New Magazine?

[Buckjumper]

Most of my magazine reading is done in one of three places that are all three letter words beginnig with a B.....bed, bus........

Bedouin tent?

[BlackRat]

Boudoir! Posh name for the throne room perhaps!?

[EddieB]

Clive, yeah, Practical Model Railways', I've still a full set and, as you say, the paper was very poor, certainly in it's later years but it did aim for that slightly higher middle ground; kit builds etc. It ran for a few years, maybe 10?, I've quite a stack of them.

 

One thing It was strong on was regular rolling stock drawings and I remember there was, for a few months, a bitter exchange in the letters pages with R. Ormiston Chant who accused them of copying his drawings.

 

The info on Loco Modeller is from my own recollections at the time, and it has been discussed on here previously.

 

Crikey! His name was prominent in the RM correspondence columns for a period. ISTR "Yes, the chap has boobed - can't you guess?" was one of his opening remarks. His robust assertions would certainly polarise opinions on a forum these days!

Stop it!  The relevant magazines are quietly tucked away in boxes at the far, far, top top corner of the garage, with various things piled in front.  I well remember RO-C and his various outpourings with a degree of nostalgic affection, including (with possible wrong attrubution) discussions on everything from the crank throw of the Lord Nelsons and the correct coal for model locomotives (Blisworth Hards) through to the dangers of using acids and alkalis (I used to have fun winding up my chemistry teachers with that one).

 

I'd like to think we have a few little Robbos popping up here.  No names and no guessing who might come to mind  ("with a degree of nostalgic affection", I did say).

[Dunsignalling]

I think someone was joking. I imagine they saw RM at one end of the market and MRJ at the other - so, in other words, the 'new' mag could be pitched ANYWHERE in the market. Otherwise, apart from specialist-society magazines, I can't think of anything that's OUTside that spectrum. 

CHRIS LEIGH

Most months, I wouldn't place any of the "opposition" closer to MRJ than RM gets. I get every issue of the former and, whilst I don't do "state-of-the art" myself, I quite often find ideas I can adapt to my own needs and a good dose of inspiration never hurt anyone. 

 

MRJ aside, RM is, of late, often the only one to bother my wallet. Newer titles naturally try to usurp long-established ones but there appears to be little breaking of new ground other than in terms of presentation which, being a bit of a grumpy old git, I often find somewhat garish (for which read "modern") but, IMHO they rarely do the "nitty gritty" any better than old faithful. I consider the RM has been quietly improving under the stewardship of Mr Flint who has achieved a good working relationship between baby and bathwater!

 

I did a quick analysis of my purchases and they have definitely declined overall. I see most titles at the homes of friends but actual purchases are: RM, most issues (more than 2 or 3 years ago), Hornby and BRM, 3 to 5 issues a year (less often) and Model Rail, hardly ever. Sorry, Chris, it's never really been my cup of tea. 

 

If there were to be a new magazine, I suggest a good masthead slogan might be "Attainable Excellence" which is the territory I reckon MORRILL used to occupy.

 

John

[Captain Kernow]

Boudoir! Posh name for the throne room perhaps!?

Stop it! Never mind the 'upper middle ground', you'll be giving him delusions of belonging to the Upper Middle Classes next...!   

[EddieB]

 

Which brings me neatly to ....

 

 

....  the absolute gold standard of model railway articles. The man was a truly gifted modeller and wrote beautifully too. It's significant that he wrote for all the major modelling titles of his time, his work and words obviously thought to have relevance whatever skill sector of our hobby the magazines were pitched at.

 

 

 

Allenden, yes indeed.  Well if I may be forgiven for failing to correctly remember Dennis Allenden's surname at twenty past midnight on a Thursday morning, I'm gratified to see the esteem in which he is still held by the many contributors to this thread.  I best remember his wonderful pieces on the French metre gauge ("The Cripples of Neuilly") or square-chimneyed Belgian locos ("Ay, Marieke"), accompanied by fine prose, excellent modelling skills, construction diagrams and those wonderful atmospheric drawings.  That anyone could write so inspiringly about foreign subject matter in British-orientated magazines, to be recalled with affection after so many years, speaks volumes in itself.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Hi Blackrat,

 

I agree a good quality quarterly would be welcomed I am sure - I understand that the new mag(s), would follow that format.

