MRJ 251 thread.

[Heather Kay]

I have been a subscriber for years. I make it a point of principle to support a "smaller" publication.

Content and quality has varied over the years, it's true. On the whole, since the rotating editorship started, hits have been higher than misses in my opinion. There is a nostalgic feeling that the olden days of a solid weekend of good reading have passed, then an issue stuffed with all kinds of goodies arrives on the doormat.

I have little interest in the glossier model railway mags. I look over copies occasionally at my model railway club, and don't feel there is much there for me. The photography used by all the editors these days seems to have hit a point of over-processed hyper-realistic, with photoshopped smoke and steam, which simply doesn't do it for me. All the techniques seem samey, and gushing reviews over the latest out-of-the-box model date very quickly.

So, I'm happy for my seventy-odd quid a year heading to Wild Swan to produce something a little different to the mainstream railway modelling press. Long may it continue.

 

[Steve Cook]

Having thought about it some more, is the reduction in the 'instant devourability' of MRJ simply based on the fact that we have available to us now a near constant feed of information and models through the many exhibitions, forums and printed materials - thus our appetite simply isn't given time to grow between each reading? Ironically, does that make places like this part of the problem?

 

[queensquare]

I would fully agree with what Steve has said in his post, finding great 'interesting' models that are built by people who are also effective and engaging communicators is not easy. I don't see that having a permanent editor would make that any easier.
I will just add one further point that is rarely, if ever mentioned. One of the main criticisms of the guest editor is that it lacks continuity but it's too often forgotten the Paul Karau has been there since issue O and has a massive, positive, impact on the magazine whoever happens to be sitting in the editorial chair at the time.

Jerry

 

[Neil]

Oh dear, I hope this thread isn't going to slip into an 'MRJ isn't what it used to be' routine, You'll be talking about sausages next:-(( Constructive criticism is welcomed but just 'it was better in the old days' is of little use. ....

If it's any help I think the claim of being 'better in the old days' is nothing to do with content or style and everything to do with the era in which it started and the very fact that it was the beginning of something new and exciting. The current MRJ would struggle to represent such a gulf between what could be bought off the shelf and what individuals were making when the first issues came out. Likewise it can never repeat the excitement at being the new kid on the block, the anti establishment rebel, the pioneer.

Being provocative I could extend an argument that like UKIP its job is now done, and it can now drift off into obscurity, the standards of rtr having now got to the point where it challenges all but the most talented of builders. However we all know that it's not game over for excellence, but it may be that MRJ will have, perhaps should have, most to say in the future about artistic merit rather than technical wizardry.

 

[Simon]

I often think about this, and on the whole agree with the general sentiment that the earlier issues were somehow "better" than the more recent issues. There are many reasons for this I think, none of which necessarily imply any criticism of the issues that are currently being produced. A lot is to do with the state of the hobby, the Eighties were when "finescale" modelling (for want of a better term) was really taking off, and after the demise of "Model Railways" (previously Model Railway News) there was a real need for a magazine that spoke to and catered for (us) aspiring finescale modellers.

Without meaning any criticism of anyone currently writing, Bob Barlow was a terrific communicator. The combination of his enthusiasm and skill with Paul's input (unseen to the reader but it has always been there, as it is today) together with input from Iain Rice and writers of the quality of the late Monty Wells, when coupled with the many developments in the hobby did indeed create a wonderful magazine.

We older readers also have to consider that in general and certainly in hobby terms we now know and have experienced a whole lot more than we had in the Eighties, and so it is less likely that any article in any magazine will "wow" us or impart new insights or ideas.

Alongside this, we also have the Internet, RMweb and this place and others that allow exchange of information and discussion in a far more interactive way than any magazine will ever offer, although the relative lack of editorship online creates a very different "animal" to anything that gets printed.

All of which waffle doesn't offer anything helpful for the current magazine I hear you say, and I 'd agree with you.

