# Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

To Kalmbach Publishing/Model RR/Garden Railways editors: 


Are the following statements accurate? 

1 - You make the final choice of product reviewers not manufacturers; and 

2 - Your choice of reviewers is based on their ethics, expertise, and writing skills; and 

3 - Your choice of reviewers is NOT based on any manufacturer's influence outside of reviewer ethics, expertise, and writing skills. 


Considering the need for trust in product reviews, your response is worthwhile. 

Wendell Hanks


----------



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Whether Marc or others in editor positions respond, clearly the questions have been asked. 
Dave Goodson's posting was read by at least one editor. 
I expect the above to also be read. 
We await their responses.


----------



## The Outcast (Apr 5, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I believe the policy since inception at Kalmbach has been those exact principles. 
A call to Kalmbach indicated that no reviewer in their recollection has ever been "fired" because a manufacturer complained about a review. 
Had that been the case, one would surmise, whoever wrote the review of a Bachmann H0 steam engine complaining about "casting sprues" that ended up being "lagging clamps" would have been fired. 
But that did not occur. 
Looking at the data posted on various forums, it appears some one (or many ones) are backpedaling furiously. 
Interesting commentary on the 120blog. 
I, for one, cannot wait to see what transpires there.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Wendell, 

Your questions are a bit naive. Of course we'd all like to believe that the world is perfect, that reviewers never make mistakes, and that the income-producing part of the media (advertising) has no influence on the editorial standards. 

But history is littered with examples that prove it isn't true. Just read the concerns about Murdoch taking over the WSJ and "tarnishing their reputation". 

Magazine publishing is a constant battle between the editorial standards and the advertisers. When I was in marketing, it was considered a major event if we got an article published that touted our products and our advantages. The same is true of reviewers: you have to wine-and-dine them (in theory, at least,) so they never say a bad word about your product. Obviously, some companies are better than others at this. 

Just inspect the relationship between our friend at LSOL and his 'partner' at Aristocraft. You think his website is impartial?


----------



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Pete- 
Naive? A "bit" naive? You are correct If I, or anyone else, thinks Kalmbach will say that they DO payoff advertisers with favorable reviews -- or remove reviewers who don't show favor. Of course they won't say no. The question is are they willing, in context of the declaration to Dave Goodson, to affirm a "yes" to those questions? In the context of Dave Goodson's K-27 review, their stated committment is the only basis in which to declare their committment has been broken. If Kalmbach, Marc, or any editor of Model Railroader wants to that affirm readers should hold them to the standards inherent in those questions, they will (may) answer. 

Meanwhile.... 

Will they will be silent under the addage: "Of course everyone knows that those are the standards we adhere to, therefore it is obvious what has happened to Dave Goodson is clearly a case of Dave NOT being objective, of being biased, and of being ill-founded in his appraisal of the K-27." 

I trust we all wonder what if Kalmbach (Garden RR and Model RR) will join Bachmann in the judgment against Dave and "banish" him from further reviews. Now, what about those questions? 

Wendell


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

This is *NOT* written from my position as a GR contributor/Kalmbach contractor, etc., and _should not in any way be construed as a response from Kalmbach or anyone on its editorial staff, nor should it be construed as their corporate policy._ It IS written based on my 15 years experience covering large and small corporations for various news organizations. 

1) Corporations don't care about public forums, nor the opinions expressed on them. In many cases, they don't even read them. 

2) Corporations don't respond to comments made on such public forums. As others have stated in another thread here, it would be a futile exercise for them. 

3) Corporations are loathe to respond to direct questions about matters they consider "internal." They will not invite you over for coffee to sit down and listen to the VP of operations tell you every last detail about what's going on. That's why the news media relies on "sources inside XYZ Inc." because the front office doesn't say squat. 

4) Most often, if you aren't just completely ignored out of hand, the best you get is a written statement that's typically quite vague and non-committal about the issue at hand. 

Will they will be silent under the addage: "Of course everyone knows that those are the standards we adhere to, therefore it is obvious what has happened to Dave Goodson is clearly a case of Dave NOT being objective, of being biased, and of being ill-founded in his appraisal of the K-27."

Let's be careful here with the quotation marks. That implies that what's between them is an official statement made by someone within the corporation. Again, I'm not saying that as someone who works for Kalmbach, but as a journalist whose butt would be called into my news director's office if I did something like that. 

The bottom line is that if Kalmbach is like most corporations I've dealt with in my professional career, they're not going to waste their time here answering these questions. Both companies have published phone numbers and e-mail addresses, should one want to ask these questions directly. In fact, both companies have public forums like this one with company reps who _do_ read them and occasionally respond when they feel it necessary or advantageous. I can't say as to whether they'd respond on their individual forums or not, but they're far more likely to do that there than here. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Kevin. 

