Well, since others have invoked "Hemphill", I might as well chime in that the magazine seems to have, over the past decade, been veering more towards "the human element" of the topics covered, much in the same spirit with reality TV. Where "how other people feel about the prime subject matter" is presented as near equally important to the core material itself.
Of course that is not a specific result of the new design theme so much as it is a reflection on the de-evolution of media in general. Evidenced in the deterioration of the History Channel and other once good sources of documentary material.
Unfortunately sizzle is less costly to produce than steak.
Yawn....
Electroliner 1935Perhaps Trains is concerned about your well-being, extended time sitting on the "throne" can lead to hemroids
Every change gets some pushback. Our local paper just changed a few things, although I haven't seen any negative comments on that.
More important is content. I've seen it posited in the past that Trains tries to be both an industry magazine and a railfan magazine, with varying results.
Keep in mind that one does see ads in Trains that are of little use to railfans beyond a reference to some railroad item - the ads are aimed at those buying switch stands, crossing protection, railbed maintenance, 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...
Why change it? What was wrong with the other design? What's different about it?
I agree with Zardoz, change is not always successful and can lead to backlash later on.
Pick a format and stay with it!
Hemphill was the last editor that regularly included in-5depth articles that were longer than a complete read in a bathroom visit..[/quote]
Perhaps Trains is concerned about your well-being, extended time sitting on the "throne" can lead to hemroids
I like the new look... I like the articles too. I purposely spend time on the stories that don't immediately catch my interest.. more often than not I learn something new or at the very least broaden my interest. Case in point: the article about BNSF's branchline in MN.. read it slowly.. googled the place names to learn about them.. read the wiki article on the Minneapolis and Saint Louis.. the "Peoria Gateway". Sure beats "I'm only interested if its SD40s in the Rockies"..
I was just able to log-in to Newswire for the first time in weeks. Maybe things are getting back to normal. I like the magazine it has a good range of topics and is not "geared" totally to railfans like some others. I have cancelled alot of subscriptions recently but this one I am going to keep.
charlie hebdo CMStPnP I wonder about their marketing program and why the magazine isn't a lot more popular. In a country with a population approaching 350 million, they have such a tiny subscription base. In two words: age + interests. The likelihood that you are probably one of the younger readers does not inspire much confidence about the reader base growing. If younger cohorts were surveyed, I imagine I'd be correct in predicting that most under 50 would have ~zero interest in reading about or looking at pictures of trains and railroads.
CMStPnP I wonder about their marketing program and why the magazine isn't a lot more popular. In a country with a population approaching 350 million, they have such a tiny subscription base.
I wonder about their marketing program and why the magazine isn't a lot more popular. In a country with a population approaching 350 million, they have such a tiny subscription base.
In two words: age + interests. The likelihood that you are probably one of the younger readers does not inspire much confidence about the reader base growing. If younger cohorts were surveyed, I imagine I'd be correct in predicting that most under 50 would have ~zero interest in reading about or looking at pictures of trains and railroads.
That's not always true, though. Cable subscription rates are nosediving, but that doesn't mean people are watching less TV. They're actually watching more. People barely use the newspaper for anything more than packing material it seems, but consumption of news is at an all-time high.
Sports Illustrated, who we can all agree is a titan of magazinedom, cut their issues by 50% a couple years ago. They went from weekly to biweekly. Are people following sports less? I think that's an emphatic no and more of a "the TV argued about this stuff two weeks ago, why am I reading about it now?" thing.
I showed my wife the new copy layout. Yrs ago, she worked in magazine production and knows the biz. Publications every so often change their public looks for various reasons just like newspapers do. A am old school and enjoy a hard copy in my hand compared to reading long articles off a screen. It will take a couple issues to get adjusted to the new layout but I like it and hope things go well.
I regret the loss of some columns.
I agree as well. As long as I enjoy the magazine, find it interesting and learn from it I'll continue to subscribe. When you stop learning about something, anything, you might as well be dead.
kgbw49At $3.58 per month, less than a mocha-triple-frappe-latte au lait at your local boutique coffee shop, it is a good deal even if one just browses it in a given month. To each their own. As for me, I will continue to subscribe.
I subscribe because I am extremely interested in all aspects of railroading. I read every issue cover-to-cover, starting with the photos on the back pages. Even IF there was only one article of interest, I would still be pleased; however, I fiind almost every article interesting (to various degrees).
Over the years I've seen Trains magazine change formats many times. I usually do not like them at first, but I soon get used to it. I might miss a certain feature due to the change, but there is usually something else to take it's place.
Change is not always progress, but progress is always change.