One thought, I think I am right in saying that MRJ doesn't get the number of letters that it used to. Now I know that there is no editorial email address, but written communication still works (and the savvy might even email one of the regular guest editors) so if you have a thought or contribution then why not pen/type a concise letter and send it in? This last issue has the busiest letters section that I have seen for a long time which I think adds life to the magazine.

As far as contributing articles goes, why not try "speaking" to one of the guest editors, a lot of them are around and communicatable with without resorting to quill pen and the penny post.

And as for another finescale magazine like Bob's "Review" - bring it on, the market is there for it and there are lots of things that MRJ doesn't do, as people quite happily point out.

But are you or I going to produce it - and if not us then who?

It won't be me, I reckon Wild Swan is more than enough to cope with, and it probably needs to be someone younger and possessing of more energy.

All of which makes Paul Karau's achievement in producing MRJ, GWJ (yes I know it's late) together with all of the Wild Swan titles over the last thirty odd years absolutely remarkable. And yes, it probably does have something to do with not having an email address.

I don't think we ought to put each other on pedestals, but I am in genuine awe of Paul Karau's achievement, and will remain so irrespective of whatever the future for any of it holds.

Blimey, bit of an essay there, sorry about that

Simon

 

[allegheny1600]

We older readers also have to consider that in general and certainly in hobby terms we now know and have experienced a whole lot more than we had in the Eighties, and so it is less likely that any article in any magazine will "wow" us or impart new insights or ideas.

Simon

A superb post there Simon and for me, you have hit the nail on the head with the above quote.
IF MRJ doesn't have the impact it used to, this is most likely, why.
Short of having a frontal lobotomy or other massive trauma, we can never "go back" to how it was back in the days of single or double digit number issues.
I was around for such issues but purchased very irregularly, subsequently I have bought up collections so I have them all, as treasured possessions. What have I noticed?
If the quality of the work featured, by way of individual items of rolling stock, scenery etc is compared against "mainstream" publications featurettes, then the others have made progress in comparison to MRJ. What the others could never do is meet or exceed MRJ as it's style is unique and individual to it alone. Plus, the "layout" articles are always much more in depth than in the "red tops", MRJ must continue this, where the layout owner/builder is quizzed about his/her motives, desires, raison d'etre for building the thing - it makes for a deeply satisfying read and for me, is just as inspiring as those early issues.

By way of a comparison, I think of this site as being comparable with MRJ, "the others" as being like the red tops!
Cheers,
John.

 

[Osgood]

….And yes, it probably does have something to do with not having an email address….

 

[Stoke5D]

If I might distill one point from the above that I think MRJ should (and mostly does) still focus on, and that is inspiration.

Even if there aren't loads of new groundbreaking how-to articles out there, then featuring excellent work, whether locos., rolling stock or layouts, is definitely something it has done well and should try and do more of in the future. You can see that this will be worthwhile when considering what happens here.

It might seem a silly issue but I also wonder if having an electronic point of contact might actually flush more content out - people are surprisingly comfortable with that and very reluctant to put themselves out with more traditional forms of contact.


Andrew

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Agree with what Andrew says above, and something else I'd like to see more of is prototypical inspiration, much like the old Modellers Backtrack used to be.

Col.

 

[Stoke5D]

Good one. That's something you also saw was popular in the heyday of Model Railways mag and stands out for me when I look at some back issues I've collected over the years (it was before my time).


Andrew

 

[Simon]

I agree about "protototypical inspiration" content, it was a stand out feature of the old "Model Railways" - I think the late Bernard Wright's locomotive portraits, informative sketches and "bazzing around" features were just wonderful.

Coming back to today's magazine(s), I have heard it said that one reason we get less of the prototypical content is because there has been such an explosion of content in the many pictorial railway books produced since OPC hit the decks in the late Seventies.

There's probably something in that, but I reckon we could stand a bit more...