I understand what you are saying. 

However I must disagree with: 

"2) Corporations don't respond to comments made on such public forums. As others have stated in another thread here, it would be a futile exercise for them."


I have personal experience of just such occurrences. 
Believe me, if a Corporation does not like something being said about them in a forum, even if it is true, they will exert pressure on the publisher of those comments to have them deleted. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I get your point, but trying to have comments made by a 3rd party removed from a web site is different from responding. I've seen that quite often myself. It's the difference between working to make a problem simply disappear, as opposed to acknowledging there's an issue and addressing it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 04/06/2008 5:49 PM
I get your point, but trying to have comments made by a 3rd party removed from a web site is different from responding. I've seen that quite often myself. It's the difference between working to make a problem simply disappear, as opposed to acknowledging there's an issue and addressing it. 
Later, 
K




Sorry Kevin I still disagree. 
"Respond" they most certainly do. 
What these corporations usually do if they see something they don't like, is to have a "Shill", paid or otherwise, answer them. Either with obfuscation and denial that a problem even exists, or, in some instances, straight out untruths. Anything to try and avoid reality lest they look bad. 
Then, if that doesn't work, they try and shoot the messenger.


----------



## The Outcast (Apr 5, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I could suggest simply calling the editor and asking him.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

In the context of my statements, I view the concept of _response_ as a constructive, honest dialogue that addresses the issue at hand. Certainly the examples Tony sites are "responses." There are differences, though. Shills are rarely--if ever--openly connected to the corporation they're "working" for. Even if the connection is widely assumed, they tend to operate on forums under a cloak of anonymity. Their job is exactly as Tony states, to confuse the issue and/or change the subject (or shamelessly promote a product). But because they operate "in secrecy," they do not offer official corporate policy. Believe me, corporate PR guys are quite adept at confusing the issue and changing the subject _without_ needing to hide behind screen names. They're paid big bucks to do so, and are quite proud of their work. 

The corporate reaction--if there is one to a 3rd party public forum--does tend to more often be along the lines of what Tony described earlier, attempts to get the thread shut down or other legal maneuvering. Official constructive responses in such fora are simply a rarity. In most cases, the natives on the forum have already lit their torches, and aren't going to believe the "company line" anyway. One needs only attend a handful of city council meetings to realize truth is irrelevant in the face of perception. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Acording to the latest Ford truck advertisements, "Perception is reality."


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Could be worse, could be the like the Euro mags where the makers are often behind the reviews. 

As for a "request for accuracy" maybe this will do for the fellow old Alt Rock fans here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d02UNBep0TI


----------



## TonyWalsham (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin. 

I certainly don't disagree with that analysis. 

There surely are some past masters of "spin" in our hobby.


----------



## Schlosser (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I remember a long time ago when Model Railroader ran an article about using stove polish as an alternate way of painting a loco. 

A paint manufacturer, an MR advertiser whose name starts with an F, wrote that it would be a cold day in (we'll dispense with the geographical or metaphysical location) before they advertise in MR again. 

MR did respond; very adroitly as I remember it. 

Art


----------



## Rod Hayward (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Thats odd, i went to this LSOL place and it said I had to give them 20 quid to look at their site. How obsure... Does anyone pay a 3rd party to pass on their expertise ?


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

well, i am not sure, if my english is not good enough, or if this thread is changing direction allready....


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

We've moved a little off point here, arguing about whether or not companies read or care about comments posted on web sites and all. The original post had to do with Garden Railway's or Kalmbach's "accuracy." I think the word is "integrity." In other words, do they have high journalistic standards and are they willing to stick to them? I can't speak for GR, but I do know a few things about car magazines, specifically, Road & Track, where I toiled for 30 years. Then and now,the magazine writes what is true and doesn't curry favor with advertisers by giving a car a favorable review. Mostly the car companies live with unflattering comments (I think the feeling is, "I don't care what you say, as long as you spell our name right"). But on occasion they can get petty. Some time ago when our company had a pickup truck and 4wd magazine, a negative review of a pick-em-up caused a very large car maker to pull their ads for several months. That certainly hurt our bottom line. But no writer or editor got dressed down by the publisher. No one got fired either. That's what I mean by integrtiy: sticking to your principles. So the question for GR is, "Does TOC get to keep his job." Or does revenue rule the roost? As they say, "Film at 11." 

OK, so it's videotape. Or a chip. It's an expression...


