The June 2020 edition arrived in my letter box today, and whilst not yet read, I have skimmed the articles.

When I read the initial post, I felt that it was totally baseless in its accusations. As I expected, the current edition refutes everything that the OP has stated.

The June 2020 edition contains:
1. An in-depth look at a QR layout (HOn3.5)
2. A brief look at a O scale layout in development.
3. SIX "how to" articles. All of these articles are very well detailed.
4. Measurements.... ALL in metric, except where it is appropriate to use imperial measurements, such as a prototype from that era.

So I randomly pulled another AMRM off my shelf to see how it compared, AMRM April 2019.
1. An in-depth look at a SAR layout.
2. FIVE "how to" articles, all of which were highly detailed.
3. Measurements. ALL in metric, except where it is appropriate to use imperial measurements, such as a prototype from that era.
4. I might add, two South Australian articles, plus two "how to" that were universal in nature.

Should I grab another to increase the statistical significance???? I don't think I'll bother....

So as to the "Beginner, intermediate and advanced" modeller. This is total nonsense. What is "beginner" to me, may be "Advanced" to you and vice versa. A modellers skill set is not linear. All of us have aspects that are better in one technique than another. Whether someone can do something is more related to how good instructions are and what experience they have. Have a look in the current "how to", ANYONE could do them. It is stated other Magazines have "beginner/intermediate/advanced" sections. I have only ever regularly subscribed to AMRM and Model Railroader (MR). I have never seen anything in MR in that format. Appreciate if anyone out there would identify the magazines that do adopt this format. I am sceptical that they exist.

As for publishing reviews, generally they are done independently of the AMRM. Therefore, if something has not been reviewed, then that means someone like you haven't written the review!

The claim that AMRM is NSW centric is kinda fair enough as on a population basis, that are where most of the modellers are. BUT my prototype (South Australian) is having a fair run. This edition, and the previous edition, have significant SA articles.

I have submitted and have had published, five articles. All with a SA flavour. As has been pointed out if you want something published, WRITE IT! AMRM supplies their guidelines for article submission. It is a simple "follow the process" procedure.

Lastly! Congratulations to James McInerney on publishing an excellent magazine. I wish the new Editor, Scott Fitzgerald all the best with his new role. To the AMRM, good luck with finding a new General Manager.

Cheers,

Dan

Congratulations to Scott Fitzgerald for taking on the role as AMRM Managing Editor I am sure I will be contacting him in person when I find out his new AMRM email address about ideas that I can put forward as well as potential articles plus letters to the Editor.  I am thinking he might make the publishing guidelines are little bit more easier to understand- the one for Railway Digest and ARHS Australian Railway History Magazine comes to 31 pages in total.

Firstly Scott Fitzgerald where have I heard that name before cannot really remember?  Was a well known writer for Motive Power and Railway Digest magazines.

Lastly, sadly they cannot find a General Manager maybe its a case that the Managing Editor will have to preform dual roles until they find a suitable candidate and I know for sure I have to do that with an association I am in.  I am President and Treasurer for that organisation because no one has put their hand up for the Treasury role and we are an unincorporated body.

I also wish Scott the best of luck and yes it can be hard work but I am sure he is up to the challenge I think he will raise AMRM a little bit higher and hoping as NSW3802 says he reads our concerns here and what we write to him and makes the magazine a little bit more better than it is now.

I agree it won't happen overnight but it will happen if we somehow help and write articles plus I heard a story many years ago about a well known magazine that changed its editors and guess what the editor was flooded with so many articles and photos that he didn't know where to start.  Maybe its the beginning of a new era for AMRM and not the beginning of the end.

In reply to Sean F:

AMRM is available in an online pdf format for less than $10 per year extra along with the print copy.

Phantom

I have not purchased or even looked at an AMRM in ages. There was just less and less of interest to me and it just stopped holding my attention.

Now I am sure people will say ‘It’s only as good as the content ‘you’ provide’ and to this I say what I always have: there are numerous other magazines and journals out there (modelling or other topics) that do carry my interest, and I don’t have to contribute to them either.

