Discussion on the Future Direction of Model Engineer and Workshop

[Weary]

On Weary Said:

Neil,

I am a long-time ME magazine subscriber and (largely) a loco builder.  I would still like there to be loco-build articles in the new Model Engineer & Workshop magazine.   However I would prefer these to be far ‘punchier’ than the recent (and present) loco build articles.  Basically locomotives are nearly all detail variations on a theme!  Luker’s articles were excellent focussing on methods for particular parts of his builds, but could have been made still more ‘to the point’ in my opinion.   With back-issues available in hard-copy and on-line, ‘the basics’ (wheel turning is a classic example) need not be covered, but relevant previous issues, or purpose-made or even ‘generic’ youtube videos could be referenced.   Even (loco) cylinders can be covered by reference to a suitable stationary engine series as the machining processes and techniques are often similar.  The order of boiler construction could be covered in the magazine in a brief list if it is felt necessary rather than any detail beyond that.

As regards loco drawings in the magazine then I would suggest that the boiler needs to be covered, along with a general arrangement, but actually much (all?) of the rest could be supplied elsewhere unless it is directly referred-to in the core article – see also next para’.

I realise that these (potential) brief articles significantly reduce authors remuneration but with Jason’s suggestion, and (for example) Luker’s practice, of links to the author selling plans and additional material directly (downloads/USB, etc.) surely ‘something’ could be worked-out?   Maybe even involving castings suppliers ‘sponsoring’ a brief series or two?

By its’ nature building a loco takes years (well for me anyway!), but the relevant written article doesn’t need to do-so with aggressive editing.

I also occasionally build stationary steam engines and think that the same process could be applied to them, though the ‘beginner’s’ articles covering greater detail would be far more useful here as these are seemingly more popular than locos.

As a final note (for the moment!): ‘armchair modellers’ are much disparaged on this forum and elsewhere, however I would suggest that they could be an important target market for your magazine.   Casual observation suggests to me that few on this forum actually build anything (just my opinion!) and yet, at least superficially, this appears to be the busiest ‘model engineering’ forum.   In the same vein that few women dress like the models in Vogue magazine and yet it has a good circulation (albeit declining significantly in recent years) maybe the ‘aspirational’ model engineer is a good target.  Cannot suggest a way to target ‘armchair modellers’ (aspiring model engineers??) – so just a thought.

Anyway: Regards & good luck with the new mag’,

Phil

 

 

Thanks Phil.

I am struck by the huge variation in how long and complex a loco build series can be. I’m aware that my own simple electric loco series took longer to publish than I took to build it!

I hope to have discussions about the best approach with a number of loco builders (and have already started one). Through MEW I already have a few builders who take the approach of exploring one issue in depth in an article.

This way I think we could see a lot of positive overlap the first ME&W issue will look at a method for making traction engine tyres and strakes that was submitted to MEW as an interesting technique rather than ME as being about traction engines, for example. Also, I’ve been sent an ME style article on setting Walschaerts valve gear;  I know that many MEW readers will enjoy the ‘grey matter’ aspects of the article irrespective of the subject matter.

The good news is certainly that I have a bigger pool of articles to choose from, and that is a huge advantage for an editor.

[Arthur Jones 2]

On Arthur Jones 2 Said:

 

Just to reiterate, i currently take ME and MEW, nearly dropped MEW, intend to continue with ME&W but (if I can work out how!) intend to make sure I don’t get The Railway magazine as a substitute second magazine.

Kind regards and a belated happy New Year to all

Arthur

Hi Arthur,

Some good points there. One possibility is articles (probably by various authors) covering different aspects of loco (and other types of model!) building that could then be uploaded as a repository of basic techniques that writers can refer across to (even if they say ‘but actually I would have done x not y’). The same goes for all sorts of skills from scraping a bearing to anodising.

If you don’t want The Railway just click this link emailqueries@mortons.co.uk and send an email with your details telling Mortons them you’d prefer a refund. It really is that simple.

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

In more moderate language, please can the computer language debate either dry up or go elsewhere. It may have started as an amusing aside, but it’s become an irrelevant distraction.

