The April 2016 issue of AMRM should now be available everywhere.




Get a preview of the contents on the AMRM blog:

http://australianmodelrailwaymagazine.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/april-2016-issue-of-amrm-is-being.html




James McInerney

Production Manager

Australian Model Railway Magazine

Ph: (02) 8812 2058



[color=#0000ff]www.australianmodelrailways.com[/color]

SCR Publications (02) 9311 2036

My subscription copy arrived in Melbourne today. Skim read done, new goodies to save for discovered

My subscription copy arrived in Melbourne today. Skim read done, new goodies to save for discovered

I must say the photos of the Eureka NCR cars look very impressive, just have to decide between getting a Red and Cream or a Tuscan and Russet set.

If it was not for the adverts in the AMRM I would not buy it any more. Sure the magazine is only as good as what people send in, sure not all articles sent in can be used but the calibre of the magazine has slipped badly and the price keeps going up. I do have a AMRM put away for me at were I work as a volunteer but am seriously thinking of cancelling it. It is to me just not good value for money anymore in this day and age. The adverts can be sourced on the internet or at websites. The stories while some of them are good, some look to be simply page fillers. Reviews now there is a laugh, they are too scared at the best of times to point out error's in models that oversea's magazines do. Some oversea's magazines have been quite scathing on some models released promoting the manufacturer's to lift their game.

Bachmann released a British Locomotive a while back and it was missing a fire tool tunnel on the locomotive when it was reviewed all the magazines pointed this out, so Bachmann then redid the model to correct this fault. They did not chastise any reviewer or magazine for finding this fault though, they took it on board and fixed the model.

AMRM really gloss over a model to make it look good and how many have found otherwise at times! I now do not read the review sections at all. And who reviews their own publications in the AMRM, this really is a con job, how can that be a fair and impartial review of something when the person reviewing the book or what ever is actually one of the staff that produced the book or magazine!

If it was not for the adverts in the AMRM I would not buy it any more. Sure the magazine is only as good as what people send in, sure not all articles sent in can be used but the calibre of the magazine has slipped badly and the price keeps going up. I do have a AMRM put away for me at were I work as a volunteer but am seriously thinking of cancelling it. It is to me just not good value for money anymore in this day and age. The adverts can be sourced on the internet or at websites. The stories while some of them are good, some look to be simply page fillers. Reviews now there is a laugh, they are too scared at the best of times to point out error's in models that oversea's magazines do. Some oversea's magazines have been quite scathing on some models released promoting the manufacturer's to lift their game.

Bachmann released a British Locomotive a while back and it was missing a fire tool tunnel on the locomotive when it was reviewed all the magazines pointed this out, so Bachmann then redid the model to correct this fault. They did not chastise any reviewer or magazine for finding this fault though, they took it on board and fixed the model.

AMRM really gloss over a model to make it look good and how many have found otherwise at times! I now do not read the review sections at all. And who reviews their own publications in the AMRM, this really is a con job, how can that be a fair and impartial review of something when the person reviewing the book or what ever is actually one of the staff that produced the book or magazine!

David,

Looking forward to your articles. As you say, the magazine is only as good as what people send in. It is worth remembering that our hobby would not be where it is now without an Australian Magazine and the support it has given to many clubs and organisations in the hobby.

Les.

AMRM really gloss over a model to make it look good and how many have found otherwise at times! I now do not read the review sections at all. And who reviews their own publications in the AMRM, this really is a con job, how can that be a fair and impartial review of something when the person reviewing the book or what ever is actually one of the staff that produced the book or magazine!

A few years ago there was the brutally honest review of a new loco - the Trainorama 32 class I think - which resulted in a very noticeable swinging of the reviews into only positive commentary (mainly due to the manufacturer taking his bat and ball and advertising revenue away from the magazine). I agree with you David that in the year immediately following that the reviews lacked constructive criticism, but I don't think that is the case now. I'm not sure which book you're referring to which was self-reviewed. Could you elaborate?

