That is exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to ME,MEW and EIM but I quite happily sit and read all of my old ME and early MEW collections. There is something about the 1950s,60s and 70s magazines, even the early MEWs were interesting but not now.

I too find myself in this position not with ME or MEW but with the steam magazines my interest in steam is as strong as ever but I find the topics they now cover not to interest in the main .

H

For many years I pop into my local library to read ME. If there is anything of special interest to me I then buy it.

In the past 5 years I think I have bought 5 copies.

My local library also does EIM and i have bought far far more copies!

I have a collection of MEs going back to the 1940s, and have read every issue to date since the very first issue.

But my tastes are not exactly typical being wholly miniature loco related.

My copies of Don Young's LLAS are regularly referred to.

For miniature loco work we have all moved on. We have absorbed Don Young's designs and the edicts of Jim Ewins (both old dear friends). In the past 10 years we have DAG Brown and his work on injectors (published subsequently by EIM/TEE, not ME) and Gordon Smith's safety valve work (and that might have been EIM). Nothing else springs to mind as significant in miniature loco design.

On another forum Roger Froud has described in great detail a new and novel way of making miniature piston valves for non-ferrous liners. This is the sort of thing that ought to have been picked up and suggested as a build thread in ME. I have done few unusual bits and bobs, but again no response from ME.

Dianne really ought to keep track of developments mentioned on here and other forums and follow them up IMHO. And be a bit pro-active in requesting material, rather than depending on the trite she receives.

cheers,

Julian

Edited By julian atkins on 14/03/2016 23:31:23

As it's 2.30am and I have just about finished for the day (that's yesterday) I am only going to post a very brief reply here.

• it is too easy to say that if you don't like what you read in the magazines you should write an article yourself

It would be easy – very easy indeed – to say "I can only print what I get" – you've heard it all before which is why I have never trotted out those lines.

• [picture frames] … but as almost the sole representative of practical engineering in that issue …

Issue 4526 included horology (okay, not practical engineering), making a loco ragulator (fairly practical engineering), making lifting link by CNC with detailed description (I'd say that was practical engineering), fitting the cylinder onto a 6 inch T/E (not practical engineering?), a study in engine test calculations (theory – yes, but pracitcal too) and news of some practical engineering courses (!).

Sorry, but sweeping statements annoy me, especially when not well founded.

• Dianne really ought to keep track of developments mentioned on here and other forums and follow them up IMHO

The magazine is largely, in my view, a victim of its owner's policy insasmuch as there is absolutely no space in the working week for the editor to be in the least way creative, by which I mean by the time I have produced the 96 pages of editorial copy this month, single handed, for your delectation – plus dealt with all the daily correspondence – I have to start producing the next 96 pages of editorial copy. There is no break, no space, no holidays, no opportunity to think about change of direction nor time to research the other things that are going on to which Julian refers. I know it's there but I can't access it because I have no time. This is not a moan or a complaint but a statement of fact. The editor is simply that – an editor. I spend at least one day per issue not editing but planning the content of the next issue. At least one whole day and I believe this pays dividends. The one thing i do believe goes down well with the majority of readers is the variety of content and this is probably what brings most comments from long standing subscribers – how there is always something of interest in each issue.

• Magazines need those new subscribers just to survive. But it does mean there is an unceasing demand for articles for beginners.

Of course it does! But I would argue that there is never an imbalance – it just seems like there is when you are not a beginner. Converseley, if you are a novice you might sometimes perceive the mag as being completely over your head. I believe it is well balanced in this respect.

• Regrettably current editorial policy seems to be moving away from the practical formula that has made ME a success for almost 120 years. Whether this is due to a change in editorial direction, or whether it is more a factor of the kind of articles being submitted to the editor, or a mix of both, is irrelevant. The simple fact is that I no longer enjoy the magazine.

I am sorry to hear that the magazine is such a disappointment to those who have posted here. The only editorial policy in operation here is to make the magazine broadly appealing to all readers. That includes the master craftsmen who could write the book, beginners who yet have no workshop, lifelong mechanical engineers, prolific builders and armchair dreamers. If I was to say "you can please some of the people…" you would think "oh, here we go…" but really – you CANNOT please everyone ALL the time and there are pobably more beginners than there are career engineers reading the magazine these days. I do not agree that the magazine is moving away from the 'practical formula' of the past. It does, however, include a broader range of subjects than it once did but model making and its associated subjects still are, and always will be, the core. Currently Mick Knights, Chris Gunn, Chris Walter, Frank Cruickshank and (soon) Martin Ranson are providing detailed descriptions of methods and techniques on an issue by issue basis. I fail to see how anyone can criticise the magazine for being 'not practical' when there is so much descriptive content.

• the long running Mastiff and the even longer running Garett 4CD series have all been published sans drawings, making them all but useless except to the very small percentage of readers who are actually intending to purchase the drawings and build these projects.

Regarding the non publication of drawings for the Garrett; had we published every drawing the series would have been several times as long as it is and I do not accept that not publishing drawings renders the article useless. Chris describes set-ups etc. that will be of interest to anyone building a T/E particularly in large scales.

I was feeling quite upbeat today – until now. I have had about five emails over the weekend from readers who have commented on the high standard of editorial content recently and how it has improved over recent years. Still … that's what happens when you almost let things go to your head. There's always plenty queuing up to bring you back down to earth.

