[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (hairyhandedfool @ 14 Jul 2008, 17:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So that shunter would actually be better suited to era 5 then? Why can't they just put something like "used from 1956 to 19xx instead, or is that too much like hard work!

** I think you are all missing the point of this:

For years British modellers have said "why can't we have an era system like the European "epoch" one. Instead of complaining we should be encouraging them to mature the way its presented.

**Such a system is never ever designed nor will it be able to attempt to reflect the issues of privatisation, it exists just to give a general timespan for the prototype creation and production. The well matured and accepted EU system of Epochs is the same, and has the same issues with livery changes under privatisation etc. THOSE are nothing to do with the general concept of an Era or Epoch system at all.

**Don't forget if you are quite focussed on being correct you are in the minority (as I am). ANY help to give an approximate timeline will help the other 90% ++ of modellers who really in the main simply collect what they like anyway, mixing steam~diesel/prototypes/regions/periods randomly and anything that quietly help them focus even a wee bit is useful

**The 08 - was initially actually produced from 1953 and was very close visibly to the LMS 12xxx class which was its parent design. the era chosen by Bachmann is just fine for this loco in general. Most modellers will never even realise that the model detail changed significantly over the years... nor will they ever actually care as near enough is good enough for them - and thats their choice.

**The 08 has been in service since then in many guises so its appropriate in one way or another for 1953 to 200x. I DO agree that it'd be nice to have a sub explaination of the specific dates for any specific prototype and an indication of any significant changes for the specific model produced though - I've long tried to get road vehicle Mfrs to do this so its easier to choose the right date spans for cars for a layout too!

**There will always be derivatives or designs that are created at the end of an "era" period. However they are no less correctly placed in that era because of it. It has to start and finish somewhare consistently after all!

So...

Personally I think the Bachmann initiative is a good one which we should help and encourage not snipe and carp at - it has a way to go to be always right, well accepted and "best presented" but it will only get there if we are positive and helpful.

regards

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (Edwin @ 16 Jul 2008, 20:19) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Even the German system seems to be more fallible than it first appears! There is a further problem when trying to cover several companies, as each one will have its own different key dates for introduction/withdrawal of train types or changes in liveries. Before 1948 the only events affecting the appearance of trains across all the companies were the Grouping and WW2.

I can't help thinking that for all the effort put into devising and explaining the era system it would be far easier for everyone if the catalogue/website said something like "This locomotive was in this general configuration and livery between 1956 and 1964, as were others of the same type between 1955 and 1968". This would convey more information in a clearer manner in about the same amount of space! The supplier almost certainly knows the dates from researching the prototype, and if exact dates are uncertain it would be OK to give an approximate date.

***No matter what the Mfrs do they will be criticised.... All they want to do is create a simple basic system which is what has been done. Certainly more history can be included in catalogs etc, but don't overestimate the number of modellers who will really appreciate it - most don't really care, and those who do will research in far more detail than we can expect from any Mfr.

As to influences on change you are simply wrong:

The most significant influence has always been the change of CME (Chief mechanical Engineer) at the railway, whether it was victorian days, pre-grouping, pre WW2 or post WW2 and well into BR days. Of late the same sort of influence has been seen from the change in private owner or captial partners, but it has always been the same - shape, livery, duties or details of loco's always change when the men at the top do.

Thats why a general epoch or era system is never perfect but is always adequate for the non-specific modeller and why personal research will always be critical to the modeller who cares.

AND why a brand can never please everyone. Bachmann, Hornby Mag.... keep encouraging the era system to help the average modeller, we scale modellers enjoy the specific research anyway

Kind regards

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (Edwin @ 16 Jul 2008, 23:19) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>If you re-read my post I think you will see I am agreeing with you. Grouping and WW2 were the ONLY pre-1948 events that influenced all the companies at the same time. All the other events, whether change of CME or otherwise, only affected one company and hence can't simply be represented by an era-type system.

Yes, I see what U mean and yes, that is sort of correct, however even these changes took half a decade or more to really bed in significantly as they were usually accompanied with shortage of funds and practicalities in rationalisation but I don't think thats what they are trying to do at all.

They are simply trying to give a general date grouping for the loco as presented.

No matter what is done in any system there will be both subtle and extreme anomalies, and some will be grouped close to the lines they cross such as the 08 that started this thread, but its a simplistic guide, not an attempt to put a pin in a chart in a definitive way.

Good examples:

Most of the Midland 0-6-0's, loco's which became the compounds and 2p etc.... these dance across many lines
in fact this can be said of some examples from the GWR, Southern, LMS/Stanier and Gresley fleet which started well before WW2 but trundled on through to the end.... not always quickly re-liveried and changed much at all in an onvious way.

the 08 which really started with the last of the LMS and carries on in some ways almost to today....

