I shouldn't complain that much. The March Issue is my first of 2 months of a free trial issues. I usually read other people Trains magazine and this deal came up so I decided to give it a shot. I currently don't subscribe to any magizine of any sort. 2 years ago I let my subscription to a racing paper run out because I didn't feel like it did any justice for me to read it anymore. Always about the same racers, owners and sponsors. I always liked the stories about the underdogs and from the past (only 1 page each out of 120+ pages).
With this issue of Trains, I scanned thru the pages and marked the articles that I want to read and set it in the bathroom for some "reading" time. Sad to say, it never made it in there. Scanned thru it, read one article and it went on the recycling pile.
Sorry Trains. Maybe next month.
Paul
PS. My issue did come wrapped
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
ouengr wrote: The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years. The magazine has taken the perspective of promoting taxpayer supported passenger rail and ignoring arguments that disagree. I wish that trains would go back to being objective and getting out of the politics of promoting Amtrak. I understand reporting on the actions of politiccians but I really do not want to read the political propoganda. I remember when I was a teenager and received 'the Farewall to the Caboose' issue. I read that issue to the point where it fell apart. I wound up buying couple of copies a few years ago and it is amoung my most favorite issues ever. In years past, Trains did a great job of reporting and avoiding the extreme politics of the current magazine.I can understand the desire to cancel your subscription and consider other options. I do no think that it is bad to ask about the competition. Perhaps it is intended to remind Trains that the customer matters and they we are unhappy.
The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years. The magazine has taken the perspective of promoting taxpayer supported passenger rail and ignoring arguments that disagree. I wish that trains would go back to being objective and getting out of the politics of promoting Amtrak. I understand reporting on the actions of politiccians but I really do not want to read the political propoganda.
I remember when I was a teenager and received 'the Farewall to the Caboose' issue. I read that issue to the point where it fell apart. I wound up buying couple of copies a few years ago and it is amoung my most favorite issues ever. In years past, Trains did a great job of reporting and avoiding the extreme politics of the current magazine.
I can understand the desire to cancel your subscription and consider other options. I do no think that it is bad to ask about the competition. Perhaps it is intended to remind Trains that the customer matters and they we are unhappy.
First, you make it sound as if you speak for all of us. You do not.
That you disagree with one of the philosophies of a publication does not mean it has gone downhill -- that is NOT a fact, as you state, but your opinion.
And while it is healthy to consider all options and ask about the competition, I just think it is awfully tacky to use the Trains-supported forum to do it.
This forum produces little or no direct revenue for Kalmbach's investment. If Kalmbach has to start cutting expenses someday, I'd say it would be one of the first things to go.
I'm also sure Kalmbach's intent for these forums was NOT to provide a public venue for its non-subscribing detractors to air their vitriol.
ouengr wrote: The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years.
The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years.
This statement is true. Readership is falling, and growing older. As a result, the number of full page ads have declined, which cuts down on the number of pages available for feature articles. It is likely Trains will continue to decrease in size in the future.
Kalmbach has also decided to remove feature articles on locomotives, and print these in yearly special issues. As a subscriber, I feel I should be able to read these articles without having to order special magazines outside of my subscription.
nanaimo73 wrote: ouengr wrote: The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years. This statement is true. Readership is falling, and growing older. As a result, the number of full page ads have declined, which cuts down on the number of pages available for feature articles. It is likely Trains will continue to decrease in size in the future.Kalmbach has also decided to remove feature articles on locomotives, and print these in yearly special issues. As a subscriber, I feel I should be able to read these articles without having to order special magazines outside of my subscription.
But without a subscription increase, right?
Let's face it. The industry is changing forever. Nothing will ever be "as it was". We'd all like meatier issues, as you say. But it's not like a competing magazine will be able to accomplish it, either, because it faces the same problems Kalmbach is facing.
I'm sure Kalmbach would love to hear some solutions from experts.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Let's face it. The industry is changing forever. Nothing will ever be "as it was". We'd all like meatier issues, as you say. But it's not like a competing magazine will be able to accomplish it, either, because it faces the same problems Kalmbach is facing.I'm sure Kalmbach would love to hear some solutions from experts.
The experts all seem to be saying the same thing: internet technology is ultimately killing print media; it's killing record companies as well.
