N gauge Journal 6/13

[Steven B]

I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).

I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.


Happy modelling.

Steven B.

[Steven B]

As to improvements in the Journal perhaps the Annual Model Making Competition should change its rules so that an entry must be submitted with a "how it was done" document.  This would instantly provide an increase in available content for the Journal and therefore address one of Mr Hedges concerns.  I personally like to know how a model was built/converted/whatever and most of the time I don't get that information.  So how about it NGS committee members if you're monitoring this Forum?

As seen in the letters in Journal 6/13 the coverage of the AMMC is already filling up too many pages for the likeing of some members!

Members entering models for the competition already provide up to 75 words (used to be 50) describing how they built their model for the benefit of the judges. These words are used to write the "article" that goes with the AMMC photos. Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.

The number and range of entries would create some problems. Many models are repaints of RTR models - do you really want to read "I repainted a BachPol model using Railmatch paints and transfers from Fox" several times in each Journal? How often do you need to know that "the buffer beam was detailed with lengths of wire fitted to holes drilled in the buffer beam"? With over 100 models being entered in each of the last two years the time taken to compile and edit the articles would be huge.

By way of comparison it take me about 30-40 hours spread over three or four days to process the AMMC results, generate the certificates, edit the Journal articles and update the Society website.

I really wouldn't want to see entry to the AMMC to be restricted only to those who also provide a detailed article on how they built their model. If they choose to do so then great! There are some truely inspriational models and some innovative techniques on show at the AMMC but members can't be forced to write an article if they don't want to.

There are no right or wrong answers unfortunatly. However, ideas and suggestions are always welcome. If there are any for the AMMC please start a new thread or drop me a PM/email.

Happy Modelling.

Steven B
(N Gauge Society Annual Model Making Competition Co-ordinator)

[Buzzard]

Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.

Wasn't aware that this already took place so thanks for making this knowledge known to all NGS members here.

Nigel

[Buzzard]

IPerhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.

That idea has merit.  IIRC the Railway Modeller had, if it doesn't now, a Junior section for youngsters starting in the hobby.  If members felt less daunted at having to live up to the high standards that others can achieve then perhaps we'll all be better for it i.e. not excluded by a lack of expertise.

Nigel

[KTM]

Just received my copy of 6/13. As usual a varied and cracking read. Thanks to all involved.

Can I share a thought for the day:

Railway Modelling is a hobby, a diversion and a way to create something that, certainly in my case,  maybe reminds me of my earlier life many decades before cynicism set in. Seems to me that some members of the hobby take it all too seriously - or maybe feel they need to justify playing with trains using a veneer of engineering and modelling professionalism and accuracy. Striving for recognizably higher standards obviously works for these people and we all benefit from their skill and expertise. For others (me included) doing your best and enjoying what you do is much more important. We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do.

As long as my modelling gives me what I want from it - I'm happy and the hobby is working for me.

Live and let live brothers and sisters.

Merry xmas and a happy 2014 of modelling whatever and however you do it.

Ken

[OwL]

Just received my copy of 6/13. As usual a varied and cracking read. Thanks to all involved.

Can I share a thought for the day:

Railway Modelling is a hobby, a diversion and a way to create something that, certainly in my case,  maybe reminds me of my earlier life many decades before cynicism set in. Seems to me that some members of the hobby take it all too seriously - or maybe feel they need to justify playing with trains using a veneer of engineering and modelling professionalism and accuracy. Striving for recognizably higher standards obviously works for these people and we all benefit from their skill and expertise. For others (me included) doing your best and enjoying what you do is much more important. We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do.

As long as my modelling gives me what I want from it - I'm happy and the hobby is working for me.

Live and let live brothers and sisters.

Merry xmas and a happy 2014 of modelling whatever and however you do it.

Ken

WoW!

Very well said Ken. I think you have summed it up for me and a great many others. Excellent words.
Merry Christmas to you too

[NinOz]

I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).

I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.


Happy modelling.

Steven B.

Right on Steven B.

Seems that some lose sight that it is run by volunteers who do the best they can with their available spare time.  Some would have them do a job that is typically dedicated and paid.  To reiterate: if you don't like the current situation then take up the reins and show us how it can and should be done.

Could someone explain what are advanced or expert articles that some seem to expect.

[ParkeNd]

I think the NGS Journal could have become a victim of its own success. A few years ago it was much smaller in size and much more managable to edit and produce. Now we've got a 100 page Journal to fill. It is any wonder that we end up with pages of layout photos with little or no supporting text (like Journal 5/13). Increased content takes increased time to fill and it appears that with Richard Bardsley stepping down as editor that that time has become too much to find in amongst other real world demands (like family and work!).

