Discussion on the Future Direction of Model Engineer and Workshop

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

In total agreement Martin especially the bottom half of your post especially people posting links to YouTube videos that anybody can find and most are pretty c**p with woeful misuse of machine tools to boot. Rant over out to the workshop to actually make something.

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

[…] Rant over out to the workshop to actually make something.

Oh to have a useable workshop .. and the strength to do something in it.

Treasure what you have, Bernard and go easy on the ranting.

MichaelG.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Good points by Noel and graham a few posts back. How do we address this for visitors to our club? On here I often shout (inwardly) “read a b***** book”. After they have come into the club we can direct them to books and even our secretary’s newbie articles in our club mag, but still have to get them over the threshold to do that.

BTW years back at Ally Pally someone from Chingford MES mentioned that they make a point of getting the teenage visitors ‘on a job’ asap. Like guard, coal carrier, queue organiser even by pretending they are short staffed today. They respond to a bit of recognition and responsibility so at the end “You were a great help today can you be here next week” can get them hooked. This shows why public loco running is so important to clubs aswell as paying for the insurance/rent/tea/etc. How do the stationary engine only moaners pay these club overheads?

Content: yes a lot of articles are a bit padded. I did like the loco articles back along from Keith Wilson as he (and LBSC) used to slip in bits of real life anecdote and off topic advice.
Can we paper subscribers have free digital access back please. We have already paid for the content and want the paper record but is nice to be able to magnify and adjust brightness to suit reading rather than having to fiddle around with glasses and get the lamp not reflecting off the glossy paper.
Butterside Down has got to be ok – picture 133 gets my support 🙂

[Bazyle]

On Bazyle Said:

This shows why public loco running is so important to clubs aswell as paying for the insurance/rent/tea/etc. How do the stationary engine only moaners pay these club overheads?

Lets just hope the poor lad or lass was not a Stationary moaner as they would not have taken kindly to being made a guard.

I suppose the Loco clubs have a problem in the overheads and maintenance of a track so the obsession with rasing funds from running days overtakes other activities. Something you don’t need if you are into say traction engines, stationary steam, IC, hot air, etc.

Club/group that I belonged to would meet 3-4 times a year, pay £3-5 on the door and that covered rental of the hall for the day, any fee the speaker wanted and refreshments. A bunch of like minded modelers enjoying an informal chat and catch up with what they had been making, etc. In the summer the meeting was held at the village football club so those wanting to run traction engines could go round the field or out into the lanes. Bring a workmate and run your IC or steam engine on it. Or if in the hall just light up a hot air engine on one of the tables set aside for those attending to show their models.

So that is how we managed.

[Bazyle]

On Bazyle Said:

[…]  Can we paper subscribers have free digital access back please. We have already paid for the content and want the paper record but […]

+1 for that ^^^

It was a bad day when that little bonus was suddenly withdrawn.

MichaelG.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

I have been thinking about what I would like to see in the new format magazine.
I agree with many of the comments about long build projects but rather than not have them at all I would rather see them as a short sequence of highlights starting with a general description and overview followed by highlights of particular innovative parts and machine set ups for particularly tricky operations. A final article on commissioning and running would finish off with the full build being published in book form which would be a revenue earner long into the future. I actually bought the BR2? Aero engine book just for a good read whereas I’m not sure I would have read it as a series.

Anything oddball. By this I mean something out of the general run of articles and topics. We have a very interesting chap called Norman in SMEE who is an industrial chemist of some note and great experience. He did a piece on acids in ME a while back that was very informative and just this last month at a SMEE meeting did ‘the history of rubber’ which was quite fascinating regarding this vitally important engineering material which you never really hear anybody talk about.

For a more permanent slot I should like to see Toolroom Techniques. By this I would expect a series of articles about how to achieve more professional results in anything from jig and fixture design, screw cutting accurate centering and positioning of holes, marking out, fitting and very importantly getting out of trouble.

Perhaps associated with the last point would be its offspring ‘ upping your game’ which is obviously how to improve in simple terms.