Thanks

Neil

 

[Phill SpowartParticipant @phillspowart84010]

I took out a subscription to Model Engineer a couple of years ago, having been dipping in occasionally. Funnily enough my other subscription is also fortnightly-Private Eye. Both magazines have a good mix of self contained articles, and long running series/stories. In both cases I started off not reading everything, but got drawn in the more issues I read. One PE writer described how their magazine builds a “mental compost heap”-you put in lots of interesting stuff, even if you’re starting half way through the tale, it all mulches down in the brain and then years later you realise that you know an awful lot about the Horizon system, or how valve gear works, but you’re not entirely sure where it came from. Both magazines have a long history, which I like paying for as I want them to continue, even if not everything in them is for me.

Regarding linking to online content, I am not in favour if the content is a key part of the article. The internet is very ephemeral, and such content is likely to vanish without warning over decades.

I like the longer build series. Some have criticised the more complex and super detailed builds, but personally I find them fascinating. Series such as Doug Hewsons STD 4 and Lukers Fire Queen are great inspiration, and make such high quality models feel achievable. I might not ever make them, but I like seeing how they are done.

I’ve also enjoyed the articles on drills-they actually felt like an ME version of a niche youtuber who does “deep dive” videos on obscure topics. I also enjoyed the article on the little helicopter-again, not something I’d build, but an interesting tale of how something was done.

I’m a bit lukewarm on Elephants and Butterside down. On a good week they are informative and entertaining, but some tighter editing would help. His somewhat verbose, overly-eloquent style puts your humble typist in mind of the lead protaganist of the Real Ale T–ts. This wonderful, though rather foul of language, cartoon appears in Viz Comic, and details the somewhat absurd adventures of your stereotypical CAMRA member…(continues needlessly for 5 pages).

I have one suggestion for an article type. Would it be possible to do something like a “road test” you get in classic vehicle magazines, but for model designs? Couple of pages, each standing alone, giving a broad description of what a design is, when/where it came about, levels of complexity/detail/quality of design, common pitfalls/things you should change, what they are like to drive/operate, where you can get plans, instructions and parts etc. It would be good general interest, and show newcomers what is possible, or indeed advisable. Perhaps it could attract sponsorship from casting suppliers too?

People have already mentioned the hackspace/makerspace movement that has been growing. I’ve recently joined my local one, and it is obvious that the human fascination with making things hasn’t gone anywhere. It has been interesting to see how easily people with no machining skills can pick up CNC-their computer skills being so good that programming and modelling is as natural as breathing to them. However some basic levels of knowledge for beginners are much less, since schools barely teach anything practical. It is worth noting that a dedicated Hackspace magazine has recently closed-maybe a gap in the market ME&W could cover?

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I think your ‘road test’ would be something like a review, but of kit that has been used for a while. For several years we ran ‘one man and his lathe/mill’ in MEW which was effectively that, although there wasn’t a standard format, it was a useful series.

I have also considered writing brief updates on a few things I have reviewed when new.

Feedback has always been that a significant proportion of readers find reviews of all sorts interesting and useful.

Experience has always been that getting people to write reviews is like pulling teeth.

Another issue is that reviews of bad items are really a waste of space; these usually end up being discussed here and elsewhere, and it’s easy to do an online search and find out if something is rubbish. Much harder are good reviews where the equipment is of at decent standard and the focus is on informing people whether or not it is likely to meet their needs. I’d have no hesitation to say a mini-lathe is a good choice for most beginners, but it’s no good if you want to make 3″ scale traction engines or even make stationary engines with 8″ flywheels, for example.

[Phill SpowartParticipant @phillspowart84010]

Not quite, I was thinking of something about designs you can build. Whether it be a loco, stationary, IC engine, or bit of workshop equipment. Something that says “Here’s a thing you might want to build, with an initial introduction to things you need to know.” For example:

An Introduction to…LBSC’s 3.5″ Britannia

Intro: LBSC’s Britannia was designed in…blah blah…Robert Riddles, Works drawings, etc.

Spec: This design is suitable for pulling xx passengers, weighs roughly XXLbs in working order, is 20ft long etc etc. Design is basic, producing a fully functional engine but with detailing left to the builder to figure out.

Building: Full drawings from Reeves (insert link here), serialised in ME’s XXX-XXY. Full set of castings available from Anon and costs roughly £XXX/not currently available/just make it from billet. Design is considered intermediate/easy/fiddly/will drive you insane. Common pitfalls include boiler design not up to modern codes, handrail stanchions screwed in boiler, etc etc, major error on page XXX, article on an improved whatever appeared in ME No. XXX, etc. PS please don’t use asbestos. Perhaps also a rough idea of equipment needed, e.g. you need access to a full CNC shop/mill is essential/it can all be done on a myford/hit the castings with hammers til it works.