 

Agreed a photo (picture) can tell a 1000 words - yet as mentioned in my Post elsewhere, the old RM articles with photos of both prototype and model, drawings etc, coupled with history and construction methods (in text) still seems to be sought after by many.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[stewartingram]

When much younger, I tended to go for everything, and I've kept them all to this day. Later I rationalised back to the "big 3" of RM, MRC, and Model Railways as it had become. The latter became a favourite, though not quite the MRC of old. MRC had lost the plot a bit, just before closure, but the older versions remain my all-time favourite to this day. Sorely missed, for its (minimal, by todays standards), layouts; "how-to" articles; and of course the unbiased reviews (and not pages and pages of them like today). MRJ was a must when it appeared, though I originally omitted issue 0 as I thought it wierd not to start at 1; I soon sourced a copy though!

Today, Model Rail is my only subscription. I put it down to the Chris Leigh influence, ex MRC of course. MRJ and RM I still buy every issue, also Hornby. MRJ is a must, a comfortable style, not modern (thank goodness), it is enjoyable like an old pair of slippers. God forbid if it ever modernises itself. The content is far removed from the others, and properly written and presented how it should be. RM, after many years in the doldrums (post Freezer?) has revived and is now more vibrant, but remains a comfortable read. Hornby came on the scene (and I know it is not a Hornby production - why the ridiculous tie-in?); I thought it wouldn't last but it settled in well.Very much for the "nearly-new" modeller, but in a modern format though. Model Rail seems to have dumbed down towards the Hornby presentation too, at times it is difficult to tell them apart. Though I enjoy them both, I feel they are getting to the stage where i just don't need them. Far too many review pages -probably symbolic of the age we are in with being spoilt by too much RTR?. The articles seem to be on an annual repeat, how many times can you read how to lay track/weather a loco/make green scenery?

Notice I have not yet mentioned BRM...

BRM, if I remember correctly, is from the same era of Scale Trains & Model Trains. Ian Rice excepted, I found those newbies from that era just a bridge too far, hence my cutting back. BRM was one I rarely bought, though usually "Smiffed" it. Last year I decided to do a digital subscription, more for the digital aspect than the magazine itself I must admit. I didn't get on with the digital, found it too cumbersome, I wanted to store them all my way as a pdf which wasn't then possible. However I have now managed, via a long winded process, to do this, though I did let the subscription lapse after 12 months. I have downloaded a couple of single issues since, for specific articles, though won't consider buying it monthly for exactly the same reasons as I now feel about Hornby & Model Rail. I think far too much Reviews, too many Layout articles (though the photos are generally fantastic, especially where Andy Y is involved), too many of the "annual repeat articles" as well. I just don't need all of that.

For a lot of what I would have called "magazine content" of years gone by, combined with "model railway club", I now rely on RMWeb. Prototype facts can be asked about, in a social atmosphere. No (quite large) monthly magazine expenditure, nor club fees either, and that is NOT looking for getting something for nothing, but a Brucie Bonus! And no more mags to add to those in the loft either, much easier to find the info on a HDD, or by searching the internet, and I still have my library of older mags.

 

Stewart

[westerner]

On the eighth page and nobody has answered my original question, Is there going to be a new mag (or Possibly 2 according to CME and Bottlewasher) and is anybody going to reveal anything about it/them.

[kevinlms]

They are keeping very quite if there is anything to be said out loud.......

Usually such news is kept very quiet, until such time the backers want it made public.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

On the eighth page and nobody has answered my original question, Is there going to be a new mag (or Possibly 2 according to CME and Bottlewasher) and is anybody going to reveal anything about it/them.

It is not for me to mention anything further (in terms of names and/or time-scales) - I wouldn't want to steal anyone's else's thunder.

 

All I can say is just keep your eyes peeled for two announcements.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[Happy Hippo]

Well something along the lines of Morill I would welcome.

 

Otherwise you'll just have two more publications fighting for what will be effectively a smaller slice of the pie.

 

All I ask is that when they are produced, captions and writing are black on white, as that is what I find easiest to read in my dotage.

[The Stationmaster]

Of course, I've just realised what it is - the electronic downloadable version of MRJ, obvious when you think about it.

