Bachmann Era System (Again!)

As well as the German epoch table there are other older than Bachmanns version of era/period table that you may care to consider;

DEMU - eras
-----------
1 - Pre 1923 Pre-Grouping Era
2 - 1923-1948 Grouping Era
3 - 1948-1955 Early BR Era
4 - 1955-1968 Transition Era
5 - 1968-1985 Corporate Era
6 - 1985-1994 Sectorisation Era
7 - 1994 onward Privatisation Era

BRM Periods
-----------
1 - Pre 1895 Historic
2 - 1895-1922 Pre-Grouping
3 - 1923-1947 Big four
4 - 1948-1968 British Railways
5 - 1968-1994 Modern Image
6 - 1994 onward Privatisation

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.

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.

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

QUOTE ("TimP")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 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.

QUOTE (TimP @ 31 Jul 2008, 18:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>1/ it introduces jargon - jargon is generally bad for encouraging newcomers.

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

QUOTE (TimP @ 31 Jul 2008, 18:11) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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.

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.

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!)

QUOTE (TimP @ 2 Aug 2008, 16:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>1. Jargon see e.g. wiktionary: "technical terminology unique to a particular subject" - era system check, calendar years nope!

Yep, checked through the eras system table and couldn't find any words in it unique to it or not used as (railway) terminology elsewhere. So no jargon (new or specific). As a concept for categorising periods of time there's nothing different from others in many different fields.

QUOTE (TimP @ 2 Aug 2008, 16:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>2. consensus - can be good and if there is consensus on this then fine.

Certainly it's only a few/minority that are whingeing about it. I guess the majority are happy or have no comment and don't have a problem with it worth moaning about on-line.

QUOTE (TimP @ 2 Aug 2008, 16:31) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>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.

It interferes with modelling not a jot if you choose to ignore it. If you don't like it then disregard it. Couldn't be easier.

Nuff said. Yep, I agree.

G.

I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about. The era system is clearly intended to help those at entry level as opposed to the more particular modellers trying to replicate the stock running on a particular stretch of line at a given moment in time.

What's important is that it should ensure PO wagons aren't blithely being hooked up behind say a Deltic or Mk1s get hauled by something in LMS red. Its a very useful beginners guide so lets leave it at that or ignore it if we reckon we know better.

As for the manufacturers putting further and better particulars in their catalogues all I can say is that the errors which appear (and get perpetuated) in the Hornby catalogue inspire me with no confidence at all in that particular suggestion

QUOTE (Caledonian @ 3 Aug 2008, 16:19) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I honestly don't understand what the fuss is about.

As for the manufacturers putting further and better particulars in their catalogues all I can say is that the errors which appear (and get perpetuated) in the Hornby catalogue inspire me with no confidence at all in that particular suggestion

The problem with the Hornby catalogues may be that 'design and production, art direction, image creation and manipulation' are by DSP Ltd. Proofing may be limited to ensuring correct images are by correct catalogue numbers and spelling, rather than any particular era. Although you would have thought...

But, Caledonian, don't you think a touch of Southern green in Scotland would match the scenery at the moment?

mal

Its the proofing that lets it down when descriptions of one locomotive are attached to another, or when a plainly black Jinty is described as being in crimson lake - you'd have thought somebody would have spotted that one.

As for Southern green, I'll pass on that one although HR green would be a very different matter

QUOTE (theboyrob @ 7 Oct 2008, 10:56) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>From the Bachmann site:

Bachmann provide Era information merely as a guide for those people who may be new to the hobby, and wish to purchase models from a similar period in time. It should not dissuade anyone from purchasing and enjoying an item they that simply find attractive or interesting.

In reality, many items of rolling stock remained painted in the liveries from previous Era's for the duration of the following Era. Those wishing to obtain more detailed information on specific running periods should consult their local model shop or contact one of the many model railway clubs found

Surely that says it all, its a rough guide for people like me that only want a rough idea to whats what and are not really bothered about having exact dates for when loco's were used. To be honest I really can't see the massive fuss is about!

I have lived through at least part of all but 2 of the "Bachmann Eras," I have quite an extensive library of books covering the prototype areas that I model. I have quite advanced research skills. It is often difficult to realise how little someone new to the hobby knows, but may want to know!

The Bachmann Era system gives a good first base, a comfort blanket form which to venture out. Don't kock it!

I find it particularly useful for the wagon range. I know a fair amount about locos, a little about coaches but which wagon when .... er um !!!!

Best wishes,

John H-T.

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

My goodness. As a first post this is certainly interesting, but spoken as a true Hornbyite. (kinda like a Marklinist really!)

Of course (I will put my rose tinted rivet counting glasses on here) people beginning with the hobby should not be allowed to buy a model unless they have done exhaustive research on the prototype first of all.

The Bachmann era classification system, and don't lose sight of the fact that Bachmann era classification is an aid, must be rubbish because it does not take into account regional differences. Last Time I looked the NEM German Epoch standards didn't either. In fact the NEM standards are a guide as to when certain significant events took place, whether corporate or political.

Clearly providing additional information to prospective purchases is detrimental to the hobby.

I did a huge amount of research into train compositions, proved to myself pretty conclusively that a particular set of wagons would not have run together, and this was on the basis of talking to a large number of like minded modellers in Germany. Then a new book came out and there was a picture that proved my research totally incorrect. Gotta hate that.

Next up couplings perhaps?

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

Dear Sir,
I am new to this site, but certainly not new to letter writing, with well over 800 published letters on various topics, as those living locally will be able to confirm. I have also had a lot published in the railway press, both real and model. So that's got the bit about being a "beginner" to writing to magazines out of the way.
I hate the whole idea of "eras" simply because they are inaccurate, don't work, are meaningless and confusing to people. The fact that the dates of operation are included alongside models shows all this off perfectly. My favourite class is the "Western" (no prizes for guessing this, I've said it dozens of times in print). These were introduced in 1961 and finally withdrawn in 1977. So far as eras are concerned (and remember they are supposed to help the beginner) the class were introduced in era 5 and withdrawn in era 7 so it would be perfectly acceptable under the era system to run a model on layouts based as early as 1957 and as late as 1982! Excuse me, in what way does this help the beginner to build an accurate model?
All that is needed is for a note alongside each model saying something like "Western Region mixed traffic loco, 1961-1977". Variations can be applied for specific liveries, such as in BR blue "1966-1977". Simple, easily understood by raw beginner and expert alike, ends the confusion over areas of operation (yes I am aware they worked off the WR sometimes) and that is all that's needed. Anything else is compication for complication's sake, which leads to confusion, inaccuracy and unnecessary expense if you get it wrong. I think here of people like those on low incomes, youngsters starting on the hobby for the first time etc. Imagine you are proudly displaying your first train set, accurate under the era system, only to be told that loco is way out of its period. It could put a budding Mike Wild off model railways for life, and who would that be helping? No one, that's who.
Yours faithfully,
Greg Heathcliffe