very tongue in cheek comment that the 'red tops' should be free as they carry so much advertising and manufacturer support but it didn't go down very well, guess what? I still feel that way!

Cheers,

John E.

[davefrk]

We have discussed this very subject amongst friends over the years and the conclusion always is - it was us that outgrew the magazines not the magazines that are dumbing down.

I remember a friend cutting up a Tri-ang Princess to make a Black Five as per a RM article, he was delighted with it forty odd years ago but now is just so embarrassed when ever it is mentioned, now he builds rather nice stuff for his trophy winning layout. At the same time I had a Kitmaster Garratt powered by a Tri-ang Jinty chassis, again something learned from a magazine article about powering plastic kits,  it worked and hauled a good load but if it had had the full valvegear it would have been better.... These days I would make a scratch chassis if doing a plastic kit so things have moved on there.

Magazines could, if they wanted, do articles which might cover say a bit of detailing of an RTR loco and maybe a part two involving building an etched chassis for those that want to go further than just detailing. I know someone whose article was knocked back because it wasn't what the magazine was about or so he was told. What! putting Romford wheels on an older model to make in run better on modern Peco track, isn't that the sort of thing we should encourage, after all, we older modellers all started modelling like that, we didn't have the money to buy all the latest RTR locos, gadgets and gismos..

People do move on in their modelling if they would only 'try it and see'.

The old Black Five still exists and is dragged out now and again, just for a laugh but it does cause more discusions..

 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Dave Franks.

Edited November 4, 2015 by davefrk

[Tony Wright]

Hi Tony, All,

Is this really the case? If so, then why?

What happens once the less-experienced become experienced?

Do they leave model railways behind and destroy/throw away/sell whatever is left?

Perhaps leave their 8'x4' in the garage/spare room either abandoned or used once or twice a year?

I can't believe that magazines who only cater for beginners have much of a future.

I would say that RM & BRM do cater for at least intermediate level modellers while MRJ and perhaps society magazines cater for the experienced modeller but surely the other magazines have to eye up their future market and take an active hand in bringing the beginner on with regards to skill level?

I once made a very tongue in cheek comment that the 'red tops' should be free as they carry so much advertising and manufacturer support but it didn't go down very well, guess what? I still feel that way!

Cheers,

John E.

Dear John,

 

My observation was based on conversations with editors/publishers over several years. But, you're quite right, what happens when the beginners/less-experienced become more experienced and, by definition, are no longer beginners? 

 

I think that there is probably a large market now for those returning to the hobby. This has been aired before, but it's something of a cause and effect in my view. Those who had train sets in their youth (and who pedalled off to see the actual prototypes in the meanwhile) want to recreate some of that magic now that they're retired, the children have gone, they have some spare space/time and no longer have a mortgage. As an example of lost youth, a friend lived in Curzon Park in Chester, not far from the cutting 'twixt the Dee and Saltney Junction. One day we were operating his train set for a time, then nipped off to the railway to see what was passing. Would you believe, five minutes after running DUCHESS OF MONTROSE on his set, there it was in full size, on a running-in turn from Crewe! That vast post-War 'bulge' of trainspotters returning to the hobby certainly wouldn't tolerate such crudity as the HD three-rail toy my friend and I played with. So, they're probably driving the hobby right now, and the mainstream manufacturers are catering for that. It could be then that the model press in general is targeting that market, too, showing how to make the most of what's available right now, but assuming (quite rightly?) that any skills might well have been forgotten over the intervening years. Thus, simple projects might well be what the returnees require in the press to help them get back into the hobby as a modeller, not just as a collector. How long this market is sustainable is a moot point, because the majority of folk in the hobby right now are of that generation - post-60 (actually nearer 70 or over in many cases). As a personal illustration of that, those I'm helping on a one-to-one basis all fit that profile in the main. The exceptions are a 16 year old (who requires little of my help now) and a couple of chaps in their 50s. 

 

Of course, there are those like me who never left the hobby. There are also those who, though they may well have stayed in the hobby, never progressed to beyond the acquisition of what the trade provided. Perhaps these are what Jol suggests are 'RTR slaves', their lack of skills or willingness to try condemning them to a life of modelling servitude. Or, they just paid others to do everything for them, thus becoming the opposite of slaves of any kind.   