As a last comment I agree that the likes of Alec Farmer, George Thomas , Tubal Cain etc we’re so readable because not only did they impart so much useful information but did it in a chatty manner by which you grew to like them as people. So a balance of valuable information and asides to make it human works for me. When it’s all chat or all technical it is either lightweight or stodgy and hard to get through. It’s a magazine not a textbook so it’s supposed to be entertaining too.

I think that’s all for now.

regards Martin

[Graham Meek]

On Graham Meek Said:

When visiting a foreign land it pays to learn a bit of the lingo. We can see Wales from our sitting room window and many holidays there have given us a good vocabulary. Plus the Welsh populous are very proud of their language and delight in correcting mis-pronunciation, which we have found usually breaks the ice and the barrier. When they will usually break into English. Having a Welsh fellow apprentice gave me an appreciation of their culture.

We also found this when we visited Austria. Trying to enter the supermarket by the exit door was a quick wake-up call to read the language as well. Having a broad Forest accent is not good when trying to match a dialect with-in the said language. The locals take a delight in you having tried to learn their language. One Old lady went away laughing as we tried our Pigeon German.

Years ago before the internet the only way to learn about engineering was to get an apprenticeship, or get books from the library on the subject. I learnt Carpentry not from school but from a book by Charles Hayward. There used to be loads of Teach Yourself books. Unlike the internet, a book is usually proof read and has the benefit of correcting inappropriate wording. Thus terminology is more likely to be correct in a book.

I did find an anomaly to this in that while I called coolant “Suds”, but my wife’s Cousin who worked for Vosper’s at Southampton called it “Slurry”. Suds to him was lather, while Slurry to me was what was spread on the fields.

Before the internet we used to have Catalogues. These to are a source of terminology and also the source of things which may be used later. Very often I have been looking for something in a catalogue and something has taken my eye. That something has been stored away in the brain and has been withdrawn at a later date to save the day.

When you look for things on the internet all you get is what you are looking for. No for me Books are and always will be King.

A good starting point would be the books of the likes of Sparey, Mason, Westbury and GHT for the new comer. They will not go far wrong with these. I know because they helped me.

Regards

Gray,

 

I totally agree Gray, I would like also to add to your list of authors,  anything written by the sadly missed “Tubal Cain” aka Tom Walshaw.

Regards

Derek

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I do wonder how much demand there would be for purchasing a full build “book”. If we take sets of drawings as an example then when was the last time you saw an engine featured in ME have the plans published like MAP or MHS used to? Sarik just seem to print to order what they bought the rights to.

The last I can think of being added by Myhobbystore were Malcom Strides Lynx which is almost 20yrs ago. There have been a couple of books on other stationary engines by Anthony Mount and Stew Hart but I can’t think of any big builds like a loco or traction engine. At least one of those books uses the drawings that were in the mag so not totally “self published” Even Neils and my books from the beginners series are not exactly flying off the shelves so it is a big capital outlay for any publisher to take on with a slow return.

Any series would need to be commissioned unless someone feels they want to take it on but even then some techniques will depend on what the writer has in their workshop. You can generalize but showing something on a colchester or harrision may well not work on a 7 x ## minilathe. Even things like accurate hole positioning and marking out are so dependant on what the individual uses, for example I rarely mark anything out or use a drill press these days as I use a DRO on the mill or even the CNC to position holes. Not much use to the beginner with a tub of marking blue and a drill press. To write for them I would have to specifically take a bit of metal and mark and drill it but do I use a height gauge or steel rule? Simply not really worth what I get back in return compared with taking photos and writing about something I am actually doing.

The other thing with a technique series is it is not that different from a long build series and will tie up pages for a year or so, just hope the author is one we all like to read.

I think at best a selection of articles sent in could feature as the Technique of the month but we probably already do that just not grouping them under one heading.

