Model Engineer – Editorial direction

As a long time reader of both ME and MEW my habit over the years has been to first have a quick page through each new issue from beginning to end as soon as it arrives, and then to settle down for an in-depth read. That way, while working my way through the magazine, I can anticipate the pleasure of articles still to come.

Recently it occurred to me that that the four most recent issues of ME are still lying on my bedside table; paged through, but not read, and worse yet, I have absolutely no desire to read them. It soon crossed my mind that I no longer receive much enjoyment from ME and that I regularly put the magazine away unread.

Naturally, my first thought was that it is my tastes that are changing. But it is not that, because I still very much enjoy each new issue of MEW and I will also happily select random copies of ME to read from my pile of older magazines - some of which I have read many times before. So it would seem that it is not me that has changed, but instead it is ME itself that has undergone a metamorphosis, a metamorphosis that I personally do not like.

In the past the primarily focus of ME has been as a practical engineering journal. Alas no longer, instead it now seems to be more like 'model engineering light'. The more practical aspects having been displaced by what can best be described as a narrative approach.

First are the travelogues and similar engineering-interest, but not actual engineering articles such as for example the perpetual "Engineer's day out" which beyond the first two or three articles, hold very little interest for those of us not in the UK and are soon skipped past. It is not that these type of articles have no place in ME, instead, as in the past, they should be used as an occasional item to add interest, and not as the core of every issue.

More problematic however are the construction articles which for the most part seemed to have devolved into something more akin to non-construction. There is still a smattering of the practical; however I doubt that many readers are too enthused with an issue containing essentially one true construction article like the five page (and that is only the first part) article on making a picture frame in issue 4526. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with the article, nor is it wrong to try and appeal to beginners, but as almost the sole representative of practical engineering in that issue along with a half-page article on a bandsaw stop liberally padded out with photographs to 2 pages, it is a far cry from the glory of past years.

As for the remainder of so called construction series that we have seen over the past few months, these seem to fall into two groups. The first are purely narrative – the “reality tv” of model engineering, such as the making of the skeleton clock which interesting in itself, contrary to what the cover of issue 4526 would imply, is not actually a construction series. The second such as the recent Anna stationary engine, the long running Mastiff and the even longer running Garett 4CD series have all been published sans drawings, making them all but useless except to the very small percentage of readers who are actually intending to purchase the drawings and build these projects.

That is not to say that the editor should completely dispense with narrative type articles. In moderation the occasional article or series can make an enjoyable and interesting read, especially when dealing with exceptional models by exceptional modellers, here the likes of Alan Crossfield and his Patriot locomotive or Ashley Best and his trams spring to mind.

Regrettably current editorial policy seems to be moving away from the practical formula that has made ME a success for almost 120 years. Whether this is due to a change in editorial direction, or whether it is more a factor of the kind of articles being submitted to the editor, or a mix of both, is irrelevant. The simple fact is that I no longer enjoy the magazine.

It is still some months before my current subscription runs out, but based on how little enjoyment I receive from ME in it's current incarnation, I for one, will not be renewing my subscription.

Needless to say, this is my personal opinion, others of course most likely feel completely different.

Clive

Edited By clivel on 14/03/2016 20:36:01

That is exactly the reason I stopped subscribing to ME,MEW and EIM but I quite happily sit and read all of my old ME and early MEW collections. There is something about the 1950s,60s and 70s magazines, even the early MEWs were interesting but not now.

This is going to read awfully , but I wonder if you, like me, find it 'incredible' that the newsagents stands are full of magazines covering every topic of interest imaginable , the contents of which have been covered over and over again in the course of ' a lifetime'.

And yet they are still in being printed.

The answer is, that they are being sold to a 'new generation ' of readers to whom everything is , by definition, new.

I have recently purchased a ' huge pile' of Model Engineer from the late 1940's to 1960's, printed at a time when my parents could not have afforded to buy them for me. They are absolutely fascinating reading , the more so because we know exactly how the UK progressed to the present day.

Whether that format would 'sell' today ? Don't know.

I too find myself in this position not with ME or MEW but with the steam magazines my interest in steam is as strong as ever but I find the topics they now cover not to interest in the main .

H

Interesting that Clive's comment comes now, as I just received issue 4529, and it is about the most disappointing issue for me in ages. I just glanced through and put it aside. Picture frame? Really? I also have noted the now common, " this isn't meant to be a step by step construction series.....". I believe all the magazines have deteriorated, especially the local AME. It is now little more than a roundup of local rallies and club events. Editors can only publish what they get, and I think that the main group of model engineers, the post war cohort, has died off or are very old and are lost to the clubs and also the magazines. They won't be replaced as the world has changed so much. Yes, there are some young ones coming through, but not in numbers and certainly not from relevant trade backgrounds.

