Discussion on the Future Direction of Model Engineer and Workshop

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

There does seem to have been some odd editing and page layout going on of late. Take the Sirius article mentioned in another post.

It is supposed to be about correcting an error (not actually an error) yet the two largest photos are of the parts that are said to be wrong. The actual correction is the smallest of all the drawings which even if there was an actual error seems to be completely A about T as the correction should be more important. It could easily have been reduced by a page then only two wasted rather than 3.

This is an issue I have discussed with Martin and Diane. It’s difficult, as we have to estimate the length of an article before it is designed, and sometimes proportions of drawings make the ideal sizes awkward.

The very short timetable for ME made it particularly hard to correct such imbalances easily. With MEW I am sometimes able to expand or contract articles or ask for them to be laid out again.

I have talked to the chap who prepares figures and in future we will be indicating size to the designers, where practical, but laying out pages is as much an art as a science.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes it really needs someone who at least has some grasp of the subject to decide which images are important and need reproducing at a reasonable size, the less important at a smaller size and some not used at all. Just because a layout looks nice does not mean it best conveys the subject matter.

Will the practice of randomly placing adverts continue? Although a lot don’t like it, this does seem a more efficient way to fill in an odd 1/3rd or 1/2 page rather than pad out an article to fit or in the case of the Sirius leave an almost blank column at the end.

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

In view of the Sirius” thread, and the “non” drawing error….

Since many designs and subsequent drawings do contain “real” (accidental) errors, maybe we could have an occasional half page in the new mag called “Critical Drawing Errors Identified” for example, and any suitable corrections and amendments?

Good luck with the new magazine, I might just become a re-subcriber!

Derek

[GreensandsParticipant @greensands]

One of my pet hates of articles containing descriptive accounts with references to drawings and photos is when the images do not appear on the same page as the description. I am aware that this may not always be possible to achieve but I do think that every effort is made to ensure that this is the case. Perhaps it is something we can all wish for in the new magazine.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

For those that skip the main site, this has just been added to “News“

[Paul MParticipant @paulm98238]

I have just found this discussion and although late I would like to comment.  Although I would now be described as long in the tooth, I consider myself something of a novice when it comes to model engineering. For many years I have been constructing a 3 ½” LBSC design locomotive. I have never been in a position to join a club so have depended on what very limited text books are available, the WWW and Model Engineers magazine.
With regard to the magazine, I have rarely found any articles that have given me any real insight into the very basics of building a locomotive.  I mean the basics, such as suitable materials, tolerances, jigs and fixtures, setting up valve gear for those who know absolutely nothing about the topic, general terminology….  I found some past issues of Model Engineer from the 1950’s which contained some interesting articles that have helped me find my way around some constructional issues. I subscribed to ME for 12 months and can safely say I rarely found much that was of real interest to me. I appreciate that the magazine is not specifically for locomotive design and construction, however, apart from articles covering the basics of such things as soldering, lathe work etc. much is far too advanced or off topic to persuade me to subscribe once again.

[dc1Participant @dc1]

I always had drawings redrawn or tidied up. The illustrator was very good but probably not a mechanical engineer or draughtsman.

As far as I remember, his name was Grahame Chambers for the entire time I was editor of both magazines.

[dc1]

On dc1 Said:

I always had drawings redrawn or tidied up. The illustrator was very good but probably not a mechanical engineer or draughtsman.

As far as I remember, his name was Grahame Chambers for the entire time I was editor of both magazines.

His name still is Grahame Chambers – he’s me!

David correctly states I’m neither a mechanical engineer nor draughtsman, I’m an illustrator (always have been) & I do my best to make the drawings look as clear & readable as I can with the information I’m provided. I don’t redraw or tidy up every drawing in every issue, but for those that I’m asked to work on I size the drawings from experience. BUT, I don’t have a say in the size they end up on the magazine pages. Unfortunately sometimes they’re printed too small or too large. As Neil said above, we’re trying to indicate to the designers the preferred sizes but it’s not that easy & there are many factors that decide how they appear in the layouts.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

If several “figs” are to be placed next to each other it may make things clearer if they each had a box around them as they did in the past. These three all blend into one.

