[Brian]

Just received my August '06 copy of Model Rail through the letterbox.
What a delight this magazine is. Brilliant articles, photos and reports to suit beginner and the old hand! OK, the Q & As section is a bit basic, but then that's not excessive.
Sections this month on Channel Tunnel traffic, DCC decoder fitting, Couplings, the continuing Gas Works article, NSE review for the 3rd rail modellers and all the usual new items reviews plus lots, lots more.
Next moth (September issue) promises a free 32 page DCC buyers guide.
Eat your heart out RM.

 

[Dynamite26]

I'm getting my copy tomorrow while i'm out and sounds good from your post Brian and i am looking forward to reading my copy.

 

[Makemineadouble]

I totally agree, it's the only modelling magazine I keep for reference. I think they could have covered more DCC subjects. But then Phil Grainger isn't a full time employee, I think he works in IT for a proper job !

I alway think they go down the pub before they test a new loco on their total test facility. Haulage capacity particulaly of steamers can be highly suspect, when compaired to my own findings. Rather like publishing fishing stories, perhaps they should have to do a drugs test before putting pen to paper.

I was rather sorry they dropped giving dimentions with their layout plans, which generally remain superior to anything the Toddler has to offer. I think for overal quality of production including paper BRM is tops, they are both good magazines and in many ways complementary. The randomness with which BRM doles out it's CD's is like feeding the 5000, I'm still waiting for the last one, and I'm a subscriber. Tony Wright makes the difference.

One subject I would like to see re-introduced by either magazine is layout design. The RM used to when CJF was editior. These used to cover one of his designs and varied and intresting they were to. I'm not intrested in N gauge and wish the modellers of worms would have their own dedicated magazine.

It should be a 1/4 the size of ours (I'm not refering to the N gauge magazine here). But this is not a complaint only an observation. Both magazines need to improve their coverage dates for shows and swop meets. Here I think BRM is superior.

At this current time I'm not going to support RM, as I'm not an average modeller, (what an insulting term). I'm fedup of reading about trams, narrow gauge, and retired Generals who have formed the anti DCC brigade. I'd rather sneek into my local newsagent, page though the coming shows page in RM, and then buy a different magazine. Voting with your feet I think they call it.

 

[CeeDeeI]

As an 'average' modeller building an 'average' layout with 'average' skills and equipment I rely on the Railway Modeller, as do many thousands of others, judging by it's leading sales figures in the model railway press, for my monthly fix of related articles. I have nothing against any of the other magazines available but for me the Modeller gets it right more times than it gets it wrong and has been doing so for the last half century or more while I have been playing with my trains.

 

[Dennis David]

There you have it ... it's unanimous.

 

[spongebob]

Well next months free pul out had better arrive unlike the last couple of ones they've supposedly included or there will be hell to pay. How come when you try to go onto the model rail website all you get is diverted to a subscriptions service?

 

[neil_s_wood]

QUOTE (Brian @ 8 Jul 2006, 01:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just received my August '06 copy of Model Rail through the letterbox.
What a delight this magazine is. Brilliant articles, photos and reports to suit beginner and the old hand! OK, the Q & As section is a bit basic, but then that's not excessive.
Sections this month on Channel Tunnel traffic, DCC decoder fitting, Couplings, the continuing Gas Works article, NSE review for the 3rd rail modellers and all the usual new items reviews plus lots, lots more.
Next moth (September issue) promises a free 32 page DCC buyers guide.
Eat your heart out RM.
It does seem a lot more up to date and modern than RM. What is the letters page like?

I haven't read it for a while. I find the letters page in RM a bit like listening to conversations in an old folks home. Continental Modeller is ok I find. It's a bit hard to find a focus when you cover the rest of the world though.

 

[Gwent rail]

I'd agree that Model Rail is the best, but I see very little wrong with Railway Modeller, unless you are not tolerant enough of other peoples interests to read about them occasionally. I find BRM varies wildly between being unmissable and unreadable, but maybe that reflects my own intolerance of other modelling interests!
I guess that over the last few months, the only unmissable read for me has been Model Rail Forum. Long may it continue!

 

[mow]

Last month's 'review' in MR of the 9F beggered belief, being 'first' with a review isn't always an asset, and I cannot recall seeing any shots of any steam or diesel locos on the 'mythical' test track. Does it exist, and is there photograph proof, or is it a figment of the imagination. Although there were some additional comments on their website from George Dent on running the 9F, there was no follow up in this month's magazine. It would have been interesting to see some of this and other new models on points and cross overs.

The feature on coupling systems is a step forward, and ought to be followed up with some photographs of converting some older models to accept newer couplings. The letters page is almost on a par with the Mirror's Live Letters, akin to the works of fiction in a public library.

I have bought the magazine for over 5 years, and have found that the reviews are little more than reworkings of PR handouts, it could be better.

 

[Makemineadouble]

QUOTE Last month's 'review' in MR of the 9F beggered belief, being 'first' with a review isn't always an asset, and I cannot recall seeing any shots of any steam or diesel locos on the 'mythical' test track. Does it exist, and is there photograph proof, or is it a figment of the imagination. Although there were some additional comments on their website from George Dent on running the 9F, there was no follow up in this month's magazine. It would have been interesting to see some of this and other new models on points and cross overs.

