[TimP]

QUOTE (carltonf @ 11 Jul 2008, 20:50) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hi. I know the magazine (and maybe this forum) has been here before, but the June edition of Hornby Magazine has a perfect example of why this era system should be scrapped by Bachmann (and the magazine). Manufacturers go to a great deal of bother to research their models, and they have all the information the modeller needs to fit a particular model into their layout / collection. So why are the Era systems so vague? The Era 4 covers 1948-1956. So, taking the new 08 diesel in Black, stated as era 4, one would think it would be suitable for the 8 year period. But the text of the review is quite right in detailing that the prototype was released in 1956, finished in Black, but presumably only suitable for 1956. Why can't Bachmann provide this information in their catalogue / on-line, for this and all their models, and not just this blanket period?

Completely agree, love the magazine, it is soooo much better than anyting I expected with that name, and has such a lot of good articles, but the era system annoys me every month, we have an integer system for years - one which we are all rather used to - what is wrong with using that as opposed to making life more complex - the recent articles on vehicles had to give the actual years for virtually every one because the era system would have been next to useless for them.

Sorry everyone else the world doesn't need another discussion on it but I can't hellp myself!

TimP

 

[TimP]

QUOTE (Grahame HHC @ 29 Jul 2008, 22:04) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><snip>...
But why do people have to undermine and criticise such ideas. Obviously there's lots of over-lap depending on what people choose to remember and/or set the periods by so it's easy to rubbish them by simply selecting another criteria to throw in the arguement pot. No year is going to be the drop dead end of all possible criteria and the shot gun start of everything thereafter. Some things take a while to take off or get established. So remember it's only a guide and is meant to be helpful to those not in the know about everything - not a finite diary on everything concerning the railways.

Appreciate them for what they are - rather than despise them for something they're not.
G.

Criticising what you see as poor ideas is as important as lauding good ones - and lets face it not all ideas are good ones - othwerise poor ideas persist. It isn't anything personal or meant to be unappreciative, it is just essential to the process of improvement.

I am sure that this is meant to be a genuine attempt to help, but for me it fails for two reasons -

1/ it introduces jargon - jargon is generally bad for encouraging newcomers. Ask anyone old enough to read this board what is meant by 1956 or 1998 and they know - ask them what is meant by era/epoch or whatever and they probably wont. In short we have a system for numbering years, it is integer it has been fairly consistently used across the (western) world since about the 8th century A.D. (there is no era name for that time (joke!)) why reinvent it.

2/ it takes resolution from those of us who want to model with a higher degree of fidelity. I personally model 1962, so where I only am given an era (by either producer or magazine reviewer) I have to go and do my own research to check what the year it actually is.

 

[TimP]

QUOTE (Grahame HHC @ 2 Aug 2008, 11:13) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I get the impression that the consensus is that it is a good idea. The snipping is from a few - the minority - and that is what I see as unnecessary and crass.

I see no words specifically invented for the eras that do not exist outside of the table, so where is the jargon?

You'd still have to check if there was no such era table system. The idea does not interfere with your modelling or your attempt at a different level of resolution or fidelity. I don't see how it impacts on you which would make it a bad idea. You can choose to ignore it as there is no rule that says you have use it or abide by it. It's only meant as an easy, instant guideline to help those not in the know or who don't want to check it out for themselves.

G.

I will make this my last post as I don't want to fall out over it.....

1. Jargon see e.g. wiktionary: "technical terminology unique to a particular subject" - era system check, calendar years nope!

2. consensus - can be good and if there is consensus on this then fine. However, [a] those who don't like it might not just be saying so to be crass or unnecessary as the famous industrialist Sloan once said at the end of board meeting when everyone agreed with a proposal - without any criticism or disagreement -

"Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement on the decision here." Everyone around the table nodded assent. "Then,"continued Mr. Sloan, "I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding..." meaning that disagreement and criticism of ideas was necessary to test them and even develop or improve them - this is very different to 'personal criticism'.

3. I agree it isn't much of a hardship, it interferes though if it means the only information we are given is 'Era' then for each item we might be interested in we have to research individually.

Cheers guys -

TimP (Criticising ideas -not People!! - and not going to do that any more in this thread!)

 

[TimP]

Greg,

welcome to the forum. Please don't be put off by these responses - it is normally more friendly than this!

Tim