I only read the reviews of items that I'd buy or look to model myself, but in those I've been impressed when a reviewer has said a kit is difficult, or an RTR model includes detail not relevant to the era depicted by the livery, or as in the current issue where the reviewer notes a kit instruction sheet which doesn't fully explain a step of the process. We can be critical without being rude, which I think was the problem few years ago. I think we're in a good place now.

Cheers,
Ben

Well as they say "front up" David.

Reviews have to be balanced and not be the sort of bagging that used to go on here at Railpage - I seem to recall someone trying to use aerial images to work out the curve on a VR S class nose in order to prove thatbthe manufacturer was wrong.

I note that AMRM can also only review what is submitted or purchased by the reviewer and some manufacturers don't submit their stuff for review.

I do agree that there is a perception issue with them reviewing their own stuff (hardly unique I might add) and speaking as someone who can read, I'd be happy to drive over to Lambing Flat and pick up a box of Eveleigh Press works for review!

Cheers Iain

"the calibre of the magazine has slipped badly and the price keeps going up"David has been brave enough to put a view and there may be some element of truth in it.
Yes, the price has gone up but I, for one, would expect that.  But I still think it is value for money.  In fact, I am willing to keep buying even if it is to subsidise its survival.  To see AMRM disappear would be a disaster for the Australian hobbyist.
Has the calibre of the magazine slipped badly.  Perhaps.  But for some of us, our modelling skills have improved over the years and so our expectations from AMRM may also have risen.  Mind you, I'm certain our skills have improved to a large degree because of AMRM.  
The magazine has certainly changed over the years.  I, for one, would expect that too.  Perhaps there is now more eye candy (better models and better photography?) and less gritty scratch/bash articles but then again that may also reflect not only what is submitted but also reflect the present day hobbyist's pursuits.
A debate worth continuing.
Yogibarnes

If it was not for the adverts in the AMRM I would not buy it any more. Sure the magazine is only as good as what people send in, sure not all articles sent in can be used but the calibre of the magazine has slipped badly and the price keeps going up. I do have a AMRM put away for me at were I work as a volunteer but am seriously thinking of cancelling it. It is to me just not good value for money anymore in this day and age. The adverts can be sourced on the internet or at websites. The stories while some of them are good, some look to be simply page fillers. Reviews now there is a laugh, they are too scared at the best of times to point out error's in models that oversea's magazines do. Some oversea's magazines have been quite scathing on some models released promoting the manufacturer's to lift their game.

Bachmann released a British Locomotive a while back and it was missing a fire tool tunnel on the locomotive when it was reviewed all the magazines pointed this out, so Bachmann then redid the model to correct this fault. They did not chastise any reviewer or magazine for finding this fault though, they took it on board and fixed the model.

AMRM really gloss over a model to make it look good and how many have found otherwise at times! I now do not read the review sections at all. And who reviews their own publications in the AMRM, this really is a con job, how can that be a fair and impartial review of something when the person reviewing the book or what ever is actually one of the staff that produced the book or magazine!

Hi David

I may be wrong but I think a few years ago we corresponded on one of the SA Forums about various matters (perhaps build of an NJ?). Again from memory I appreciated your help with possible conversion tips.

As such it is with some disappointment that I read this post. As both an author of AMRM articles, and more recently a reviewer for AMRM I was saddened to read these views. I had hoped my articles were more than "page fillers" requiring quite some effort to compile both by me and the AMRM staff who are, and have been in the 14 or so years I have worked with them, sound professionals.

Please also believe that I take my reviewing seriously, and have made the effort to compare the models I have reviewed with a breadth of prototype material, indeed AMRM has only asked me to review in those areas they know I have competency so as to provide best assurance of a decent review. To make such a statement I assume you have read all AMRM reviews? If not, please go back and read mine, you will find I have pointed out errors where they occur.

I searched under your name in the AMRM index to ascertain whether you had ever written anything for AMRM but found no entries, perhaps you write under another name?

Given the small Australian market, diversity of modeling experience/styles/interests, I think AMRM actually does a pretty good job at providing Australian prototype modellers with a range of content. Was sorry to hear such a harsh criticism of a magazine that tries to serve Australian modellers as well as it can, on a lean budget and with varying inputs.