We all contribute as readers/subscribers by paying the cover price on the magazine/journal.

Additionally I did ‘contribute’ at least two full length articles on DCC and layout electronics, to be told they were ‘outside the scope of the publication’, another one on using a DCC accessory decoder to index a turntable and several DCC fitment guides that all went unpublished - one presumably because ‘buy a decoder that is appropriate and fits, disassemble, fit appropriate size lights, neatly route some thin wires and reassemble’ was deemed ‘less interesting’ than ‘buy the wrong NCE decoder, butcher part of the interior, wrangle some ugly thick wires and put back together’.

I don’t know if AMRM is interesting or not today, I don’t even look for it anymore.

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

Why would you want to spend good modelling time doing something that benefits numerous modellers when you read this. It is getting to the point where the whole thread is destructive, not helpful.

Les.

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

Why would you want to spend good modelling time doing something that benefits numerous modellers when you read this. It is getting to the point where the whole thread is destructive, not helpful.

Les.

I am curious as to why you ‘disagree’ with my post.

Do you think that I have purchased or looked at an AMRM recently?

Do you think that in order to criticise you need to have contributed? Apparently you do since you ‘liked’ Knotts’ post that mentioned:

hopefully the critics above have submitted articles.

And

If you don't like it, do something to change it.

Such beliefs are cop outs, completely ignoring that there are ‘better’ magazines and journals I don’t contribute to AND also ignores that the greatest way to support ANY product is to buy it, the corollary is that those producing the product need to make it worthy of purchase.

For example, one electronics magazine I read is monthly, over 100 pages and I just received this month’s issue, it has only six full pages of ads, a double page of those six is an add to subscribe to the printed magazine, the other four consist of a single page advertising their three other related magazines, and one page each for two new commercial products available for purchase. It’s available on a mail subscription and digital free of charge, I don’t contribute to it, and I don’t directly pay for it, however, if I did pay the subscription it would be mailed printed and digital download for $12pa less than AMRM print only. Presumably more pages and content, and from what I recall of AMRM, certainly less ads.

Do you think I made up that I submitted articles and guides? Because I surely did, if they weren’t written three computers ago I would publish them here. Maybe you think they were ‘beyond the scope of the magazine’? Maybe that says that you and the editorial staff don’t think that much of the readership.

Do you think I do know that AMRM is interesting today? Or that I look at it? I can assure you that the first statement is true, because the second statement is absolutely true.

As usual I see that you don’t actually have reason to disagree with my post, hence it’s pretty obvious what you disagree with is my right to express contrary, reasoned opinion to that of what you want to hear.

Putting your head in the sand and pretending that AMRM is as close to perfect as it could be is not helpful, nor is misunderstanding that the greatest contributors AMRM has are those that hand over their hard earned every month/year for it. Those that pay to be among the readership are more than justified in making criticisms as they see fit, whether you agree or otherwise.

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

Why would you want to spend good modelling time doing something that benefits numerous modellers when you read this. It is getting to the point where the whole thread is destructive, not helpful.

Les.

You’re upset by the statements in this thread? You should see the conversations you’re not privy to by PM and email about this thread... People for whatever reason are not willing to make statements publicly here, but the non public emails I have been sent are a brutal account of AMRM’s problems.

Hello All,

in more recent years I have been a regular purchaser of AMRM as I think its content and photos are quite good.

Although I am primarily interested in the British prototype, I do have some VR items, courtesy of the current high quality output which I could not resist !

I also agree that AJRM / Australian Journal of Railway Modelling, now back in a more frequent publishing schedule, is an excellent buy, The irony here is that many former AJRM contributors, for the last 8 years, have been assisting and had articles published in AMRM ! As a result, AMRM has become more of an experienced modellers magazine than once was the case.

I perceive AJRM to be an Australian version of the finer scale Model Railway Journal / MRJ ( UK ), whereas the AMRM is closer to the average experienced modeller, in which case both magazines are complementary, not competitive, to each other.