The internet in many ways promises something better, more useful, but nothing quite replaces the days when the magazine arrives in the mail, whether it was Colliers, McClure's, Literary Digest, Life, or the Saturday Evening Post, and soon, Time, Newsweek, and Harper's.
It's regrettable for a whole variety of reasons, including loss of a tangible historical record keeping source, but Trains Magazine won't be here in five years.
Poppa_Zit wrote: ouengr wrote: The simple fact is that Trains has gone down hill for the past several years. The magazine has taken the perspective of promoting taxpayer supported passenger rail and ignoring arguments that disagree. I wish that trains would go back to being objective and getting out of the politics of promoting Amtrak. I understand reporting on the actions of politiccians but I really do not want to read the political propoganda. I remember when I was a teenager and received 'the Farewall to the Caboose' issue. I read that issue to the point where it fell apart. I wound up buying couple of copies a few years ago and it is amoung my most favorite issues ever. In years past, Trains did a great job of reporting and avoiding the extreme politics of the current magazine.I can understand the desire to cancel your subscription and consider other options. I do no think that it is bad to ask about the competition. Perhaps it is intended to remind Trains that the customer matters and they we are unhappy. First, you make it sound as if you speak for all of us. You do not.That you disagree with one of the philosophies of a publication does not mean it has gone downhill -- that is NOT a fact, as you state, but your opinion.And while it is healthy to consider all options and ask about the competition, I just think it is awfully tacky to use the Trains-supported forum to do it.This forum produces little or no direct revenue for Kalmbach's investment. If Kalmbach has to start cutting expenses someday, I'd say it would be one of the first things to go.I'm also sure Kalmbach's intent for these forums was NOT to provide a public venue for its non-subscribing detractors to air their vitriol.
I do not want to read trains and feel like I need to guard my wallet the entire time for the tax increases they support. I want someone to report on what is going on not advocate an outcome.
The only reason that I responded with my concerns here is maybe Trains will finally hear that many of us are unhappy with the direction they have taken and maybe turn around. If the magazine were better, more of us would buy issues either individually or under subscription. Many periodicals are falling now and blaming the internet or television, but the simple truth is that the magazones dont compare on quality with the ones from ten or twenty years ago.
MichaelSol wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Let's face it. The industry is changing forever. Nothing will ever be "as it was". We'd all like meatier issues, as you say. But it's not like a competing magazine will be able to accomplish it, either, because it faces the same problems Kalmbach is facing.I'm sure Kalmbach would love to hear some solutions from experts. The experts all seem to be saying the same thing: internet technology is ultimately killing print media; it's killing record companies as well. The internet in many ways promises something better, more useful, but nothing quite replaces the days when the magazine arrives in the mail, whether it was Colliers, McClure's, Literary Digest, Life, or the Saturday Evening Post, and soon, Time, Newsweek, and Harper's.It's regrettable for a whole variety of reasons, including loss of a tangible historical record keeping source, but Trains Magazine won't be here in five years.
Ooops... here's the chief mitigating factor you conveniently left out: the Internet will hurt print media UNTIL IT BEGINS CHARGING PEOPLE TO READ. Simple as that.
Most of the Internet sites that offer free information right now are either subsidized by an established print operation or are done by amateurs -- which makes them subject to mistrust as to the accuracy of their information, like Wikipedia. If Trains magazine no longer exists in its print form in five years, nothing will be able to take its place without charging readers a subscription price. So all that would change is the delivery system.
And that's being worked on right now. Subscribers would have something similar to a cookie placed on one machine only to read pages that cannot be copied, printed or redistributed.
Kalmbach. please respond to this thread. The recession is here for me and I am dropping MR and Garden Railways. Your constant and insistant renewal notices may have me booked until 2010 for the rest of your mags. I am looking at my checkbook and my sardines to see where my next buck goes. I love the stories, the mail. and the balance of content, but...
When I kicked in the extra bucks for Classic's specials, I received "Streamliners" but never saw "Diesel Dominance" or the rest. I was busy and overlooked those but now I'm wondering pretty hard about your place in my life.
Where are you guys going?