I think here we have proof of the total test track(TTT) operators being high on Nandrolone, at the very least. Thats assuming they didnt go down the pub first.

I did see the TTT at Warley one year, I got the impression that with 12 coaches on it you would'nt know if you were operating an express or a pushpull in reverse, it's highly likley both the front coach and the rear coach could be simultaneously coupled to the same loco.

Joking aside I still prefer Model Rail from me they get a

 

[mow]

Glad to read that the MR Test Track exists...

I have bought MR for over 5 years, the positive points must have outweighed the negative ones, there must be some reason to make the repeat purchases.

I have bought BRM but do wonder if there is a clear focus, at the moment, it doesn't seem to have much in the way of reviews of DCC unless I have missed something recently. Although the step by step DCC guides on this and other sites on chipping steam outline models leaves BRM standing. On the whole I think that Tony Wright's reviews are more through, although he must have wished that the Hornby Class 31 hadn't been offered up...

The kite flying by George Dent on MR's website was interesting, would it include long term tests, on Bachmann's A2 Pacfics , the K2 Class Moguls to name two models with some scope for improvement - A2 motors - K2 quality control on valve gear and linkages?

 

[spongebob]

BRM for me is mainly focused on steam running practises and endless kit building exercises. All well and good if you can gain any tips for future projects but the only tip you can get is to FOLLOW THE DAMN INSTRUCTIONS YOU FOOL. That way you don't have to spend half the review telling people how you corrected cock ups of your own making caused by not doing the above.Its spin off modern railway modelling I suspect is doomed to failure not through a lack of readers or potential readers but through a lack of direction and dare I say writer apathy. They come out every 3 months and do a review on a loco that has been in the shops since prior to the last issue being out.
Oh and as for BRM's letters page I grow so weary of seeing the same names each issue taking up half a page without actually contributing anything worth the space.DCC is also an alien technology when it comes to the other magazines and this is where model rail scores big time for me.

 

[spongebob]

didn't know bachmann did an A2. Must've snook it into the country without anyone noticing

 

[mow]

I had meant A1 not A2, my mistake.

 

[cig1705]

Well, from a personal perspective:

I don't tend to buy BRM due to its rather poor reviews coverage- not necessarily the "in-depth" ones, but the fact that, unlike Model Rail, they rarely cover scenic details et cetera- merely locos, stock and the odd building.

Railway Modeller, for me, seems to be too much orientated towards a 1956 "here's how I scratchbuilt a 1902 MS&LR 4-4-0 in O Gauge" style- obscure subjects, scratchbuilt. The articles on building stuff are quite hard to follow, and anything related to Peco, Wills or Ratio seems to be treated with an almost sycophantic air, and, often, Wills etc. products are the only ones suggested (e.g., for platform trolleys, try Peco xxx), due to the Modeller's being owned by Peco. RM reviews also leave a lot to be desired, with major new releases perhaps gaining half a page including titles, ONE big picture and supply details.

Model Rail, although it is the best of the lot, still has some way to go- grammar is important- and MR seems to have a fixation with Dave Shakspeare and George Woodcock, as if these two men were the greatest modellers of all time. Did I mention the BR Blue era- coroporate image stock seems to be the greatest thing of all time, coming up every issue! Still, the occasional article about the SR keeps me going.

Finally, all three need more layout plans (and more small layouts, please! Penhallick is very nice, but I don't have room for a 51ft long layout!).

Rant over,

CIG 1705

 

[Gwent rail]

One of the best points to come out of this discussion, I think, is the opinion that all the magazines concentrate on layouts that the vast majority of us have no room for. (even if there are enough layouts included anyway). Personally, I find a lot of useful information in the text of layout descriptions and it would be nice to see some layouts that are of similar size to the room I have available (10ft x 8ft). It's hard to draw inspiration from a layout 20ft+ when you know that you can't achieve a similar effect in your available space! I'm sure there are many modellers out there who are not even as "space fortunate" as me, so come on Railway Modeller, live by your title and offer layouts suitable for the "average modeller".

I STILL HATE THAT HEADING.

 

[pedromorgan]

"Phil Grainger isn't a full time employee, I think he works in IT for a proper job !" actually i think he works for PECO as their chief designer.

I have one of his old big boys that he weathered and detailed.

I like model rail. (even if they didnt publish my chunnel tunnel article and spent a year to decide not to publish my chunnel tunnel article)

i just with they did something that was a bit more challenging now and then. go on chris leigh, throw in a circuit diagram or something.

Peter

 

[Doug]

QUOTE (pedromorgan @ 19 Jul 2006, 11:23) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>...
I like model rail. (even if they didnt publish my chunnel tunnel article and spent a year to decide not to publish my chunnel tunnel article)
...

Can we see it - seeing as it's not going into MR now

 

[pedromorgan]

mabye. but i might offer it to another mag so not yet.

i didnt care about most of it but i did alot of reaserch into nightstar. even went to the brittish library and went through some origional documents. many of the early government reports on the chunnel tunnel are there.

Peter

 

[neil_s_wood]

I'd like to have seen it too.