I see the near total elimination of locomotive content in recent years in order to fill their annual Locomotive special issue, is now virtually complete. No sign of their long running monthly locomotive column in this issue.
Has long been what I turn to first when opening up the magazine. Sad to see it go and can't help but wonder if the holding back of content on popular subjects such as locomotives in order to fill the pages of their special issues, isn't a major driver in the declining subscription base of Trains itself.
It has slowly become flimsier and flimsier and devoid of a lot of the interesting articles that once regularly populated the pages of Trains, starting with the removal of most historical stories in favor of sister publication Classic Trains. That's a magazine I fully support, but can't help but feel started this downward path for Trains.
I as well as some other posters here; I'd really like to see this one addressed by somebody at TRAINS that has their hand on the brakes, and/or the throttle.
As a subscriber to both publications; It is an obvious and very interesting question.
Too many of us have seen publications we enjoyed, and subscribed to; have their 'gauges widen' to wind up, ultimately, on the ground.
Anyone else?
samfp1943Anyone else?
Coincidently, ...perhaps paradoxically...when I first opened this thread, there was a banner ad in the heading above the thread, for Amazon Logistics, showing a semi trailer rig with the Amazon "smirk" logo emblazoned across the trailer. It's certainly challenging to not draw an inference from the irony.
The world is changing, and (to me anyway) it appears that the railroads themselves have a pretty narrow focus, that does not include public relations. Perhaps the "Wall Street First" mentality that appears to be driving the railroads are closing channels that Kalmbach once relied upon for sources of content?
We read a lot right here on the forums of how the railroads are not marketing themselves as they once did, they really are not out there developing new channels of business...they are just trying to optimize what they already have.....so what is there that qualifies as "new and exciting" for the magazine to report on?
I'm blessed in that my local public library has Trains back issues all the way to 1948, and just comparing what was being reported on 60 years ago, the contrast to the magazine's current content is astounding.....but I think to blame just the magazine would be superficial. Things were happening in the industry that were worth reporting on. Groundshaking things. Nowadays, not so much.
I've also seen enthusiast magazines in other areas of interest, simply fold up over the past couple decades. Seems like many people just want to read everything free on the internet these days, and not pay for robust, full bodied reporting. Kinda hard to deliver "the best information available" when fewer and fewer customers are giving you the $resource$ to do so.
My biggest beef with the magazine itself, is that sometimes the stories appear to be casualties of the cutting floor, where there are puzzling lapses of continuity in the body of the story, or concepts that are alluded to early on in the story that are never fleshed out. Frequently causing one to really have to wonder what the author's intent actually was.
I guess we are fortunate to have a few members here who apparently know everything, to help fill in the blanks?
From the readers' point of view, it looks like the end of the train isn't moving. Editors are at the head end stretching a heavy train for a long haul. .... Will say more when I can.
Steve SweeneyDigital Editor, Hobby
Hey! Mister Steve's back! Cool!
Don't stay away so long bro, I (and I'm sure others) like it when you join in!
samfp1943I as well as some other posters here; I'd really like to see this one addressed by somebody at TRAINS that has their hand on the brakes, and/or the throttle. As a subscriber to both publications; It is an obvious and very interesting question. Too many of us have seen publications we enjoyed, and subscribed to; have their 'gauges widen' to wind up, ultimately, on the ground. Anyone else?
Haven't seen the current issue. A number of the other magazines I subscribe to seem to have less content than they have had in the past. I suspect with the Covid-19 restrictions in place their content creators have had a diminished opportunity to experience the world and thereby do the research and ground work to create their articles.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Some years ago, I saw an explanation about magazine construction.
In short, you don't just add a page, or four, it's more like sixteen, due to the way magazines are printed, folded, cut, and bound.
Unless you have untold numbers of advertisers (and we don't really want the magazine overwhelmed with ads, do we?), that means you have to fill sixteen more pages with editorial content.
Someone more familiar with that part of the process will have to fill us in with what that means in terms of writing/editing/etc.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I think the October issue is one of the best in recent times, and I've been very happy with most of them. TRAINS is not focused on nostalgia so much as it is on where the industry is headed. There's a level of reporting and stories and news items that you either don't see in the "trade" publications, or that is reported with less of a "pro-industry" slant. And that's a very necessary focus for those of us who are disappointed and concerned about the direction railroading is headed.
The interview with and article penned by Larry Gross are two examples (along with a slew of others in this issue). True, Mr. Gross may need to be diplomatic in his words due to his industry connections, but he nevertheless is one of the most insightful insiders/observers of contemporary railroading and his points are well made.