 

I think what's also changed is the attitude to how one can potentially ruin a model by trying to improve it. Not long after I'd acquired a Tri-ang B12 as a callow youth, I'd carved off the handrails, fitted separate substitutes, renumbered and weathered it. Obviously, I took my life in my hands by the risking of bleeding to death and also took the risk of making a mess of a perfectly good toy. I could be wrong, but the loco and tender cost me less than £3.00. What's that in today's money? A lot less than a current equivalent? Anyway, those equivalents don't need much in the way of improvement. It could well be that the cost of the latest RTR stuff (and I'm not entirely convinced it's over-priced) precludes the majority from practising on it, so a learning opportunity is missed.

 

All the best,

 

Tony.  

[micklner]

Dear John,

 

My observation was based on conversations with editors/publishers over several years. But, you're quite right, what happens when the beginners/less-experienced become more experienced and, by definition, are no longer beginners? 

 

I think that there is probably a large market now for those returning to the hobby. This has been aired before, but it's something of a cause and effect in my view. Those who had train sets in their youth (and who pedalled off to see the actual prototypes in the meanwhile) want to recreate some of that magic now that they're retired, the children have gone, they have some spare space/time and no longer have a mortgage. As an example of lost youth, a friend lived in Curzon Park in Chester, not far from the cutting 'twixt the Dee and Saltney Junction. One day we were operating his train set for a time, then nipped off to the railway to see what was passing. Would you believe, five minutes after running DUCHESS OF MONTROSE on his set, there it was in full size, on a running-in turn from Crewe! That vast post-War 'bulge' of trainspotters returning to the hobby certainly wouldn't tolerate such crudity as the HD three-rail toy my friend and I played with. So, they're probably driving the hobby right now, and the mainstream manufacturers are catering for that. It could be then that the model press in general is targeting that market, too, showing how to make the most of what's available right now, but assuming (quite rightly?) that any skills might well have been forgotten over the intervening years. Thus, simple projects might well be what the returnees require in the press to help them get back into the hobby as a modeller, not just as a collector. How long this market is sustainable is a moot point, because the majority of folk in the hobby right now are of that generation - post-60 (actually nearer 70 or over in many cases). As a personal illustration of that, those I'm helping on a one-to-one basis all fit that profile in the main. The exceptions are a 16 year old (who requires little of my help now) and a couple of chaps in their 50s. 

 

Of course, there are those like me who never left the hobby. There are also those who, though they may well have stayed in the hobby, never progressed to beyond the acquisition of what the trade provided. Perhaps these are what Jol suggests are 'RTR slaves', their lack of skills or willingness to try condemning them to a life of modelling servitude. Or, they just paid others to do everything for them, thus becoming the opposite of slaves of any kind.   

 

I think what's also changed is the attitude to how one can potentially ruin a model by trying to improve it. Not long after I'd acquired a Tri-ang B12 as a callow youth, I'd carved off the handrails, fitted separate substitutes, renumbered and weathered it. Obviously, I took my life in my hands by the risking of bleeding to death and also took the risk of making a mess of a perfectly good toy. I could be wrong, but the loco and tender cost me less than £3.00. What's that in today's money? A lot less than a current equivalent? Anyway, those equivalents don't need much in the way of improvement. It could well be that the cost of the latest RTR stuff (and I'm not entirely convinced it's over-priced) precludes the majority from practising on it, so a learning opportunity is missed.

 

All the best,

 

Tony.  

This will give you the current price

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html

 

it maybe closer than most would think.

 

As to bashing models why would anyone  buy new !! , use ebay there are dozens on cheap Locos etc thereon ideal for the beginner to cut his/her teeth on.

[Tony Wright]

We have discussed this very subject amongst friends over the years and the conclusion always is - it was us that outgrew the magazines not the magazines that are dumbing down.

I remember a friend cutting up a Tri-ang Princess to make a Black Five as per a RM article, he was delighted with it forty odd years ago but now is just so embarrassed when ever it is mentioned, now he builds rather nice stuff for his trophy winning layout. At the same time I had a Kitmaster Garratt powered by a Tri-ang Jinty chassis, again something learned from a magazine article about powering plastic kits,  it worked and hauled a good load but if it had had the full valvegear it would have been better.... These days I would make a scratch chassis if doing a plastic kit so things have moved on there.