Gee…..

The Magazine cannot be expected to meet the needs and wishes of all the readers all the time. Sometimes it will miss the mark for you while others will be very pleased. I for one have almost every MEW (I am missing the first 4), since I found it at WH Smiths while visiting England for work. And yes they are fun to review back in time, quite enjoyable in fact. To me it is the whole that matters, not individual copies. On balance I think the Magazine represents very good value over the year. I will continue to subscribe.

I should also chide myself for not contributing an article or two! My excuse is time as I am still working. Not that great an excuse. I will seek to change that. It is such a great platform to share Ideas on. The soul of the magazine is in the gifted hands of the readers and their work, (They even get paid for the articles). The publisher reward is paid advertising my guess is the budget is tight, It appears to be a fair deal to me.

Regards
John

Edited By John McNamara on 15/03/2016 06:07:00

Diane tells us that she produces the ME single handed and I quite accept this .

In this case what are all the other people listed on the first page of every ME doing?

I refer to people with titles such as such as Technical Assistant, Production Designer, Illustrator, Retouching Manager, Ad Production, Head of Design and Production, etc.

As a former editor of several specialist magazines, I can assure Diane that praise from readers is rare, and she should take heart as long as she is receiving an equal number of complaints from each faction within the readership.

In the readership of any specialist magazine there is a small hard core of readers who have been subscribers for large numbers of years, but the majority of the readership is made up of people who are in the learning phase of the hobby. This phase usually lasts for four to five years, after which many readers drop out. I think that most editors of specialist magazines would agree that much of the content, particularly articles on techniques, can be repeated in five-year cycles, albeit with different forms of presentation and taking technical developments into account. Personally, I think Diane is doing a first-class job in producing a readable magazine which I enjoy.

Hi Diane and everyone else.

Whilst I do understand Clive's comments and to a greater measure agree with him I do see that the magazine can only work with what has been submitted. I also appreciate the amount of work in just getting the thing out. I am not about to cancel my subscription just yet awhile although like Clive there are more and more issues that I don't find much to write home about these days. If I could describe my "show test" which I apply when attending ME shows which is, "was there at least one thing I was really glad to have not missed seeing". If there was I consider the show to be worth my effort to get there. A similar test would perhaps be applicable to ME with the caveat that the odd few 'duds' would not bother me too much. I cannot be interested in everything.

I recognise that interest does wane when subscriptions have been held for a number of years, that's just inevitable. I don't read much these days about basic practice, but that it should be included goes without saying. Perhaps then I could suggest a way of extending the interest of us old stagers without too much effort.

As a few people have said how much the like old issues (very old issues) maybe a way to increase the appeal of content would be to 'mine' past copy for really good classic articles. It has been done to some extent with the centenary issues which were superb. It would take an amount of editorial effort but I would think that items could be prepared in advance for when particularly 'beginnerish' or lightweight issues were on the stocks. In this way when there are no or few new articles that appeal there may be the one nugget that was too good to miss.

regards Martin

The magazine is a mini-historical record of Britain starting from 1898 and reflects the changes this country has been through over the last 100+ years

The industrial revolution, two world wars, the industrial recovery and decline from the 50s to the 80s and then the move towards the technology we see today

I too enjoy re-reading the 40s to the 80s editions but we will not see their like again. Millions of arms workers came home from the war and millions of surplus machine tools suddenly became available, many of which are still being used today

Many (Most?) of the old guard are gone, this magazine has survived so long it reflects the different generations of Britons and what they do in the field of model engineering

.

MARMITE

I'll throw in my tuppence worth.

One issue of MEW a month is a lot of work. I don't find as much time for producing stuff for the magazine and visiting clubs etc. as I would like. I have to balance my other (fortunately flexible) work around MEW. My wife is always telling me MEW is only meant to be a part-time job…

So, I have no idea how Diane copes with getting a new copy of ME out every fortnight. When a previous editor was producing both titles, quality suffered, and I think it's fair to say this was because they were facing an essentially impossible task.

One issue some people are unhappy with is the shortage of projects for models with full descriptions and plans in ME. Having written up a few builds for ME, with plans, it is a HUGE commitment to do this properly. I have no idea how anyone ever finishes a series on building a steam loco.

Anyone considering offering such a series to ME has weigh up that commitment against the likelihood that every drawing and technique described will be subject to intense scrutiny. Comments online can often be quite hurtful and discouraging, and constructive comment and engagement with the author seems to be rare on the forum ("why on earth did he do that?" instead of "Why did you choose that approach?&quot.

Is it any wonder that some people choose to blog their builds rather than write them up? There they can just walk away or even pull their postings, and they don't have to commit to providing an article every month (or submitting a whole series).

I'm sure that there are also fewer people coming up with interesting new designs.

On the positive side, I have more faith in the maker movement. As those (typically) graduates get older and settle down in their own homes they will start buying lathes and mills (probably CNC!) and start applying their ingenuity to different subjects with a greater element of engineering. I am keen to see what happens when steam is put under microprocessor control – will such machines be banned from IMLEC and the pages of ME or welcomed?

Neil

Bill,

" I'm not sure that the industrial revolution would be in MEs time span."

In the last 20 years or so we have experienced another industrial revolution in which we stopped manufacturing virtually everything and began buying what we used to make from the Far East.

The problem is that manufacturing follows the cheapest labour rates.