Historical information in future Bachmann catalogues
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
That would definitely add some interest to your layout, though you would need a fair few horse's to pull a rake of mk1's
![]()
.
Joined
·
3,966 Posts
it would be nice if we actually had some stock to fill these era's.
i have long been asking for some "era 1" stock
and is there anything pre 1925 in the catalouge. that means there is 100 years withought a single item of stock.
Peter
i have long been asking for some "era 1" stock
and is there anything pre 1925 in the catalouge. that means there is 100 years withought a single item of stock.
Peter
I don't think this works.
It is a quickie "Oh, shove something in there, Fred, we need something that'll do" fix.
The problem is, saying that all 1957-1966 stock is Era 5 will just confuse people. Hornby give the catalogue numbers of suitable stock to run with locos- so that you run SR Coaches with SR Locos, NSE 50s with NSE Mk. 2s etc.
If I don't have a clue about railways, I won't know which models are passenger locos, and which are freight, and, for BR, which region suits an engine- I could end up with a "Lord Nelson" hauling maroon Thompson coaches (O.K., it probably did happen, but not a lot). I could have a 1920s SR N Class in Olive green from "Era 3" hauling post-war GWR coaches, also from "Era 3". Lumping things into "Eras" is no use.
Take, for example, Continental railways. Now, I know next to nothing about Continental railways- if I could afford anything, it would be bought on a "Ooooh, that looks nice basis" because the catalogue is devoid of information. Saying an NS engine is Era V doesn't assist me. Is it passenger? Is it freight? Is it container freight? Petroleum? Vans? Prototypical running of Continental stock going by the catalogues is hard unless you have plenty of books, and/or can afford to visit your chosen area- by which time, you;ve probably become a railway buff about whatever it is you like, and you therefore do not need the Era system.
Nice try, but the wrong way to go about it- they should copy Hornby's method.
RM
It is a quickie "Oh, shove something in there, Fred, we need something that'll do" fix.
The problem is, saying that all 1957-1966 stock is Era 5 will just confuse people. Hornby give the catalogue numbers of suitable stock to run with locos- so that you run SR Coaches with SR Locos, NSE 50s with NSE Mk. 2s etc.
If I don't have a clue about railways, I won't know which models are passenger locos, and which are freight, and, for BR, which region suits an engine- I could end up with a "Lord Nelson" hauling maroon Thompson coaches (O.K., it probably did happen, but not a lot). I could have a 1920s SR N Class in Olive green from "Era 3" hauling post-war GWR coaches, also from "Era 3". Lumping things into "Eras" is no use.
Take, for example, Continental railways. Now, I know next to nothing about Continental railways- if I could afford anything, it would be bought on a "Ooooh, that looks nice basis" because the catalogue is devoid of information. Saying an NS engine is Era V doesn't assist me. Is it passenger? Is it freight? Is it container freight? Petroleum? Vans? Prototypical running of Continental stock going by the catalogues is hard unless you have plenty of books, and/or can afford to visit your chosen area- by which time, you;ve probably become a railway buff about whatever it is you like, and you therefore do not need the Era system.
Nice try, but the wrong way to go about it- they should copy Hornby's method.
RM
Joined
·
8,102 Posts
QUOTE The problem is, saying that all 1957-1966 stock is Era 5 will just confuse people. Hornby give the catalogue numbers of suitable stock to run with locos- so that you run SR Coaches with SR Locos, NSE 50s with NSE Mk. 2s etc.
Agreed completely. Hornbys method is probably the best and would be one that other manufacturers would benefit from using.
![]()
Agreed completely. Hornbys method is probably the best and would be one that other manufacturers would benefit from using.
Joined
·
213 Posts
QUOTE (neil_s_wood @ 27 Apr 2006, 01:24) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Agreed completely. Hornbys method is probably the best and would be one that other manufacturers would benefit from using.
![]()
Agreed,in theory,this works fine,but whoever writes the captions to the illustrations in Hornby's catalogue [or does the proofreading],needs to swot up on their railway history,-it's riddled with errors!
![]()
Agreed,in theory,this works fine,but whoever writes the captions to the illustrations in Hornby's catalogue [or does the proofreading],needs to swot up on their railway history,-it's riddled with errors!
![](http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="<_<)
I've noticed a further problem with the Bachy way:
Some of the Eras do not sit with particular companies- for example, "Sectorisation" lasts from 1982-1994. Now, if Bachmann label up their NSE 108 as Era 8, then I could, in theory, decide that my layout, set in 1982/1983/84/85/'til June 1986 (for some obscure reason, such as "The year I left school" or "The year I was born"), was suited to an NSE 108, when, in fact, it isn't.
A 303 (if Bachy produced one) could be described (livery depending) as "Era 9", but a First Scotrail 170 is also "Era 9"- yet the 303s had all, by 2005, been withdrawn!
RM
Some of the Eras do not sit with particular companies- for example, "Sectorisation" lasts from 1982-1994. Now, if Bachmann label up their NSE 108 as Era 8, then I could, in theory, decide that my layout, set in 1982/1983/84/85/'til June 1986 (for some obscure reason, such as "The year I left school" or "The year I was born"), was suited to an NSE 108, when, in fact, it isn't.
A 303 (if Bachy produced one) could be described (livery depending) as "Era 9", but a First Scotrail 170 is also "Era 9"- yet the 303s had all, by 2005, been withdrawn!
RM
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
