Railway Herald to become paid-for?

[phil beard]

Into day 3 of the relaunch and still unable to edit/add/delete albums or delete images, an uploaded file is on the site but not in my image centre (just disappeared) and no answer "after 24 hours" or indeed 48. What a pile of c*** and not surprising disappointment. I'd love to remove my images but can't.

 

[Andy]

We have a picture hosting gallery that is free.

Although more basic then herald's, its seems to work. Although not used very much.

http://www.railtalk.org/picall.php?

Cheers

Andy

 

[DarloRich]

I echo the majority - subscription will be the end of that publication. A terrible choice. All for a few embeded vids and a fancy new layout :roll:

 

[phil beard]

We have a picture hosting gallery that is free.

Although more basic then herald's, its seems to work. Although not used very much.

http://www.railtalk.org/picall.php?

Cheers

Andy

Already gone onto it with more to follow.

 

[Mainliner]

I am also suprised that it doesn't seem to be downloadable, so can't be read offline.

I just saved a PDF copy by selecting the print option (all pages), and then selecting PDF995 ( a freely downloadable facility) from my own print menu.

Remains to be seen how it will all change after this month, of course, but if subscribers are still able to print it, it should be possible to save it in that way, if there is no PDF option provided.

 

[OxtedL]

I'm finding the new layout annoying, and given I've only got 4 weeks to live with it, I'm not going to bother trying to adapt. I read much less of the stuff than normal because it was such a faff zooming in and out all the time.

I also I thought I detected a change in the journalism, which wasn't great. I liked the old nice harmless mindlessly neural RH...

 

[Aictos]

I don't like the new layout especially as I was happy with the old layout but changes must happen for good or for bad.

 

[Prometheus]

Didn't Railway Herald try once before to go to a paid-for format?

I suppose we can't expect the editor and contributors to do it for free for years and years to come, so perhaps it is time to see whether people think RH is worth paying for. I have read every issue of RH so far but I doubt I will subscribe unless they can convince me that the quantity and quality of content will both go up.

Sadly, RH have decided to throw in their lot with Ian Allan, a publisher that has never shown any sign of innovation, and whose titles have been dying off for years. Both RH and Ian Allan are fairly weak and I certainly don't see either of the two parties gaining anything much from working with the other.

I think the biggest mistake RH have made is to make the remaining free period so short. Three months would have given enough time for the new format to establish itself and to sell itself to readers before charging started.

One month isn't enough - actually it is less than a month. In that short time, very few people are going to get to know the new RH before it is charged for. The result will probably be that far fewer people will subscribe than might have been the case.

 

[gswindale]

I just saved a PDF copy by selecting the print option (all pages), and then selecting PDF995 ( a freely downloadable facility) from my own print menu.

Remains to be seen how it will all change after this month, of course, but if subscribers are still able to print it, it should be possible to save it in that way, if there is no PDF option provided.

I tried that as well and it seemed to generate a reasonable version albeit one with some whitespace on the side and bottom of each page.

I have to say that despite the editorial claiming it is the result of a 2 year project, it looks to me as if Ian Allan have come in and said "here's some money to keep going but you must do this".

I wonder if a more gradual transition would have been better - new distribution method this week. Videos next week and then finally the reorientation of the magazine? That way rwaders wouldn't be bombarded with new features that could either impress or alienate them all at once.

 

[Bedpan]

I agree with all of the recent posters. If it went back to the old format (with a guarantee of an issue every week) I don't think that I'd object to paying for it. There must be all sots of things going up by that amount, but as a rule it doesn't stop people buying. The only difference with RH was that it was free before.

I'm surprised that they didn't do some research before the changes, surely they shouuld have realised how much people liked the landscape pages that could be sized to fit the screen in PDF.

 

[davido39]

Seems to be offline and by my calculations midday has been and gone!
http://www.railwayherald.co.uk/

 

[noddy1878]

Working here but I don't like it. Takes too long to render and as many have said it doesn't suit the new orientation. Tried it in iPad and full size monitor. Not good.

 

[ukrob]

They are re-introducing the PDF, but it is staying in portrait orientation.

 

[tbtc]

I echo the majority - subscription will be the end of that publication

I wasn't a regular reader (only when someone posted a link to something in it, generally), but it feels significant that people won't even pay thirtysomething pence for an online magazine...

...whereas I know plenty of people who spend well over a tenner a month on railway magazines.

Information is available so easily and freely online that even asking people to pay a few pence is a jump too far for most people.

(I have no idea how to "solve" this, just commenting)

 

[phil beard]

Despite an email on Friday night asking for details of the problems I had experienced, and a subsequent one saying the list would be addressed immediately, nothing has happend and no subsequent mail, so the personal image centre does still not work properly. As I said previously, it's the free part of the new site and will not be given the attention it needs. The pity is that I can't even delete images.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

They're going to have to change this and quickly. The electronic version is overly complex and a fiddle to navigate. The pdf is now enormous. The mobile-friendly version isn't.