For many years I pop into my local library to read ME. If there is anything of special interest to me I then buy it.

In the past 5 years I think I have bought 5 copies.

My local library also does EIM and i have bought far far more copies!

I have a collection of MEs going back to the 1940s, and have read every issue to date since the very first issue.

But my tastes are not exactly typical being wholly miniature loco related.

My copies of Don Young's LLAS are regularly referred to.

For miniature loco work we have all moved on. We have absorbed Don Young's designs and the edicts of Jim Ewins (both old dear friends). In the past 10 years we have DAG Brown and his work on injectors (published subsequently by EIM/TEE, not ME) and Gordon Smith's safety valve work (and that might have been EIM). Nothing else springs to mind as significant in miniature loco design.

On another forum Roger Froud has described in great detail a new and novel way of making miniature piston valves for non-ferrous liners. This is the sort of thing that ought to have been picked up and suggested as a build thread in ME. I have done few unusual bits and bobs, but again no response from ME.

Dianne really ought to keep track of developments mentioned on here and other forums and follow them up IMHO. And be a bit pro-active in requesting material, rather than depending on the trite she receives.

cheers,

Julian

Edited By julian atkins on 14/03/2016 23:31:23

There are some interesting thoughts here...

Like J I too have been wading through a huge collection of early MEs, from the late 30s to the early 60s. I received all the copies after that, as a subscriber. I have every MEW, as a subscriber, and I have all the EIMs too. I also used to subscribe to Don Young's much missed Locomotives Large and Small which ran some absolutely excellent constructional series, all with full good quality drawings.

The UK has the world's most highly developed magazine market, and I too am amazed at the content of some magazines. There is a problem, though, both for the readers and for the editors. I believe the long-term reader of almost any magazine will meet the same problems.

1. The content does repeat itself, with the same topics being repeated at intervals, and, in many cases, with old articles being reprinted.

2. As readers, we change over the course of a lifetime's subscription.

We can see the same phenomena in television and radio; and in most of the media in fact. TV channels run the same old repeats endlessly, and tackle the same basic topics time after time, because they are short of good content. I got bored of most of it a long time ago.

Problem 1 is a reflection of the plain fact that there is a high churn factor, with many subscribers being new readers, new to the hobby. Magazines need those new subscribers just to survive. But it does mean there is an unceasing demand for articles for beginners. It also means the same topics can be revisited at intervals. The challenge is to present those topics in new ways, and to avoid boring the older more experienced readers. That's a tricky challenge, and I'm not sure there is really an answer to it. It does depend to a large extent on the skill of the contributors, and on the editor winkling out interesting contributions from those who might have something appealing to say.

Problem 2 is an inevitable consequence of our own experience, our increasing skills and changing understanding of what the hobby means to us. Given enough time, it seems inevitable that we find less that appeals in any magazine. And yet, we live in interesting times, with advances in technology and new accessible ways of doing things, so there is always something to learn.

It's interesting looking at the output from the current fad - the Maker movement. I subscribe to some of the electronic newsletters and websites which proudly proclaim themselves as being in the vanguard of this new movement. What's depressing is that although there is some really smart computer programming going on, and some tolerable electronics, the standard of 99% of constructed items is very poor. None of these people have ever heard of ME, MEW or EIM. I do wonder, though, if the long-term trend will be for Model Engineering to be subsumed within the Maker movement, as interest in steam railways gently declines.

There is, too, the strong trend, common to many other constructional hobbies, to move towards ready-made items or to assembly of substantially pre-made sub-assemblies. That approach has almost completely taken over in aeromodelling and has made significant inroads in model boats. Of what interest would that approach be to those of us who have been in Model Engineering for a long time?

I don't think there are any easy answers. In fact, I don't think there are any easy questions about this topic. And it is too easy to say that if you don't like what you read in the magazines you should write an article yourself. Still; I do think it would be a shame if the more experienced folks disengaged form the model engineering magazines, because they are an important part of the overall infrastructure which supports model engineering.

It's interesting that this website and forums are part of the magazines' efforts to promote themselves by helping us to be an online community. I think it's a very valuable thing. Given that one can now find a huge amount of ME-related and workshop-related user content on sites like youTube etc, I do hope the printed magazines can survive as part of the mix. I subscribe to a digital-only version of another magazine from far away, and I must say I hate reading only on the screen. I prefer the physical copy I can read anywhere. The other valuable thing about the magazine is that the content is vetted before acceptance, unlike some of the rubbish on youTube and other websites, much of which is either boring or just plain wrong.

I think that's more than my tuppence-worth...

Marcus

As it's 2.30am and I have just about finished for the day (that's yesterday) I am only going to post a very brief reply here.