Agree the ” the highlights” of a big build would be better than describing every part unless it is a small model aimed at the beginner. But you are then left with how to get the rest to those who may actually want to build it. Who will edit and publish? May simply be better for the author to include a link where you can buy it on a usb stick, patreon or emailed files straight from them but on a long loco build you will only have limited sales so less return than what you would have got for it being in the mag. What would people pay for a set of loco drawings? £50-100 maybe? Not much compared to how many pages of mag space that would have taken lets say the current builds are at least 60 articles, if just one page in each is drawings then that’s £3000 so you would need to sell at least 30 sets of drawings which take a lot of time to prepare.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

All valid comments Jason. Just thought I would list the things I would like. As you say how it’s achieved is a different question.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Yes, that’s the problem. I may sound a bit negative with some of my comments but I also see the practical side of it.

I expect to get comments that members would not touch patrion with a barge pole but do know of at least one contributor of loco builds that has recently gone that way. But then again he is a bit more upto date with much of his way of thinking and trying to advancing the hobby rather than stay in the dark ages.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Not so much negative as realistic. No point in living in fantasy land we need things that are going to work or at least have a chance of doing so.

[mike TParticipant @miket56243]

What’s patrion?

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Patreon is usually Associated with Youtube and most think of it as a way for people to support a channel, a sort of pay-per-view where you get content that is not available to the public but it can also be used to sell merchandise which in this case could be a set of drawings, build notes, DXF files for use if you want laser cut parts, etc. Rather than a sticker, t-shirt or beanie with the channel logo on it.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I think recent posts may actually have ‘hit the nail on the head’

The fundamental format of Model Engineer magazine is outdated

There is very little appetite for long build-series, and I would posit that they were only there in the first place because there was no other publication ‘channel’ available. [there are plenty now]

The new magazine needs to be much more ‘nimble’ than that:

Concentrate on technique, mini-projects, history, research, etc. etc.

It needs a life … and should perhaps be something  like a curated version of this forum.

MichaelG.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Whichever way you look at it any build series will now be long at least time wise.

There will also have to be a lot less of them, I think 16 extra pages added to the current MEW page count was mentioned. ME was around 48pg per issue so 96pages a month, now down to 16pages which is 1/6th the amount, or 1/7th if word count is factored into it.

So you could end up with just 3 builds maybe 1 loco, 1 stationary and 1 other (IC, hot air, electric) at 4 pages each and that leaves 4 pages for randon ME related items. Even a small stationary build like one of mine could go on for 6 months so you are not going to see much turnover of subjects if anything more than a weekend project is going to be the way the mag goes so you are a bit stuffed if you don’t leike what the 3 subjects are.

As the sales of ME were what had dropped the most any reduction in the more popular MEW content will be publishing suicide. So if Model is to remain in the title it should be a very small font with Engineer and workshop being the main words as that is what the mag is going to have to cover if it is to even survive as one publication.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Totally agree, Jason

Keeping the build-series would end-up with them being like ultra-slow Karaoke 

… Build one of these along with me [over the next twenty years]

MichaelG.

[Graham MeekParticipant @grahammeek88282]

One thing which used to infuriate me when I first started taking ME back in 1968, (I was 16 and just starting work). Was having to go one or several issues to continue with a build article.

Thinking about it in later life it made good business sense as it ensured the reader would go and purchase the magazines in between. Today with Subscription driven magazines this becomes less of a problem. It also allows for the magazine content to be not so good in some mags as the money has already been paid.

Continuous publication of a build article does provide a steady income to the author, but let us be under no illusion this income will not equate to the time expended in the making of the item and the writing of the article.

This intermittent article approach to publication could remove some of the frustration some of the readers are feeling with todays long articles. Further with a large build it would at least give the reader chance to catch up with the article. Rather than being overwhelmed and give up half way through.

As regards the on-line access to the magazine upon paying the subscription. This is something which was given to me sometime after renewing my subscription with HSM. When this became their policy. I think the sister publication Live Steam and Railroad also do the same thing.

