I think the focus on industry staff is mainly driven by the advertising revenue. I do believe that payment for magazines covers little more than the actual circulation costs (a far larger proportion of total magazine costs than you might think), and the advertising income covers the rest. Unfortunately, if you can get the circulation numbers and thus the advertising, then the editorial content becomes secondary.
I did have Rail magazine for a few years in the late 1980s, but like one mentioned above I gave it up when it became fortnightly, mainly because the same amount of editorial content was then just spread more thinly.
Bring back the rail tour reviews. They were the best bit.
There was a railtour review writer at that time called Maxey who had a notably witty yet penetrating style, in the spirit of Ian Walmsley nowadays in Modern Railways (actually, only as I write this I wonder if it was indeed IW as a nom-de-plume in his younger years).
Modern Railways seems to have made the greatest transition to being an insiders journal, particularly for management staff, yet the ads, a significant proportion of which are for enthusiast-type product, are a bit of a giveaway for those who are buying it. Unfortunately even it, at the top of the tree, has gone rather too far down the "just reprint the press releases" route, as is apparent by some of the PR waffly stuff that can appear regurgitated, which you would have thought it's editor James Abbot would have picked up in a moment.