RM 'News' snippet ....

----------------------------------------

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.

And of course the sad irony is that MRC went down the pan whilst the toddler carried on regardless :-((

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.

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 ;-)

"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.

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 s**te, 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!

"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.

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.

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

Perhaps they were referring to the hobby of 'magazine writing'.

Simon

Rather like Mr. Humphries at Grace Bros: "It'll ride up with wear."

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

He had some heavyweights writing for him, like Mike Sharman. It was a pity it folded.