colin.shaw@baesystems.com (Colin Shaw) wrote in
news:8bdef7bd.0309170107.5a77ef29@c om:
> only 56 photos (44%) of normal shots of british trains.
>
> This magazine is becoming very dull. Someone hit the nail on the head
> by once refering to it an an 'industry journal' rather than an
> 'enthusiast magazine'.
Surely it's all a matter of personal preference. I've bought the magazine
since its early days, but TBH I mostly used to just flick through it to see
what snippets of "gen" I could glean. I wouldn't have sat down and read it
cover to cover. These days I find it more of a entertaining read, and only
skip the few features that don't interest me much. Personally, although I'm
quite happy to see good photos of trains, a magazine containing little else
wouldn't attract my custom.
A friend of mine took the opposite view a few months ago, when his
subscription was due for renewal, and wrote to editor Nigel Harris
explaining that he wouldn't be renewing because he no longer saw RAIL as an
enthusiasts' magazine. Mr. Harris wrote back, basically saying that the
railway today was not the same as when the magazine started, and that RAIL
had to move with the times. My friend was unimpressed, and declined to
renew. But presumably RAIL still sells in quantities large enough to
prevent EMAP from sacking its editor. Isn't it (or wasn't it) Britain's
biggest selling railway magazine?
I find railways interesting as a general subject, but others have narrower
fields of interest. If it's just pictures of trains you're after, RAIL
probably isn't for you. But you read uk.railway (no pics here!), so perhaps
your interest is broader than you're letting on...
Rick.
RAIL Magazine issue 470 