Operation: As designed, considered easy/hard/impossible to operate. Known quirks are blah blah blah

Summary: We recommend this design as a second loco for someone who has already built a Juliet/Rob Roy/etc. Other designs you might want to consider are the 5″ version from this designer, or the more modern 3.5″ design from another bloke, etc etc. This design is commonly seen at clubs/half built and given up on ebay/no one has been mental enough to try it.

Next week, we introduce Moriya, a Stirling heat engine ideal for beginners.

 

Obviously that’s an incredibly rough outline, but the point is that it would be of interest to everyone. Beginners and casual readers get to see what is available/advisable/an aspiration to build once I’m experienced enough. It would lend itself to plenty of photos too. I used to get Classic Bike magazine, and though I might never afford or really want whatever bikes were in it that month, it was still interesting to read and threw up many nuggets of inspiration.

Another parallel with classic vehicle mags as they are dealing with similarly variable subjects. An individual Triumph T100 or Maid of Kent could be anything from a bodged up ruin to professionally restored/built, but generally speaking they do the same thing in working order.

Finally, I offer an apology-I’m making a suggestion I can’t really help you with. I’ve yet to finish any locomotives, having given up on two, and have no experience of operating anything.

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

With the arrival of issue 4760 and still no announcement in print by either the Editor or Mortons of what is going on, it all appears as a poor show. This is the second edition since the announcement on here. I feel we are being treated as fools and taken as such, – is there any future ? Noel

PS see my comment in the subscriptions thread.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

And why don’t you see my reply to you here and particularly here

[Charles LamontParticipant @charleslamont71117]

Jason, I think you are missing Noel’s point. Irrespective of any premature announcement here, why are magazine readers still in the dark this late in the day?

(I can’t be arsed to think of less confused metaphors.)

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I got the point and was replying to “and still no announcement in print”

[Charles Lamont]

On Charles Lamont Said:

Jason, I think you are missing Noel’s point. Irrespective of any premature announcement here, why are magazine readers still in the dark this late in the day?

…

Don’t think Jason missed the point.   Be wonderful if mistakes and omissions could be fixed instantly, but there is always a delay.  Noel is expecting too much, given the launch fired prematurely.   A taxi might be able to turn on a sixpence, but poured concrete takes time to set.

Magazines are more like concrete.  The very newest on the production line is undeveloped and might be changed fairly easily by the editors, after that change gets progressively more difficult. What’s done is done.  A magazine at the printers is a major problem and magazines halfway to Australia, can’t be changed, only recalled.

I don’t think what we’re seeing is contempt for the customer.   I suspect a leak forced Mortons to implement an unfinished plan.  Dangerous: apart from exposing a lot of dirty underwear, that could end with a catastrophic failure.  Possible also the plan was too simple, perhaps just a list of target dates and an optimistic assumption that a few minor complications will somehow sort themselves out, when the devil is in the details.  If so, that’s mismanagement.

I feel sorry for employees.  They have to deal with annoyed customers whilst working their socks off to sort out a mess they didn’t cause.  Neil mentioned coming away from a recent meeting with an arm long action list.  Yes Neil should have a giant TO DO list, but it’s worrying he got it so late.  And that Jason had to ask rather than be sent clear information after the game started.

My diagnosis is malfunction rather than conspiracy, and not done to annoy us.  Hopefully it will sort itself out without losing too many subscribers!

I advise patience.  Whilst a botched transition is annoying, the real test is the content of the new mag as it develops over the next few years.   I’m optimistic: I liked most of MEW, and a fair proportion of ME too.

Dave

 

 

 

[derek hall 1Participant @derekhall1]

Regarding SOD (Dave)’s post…

Good comments and sensible comments.

As has been mentioned elsewhere there must be a lot of work going on in the background that now has to be done faster than was initially planned and scheduled. There is bound to be some “confusion”.

We also need to empathise with some of the staff and people trying to sort this out with a possibility that their livelihoods could be at risk.

Regards

Derek

[PeteParticipant @pete41194]

I let my MEW subscription lapse after one year simply because there wasn’t enough that was worthwhile in the newer one’s compared to the first 10 years of it. I was and am still willing to give the new hard copy combined magazine a chance, and I thought of using the Christmas special offer to save myself a bit. That’s now gone and still no word about any changes in the subscription price that may happen or how access to the digital back copies are going to be handled.