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

From a "reader of many magazines" perspective, I find that reviewers tend to soften anything negative about a product. 
That seems to apply across the board for all magazines and GR is no exception. 
I always look at anything negative in a review as actually being one notch worse and anything really positive not qite as good as the reviewer makes it out to be. 
Of course, different people have different perceptions about how serious an issue is, or is not, so that needs to taken into consideration. 

In general I prefer to look at user reviews on the internet if they exist - preferably at least ten different ones to have a reasonable hope of getting a true picture.


----------



## FH&PB (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Regarding the suspicion of overly positive reviews (in any magazine): an editor has a finite number of pages to use. If ten products come in for review and two are junk, and there is room for six reviews, the junk products are not going to get reviewed. (Unless, in rare circumstances, it would be irresponsible not to warn people away from them.) Not everything good gets reviewed, but very little that's awful gets reviewed. There's just not enough space. 

If you only want to read griping about things people don't like, the internet seems to have a full range of choices.


----------



## joe rusz (Jan 3, 2008)

Wait a minute, KRS, if magazine reviewers tend to soften anything negative, then I'd hate to see what TOC's review would have read like if he had let loose with both barrels! As for getting the real scoop from the internet, that fount of (mis)information, how do you know that all those reviewers, evaluaters, or whatever you want to call them, are telling the truth? Unlike a magazine, which operates as a business with an office, staff and in some cases, a legal department to caution you when you are about to write something liabelous that might get you sued, there is absolutely no accountablity to the internet. You say what you want about whom you want and then hide behind your web address or url.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

You must also remember there are three (at least) types of reviews... 

One is where the reviewer purchased the product with their own money and is writing from that perspective. They will tend to be less kind about perceived faults. 

Another is where the manufacturer or a distributor supplied the product to be reviewed and it has to be returned after the review. The reviewer will be less apt to badmouth the product because they got to see the new product and use it, maybe before anyone else sees it. Sometimes they can then purchase the item at a large discount. 

The third type is where the product is supplied by the manufacturer or distributor and it becomes the property of the reviewer. Of course, this is then a paid review and that will be a whole lot less objective... the reviewer won't want to bite the hand that is feeding them. 


I am a "Life Member" of a mega-sized "club" (a million members) that has a magazine that is published every other month. When I joined, the magazine had reviews that were totally honest! The manufacturers supplied the products and the reviewers wrote anything they felt like writing. It WAS great! I felt that if a review was good, then the product really must be good, because there were plenty of comparisons to lousy products. They also supplied a fixed set of review criteria (relevant to the product) so it was easy to compare two similar products based on one being rated as a 5 (on one particular criteria) and another being rated as a 3. 

Then some manufacturer apparently threatened lawsuits and loss of advertising revenue. The reviews disappeared for an issue or two and when they came back, an editorial alluded to the legal wrangling and said that from now on, only good reviews would be published. I didn't like that, but I figured maybe I could still glean some info from knowing which models were considered good, even though I would not know anything about any product that didn't get listed at all... maybe it was reviewed and was really bad (and thus not listed in the magazine) or maybe it didn't get reviewed at all and could be better than the one that was listed. 

But, then they changed the criteria for numeric comparison... instead of "construction quality" they rated the "color"; instead of a price compareson rating, they rate how "pretty" it is; instead of "durability" they rate the "utility"... As in: 

"I gave this screwdriver a 4 in 'Color' because I prefer black handles over these brown ones, a 5 in 'sleek style" because I liked the slender shaft, and a 5 in 'Utility', because it fit all the screws I tried it in." 

Given the silly evaluations, tobacco and sex-aid ads, the magazine now goes from the mailbox to the recycle bin in less than a minute. I have tried to resign my "Life Membership" but they don't respond to my letters to have my named removed from their mailing list. Maybe I should stop signing the letters where I say I succumbed to the tobacco advertising and died of smoking induced cancer.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

One is where the reviewer purchased the product with their own money and is writing from that perspective. They will tend to be less kind about perceived faults. 

Another is where the manufacturer or a distributor supplied the product to be reviewed and it has to be returned after the review. The reviewer will be less apt to badmouth the product because they got to see the new product and use it, maybe before anyone else sees it. Sometimes they can then purchase the item at a large discount. 

The third type is where the product is supplied by the manufacturer or distributor and it becomes the property of the reviewer. Of course, this is then a paid review and that will be a whole lot less objective... the reviewer won't want to bite the hand that is feeding them. 

