Has the Railway Magazine changed size (part way through the year) ?

[Justin Smith]

I was looking at my Railway Magazines on the shelf yesterday and noticed that the last two editions (i.e. May & June 2025) appear to be about 5mm shorter then the previous size.
I am assuming its not just mine that are different ( ! ) so if they really have charged the size then doing so part way through the year is really stupid, how is that going to work for people who have their copies bound ? This would not be the first time this has happened, they also did this once before, sometime in the 1960s I think (I'll check when I get home ! ) ? The bound copies then had to be for more than a year before, and less than a year afterwards.

 

[midland1]

Have they changed there paper as well it is darker than before and not so easy to read.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

I was looking at my Railway Magazines on the shelf yesterday and noticed that the last two editions (i.e. May & June 2025) appear to be about 5mm shorter then the previous size.
I am assuming its not just mine that are different ( ! ) so if they really have charged the size then doing so part way through the year is really stupid, how is that going to work for people who have their copies bound ? This would not be the first time this has happened, they also did this once before, sometime in the 1960s I think (I'll check when I get home ! ) ? The bound copies then had to be for more than a year before, and less than a year afterwards.

Yes, mine are 5mm shorter too.

It was 1963 when there was a big change in page size as from the November issue.

I haven't noticed any change in the paper.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes, mine are 5mm shorter too.

It was 1963 when there was a big change in page size as from the November issue.

I haven't noticed any change in the paper.

Correct, my smaller 1963 volume is stamped "1963 (-)" on the spine, and the bigger 1964 one "1964 (+)" !

 

[Justin Smith]

Have they changed there paper as well it is darker than before and not so easy to read.

I think the paper has less of a shine on it, less glossy, and the picture in particular seem darker.

 

[STINT47]

I've also noticed that the paper and print quality seems to have deteriorated recently. I hope it's not the start of xoat cutting and lower standards.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I've also noticed that the paper and print quality seems to have deteriorated recently. I hope it's not the start of xoat cutting and lower standards.

I hope not. Rail is now unreadable now it's printed on toilet paper and still costs the same

 

[Peter C]

I've just been going through some copies of Heritage Railway and Railways Illustrated from this year - both published, as The Railway Magazine is, by Kelsey Media - and have noticed that from the 11 April edition of HR and from the June edition of RI the magazines are slightly shorter. I also note that the May edition of Steam Days is the same size, and is published by Kelsey.

-Peter

 

[theblackwatch]

I've just been going through some copies of Heritage Railway and Railways Illustrated from this year - both published, as The Railway Magazine is, by Kelsey Media - and have noticed that from the 11 April edition of HR and from the June edition of RI the magazines are slightly shorter. I also note that the May edition of Steam Days is the same size, and is published by Kelsey.

-Peter

All these titles were published by Mortons until April this year, along with Rail Express. The change in pagination/size coincided with the acquisition of Mortons Media Group by Kelsey.

 

[Justin Smith]

All these titles were published by Mortons until April this year, along with Rail Express. The change in pagination/size coincided with the acquisition of Mortons Media Group by Kelsey.

An interesting explanation but not an excuse. "Kelsey", by changing the size of the RWM half way through the year, are obviously rather ignorant of their readers requirements.... Somewhat surprisingly because they still advertise binders (p91 of the June issue) ! Incidentally, whilst looking for the aforementioned advert, the fact the pictures are of worse quality, and too dark, is obvious.

 

[STINT47]

Making a comparison between this months edition and a February's shows that quality and quantity have deteriorated.

Since the magazine changed publishers the pages are less tall and wide and the number of pages has reduced. On quality pictures are darker whilst the paper quality has deteriorated.

All a bit depressing.

 

[theblackwatch]

An interesting explanation but not an excuse. "Kelsey", by changing the size of the RWM half way through the year, are obviously rather ignorant of their readers requirements.... Somewhat surprisingly because they still advertise binders (p91 of the June issue) ! Incidentally, whilst looking for the aforementioned advert, the fact the pictures are of worse quality, and too dark, is obvious.

I wasn't trying to give an excuse, merely provide you with a reason.

If it's a minimal half a cm smaller in height, then surely it will fit in the binder still? It's not like it has been made bigger!

 

[Justin Smith]

I wasn't trying to give an excuse, merely provide you with a reason.

I know you weren't mate.

 

[Justin Smith]

If it's a minimal half a cm smaller in height, then surely it will fit in the binder still? It's not like it has been made bigger!

Yes but it'll look crap, 2 months at one size and 10 at another, particularly for those of us who go to the trouble of having pour magazines professionally bound !
That said, I am wondering if I am going to bother having them bound any more, particularly as they have stopped printing the index.