If the magazine actually does want me to subscribe, then by now it would be nice if some priority was applied to make those finalized decisions about what all of us have questions and no real answers to. And because of those delays, then in my opinion, that Christmas offer really should have been extended by at least two weeks after these details are announced whenever that might be. I’m blaming no one here, but simple logic would be that the business decision to combine both magazines wasn’t sudden and likely was fully decided some months ago. Yet here we sit without a few relatively simple decisions for anyone thinking of subscribing in place yet.

[Pete]

aOn Pete Said:

I let my MEW subscription lapse after one year simply because there wasn’t enough that was worthwhile in the newer one’s compared to the first 10 years of it…

Pete triggers a depressing thought!  Just before getting into the hobby I discovered MEW by accident in a long gone newsagent.  As I hadn’t done any metalwork since I was 12, everything in the mag was fresh, relevant, and interesting.  Learned a lot since then, so MEW isn’t half as exciting.

I imagined tackling ever more complex projects and techniques, progressing into CNC and cross-pollinating with my other hobbies.   Didn’t happen.   I slowed down with age, was distracted by caring responsibilities, and now I’m unwell!  Unsafe to operate power tools when my concentration is shot, and on a bad day reading a mag is too much effort.

Doubt I’m alone!  Could be hobby magazines only appeal for a decade or so before readers run out of enthusiasm.  Mortons probably know from the subscriptions data how long interest in the mags lasts.  Whilst old-boys dropping out is inevitable the hobby should persist. As folk like me run out of steam, newcomers join.

I enjoy ‘Model Engineering’ and want others to have the same experience.  Or rather something similar – in 2024 Model Engineering has to appeal to current generations.

Satisfying advanced modellers is yet another problem, if they exist! Judging by forum opinion there may be more interest in simple hands-on than professional engineering methos.  A desire for traditional black and white certainties rather than new developments.

Dave

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

I’ve been getting ME since the mid 70s, and collected an almost full set back to 1950. When the rafters started to creak I decided to scan the interesting stuff and pass on the paper copies. I’ve just done 2024,which didn’t take long, but in the past there have been years when I didn’t scan anything. Plus ca change. Back on the day if you wanted a loco you had to assemble a workshop and make one, but the guys who did so have shuffled off this mortal coil, or like me are in decline and unable to manhandled a heavy 5″g loco out of the house, so there are lots on the second hand market. Hence a reduced interest in long construction series unless they have something new to offer (Luker).

[Charles Lamont]

On Charles Lamont Said:

Jason, I think you are missing Noel’s point. Irrespective of any premature announcement here, why are magazine readers still in the dark this late in the day?

(I can’t be arsed to think of less confused metaphors.)

As you realise, we would have preferred to announce the change to readers first, in the pages of the magazine. We wanted to go with 4761 as that is out at about the same time as MEW 348, so readers of both titles would find out at about the same time.

But the cat was let out of the bag, well before we had finalised everything, yet too late to allow us to put an announcement in ME4760.

In short, it’s not that we hadn’t got a strategy for informing readers in writing, but that news was ‘leaked’ before editorial announcements, subscriber emails and letters, website announcements had been finalised. Let alone things like the new masthead, subscription arrangements or a vast number of small details.

From this it’s surely apparent that even announcing the change a month ago would have created far more questions than it answered and everyone would have been crying “shambles!” We wanted to be able to give readers as much certainty and clarity as possible when the announcement was made. That really wasn’t possible at the time MEW 347 and ME 3759 went to press – Martin and I hadn’t even met with Mortons to discuss the detail at that point. Things move fast in modern businesses.

As it is, we ended up being ‘bounced’ into the announcement before we were ready; the last details were finalised last Tuesday, just in time for MEW 348 and 4761 to go to press.

Neil

 

[Pete]

On Pete Said:

I let my MEW subscription lapse after one year simply because there wasn’t enough that was worthwhile in the newer one’s compared to the first 10 years of it. I was and am still willing to give the new hard copy combined magazine a chance, and I thought of using the Christmas special offer to save myself a bit. That’s now gone and still no word about any changes in the subscription price that may happen or how access to the digital back copies are going to be handled.

If the magazine actually does want me to subscribe, then by now it would be nice if some priority was applied to make those finalized decisions about what all of us have questions and no real answers to. And because of those delays, then in my opinion, that Christmas offer really should have been extended by at least two weeks after these details are announced whenever that might be. I’m blaming no one here, but simple logic would be that the business decision to combine both magazines wasn’t sudden and likely was fully decided some months ago. Yet here we sit without a few relatively simple decisions for anyone thinking of subscribing in place yet.