I also appreciate that AMRM promotes the Australian prototype, it is, after all, an Australian magazine, and such Australian articles are highly unlikely to be published in Kalmbach's Model Railroader for instance. I concede that an excellent non Australian layout that is built in Australia ( or New Zealand for that matter ) may be deserving of AMRM publication if it can be demonstrated to have an applicability to potential Australian modellers.

Regarding reviews, they are a touchy subject at the best of times, and some manufacturers can very easily get their nose out of joint, even if the criticism is fair. I think some reviews, which can run for pages, to be a bit excessive, though I the main I think their reviews are non controversial, and I do understand the reasons for this. ( see below ! )

( There was a notorious case in the UK where BRM published a build and review of an etched brass 4mm locomotive kit by a very experienced and well known locomotive builder, who was less than impressed to eventually realise that one cab side half was dimensionally inaccurate compared to the correct other cab side, which error prevented the cab from being fitted to the assembled  boiler and footplate, which had been constructed per the instructions.

The builder-reviewer remarked that he thought this was a serious failing with an expensive etched metal kit which the designer had obviously not done a test build prior to mass production. However, he had given a previous etched kit by the same manufacturer a good review, and still thought that the current kit, with the defective cab excepted, to be quite good. The manufacturer was livid, threatened legal action against both the builder-reviewer and the magazine, and then withdrew all kits from sale, and closed down, claiming the review destroyed the manufacturers' reputation. The kits were picked up by another manufacturer a few months later, and are still for sale. )

At the time of the above incident in the UK, some recent new generation etched kits had come onto the market ( Mallard Kits for example ), and some earlier kits (some  Jidenco kits comes to mind) had garnered a notorious reputation for being between difficult and impossible to build due to poor design, and entirely due to a total lack of quality control , and this is before we get to the instructions where the term diabolical was an apt description.

The other obvious problem for any hobby magazine is that a good builder does not guarantee a good writer, and a modelling article leans more to the good technique or technical approach than it does to a piece of prose or literature. Any Editor will have their own style of writing, but that may not easily translate to a good copy writer/ editor skill set.

Regards to all, Radioman.

Sourcing articles is only part of the editor's role as the editor has to do the layout as well, so trimming articles, reviews  and other text and images to fit available space as advertisments are sometimes sold by space / size, so has to be exact as someone paid for that size. Some may say the editor has to juggle multiple balls in the air as well as pleasing many different people with different agendas so a thankless role.

I’ll preface this post by also agreeing that this thread isn’t a good thing. Taking free kicks at something which is essentially a product of a small industry in a sparsely populated country isn’t really punching up by any stretch of the imagination.

I would like to add though that with all things like this you need to keep things in perspective. One of my strengths is writing and I’m also a pretty handy photographer. For a time, I regularly had both writing and photographs published and now I’m at a stage where design and writing encompasses everything I do (as it does with a magazine). And, unfortunately, even when you’re desperately searching for content, not every photo or article submitted is publishable or meets the benchmark for inclusion. In short, just because someone wrote or submitted something doesn’t mean it was well-written, to a publishable quality, objective or encompassed all of the other things it needed to. The same applies to photographs and magazines like Motive Power and when it was still going ARI. Politics aside, the gripe with photographs is often ‘they didn’t publish mine’ or ‘the same people are always getting a run’. There are reasons for that though and it’s because the photographers getting the runs on the board are submitting newsworthy, good quality publishable photographs. When you’re seeing what is coming through the post box in submissions and have to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak (which is the editorial teams job), a fine eye soon casts a lot aside. It has to because that’s the editorial teams job. They’re upholding the standards of the publication just as AMRM’s have to. Of course it's the job of a good editorial team to assist people and "iron out" their submitted work. If you're not getting published though you have one option and that is to "punch upwards" and keep trying. Increase the quality of your work and comply with the editorial teams directions and persuasions. People who don't do that become dejected, step away and then "throw shade" as some have done here. If you're the latter that says more about yourself than the publication team in some ways.