And its all in portrait. Perhaps the people who sold their vastly expensive electronic version software told them that we all have an iPad. Or that iPublishing is the future. Perhaps it is. But for the vast majority of us using a landscape screen ratio the new format is awful.

I can't comment on the new journalism style or the content because I gave up after 3 pages. I have been an email subscriber since about issue 15, but if this is the future then I'm not participating.

 

[Geezertronic]

I did a print to PDF of Episode 300 and it was about 29Mb, still don't like the layout and have transferred my support to RailTalk (although I wish that was more than monthly, maybe bi-monthly?)

 

[Pumbaa]

Tuplin emailed last night to everyone on the list. Subscriptions were higher than they anticipated and as ukrob has mentioned, they are reintroducing a PDF.

Best of luck to them.

 

[Geezertronic]

There does appear to be a bit of a disrecpancy:

• £18 per year, 38p per week (based on 52 weeks I make it £19.76) advertised on the website
• From 38p per issue advertised on the Subscriptions Options button
• Just 36p per issue advertisied in Issue 300

 

[Darandio]

Tis all a bit muddled really but it has to be noted that RH is 48 times per year, not 52. However, that would make 48 x 38p = £18.24, so are you saving 24p + four free issues in the 13 months for 12? However, given the subscription is sold by "months", it's conceivable that some of your four free issues could be taken away because of the four weeks a year they don't publish. Same could be said of the smaller subscription packages, although it does again note the amount of issues you will receive.

What is interesting is how the packages are structured though. If you take the smallest package and subscribe for a month at £3, this doesn't even give you the access to the website like the others do. That is basically telling anyone that takes that package that they are a cheapskate and not valued despite handing over money.

 

[Driver Bob]

Like others, I lost interest when I was asked to register. :roll:

I have found the quality poor in the imaging centre. What other magazine would publish photos that simply said '66xxx shunting the yard' with no date and more importantly, no location! Rather like reading Thomas the Tank Engine!

So many photos were published with no dates. How frustrating when there was an interesting or even historic movement of train or loco and the photo was published under the Railway Herald banner with no date or no location, or both! With such poor quality I no longer felt drawn to look at the magazine itself. Now they want me to pay for that poor quality!

I now find that just about all of the information they publish I have already read about on gen sites, even with attached photos and videos. Railtour information is readily available on the likes of railtourinfo.co.uk

It is a fact that RH, I believe, did well in the early days due to its novelty value. They now have the conundrum that as the internet age progresses so much info is so readily available in so many places, and they now have to give that 'extra something' that appeals enough for people to want to pay for it.

So whilst I agree that the weekly charge will be small I do not feel the need to pay anything at all for info I already have!

However they seem to be trying to get their act together so I wish them well.

 

[phil beard]

I think everyone wishes them well. The information given by some submitters of images is lacking because they put the date, for example, on their own information area when submitting but didn't add it to the public domain's image info line. Dates etc are now visible on the right hand side.

In the meantime, they've finally fixed the problems with the albums which is good news. One less grumble.

 

[Turbostar]

Well, I've basically told them where to stick it. Since Ian Allen Publishing took over, they've shot themselves in the foot, & considering what people are saying on here, looks like they're gonna lose a lot of loyal customers. I'll stick with my Railtalk, at lest they treat their customers with better respect!

 

[gswindale]

Well, the new portrait style works quite well as a pdf on my galaxy tab.

We shall see as far as subscribing goes though.

Sent by Androids

 

[dk1]

Ive just subscribed. £18 seems a bargain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Railway Herald subscription will now start with issue 308 on 28th March. Free until then.

 

[38Cto15E]

Thanks for the update dk1.
I need another week or two to decide whether to subscribe or not. Railways are just a minor interest for me, the new Herald also has more Foreign rail pages which I am not too interested in.
Even though the Image diary days were back to front I quite liked looking at the daily images rather than having all the images together.
The price seems reasonable if there are no further problems with Railway Herald.

 

[ukrob]

Railway Herald subscription will now start with issue 308 on 28th March. Free until then.

That would say, to me at least, that they haven't got anywhere near the number of people paying they thought they would.

I won't be one of them until they go back to landscape orientation.

 

[dk1]

That would say, to me at least, that they haven't got anywhere near the number of people paying they thought they would.

I won't be one of them until they go back to landscape orientation.

Can you not choose? I seem to have sorted that on the last issue & thats coming from someone bored senseless by IT

 

[Winterbournecm]

Judging by the lack of recent images on their gallery - many have stopped uploading to RH. I'm slightly annoyed that I have about 200 images on their system that I can no longer access.

 

[38Cto15E]

This weeks Railway Herald is a bit slow off the blocks.