As Jason says regarding books published on a build article. My last recollection, (and there may have been more in between), was the article on Evening Star by Martin Evans (1st). I only recall this as I bought the book.

As an experience with Publishers and Editors. HSM have always been encouraging and would often give a heads up on the future publication date. While Chris Deith at EiM would often give me a call, or chat at the Midlands exhibition, (free tickets provided). These chats would often result in further publications. I don’t get the same feeling with Morton’s, (but I hasten to add I have had a good working relationship with Neil), it has given me the impression I do not belong in the Clique.

To those Forum members who have put me on a Pedestal with the likes of GHT, I am deeply humbled. Being up there is not a place I like to be. I am the guy who beavers around in the background, I do not relish the limelight, nor do I seek it.

If I have helped one reader to get more enjoyment out of their workshop and hobby then I have succeeded with my scribblings.

There is one overriding thing however which many posts have overlooked. Neil and his successors have only been able to publish articles that have been submitted.

If “Butterside Down” is all they have, then that is all you get.

How many of those who have made a negative comment on here about this article have actually written to the magazine about it. The Editor of the day thinks the article is going down well as no-one is saying otherwise in Print.

At least in the magazine the Author has a right of reply.

Regards

Gray,

 

 

[Martin Johnson 1]

On Martin Johnson 1 Said:

Seems to me there are too many people who are “not interested in X, Y & Z so have no interest in the magazine”.  Strangely, they never tell us what they are interested in.

Indeed!  Problem is that anyone can be a critic, no qualifications or understanding required!   In consequence, an unhealthy percentage of criticism on the forum of both posts and magazines is “low-fact”.  Rants that fail to explain or offer a constructive alternative aren’t worth reading, yet they have their loyal fans too!   And then we have the “Too Long Didn’t Read” brigade, or the tail-end charlies who pop up on page 9 of a topic with a suggestion already dismissed on page 2!

…
 

• I can’t abide the format of the club news – it seems to be a lot words that doesn’t actually tell you anything unless you happen to be in the club that is being covered (in which case you knew it already).  Geoff Theasby’s style of writing grates on me, I am afraid; I have a healthy sense of humour but I don’t get his.

Interesting, because I do get Geoff’s style.  Club News without Geoff’s dashes of humour would be dull stuff indeed. As it  is, he keeps me reading the boring bits, to get to the next joke or interesting bit.   Illustrates we are all different, and therefore have to careful about rejecting content for personal reasons.  Thinking nobody wants it because I don’t like it is a logic error!    Club News bores when it reports items irrelevant to me, me, me.   Fair enough, but arrogant for me, me, me to assume that everyone else will be bored by it too.   It’s what the majority want that matters, not individuals.

• Butterside Down has some valid points in it.  Indeed the author’s own introduction to model engineering was eerily similar to mine, and like Steve I went into engineering as a living on the back of model engineering as a teenage hobby.  However, much of the writing is overly wordy and turgid.

Despite being well-written, Butterside Down is getting a lot a flak, I think because the content isn’t aligned to the target audience, whoever they are!  My take on Butterside Down is similar to Jason’s, but for all I know we’re the exception, and many ME readers love Butterside.    Also, Jason and I are exceptions in that we are both modernisers, whereas I suspect a largish contingent of Model Engineers are small-c conservatives, wishing the hobby to be simplistically old-school, with nothing challenging in it.

• I have been frustrated with the IMLEC style reports for many a long year.  They could be written from a pro forma – “(Insert name here) started off with N passengers behind his Maid of Kent / Simplex / Little Twittering and Bumbletown 3-6-4 to his own design and after a clean getaway / a struggle / much slipping then ground to a halt / zoomed away / went to the pub and got plastered / fell off into the bushes.  After a short blow up, progress resumed / the run was abandoned / Y passengers got off.  The run finally returned a creditable / appalling / unbelievable efficiency of 1.769543218 % and took Qth place on the leader board.”  Just fill in the numbers, cross out different bits and hey presto – no need to attend at all.  The original reason for these jollies was to provide a competitive background in which the miniature locomotive could be improved.  I have tried to extract meaningful data from IMLEC write ups, but it is nigh impossible when engine details are so scant.