In saying that, do I agree with all aspects of AMRM? Short answer no, but on a whole they do a good job keeping in mind the majority of the editorial team has no formal training in the area except for being keen modellers themselves. Really, it’s a passion project that a few people draw a fairly basic wage from to keep going. The majority are doing it for free and that’s important to remember and keep in perspective. AMRM isn’t produced by Kalmbach and doesn’t have a country the size of the US to support it. We’re talking small numbers even further broken down by separate states and then overseas modellers within it included as well. Should AMRM include overseas content? My personal belief is no because there are other magazines which cover that territory. Could Australia support more than a couple of magazines in this field? No, I think as proven by Motive Power’s short foray into the fray and I find it only further depletes an already small pool of resources to draw from. “Journal” does what it does well and AMRM serves its audience well; anything else attempting to cast a wide net would only drain resources to the detriment of all. Lastly, do I think Australian modellers really pay attention to the reviews in AMRM especially considering the fact the pre-sale volumes here and the largely RTR position we now find the hobby here in? No. Every model ever produced has some flaw and seriously doubt a review pointing out those floors would drive all but a minor handful away from purchasing an Australian RTR model. Kit builders are possibly different but again I don’t think you could “horrify” them away from too much either unless it was really, really bad.

All that aside though, as someone who has moved numerous times over the last ten years and spends most of their day behind a screen like most younger people; how does a magazine fit into my life? The short answer is it doesn’t and I personally feel this is an area AMRM will need to tackle in order to stay relevant. I stopped buying Railway Digest over a decade ago, stopped buying Motive Power probably three years ago and haven’t bought an AMRM in roughly the same time. Why? The content is online now. The photos I’m seeing in MP are posted by the same photographers to Flickr a month before the magazine is published or sent out in email chains. Locomotive and railway related news? By the time the magazine makes it into print I read about it online six weeks prior. The same goes for modelling. Rust streaks on my NSW wheat hopper? There’s some great US weathering content online that’ll tell me exactly what to do. Cost wise, I’m now saving probably $30 a month I use to purchase magazines with which like everyone else I put towards online content such as Netflix, Stan and Patreon subscriptions instead. Further, lets not forget either the space I’ve saved by not having shelves of magazines now cluttering my house or even more frighteningly having to contemplate moving again. I’ll be honest and say with a few minor exceptions, it was a great feeling seeing my once large magazine collection reduced to recycling and knowing I’d never have to deal with it again. Beside me is the ARHS’s digital copies of ‘Railway Transportation’ scanned and accessible to me on my computer screen any time I want them. I can search keywords and bring up exactly what I want when I want. The small CD case takes up no more room than the average small novel on my bookshelf.

Naturally, older people and a few stuck on youngsters will disagree but as people get older and younger people replace them hard print will wain. It is happening the world over with all publications. Young people want more regular content delivered digitally. A bi-monthly magazine that grows into a heavy pile won’t fit the bill going ahead. Technology and the way people live will simple do away with it and AMRM will have to keep up with that progression if it is to stay relevant. Vinyl records and novels have gained acceptance as “worthy items”. Newspapers and magazines aren’t. The future is digital.

I will say again, I am not interested in seeing overseas layouts & modelling but modeling by people here in Aust/NZ irrespective of its outline.

But then the Internet with its many forums & peoples' individual websites almost negates the need for paper.

One of the biggest issues that AMRM has and yes maybe its a case they don't have a qualified desktop publisher or they don't have the experience.

The current layout of the magazine is quite bad for example mailbag and feature articles say continued on page xyz and when you get to XYZ you only have a paragraph left to read why not make it logical in sequencing of pages so the articles flow properly.  This has been noted by not only modellers but whom casually pick up the magazine at Newsagents and one said to me "oh I forgot where I left off now I have to back to the page to go forward again, oh well I won't buy AMRM then".