Also someone with an idea of what scale items need to be shown at should really check the drawings. With the number of those lubricators needed they warrant a decent size drawing of their own, I can’t even make out the detail blowing them up to max size on the digital version.

At least 3 articles have missing dimensions on the drawings, a glance over by someone who could say if they could make the part from them or not would not go amiss.

[Grahame Chambers 1Participant @grahamechambers1]

In the case of those diagrams, they were each drawn separately but placed next to each other without borders in the layout phase. Fig.45 was drawn at 2 columns wide originally – at that size the oil pot details are clearer.

All my drawings are checked before they’re signed off to the designers. I’d be interested to know which other drawings you say are missing dimensions? If it’s my mistake I’ll hold my hand up, but if the author hasn’t included something I’m not in a position to add it I’m afraid.

We also have to factor in the time & budget restrictions of putting the magazine together, when it comes to checking every illustration.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Sprung Parting tool Fig2 is missing overall sizes which means you can’t locate parts from the edges. Also slot width for tool missing.

Fig 44 Above missing Hole diameters

Fig 45 Diameters of the two larger holes

Fig 46 Hole dia of the three on the PCD

Fig 47 Die block pin lined up with 5/32″ hohe not with teh Die block so cannot be assumed it should be 1/8″ dia to fit the block

Mill Belt conversion no hole diameters again for the three holes.

 

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, with respect to the oil pot details in the drawing above, although they are small, I don’t have any trouble reading the details with my prescription glasses, in the printed mag, I’m guessing the scan must be low resolution, as it scans at 300 DPI okay. But of course that makes it a bigger size file.

Regards Nick.

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

Sprung Parting tool Fig2 is missing overall sizes which means you can’t locate parts from the edges. Also slot width for tool missing.

Fig 44 Above missing Hole diameters

Fig 45 Diameters of the two larger holes

Fig 46 Hole dia of the three on the PCD

Fig 47 Die block pin lined up with 5/32″ hohe not with teh Die block so cannot be assumed it should be 1/8″ dia to fit the block

Mill Belt conversion no hole diameters again for the three holes.

 

Thanks for pointing those out, the missing dimensions weren’t on the author’s original drawings.

[Nicholas Farr]

On Nicholas Farr Said:

Hi, with respect to the oil pot details in the drawing above, although they are small, I don’t have any trouble reading the details with my prescription glasses, in the printed mag, I’m guessing the scan must be low resolution, as it scans at 300 DPI okay. But of course that makes it a bigger size file.

Regards Nick.

Thanks Nick

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Still waiting for my paper copy to compare with the digital

Yep you can only work with what you get. But surely as you draw them you must notice that there is no size given. It would be nice if the system allowed for obtaining what is missing

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

Still waiting for my paper copy to compare with the digital

Yep you can only work with what you get. But surely as you draw them you must notice that there is no size given. It would be nice if the system allowed for obtaining what is missing

That would be nice indeed

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Whilst we’re waiting for Jason’s print copy to arrive … here’s a photo of mine

Taken on the iPhone 12

The detail in the printed magazine is MUCH better than I can see in the Digital publication … Now I am really confused !!!

MichaelG.

.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I’ve received latest issue via pocket mags, which I assume means I have a digital subscription. This is not what I asked for when the merger took place, so I’ll have to ring Mortons. Why is life never simple?

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

If several “figs” are to be placed next to each other it may make things clearer if they each had a box around them as they did in the past. These three all blend into one.

Also someone with an idea of what scale items need to be shown at should really check the drawings. With the number of those lubricators needed they warrant a decent size drawing of their own, I can’t even make out the detail blowing them up to max size on the digital version.

At least 3 articles have missing dimensions on the drawings, a glance over by someone who could say if they could make the part from them or not would not go amiss.

This is where the long series that typified ME cause us some thorny problems.