Andrew Collier
"Glenburn" "Cudgewa"  
http://shelley-railway.blogspot.in/

The team that produce AMRM should be praised for what I am sure is a lot of hard work behind the scenes. I look forward to every issue and will continue to support this important publication.

Perhaps David is just having a bad day/week/month/year

Despite paying for the product, we should be thankful that AMRM exists in what is a dwindling publication medium (think Zinio) in a niche market

Some months contain personally relevant material, some don't. Some have more technical articles, some don't

Remind me what the domestic alternatives are again. Is that crickets I hear?

It's terribly simple - if you don't like it...

I haven't got a copy of the AMRM as yet .

Is there any write up of what is happening with Shrike models and is their AD in the magazine ?

I haven't got a copy of the AMRM as yet .

Is there any write up of what is happening with Shrike models and is their AD in the magazine ?

Only noticed prints of Ixion Models' statements when I flipped through it yesterday.

I haven't got a copy of the AMRM as yet .

Is there any write up of what is happening with Shrike models and is their AD in the magazine ?

Only noticed prints of Ixion Model's statements when I flipped through it yesterday.

No Shrike advertisement and I wouldn't have expected AMRM to have accepted it if they wanted to put it in.

On the subject of reviews, I read the Auscision GT46C-ACe review today while my work computer was upgraded:

The prototype information left quite a lot to be desired...

I sent the following letter to James MacInerney:

Corrections to the AMRM Review of the Auscision GT46C-ACe Model Locomotive

While the prototype information provided in the article is generally correct, there are a large number of errors that might be corrected.


Firstly, the letter “e” in GT46C-ACe does indicate “evolved” but the change indicated is the change from Siemens AC inverters to Mitsubishi AC inverters. The GT46C-ACe does, however use Siemens design AC traction motors built by EMD in the USA.

The locomotives operate at three all up weights, 134t for the majority and 136.2 t and 139 t for variations of the TT class.

Sadly the weight variation doesn’t follow the numbering and TT05-06 were introduced at 139 t but later modified to 136.2 t. It is believed that TT07 and TT08 were built at 136.2 t. On the other hand TT130 – TT132 were delivered weighing 139 t.

The ballast is simply lead in steel boxes bolted underneath the draft gears and can be changed or removed in any workshop.


The traction equipment operates to the same principles as the narrow gauge GT42CU-AC (and the later GT42CU-ACe) but none of the major components are the same. The alternator, inverters and traction motors are all different models, of higher capacity in the GT46C-ACe. The GT42CU-AC (4000 and PN classes) uses Siemens inverters as indicated by the lack of an “e”. The GT42CU-ACe (4100, 83, GWN and narrow gauge LDP class) do use Mitsubishi inverters but of lower capacity than the SG units.


Only LDP001 to LDP009 were built in 2009-2010. LDP 010-LDP014, later TT130 to 132 and SSR101 and 102, were built in 2012 and 2013.


The GT46C-ACe was not the first standard gauge AC traction locomotive in Australia outside the Pilbara. That honour goes to the Aurizon 5000 class, UGL type C40ACHi, introduced in 2005. The reference to using LDPs in Aurizon coal service is wrong. No Aurizon LDP has been used in regular coal service. The UGL 6000 class (C44ACi) have, however been used in Hunter Valley traffic.


The GWA class were used on Adelaide Darwin services initially, but swapped this duty with the UGL GWU class for the Wirrida Iron Ore trains to Whyalla for Arrium. The GWAs are split between a number stored in Whyalla while the remainder seem to operate grain services out of Adelaide. Darwin services are still mainly GWU class.


I purchased a model of TT126 myself at the Liverpool Exhibition last year. Peter Wilks asked me why TT126 was the most popular model at that exhibition. At the time TT126 was working stone trains from Peppertree quarry to Cooks River, and would have passed through Liverpool at least twice a day…

M636C

Well I guess it is pretty easy to be a "2 km sniper" where you take shots at others work... but I really don't see some of these snipers actually submitting their own work.