Simon

 

[Stoke5D]

Simon


What you say about OPC et al. is true but if you look at the MR content I mention, then it was 'interpreted' prototype info. The Bazzing around feature you mention took a photo. and then by using sketches and text pointed out and explained all the interesting features in the photo., similarly the loco. portraits included sketches and explanation. There's still a need to do that. It's a great idea for MRJ but I suppose you've got to have someone knowledgeable and motivated enough to do it...


Andrew

 

[Peter]

Hi,


Did not Modellers’ Backtrack cease publication due to having prototypical content? I cannot locate my copy to verify my memory of the sentiments noted by David Jenkinson, the editor.

In Sydney, Australia, it has only been relatively recently (from some time in 2014) that MRJ has become available in suburban newsagencies. I buy each issue and have a good read. The level of personal enjoyment is more a reflection of my level of interest in the prototype, scale, and level of detail expected.

I no longer bother to look at the covers of other magazines including those published in Australia. Their appeal faded nearly twenty years ago.

I can only wish those who produce MRJ every success in a very fickle market so that I will have a forthcoming supply of entertaining articles to read. Like others here, I too enjoyed Model Railways and Modellers’ Backtrack but no more!!

Best regards,

Peter

 

[geoff_nicholls]

I used to think that the MRJ crew were a bunch of po-faced rivet counters, happy to devote a whole issue to obscure items like wooden cable drums. But increasingly, grudgingly, I found I admired the workmanship, effort put in, and results. (and the concentration on my area, east Anglia helped)
So now I strive to achieve, in gauge 3, the sort of detail MRJ contributors regularly demonstrate in much smaller scales.

 

[AJC]

Simon


What you say about OPC et al. is true but if you look at the MR content I mention, then it was 'interpreted' prototype info. The Bazzing around feature you mention took a photo. and then by using sketches and text pointed out and explained all the interesting features in the photo., similarly the loco. portraits included sketches and explanation. There's still a need to do that. It's a great idea for MRJ but I suppose you've got to have someone knowledgeable and motivated enough to do it...


Andrew

Absolutely - and of course it wasn't only Bernard Wright. Similar concepts (albeit mostly without the prototype pictures) have appeared elsewhere: Iain Robinson in the 'Modeller and the 'Lineside Look' pages in ModelRail in it's supplement days. In fact there was something along those lines, with prototype pictures, by Geoff Kent ('Ill-considered Trifles, no. 236). Now I don't have the sketching capabilities, or at least, not to Wright's standard, but I have had a go in a small way at ploughing the same furrow.

Prototype - Bazzing Around... Yeovil Pen Mill, a view from the '70s | Western Thunder

I would agree with Simon, Steve and Jerry, that MRJ partly because of what it was trying to do when and partly, I think, because of the improved standards in the RTR sector in 4mm, but now increasingly in N and O mean that the apparent difference between the mainstream and 'finescale' has decreased. What I think it continues to do - often well, but sometimes not* - is to publish modelling content that no other magazine would include (and yes, that includes cable drums, and aerial photographs, thank you for reminding me...).

Adam

* An example: an article on LMS vans (Mick Moore, no. 238, pp. 91-4) which described removing doors from plastic kits using a milling machine. What I really wanted to know was 'how' this was done: while not everyone has a milling machine, this is the kind of technical challenged that would interest me in case I ever have access to one! The pictures, I think solely of completed vans, were of limited interest and less use so far as I was concerned. Whether this was an editorial or commissioning failure is moot, but it's a clear example of an article that could have done much more in the same number of pages.

 

[Jim smith-wright]

The photography used by all the editors these days seems to have hit a point of over-processed hyper-realistic, with photoshopped smoke and steam, which simply doesn't do it for me. All the techniques seem samey, and gushing reviews over the latest out-of-the-box model date very quickly.

