RM 'News' snippet ....

Interesting little bit on new bachmann EZ DCC system in the magazines news
section. Only 3 -4 paragraphs but glowing description - one particular
sentance :-
" These features will make the system extremely versatile and easy to use
both functionally and ergonomically." Whoops sorry, thats from the bachmann
site, the correct one is :-
"The system is extremely versatile and easy to use."
Hang on theres quite a bit similar, bit shorter though. perhaps its a cut
down version ? Nope cant be, else wouldnt it be attributed ?
I wonder if RM have tried it so as to give an evaluation, nope dont say,
must be from the spec - must it not ?
Simon
Reply to
simon
Loading thread data ...
----------------------------------------
In my regular days of small scale modelling, between 1950 and 1980, there was only the late Model Railway Constructor which did proper reviews and told it 'as it is'.
The others, all highly dependent on advertising, just published the manufacturers' press releases. RM, being the voice of the model rail business itself, was the worst offender in this field.
I used to consider the RM reviews as 'box label' reprints.
Reply to
Eddie Bellass
In my regular days of small scale modelling, between 1950 and 1980, there was only the Model Railway Constructor which did proper reviews and told it 'as it is'.
The others, all highly dependent on advertising, just published the manufacturers' press releases. RM, being the voice of the model rail business itself, was the worst offender in this field.
I used to consider them as 'box label' reviews.
Reply to
Eddie Bellass
On 19/10/2006 21:46, simon said,
I've been getting RM for about 25 years, and still rate it as a good magazine. If I want honest reviews though, I'll look elsewhere ;-)
Reply to
Paul Boyd
"Paul Boyd" wrote
I once exchanged letters with the editorial staff of RM (Many years ago) about the lack of objectivity in their reviews. I received a very polite response saying that it was not their editorial (or management?) policy to be critical of products because it could stifle development of the hobby.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
On 22/10/2006 10:57, John Turner said,
Are you serious? So we all rush out to buy the latest loco that RM says is absolutely brilliant and faultless. When it turns out to be a pile of shite, we don't buy any more because if that represents brilliance and faultlessness, what must crap be like? That could really stifle development of the hobby. I knew Peco were a bit behind the times and very short-sighted, but that's ridiculous!
Reply to
Paul Boyd
"Paul Boyd" wrote
We are going back to the days of Cyril Freezer I might add, and to be fair they never eulogised about stuff either, whilst their euphemism 'it will improve with running in' tended to mean it didn't run too well out of the box! ;-)
John.
Reply to
John Turner
In message , John Turner writes
Most reviews in British magazines are totally useless and basically count as free advertising for the manufacturers. What I want to see in a review of a locomotive is how controllable it is, together with minimum and maximum speeds on DC and, where appropriate, DCC; drawbar pull and how this relates to free-rolling coaches and/or wagons on straight level track; current consumption, etc. This information should be obtained from an independent source, preferably the magazine's own staff. In fact, I want to see the sort of performance data that Model Railroader gives when they review a locomotive.
Reply to
Jane Sullivan
Interestingly, most North Americans will say the following about MR's reviews "Most reviews in MR are totally useless and basically count as free advertising for the manufacturers."
-- Cheers
Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway
formatting link
Reply to
Roger T.
Which was what was so good about Iain Rice & his magazine Rail Model Digest, that unfortunately folded after 7 issues. Not because of his review policy, but because of 1/ the wholesalers went broke & 2/ he received some poor advice to do with the format, basically was it a book or a magazine? The magazine was actually both, but major book/newsagencies apparently insisted that changes be carried out to make it one or the other.
Kevin Martin
Reply to
Kevin Martin

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.