I agree, but again Martin and I may be exceptions!  I too try to extract meaning from the data, but it’s very difficult.   The event, I guess is mostly for fun, and the runs are organised semi-scientifically.   Probably suits the majority.  The data gives the range of power and efficiencies that might be expected of model steam locos,  but hides the reasons some do better than others.  That it’s impossible to suggest improvements based on IMLEC data is a missed opportunity.  I get the impression though that very few engine builders are interested in design.   Martin is one of a rare breed.

• I have been a steam enthusiast for nearly 60 years but I think the Stationary Steam Engine should finally have the skids put under it.  It should have been published as a book, but is probably in ME because a publisher could not be found.

I differ  – I like history!

• As to what should be in, write ups of models built are always welcome.  I am not bothered about the subject, I take pleasure in seeing craftsmanship for it’s own sake.

Agreed.

• I would like to see more articles relating to the “why” rather than so much concentration on the “how”.  How to design this and that, for example.  By design, I don’t mean how to draw it in CAD, but how to select the various sizes.  I plan to re-visit my own ME articles on the thermodynamic design of model boilers, for example.  I would concede this might be a specialist view, as most folk appear to be happy just churning out another Sweet Pea to the words and music.

Strongly agree.  I perceive a sad gap between Model Engineers who are good with their hands and those who are good with their brains.    The ‘good with hands’ group tend to rely heavily on experience; anything complicated is built to a plan developed by someone else.   This lot believe in ‘common sense’ and a few believe that ‘experts know nothing’.  This end of the hobby focusses on ‘how’ and very little maths or CAD needed.  Having a limited grasp of theory and other technical options doesn’t matter much.    But  hands-on is a small part of engineering, and these days isn’t particularly important.  The brainiacs play a different game.   Theory is used to model new designs on paper or with a computer, and developers are aware of many options.  Maths plays a significant role.  When trying something new, thinking engineers avoid a great deal of costly time-wasting experimental work by predicting how the thingy will perform in the real-world.   Like it or not, brainy engineering is the future.  The schools are preparing the kids for design work, not skilled or semi-skilled workshops.

• I welcome articles on pieces of workshop equipment.  Chinese junk might be cheap, but it doesn’t necessarily work very well.  I count Graham Meek and Jacques Maurel as being up there with GHT these days.  …

Agreed – though not a Stent!

• As others have said, MEW and ME have never been great at covering welding techniques.

True, but I don’t do welding.

• That raises another area, that the hobby appears split to me.  The builders of book case adornments seem to hold sway.  If one has the temerity to build a 4″ scale traction engine, then one is likely to be drummed out of the Brownies.  If one goes as far as 7″ scale, then all hell will break loose.  And yet I see some excellent work running round at steam rallies, which is rarely covered in any detail (back to John Backhouse and John Arrowsmith again!).

Yes, another split.   I’m happy with bookcase adornments!  Hope the prejudice against 4″ traction engines is not true, but I fear it might be.  The hobby has always suffered from zealots convinced they’re in the right.   One of the joys of reading old LBSC articles, is him laying into “Inspector Meticulous” and the “Rivet Counters”.   LBSC wrote for Modellers who wanted to build a working no-fuss loco rather than a replica.   Inspector Meticulous felt this was sacrilege; his goal was 100% accurate exhibition quality reproductions in miniature, and nothing else would do!   Poor old Inspector Meticulous  believed he knew what 100% accurate was, which led him into a series of beatings when it was found that the prototype engines usually went through many changes, and even simple things like the authentic paint colour was unknown, and  varied slightly.  I see no reason for modellers to fall out over the type or size of model being made!

• Finally, having occasionally contributed in the past (and hope to in the future) it is very offputting to be faced with pages of Ts & Cs and be submitting bank details etc. just to have the privilege of offering work to Mortons for a pittance.  There was even a period where work offered would disappear into a black hole, never to re-surface.  A more welcoming approach to contributors, please.