Magazines could, if they wanted, do articles which might cover say a bit of detailing of an RTR loco and maybe a part two involving building an etched chassis for those that want to go further than just detailing. I know someone whose article was knocked back because it wasn't what the magazine was about or so he was told. What! putting Romford wheels on an older model to make in run better on modern Peco track, isn't that the sort of thing we should encourage, after all, we older modellers all started modelling like that, we didn't have the money to buy all the latest RTR locos, gadgets and gismos..

People do move on in their modelling if they would only try 'it and see'.

The old Black Five still exists and is dragged out now and again, just for a laugh but it does cause more discusions..

 

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Dave Franks.

I agree with just about everything you say Dave, and many thanks for expressing it so well. 

 

Where I disagree is in the conclusion that modellers outgrew magazines. It might well be that 'we' outgrew the sort of articles you've cited (and weren't they fantastic?), but that doesn't explain how the likes of those magazines I've mentioned went to the wall. Did the market they were serving disappear, not because modellers outgrew what was being published, but because they weren't dumbed-down enough? In fairness, Model Railways (or whatever it chose to subsequently call itself) did appear to dumb-down after Cyril Freezer left, and that still flopped.

 

But, what about Modellers' Back Track? One would have to be a native of Brobdingnag to outgrow that! Yet that, too, disappeared. 

 

Having been in or alongside the editorial chair for a few years before retiring, I'd say it's impossible to please all readers.   

Edited November 4, 2015 by Tony Wright

[Willie Whizz]

To date, I've never built a complex brass etch kit or done much above basic adjustments to RTR models.  One day, I will have a go but will try a coach first.  I suspect that if you are competent in building the most complex kits, articles about how you do it are not necessary or interesting.  Those persons needs to discuss, learn and challenge are probably fulfilled by threads such as this or perhaps MRJ.  I'd guess then venn diagramme of beginners / inexperienced modellers whobuy both Hornby Magazine and MRJ is small...

 

However, for those of us with less experience the layered articles suggested above make sense.  What to someone who has build 100+ kits is basic and routine is new to someone and needs explaining.  articles that go "and I just did x and Ta-DA" there's your fully built and functioning model don't really help or encourage the beginner much.  Similiarly I groan when a writer says "I did it in the usual way."  (btw, I apply this maxim as much to articles on baseboard construction, scenery and buildings as rolling stock). 

 

Also, sometimes, articles can be full of jargon eg  "I applied a wash of x and dry brushed it".  The beginner wants to know what went into the wash, what consistency, what type of bruh you used, how much came off on the paper, what to do if it goes wrong etc.  FWIW, Tony's 0-8-4T article is good and interesting to read as it is very detailed.  It is also clear that it is way beyond beginner level given the equipment required and the nature of the kit.  I also think the "practical BRM" DVDs / weblinks are good (usual disclaimer of no connection).  By way of example, my sub 4 year old boy watched Phil's article on scribing plaster walls and recited it back to me the other day.  if he can follow it, it is pitched at the right level for beginners (for the avoidance of doubt I would not give him the sharp implements required!).

 

David

 

One thing that really, really, really hacks me off is those articles that say things like:  "Then I added a substitute sprocket wangler and a Gresley-pattern flange crinkler from the spares box".

 

In my view, that particular phrase should be utterly banned by magazine editors in connection with any article, by whoever written - from TW himself [God bless him!] downward - whose 'target audience' is any modeller likely to have built or heavily modified (whichever is applicable) fewer than six of this particular category of subject (plastic wagon/brass coach/card building/loco kit etc.) already.

 

Authors should bear in mind that just because you are lucky enough to have an abundance of leftover bits, the rest of us with less than 40-50 examples under our belt don't.  Even if that's how you built your own particular example, at least have the decency to do a little research and explain whereabouts those of us less well-endowed can currently obtain such a thing!

[2ManySpams]

One thing that really, really, really hacks me off is those articles that say things like:  "Then I added a substitute sprocket wangler and a Gresley-pattern flange crinkler from the spares box".

 

In my view, that particular phrase should be utterly banned by magazine editors in connection with any article, by whoever written - from TW himself [God bless him!] downward - whose 'target audience' is any modeller likely to have built or heavily modified (whichever is applicable) fewer than six of this particular category of subject (plastic wagon/brass coach/card building/loco kit etc.) already.