RIX
rixflix aka Captain Video. Blessed be Jean Shepherd and all His works!!! Hooray for 1939, the all time movie year!!! I took that ride on the Reading but my Baby caught the Katy and left me a mule to ride.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Ooops... here's the chief mitigating factor you conveniently left out: the Internet will hurt print media UNTIL IT BEGINS CHARGING PEOPLE TO READ. Simple as that.
Well, I don't know why it was "convenient" one way or the other. The cost of production and delivery of the product, even by subscription, is substantially lower via internet. It's showing up everywhere. Even that bastion of Pleistocene philosophy, the Association of American Railroads sees it. My last publication order from them cost $20 less via internet as opposed to the hard copy. And the internet version is "searchable" from the standpoint of having several such publications handy, and being able to go through all of them on a global command search for any given item.
Yeah, they're charging -- but it still costs less and is a better format for me.
SFbrkmn wrote:I have been reading the magazine since July 1980, deep into the David Morgan era. The publication today does not hold a candle to what I was reading 20-25 yrs ago. Don't get me wrong, there have been several good issues over the years ,but I'm more of a editorial guy and the quality on that page again isn't what it used to be...The features thus could be more in depth, less duplication and less silly pages like Map Of The Month. Just a suggestion
I've been a subscriber since 1972, myself-and I must agree that things are not up to the standard of thre DPM era, however-and this is a BIG however to me-having "cut my teeth" on DPM's prose and style, ain't nuthin' gonna come even close. (I've had a few times when my subscription renewal was a real pain to scrape up the money for but I'll gladly live on bread & water once a week to afford another year of Trains.) There's no dishonor in second place in that contest as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I miss some of the more "in depth" stories-but those take time and who's writing/submitting them? (I think we have several great potential articles from the members of this BB-Michael Sol on the MR's PCE and/or electrification, RWM on the economics of railway engineering and/or location, edblysard on how to run a yard, S. Hadid...the list goes on and on.) Some favorites of mine? How about a special issue (like the Mountain Railroads issue) of the transcontinentals that never happened (ala' the C&NW thread, along with the mentions of the CRI&P, SPLA&SL, T&P, etc.)? The Riley Plan (and others) for consolodations? The proposed mergers of the 1930's or 60's (C&O-B&O-NYC, PRR-N&W-WAB, LV-WAB-D&H, ERIE-NKP-C&O, to name a few)? If not mergers, then Maps of the Month (which-and not to pick on you, SFbrkmn-is one of my favorite features), perhaps?
I like the idea of special issues for certain subjects-it lets me pass on subjects that don't interest me to that depth and, if I do want the extra coverage of an area of extra interest, it's all bonus material. (As an aside-the only disappointment I ever had from Trains was the "Great Stations" special issue...but that's just me. It's not a bad track record for 35 years worth of monthly magazines.) While I would never suggest eliminating them, because they are part of our shared hobby/obsession, I have the least interest (not "no interest"-please don't misundersatnd me) in the human interest stories.
And, if Trains went to an "all me" format, how many else out there would buy another copy ever again? I'm sure very few-and rightfully so. My hat's off to the people at 21027 whatever street in Milwaukee for a fine job!
I picked up my first issue of Trains in 1972. I have not missed a month since. As I stated earlier in this thread, the March issue is thin by recent standards, but the cause appears mainly due to the lack of advertisers. As long as the amount of editorial content/articles remains constant, I see no harm to the readers. I would rather have an 8 oz filet instead of a 16 oz sirlion any day.
The only question I have is, how long is it substainable to print a 64 page magazine with only 7 pages of ads at the current cover/subscription price?
BTW, over these 36 years of reading Trains, the only issue I found truly useless and half heartedly done was the Engineer issue from 3 or 4 years ago.
Jay
Tell me what isn't getting smaller and/or more expensive these days? I remember how big a candy bars was when they were a nickel. "Half-gallons" of ice cream are not 64 fl.oz., but 56... Sorry, but I still get a rush of pleasure every month or so when the mailman brings my Kalmbach magazines. I get Trains, CTT, CT and MRR. And most of the special issues.
But this rush to judgment and bashing the content of recent Trains because the latest issue is slightly smaller seems to be immature.
My
Chico
....I suppose It doesn't matter that much if {one}, issue is minimum in page count, but would like it not to become a trend.
