Nigel Burkin's replacement as editor of 'Modern Railway Modelling' magazine marks the end of an era, albeit an indecently short one. Not being party to the publisher's affairs, one can only speculate, but it's difficult not to see the heavy hand of the accountant at work in the all-too familiar fashion - cutting costs to keep yesterday's product-line afloat until the life-raft of individual retirement makes the unpleasant chore of investing in future revenue generation Somebody Else's Problem.
While it will doubtlessly be cheaper to produce future MRMs with in-house personnel instead of paying for Nigel's specialist expertise, I can't help thinking that the magazine market is already over-supplied in the cheap and inexpert department. One only has to contrast the review of Bachmann's Class 40 in the first issue of MRM with the equivalent in the same publisher's November 2004 'British Railway Modelling' to see that the two magazines are like chalk and cheese. Similarly, MRM's issue 3 in-depth analysis of the Hornby 31 is the very antithesis of BRM's May 2005 whitewash. The BRM piece attracted widespread criticism at the time over some fairly basic blunders, yet rather than printing a correction the next issue made matters worse by trying to defend the mistakes in an editorial! In contrast, the MRM spread offered not just an uncommonly accurate evaluation of the product, dealing constructively with it's various issues, but also pretty solid features on decoder fitting, coupler alternatives and wheelswaps for the wider gauges. I'd call this a landmark in reviewing, a tremendously strong selling point and a competitive advantage that it would be foolish to throw away lightly. The key factor is expertise.
Although starved of D&E content over the years, I'm still enthusiastic about steam - probably more so now than ever. The reason I've bought MRM but discarded BRM is not that BRM is concerned largely with yesterday's traction but that much of it is written with yesterday's mindset. I'm not going to pay money for inaccurate and insubstantial reviews that toady to manufacturers, or infrequent DCC coverage that builds urban myth faster than a user-base. I'm not going to buy any old rubbish just because it's got diesels in it. Sorry Warners, I don't want an in-house diesel mag written like BRM, but I would like a steam mag written like MRM - you could sell me two products rather than none.
A magazine is very much a reflection of it's editor, someone who has vision of how the finished product should look and where it's supposed to be going. Nigel's editorial direction has been close to what I want from a magazine and, I'd suggest, the excellent sales show it has struck a chord with many other modellers disenfranchised by the increasingly out-of-touch UK press. It's a direction refreshingly different to that historically favoured by UK publishers, closer to overseas magazines that have moved with the times. Nigel isn't, of course, the only person capable of doing this job, but it's vital to attract and keep such new blood, and this is clearly not happening.
For a regrettably short five issues, I've enjoyed a much more balanced and representative selection of articles covering the D&E modelling world. I've particularly been impressed with the 'added value' approach evidenced by the Class 31 review, and the recognition that US or European prototypes are more pertinent to many of today's modellers than Welsh narrow gauge or tinplate collecting. Every single modeller I know has at least one overseas interest as well as (or even instead of) UK, so this a major plus point. The absence of 'Larry the Lamp-hut Lamb' style filler and the dirty-turps and guitar-strings articles from wannabe authors with nothing really to communicate was the icing on the cake, leaving me with more pages I wanted to read than all three monthlies rolled into one. Above all, I was relieved to find the real magazine was vastly superior to the frankly awful supplement that preceded it to test the water. That was little more than BRM fortified with added diesel - the key difference, again, being expertise.
MRM inevitably attracted it's share of criticism, as no magazine can meet everyone's needs even without factoring in all of the personal agendas. Unsuprisingly, much of it was of the penetrating "D&E enthusiasts shouldn't have their own magazine" or "US content shouldn't be allowed" variety. Similarly, some established authors were dismayed to find they didn't automatically receive a free mealticket to get their standard fare included in a different style of magazine. One of the zaniest, however, was the 'Blue/Green Era is Best' lobby, incensed that parts of the mag had been wasted on modern stuff that's clearly only suitable for silly train spotters. As a life-long fan of all things blue myself, it's pretty scary to find I'm accidentally part of a clique pouring scorn on those with younger passions, as out-of-touch as the steam buffs seemed when I was a teenager.
When a magazine's target market has fragmented to this extent, and includes a ready-made set of boring old farts, it's clearly taken far too long to arrive. Perhaps we need another one already, "Pretty Modern Railway Modelling, But Not As Modern As That Other Lot Who We Don't Really Talk To These Days - Splitters!" There might even be enough space left on the cover for the barcode.
Currently On My Stereo: Sheryl Crow - Sheryl Crow