Hornby 2008

simon wrote:


Many of us started in the hobby saving our pocket-money to buy a "trainset" and additional track and rolling stock. I'm sure I wouldn't start a model railway at today's prices, nor would I appreciate the level of fragile detail. From what I've seen of modern product there is very little available that is as robust as the Tri-ang/Hornby Dublo/Marklin of 1960 and I'll guess nothing current that will be around in 48 years. My first loco still runs nearly as well as it did back then although the cardboard box is long gone.
Greg.P. NZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I get happy drinking a tot, does that count?
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kim wrote:

Much more important is common standards for wheels, couplers and coupler boxes, and buffers. There's no reason the NEM or applicable NMRA standards can't be used.
It's IMO a good idea to offer a "lite" version of their models for the children's/beginner's market, but wheels etc should be the same for all.
Just my 2 cents (=1p) worth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K." wrote

I don't think I've made any attempt to criticise Hornby's 'Railroad' range (although the Americanism is a little off-putting) and sales in the run up to Christmas were encouraging, although I suspect at the expense of their regular range.
The real problem is in the number of varients of each model - I think I counted 20 differently numbered versions of their 'Seacow' ballast hopper in Dutch livery alone, for instance, all released within 12 months. On the loco front the variation is also prolific (6+ King Arthurs as an example) in less than six months and each available with or without DCC decoder.
How soon before they have to start 'dumping' in the same way that Broadway Limited have in the USA? Although that has already started to some extent with Southern 0-6-0s (along with other models) being heavily discounted by Hornby during the summer.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To nit-pick, it's actually a Britishism. The first public railway in this country (and the second in the world, by some counts) was the Lake Lock Railroad Company, and the coal drops re-erected at Beamish Museum bear the proud name of the Stanhope and Tyne Railroad Company..
Later on "railway" became the accepted usage over here and "railroad" over there, but originally both terms were in use on both sides of the Atlantic.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The memorial to the Rt Hon William Huskisson MP, the first man to be killed by a passenger train, stands at Parkside, Newton-le-Willows, a short distance from my home.
The inscription mourning his death states that it took place 'on the 15th day of September, 1830, the day of the opening of this rail road' (sic).
One official seal of the Liverpool & Manchester 'rail' company bears the title 'Liverpool & Manchester Railroad'.
Several American 'Railroad' companies entered bankruptcy, only to emerge as a 'Railway' company very soon afterwards, sometimes without any break in service. Others were always known as 'Railways'. I think the Canadian 'Big Two', the CNR and CPR, were always 'Railways'. Roger T will know this
Regards,
DigitisED (Eddie Bellass)
Eddie & Margaret Bellass, Merseyside, United Kingdom.
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free and checked by a leading anti-virus system - updated continuously.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Eddie Bellass wrote:

In the early days, there were a number of terms. By the mid-1800s, the preferred term in the UK was "railway", but many writers still used "railroad", and "rail road." In North America, terminology took a little longer to settle, but by the 1880s/90s, the common term was "railroad", while company names might be either "Railway" or "Railroad", as Eddies' observation about corporate histories correctly notes. OTOH, there's The Official Guide of the Railways, which has had that name from its beginning approximately a century ago.
Some grad student in philology could do a nice little MA thesis on the history of the terms. It would take a lot of reading in the original literature, and would, I'm sure, lead him or her into all kinds of byways. ;-)
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The Railway Men always referred to 'The Road'!
Regards
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

/snippagio/
Plus there's a regional factor - "railway" and "railroad" were Shropshire usage originally, with the northern coalfield using "waggonway" (and, of course, these terms reflected quite different technical approaches in terms of track gauge and wag(g)on size). The Shropshire usage seems to have started to win out from the later 1700s, probably because Shropshire-type railways (and plateways/tramways - still normally called railroads or railways) were often used as feeders to canal systems and so were more visible to visitors from London than the lines in the northern coalfield, Cumbria or Scotland (where the waggonway ruled).
Ironically, modern standard-gauge railways/railroads are descendents of nothern-type Waggonways, not of Shropshire railways/railroads (NG railways are of Shropshire descent, via lines like the Festiniog, though..).