[Buckjumper]

Of course, I've just realised what it is - the electronic downloadable version of MRJ, obvious when you think about it.

 

Somehow the 'Funny' button just doesn't seem to cut it...

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Well something along the lines of Morill I would welcome.

 

Otherwise you'll just have two more publications fighting for what will be effectively a smaller slice of the pie.

 

All I ask is that when they are produced, captions and writing are black on white, as that is what I find easiest to read in my dotage.

Hi HH,

 

You make some good points.

 

The issue with various coloured text upon colour text/photo background is a challenge at times, even in my 40's (eek!), I often ask my partner, 'is it me or is that heading/text almost invisible?' She then confirms that the said heading/text has, indeed, blended into the colour/photo background etc.

 

I like the bright colours in the new updated mags, yet at times reading the colour text on a colour/photo background is nigh on impossible, even with glasses and a daylight lamp (bulb)!

 

For those that maybe interested, one of the new publications is mentioned - in a thinly veiled way - on a certain well known modeller's (and writer's) blog - I hope that may help a little.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[Allegheny1600]

A really interesting thread!

My opinion FWIW is that magazines should be very, very careful when using staff writers to write layout articles. I do realise that not everyone who builds, even an acceptable layout for publication, is not necessarily going to be able to write about it in an eloquent way but it would be far, far more interesting to read if such an article was not merely a list of products used, a stocklist, baseboards are 2x1 with chipboard tops, ballast was done "the usual way" etc, etc.

I feel that in such a situation where the staff writer has to do the job, instead of a scripted list of questions to ask, he should be able to discuss the why's & wherefores, the how's only if they are really interesting or different.

Outside the remit of this topic really but I feel very strongly that this is where "Model Railroader" has fallen down badly.

Like many others, I remember how things used to be done 30, 40 years ago - perhaps it was my youth but layout articles were often much more interesting to read then, even if the layout itself was very average indeed by which I mean there was no ballast or even scenery sometimes!

I also feel that of today's magazine layout articles, only the ones written by the builder have any real interest at all.

 

Reviews;

I would value these - IF they are truly judgemental and I personally think they rarely are. To see an example of an "in depth" review, have a look at one in "Eisenbahn Modellbahn magazin", "Modell Eisen Bahner" or similar German magazines, they are really detailed! They illustrate the review with comparative shots of the real thing, they tell you how much current is drawn at various speeds, what current/speed at different gradients - I just think they are superior!

British reviews are certainly better than they used to be, yet how come "howlers" can go unnoticed?

 

If there is to be a new magazine, I too would welcome it - if such points could be taken on board and IF they could do more/better/in depth comparisons between the model and the real thing. I'm aware that such things have been touched on in the British press but not deeply enough.

 

Cheers,

John E.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

A really interesting thread!

My opinion FWIW is that magazines should be very, very careful when using staff writers to write layout articles. I do realise that not everyone who builds, even an acceptable layout for publication, is not necessarily going to be able to write about it in an eloquent way but it would be far, far more interesting to read if such an article was not merely a list of products used, a stocklist, baseboards are 2x1 with chipboard tops, ballast was done "the usual way" etc, etc.

I feel that in such a situation where the staff writer has to do the job, instead of a scripted list of questions to ask, he should be able to discuss the why's & wherefores, the how's only if they are really interesting or different.

Outside the remit of this topic really but I feel very strongly that this is where "Model Railroader" has fallen down badly.

Like many others, I remember how things used to be done 30, 40 years ago - perhaps it was my youth but layout articles were often much more interesting to read then, even if the layout itself was very average indeed by which I mean there was no ballast or even scenery sometimes!

I also feel that of today's magazine layout articles, only the ones written by the builder have any real interest at all.

 

Reviews;

I would value these - IF they are truly judgemental and I personally think they rarely are. To see an example of an "in depth" review, have a look at one in "Eisenbahn Modellbahn magazin", "Modell Eisen Bahner" or similar German magazines, they are really detailed! They illustrate the review with comparative shots of the real thing, they tell you how much current is drawn at various speeds, what current/speed at different gradients - I just think they are superior!

British reviews are certainly better than they used to be, yet how come "howlers" can go unnoticed?

