Confused...

I subscribe to Model Engineer for articles related to the engineering aspects of making models. I subscribe to Model Engineering Workshop for articles relating to tools, equipment, workshop practice etc. I'm not really fussed what the subject areas are in each magazine as long as they relate to the general expectations of each magazine.

In ME4472 we have two articles that are clearly MEW subject matter, and they aren't one off’s they both are "to be continued". This confusion of the role of each magazine has been going on for some while now, particularly since the editor jobs were split.

Should we expect that David and Diane actually liaise on their respective magazines content? Or is it the case that the writing on the wall for MEW? If ME continue to contain MEW type articles why would I bother to subscribe to both?

Thoughts?

Pete

There has been much whining, moaning and griping in other posts regarding the content of ME and MEW.

Whether Diane and David collaborate on content or not is of no consequence, if they have an article they see as suitable for the relative may, then it will get published. They can only publish from the selection that is submitted to them.

Diane recently put her head above the parapet suggesting publishing an article on a universal grinding machine in ME, that raised a lot of naysayers from their armchairs, I for one would like to see that article run, it has relevance whichever may it is in, so no harm will come from running it in ME. Just like the other articles to which you are alluding.

I for one do not think there is any 'writing on the wall'

I dropped ME many years ago in favour of MEW which is more aligned to my interests in machinery, methods and workshop innovations rather that building locomotives.

I agree with Peter over the distribution of magazine content since I can only afford to subscribe to one of them. Some overlap is inevitable and probably beneficial, but it might be considered to be unreasonably dicriminatory if a long machine tool build series; or it's equivalent with a popular locomotive series, is published in the 'wrong' magazine.

It will not please readers of either magazine long term and interest in both might wane as a result. So on balance I think the editors should compare content for the target audience.

Brian

Pete

Model Engineer has always included 'Workshop Topics', perhaps less so since the incarnation of MEW, but they have always been there. I have had nothing but positive feedback since I decided to aim for at least one 'Workshop Topic' per issue (which doesn't alway happen, I know). The two magazines still have their own distinct character - you are unlikely, for instance, to find any model making aritcle in MEW - but they complement each other and you may find that, in the future, this 'partnership' will be strengthened, to the benefit of both.
Many readers have a strong preference for one or the other but some, like yourself, subscribe to both. Most practising model engineers will have some machine tools so it is therefore appropriate to publish some articles about them but most model engineers don't have, for example, CNC machines, so it is perhaps not appropriate to publish much of this type in ME.You wil find those in MEW. MEW is read not only by model makers but extensively by small engineering 'firms' or sole traders. No - the writing is not on the wall for MEW. Quite the opposite!

Diane

.

As one of the aforesaid naysayers ...

I do not subscribe to ME, because I am not interested in the majority of its locomotive-related content; and I could not justify buying a long run of issues just to read this series.

Whilst I agree that the series might be of relevance to ME readers, I also know that many of these are not really interested in tool-making. ... Isn't that why MEW was spun-off in the first place ?

MichaelG.

.

Diane,

It may or may not fit the MTM business-model but [for this reader at least], this looks like an ideal opportunity to put the ePublishing side to work.

Why not make any series like this available as an eBook [to purchase at a reasonable price] to subscribers to the other magazine?

MichaelG.

Diane,

I second MichaelG's suggestion.

Geoff - Drawer organizing on final.

Diane,

I also second Michael G's suggestion, good idea

Brian

I get both publications, so don't really mind either way.

What I would object to, would be the same material being published in both magazines, e.g. duplication (which as far as I am aware) has not happened thus far.

Regards,

IanT

I'm not really sure why there was a split in the first place, ME did alright for near 100 years on its own, starting as "Model Engineer & Amateur Electrician". I think Diane is heading in the right direction. Ian S C

I'm with Pete and would prefer ME to be Models and MEW to be workshop, same as I said when the Grinder article came up.

I'm not that interested in making tooling so only subscribe to ME, I do have access to all of MEW but even so have not read one article.

I do get the feeling that some af the articles in ME are appearing there because authors would rather deal with one editor and not the other even if the subject is more suited to MEW, this should not be a deciding factor to which mag it ends up in.

J

If we are still discussing the Universal Grinding Machine - that's some way in the future anyway and it hasn't been decided where it will go. If we are talking about Workshop Topics in general, I do think there is a place for them - for example the refurbishment of the ML7 in 4473 and the recent articles on shaping machines - have some relevance to most model engineers but possibly not so much to those a bit nearer to the cutting edge of workshop technology.

Diane

Interesting the way you tweak the argument in the quote. Michael uses the word "many", you carefully omit it.

.

Thank you.

MichaelG.

.

Please do not mis-quote me.

MichaelG.

Look carefully at where the quote marks are placed!!!!

And OMG - no careful tweaking or purposeful omission at all, I simply missed typing the word many!

Still a bold statement to make that one knows that many are not Interested, I would dearly like to see the figures that substantiate this claim.

• Your quote marks were around the word KNOW ... which you capitalised and I did not.
• I wrote: "Whilst I agree that the series might be of relevance to ME readers, I also know that many of these are not really interested in tool-making. ... Isn't that why MEW was spun-off in the first place ?"
• You chose to interpret this as: "

  So you 'KNOW' - factual hard evidence? that ME readers are not really interested in toolmaking?? A bold statement to make, I do hope you have hard facts to back that up, I do subscribe to ME and I AM interested in toolmaking as, I am sure, are many others and without hard fact to prove one way or another, it is not a given that toolmaking articles should not be run in ME.

.

• My use of the word "know" was in the sense of "am aware that"
• Your "shouting" " 'KNOW' - factual hard evidence? " puts a very different emphasis upon that innocent word.
• However, for the avoidance of doubt, please let me rephrase the paragraph thus ...

  Whilst I agree that the series might be of relevance to ME readers, I am also aware, [from personal acquaintances over the last forty years or so, and from reading many back-issues of ME] that a significant, albeit unspecified, percentage of these are not really interested in tool-making. ... Isn't that why MEW was spun-off in the first place ?

I am simply not prepared to be drawn into a fight about this.

MichaelG.

Is the content/direction of a hobby magazine really worth pistols at dawn?

Or even worth a word fight in a forum?

If you don't like one mag or the other, don't buy it. MTM or whatever they are called this week will soon get the idea.

JD

.

Perhaps we could get back to discussing this ... which I thought was a constructive suggestion.

Geoff and Brian "seconded" it ... are there any other opinions ?

MichaelG.