So lets have a look at the evidence. So, I've decided to look at the last three editions. Firstly, book reviews. The allegation is that SCMRA publications review their own books. Secondly, faults in the model (as distinct to errors in prototype information) are not reported.

December 2015.
Book reviews - Two books reviewed, neither published by SCMRA.

Model reviews - Four models reviewed. One clearly describes a number of issues with constructing a kit, another review highlighted some minor issues with a model, a third review gave a fairly positive review and the fourth, I would say, is a pretty light weight review.

February 2016
Book reviews - Three books reviewed, none published by SCMRA.

Model reviews - Six models reviewed.  Each review pointed out various issues with each model. One review started with "... this is not a kit for the faint hearted..." and then went on to say "... a decal sheet with a selection of numbers (most not correct..."

April 2016
Book reviews - one. Not published by SCMRA.

Model reviews - four models reviewed. All four reviews note some minor issues but are otherwise very positive.

So.... with respect to books.... six books reviewed and none by the publisher. Sure it may have happened... but nothing recently.

There were 14 model reviews. All reviews have clearly pointed out various issues with three pointing out some moderately serious deficiencies. I only found one review that I would consider pretty soft. I have based that assessment not on the model review per se but because it was four columns of text but only one paragraph that discussed the model!

So in summary, I would say reviews are clearly demonstrably fair. Sure there may have been an issue in the past, but interestingly, the negative comments are all based on "something" that had happened at some unspecified time in the past, without a specific reference. Bizarrely state that they don't read the reviews anyway??? On that basis how would you know they were biased?

Anyway, I shall look forward to the 2000 metre snipers penning their own articles for the AMRM. In the mean time, I'll keep reading and enjoying.

AMRM, keep up the good work!

Each addition of AMRM cannot be and will never be everything to everybody every time.
A pretty obvious statement in its self and this situation has come about in part because Australia due to break of gauge ended up with six Government Systems all operating independently with little official contact.
America and the U.K. had more through working of rolling stock hence a Union Pacific Wagon/Car operated Nationally and could therefore be run on most model layouts.
This Historical fact of break of gauge influences the articles in AMRM as the Magazine is National and has to vary the article subject from State to State to give a broad coverage of all Systems.
It is only in the last thirty years we have had a real "Through Running" attitude and with the construction of the NR class a Diesel that truly runs coast to coast.
Well as for reviews I hate to mention this but most ready to run models are pretty accurate.
With computer controlled machines the dies are as near accurate as you can make and provided the correct dimensions are fed in the result is an accurate model.
So what is the Reviewer suppose to do make up some faults to prove what? If you think something is good say so, no crime in that.
This sub subject in this thread was started by a very well known South Australian modeller who appears to have a very good knowledge of the SAR in particular. So in the interests of accuracy please drop by The Orient Express Model shop to review their test shots of the Glenelg Centenary Cars as it will serve no purpose to point out all of the errors after the carriages are on the shelves.
I am looking forward to the next addition of AMRM and thank you James and the hidden staff for producing a top quality Magazine.

I think adagio Peters has forgotten what AMRM is and that is it is certainly not a professional commercial profitable magazine
Instead it is a volunteer orientated magazine of the amAustralian Model Railway hobby
Sure there are one ore two paid positions but all the rest is basically done well below cost by people with the love and interest in the promoting of the hobby
As such it can only be good as the efforts of its subscribers who submit the articles
If some one has never submitted an article or photo or done any work for the magazine then they are reaping the benefits of those who have so they have no right to complain about it because THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE PROBLEM!
They are leaving it to every one else to do the work

I think David Peters has forgotten what AMRM is and that is it is certainly not a professional commercial profitable magazine
Instead it is a volunteer orientated magazine of the Australian Model Railway hobby even though it likes and appears in all forms as a commercial or better version
Sure there are one or two paid positions but all the rest is basically done well below cost by people with the love and interest in the promoting of the hobby
As such it can only be good as the efforts of its subscribers who submit the articles
If some one has never submitted an article or photo or done any work for the magazine then they are reaping the benefits of those who have so they have no right to complain about it because THEY THEMSELVES ARE THE PROBLEM!
They are leaving it to every one else to do the work

I just stated my opinion of a magazine I was not having a go at anyone in particular on that magazine. It just seems to me and a few others that I know of that the magazine is now just a pale imitation of what it used to be. As some said not everything published will suit every one. But the older AMRM's were full of information to help modellers of any standard, now it seems to be more for the serious modeller and not for beginners or come back modellers that have left the model railways behind to start a family or job and now have the time and the money to start model railroading again. Even us older modellers used to pick up useful tips and idea's from the magazine years back but it does not cater for those modellers just starting out or rejoining the modelling scene.