 

If there is to be a new magazine, I too would welcome it - if such points could be taken on board and IF they could do more/better/in depth comparisons between the model and the real thing. I'm aware that such things have been touched on in the British press but not deeply enough.

 

Cheers,

John E.

Hi john,

 

Great Post!

 

I too have noted the trend towards the staff written article, with all of it's 'Fred declared that he...' and 'Fred's friends helped build the baseboards'..they always seem disjointed with an element of falsness and/or lack of authenticity. I can understand such articles for the late and great Col. R. Hoare and his layouts, Mr. Waterman too, yet for the rank and file, I say let them have their say and have bash at writing an article.

 

IMHO I would far rather see articles written by the builder/owner as they are more natural.

 

I think that what would help, as with Garden Rail et al, if the mags had a small section (a few brief paragraphs/bullet points) detailing what is required by potential writers/authors, in terms of content, word count, number of photos, drawings and diagrams etc etc...

 

I agree, I am a little more oldschool too, yet if we could have evolution in terms of those informative articles of old, coupled with the new look/technology then that would be nigh on perfect.

 

I will duck as I mention this; in terms of reviews (and/or lack of them) howlers such as the 7mm Dapol Planked wagons sliping through the net spring to mind - although I get the feeling that with advertising revenue and TPTB breathing down their necks, editors have one hand tied behind their repective backs when it comes to certain companies. Although widely reported on the internet the issues with 7mm scale Heljan diesels having greabox problems has not been flagged within the modelling press as far as I can see (let us hope that after several years that one is now resolved).

 

Back to discussions re the OP now

 

ATVB

 

CME

[dibber25]

Hi john,

 

Great Post!

 

I too have noted the trend towards the staff written article, with all of it's 'Fred declared that he...' and 'Fred's friends helped build the baseboards'..they always seem disjointed with an element of falsness and/or lack of authenticity. I can understand such articles for the late and great Col. R. Hoare and his layouts, Mr. Waterman too, yet for the rank and file, I say let them have their say and have bash at writing an article.

 

IMHO I would far rather see articles written by the builder/owner as they are more natural.

 

I think that what would help, as with Garden Rail et al, if the mags had a small section (a few brief paragraphs/bullet points) detailing what is required by potential writers/authors, in terms of content, word count, number of photos, drawings and diagrams etc etc...

 

I agree, I am a little more oldschool too, yet if we could have evolution in terms of those informative articles of old, coupled with the new look/technology then that would be nigh on perfect.

 

I will duck as I mention this; in terms of reviews (and/or lack of them) howlers such as the 7mm Dapol Planked wagons sliping through the net spring to mind - although I get the feeling that with advertising revenue and TPTB breathing down their necks, editors have one hand tied behind their repective backs when it comes to certain companies. Although widely reported on the internet the issues with 7mm scale Heljan diesels having greabox problems has not been flagged within the modelling press as far as I can see (let us hope that after several years that one is now resolved).

 

Back to discussions re the OP now

 

ATVB

 

CME

An interesting post in terms of your misconceptions:

We rarely use staff writers to write layout articles - usually only instances where there's a 'celeb' owner who does not wish to write (Pete Waterman, David Shepherd etc) or for somewhere like Pendon where we want a visitors' viewpoint. It's quicker to knock other people's words into shape than to write them ourselves.

Where reviews are concerned, we speak as we find. I seem to recall I reviewed the Dapol wagons. I found them nice models that run well and look good and I think that's what I said in the review. 

That old chestnut about ad revenue is just that - an old chestnut. I've published reviews and had manufacturers on the phone giving me an earful, threatening to withdraw ads and occasionally actually doing so. I have NEVER had someone tell me "say nice things about my model or I'll cancel my ads". 

As to gearbox issues with Heljan diesels, we tend to pass our Heljan models to Mr. Lowery for testing and they often stay on his layout for many months. To date I'm not aware of any complaints from him about problems, indeed, the last time we spoke about such matters he was full of praise for them. We base all our reviews on our examination and tests of the models and whilst internet comments might alert us to an issue, our review would be based on our own findings and not simply on requoting something from the internet. 

CHRIS LEIGH

[CME and Bottlewasher]

An interesting post in terms of your misconceptions:

We rarely use staff writers to write layout articles - usually only instances where there's a 'celeb' owner who does not wish to write (Pete Waterman, David Shepherd etc) or for somewhere like Pendon where we want a visitors' viewpoint. It's quicker to knock other people's words into shape than to write them ourselves.