Charles, I have to take issue with your generalizations about reviewers' motives. While I certainly can't speak for reviewers everywhere, I can most decidedly speak for myself, and to a large part my companions who write reviews for GR. In that regard, I find your generalizations way off the mark. I've spent my entire journalism career working to make sure I'm as objective and unencumbered from bias as is humanly possible. Personally, I find your notion that any review other than one written by one who has individually purchased the item to be inherently biased towards the manufacturer to be quite an affront to my integrity. I'm not beholden to anyone--manufacturer, advertiser, or publisher--when I write my reviews. I'm expected to be able to set my personal biases aside and analyze the product solely on its own merits. 

When a manufacturer or distributor sends a product in for review, they're basically placing a bet. They're betting that they'll get a page, maybe 2 of "free advertising." The risk is that they have no control over what the "advertisement" says. In return for giving the manufacturer this "free" space, the publisher has one or two pages of content that is--ideally--a service to the readers. (And let's not forget the axiom that bad press is better than no press at all, so the manufacturer has a bit of a built-in hedge on his bet, anyway.) The efficacy of a review is entirely dependent on the reader. I can write a relatively glowing review, and get an angry phone call from a manufacturer harping on a single nit that I picked. Conversely, I can write a review that points out flaw after flaw, and still have the review interpreted as quite favorable. As an author, there's no predicting how people will respond to what's written, and no point worrying about it. So long as I know I've been as objective and honest as humanly possible, I'm comfortable with that. If I can go to my editor/news director and say "because this is how it is," then I still have my integrity. And being a journalist, my integrity is all I have. 

Later, 

K


----------



## jbwilcox (Jan 2, 2008)

What bothers me about some reviews I have read is how the reviewer points out numerous problems with the kit for example, stating problems they had in assemblying it and then they still at the end say the product is great and suitable for beginning modelers. 

I think they should call it the way it is: If there are obvious problems with the design or assembly or the parts of a kit, then even if it is a kit of a beautiful car or building that an advanced modeler could work through, the reviewer should give it a negative review. 

Maybe then some manufacturers would put more emphasis into the design of their products and we would not have to twiddle with every Aristo turnout we buy in order to make it work properly or deal with some of the problems that have been shown to exist with Bachmann engines which may be beyond the ability of the average modeler to correct by themselves. 

This is only my opinion. I have bought many bachmann engines even knowing there are minor problems, often having TOC check them over for me and correct the problems. 

John


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By jbwilcox on 04/10/2008 7:54 PM

What bothers me about some reviews I have read is how the reviewer points out numerous problems with the kit for example, stating problems they had in assemblying it and then they still at the end say the product is great and suitable for beginning modelers. I think they should call it the way it is: If there are obvious problems with the design or assembly or the parts of a kit, then even if it is a kit of a beautiful car or building that an advanced modeler could work through, the reviewer should give it a negative review. Maybe then some manufacturers would put more emphasis into the design of their products and we would not have to twiddle with every Aristo turnout we buy in order to make it work properly or deal with some of the problems that have been shown to exist with Bachmann engines which may be beyond the ability of the average modeler to correct by themselves. This is only my opinion. I have bought many bachmann engines even knowing there are minor problems, often having TOC check them over for me and correct the problems. John


Oh sure. "Call it the way it is," which is, in my opinion, way too subjective, could very well have the potential to kill the product outright. I can't imagine any manufacturer or distributor wanting to ever again deal with a publication whose efforts at least in part resulted in a still-born economic disaster. I know that if I had a financial stake in a new product, I sure would not be running any more ads with any magazine whose reviewer did that to me. This is not, of course, the same as listing the apparent pros and cons of a new item.


----------



## DSP&P fan (Apr 9, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I recall a discussion in an Sn3 group about this sort of subject. Basically, the reviewer was looking a frying a manufacturer's product. The reviewer contacted the manufacturer to give the manufacturer a chance to replace defective parts/work around issues. The manufacturer then encouraged the reviewer to print the review, blemishes and all. Intriguingly, the production kits didn't have the same problems...because the first one off the line was a lemon...and it happened to be the one that got sent to the reviewer. Afterwards, the manufacturer said that he should have just replaced the entire kit. I think most manufacturers will work through problems. 

Now, the large scale community is certainly a far larger community than the Sn3 or On3 communities...and the players are also much larger. But some of the same rules apply...its just that bigger companies are less agile than small ones. A small manufacturer cannot afford to gain a bad reputation...and the community can't afford it either if it is untrue. So it is in everyone's interest to make things work out. A screw up will hurt a company...badly. I don't think it's the initial reviews that really matter that much...how many people pre-order long before the review comes out? I think it's the message that gets spread around the community once the product has been out. Case in point: Bachmann's HO 2-8-0 and the Bachmann reputation. Many people in HO associate Bachmann with something that belongs in the trash...and I've read many complaints about their junky 2-8-0s...which are almost always about their 2-8-0s from more than 10yrs ago...not the spectrum ones. How much longer till their reputation recovers? Fortunately for them, they don't seem to have this problem in the large scale community. Yet, if you carefully read the dozens of amateur reviews, you can tell that the MR review was...if anything...not glowing enough for what was the best new HO engine in, 30yrs? 50yrs? I think reviews are like school grades. A means average. B means below average. C means bad. D means failure. F means someone has a personal vendetta. Waiting to see how they actually are is the best review.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Rod Hayward on 04/07/2008 1:38 PM
Thats odd, i went to this LSOL place and it said I had to give them 20 quid to look at their site. How obsure... Does anyone pay a 3rd party to pass on their expertise ?