I stand by my remarks about reviews though, yes there are some good reviews but others leave a lot to be desired though. And on the subject of their own books I was referring to in the recent past not just recently. The SAR book they did is a good example to use, though as most South Australian modellers have seen the majority of the photo's in that book in other local publications over the years! I have to admit if you have not seen any of the local publications then the book is good but to a SAR modeller like me it got bought and resides on the shelf now as just another SAR photo book. I looked through it after I bought it and was dismayed some what to see photo's that have been used elsewhere in this book, with over 4000 photos that Doug Colquhoun took it would have been better to use some of those never used before photo's in the collection in the book rather than duplicate what has already been published many times in the past. Peter Fehlberg could have told them this and that photo has been published before and something else should be used in it's place.

It might also be that I have a great lot of Doug's photo's in my photo collection as well along with other photographers.

I commend the volunteers that produce it though don't get me wrong on that, but it is just the final product that I have complaint's with! Lately it could be called NSW railway modelling magazine as the articles tend to all go that way of late! I model Australian railways not just one state or era either I buy or make what ever I like. So it is not like I am simply a SAR modeller having a bad day!

I was going to complain as well about the item on the Frateschi repaint grain wagon as a Westrail WW (AMRM News page 55 April 2016).

I think the Powerline repaint of the Life Like wagon of 25 years ago was more convincing....
The Frateschi wagon has the wrong general shape and particularly cross section.
The flat roof looks nothing like the very rounded upper shape of the WW.



My main concern was the statement that "These wagons have seen service in the Eastern States"...



They are 15 feet tall over the handrails and 10 feet 6 inches wide.

Exactly where in the Eastern States did they run?



I have a photo of a VR GJX at North Fremantle, but I'd be amazed to see a WW at Appleton Dock.



In fact, I understand that these WWs and WWAs are being cut up as they are unable to be redeployed outside WA.



Aurizon are currently using much smaller narrow gauge wagons (ex class VW, now AGWF) on SG bogies out of Carrington on Northern NSW grain traffic. If they could have used the WWs I'm sure they would have....

Ironically, Frateschi do make a wagon that would look right at home behind an L class, Their Brazilian CVRD iron ore gondola, which is a dead ringer for the Westrail WO and WOA wagons still used in the Esperance services (but no longer behind L class). These originally ran in the opposite direction behind triple L class to Kwinana and would be an excellent load for L class. Since these are a model of a metre gauge wagon, they might be a little over scale (I haven't checked their dimensions...)

M636C

I stand by my remarks about reviews though, yes there are some good reviews but others leave a lot to be desired though. And on the subject of their own books I was referring to in the recent past not just recently. The SAR book they did is a good example to use, though as most South Australian modellers have seen the majority of the photo's in that book in other local publications over the years! I have to admit if you have not seen any of the local publications then the book is good but to a SAR modeller like me it got bought and resides on the shelf now as just another SAR photo book. I looked through it after I bought it and was dismayed some what to see photo's that have been used elsewhere in this book, with over 4000 photos that Doug Colquhoun took it would have been better to use some of those never used before photo's in the collection in the book rather than duplicate what has already been published many times in the past. Peter Fehlberg could have told them this and that photo has been published before and something else should be used in it's place.

The book referred to was by Neil Makintosh using photos he had from the Doug Colquhoun collection.

On page 4 of the book there is publisher's note stating that Peter Fehlberg assisted in completion of the book following Neil's death. Obviously Peter thought the selected photos were suitable.

As a non SAR modeller I thought the book contained many interesting photos of the SAR.

Phantom