Secondly, one has to note that all our criticism are probably being monitored by one of the former editors if not both of them who don't like us using internet forums with
Pseudonyms to get our point across they would much prefer to hear it via their mailbag or in person- well those people who contribute on here do so because you have dismissed their concerns outright and not even given them a chance to explain why it would improve the magazine.

The Internet is a wonderful tool and credit to Railpage that we are allowed to criticise a journal we don't live in a Communist Country as AMRM might want it to be so they want to vet who makes the criticisms and secondly they feel if we don't understand how hard they work to make the journal as it is then we should not criticise- wrong there as well.

Lastly, one thing that we have noticed as many readers will see that there are some manufacturers who are poor in communicating to customers about late models or the withdrawal of models or deadlines being pushed back without communicating to customers.  Oddly enough I got an email from such manufacturer who had a regular column in AMRM.  Oddly enough that same manufacturer the comments that were said AMRM were scathing towards him by modellers but AMRM felt sorry for the owner etc and we had to feel sympathy because its a hard job to design and manufacturer a product.  One other manufacturer who is no longer around apparently ended up being dobbed into Consumer Affairs for not adhering to warranty laws and not returning phone calls from disgruntled purchasers.

We need to remember AMRM needs to always remain neutral and stop taking sides- sometimes it does it well and sometimes it does it quite poorly.

One of the biggest issues that AMRM has and yes maybe its a case they don't have a qualified desktop publisher or they don't have the experience.

The current layout of the magazine is quite bad for example mailbag and feature articles say continued on page xyz and when you get to XYZ you only have a paragraph left to read why not make it logical in sequencing of pages so the articles flow properly.  This has been noted by not only modellers but whom casually pick up the magazine at Newsagents and one said to me "oh I forgot where I left off now I have to back to the page to go forward again, oh well I won't buy AMRM then".

Secondly, one has to note that all our criticism are probably being monitored by one of the former editors if not both of them who don't like us using internet forums with
Pseudonyms to get our point across they would much prefer to hear it via their mailbag or in person- well those people who contribute on here do so because you have dismissed their concerns outright and not even given them a chance to explain why it would improve the magazine.

The Internet is a wonderful tool and credit to Railpage that we are allowed to criticise a journal we don't live in a Communist Country as AMRM might want it to be so they want to vet who makes the criticisms and secondly they feel if we don't understand how hard they work to make the journal as it is then we should not criticise- wrong there as well.

Lastly, one thing that we have noticed as many readers will see that there are some manufacturers who are poor in communicating to customers about late models or the withdrawal of models or deadlines being pushed back without communicating to customers.  Oddly enough I got an email from such manufacturer who had a regular column in AMRM.  Oddly enough that same manufacturer the comments that were said AMRM were scathing towards him by modellers but AMRM felt sorry for the owner etc and we had to feel sympathy because its a hard job to design and manufacturer a product.  One other manufacturer who is no longer around apparently ended up being dobbed into Consumer Affairs for not adhering to warranty laws and not returning phone calls from disgruntled purchasers.

We need to remember AMRM needs to always remain neutral and stop taking sides- sometimes it does it well and sometimes it does it quite poorly.

But what if I suggested the argument you have constructed on this page has been done quite poorly itself? Hearsay, unvalidated anecdotes and personality clashes don't form the basis of a solid argument. They certainly don't make it correct in any case. As I said before, punching down or attempting to throw shade shouldn’t be taken as a win.

You won’t get any argument from me about design in Australian railway publications. It is poor and always has been (given my background I feel that I can say that). However, as I said before, the people doing the editing work ARE NOT DESIGNERS. They’re also not editors by trade. Any potential egos aside they’re enthusiasts giving it a go for the rests benefit. Combine that with a relatively small industry which does unfortunately contain some pretty vocal characters I can understand why the magazine feels that it’s not in its best interest to be overly combative. We’re not talking about the New York Times or The Saturday Paper after all. We’re talking about a small group of individuals with no design, editing or journalistic training doing something largely out of good will. You can criticise that or as I’d be more inclined to do, look past its flaws, do the forensic investigation yourself and just be thankful there is a small team of people trying their best to give you something. Something they create from the resources of a very small pool of support. I feel they do a good job. Not perfect, good though and all you could expect given the circumstances.