Where reviews are concerned, we speak as we find. I seem to recall I reviewed the Dapol wagons. I found them nice models that run well and look good and I think that's what I said in the review. 

That old chestnut about ad revenue is just that - an old chestnut. I've published reviews and had manufacturers on the phone giving me an earful, threatening to withdraw ads and occasionally actually doing so. I have NEVER had someone tell me "say nice things about my model or I'll cancel my ads". 

As to gearbox issues with Heljan diesels, we tend to pass our Heljan models to Mr. Lowery for testing and they often stay on his layout for many months. To date I'm not aware of any complaints from him about problems, indeed, the last time we spoke about such matters he was full of praise for them. We base all our reviews on our examination and tests of the models and whilst internet comments might alert us to an issue, our review would be based on our own findings and not simply on requoting something from the internet. 

CHRIS LEIGH

Hi Chris,

 

How are you? - thanks for your reply.

 

Misconceptions? No I dont think so, I shall have to, as much as it pains me, disagree with you Chris.

 

BTW my commentry wasnt aimed at you or indeed MR. There are however, currently, UK mags who have staff that write up an awful lot of the articles - eg. on contributors' layouts - themselves.

 

The Dapol wagons issue, mmm, sadly none of them are accurate and I am suprised that you missed that in your review with your experience and the data and research materials on tap for a publisher. I have always rated your reviews and your experience and it pains me to have to point such out, yet as you raised a reply. True the Dapol wagons looked v'pretty (no value judgements on my part, just observations). IIRC the Dapol Thread details such and many other issues with Dapol's O Guage products (over 20 plus pages) and Adrian Swain makes some detailed comments about this product's short comings. Let us hope with Mr. Webster et al onboard Dapol output will improve;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59212-Dapol-201213-o-gauge-range-discussion-thread/

 

You mention the 'old chestnut'  - I have to disagree, yet to detail why I have to disagree - in open Forum - would not be fair on those who have informed me, contrary to your comments, re Editor's being 'leaned upon'. As an editor yourself, you must, I would have thought, now count yourself very lucky that you have never been put in that situation. I agree, a review should be impartial so as to provide the readership with the best info possible - which invloves the readership's hard earned etc. I find it very telling that Dapol never offerred their wagons for review, to the best of my knowledge, to MRJ or the GOG Gazette, I dont wish to wander off of the OP though.

 

I realise that Dave Lowery and yourselves (MR) have not had problems with the Heljan's diesels (7mm) and once again you are very lucky as there have been scores of problems - well documented elsewhere on the interweb (again I have the utmost respect for Dave and yourself - and have had some lovely chats with you both).

 

Howes did a good job of bailing Heljan out, yet even when the issue was meant to have been resolved, it hadnt been for another two model releases. Many locos were quietly fixed by owners (with spare parts from Howes et al. - which were issued free). In other scales and gauges we are told not to tamper with warranty repairs/issues and I agree. I would ask though, at the price point (retail) of eg. £500.00  (the average price that a Heljan 7mm loco is), would one be expected to repair a faulty TV of the same price point, with parts supplied by a manufacturers' agent? I suspect not. The problem was an 'open secret', as are the cultural issues within a certain manufacturer (known and commented upon amongst those in the trade - but once again not for open forum discussion).

 

I agree, you guys, as the subject matter experts, in MR, have done some great work on reviewing models over the years and indeed IMHO have improved that aspect of the hobby no end, yet like WHICH and TOP GEAR et al. reviewing a brand new model is one thing, testing it another, having it 3-12 months down the road when things become problematic is another issue, with all of the best will in the world, reviews cannot cater for all aspects of a product.

 

I hope that clarifies my previous comments, which were, not aimed at MR or yourself.

 

In terms of editors being leaned upon I have seen that in other areas and indsutries too - a long story short, such was further confirmed to me when I got to meet Jimmy Page's guitar tech a few years back, but that's another story.

 

Thanks for your Post and insight.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[dibber25]

Hi Chris,

 

How are you? - thanks for your reply.