Anybody can get MY lack of expertise for free, anytime. 

tac 
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Having offered the initial posting, I have a summary: 
1 - No one posting wants any product reviews that are skewed in favor of the manufacturer, publication, or consumers (us). 
2 - No one advocates a reviewer promoting their own product bias. 
3 - No one has indicated the specific problem of reviewing Bachmann products as because the problems consistently are not cosmetic but mechanical and are obvious. The effect is GRR's reviewer's discovery of problems and publication of same, along with a remedy, is what has angered Bachmann's management. 

CONCLUSION: 
Any witted reviewer wanting to assess Bachmann's future loco offerings will be doing it after purchase knowing full well that Bachmann has publicly stated it is too costly to for them to hold shipment until random locomotive samples are tested. 

Wendell


----------



## MarkLewis (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Wendell Hanks on 04/11/2008 2:52 PM
Having offered the initial posting, I have a summary: 
1 - No one posting wants any product reviews that are skewed in favor of the manufacturer, publication, or consumers (us). 
2 - No one advocates a reviewer promoting their own product bias. 
3 - No one has indicated the specific problem of reviewing Bachmann products as because the problems consistently are not cosmetic but mechanical and are obvious. The effect is GRR's reviewer's discovery of problems and publication of same, along with a remedy, is what has angered Bachmann's management. 





Re: No one advocates a reviewer promoting their own product bias. 

That is, unfortunately, exactly what has been wrong about GR's reviews of MTH locomotives. Both Gary Raymond and Marc Horowitz have authored reviews that betray a total misunderstanding of MTH's DCS, claiming that it is an AC-based system. Nothing could be further from the truth. Raymond went so far as to recommend battery power in his review of the DC product that fully works under DC/DCS, which he knew nothing about. That same ignorance was displayed in the Marc Horowitz review of a DCS locomotive. If the editor is so uneducated about the products reviewed in his own magazine, it is difficult to expect impartial reviews. 

Note: I wrote to both Horowitz and the MR editor about errors in reviewing MTH products. Horowitz never replied. The MR editor not only replied but pointed out that their most current review correctly identified the controls available for MTH locos (this in an HO product review of a product that runs under AC, DC, DCS, and DCC). 

Mark


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I think GR is not really up to speed on electronics. MTH is a carrier-based system, the carrier can work on AC or DC, very flexible. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Curmudgeon (Jan 11, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

But, running MTH on radio/battery is a better option anyway around here. 
Just shipped two complete units today. 

And a BIG box of CnT junk.


----------



## samevans (Jan 3, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

I write reviews now and then. These are items I have personally bought and paid for. IMHO a review that is less than honest about a product is as about as useful to its reader as a chocolate tea pot, and a waste of paper. A reviewer has a duty to be as honest as possible about the plus AND minus points of an item and, if a kit, make some assesment of the kind of skills required to complete it to an 'average' standard. It is also fair game to ctiticise the instructions, praising them where they are clear and pointing out when they are problematic. I do not write for commercial magazines , however I can see that there is potential for a conflict of interest between the truth and advertising.


----------



## Wendell Hanks (Jan 2, 2008)

*RE: Editors of Model RR & Garden Railways - A request for accuracy*

Ok, now what is left of this posting? 
Dave Goodson got the "heave" by Bachmann -- no longer an invitation to test and write-up an analysis of Bachmann's locos. So Dave is left with teh option of an invitation by Marc Horovitz, editor of Garden RR, to write reviews on Bachmann products. 

I think, wading through the myriad of sidebar comments, it is apparent those who have said so do endorse Dave Goodson as someone they trust to "tell-it-like-it-is" as far as review products for Garden Railways magazine. Dave certainly has the expertise and the tools to use it. 

Is there any contridiction to this conclusion?? 

If not, make sure you let Marc know you do support Dave Goodson's objectivity at the upcoming Big Train Show in Ontario, California, June 7-8-9. My guess is Marc will be there. 

Wendell


----------

