I realize that as individuals, we all have particular tastes. And that a magazine such as Trains should try and appeal to as broad an audience as possible…but how many people here thought that the 'Rolling Stones" issue was more enjoyable than the “Crescent corridor” issue that preceded it?
I’ll be honest and admit that I could hardly put the “Crescent corridor” issue down, while about the only thing I found interesting in the “Rolling stones” issue was the story about Conrail and electrification. And even that article suffered, in not outlining the factors ultimately feeding the decisions to unplug those areas of America that once were under wire.
I’ve been reading Trains since the 50’s, subscriber since the 70’s. There are issues that I didn’t enjoy at all and others gobbled up in an evening with relish. To be a general magazine with the vague title Trains has meant virtually everything to do with real railroading and not modeling to be covered. With that mass fan appeal, they’ve done a great job from year to year.
Ir will admit that articles about operatons, equipment, and sometimes people are more interesting to me than freight economics. So, yes the previous issue was more interesting and harder to put down to go get some food or whatever. But I still found the rocks interesting enough to make the issue worthwhile. As a railfan, I do want to know what pays the bill for the railroads and who will be paying the bill in the future.
No one’s saying you can’t give feedback to the magazine, you’ve got every right to do so. What I’m saying is don’t expect perfection with every issue that comes out, you can’t have it, no-one can deliver it except The Almighty, and He’s not in the publishing business.
Me ? I 've been a reader for awhile__… Have give away issues that dated back into the 1950’s of Model Railroader and some TRAINS…out of the ‘Way Back’ collection. Lately,for the last 40 ( TRAINS has been my read of choice; both off the Newsstands and as a subscriber.
I believe Firelock 76 was spot-on with is comment about Babe Ruth ![(-D] Over the years, I think the batting average is pretty good. [bow]
So far I have never regretted buying one issue. Admittely, there have been some that were read much faster than others; while some that required a pot of coffee or two, and a good cigar to get thru them.[:-,]
Babe Ruth failed 65.8% of the time at the plate (his specialty) . I don’t know about you, but If that was my “success rate” where I work, I’d be out on the bricks pretty fast.
I think that it’s important to let the staff know when they produce a boring issue, because they just might make future decisions based upon “well, nobody complained last time we tried So-and-so” so just to be safe why not? they should find it comforting we actually read closely enough to form such opinion. It means some one’s paying attention, and in their business that’s important.
Do you suppose, that one man’s boring, is another man’s exciting? I didn’t find the rock issue that exciting, or the Crescent issue that exciting. However, I did enjoy the 2 issues beofre them more.
Maybe you could start a Rate this month’s Trains Magazine thread about once a month, asking what folks did or didn’t find interesting?
You know, the Babe once said he might have had a much better batting average if he hadn’t tried for homes runs all the time, however since the fans were paying to see him hit home runs he tried to give them their moneys worth.
That’s all any one of us can do, try to give others their moneys worth of what they expect of us. If you succeed often enough to keep them happy, well that’s usually good enough.
The fans loved the Babe, anyway you look at it. And I’ll bet very few of us can say Babe Ruth’s name without smiling just a bit. I can’t.
I had pretty much consigned the October issue to the ho-hum category until I turned to page 60 and beheld the two photos of Soo Line 4-4-0s. Even though they predate the accompanying article by a decade, they made my day!
Many times I find the best part of a magazine (any magazine, not just Trains or any other Kalmbach publication) is the “coming next issue,” if they have that. Then when it comes out, it turns out that the best part is the “coming next issue” feature.
That’s the risk a subscriber takes to a magazine that has to appeal to a broad audience. It’s rare that I can’t find an issue that doesn’t have something that appeals to me, but many issues aren’t what I would call “must have.” That’s more of a condition of my tastes and interest than content of the magazine. As long as I find enough in each issue to meet my minimum interest level, I’ll stay a subscriber. Each issue for me doesn’t have to be a :must have."
And sometimes I’ve been surprised to read an article on a subject that I usually wouldn’t be interested in, but turns out to be quite good. Makes me glad it was included.
We as fans evolve too. Back in the 70s when I started reading Trains I skipped over all the boring economic and business stuff and went right to the fan oriented material…paint schemes and all that. I rarely read Kneiling and the other columnists, although I caught my dad (who has zero interest in trains) reading those columns a few times. Now I skip over the fan stuff and enjoy the business side of things much more. Back 30 years ago I could tell you all about locomotive rosters and who owned what. Today I can’t do that…in fact I have a hard times telling the difference between engine models anymore. I read more with purpose nowadays… sometimes ideas that are applicable in one industry can be transferred to another. The rolling stones articles, for example, got me thinking about how important targeted marketing really is…