 

Misconceptions? No I dont think so, I shall have to, as much as it pains me, disagree with you Chris.

 

BTW my commentry wasnt aimed at you or indeed MR. There are however, currently, UK mags who have staff that write up an awful lot of the articles - eg. on contributors' layouts - themselves.

 

The Dapol wagons issue, mmm, sadly none of them are accurate and I am suprised that you missed that in your review with your experience and the data and research materials on tap for a publisher. I have always rated your reviews and your experience and it pains me to have to point such out, yet as you raised a reply. True the Dapol wagons looked v'pretty (no value judgements on my part, just observations). IIRC the Dapol Thread details such and many other issues with Dapol's O Guage products (over 20 plus pages) and Adrian Swain makes some detailed comments about this product's short comings. Let us hope with Mr. Webster et al onboard Dapol output will improve;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/59212-Dapol-201213-o-gauge-range-discussion-thread/

 

You mention the 'old chestnut'  - I have to disagree, yet to detail why I have to disagree - in open Forum - would not be fair on those who have informed me, contrary to your comments, re Editor's being 'leaned upon'. As an editor yourself, you must, I would have thought, now count yourself very lucky that you have never been put in that situation. I agree, a review should be impartial so as to provide the readership with the best info possible - which invloves the readership's hard earned etc. I find it very telling that Dapol never offerred their wagons for review, to the best of my knowledge, to MRJ or the GOG Gazette, I dont wish to wander off of the OP though.

 

I realise that Dave Lowery and yourselves (MR) have not had problems with the Heljan's diesels (7mm) and once again you are very lucky as there have been scores of problems - well documented elsewhere on the interweb (again I have the utmost respect for Dave and yourself - and have had some lovely chats with you both).

 

Howes did a good job of bailing Heljan out, yet even when the issue was meant to have been resolved, it hadnt been for another two model releases. Many locos were quietly fixed by owners (with spare parts from Howes et al. - which were issued free). In other scales and gauges we are told not to tamper with warranty repairs/issues and I agree. I would ask though, at the price point (retail) of eg. £500.00  (the average price that a Heljan 7mm loco is), would one be expected to repair a faulty TV of the same price point, with parts supplied by a manufacturers' agent? I suspect not. The problem was an 'open secret', as are the cultural issues within a certain manufacturer (known and commented upon amongst those in the trade - but once again not for open forum discussion).

 

I agree, you guys, as the subject matter experts, in MR, have done some great work on reviewing models over the years and indeed IMHO have improved that aspect of the hobby no end, yet like WHICH and TOP GEAR et al. reviewing a brand new model is one thing, testing it another, having it 3-12 months down the road when things become problematic is another issue, with all of the best will in the world, reviews cannot cater for all aspects of a product.

 

I hope that clarifies my previous comments, which were, not aimed at MR or yourself.

 

In terms of editors being leaned upon I have seen that in other areas and indsutries too - a long story short, such was further confirmed to me when I got to meet Jimmy Page's guitar tech a few years back, but that's another story.

 

Thanks for your Post and insight.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

Thanks for the clarification re Model Rail and staff writers producing layout features. Whilst I've not been leaned on over ad revenue v. honesty in reviews, I did learn long ago that its unwise to bite the hand that feeds you. I've therefore always tried to write what I consider to be balanced reviews. A model is seldom all bad, so it is not difficult to provide a review which gives equal weight to the good points and the bad. Even so, manufacturers will tend to view one adverse comment as a 'bad review' - witness the upset caused when I mentioned that the brake gear fell off a certain diesel-hydraulic. The model got a massive rating - well above 90% IIRC - and a glowing review, yet that brake gear comment caused a right old set to - even here on RMweb from people who weren't involved as manufacturers but for whom that particular model could do no wrong. Well, I spoke as I found and I was still picking up brake gear days after the sample had gone back to the manufacturer!

There is also the consideration of precedents in reviewing. This may or may not apply to model reviews on the basis that the only winners are the lawyers. Big publishing firms run courses for their staff about matters such as libel and what you can and can't say in reviews. It may be easier for small publishers because no one is likely to get much money out of suing them. There is, however, more incentive to sue a major publisher. The case quoted concerned a review of a catamaran by a boating magazine. The review was deemed to have had serious adverse effect on the sales. The manufacturer sued and won huge compensation on the grounds that the review had been deliberately damaging. Sometimes it isn't what you say but how you say it.