I know what you mean (although I too can be guilty of adding a few effects now and then). For me it's that the glossies seem to be competing with each other to have more punchy and vibrant pages. This means that the images are hugely over processed, way too saturated and sharpened past anything like reality. You need to take a step back to see just how far it's gone. Add in that a lot of the 'photographers' are more like good amateurs than professionals and you get poor composition, iffy lighting and things like tangents all over the place.

I wonder if the MRJ was better in the old days was partly down to it being new to us back then? If you follow a magazine long enough it will become familiar because we are learning from it. I wonder if those picking it up today see it the way we did with our respective first issues?

Cheers

Jim

 

[daifly]

In Sydney, Australia, it has only been relatively recently (from some time in 2014) that MRJ has become available in suburban newsagencies.

Hmm. Maybe you're in the wrong suburb. When I was living and working in Sydney in the late 80s it used to amuse me how quickly the pile of MRJs in my local newsagent in Manly would disappear! It was the early days of the magazine which began publication in 1985 as I recall - perhaps you are now witnessing a resurgence in interest.

 

[Ian Smith]

Like so many others I have been reading MRJ since issue 0, but I've never subscribed annually to it preferring to buy them over the counter as it were. There is quite a large hole in my collection from the early to mid 90's to when I came back to the hobby almost 20 years later. Indeed there are other gaps in my collection where the odd issue had little to interest me at the time, and that was when there was a constant within the editorial-ship.

I can empathise with those who say that MRJ is not what it was, as since returning to the hobby I have been re-reading many of those earlier issues. In light of the comments both here and the inane drivel on another forum I have been trying to analyse why in my own mind "it's not what it was" (although I hasten to add that I personally have no problem with the current content and invariably find something of interest, and have all of the current issues since my return to the hobby). I do tend to read them all from cover to cover even if some articles on face value are not really of interest to me - an example would be diesels in 7mm (or any other) scale - in case I find something within the article of use/inspiring/etc and it must be said that I very often do).

I think that as others have said that "back in the day" what MRJ was and what it showed in it's content was to a large extent quite ground-breaking (at least to me), although I must admit that the other magazines especially Model Railways and Model Railway Constructor had some very informative and inspirational content too. Perhaps some of the current articles do gloss over the "how to do it", and I can completely agree with Adam in post 35 that just seeing the finished item is perhaps less interesting than a slightly more detailed description of how it was done - In Adam's example it would have been nice to know what sort of cutter and its speed were used to machine the plastic for example (although I can quite imagine that others without machine tools would potentially have felt that sort of information very "geeky" and of no use whatsoever! Perhaps that is why the author didn't go to that sort of level).

Personally I do not see guest editors as an issue, indeed I personally believe that having different people involved positively promotes a varied authorship and thereby a varied and hopefully interesting content. The only problem in my mind is that a good modeller does not necessarily make a good author, and there have been a few articles that I have felt were a bit disjointed and could have been improved - perhaps that is where the lack of editorial-ship from Bob Barlow is felt now? Rather than being a symptom of having different editors, perhaps Bob was just a damned good editor!

I know that many feel that the lack of an email presence is a failing - personally I don't. I do not know how big the production team of the magazine is but I can well imagine that it is very few individuals, and if an email presence was available I'm sure that they could very easily be bombarded by individuals who just bash out whatever is on their mind and send it with very little thought - a written letter tends in my view to have a lot more thought and effort put into it and is therefore invariably a better form of communication. In my view if something is worth saying then the effort of composing it properly should not be off-putting.

Sorry, that ended up being somewhat lengthier than I originally envisaged.

Ian (probably one of those not very good authors (or modellers))

 

[Osgood]

Canada Street ........some of the best 4mm scale modelling you'll see. It's nice to see a layout where everything is weathered, just as real life…...

Is this the current state of the queue to see Canada Street at the CMRA Stevenage this weekend?

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Nah, that's the queue for seats on Southern and/or LUL ghost trains....