I'd love to know who'd have time to search every forum and club to find the articles we'd all like to see. I spent 1/2 an hour a day on NGF and still only scratch the surface of what there is here. Increase that time and multiply it by the likes of RMWeb and the Yahoo groups and you end up with a full time job. Editors for the likes of Railway Modeller and Model Rail are paid to go out, find and commission articles needed to fill their pages. The NGS doesn't have this luxury. Perhaps the Journal needs reducing in size and try to provide us with a beginer, intermedient and advanced article in each.


Happy modelling.

Steven B.

Right on Steven B.

Seems that some lose sight that it is run by volunteers who do the best they can with their available spare time.  Some would have them do a job that is typically dedicated and paid.  To reiterate: if you don't like the current situation then take up the reins and show us how it can and should be done.

Could someone explain what are advanced or expert articles that some seem to expect.

The last para is a very good question. Apparently it is not the kind of article that appears in MRJ because H has already said that is not what he means  so what do you mean H ?

[1936ace]

I'm with ken, perfectly said.
I'm sorry I'm not as good as the pros and rivot counters of the hobby or the skill to weather or maybe game enough to destroy something I just paid good money for trying to be like others
BUT I'm in the hobby and I help others where I can(electrically)
Bart

Pristine and proud!

[red_death]

I'm with ken, perfectly said.
I'm sorry I'm not as good as the pros and rivot counters of the hobby or the skill to weather or maybe game enough to destroy something I just paid good money for trying to be like others
BUT I'm in the hobby and I help others where I can(electrically)

Sorry, but this sort of comment is part of the problem - trying to create divisions which don't exist.  There is no place in our hobby for using a phrase like rivet counter or pro as an implied insult. We are all modellers - end of story. I completely agree with Ken (and have said it myself on many of these types of thread) when he said: "We are all different and we all have different priorities with our modelling. No-one has the right to prescribe what others should do", but to my mind he rather spoilt it by prefacing it with some rather sneering remarks.

Why do people seek to do this? Why create a them and us situation that is so unnecessary?
I couldn't care less if someone is happy with Thomas pulling a rake of HAA coal hoppers - if they are happy then that is great, what we shouldn't do is pretend that it is an accurate piece of railway modelling.

The second fallacy is that we all have the same skills and that those skills are innate! I make no bones about hating soldering and painting, but it doesn't help that I don't practice either enough!

I enjoy building stock and 3D design (and yes, I like to get details correct where possible).  We all have different interests so rather than accuse people of elitism/rivet counting just accept that they have different interests to you. Perhaps you might find a piece of information that they have interesting or you might pick up a new technique.

Cheers, Mike

[Agrippa]

Not being a subscriber to this esteemed  publication I haven't lost the thread as I never had it in the first place.
Seems to have turned into a slanging match, maybe more like handbags at 50 paces! Being an accountant I have been called a bean counter, but I laugh it off (and secretly enjoy it) , if I was called a rivet counter (I'm not) I couldn't give a monkeys. 

By the way when the accountant is asked to perform an evaluation of some aspect of a business or organisation
and recommends closure to save money and/or cut losses he changes from being a bean counter to a cross between Dr Beeching and Adolf Hitler.

Anyway 'tis the season to be jolly so cheer up 'cos there ain't no rehearsal for life, you gotta enjoy it first time round.

[Paddy]

As to improvements in the Journal perhaps the Annual Model Making Competition should change its rules so that an entry must be submitted with a "how it was done" document.  This would instantly provide an increase in available content for the Journal and therefore address one of Mr Hedges concerns.  I personally like to know how a model was built/converted/whatever and most of the time I don't get that information.  So how about it NGS committee members if you're monitoring this Forum?

As seen in the letters in Journal 6/13 the coverage of the AMMC is already filling up too many pages for the likeing of some members!

Members entering models for the competition already provide up to 75 words (used to be 50) describing how they built their model for the benefit of the judges. These words are used to write the "article" that goes with the AMMC photos. Each member is also asked after the competition to consider writing about their model(s) for the Journal and many already do.

The number and range of entries would create some problems. Many models are repaints of RTR models - do you really want to read "I repainted a BachPol model using Railmatch paints and transfers from Fox" several times in each Journal? How often do you need to know that "the buffer beam was detailed with lengths of wire fitted to holes drilled in the buffer beam"? With over 100 models being entered in each of the last two years the time taken to compile and edit the articles would be huge.

By way of comparison it take me about 30-40 hours spread over three or four days to process the AMMC results, generate the certificates, edit the Journal articles and update the Society website.

I really wouldn't want to see entry to the AMMC to be restricted only to those who also provide a detailed article on how they built their model. If they choose to do so then great! There are some truely inspriational models and some innovative techniques on show at the AMMC but members can't be forced to write an article if they don't want to.