I have to admit there have been some good replies from both sides of the argument so far. But I must agree with SOL I think it was that said yes have model railway's of overseas prototypes but only those that are modelled actually in Australia. I have seen some beautiful models of British, American or European railways done by Australians living in Australia and they are great model railways as well. Someone mentioned Gavin Thrum on here and he is a superb modeller not just of SAR prototypes but of British Railways as well.  His British model railway that he displays at times with his operating group for it has to be seen to be believed and it would leave most layouts for dead. But do you see that in AMRM no that is not within the scope of the AMRM it is claimed, sure it is a British Prototype but the modeller is Australian and lives in Australia.

Not every Australian modeller actually models Australian prototypes, but over the years I have not seen one thing on these layouts in AMRM. Marklin clubs have some good modellers as well in Australia but never do you see an article on them. If it was truly an Australian Model Railway Magazine then they should accept any article written by a modeller on his prototype. There are plenty of obscure prototypes that get modelled by Australians as well, some are fanciful at times while other's are faithful to the actual prototype, but by saying they do not fit into the scope of the magazine is really just a bit of snobbery. I go out and see these layouts and wonder why they have never written an article for the AMRM and someone has pointed out why in one post.

Also the magazine really is the SCMRA magazine should it not be catering for all the members of this association from new comer to advanced modeller. Not all new comers are kids either, there are a lot of adults that get into in their later years. Also the fact that they don't like certain DCC subjects simply because they don't think it fit's into the magazine's scope either is akin to burying your head in the sand. If it is revelant to railway modelling then it will be of interest to someone.

Alright I acknowledge there is only a few volunteers doing this, but if they increased the scope of the magazine a bit they might get more to actually print in the magazine.Therefore getting some more readers to actually buy the magazine.

While on this topic of volunteering a help column could be done by a volunteer or volunteers, just like the reviews are done now, same as some of the photography which if it is only how to install a DCC decoder in a XXX model of an Australian model is going to be of benefit to start with and again the actual photography could be done by a volunteer or if a good enough photographer the author of the article himself. It only takes a table or bench to do it on and does not have to be perfect as long as it shows what to do. Lots of jobs if farmed out could be done this way and using modern technology these days not at all impossible either.

A lot of modellers these days and in the past have said I only buy it for the adverts to find out what I want to buy next, so that does say something as well, but even those now can get onto a manufacturers website and find out a lot more about models etc. So really I think personally that it needs something done to lift its image if you know what I mean. It needs something though as at the moment it cater for a few but not all railway modellers in Australia.

It is good but it could be better though, without too much trouble, it is not the adverts that worry me actually as they pay for the magazine to continue being done but to pick out certain articles and discard other's while asking people to send in articles is just a joke really. I bet the discards are higher than the chosen ones though. Volunteers could also be used to knock into shape some articles that are sent in as it could be done on a rainy night or something similar when a person has nothing to do. It is then sent back to the editor to print in the magazine. It would help a lot and allow the editor and general manager to do what they should be doing really getting the whole thing set up ready to go to the printer.

Les, the ‘vexatious disagree clicker’ will click disagree to this because he automatically does even though he cannot actually be in disagreement.

As for personnel, etc, I don't know these people & have no comment. I wish the people producing the mag well.
My principal issue is that Australian prototype modelling should be encouraged & if this means an editorial preference then so be it.

If you do not like the way the AMRM is run you have several options.

1.  Stop buying the magazine.

2.  Apply for the positions vacant, take over the control of the magazine and run it in the direction you want.

3.  Start your own magazine with your ideals as a basis.

Good luck in whichever option is suitable for you.

If you do not like the way the AMRM is run you have several options.