Some of the current diesels that looked like they were gone but had a phoenix like revival thanks to privatisation.....

In the end its a good start to have the era structure on the table - it'll probably evolve and its never really suit the less than ten percent of us who model specifically, but its a help and a "first step" to consistency in the fleet for most who frankly, either currently don't have a clue without some guidance or don't really care yet but may some day...

Richard

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (TimP @ 1 Aug 2008, 02:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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.

By this definition all calendars are Jargon, as each is couched in terms of reference appropriate to the society that created it - Mayan, Celtic, Chinese, Japanese, Eastern European, the Julian Calendar, The Gregorian Calendar etc.

Each described the passing of the seasons in terms (Jargon) related to cycles as they were important to the originator but calculated based on a start point relative to the society (AD and BC are classic "Jargon" - in existence since the Julian Calendar....).

The sub classifications of these calendars evolved over time (ie Easter changed date references).

The creation of these calendars changed nothing for the cogniscenti but gave the common man a set of reference points to work with. Understanding grew over time, accuracy grew over time.

Creation of such a system works if it has merit, and already, by prior real world example in model railways, this one DOES.

We have at least two current successful examples.

(1) Jenkinson and Essery created a "period 1/2/3" system for LMS coaching stock which was successful, created out of their own personal desire to categorise, adopted without fanfare and now in general use to describe coach designs by Modellers, Model Mfrs and the Historical and Research groups. Its part of the languge now and unquestioned

(2) European modelling society in general evolved and adopted their epoch system to try and make general sense out of the evolution of the railways of europe and it is now in general use. Its concept is unquestioned but there, as everywhere, the "expert" uses independent research to be more specific. However the general system is bedded in and valued.

Neither system / no general "paradigm shift" categorisation such as this is "specifically accurate" to a year, any more than AM or PM are accurate to time of day... but that does NOT matter for the purposes of the systems themselves.... They are a guide not a specifiction, and as I said in an earlier post, will help the novice but will NEVER be used as sole reference for those who model specifically.... We will always need more.

Its simply not important for people to understand the era system in detail to start to benefit from it - if a new modeller simply bought items that were appropriate for an era consistently then he has basic guidance and will be collecting a more harmonious grouip of stock than if he simply bought blind... that is the whole point of it. Later, as focus grows, knowledge will grow naturally and that modeller will KNOW... but until then, the AM/PM general guidance will have been better than nothing at all.

I don't suggest it is perfect and I'm sure it will evolve... but its the job of those of us who DO know better to question, help and guide, and encourage the ever more accurate use of the "jargon" so it becomes habit and basically accurate, not trying to discourage the general guidance it provides where non existed before!

Richard
DCCconcepts

 

[Richard Johnson]

QUOTE (Greg H @ 8 Nov 2008, 15:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dear Sir,
As I have said all along this "era" system may well work abroad, but it will not work here. The fact that the dates applying to a chosen livery or vehicle are having to be displayed alongside the utterly meaningless "era" proves it. If you look at the history of European railways you will find that they were virtually unusable after World War Two and had to be rebuilt from scratch, whereas ours were, although run down, still in pretty good condition. This is one example of why it works there, but can never work here. The era system also gives no indication of geographical area so, the beginner it is meant to be helping may well be running a Class 26 alongside a Hymek simply because they "are from the same era". Yes they are, but never came within 200 miles of each other in practice. I have yet to see even one convincing argument for its introduction and none at all for its retention. The only one seems to be that a lot of very powerful people in the model railway world are going to look silly when they admit they got it wrong.
The era of the "era" is over, a failed, pointless experiment, and should be dropped.
Greg Heathcliffe

***Greg, an impressive first post: Most new members say hello to the group before sounding off.

the EU system of eras covers the entire European continent, but never suggests that a swiss or bavarian loco should run through holland etc... the divergence of operating areas has NOTHING to do with era designations, which never pretend to do anything other than indicate a very general date range.

Localisation of rolling stock and loco's in EU is also just as diverse in EU as in UK - moreso in some cases, so that argument is not valid either.

and... Adding a specific date range to the "era" generality is a GOOD improvement, not proof the concept is flawed.

The era system is just as valid in UK as it is in EU. Your WW2 destruction demarkation is invalid. It starts era 1 more than half a century prior to the sad happenings in the 40's.

It is there soley to help the novice with a gentle nudge in the right direction, no more, no less. Those with a liking for modelling accuracy will do their own research... It is up to you, I or any other modeller to cross the T's on the detail as much or as little as we/they like.

Feel free to ignore it as I do (I have a very focussed modelling approach) but not accepting it for your own purposes does not convey the right to demand its end or the dismantling of it because it isn't detailed enough for you and I.

Personally, on such things, I think we should make positive suggestions for its improvement, or remain silent.

I see it as a very good thing that can get better with positive support.

Kind regards

Richard