My hat's off to the TRAINS staffers for the job they're doing. Keep it up; I intend to keep renewing my subscription for as long as the magazine remains relevant like it has.
Bruce D Gillings I think the October issue is one of the best in recent times, and I've been very happy with most of them. TRAINS is not focused on nostalgia so much as it is on where the industry is headed. There's a level of reporting and stories and news items that you either don't see in the "trade" publications, or that is reported with less of a "pro-industry" slant. And that's a very necessary focus for those of us who are disappointed and concerned about the direction railroading is headed. The interview with and article penned by Larry Gross are two examples (along with a slew of others in this issue). True, Mr. Gross may need to be diplomatic in his words due to his industry connections, but he nevertheless is one of the most insightful insiders/observers of contemporary railroading and his points are well made. My hat's off to the TRAINS staffers for the job they're doing. Keep it up; I intend to keep renewing my subscription for as long as the magazine remains relevant like it has.
I read the trade magazine, "Railway Age." I've come to the conclusion that most of it's articles that aren't written by staff but are submitted are written by someone who is involved in selling something (service or product) to the industry.
Jeff
jeffhergert Bruce D Gillings I think the October issue is one of the best in recent times, and I've been very happy with most of them. TRAINS is not focused on nostalgia so much as it is on where the industry is headed. There's a level of reporting and stories and news items that you either don't see in the "trade" publications, or that is reported with less of a "pro-industry" slant. And that's a very necessary focus for those of us who are disappointed and concerned about the direction railroading is headed. The interview with and article penned by Larry Gross are two examples (along with a slew of others in this issue). True, Mr. Gross may need to be diplomatic in his words due to his industry connections, but he nevertheless is one of the most insightful insiders/observers of contemporary railroading and his points are well made. My hat's off to the TRAINS staffers for the job they're doing. Keep it up; I intend to keep renewing my subscription for as long as the magazine remains relevant like it has. I read the trade magazine, "Railway Age." I've come to the conclusion that most of it's articles that aren't written by staff but are submitted are written by someone who is involved in selling something (service or product) to the industry. Jeff
Railway Age and Progressive Railroading would not exist without the advertising of the vendors to the railroad industry. Editorially they will generally follow 'the company line' as voiced by the AAR. The advertising revenues are not sufficient for the magazines to have 'independent' reporters.
I haven't read October's issue yet, so I want to clarify as the topic creator that my complaints about the issue don't revolve around the writing and photography contained within this issue.
I've never had major complaints in either department, although I do think things are getting less descriptive such as the listing of locomotive models in picture captions, which went from routine not so long ago to optional with today's magazine.
My complaints are about the cannibalization of popular topics that were fixtures of Trains from the beginning, in order to fill special issues. I have no problems with "Locomotives" for instance and have enjoyed the several issues I've bought (Wish I had them all), but it shouldn't be making subjects such as this nearly extinct in the pages of Trains.
Yet it's done just that and I doubt it's by accident. Surely Kalmbach didn't wake up one day and decide that the subscribers of Trains suddenly weren't interested in something like locomotives. I'm also not suggesting they're intentionally withholding such content from the pages of Trains and had a nefarious plan to rob the subscribers of Trains by making them buy regular special issues. But the desire to fill special issues is inadvertently having the same result.
They know they're releasing a Locomotives special issue each year, so naturally when they get a quality locomotive-centric article submitted, the first inclination is to hold it back for the special issue. It's a natural byproduct of these special issues and I'm afraid it's hurting the main magazine.
So the article on the shortline "The Rock", throughout the article it is repeatedly mentioned the Riley's railroad employee background and that he and his wife started the company as a LLC with no stockholders (former business owner, I know what that means but I have my doubts most TRAINS subscribers know what it means). The biggest part missing though and what a rail enthusiast I think would be curious on. Is how he financed starting his own railroad, what it cost, and any potential assistance from the state. Those questions are only very marginally covered. Most of all, who is Tisha Boggs that wrote the story and where is the brief bio line about her?