Quentin
Plastic wrapped or not, who cares as long as the copies arrive in good shape and mine always have. Depending on your interests each issue is going to appeal to a greater or lesser degree to each individual. I've been reading Trains Magazine since the 1950's but have been a subscriber only in recent years. Overall I've found the magazine to consistently be informative and interesting and the photos are definitely first rate. As a railfan I know of no other publication that even approaches Trains in its coverage of railroading from both a current and historical perspective. I look forward with anticipatation to each issue and will be a subscriber for years to come.
Mark
I don't know about the five-year time frame, although I do believe that this assessment of the decline of print media is quite accurate. I would guess that the Internet may end up being more fee-based, but I don't think that will force the return of print media. It won't be long before we all will have one big, two-way, video/sound interface in our homes, and all financial transactions, entertainment, record keeping, data backup, and personal and business communications and will pass in and out of that one interface. Much of our employment will also pass back and forth through this interface.
That does not necessarily mean that Trains will disappear, but the paper and ink will.
No denying that the Internet is inflicting a sizeable hit on print media. There are pundits who specialize in just that issue.
But, as I like to point out, it's hard to take my computer to the break room to do the crossword during lunch, or my digital copy of Trains into the (ahem) facilities.
As we become more "unwired" these concerns will probably pass. A couple of generations forward of my cell phone will be capable of bringing what I want to read to the head, or the waiting room, or wherever I happen to wander. The capability is already there in many ways.
While speaking more to newspapers, this makes an interesting read on the topic.
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...
Somehow, I find I can't browse through a digital magazine (or a stack of them) the same way I do with printed magazines. Maybe it is because my high speed service and computer are just not fast enough now.
When I go to a big box book store with the thought of buying a magazine or two that might peak my interest, I find I can scan tens of magazine in a few seconds. Can't seem to get the same going with the computer.
Having been around for almost 7 decades, I know there will be changes. Trains going digital would be change that would make me very unhappy, so I hope they stay in print for at least as long as I am upright.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
jeaton wrote: Somehow, I find I can't browse through a digital magazine (or a stack of them) the same way I do with printed magazines. Maybe it is because my high speed service and computer are just not fast enough now. When I go to a big box book store with the thought of buying a magazine or two that might peak my interest, I find I can scan tens of magazine in a few seconds. Can't seem to get the same going with the computer.Having been around for almost 7 decades, I know there will be changes. Trains going digital would be change that would make me very unhappy, so I hope they stay in print for at least as long as I am upright.
Thanks jeaton, very well said. While I am not quite as "experienced" as you...pushing 60 like I am...I still fully agree with your comments. I use my computer every day for work but still find pleasure reading the written word printed on good old paper products. I also really love taking my TRAINS magazine with me trackside in the good weather and reading it during the lull between trains, which I can not do with my laptop (yes, I know there are wireless broadband cards and I DO have one, but can't stand to use it).
...Digital magazines.....Believe my thoughts about that concept compares similarlly to: Calling a business and trying to communicate with said location and getting "your call is important it us}, so push one for ........and push two for.......... and so on.
Example: Tried to contact AT&T this week and it took 3 days to actually make the connection to a real person to talk to about purchasing a service....Terrible...!
Magazines available digitally....Probably not accepted nearly as much as the younger generation folks. I'm well into that 7 decades you fellows speak of.
tree68 wrote: A couple of generations forward of my cell phone will be capable of bringing what I want to read to the head,
A couple of generations forward of my cell phone will be capable of bringing what I want to read to the head,
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: tree68 wrote: A couple of generations forward of my cell phone will be capable of bringing what I want to read to the head, Yeah! That's the ticket-a cell phone/computer that puts the info right into my head!
For some reason I don't think you two guys are thinking of the same "head"...
A.K. Cummings wrote:Folks — As has been noted in this thread, the size of the magazine depends on the amount of advertising we get. March and April are often off months for ad sales, but they were particularly bad this year, as has been noted, and that's resulted in the small magazine. I hate to say it, but April isn't any better than March. The good news: May ad sales are usually very strong, though we don't yet know how they'll be this year. We're paying close attention to this issue, and we know you guys expect a certain amount of bang for your buck. Believe me, we don't like this, either, and we're working hard to make sure we can improve things as soon as practicable.Best, Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTRAINS MagazineWaukesha, Wis.