• it is too easy to say that if you don't like what you read in the magazines you should write an article yourself

It would be easy - very easy indeed - to say "I can only print what I get" - you've heard it all before which is why I have never trotted out those lines.

• [picture frames] ... but as almost the sole representative of practical engineering in that issue ...

Issue 4526 included horology (okay, not practical engineering), making a loco ragulator (fairly practical engineering), making lifting link by CNC with detailed description (I'd say that was practical engineering), fitting the cylinder onto a 6 inch T/E (not practical engineering?), a study in engine test calculations (theory - yes, but pracitcal too) and news of some practical engineering courses (!).

Sorry, but sweeping statements annoy me, especially when not well founded.

• Dianne really ought to keep track of developments mentioned on here and other forums and follow them up IMHO

The magazine is largely, in my view, a victim of its owner's policy insasmuch as there is absolutely no space in the working week for the editor to be in the least way creative, by which I mean by the time I have produced the 96 pages of editorial copy this month, single handed, for your delectation - plus dealt with all the daily correspondence - I have to start producing the next 96 pages of editorial copy. There is no break, no space, no holidays, no opportunity to think about change of direction nor time to research the other things that are going on to which Julian refers. I know it's there but I can't access it because I have no time. This is not a moan or a complaint but a statement of fact. The editor is simply that - an editor. I spend at least one day per issue not editing but planning the content of the next issue. At least one whole day and I believe this pays dividends. The one thing i do believe goes down well with the majority of readers is the variety of content and this is probably what brings most comments from long standing subscribers - how there is always something of interest in each issue.

• Magazines need those new subscribers just to survive. But it does mean there is an unceasing demand for articles for beginners.

Of course it does! But I would argue that there is never an imbalance - it just seems like there is when you are not a beginner. Converseley, if you are a novice you might sometimes perceive the mag as being completely over your head. I believe it is well balanced in this respect.

• Regrettably current editorial policy seems to be moving away from the practical formula that has made ME a success for almost 120 years. Whether this is due to a change in editorial direction, or whether it is more a factor of the kind of articles being submitted to the editor, or a mix of both, is irrelevant. The simple fact is that I no longer enjoy the magazine.

I am sorry to hear that the magazine is such a disappointment to those who have posted here. The only editorial policy in operation here is to make the magazine broadly appealing to all readers. That includes the master craftsmen who could write the book, beginners who yet have no workshop, lifelong mechanical engineers, prolific builders and armchair dreamers. If I was to say "you can please some of the people..." you would think "oh, here we go..." but really - you CANNOT please everyone ALL the time and there are pobably more beginners than there are career engineers reading the magazine these days. I do not agree that the magazine is moving away from the 'practical formula' of the past. It does, however, include a broader range of subjects than it once did but model making and its associated subjects still are, and always will be, the core. Currently Mick Knights, Chris Gunn, Chris Walter, Frank Cruickshank and (soon) Martin Ranson are providing detailed descriptions of methods and techniques on an issue by issue basis. I fail to see how anyone can criticise the magazine for being 'not practical' when there is so much descriptive content.

• the long running Mastiff and the even longer running Garett 4CD series have all been published sans drawings, making them all but useless except to the very small percentage of readers who are actually intending to purchase the drawings and build these projects.

Regarding the non publication of drawings for the Garrett; had we published every drawing the series would have been several times as long as it is and I do not accept that not publishing drawings renders the article useless. Chris describes set-ups etc. that will be of interest to anyone building a T/E particularly in large scales.

I was feeling quite upbeat today - until now. I have had about five emails over the weekend from readers who have commented on the high standard of editorial content recently and how it has improved over recent years. Still ... that's what happens when you almost let things go to your head. There's always plenty queuing up to bring you back down to earth.

Gosh! I wandered past the computer 20 minutes ago after obtaining a glass of water, and I find this!

I may not be entirely compos mentis just now, but having taken ME for about 7/8 years, I can honestly say that I still look forward to every issue of ME. I read lots, including BBC Focus, Practical Wireless, Everyday Practical Electronics, Steam Railway, The Engineer, the IET magazine, etc. The Engineer, despite its title, contains NO practical engineering. It is, nevertheless, a great read. I also see lots of YouTube, and online handy hints and coverage from those like MIT, Popular Mechanics, Maker magazine etc., which just didn't exist before, at all. There are also the free MOOCs to consider. (Massive Online Courses in many subjects, or the OU's FutureLearn bite-sized courses.

Being a regular contributor for some time, I might be biased, but Diane, you have every right to be pleased with the compliments you have received. Add mine to your list. The magazine is much improved.

Regards

Geoff Theasby

Gee.....