I found the process fairly straightforward, though I wrote for MEW, and Neil was very helpful.   A slight surprise was how long it too for the articles to appear.   Naturally, I thought anything written by me would be in the next issue.   The reality is I write for a minority, and the editor has to strike a balance between my piece and whatever else is in the bank.   Not just balancing content, but space too.   Editing is a jigsaw puzzle, often extending over several issues, not a 10 minute cut and paste job.

Martin

So, although Martin and I are in close agreement about most things, we differ!   We both recognise that the Model Engineering community is broader than just us.  I go further and assert that Model Engineering is a subset of the Maker Community.   Makes it very difficult to please all of all of the time…

Be good if Model Engineers were more tolerant.   Even though I believe that, I still get into trouble on the forum.  Picking up on factually dubious opinions shouldn’t be contentious in an engineering community and yet it often is.  I don’t see it that way, I’m here to be educated and hope others are too.  Unfortunately people hate having their beliefs challenged!

Dave

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

On the subject of traction engines in the larger scales I spent quite a bit of time chatting to owners at this years Wheeting Steam Rally. Most of them had never heard of model engineering and a large number of the engines were kit builds or bought complete.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Someone starting out in Model or ordinary engineering is more likely to have a bench drill than a mill with DRO or CNC so if one is aiming for the newcomer then the steel rule is more likely how it will be done.Even if the drawing is CAD with files Etc  Being modern is fine –  if you can afford to go into a hobby with the latest kit, a hobby you know little about and that will take years to learn. Most and certainly the young could not afford this approach, then there’s the space needed, most would not be allowed to have the S7 in the warm dry kitchen.

I could go on !  I’ll just see what Neil comes up with or will he be told what space/ format is to be by Mortons ? Noel.

[BaldricParticipant @baldric]

I have read through quite a few of the comments here, but not all, so I thought I would give my views of the current content as a subscriber of both ME & MEW, currently building a 3″ Foden steam wagon, a very long term build. I don’t know if it affects what I read, but i tend to read the magazines when I have go in be, before going to sleep, rather than sat in a chair, being able to refer to other publications.

I don’t mind a long running build series, I do read them, even if I have no intention of building the item, as there will be techniques that are probably relevant to my build, especially when the same tasks can be done in a different way, depending on equipment & preference. The current Flying Scotsman build if very photo heavy, with good captions, which is a different style to many other builds, I like it. Some builds seem to have fewer & lower quality images, photo 30 in the GWR pannier build refers to a tool, but I can hardly see the mentioned tool. Sometimes I do struggle to identify which part I am meant to be looking at in photos of originals, they can be rather busy, highlighting the relevant parts may help.

Articles describing historical items or history of things, either places or technology, again I do read and always learn something. The current series on the history of steam, if it was in a book, I would not be reading, yes it can be a bit heavy going, but still interesting.

Articles that are very theoretical are ones that I am likely to skim read, or skip if I don’t have any need for the details, they are probably the only ones I regularly skip though. The reprints of items from the past, I may skip as well, especially those that are printed to small to be read without a magnifying glass. The Butterside Down articles, I have read, there is information there I find interesting, I have to admit, it is not my style though.

Will I continue to subscribe, yes, for now, will I write articles, probably not as, despite this longish post, I am not great at describing things.

Regarding other forms of getting information, I read several forums & do post, there are a few threads I look forward to seeing the progress and how a task will be done. I do watch a few YouTube channels, some seem to stop for a long period, much like my build does, making you wonder if you will see the end.

Regarding clubs, I am not a member, so can’t comment on the friendliness of them, as I am not building a locomotive, I have no interest in running a railway, certainly not committing to do so every few weekends. I am considering joining a club though, more to discuss things with like-minded people at monthly meetings, however for mee the two options are about 45 minutes away, so 1 1/2 hours total travel, after a days work, is probably the main reason I have not yet joined one.