At about $42.95 per subscription that is $3.384 million in subscription revenue. Add in advertising revenue. Subtract expenses. Hopefully after taxes there is still a reasonable profit to maintain the magazine as a going concern. At $3.58 per month, less than a mocha-triple-frappe-latte au lait at your local boutique coffee shop, it is a good deal even if one just browses it in a given month. To each their own. As for me, I will continue to subscribe.
Deggesty Paid print copies: 76,664. {aid electronic copies: 2,137. I would consider this the circulation.
Paid print copies: 76,664. {aid electronic copies: 2,137. I would consider this the circulation.
If the 2014 number reported in Wikipedia is correct, Trains has got a problem. One cannot help but wonder at what point does it cease to be economically viable?
I subscribed to the print magazine for more than 25 years, but I gave it up. Too often an issue only had one article that interested me. Now, I look at the articles in an issue. If more than one interests me, I buy it to read on my Nook.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
A 16.88% decline in five years. As I was saying above...
Paid print copies: 76,664. {aid electronic copies: 2,137.
I would consider this the circulation.
Johnny
Deggesty PJS1 According to an article in Wikipedia, in 2014 Trains had a circulation of 92,235. Anyone know what it is today? On page 63 of the January 2019 issue, the numbers are given. The number of paid distribution nearest the filing date is 76,664.
PJS1 According to an article in Wikipedia, in 2014 Trains had a circulation of 92,235. Anyone know what it is today?
According to an article in Wikipedia, in 2014 Trains had a circulation of 92,235. Anyone know what it is today?
On page 63 of the January 2019 issue, the numbers are given.
The number of paid distribution nearest the filing date is 76,664.
Is that just printed copies, or does it also include the digital copy introduced since 2014?
BTW-I was referring to R&R, not Railpace.
zugmann motor I think Zug is referring to R&R, which is now owned by White River Productions in Missouri. motor Sorry. The other one.
motor I think Zug is referring to R&R, which is now owned by White River Productions in Missouri. motor
I think Zug is referring to R&R, which is now owned by White River Productions in Missouri.
motor
Sorry. The other one.
I THOUGHT it was the "Italian" mag! I know Zug doesn't care for it and I respect his opinion, but I enjoy it.
And as Overmod said, wise-a$$ just comes with the New Jersey territory.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann Backshop That other mag that was out of New Jersey seems to do a better job focusing on railfans. Did that other mag ever get better with not putting snide little editorial quips in every photo caption?
Backshop That other mag that was out of New Jersey seems to do a better job focusing on railfans.
Did that other mag ever get better with not putting snide little editorial quips in every photo caption?
Hey Zug, I have to ask, which rail mag out of New Jersey are you referring to, "Railfan and Railroad" or the Italian mag, "Rail-Pah-Che?"
"Railpace" for those of you not from the area.
In 1941, I was six years old living in Milwaukee WI. My father worked for the Missouri Pacific, (The local sales office) He started getting TRAINS then and I have been reading it ever since. In 1946-7 he wrote six articles including one about rates and ticketing options under a pen name. It was titled THIS WAY, THAT WAY. and all the optiona one had when traveling by train. Such as between Chicago and the East coast, the fares were the same if you went via PRR, NYC or B&O and for example if you went via PRR to New York, NY, you could go have a side trip to Baltimore or Washington at no extra cost.
There have been many changes in the magazine since its start but I am glad that Kalmbach is still able to publish it. Its "base" is dwindling over the years as the number of railroad employees has been reduced dramatically. Back then every town had a manned station (maybe more than one), many manned interlockings and the predominate mode of passenger transportation was by train. Today the predominate mode is automobile, followed by airplane. Rail is the outlier. I am one that sees change as a sometimes necessary evil and sometimes as something that is done to prove to upper management that someone is doing his job by making changes, whether they are needed or not. Time will tell.
Perhaps, someone at Trains can provide the rational for the changes.
[quote user="CSSHEGEWISCH"]
I have been reading TRAINS on a regular basis since September 1967 and it always been more than strictly a fan magazine. The fact that they carried a monthly column by John G. Kneiling for years speaks to that orientation. So do a variety of articles over the years on a variety of behind-the-scenes issues and the issue-length "Who Shot the Passenger Train?" issue in 1958.
"The change in layout is more of a change in visual style than a change in editorial direction and it is refreshing. I'm not happy that the layout seems to stress photos over the written word but that's a matter of personal preference."
I would tend to agree with the above comment....It seems that in our 'current environment', content seems to lack the 'flash' of more visual presentations(?) . I prefer the 'stories' along with some illustrative work.
The photographers presented in TRAINS have always seemed to be able to present points, and complement the work of the writers.
Personally, I've been a purchaser and reader of TRAINS since the 1950's; At first it was mostly, MR but as time, and space took their toll on my modeling; TRAINS has been my fall-back publicaton. CT is one I buy on occasion, and subscribe to as topics areas become of interest.
[/quote]
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.