There are no right or wrong answers unfortunatly. However, ideas and suggestions are always welcome. If there are any for the AMMC please start a new thread or drop me a PM/email.

Happy Modelling.

Steven B
(N Gauge Society Annual Model Making Competition Co-ordinator)

I have been a member of the NGS for many years although my membership number starts with 10000 rather than 4 digits.  I really enjoy reading the journal and in the main believe it to be very good.  For me I would like to see:

1. More info on what tools and materials were used to achieve results.  This is not just aimed at the NGS but most publications.  Once you start to actually model one realises how scant this sort of info is.  What glue, how was it diluted?  what is a couple of drops of Fairy?  I have learnt so much since I started to "do".

2. More context when reviewing models i.e. period, location, if coaches or wagons what sort of train would they be in?  How many, what motive power, what load was carried.  It never ceases to amaze me how manufacturers release products without prototype backup.  I am sure if modellers had this info then sales would increase.

Merry Christmas

Paddy

[54strat]

I can appreciate that sending in random subject articles chosen by the members, all of varying editorial quality and content must be a huge task for the journal editor to sort out. From some of the raw material I've seen I can imagine that it takes a while to get this into shape. I'm not knocking the submitters content by any means, just appreciating the nature of dealing with uncontrolled media.

And from my experience, the society journal really does holds in high regard the effort and time taken to submit work, and it values it's contributors to such an extent that it can seem too polite and reluctant to ask for changes to be made or for work to be resubmitted. I guess this is one perception of the nature of harvesting volunteer work.

My feeling is that a contributor would want to show their work in the best way possible, and would be happy to meet certain minimum guidelines if it meant that their article would be presented in a better and more appealing way. This in turn would make the editor's life easier with a knock on effect of having more quality turnover.

Not having the journal or handbook at hand, I can't remember whether there's any guidelines for articles other than an email address to send them in to. Likewise, the website offers no more information about what's it's expectations are for articles. Again there's just an email address.

So maybe we could have a 'How to Submit an Article' article, possibly supported by a current wish list?

I'm thinking word count, picture resolution and quality of graphics, spelling, references validated, relevant prototype information. This could even take the from of a template, for example, if a member wished to submit a loco review, there could be a list of criteria that would be preferable such as high quality photographs, packaging, running quality, haulage capacity, slow running, dimensional accuracy, detailing parts, instructions etc. For one thing, it would give a checklist in this case and promote format consistency across articles. 

The wish list would help identify what article categories were currently preferable, and give the membership something to mull over when starting a new project or contemplating a new purchase. Maybe an interest could be registered with the editor to gauge future articles or prevent duplications?

I'm sure this would give the membership some guided motivation to help change the content for the better. I'm not saying that everyone could adhere to even a few points of a brief, but even if a few took this up I would bet we'd see a positive change in content.

If we improve the process, we may improve the end result.

Paul

[Alex]

The articles don't just go through the editor. They also get farmed out to a number of proofreaders and an article can get proof read and tweaked 2-3 times before it goes to print. I only knew that my articles had been published when I got the relevant copy of the Journal. A week later I would get a letter stating 'your has been published'. An email would have done and saved the cost of a stamp.

Alex 

[Truffles]

I thought it was interesting that the trade liaison officer for the NGS said this in the latest journal

'I like to think that by continuing to focus on helping the beginner and less experienced that we will help grow our membership'

I really do not get this logic as surely of the 5000 odd members at least 50% of those would not fit the above category and the journal/society should be equally focused on keeping those people as members.

I realize that there is a lot of hard work that goes on at the NGS by a dedicated group of people but I have to completely agree with Grahame. Accusations of elitism etc are just ludicrous and if you really want to attract new people then surely the best way to do that is show aspirational modelling. There is not one area of life/commerce where showing things in the worst possible way is seen as the best way to get people to buy a product or engage them in a society. So why does the NGS think that a second rate journal and a stand that looks like it was dragged out the local car boot sale will inspire anyone to join up? The 2mm and 0 Gauge societies both have slick and professional stands as well as great journals so it should not be beyond the NGS to improve on both fronts.

In regards to the journal, an obvious solution would be to put a call out and get six people to in effect guest edit one journal a year with the NGS  journal editor  acting as a liaison officer overseeing all six...... that way you have one person putting together one journal a year and will give each publication an interesting twist, maybe even Grahame would do one!

I hope that the next journal editor will use forums such as this and RMweb to engage with the membership in the same way that Ben Ando does with  NGS Commissions, which for mind have been the only saving grace of the society in the last few years.

Apologies to all those at the society that do such a lot of unpaid work and I fully realize that it must be dispiriting to get criticism.

Dan