1.  Stop buying the magazine.

2.  Apply for the positions vacant, take over the control of the magazine and run it in the direction you want.

3.  Start your own magazine with your ideals as a basis.

Good luck in whichever option is suitable for you.

You left out 4. B itch and moan about it here and elsewhere...

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

Why would you want to spend good modelling time doing something that benefits numerous modellers when you read this. It is getting to the point where the whole thread is destructive, not helpful.

Les.

I am curious as to why you ‘disagree’ with my post.

Do you think that I have purchased or looked at an AMRM recently?

Do you think that in order to criticise you need to have contributed? Apparently you do since you ‘liked’ Knotts’ post that mentioned:

hopefully the critics above have submitted articles.

And

If you don't like it, do something to change it.

Such beliefs are cop outs, completely ignoring that there are ‘better’ magazines and journals I don’t contribute to AND also ignores that the greatest way to support ANY product is to buy it, the corollary is that those producing the product need to make it worthy of purchase.

For example, one electronics magazine I read is monthly, over 100 pages and I just received this month’s issue, it has only six full pages of ads, a double page of those six is an add to subscribe to the printed magazine, the other four consist of a single page advertising their three other related magazines, and one page each for two new commercial products available for purchase. It’s available on a mail subscription and digital free of charge, I don’t contribute to it, and I don’t directly pay for it, however, if I did pay the subscription it would be mailed printed and digital download for $12pa less than AMRM print only. Presumably more pages and content, and from what I recall of AMRM, certainly less ads.

Do you think I made up that I submitted articles and guides? Because I surely did, if they weren’t written three computers ago I would publish them here. Maybe you think they were ‘beyond the scope of the magazine’? Maybe that says that you and the editorial staff don’t think that much of the readership.

Do you think I do know that AMRM is interesting today? Or that I look at it? I can assure you that the first statement is true, because the second statement is absolutely true.

As usual I see that you don’t actually have reason to disagree with my post, hence it’s pretty obvious what you disagree with is my right to express contrary, reasoned opinion to that of what you want to hear.

Putting your head in the sand and pretending that AMRM is as close to perfect as it could be is not helpful, nor is misunderstanding that the greatest contributors AMRM has are those that hand over their hard earned every month/year for it. Those that pay to be among the readership are more than justified in making criticisms as they see fit, whether you agree or otherwise.

What do you want for $5 a month. About the price of a coffee. Stop your moaning.

Not that my opinion matters but mine is the following,

I don’t think AMRM has been the same as it was pre 2000, nor have the quality of exhibitions in general. The influx of high quality models from manufactures is a double edged sword. Less people actually modelling in my mind is a direct result in the above. More people complaint is the result as far as I’m concerned.

Personally I simply don’t but AMRM any more for the following;

-my modelling skills have improved over time
-I have a specific era/time frame I model
-I’m sick of spending hundreds of dollars if not more on rolling stock that I can build myseld (not everything but this hobby has been expensive the last ten years)

Quiet frankly, any tips or articles or whatever I need to know is literally at the touch of a button these days. If your not looking at other forms of modelling outside of model trains or at least looking to Uk or USA/ European modellers etc then you pigeon holing your own modelling skills.

I haven’t needed nor wanted to buy a train related magazine in the last 15 years.

No one is going to make a model for you, figure it out for yourself! You don’t need a magazine article to tell you how to do it!

My ideal magazine would simply be layout tours and nothing else....

@Aaron you hit the nail on the head in regards when your article gets rejected because it’s outside their scope. So what articles are they looking for or is it a select few who can and will be allowed to contribute.  Let’s look at Branchline Ramblings great series of articles but maybe we should have some Similar type of articles at what modellers are thinking but possibly afraid to say it on in the public but prepared to get it printed.

Why would you want to spend good modelling time doing something that benefits numerous modellers when you read this. It is getting to the point where the whole thread is destructive, not helpful.

Les.

I am curious as to why you ‘disagree’ with my post.