 

Authors should bear in mind that just because you are lucky enough to have an abundance of leftover bits, the rest of us with less than 40-50 examples under our belt don't.  Even if that's how you built your own particular example, at least have the decency to do a little research and explain whereabouts those of us less well-endowed can currently obtain such a thing!

I agree wholeheartedly with this as well. If you're writing for an average modeller type mag and trying to encourage people to have a go at kit building, the last things you should be doing are:

1. Using extra parts that were obtained from shops that closed 30yrs ago and can no longer be obtained.

2. Referring to an extensive bits box which only those with a long history of kit building will have.

3. Using expensive and specialist tools that are well out of the reach of the audience.

 

Joe Newbie Kitbuilder needs to he can attempt the project using the base kit, plus readily obtainable extra parts plus a reasonable collection of tools. Articles that fell foul of the above put me off kit building for many years.

 

If you're writing for a more experienced audience then the tools can be more specialised and an assumption made that there's a stock of materials and parts available.

 

It goes back to Wagonbasher's (Andy) layer idea.

[Horsetan]

Best not read MRJ, then....

[Clive Mortimore]

As Model Rail are now doing Airplanes (padding) for a least a quarter of the current issue !! a serious revamp needs to be done on most magazines.

 

I haven't bought one for months, just nothing or enough of interest to justify the cost.

And not up to the standard as seen in the 1970s Airfix Magazines. Have a buctchers at some of the modelling in the aircraft and military magazines in Smifffs next time you put the railway magazines back on the shelf.

 

I have only spent my money on 3 modelling magazines this year. One where on the cover it said "Build your Dream Depot", the contents was a dream depot nothing like a real one. The other two as something to read when waiting for my wife who was undergoing various medical procedures.

[2ManySpams]

Best not read MRJ, then....

I have for a while and now that I'm building kits myself it all makes more sense. I still don't have anywhere near the skill or kit the masters have but both are growing with practice. The point is that MRJ is a very different market than BRM etc and they can pitch articles at a different level to match their readership. Horses for courses.

[grahame]

As editor of the NGS Journal I'd love to publish articles about modelling using razor saws and soldering irons. I'm not twitchy about it but the problem seems to be a lack of suitable submissions - very few 'modellers' seem to use such things these days. It's more about using new technology - designing/making 3D printed models, adding sound, programming DCC chips, and specifying pre-printed vinyls.

CD

G.

[coachmann]

Editor Roy Dock was of old the old school at 'Model Railway News' and articles that glossed over detail ("I done it in the time-honored way") simply failed to reach print until they were fully informative. It is up to an editor to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I do wonder at times how much do they and their staff really know about railway matters. 

[cctransuk]

........... but I do wonder at times how much do they and their staff really know about railway matters. 

 

..... a view which I echo wholeheartedly !!

 

Some of the 'howlers' that are published nowadays indicate career journalists at work, rather than committed modellers.

 

At one time I bothered to contact the editor in question and correct the mistakes - but, when they did publish my comments, they usually dismissed their error in some way or other.

 

Nowadays, I don't bother because it seems, increasingly, that few readers care anyway !!

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

Edited November 4, 2015 by cctransuk

[chrisf]

Some of what John describes as career journalists should ponder the other meaning of 'career' - to run downhill out of control.

 

Chris

[Mallard60022]

I am really enjoying this 'discussion'. 'We' are quite good at model making generally from the look and sound of things, however when I get a bit doubtful about my particular abilities I have a look at the EBay Madness thread and have a damn good laugh at some of the stuff that is put on that Auction site having been 'improved', weathered and sometimes the item is even "...very rare....". That little visit restores my confidence immediately, but it does remind me that, as a lot of this stuff sells (and sometimes at quite silly prices), there must be large numbers of people out there who's skill levels are very limited indeed, but if they are having fun then good on them.

Phil 

[ROSSPOP]

This may have been discussed before and I`ve missed it............... but.......

 

Whereas the WWW. has affected peoples shopping habits on the high street, does the panel think that the internet has had an affect on railway modelling magazines?

 

I no longer find any of the modelling magazines of any attraction to me and hav`nt purchased  many for the past 10 years, however,  I enjoy the contents of four railway modelling websites now I`m retired and to me they all provide the interest, inspiration, aspiration and information that once I looked forward to in the monthly maggies...........