CHRIS LEIGH

[Colin_McLeod]

My favourite magazine right now is RMweb.

 

Is there a need for anything else??

[dibber25]

Thanks for the clarification re Model Rail and staff writers producing layout features. Whilst I've not been leaned on over ad revenue v. honesty in reviews, I did learn long ago that its unwise to bite the hand that feeds you. I've therefore always tried to write what I consider to be balanced reviews. A model is seldom all bad, so it is not difficult to provide a review which gives equal weight to the good points and the bad. Even so, manufacturers will tend to view one adverse comment as a 'bad review' - witness the upset caused when I mentioned that the brake gear fell off a certain diesel-hydraulic. The model got a massive rating - well above 90% IIRC - and a glowing review, yet that brake gear comment caused a right old set to - even here on RMweb from people who weren't involved as manufacturers but for whom that particular model could do no wrong. Well, I spoke as I found and I was still picking up brake gear days after the sample had gone back to the manufacturer!

There is also the consideration of precedents in reviewing. This may or may not apply to model reviews on the basis that the only winners are the lawyers. Big publishing firms run courses for their staff about matters such as libel and what you can and can't say in reviews. It may be easier for small publishers because no one is likely to get much money out of suing them. There is, however, more incentive to sue a major publisher. The case quoted concerned a review of a catamaran by a boating magazine. The review was deemed to have had serious adverse effect on the sales. The manufacturer sued and won huge compensation on the grounds that the review had been deliberately damaging. Sometimes it isn't what you say but how you say it.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

My favourite magazine right now is RMweb.

 

Is there a need for anything else??

I'm surprised you need to ask.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Thanks for the clarification re Model Rail and staff writers producing layout features. Whilst I've not been leaned on over ad revenue v. honesty in reviews, I did learn long ago that its unwise to bite the hand that feeds you. I've therefore always tried to write what I consider to be balanced reviews. A model is seldom all bad, so it is not difficult to provide a review which gives equal weight to the good points and the bad. Even so, manufacturers will tend to view one adverse comment as a 'bad review' - witness the upset caused when I mentioned that the brake gear fell off a certain diesel-hydraulic. The model got a massive rating - well above 90% IIRC - and a glowing review, yet that brake gear comment caused a right old set to - even here on RMweb from people who weren't involved as manufacturers but for whom that particular model could do no wrong. Well, I spoke as I found and I was still picking up brake gear days after the sample had gone back to the manufacturer!

There is also the consideration of precedents in reviewing. This may or may not apply to model reviews on the basis that the only winners are the lawyers. Big publishing firms run courses for their staff about matters such as libel and what you can and can't say in reviews. It may be easier for small publishers because no one is likely to get much money out of suing them. There is, however, more incentive to sue a major publisher. The case quoted concerned a review of a catamaran by a boating magazine. The review was deemed to have had serious adverse effect on the sales. The manufacturer sued and won huge compensation on the grounds that the review had been deliberately damaging. Sometimes it isn't what you say but how you say it.

CHRIS LEIGH

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks - an informative and wonderfully considered reply.

 

Like you and many here, I am passionate about railways and model railways - and so it would appear, consumer rights too - having said this, worse things happen at sea and we are, after all, only playing trains railway modelling. LOL!

 

Due in the main, to our, western psychology/mentality, we all tend to 'edit out' (its how our minds/brains have been taught to work), so with that review the manufacturer zoned in on the brake gear issue, when in fact everything else was great.

 

I have a feeling that TPTB like us all to be enslaved by the 'editing out' (not to be confused with the actual editing of a publication) disease - but that is another story.

 

Balance as in all things is very much required in this day and age.

 

I agree about the lawyer issue too - I have found in professional life they are a chore as they're often overly adversarial and egocentric in terms of costs/money (again just an observation and no value judegements made on/about that profession). Liable is, indeed, a big issue these days (so much for - considered - freedom of speech).

 

Kind regards in haste,

 

CME

[Allegheny1600]

A very nice and gentlemanly exchange there, Gents - bravo!

For my part, I will say that I was not pointing fingers in any particular direction, rather waving at almost all British magazines in general so to speak.