:)
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not always, by any means. I actually wrote a bit of an essay about this for my site last night, which I'll check over tonight and upload. It tries to explain how the words 'road', 'route' and 'line' were used, at least in the early 1980's. To precis somewhat - it's context sensitive. And complicated.
http://home.btconnect.com/soddingham/Terminology/index.html
er, stand by to be annoyed about some of the other stuff on that page I'm affraid ;-)

Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ok - here's a theory (and it is only that!). At the time that the railways were starting out the road system was abysmal. One of the new companies selling points was that they could move goods and passengers much faster and more comfortably than the competition on the roads, so they used Railway rather than Railroad to emphasise the point (maybe the publc was aware of rail-roads, as in trackways too?).
We still do it today - Motorway rather than Motorroad, Urban Clearway rather than Urban Clearroad.
It's likely that the first ralways in the US were built by ex-pats (I think that's true?) - and if the first one happened to call them Railroads then that is what is likely to stick. As the Americans were also building roads from scratch rather than relying on Roman/Medival remains the word road may not have the same stigma attached.
Just a thought.
Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The terms long pre-date public railways, going back to the 1600s. The first usage of "railway/railroad" was, IIRC (can't see my copy of Lewis from here..), in the first half of the 1600s (pre civil war, I think) with "waggonway" being used from the 1680s at least. In the northern coalfield there were also "wainways", which were dedicated cart-roads for haulage of coal. Some of these were converted to (railed) waggonways, some supplanted.
There doesn't seem to have been an early preference for "way" vs. "road" - of the two first public railways, one (the Lake Lock) was a Railroad, the other (the Surrey Iron) a Railway. It's possible the proximity of the SIR to London helped the -way form to become more popular.
In south Wales in the 1780s-1810s "tramway" and "tramroad" seemed to be used interchangably for plateways, too - there doens;'t seem to have been a preference based on length or public access. In fact, one of the longest of them - and one which operated a passenger service - was the Brecon Forest Tramroad.

Of course, these //are// Americanisms ;)

Actually, it's the process of technology transfer of railways/roads to the americas is quite a disputed area, with different researchers giving different emphasis to expats, military engineers (the first railway/road in the americas probably being built by the British Army in colonial times), american visitors to England (e.g. Strickland) and transfer via published documents. The pioneering lines and the first steam railways in the US do seem to have been predominantly local efforts, albeit with expat, military, visitor-to-europe, published-document and artifact-transfer (locomotives!) playing important (though variable) roles. There's a good article on this in "Early Railways" (published by the Newcomen Soc.).
--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

Nope, they're Britishisms.
A motorway is called a freeway, and interstate, a four-lane, etc, depending on location and type. That's so even if they run right through the centre of town, as some of them do. (We navigated the freeway through Austin, Texas, at one interchange there are six levels of road, if we counted right.)
[...]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K." wrote:

I remember reading a US letters to the editor discussion (probably MR circa 1970) on "Railroad" vs "Railway". The conclusion was that until the 1950s/60s and wholesale amalgamations, about a third of US lines were "Railways". I _HATE_ the term "Train station". <Grump grump grump>
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sounds like an impersonation of an old tube car compressor.

I think a lot of people associate the US with Railroad because the companies we heard about were the large ones such as Union Pacific,Santa Fe. About the only large one I can remember calling itself a Railway was the Great Northern. I think some US mail cars were l known as Railway Post offices though? Equally Canada had the famous Canadian Pacific Railway which reached overseas with it shipping line plus a very short period when it had stock running on the European Mainland. Canada until 50 or so years ago still seemed to retain a lot of British influence so Railway seems natural for there. G.harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@interalpha.couk wrote:

Canada still has the Canadian Pacific Railway (name resurrected after being abbreviated to "CP Rail" for some years), as well as the Canadian National Railway, officially abbreviated to "CN". Neither operates passenger services in its own right, but they provide crews for VIA intercity trains, and GO commuter trains in the Greater Toronto Area.
CN also owns the Illinois Central Railroad from Chicago to New Orleans, and the Wisconsin Central Railway, through which it also controls EWS in the UK! Proposals to merge CN and CP around 1994, and to merge CN with the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway in 1999 were vetoed by government. CN no longer owns Toronto's CN Tower.
Road-rail level crossings in the US are marked by a crossbuck sign bearing the legend "RAIL ROAD CROSSING". In Canada they used to say "RAIL WAY CROSSING" ("TRAVERSE DE CHEMIN DE FER" in Quebec); these days they are just a reflective white "X" with a red border and no wording.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
MartinS wrote:

Perhaps a reflection on the falling standards of literacy in the US?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The US still requires you to read words on signs. Canada uses largely symbolic signs to avoid the complications of having bilingual signs. Some signs they have not developed symbols for are "DO NOT DRIVE ON PAVED SHOULDER", "STOP HERE ON RED LIGHT" (where it's not obvious where to stop when the road is snow covered), "ADVANCED GREEN WHEN FLASHING" (although most flashing green lights have been replaced with filter arrows). The above have their French equivalents.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

[...]
You've ignored that semi-colon in Martin's post. Failing literacy skills in elderly New Zealanders, maybe?
Heh heh.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The Canucks tend to translate English expressions into French form. In France a level crossing is: une passage niveau.
Regards
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.