[7113]

If you are unhappy with a publication then perhaps it is time to change. I don't think it matters what field it is in there is no excuse for the use of poor paper. (except for reducing costs)

My best advice would be to take a look at other mags and then decide.

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (hairyhandedfool @ 8 May 2008, 09:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A new Locomotive (Bachmann 37/5)

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5

Downside: Little of note.

Surely if the downside is "Little of note" then there isn't a downside - so why not give it 5 stars. If there is a reason for the mark down then surely the spending public should be made aware of it.

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (mos-ki-toe @ 22 May 2008, 07:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I have received the latest edition. Sorry still not impressed
Graham

I guess the end of the subscription is nigh then?

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (alastairq @ 23 May 2008, 19:06) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>what DOES one do with those mountains of old issues?

I think that there is a great deal that modellers can do to enhance models/layouts and perhaps this is where the majority of the magazines are falling down. An example is the use of road vehicles - how many driverless cars and empty buses do you see? I feel the answer is to many. The same applies to empty carriages and crewless locas!

There are plenty of avenues available to assist modellers because, let's face it there are new entrants and returnees all the time and they need to be brought up to speed on the latest techniques.

I think the advent of the Railroad range will do much to help the return to "modify contents of the box modelling" and I for one certainly hope so.

Finally to answer the question quoted above - do what I plan on doing - remove and file the useful bits (plans etc) and recylce the rest.

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (BRITHO @ 27 May 2008, 11:39) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>remove and file the useful bits (plans etc) and recylce the rest.

Hi Alastair

Forgot to mention I haven't forgotten about those plans of DB wagons - I just haven't found them yet!

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (61215 billy carver @ 28 May 2008, 14:48) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>that sounds as though your using my patented filing system there britho,can i have it back when youve done?billy

Is that the "it's in that heap in the corner" system or the "I know it's around here somewhere" system?

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (alastairq @ 28 May 2008, 21:23) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>On the subject of old mags...[I remember her well]

Of course she was much younger then!

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (alastairq @ 29 May 2008, 15:37) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>neatly avoiding the [back?] issue of my Railmodel Journals.....?????

Not exactly avoiding the issue of your back issues - more "I really don't need any more magazines"

Regards

 

[7113]

QUOTE (black 5 man @ 2 Jun 2008, 20:44) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The scoring system in Model Rail is a subjective thing, which is why we have steered clear of it. Some people will find it interesting and useful, but if anything will rub advertisers up the wrong way, it is this.

I have to agree that the scoring system has, in my opinion, serious drawbacks and I can clearly see that no manufacturer, be it a "Premiership" player or a minnow, is going to like being knocked back becauase there is "little of note" wrong with the product. I can see that this would seriously make them reconsider their advertising position, especially one of the smaller manufacturers.

Again I can agree that in most cases if a model looks right to me then it is right. When I start reading comments like "the rivet heads below the windscreen appear to large" I tend to stop reading the review as it is not the sort of review that interests me. But, if there is a glaring error, and here the Royal Scot chimney comes to mind, then it should be pointed out and hopefully lead to the manufacturer correcting it.

Finally I second the good wishes to Ben Jones - let's hope he can put the magazine back on track.

Regards