Edited November 5, 2015 by ROSSPOP

[gr.king]

As long as that?

 

Was my nominal limit of 90 minutes unduly generous? I'll note that for future rants...

 

I'm not sure about the exclusion of articles that refer to the use of obsolete parts or items from boxes of kit leftovers. If that's the way the model was built it is open to those wishing to do something similar to carry out their own search for a current supplier or deploy their own ingenuity to produce a substitute part. Even at an early stage in my own railway kit building I accepted that I had to look around in order to source parts when alternatives were required, or where the kit did not provide.

[Buhar]

I used to really enjoy the "9F from Nellie" type articles in the mags, but times have changed and even if you did such a model it could well look out of place against the modern RTR on the same layout.  People quite reasonably want their layouts to look of a piece.  BRM and Model Rail both feature kit-building quite regularly, including wagons as potential starters and renumbering and detailing features, if only as a side feature, are there every few months.  The thing the internet can't replace, for me, is the scale drawing, but these seem to be less frequent.  I remember the wagon drawings every month in the Railway Modeller with particular fondness.

 

I have scans of thousands of articles reasonably well archived, but my first port of call if I want to see a technique or research some detail is usually this website.  On top of that, topics like this one provide the entertainment and stimulus that a good magazine can, plus it takes me off my beaten track, which is good.

 

I do think t'Interweb has inevitably altered magazine use putting more information and examples out there than there ever was in the past, but I still pick three of them up every month.

[Focalplane]

While on a self-imposed sabbatical from modelling I have been surreptitiously following this discussion and feel at one with most of the comments thus far.  However, the magazine readership varies enormously in skills, interests and financial capability, so no one magazine can please everyone all the time.  That being said, when I retired I subscribed to several magazines.  Only one, BRM digital, remains on subscription.  The others helped me to catch up with the times and opportunities and helped to push me away from 4mm toward 7mm scale (though age also had something to do with that decision).  Simply put I want to build things and RTR doesn't do it for me.

 

But I had to laugh when watching a video on BRM about preparing real coal for scale applications.  The recommendation to use pliers to break up lumps of coal seemed quite ridiculous - coal dust is messy and the technique being touted put coal dust and fragments all over the place, apart from potentially ruining a good pair of pliers.  I just happened to be collecting and preparing some real coal myself and my technique makes a lot more sense - place coal pieces in a plastic bag and whack them with a hammer.  Pick out the scale pieces, whack the larger pieces some more.  Pliers remain in tool box where they belong!

[billbedford]

One thing that really, really, really hacks me off is those articles that say things like:  "Then I added a substitute sprocket wangler and a Gresley-pattern flange crinkler from the spares box".

 

 

To even have a 'spares box' you can be certain the said author has failed to build a great many kits before he got to the subject of the article. To be honest I find that most constructional articles in magazines, and for that matter much of the content of web forums, have more to do with publicly validating the author's modelling skills than presenting useful instructions for other modellers.

[Killybegs]

To even have a 'spares box' you can be certain the said author has failed to build a great many kits before he got to the subject of the article. To be honest I find that most constructional articles in magazines, and for that matter much of the content of web forums, have more to do with publicly validating the author's modelling skills than presenting useful instructions for other modellers.

 Bill, are you forgetting that many etched brass kits provide parts to build the various versions of some classes of loco. Those not used go in the spares box. Some kind kit designers also put spares, particularly of small items, on their etches.

[coachmann]

These days I have to keep reminding myself that 70-odd years is a long time despite my youth seeming like it was only yesterday (to me). And so I try to look at things through the eyes of a young man by simply recounting how I saw things when I was their age. Many things are understandable but some things are not. An instance of the latter is how I felt about model railway magazines in the 1950s and very early 60's. I was in no way put off by articles about soldering and detailing. I admired the effort and saw it as something to aim for and for this reason I cannot really understand why people today so easily admit to being defeated by even the most basic 'skills'. Is it down to lack of certain school training, for instance are there no woodworking and metal working classes these days?  Being taught to make mortice joints and what-not set me off building things from wood 'cos I could! I was never keen on the feel of cold steel but I joined the metal class the following year to see what could be learned. And all this happened in the first two years of Secondary Modern School.

Edited November 5, 2015 by coachmann