[rb277170]

I also thought this months edition was OK, with a reasonable amount of reading. On the other hand , I thought the Pullman edition was poor , and had a good look through this one before buying.

The paper is terrible. True also of Rail magazine- I find the print comes off on my fingers.

The response to the Stansfied email was predictable and did nothing to stimulate the debate on cost and manufacturers. Disappointing but not really suprising from Model Rail.

I do think that the mag has lost its way a bit . It seems uncertain what to do. Should it emulate the success of Hornby mag and concentrate on a particular era . With the demise of MRM maybe there is an opportunity. Interestingly in one of the "What next" comments its saying look out for more on post 1968 British railway subjects. So maybe thats it then . A difficult one as it could alienate what I still think is the bulk who model pre 1968.

QUOTE I really didnt like the editorial. He spoke of the advances that have been brought about in the industry and gives magazines some of the credit for it. i'm afraid that i hold the major magazines partly responsible for the poor quality of models we had during the 80's and 90's. Poor models went through on the nod rather than actually being reviewed. surely the editors are to blame for this?

Peter

Completely agree Peter. Have written before about the "chummy " attitude prevailing amongst model railway editors and manufacturers which means the manufacturers have been hardly challenged in the past. Thankfully this is now changing....but mainly due to the internet

Russell

 

[rb277170]

QUOTE Other magazines may have jumped the gun with 2008, but Model Rail made such a fuss over not releasing the information.

Yes its the duplicity of the magazine that gets me. They have this pious attitude of knowing best and being for the enthusiast yet at the sametime are happy to have announcements suppressed so they can announce it first. In the age of the internet an embargo is just absurd. Imagine not getting the football scores on Saturday night because the FA has an arrangement with the Sunday newspapers !

And then there was the coverage itself- little more than a cut and paste job on the press release. Doug here had much more information- but of course could not release it until 01/01/08!!!!

There were interesting snippets in there, like the latest Duchess having fixed pony truck, corridors on the stanier coaches etc- but you would have looked in vain for any information from model rail- despite the fact they attend the press day.

Remember the previous year when Hornby told us all locos would come pre DCC chipped and would run perfectly OK on DC. It took emails to MREmag to get that issue brought up- deafening silence from Model Rail.

Really it is about time we had a magazine that stood up for the model rail consumer -not just pander to the manufacturers on the basis that we've never had it so good. If Model Rail are looking for a new direction- maybe thats it!

Russell

 

[rb277170]

QUOTE Difficult to do so when one of your major sources of income is the advertising from the manufactures themselves - what price any magazine without the advertisements ?

Fair points Brian and Doug, I had forgotten about the amount of advertising Hornby and Bachmann are placing. Nevertheless it does not stop magazines being more inquisitive by nature rather than just accepting the manufacturers press release.

Russell

 

[rb277170]

Its a very light read this month. Although I though the editors comments and advice in the magazine were well thought out

Russell

 

[rb277170]

I'm afraid it comes back to criticism of manufacturers who pay the mag for advertising. So as has previously been pointed out the mags are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.

The mags will have to evolve. From my point of view thast means more detailed articles on layouts or ready to run items. One of the most under exposed areas of the hobby is operation. Lets have more on that, as an example.

Anyway lets wish Ben Jones well and hope he brings a breath of fresh air to the editorship.

Russell

 

[rb277170]

Per F2paul QUOTE Also running ability is pretty vital unless the model sits in its box.

And in that respect there is much more pertinent information around on the internet than in any review. Simply because on the internet someone has bought the model and will be using it in the same way as you intend to. Therefore their feedback is much more relevant , strengths revealed, weaknesses exposed,and in particular running abilities over a huge variety of track can be covered more thoroughly.

Remember the Model Rail review of the K3 where it broke down. The review mentioned it in passing, something like we hope we got a rogue model. Shouldn't the magazine have investigated this further? As an example a quick call round some Model Railway Shops might yield valuable insight into how many returns there had been of a particular model ,for instance. Yet the magazines seem curiously reluctant to fight for the rights of the consumer, in general ,instead seem to ally themselves more with the manufacturer. Its nice that this is such a friendly hobby, but I've often wondered if its perhaps too friendly amongst manufacturers and magazines. Perhaps something polite but more inquisitive is required

Russell