More ammunition for British Railway Modelling

"John Sullivan" wrote

The expression "diesel & electric" modelling is used elsewhere, but bearing in mind when the first diesels and electrics were introduced then that doesn't really clout the nail in the right place either.

Personally I don't feel a need to label everything, but for those that do then an extended version of the BRM era suggestion could be useful, but as we've already seen in these columns, wherever you draw the line to differentiate between eras it will offend someone. :-)

John.

This obviously makes sense....so, if the class and/or type of locomotive is referred to in that context then we can relate that particular information in relation to the era to which we associate the particular class and/or type of locomotive.

Colin.

Are you a lawyer, Colin :-)

The one useful piece of data manafacturers could apply to their labelling would be a rough indication of a valid timespan for which the particular combination of livery/numbering/build details/modifications etc. are applicable. After all, they must have done the background research so will have this info readily to hand. Or maybe the magazines could do this in their reviews of new models.

Why make up "epochs" when, in reality, there were large temporal (and geographic) overlaps between all the major phases of railway development.

Simon.

"Simon Harding" wrote Why make up "epochs" when, in reality, there were large temporal (and geographic) overlaps between all the major phases of railway development.

Simon.

Trouble is, When modelling a loco that is in preservation... Sometimes they are as near as for their original livery... unless you add two more categories....1) Preservation and

2)Fiction.... eg. 1) KWVR Ivatt originally in the Maroon livery. Not authentic. (Could also apply to 2)) Scotsman in LNER livery with double chimney and smoke defectors. 2) Oulton Hall in the "Harry Potter livery".

There will be more, my example is what will fit, not to start another list of what else there is.

:-) Andy

"Jerry." wrote in response:

Excellent suggestion, that the manufacturers supply a little prototype information with the model... on the outside of the box! I think a timeframe is a pretty good idea actually. Contrary to wanting "every sodding thing handed to them", it would:

1. Provide a useful reference for novice buyers thus perhaps even encouraging them into buying something they never thought could be useful.
2. Provide a useful reference to non- novice buyers who (admittedly) perhaps should know their prototype history a little better. Some modellers are indeed just modellers. Other reasons that it would be a good idea:
3. Shows that the manufacturers are making an effort with their research ;-)
4. You might actually learn something.

Most people actually don't want things "handed on a plate"... many folk lead incredibly busy lives and any assistance or supplementary evidence to support/ kick start/ replace research can be invaluable.

db.

Starting to realise why many people killfile Jerry...

Excuses excuses, next you'll want manufacturers to produce your layout for you !

Finding out what the correct stock, signal, building etc. etc. etc. is part of the hobby - unless you are one for just opening a box and 'playing trains'......

"Dirk Belcher" wrote

I doubt it - if anything the prospect of having to research the meaning of the *era* would be off-putting.

The novice generally doesn't care about having all his stock from the same era - anyone else should know what is compatible from the simple expedient of looking at photographs from his/her chosen period.

John.

Sorry, I don't actually recall mentioning my own name at all.

Personally, I have yet to strike that balance between research ("armchair modelling") and something more practical. I seem to spend more time on the former at the moment.

For what it's worth... .

db.

The question as to why manufacture's don't supply era information on their packaging has been going on for ages in North America and is still not resolved.

As for the question on research, when I'm in a store ready to purchase a model, be it rolling stock or to a lesser extent a locomotive, it would be really handy to know then and there what era the item is suitable for. After all, we don't al have encyclopaedic minds neither do we all carry around a reference library when shopping.

So, all that's really needed is for the manufacturer to assist us with something suitable like: -

Introduced 1954, common by 1958, rare by 1993. This livery suitable for

1965 through 1976.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

"Roger T." wrote with snips:

Good reason- that's how I meant to phrase one of my points!!

Exactly! It wouldn't seem like too much of an effort really, especially as the manufacturers have done all that ...... research...

:-)

db.

"Roger T." wrote

But if you model the era which you were brought up in (which I understand is the norm) then you'd remember the loco's you saw as a kid and their place in the picture.

I can see that would be useful.

John.

In a way that crude "eras" or "epochs" would not. Consider an era called Era IV that depicted, say, 1965 to 1995. A wagon whose last year of service was 1966 would be Era IV. Another wagon whose first year of service was 1994 would be Era IV. Would it be true to say that these wagons can run in the same consist because they are both Era IV? No.

Martin

Taking this thread to a logical (if absurd) conclusion. Having just recently bought a new car -why should I have to buy a Haynes manual to find out even the most basic information about it? Am I really 'asking for it on a plate'?

"GLANVILLE CARLETON" wrote

I think that's a fair assessment! ;-)

John.

Not quite the same.

The manufacturer doesn't want you to do your own maintenance, they want you to bring the car to their dealer and buy their spare parts.

The manufacturer will sell you a manual, too, but charge you an arm and a leg for it. There's only so much an amateur mechanic without training and specialized equipment can do on a car these days.

No, you should have bought the Haynes manual BEFORE you bought, or to be more precise, 'What Car / Motor / Top Gear Magazine etc. - so you know what to look for, what model is best for what you will be using the car for etc....

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:05:50 -0400, MartinS wrote: I take your point entirely: I don't want to take the gearbox apart or lift the cylinder head, but when I see that the manual for the CD/radio is twice as thick as the so-called 'owner's manual', I can't help thinking that I'm being a little starved of information.

That's only because it's in 40 languages compared to the 4 languages in the owners' manual.

"Martin Wykes" skrev i meddelandet news: snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com...

The US expression consist is wrong , sorry to be pedantic but it is a train ! individual vehicles are called vehicles/carriage or waggons or atleast they were when I was a guard.ie a train of waggons etc. It might be "cool" to use US useage but cant we atleast preserve our useage? I was a railway servant and was always proud of the archaic expression! Beowulf