[61215 billy carver]

that sounds as though your using my patented filing system there britho,can i have it back when youve done?billy

 

[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

 

[dwb]

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

Well it's not the "HTE - Here, There, Everywhere" system because I patented that a long time ago. These days I just use the Sherlock Holmes filing system. The drawback is that I haven't been able to prevent the "domestic chaotic reorganisation" interruption as the Holmes deterrent method for this would seriously shorten my life span

David

 

[alastairq]

QUOTE (BRITHO @ 27 May 2008, 16:59) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi Alastair

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

Regards

well,I thank you kind Sir....

On the subject of old mags...[I remember her well.......].......does anybody want back issues of the US mag, ''Railmodel Journal?''

 

[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

 

[alastairq]

neatly avoiding the [back?] issue of my Railmodel Journals.....?????

 

[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

 

[alastairq]

however, taking the 'back issue' issue even further,if anyone would like, then the cost is the postage/carriage/delivery.....or even a 'meet?'

It's seems such a shame to 'waste' such a resource as old mags......?

Certainly old mags contain much information not yet [or even, remotely] on the net?

'

 

[f2paul]

Following on from my prevous thread with regard to contacting Ben Jones and his comments regarding their feedback showing most readers just wanting to buy the high quality RTR and run them. The last editorial by Chris Leigh commented on supporting the likes of Crownline and Shawplan to keep the Hobby as MODELRailways. I agree that the reviews have gone down hill. For years we had sucking up of whatever was deemed good enough but now we can expect at least a good base product and if the new model does not reach those standards shout it out. Thus the engineers grey Bachmann 37 recently purchased seems old hat not having cab handrails . Not the end of the world as it was fairly cheap so i will replace them , but i would have liked to see a review pick this up.

 

[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

 

[black 5 man]

QUOTE (rb277170 @ 2 Jun 2008, 20:20) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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.

Russell

I keep seeing these references to reviewers not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. Let's get this straight once and for all, most editors and their staff don't give a fig about the adverts. They would rather there be less adverts so they can have more editorial space to play with!

And here's another thing - I bet there isn't a reviewer out there that doesn't do his level best to give an honest appraisal. It's like Doug said, get to know the reviewer's style. If you get to like a reviewer's style you will start to trust his judgement. All reviews should be 'signed' so you know who's reviews you can trust.

I used to review new releases for Heritage Railway magazine. I was more interested in the aesthetics of the new model, including its livery, rather than whether it was easy to fit a decoder or not. I didn't have a micrometer or original plans to pore over and make comparisons. So my reviews were no good for the rivet counter, or anyone who wanted to know about a particular model's haulage potential. I was writing reviews to suit the collectors 'display case' market.

Hornby, Bachmann et al won't stop taking advertising space just because of the odd bad review. What they look for is honest and fair reviews. If a model isn't right, they will accept the criticism, but nit picking and a failure to acknowledge the huge investment being made does start to grate them.

Don't get me wrong, I am a publisher, so I want to see as much advertisement revenue in my magazines as possible (without upsetting the editorial balance), but there is no instruction to editorial to give favourable reviews to any advertiser, and no advertiser ever asks for a favourable review. These just aren't the done things in publishing.

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.

Reviews and model news are an important part of the hobby - it is difficult to see how any of the magazines could deliberately not carry this information. Wouldn't they be letting a large proportion of their readers down? Wouldn't readers switch in favour of a magazine that did carry all of the reviews? I guess that the duplication is frustrating, but in the case of Hornby Magazine you get at least 90 editorial pages. Take the reviews out and you still get more editorial pages than most of the other magazines, if not all of them.

Good luck to Ben Jones - well done on your promotion Ben - see you for a beer some time.

Black 5 Man

 

[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

 

[f2paul]

I don`t think rivet counting or the odd mil here and there is of relevance to those who run there locos. However when reviews are of locos where images are freely available on the nett , or enthusiasts / preservation groups have forwarded information then i feel to be a reveiwer some research should be done. Then we would not have new models coming out with quite clear visual blunders , hand rail supports , window shapes , pipe work . Whilst these are not the end of the world to a railway modeller thsy are annoying . Also running ability is pretty vital unless the model sits in its box.

 

[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

 

[whoppit]

I found the trouble with m.r was if its editor was interested then it got overkill. Black dog halt, staines west, tebury/cirencester branches etc, etc. some of the kits made in reviews were also finished poorly and not exactly appealing to people to go and buy one. The reviews sometimes were lacking and the q&a section sometimes didnt even answer the question asked. Im not knocking the mag as a whole, some of it was very impressive, i just felt some things in it seemed rushed and cobbled together.

paul

 

[mos-ki-toe]

There is an editor that hands over to a new editor for two months, then comes back whilst the new editor is on holiday. Ok but do we need to have a photograpth of the old editor with the lead editorial alongside 'Black Dog'. It all seems strange to me. Was it really a hand over or not? If the old editor can't let go thats ok by me but just say it.

I noticed on the front page there is referennce to the new Bachmann Patriot and Hornby HST with first look. Yes but hardly great images that can barely be seen.

I liked the image of a streamlined b17 with milk train and the rest of the article. The black dog revamp is what I call filing cabinet content. Something that is not particularly creative and just lurks around for suitable 'padding' in an edition.

I often think they write the letters themselves

Am I just being overly critical?
Graham

 

[tolpuddleman]

I too have noticed a downward slide by MR, in contrast to the rise of HM. Co-incidental ?

MR had much appeal for me in earlier years, but not any longer...

I currently subscribe to Narrow Gauge Gazette - take a look at that for professionalism.

Might subscribe to HM yet.

 

[alastairq]

would you be interested in old issues of Gazette?

I USED to have a subscription until a few years ago.....go too full of D&RG stuff for my liking...excellent quality magasine though.

Magasines in general wax and wain in content and quality......I have seen the likes of RM go from the sublime to the gorblimey and back, over the years.....

 

[mos-ki-toe]

Bought the latest edition and to be fair it was very readable. Poor quality paper still brings it down
Graham

 

[mos-ki-toe]

To be fair I think the January issue is very readable and a good edition. Well done!
Of course it might have helped that I am interested in all the reviews.
Graham