Chris raises for me an interesting point in that, if there are no staff writers writing layout articles (except for celebrities, understandable), then perhaps layout owners could be given constructive criticism over their article submissions?

I know from a friends experience that MRJ are 'difficult' to write for in that they want articles written in a certain way - I'm certainly not suggesting that the remainder of the UK mags use this much 'control' but maybe they should apply some pressure on prospective authors, to write in an engaging style and describe methods and motives of operation, for example.

Again, not aimed at MR specifically but all UK modelling magazines apart from MRJ.

(I'm trying to gently 'push' in a certain direction - if this offends, I apologise!)

Cheers one & all,

John E.

 

PS I do realise that some authors already write in such an engaging style, kudos to them! It's just that the majority don't / can't.

[t-b-g]

As you say Chris, magazines have done the modifying articles for ever & it is obvious that their standard has significantly improved. Gone are the days when Tri-ang Princess Royals had sections cut out to make Black 5s etc. But in a way its good that no one notices that such articles appear, because few actually complain about them - no news is good news!

 

I've just been catching up with some reading and in December RM 2013, there is an article on 'Gresley Beat', which looks very impressive and indeed because of its size must be a challenge to exhibit.

However, the author was almost proud to point out that none of the points on the front of the layout, actually work and are just there for cosmetic purposes. The layout is operated from the rear fiddleyard, with the scenic section being merely circuits for trains to pass through. In my view this is cheating and is no different from those trains that used to circulate endlessly in shop windows, just the scenics are better. Its a working diorama, rather than a model railway. Is this really the sort of layouts & items people want in magazines? It was the Railway of the Month.

 

Its disappointing in a way with magazines, as the print/paper and production quality has never been better, but sadly they're going the way of the dodo and it won't be long until we have to read the digital versions only.

 

Having operated Gresley Beat at a few exhibitions, I think that I should leap to some sort of defence!

 

Firstly, it was conceived and designed as an exhibition layout. The huge crowds it draws everywhere it goes are ample proof that it is a highly successful one.

 

Secondly, it requires a huge effort by a team of (usually) 10 people to move it, set it up and operate it. So yes, it is a huge challenge to exhibit it and it has usually been very well rewarded by the reaction of the people watching.

 

Now, I haven't read the article in RM and so I don't know exactly what Cliff wrote or said but the layout is considerably more than a diorama.

 

There are 4 circuits, up and down, fast and slow. Each has its own operator and fiddle yard and each is unconnected electrically or by track to the others. The up fast has a loop, which is regularly used to hold a train for overtaking. The up slow has several loops, which are used for holding trains, including a coal train which is split and shunted. The down lines don't have anything other than a main line but they do have fiddle yards with some very impressive trains, including the 80 (ish) wagon empty coal train.

 

In addition, there is a 5th section, which is the carriage sidings and the loco shed. There are light engine movements to and from Kings Cross, with locos going on shed, being turned and then going for coaling before later backing down to "The Cross" for their next duty. The carriage sidings see a regular procession of empty stock trains, with locos running round and carriages being left until they are needed.

 

So although it is very much an "all action" tailchaser, with up to 5 trains moving on view at the same time, it has much more going on.

 

There are a very small number of points that don't operate, which are for sidings where things like the P. Way and Breakdown trains stay on display.

 

I would be surprised if Cliff did actually say that none of the points on the front work but if he did, he was suffering from severe memory loss when he said it!

 

As for magazines, I have heard strongish rumours over the last couple of years that one has been bubbling under for a while. If the rumours are correct then at least one of the people behind it has posted on this thread but I wouldn't dream of dampening a bonfire that somebody else has lit by saying more. If they wanted to say something, that is entirely up to them.

 

I actually think that there are too many and not enough good quality content being produced to fill them all without a great deal of space filling and duplication. You seem to see the same authors spouting slight variations on what has gone before in other magazines.

 

I only buy MRJ now. It isn't for everybody but it suits me. My involvement in RTR stuff is limited (through my own personal choice - I enjoy making things) so articles on scratchbuilding or more advanced techniques are what I enjoy, although there have been plenty of articles on upgrading RTR stuff in there.

 

The latest edition has a full double page photo of an upgraded Hornby L1 and it looks superb.

 

Tony