Do you think that I have purchased or looked at an AMRM recently?

Do you think that in order to criticise you need to have contributed? Apparently you do since you ‘liked’ Knotts’ post that mentioned:

hopefully the critics above have submitted articles.

And

If you don't like it, do something to change it.

Such beliefs are cop outs, completely ignoring that there are ‘better’ magazines and journals I don’t contribute to AND also ignores that the greatest way to support ANY product is to buy it, the corollary is that those producing the product need to make it worthy of purchase.

For example, one electronics magazine I read is monthly, over 100 pages and I just received this month’s issue, it has only six full pages of ads, a double page of those six is an add to subscribe to the printed magazine, the other four consist of a single page advertising their three other related magazines, and one page each for two new commercial products available for purchase. It’s available on a mail subscription and digital free of charge, I don’t contribute to it, and I don’t directly pay for it, however, if I did pay the subscription it would be mailed printed and digital download for $12pa less than AMRM print only. Presumably more pages and content, and from what I recall of AMRM, certainly less ads.

Do you think I made up that I submitted articles and guides? Because I surely did, if they weren’t written three computers ago I would publish them here. Maybe you think they were ‘beyond the scope of the magazine’? Maybe that says that you and the editorial staff don’t think that much of the readership.

Do you think I do know that AMRM is interesting today? Or that I look at it? I can assure you that the first statement is true, because the second statement is absolutely true.

As usual I see that you don’t actually have reason to disagree with my post, hence it’s pretty obvious what you disagree with is my right to express contrary, reasoned opinion to that of what you want to hear.

Putting your head in the sand and pretending that AMRM is as close to perfect as it could be is not helpful, nor is misunderstanding that the greatest contributors AMRM has are those that hand over their hard earned every month/year for it. Those that pay to be among the readership are more than justified in making criticisms as they see fit, whether you agree or otherwise.

What do you want for $5 a month. About the price of a coffee. Stop your moaning.

You didn’t actually read my post did you? I bolded some bits to help you out, but since you ask, I’ll answer - perhaps it might be nice to not pay for the coffees you don’t get... If you were paying $11 for a virtual coffee you’d start shopping elsewhere too, I did.

That is another bug bear the price of the magazine. Alright printing is costly in Australia and I will not deny that but $11 for a magazine all done in Australia is grinding a few peoples gears. You can get some overseas magazines a lot cheaper not much but a little bit and that price also includes not only the printing of the actual magazine but also the transport from where ever to get it to Australia and then sell it at a profit at your local newsagency.  No the printing of these magazines is not done in some slave shop in China or something but in each country that the magazine represents.  They have far more content and photos etc than the AMRM does and are actually better set out as well without having to read something and it is continued on page 25 or something towards the back of the magazine.

If the editoral staff  at AMRM actually looked at some of these overseas magazines they might pick up some ideas for some improvements in the AMRM. I do not want a clone of an overseas magazine though, but one that is set out well articles are from start to finish all together not spread out throughout the magazine. I have to agree once more with Aaron though about what is said about the AMRM in private messages as opposed to what gets put up here, a lot say things about it they would never put in print on here or any other place on the internet.

I enjoy a well written article and Don Bishop writes about building a shed a goods shed and a SAR one I must admit but this kind of article can be used to build just about any goods shed of similar type in any state, it is a good starting point actually to do it.

However some other articles while good could be a bit more than just a filler at the bottom of a page to fill that page up, and explained in more detail what went on in the conversion or building of it. You want to know that it is a easy or a hard what ever before you start it though. No use getting it part done only to discover that you cannot finish it because being a beginner it was harder than was made out. Not everyone is an engineer or understands engineering type of things.

There are plenty of modellers out there that could be called rank beginners though looking at places and things to build, convert or what ever something for their 6 X 4 Plywood Central.

The Gorre and Daphetid started from a 6 X 4 layout on a board and it just grew, but the original layout was still in the later master model railroad right to the very end of it, which unfortunately got burnt out at the very end after John Allen died.