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.

[Author]

Posts