Andy,
I'm a little confused. I can understand how the page count in the magazine would decrease as the ad count decreases, since ads occupy pages. Is this all that has happened with the March issue? I have not seen the March issue yet, but I don't understand why anybody would be complaining about a lower page count if it were only reduced in correspondence to a reduced number of ads. I had the impression that subscribers here thought that the non-advertising substance content of the magazine had been reduced from normal or average. If this is the case, are you saying that a reduction in ads also reduces the non-advertising content of the magazine, in addition to the reduction in pages that contain the ads? And if so, could you explain the connection between ad count and non-ad content? Thanks.
The News section was smaller, too - just one page each for Technology, Locomoive, Passenger & City Rail, instead of the usual two pages each. There was also just one Gallery photo when there are usually three or four. I hope these sections don't get any smaller - I really enjoy reading them.
Bucyrus wrote: A.K. Cummings wrote:Folks — As has been noted in this thread, the size of the magazine depends on the amount of advertising we get. March and April are often off months for ad sales, but they were particularly bad this year, as has been noted, and that's resulted in the small magazine. I hate to say it, but April isn't any better than March. The good news: May ad sales are usually very strong, though we don't yet know how they'll be this year. We're paying close attention to this issue, and we know you guys expect a certain amount of bang for your buck. Believe me, we don't like this, either, and we're working hard to make sure we can improve things as soon as practicable.Best, Andy CummingsAssociate EditorTRAINS MagazineWaukesha, Wis.Andy,I'm a little confused. I can understand how the page count in the magazine would decrease as the ad count decreases, since ads occupy pages. Is this all that has happened with the March issue? I have not seen the March issue yet, but I don't understand why anybody would be complaining about a lower page count if it were only reduced in correspondence to a reduced number of ads. I had the impression that subscribers here thought that the non-advertising substance content of the magazine had been reduced from normal or average. If this is the case, are you saying that a reduction in ads also reduces the non-advertising content of the magazine, in addition to the reduction in pages that contain the ads? And if so, could you explain the connection between ad count and non-ad content? Thanks.
Andy is 100 percent correct.
The way the numbers work in the publishing business is: the number of ad pages (all fractional and full page ads added up and divided by a full page) determine the total count for the issue. It's the only way to be fiscally responsible. That revenue plus subscription revenue is how the bills are paid.
It's like passenger trains -- sell more tickets, add more cars.
Each publication chooses it's own "comfort level" (ad page percentage) based on advertisers' demand for its readership. That "demand for a publication's readership" also help determine the price of ads.
Because its readers also enjoy reading ads about what's new, etc., a slick like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine dummies roughly 65 percent advertising -- some of those "special" sections count 100 percent as ad pages because the editorial copy (stories and photos) in those sections is part of the ad package sold. Same ad percentage with Playboy many moons ago.
On the other hand, Consumer Reports exists solely on subscriptions -- but it is a non-profit that also sells its books and catches huge gifts from supporters.
The usual rule of thumb, though, in the newspaper business is roughly about 50/50 -- 50 percent ads, 50 percent editorial -- not counting inserts. So if the ad dept. says it has 20 ad pages for Sunday, the paper will be approximately 40 pages.
So the bean counters at any publication tell the editor or managing editor how many editorial pages she/he has to work with for a particular issue. Then they have an editorial staff meeting to dole out space to the editors of each different department based on need. And then those departments prioritize -- make decisions as to what to include and what to exclude. That's why all departments are "downsized" in a "smaller" issue.
Note: Editors also can play "let's make a deal". One dept. may not need 7 pages in the next issue because it only needs 5, so it allows 2 of those pages to another dept. that needs them. Of course, in a future issue those pages are "returned".
Dan
Bucyrus,
To add a little to PZ's great explanation.
I know only enough about printing a magazine to be dangerous--all learned from my wife while she edited her trade association magazine for 18 years. However, I will give it a shot.
Magazines are broken down into signatures of either 8 or 16 pages, which one a particular magazine uses depends on the type of press, webb or sheet feed, being used. So the next step up in size for the March issue of Trains would have been either to 72 or 80 pages.
Even at 64 pages, the March issue was probably already high on the editorial/article side of the ratio shared with ad pages. To insert another 8 or 16 pages of editorial/articles probably would have not been economically feasible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.