Baldric

[Chris GillParticipant @chrisgill22114]

I’m another one who subscribes to both ME and MEW although I almost dropped ME earlier this year because of the seemingly endless line of locomotives, sometimes running in parallel. One problem, as Baldric points out, is that there are sometimes useful designs or methods hidden away in these series and I probably miss them.

My main interests in practical terms are models of stationary engines and tools – I rarely get far with a model before I need to make another tool! So I like to see builds with plans, not descriptions without plans, problem solutions or design decisions.

I’m also interested in electronics and 3D printers; and I like some of the theoretical articles.

As with lots of others, I dislike the wasted space and I quickly lost interest Butter-side Up / Down and the History of Stationary Steam Engines. I don’t find anything of interest in the club news.

I also find the items dredged from archives are often hard to read and sometimes difficult to relate to modern tools or techniques. And these “free” articles sit in the queue with subscriber-submitted material which, as I discovered, can delay submissions for a year. Without subscriber-written articles, the magazine will struggle.

I know others worry about the future of the hobby and I know it can be hard to keep pace with new developments so we do need to have these things in the magazine.

But, I have to start packing up my workshop. When I unpack it, we’ll be a lot closer to the grand children and I have every intention of teaching them to use the tools. So far it’s all been woodwork. I suppose 7 years old is a bit too soon for the welder!

Chris

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Regarding clubs: Do join, even if you can only go to some of the working week meetings there are other weekend opportunities. You are actually joining a worldwide network cf Nevil Shute’s book ‘Trustee from the Toolroom’. Clubs in both Oz and USA welcomed me as have a number of museums when I mention my bona-fides.
I am 15 miles from one club and 25 from the other so can’t just pop in like I do to the Men’s Shed for a cuppa and chat and how I envy those with a club just down the street.
It is most certainly NOT all about running locos and if you hesitate at the membership fee you will likely make it back through the contacts to get cheap tools and materials in the club auctions etc.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

A lot has been mentioned about long builds. What do you consider a long build?

I know from Martin that people ask him when my next stationary build wil appear and also that people are actually making the engines I write up so there must be some interest in them.

The Editor has one waiting at the moment. It covers the build of the Clarkson Horizontal in metric and has been written with the builder of a first casting kit in mind so not a total beginner therefore likely to have some equipment but may not have handled castings before.

In ME that would probably have taken 6 installments over 22 pages so the series would run for approx 3months as Martin published mine in consecutive issues at my request. Now given the lesser number of words on a MEW page and Neils Liking of large photos (mine are clear and well zoomed in) then that will run to 7 or 8 installments or 8months.

For an idea of the size of this article on just the horizontal is 7800 words, 14 A4 drawings which get reduced so two to a page and 69 photos. With a similar number of photos that I was going to post on the forum.

I had intended to tack the recently completed Vertical on the end but just covering the 3 or 4 castings that differ from the horizontal but that could take it out to almost a year as the castings are where most of the work is. So is that too long?

Even if I don’t put the Vertical in the mag and instead send in my 775 dynamo which there seems to be a fair bit of interest in how long until that get s published as to be fair to all the authors that do send something in should be published in rotation so it could be a couple of years until the Dynamo appears, assuming we are still here!

With what is likely to be such a slow turnover of “small builds” there is a risk that a subscriber may not get anything that interests them for some time if they don’t like the current stationary engine subject and have to wait a long time in the hope that the next one will be of interest.

Would you rather see an article of average 4 pages spread over 8 months or give it say 6 pages per issue and get it over 5 months though the actual physical length would be the same?

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

That’s a  very pertinent, question Jason

I can only answer for myself, but will be interested to see the range of replies.

I am most unlikely to ever build one of the models that you describe, and therefore the step-by-step construction series [whatever its length] would be largely wasted on me.

I am, however, always interested to see how you do things … because that is knowledge, to be carried-forward.

How that gets balanced, in the production of a magazine, is the tricky bit !

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts