American and Britains are two nations seperated by a common language.
Craig Townsend said:Nicholas Savatgy said:
What I would like to see is $7.00 worth of a magazine not 90 pages of the same old reused stuff.I can more than afford $7.00 for the magazine, and rather have the magazine version over the online version
but the content over the years has mostly gotten worse for what I’d like to see and I refuse to submit articles
so a company can make money and I have to pay to read my own stuff. I’d much rather write the article for this
and other forums were everyone could see. and next to the 90 page thing as stated, I’m tired of seeing mostly
narrow Gauge stuff in every issue. Change it up every once in a while or face the possibility of going under.
I do talk with the local Hobby shop and I’ve been told that he’s been slowly removing certain magazines because of the
Company’s return policy’s and fact that sales are weak and the readership is down, prices are to high and theres is hardly
any profit in them. He stocks them only as a curtsy to his customers that’s all.
I myself will no longer be buying it till they add some more modern stuff on a consistent basis and improve the size
of the Magazine. I feel no sorrow for Marc or his staff, they get paid to do a job… just do it or maybe let a new
younger set of people in that have more enthusiasm and can think outside the box.
Or maybe as a last resort I should just lower my expectations of the magazine.
Nick
Nick,
If I’m reading between the lines you want two things before you buy another issue of GR. First the magazine has to be ~100+ pages regardless of the content, and secondly it must have modern mainline modeling, and very little narrow gauge. I think you’re setting your self up for failure with both these points. If content is solely based on length, then anyone can publish 100+ pages of crappy content and get away with your ‘requirement’ of having a large mag. Personally I’d like to see more content in the mag, but I know that GR can’t do that, until they decided too. Until then I’m happy with ~70-90pages of well written articles. I’ve never noticed a proofreading mistake in GR, where as I’ve found numerous proofreading mistakes in novels and books that are in the 300-500 page range. Not that the two are similar. I’m simply saying the less content should equal higher quality.Secondly, I too am a modern mainline modeler (1970 BN, okay not that modern but compared to the 1890’s-1920 it is). While I enjoy reading articles about narrow gauge and modern mainline projects I can read both and apply the techniques to my own layout. I think as a majority most LS modelers do model in NG, not SG. Even then the few that do model in SG have a very limited layout size. That said, I believe that GR does try to represent both sizes of the equation. Using 1 single issue doesn’t provide a good example, you have to look at the overall mean of the issues.
But everyone including me has been asking “What do you NICK WANT in GR?” So answer the question and let us know! List the things you want to see, and then maybe some of us that have a desire to write and get published will start working on an article.
(As a side note: If I published an article in GR, should I include that in my CV as a Historian?.. LOL I’d call that padding a CV just a tad to much!
Craig
Craig,
I think i did answer but here it goes again.
What i would like is more diversity, and more of it the way it use to be.
O yea, I counted the pages of ads and there were 41, seems high for a 90
Page Magazine.
Nick
Victor Smith said:
Ray Dunakin said:
I can sort of see the attraction of digital books, if it’s just some cheap novel that you’ll only read once and then toss. A modeling magazine is something else (or at least, it should be). So far I’ve never seen an ebook device that was as large as the pages of a magazine, or had the image quality of a magazine. I’ve never seen a digital magazine that you can leave in a doctor’s office for others to enjoy, or loan to a friend, or sell as a collector’s item. A print magazine doesn’t force me to buy an expensive piece of electronics just to read it. A print magazine doesn’t need batteries or charging, and can be read anywhere at anytime. A print magazine can be saved and cherished for decades, without the file format becoming corrupted or obsolete. Digital publishing poses problems for the publisher too, such as the all-too-real risk of online piracy. If you sell someone a digital mag, how do you prevent them from letting everyone on the planet download it for free? And without print magazines in stores, you lose impulse buyers and new readers who otherwise would never even know your magazine exists.Exactly! this is the primary reason I still have a subscription, and I still rifle through and collect old issues of the Gazette. If you take care of them they STAY intact and usable for decades, when everything goes digital, then it can get iffy in this day and age when you can open your computer and find everything corrupted and unusable, and unless you have backed everything up or keep copies on thumbdrives, and how long before those formats become obsolete, I cant open some files that I saved in 2000 because the file format has been rendered obsolete. I’m sorry but this new digital age requirs quite alot of time and trouble to stay current, too much time and trouble in my book, thats why I will always opt for the hard copy, either a real magazine, or a real DVD or CD, all this digital stuff is in reality air none of it really physically exists, and once you drop your iPad or open that infected email or the Chinese decide to launch a e-war and suddenly the entire internet is a wall of dancing hampsters, all that air becomes totally useless. Sorry if that sound ludittian but I’m sick and tired of being pushed to use technology I dont necessarliy want.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Hampster_dance.gif)
I agree with you %100 Vic. I like things simple. Thats why I say we should go back to the old way of Garden Railroading. None of this electronic crap that just brings the price up and makes things more complicated. When it breaks you cant fix it yourself.
Have you ever read an artical that was written by someone you know or who is a friend? If you have a relationship with someone you usually enjoy the artical EVEN if its not a subject you normally would be interested in.
i see a number of folks from forums who write, and just seeing what they are doing is interesting.
Its not all about me, its what the hobby as a whole is doing.
when the next depression hits I wonder how all the hobbies will handle it.?
Marty Cozad said:[b] black humour on[/b]
............... when the next depression hits I wonder how all the hobbies will handle it.?
You mean there’s another one coming, before the current one ends?
black humour off
From what I read and hear print media is very high on the list of “don’t really need it” items. OTOH there are quite a few hobbies that lend themselves to much enjoyment without a large outlay and some of them will be just what’s needed i.e. cooking, growing your own garden, scavenging for edibles in the wild are just three. 
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Ah, yes. Amanita :O
... hobbies that lend themselves to much enjoyment without a large outlay ... scavenging for edibles in the wild
Carstens now pffers RMC, Railfan &Railroad, and Flying Models as an Ipad App!
Geez.
The digital subscription is the same price as the regular subscription.
I know bandwidth isn’t free. But it’s cheaper than printing & postage
Ralph
Chris Vernell said:Or anything else that will rapidly shrink the gene pool. :O :DHans-Joerg Mueller said:Ah, yes. Amanita :O
... hobbies that lend themselves to much enjoyment without a large outlay ... scavenging for edibles in the wild
Nick,
They PAY you for articles…
And they’ll send you a free (advance) copy of the issue your article appears in
Ralph
I am no great hell in the writing world. Every time I submit an article, it is printed in less than six months, and I get paid. Not a lot, but, they pay. My sister in law submitted a two page article and was well paid. It was promptly put in the mag as well.
My point is that they really don’t have that many good and I mean good submissions to work with.
We can change a magazine overnight. They are crying for ideas and good articles that contain pictures and diagrams.
Gentlemen, this is something that we can all participate in and I challenge everyone to help make this magazine what we want it to be.
Regards, Dennis.
The cost vs what you get argument comes up every couple of years in the forums, lots of valid points.
I do buy GR and I think the price is OK for what you get. The only actual articles I find interesting are the layout articles, the rest I find too much for beginners, and over repeditive, but I like the pictures and the cost is fine.
I have a few observations. I’ve written numerous articles for various magazines, but not GR, not for any specific reason, just didn’t get to it. But I see GR’s format is much the same, with same issues of content, backlogs of articles, excessive editing, and a lack of quality stuff being submitted in the first place making it hard for editors to work their magic. All of this leads to the format we now see and know:
- The magazine does accept articles, but the space available for externally submitted articles is limited, meaning only the best get a look in. The rest stay in the stand-by tray, probably forever.
- The magazine’s article are for the most part written by the paid columnists, who each have a specific aspect to write about…the problem is most of these guys (Not just GR), ran out of ideas to write about years ago, but still need to come up with 4-6 pages of stuff for each issue, the answer is to write about the same stuff again and again in the hope that the new comers find it interesting.
- Detailed construction articles are always a problem - space is limited, how much good instructional material can really be fitted in a small space, so its limited to small items of little complexity, or complex stuff glossed over. Photos usually end up providing more clues that the writing. The only detailed method is the multi-part articles, like ‘Up Clear Creek’ in the NGSLG that ran for years and ended up published as a book. Problem is, while some like this type of article, other hate them, and wish the space was used on something more useful!
Someone at GR said to me several years ago that I should write some loco building articles for GR rather than wasting my time writing for the internet for such articles, like my MLS Masterclasses, they said it would reach far more readers than MLS. I agree, but the problem is for such detailed construction articles, after they’ve been edited to hell in order to fit, the 1000s of readers are just that - readers, not necessarily doers. At MLS I was able to cover all the detail, background history, detail about the actual workings of the components in the locos, while we all build the models together. Usually we had 20 or so beautifully finished models at the end of each class, I think thats 20 more than would have come out of a magazine article series over many many issues. For that kind of thing, the Internet had advantages, especially for Q&A along the way. Its just not suitable for a magazine article, and I couldn’t do something like the Mason Bogie, or Carter Bros coach etc properly in an edited magazine format. I once showed Marc H at the BTS, my folder filled with the A4 sized drawing pages for the Mason Bogie - 200 of them each showing a specific part of the engine and how to build it. His eyes just rolled and said god, we’d never publish stuff like that.
I was a regular contributer for more historical loco articles in Narrow Gauge Down Under and Finescale RR, but let them slip, specifically NGDU I’ve not written anything in over a year - the magazine has too many columnists writing about nothing, and my articles were ever more slaughtered in order to fit - and these were not large articles - may 4-5 pages is all, including large photos. One was cut so bad, the editing was like pasting the first and last sentence in most paras and cutting the middles of the paras out - cause it made no sense when read, so after discussion, I cut the 2nd half entirely to be published later on, but it was so mucked up, there wasn’t much left publishable on its own without repeating some of the early stuff, so I let it go. But I would have kept at it and will write for the magazine again. I’m just currently over busy with my own book, which has kept be drawing and writing for several years now and is due for completion late this year. I’ll leave the columnists to find ways to fill the magazine with their stuff.
David.
Ken Brunt said:Amen to that.
Ya don't like it, don't buy it.
Wayne
Hi David - Thanks for stopping in and posting over here Be sure to let us know when your book has been published.
David Fletcher said:
The cost vs what you get argument comes up every couple of years in the forums, lots of valid points. I do buy GR and I think the price is OK for what you get. The only actual articles I find interesting are the layout articles, the rest I find too much for beginners, and over repeditive, but I like the pictures and the cost is fine.I have a few observations. I’ve written numerous articles for various magazines, but not GR, not for any specific reason, just didn’t get to it. But I see GR’s format is much the same, with same issues of content, backlogs of articles, excessive editing, and a lack of quality stuff being submitted in the first place making it hard for editors to work their magic. All of this leads to the format we now see and know:
- The magazine does accept articles, but the space available for externally submitted articles is limited, meaning only the best get a look in. The rest stay in the stand-by tray, probably forever.
- The magazine’s article are for the most part written by the paid columnists, who each have a specific aspect to write about…the problem is most of these guys (Not just GR), ran out of ideas to write about years ago, but still need to come up with 4-6 pages of stuff for each issue, the answer is to write about the same stuff again and again in the hope that the new comers find it interesting.
- Detailed construction articles are always a problem - space is limited, how much good instructional material can really be fitted in a small space, so its limited to small items of little complexity, or complex stuff glossed over. Photos usually end up providing more clues that the writing. The only detailed method is the multi-part articles, like ‘Up Clear Creek’ in the NGSLG that ran for years and ended up published as a book. Problem is, while some like this type of article, other hate them, and wish the space was used on something more useful!
Someone at GR said to me several years ago that I should write some loco building articles for GR rather than wasting my time writing for the internet for such articles, like my MLS Masterclasses, they said it would reach far more readers than MLS. I agree, but the problem is for such detailed construction articles, after they’ve been edited to hell in order to fit, the 1000s of readers are just that - readers, not necessarily doers. At MLS I was able to cover all the detail, background history, detail about the actual workings of the components in the locos, while we all build the models together. Usually we had 20 or so beautifully finished models at the end of each class, I think thats 20 more than would have come out of a magazine article series over many many issues. For that kind of thing, the Internet had advantages, especially for Q&A along the way. Its just not suitable for a magazine article, and I couldn’t do something like the Mason Bogie, or Carter Bros coach etc properly in an edited magazine format. I once showed Marc H at the BTS, my folder filled with the A4 sized drawing pages for the Mason Bogie - 200 of them each showing a specific part of the engine and how to build it. His eyes just rolled and said god, we’d never publish stuff like that.
I was a regular contributer for more historical loco articles in Narrow Gauge Down Under and Finescale RR, but let them slip, specifically NGDU I’ve not written anything in over a year - the magazine has too many columnists writing about nothing, and my articles were ever more slaughtered in order to fit - and these were not large articles - may 4-5 pages is all, including large photos. One was cut so bad, the editing was like pasting the first and last sentence in most paras and cutting the middles of the paras out - cause it made no sense when read, so after discussion, I cut the 2nd half entirely to be published later on, but it was so mucked up, there wasn’t much left publishable on its own without repeating some of the early stuff, so I let it go. But I would have kept at it and will write for the magazine again. I’m just currently over busy with my own book, which has kept be drawing and writing for several years now and is due for completion late this year. I’ll leave the columnists to find ways to fill the magazine with their stuff.
David.
Thank the Lord almighty… someone the really has a clue…
Nick
Wayne Hoskin said:Ken Brunt said:Amen to that.
Ya don't like it, don't buy it.Wayne
Hmmmmmmm.
One problem with all the modeling mags is that, the more experienced the reader becomes, the more advanced the articles need to be. Then it becomes more and more difficult to get enough articles that are sufficiently advanced, since the number of modelers capable of producing that level of quality is few.
Meanwhile, the more advanced articles a mag publishes, the more you start to hear people saying, “I’ll never be as good as these guys, so why bother getting the mag?”
Based on what I am reading here I seem to see a common thread in the commentary that is somewhat disheartening. Most of the modelers here are somewhat experienced (some more than others), and all the ‘wish list’ seems to be geared in that direction. David F. made an interesting point ‘…the answer is to write about the same stuff again and again in the hope that the new comers find it interesting.’ The magazine tries to accommodate all levels of modelers from the beginner to the heavily experienced. Although personally I am not ready to attempt Ray’s ‘claymation’ yet, I fount the article both interesting and informative. There have been some very base articles that were equally boring and old news to me, but they need to be there to help the ‘newbie’.
Nick, considering the mag is primarily reader driven, more articles on modern content needs to be provided by the submission of more articles in that genre. In terms of value, I get value out of every issue. Some more than others. I happen to be a narrow gauge modeler, but construction articles on turnouts, articles on casting techniques, etc. all have value and interest to me. Just as in this forum, I read the posts on an 86’ High Cube just because there might be a construction technique or a new material mentioned I can use.
As for the advertising, if you really don’t like the advertising see if Marc H will release what the magazine would cost you the consumer without the ads paying for most of the cost of publishing the magazine. I stopped MR and RMC long ago because the content was almost entirely mainline diesel and the ads were heavily biased at HO, N and Z scales. We all purchase what has value to us. When it comes to what I really like, the prototype drawings, NG&SLG covers that need in my modeling. If I could have one wish in GR, that would be it, more prototype drawings. Personally I would prefer to see turn or the century narrow gauge, but any structure can be back dated with a bit of effort.
Someone mentioned Mainline Modeler magazine, I to miss that pub.
Bob C.
Ray Dunakin said:That may be true for some, but take a look around here. We have several advanced modelers (you for example) and a whole bunch of guys like myself that are inspired by that work and give it a go. The key, as David Fletcher pointed out, is the media. Print just isn't the place. That's why internet forums are busting at the seams with good modeling :)
Meanwhile, the more advanced articles a mag publishes, the more you start to hear people saying, "I'll never be as good as these guys, so why bother getting the mag?"
That being said, I still think GR has a place, but presently that place is not on my table.
I imagine there are many that read GR who do not go to train forums, so one should consider that. I’ve written articles for several magazines, GR is the only one that paid for articles, but that was okay with me. I post on forums, hoping what I do will help someone out on a project that they are working on. I’m not sure they want to advanced articles, although that recent live steam turbine certainly was. I still get the magazine, I still find a thing or two in an issue and seeing what other modelers are doing is interesting and holding the magazine in your hand is also good. I don’t save my magazines, since I seldom found I looked back in them.
Garden Railroader posts on their front pages how many reviews they will have. Reviews are apparently a big deal. Agreed.
Sure, complaining readers admonish how few the reviews are and how expensive the products. Consider how little there is to review. Sure enough, Accucraft has a new steamer out regularly – yep, there’s a review.
What about LGB? Who? LGB! Remember them. They have a new list of revitalized products. Same quality as before? Would a review show that? Answer: YES! Would a review be risky? Ah…er…yes possibly for LGB and Marklin. Will a review happen for LGB? Doubtful. What about PICO’s new mogul at $195 at the shows? A review? Possibly. Still, not enough out there except to go back and take a look at the “modified,” the claimed as “improved”, as well as those products that do manager to appear as truly new on the scene. How about achmann’s new - or - revitalized metal-geared 4-6-0? I’m ready to read.