model rail magazine: needs improving?

It does depend on what a reader (or purchaser) of a magazine wants.
Is it?
Entertainment through a good read with a good style, differing and interesting content.
Practical guides to help further the building of a layout/models
Information on new products that include analysis, perceptive comment aswell as a straightforward description
The ability to keep this information as a semi bibliography
The ability by the reader to discuss topics and latest issues (probably its weakest section)
The ability to influence manufacturers
By reading adverts, be able to make judgements on what is currently available and some idea about price.
The magazine itself be easy to handle and physically have a feel good factor about its paper etc.

Does Model Rail hit these criteria? Or do others do it better? Was I a little hard on them with my topic starter?

My feeling regarding manufacturers is that surely they have a good idea of what the market wants by talking directly to their customers. Some of whom never read magazines or forums.

Without being too cynical, if I was a manufacturer I would be actively talking up my products in online forums.
Cheers Graham

QUOTE (hairyhandedfool @ 30 Apr 2008, 10:09) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>....The reviews in Model Rail, amongst others, seems inconsistant.....
A good example of this in the latest issue.

A set of temporary road signs, self assembly.

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5

Downside: Some people would prefer ready made signs.

A new Locomotive (Bachmann 37/5)

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5

Downside: Little of note.

Three questions:

How can anyone mark a product down because someone may not think it is the right product for them?
How can it get the same rating as the loco if it is flawed but the loco is not?
Why did the Loco not get full marks if there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps someone could help me here.

Magazine reviews in the case of locomotives never, to me at least give the information that I would like to see. I would like to see the following information ;

Weight of locomotive.
Haulage power.
Number of pickups.
Minimum radius possible.
Decoder fitting details/ease of installation.
Ease of getting the model out & back into the box.
Information/parts list.

To name a few.

I would rather have actual facts anyday rather than "points" based on a reviewers (possibly biased) opinion.

There is no problem with the reviews being dependant on who writes it nor that they pick up faults that others may decide are no real issue, but, to my mind, a review of a model should be about ease of construction and maintenance, likeness, which it era it best suits and performance, where appropriate, and not, as in the case of the road signs, about who will want to buy it.

If I went round saying the only real problem with the Bachmann 20 was that the windows are slightly too round and it detracts from the model, so 4/5, then thats fine because the mark is based on a problem with the model.

But if someone else did a review of the Hornby 56 and gave it 4/5 because, even though there is nothing wrong with it in their eyes, they don't think people who model pre-grouping would like to buy it, would it not be a fair review.

If both were then published side by side, would it be fair to either?

By giving a model less than 5/5 you are saying it can be better, but if there is nothing wrong with it, how can the model be made better?

QUOTE Model Rail in particular since it's revamp at the beginning of the year does seem to place more emphasis on reviews than modelling articles

the above quote from DiesAL's post nicely sums up a prevailing view in this thread.

but.....I fear the observation merely reflects a sign of our [modelling] times...?

It is my observation that railway modellers have become more willing to purchase.....ready-to-roll items than in times past.

perhaps due to the almost unbeatable quality of the RTR items available these days?

As a hobby group we are becoming more reliant on manufactured goods for every facet of our hobby......

20-30 years ago, much needed to be made by ourselves..or modified....now the choice is vast...with makers seeking yet more new avenues to explore?

magazine content therefore in my view, reflects this trend....with more emphasis on 'revues'...[we prefer to buy more now, rather than 'make?'] rather than modelling articles.

the downside of this trend , to me, lies with the magazines as a group becoming 'samey', with the 'repeating' of revues...much like car mags and the latest motors?

BUT...I recall an issue being raised almost 20 years ago, regarding authors touting their articles around the various mags.....with the result that the same 'subject' articles could be found in successive but different mags........the result being, for me, a revulsion at the idea that those creating the articles were more 'in it' for the financial side...or the 'kudos'...than from a desire to share with fellow modellers?

.so nowt changes much there?

I like MRJ....simply because its content harks back to the days when modelling was more of a technical skill, rather than a financial one.

it is sad [to me] in a way, too, that many of those marvellous 'detail' and 'upgrade' articles which used to infest the likes of Model Rail, are no longer viable as 'interest' because manufacturers have managed to achieve such incredible levels of detail already.
what is left to 'upgrade?'

Perhaps the arrival of Hornby's 'Railroad' range might yet encourage an upsurge in such articles?

In the past I have also found, that all mags seem to go through spells of 'interest' drought.........changes of editor I find are often the catalyst for my 'going off' a particular publication......a dislike of the new 'style?'

In past times I have 'gone off' such gems as Narrow Gauge and Shortline Gazette, and Railmodel Journal....the Gazette got boring for me with its overload of D&RGW subjects.........RJ got me fed up with Dash-2's.....

what DOES one do with those mountains of old issues?