In regards to the sidebar on the demise of the Rock. I lived through that period and followed it's reorganization attempt closely. While the list of causes presented I would agree all contributed to the demise of the Rock Island. Not a single mention of railway employees striking the Rock Island while the government was attempting to get the railroad financing or cash to resume somewhat normal operations. No mention on how that greatly frustrated the governments efforts nor how the striking workers ignored a back to work order direct from President Carter? That had no bearing on the decision to liquidate the Rock Island......so much so that it was not even mentioned? I'm not so sure and at the time my interpretation was the government got so frustrated with the strike that they concluded the employees really did not care about the future of the rail line and most of all were not prepared to make any sacrifices in any future reorganization. It was coincidently, shortly after the strike that the government concluded the best resolution would be selling off the RI in pieces and having a designated operator run the line as that happened.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/09/21/carter-orders-end-to-railroad-strike/b54e1058-7798-4d9f-aa40-e95c7580869b/
President Carter got rather emotionally involved in the strike because he was a farmer himself and he was very concerned about the Rock Island being responsible for carrying 10% of Midwestern grain between elevator and market and the strike hit at exactly that critical time. It's interesting because I also interpreted the governments action as work with us or else threat for the future......a few years later PATCO workers were fired for similar reasons by President Reagan and replaced. An action that they never expected....similar to the striking Rock Island employees never expecting liquidation as a solution.
CMStPnP So the article on the shortline "The Rock", throughout the article it is repeatedly mentioned the Riley's railroad employee background and that he and his wife started the company as a LLC with no stockholders (former business owner, I know what that means but I have my doubts most TRAINS subscribers know what it means). The biggest part missing though and what a rail enthusiast I think would be curious on. Is how he financed starting his own railroad, what it cost, and any potential assistance from the state. Those questions are only very marginally covered. Most of all, who is Tisha Boggs that wrote the story and where is the brief bio line about her? In regards to the sidebar on the demise of the Rock. I lived through that period and followed it's reorganization attempt closely. While the list of causes presented I would agree all contributed to the demise of the Rock Island. Not a single mention of railway employees striking the Rock Island while the government was attempting to get the railroad financing or cash to resume somewhat normal operations. No mention on how that greatly frustrated the governments efforts nor how the striking workers ignored a back to work order direct from President Carter? That had no bearing on the decision to liquidate the Rock Island......so much so that it was not even mentioned? I'm not so sure and at the time my interpretation was the government got so frustrated with the strike that they concluded the employees really did not care about the future of the rail line and most of all were not prepared to make any sacrifices in any future reorganization. It was coincidently, shortly after the strike that the government concluded the best resolution would be selling off the RI in pieces and having a designated operator run the line as that happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/09/21/carter-orders-end-to-railroad-strike/b54e1058-7798-4d9f-aa40-e95c7580869b/ President Carter got rather emotionally involved in the strike because he was a farmer himself and he was very concerned about the Rock Island being responsible for carrying 10% of Midwestern grain between elevator and market and the strike hit at exactly that critical time. It's interesting because I also interpreted the governments action as work with us or else threat for the future......a few years later PATCO workers were fired for similar reasons by President Reagan and replaced. An action that they never expected....similar to the striking Rock Island employees never expecting liquidation as a solution.
First, the State of Iowa loaned the RI more money for their Iowa operation than the Federal Government did for the entire system. The Feds had picked their winner and it wasn't the RI. There was no help coming from that quarter.
After the strike, the ICC determined that the RI didn't have enough money to restart operations. (The RI dissented on this but were overruled.) The ICC directed the Kansas City Terminal Company to operate the RI on a cost +5% basis. Management teams from the various owner roads of the KCT were assembled and took over operations until March 31, 1980.
The RI was ordered to be liquidated when the trustee's core plan was rejected. The ICC estimated some yearly monetary return (I don't remember exactly if it was cost of capital or something similar.) would only be 9 or 10%. Their benchmark was around 11-12%. A number that only one, maybe two other class ones reached.
The RI corporation did not dissolve completely. When the corporation was dismissed from bankruptcy court in 1984 they became the Chicago-Pacific Corporation. After paying off all the remaining claims against the estate (any creditor that waited until the final liquidation was paid in full) they still had $400 million worth of cash and assets, and years of loss-carry forward tax credits. They became a holding company, acquiring some appliance companies (Hoover Vacuum Cleaners) and some other (at the time) brand name household goods companies.
In 1988, Maytag acquired and merged C-P Corp to get the appliances. Eventually, Maytag became part of Whirlpool. At some point, and I don't know if it was under Maytag or Whirlpool, the rail assets still owned were sold or transferred to Miner Enterprises, a railroad supply company. I believe that may have included the trade marks. (Iowa Interstate owns the rights to the RI shield emblem.)
There were a few other loose facts in the article. I don't think the FRA is the entity that handles assigning the reporting marks. I think that's the province of the AAR.
As a RI fan I'm a bit conflicted. It's not the RI, but it is nice seeing the colors on an operating railroad. But it's not really the Rock Island.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.