The Magazine cannot be expected to meet the needs and wishes of all the readers all the time. Sometimes it will miss the mark for you while others will be very pleased. I for one have almost every MEW (I am missing the first 4), since I found it at WH Smiths while visiting England for work. And yes they are fun to review back in time, quite enjoyable in fact. To me it is the whole that matters, not individual copies. On balance I think the Magazine represents very good value over the year. I will continue to subscribe.

I should also chide myself for not contributing an article or two! My excuse is time as I am still working. Not that great an excuse. I will seek to change that. It is such a great platform to share Ideas on. The soul of the magazine is in the gifted hands of the readers and their work, (They even get paid for the articles). The publisher reward is paid advertising my guess is the budget is tight, It appears to be a fair deal to me.

Regards
John

Edited By John McNamara on 15/03/2016 06:07:00

The masthead of a 1977 ME I was reading today lists a cast of (almost) thousands in the editorial department. In those days they listed: Editorial Director - DJ Laidlaw-Dickson, Managing Editor VE Smeed, Editor Martin Evans, and a squad of Technical Consultants that included Prof DH Chaddock, Claude Reeve, WJ Hughes and the venerable George H Thomas. And there is mention of a secretary and young staff "burgeoning into responsible editors" in a farewell article for DJ Dickson-Laidlaw when he retired.

Now we get one editor and that's the entire staff.

Diane tells us that she produces the ME single handed and I quite accept this .

In this case what are all the other people listed on the first page of every ME doing?

I refer to people with titles such as such as Technical Assistant, Production Designer, Illustrator, Retouching Manager, Ad Production, Head of Design and Production, etc.

I'm a returnee to ME after asking for a subscription as a Christmas present and being a subscriber in the 1970s.

I think that the new ME is much more diverse and more readable for anyone who is not following a build series.

I'm very happy to receive ME

As a former editor of several specialist magazines, I can assure Diane that praise from readers is rare, and she should take heart as long as she is receiving an equal number of complaints from each faction within the readership.

In the readership of any specialist magazine there is a small hard core of readers who have been subscribers for large numbers of years, but the majority of the readership is made up of people who are in the learning phase of the hobby. This phase usually lasts for four to five years, after which many readers drop out. I think that most editors of specialist magazines would agree that much of the content, particularly articles on techniques, can be repeated in five-year cycles, albeit with different forms of presentation and taking technical developments into account. Personally, I think Diane is doing a first-class job in producing a readable magazine which I enjoy.

In 1898 the ney sayers told Percivil Marshall this new "Model Engineer and Amateur Electrician" magazine would not last, a 118 years on and still going, I think Diane and the magazine have a year or two yet, and a bit more.

Ian S C

Hi Diane and everyone else.

Whilst I do understand Clive's comments and to a greater measure agree with him I do see that the magazine can only work with what has been submitted. I also appreciate the amount of work in just getting the thing out. I am not about to cancel my subscription just yet awhile although like Clive there are more and more issues that I don't find much to write home about these days. If I could describe my "show test" which I apply when attending ME shows which is, "was there at least one thing I was really glad to have not missed seeing". If there was I consider the show to be worth my effort to get there. A similar test would perhaps be applicable to ME with the caveat that the odd few 'duds' would not bother me too much. I cannot be interested in everything.

I recognise that interest does wane when subscriptions have been held for a number of years, that's just inevitable. I don't read much these days about basic practice, but that it should be included goes without saying. Perhaps then I could suggest a way of extending the interest of us old stagers without too much effort.

As a few people have said how much the like old issues (very old issues) maybe a way to increase the appeal of content would be to 'mine' past copy for really good classic articles. It has been done to some extent with the centenary issues which were superb. It would take an amount of editorial effort but I would think that items could be prepared in advance for when particularly 'beginnerish' or lightweight issues were on the stocks. In this way when there are no or few new articles that appeal there may be the one nugget that was too good to miss.

regards Martin

Of course, none of us knows how well, or badly, Model Engineer is doing because its management does not subscribe to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That's not Diane's fault, but can we know the figures?

The magazine is a mini-historical record of Britain starting from 1898 and reflects the changes this country has been through over the last 100+ years

The industrial revolution, two world wars, the industrial recovery and decline from the 50s to the 80s and then the move towards the technology we see today

I too enjoy re-reading the 40s to the 80s editions but we will not see their like again. Millions of arms workers came home from the war and millions of surplus machine tools suddenly became available, many of which are still being used today

Many (Most?) of the old guard are gone, this magazine has survived so long it reflects the different generations of Britons and what they do in the field of model engineering

Actually, if you really think about it, what products have survived from 1898 and are still going today??

Not much

Edit:

If you read through decades of the magazine as I do you will also find that sometimes sizeable chunks of ME editions do not interest you, then a new period of interest appears.

Edited By Ady1 on 15/03/2016 10:42:38

.

MARMITE