From my own experience as a reader, I think that the nature of both magazines is that after about ten years things start coming around and a lot feels familiar. Some people like that familiarity, but part of my role is to try to look for new areas to explore, and of course other people don’t like that…

As for the timetable of the decisions, it was ‘fully decided’, after MEW 357 went to press. That’s not to say it hasn’t been discussed and debated for longer, but until we knew that would be the option we had nothing material to announce. And what would have been the benefit of a ‘half announcement’? We could hardly say, “things are going to change, but we haven’t decided how yet?”

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Because it has been in the news today I wondered if AI programs had scraped ME or MEW for their database. I have never used an AI program before but saw a video of using one called Claude to write a program in OpenSCAD to 3D print a gear set quite successfully.

So having just read part of ME about drilling I asked it to “write me an article about drilling metal”. The result was 39 lines, quite succinct, technically accurate, and probably adequate for a relative newbie to adopt good procedure. I’m not going to paste it in here in case of copyright issues but you coud try it yourself. I can safely say it used absolutely nothing from the ME article. So your job is not under threat Neil R and you haven’t been plagiarised.

Now I wonder if we can use it to write articles for our club mag when short of contributions.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Only if you want regurgitated stuff. Ai will not come up with anything new.

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

But it will be new to Bazyle’s club magazine

Ian P

[David SeniorParticipant @davidsenior29320]

Whilst I have never actually used one of these AI programs (though I know people who have) my take on them is that they are the equivalent of having a very widely read and knowledgeable friend who you can ask if you want to know anything. Most of the time the answers will be accurate, but not all the time. I suspect the accuracy rate is higher than posting on any real forum!

Dave

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

There were a few errors and odd terms in part 2 of that drilling article too.

Which reminds me it would be nice if the new mag did not contain what had become a regular feature over recent issues od ME namely “cock-up corner”

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

It is quite difficult to face a blank piece of paper and come up with an article. But it is much easier to read something and, if you know a bit about the subject already, point out the errors, improvements needed etc. Which is what I found interesting about my experiment. I could edit it into a reasonable work. I wonder what would happen if I took the output of one AI and put it into another AI requesting an improvement.

The ‘easy to criticise’ aspect is perhaps the reason for much of the adverse comments we have seen but shortage of fresh contributions. It is a pity that despite the apparently long period between submission and publication that items, including photographs, are not run past someone with both technical and literary skills.  Jason has clearly seen Part 2 but has he been given the opportunity to improve it?

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

No, only get to see it when the digital is published

 

This is the problem, an article can be proof read but unless the person reading it has some knowledge of the subject they won’t spot problems.

For when you get it these were a few that I spotted. Bear in mind I assume it is aimed at the beginner.

What most of us call a keyless chuck was described as a “quick release” chuck, a term I have not heard before for a keyless drill chuck.

Use of “jaw chuck” several times without the mention of 3 or 4.

Says imperial BS ctr drills come in sizes 1 to 7 but you can actually get 00, 0 and 8 in imperial

It says the ratio of small dia of a ctr drill to the large dia is 1:3.14, you only need look at any chart or suppliers catalogue to see that is not so and the imperials are just fractions not a decimal that a ratio like that would give.

There is also of lot of words saying very little. I’ll wait for the next part before commenting further

Should say it was about the only article I read which does not bode well for the others.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

One way of saving some money would be to cease the practice of redrawing contributors drawings. Previous editors of ME have denied that this happens, but I’m not so sure. If contributors drawings are freehand sketches it might be necessary, but otherwise is a potential source of errors. Whoever redraw them is clearly not a draughtsman, and should at the very least be treated to a copy of BS308. It is unlikely that ‘house style’ will make drawings clearer or less ambiguous than industry standard. I’m not referring to sophisticated ways of tolerancing etc, just simple things like not cross hatching threads in sections, getting the views in the right orientation etc.

Similarly, when I submitted a multipart article, I referred to eg figure 8.1 as the first fig in part 8. The editor renumbered all the figs starting at 1 in part one and continuing upwards. Doesn’t add anything, takes ages, and if you want to say delete fig 8.1 for some reason, all the figs in parts 9, 10…..have to be renumbered. When I queried it I was told ‘house style’. I call it ‘waste of time’.

[Author]

Posts