A detailed loco build series probably averages 60 parts. That’s a long time to dedicate space for one series, and asks for the patience of readers not interested in the subject. It also means that big photos and drawings would either take up so much space that readers would object, or using the same space draw it out to be even longer.

Historically a lot of loco drawings were published quite small in ME and then full size drawings were sold by the trade and builders used to buy them at extra cost, of course.

Two options are making long series drawings available online only, or printing them small but available online as well. That might not suit many readers who just want to see the drawings to get the gist of what is being discussed, or builders who aren’t comfortable with digital plans. It also requires the agreement of contributors. Another option is the old ME approach of alternate issues – but is publishing a sixty-part constructional series over ten years feasible, let alone desirable?

We have a number of long series, running at the moment, most of which I expect to come to a natural end during this year.

The approach to printing longer series in the future will depend on feedback through the survey, which will be emailed to readers. We’re hoping this will get feedback from a range of views across the readership.

Neil

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

A lot of space will hopefully be saved in future by more careful selection and editing of photos. At least 10% of all the Flying Scotsman articles has been repeats of the painting. Add the wide margins and whitespace and it could have been cut by 10 articles at least. This applies to most articles.
Then many photos just don’t show useful information through bad quality and no editing. For example a recent article illustrated an insert boring bar with a 1/4 page photo that showed the whole bar and the tip was blurred and badly exposed. What was needed was only a small crisp picture of the brazed tip and no more. Elsewhere a beginners article had yet another picture of a Myford and informed the reader that ‘this is a lathe’. In a magazine full of adverts for lathes this is pointless.

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

I’ve received latest issue via pocket mags, which I assume means I have a digital subscription. This is not what I asked for when the merger took place, so I’ll have to ring Mortons. Why is life never simple?

I used to get paper ME and digital MEW. I wasn’t interested in replacement copies of Railway Mag, but I wanted paper copy of new mag. Seems this wasn’t an option, so I’m stuck with digital until my subscription runs out. That’s not good customer service, I’d happily have foregone some of my refund from ME to upgrade to paper ME&W

[Charles LamontParticipant @charleslamont71117]

I agree about the overabundance, irrelevance, and excessive size of many of the photos.

The Mill Engine piece is a glaring example. Five half- or nearly-half-page photos, and five of a more sensible size for less that ten column inches of text. The half page drawing, generally good, but some details small.

The subject matter of Tony Bird’s piece on his depthing tool is fine by me, but do 5 strips of metal and some spacers really warrant 7 pages (a total of about 2 of which are text) and 25 photos?

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1

I used to get paper ME and digital MEW. I wasn’t interested in replacement copies of Railway Mag, but I wanted paper copy of new mag. Seems this wasn’t an option, so I’m stuck with digital until my subscription runs out. That’s not good customer service, I’d happily have foregone some of my refund from ME to upgrade to paper ME&W

I suspect you are in the same position as me but inverted. I wanted to add digital to paper. The way Direct Debits work, probably a good protection for us customers in general, prevents modifications mid way as the criminal element would surely find a way of misusing that. I have been told to be sure to cancel my current sub just after the last issue it covers and restart.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

They didn’t need to change direct debit, just refund me a bit less for the ME paper sub and change the MEW digital to paper. They now claim I didn’t let them know, well I emailed on 9 Jan. I’ve been getting ME for nearly 50 years, more from habit recently. Not sure about the future. As it is I’ll make sure the direct debit doesn’t roll over and decide then.

[duncan webster 1]

On duncan webster 1 Said:

On duncan webster 1 Said:

I’ve received latest issue via pocket mags, which I assume means I have a digital subscription. This is not what I asked for when the merger took place, so I’ll have to ring Mortons. Why is life never simple?

I used to get paper ME and digital MEW. I wasn’t interested in replacement copies of Railway Mag, but I wanted paper copy of new mag. Seems this wasn’t an option, so I’m stuck with digital until my subscription runs out. That’s not good customer service, I’d happily have foregone some of my refund from ME to upgrade to paper ME&W

Hi Duncan,

Can you drop me an email about this, please? I’m sure a solution can be found.

[Author]

Posts