A suggestion for manufacturers and retailers: a "region" classification

[MarkSG]

These days it's the norm for all manufacturers and retailers to use the "railway era" concept to label models that, realistically, would have run at around the same time period in the past, thus enabling customers to buy suitable products without having to do a lot of external research. It's not perfect, of course, and the eras themselves can cover quite distinct time periods (for example, pre-war Big 4 and wartime/post-war Big 4 are both era 3 but have quite distinctive attributes of their own). But, as a rough guide, it's very useful.

 

But there's another attribute that I think could usefully be used as a rough categorisation for models, and that's geographic region. For example, the Hornby J15 in LNER livery and the Hornby J36 in LNER livery are both era 3, and both have the same livery, but would never have run anywhere near each other in real life. Equally, a 1960s Thumper wouldn't run on the same track as a Bubblecar, despite being from the same era.  So it would be helpful if the product data included some indication of this.

 

My suggestion, therefore, would be to add a "region" label to products, alongside the era label.

 

It would have to be a pretty broad brush, and we'd have to accept that it wouldn't be perfect. A J70, for example, has a very narrow range, while a Jinty has a very wide one, and a simple regional classification wouldn't address that. But then, we already acccept that the era is a broad approximation rather than a precise ctegorisation, and region would be as well. As with eras, models could cover multiple regions - it wouldnt have to be a one-to-one link.

 

As for the regions themselves, one obvious choice would be the early BR regions. But I think even those are a bit too broad, and in any case were not entirely geographic themselves, being based around operational requirements. My preference would be to go with the standard UK statistical regions, as used by ONS:

 

London

South East

South West

West Midlands

East Midlands

Eastern

North East

North West

Scotland

Wales

 

These have the advantage that most people already know which of these they fall into, and it's relatively easy to visualise them on a map. They don't entirely match up to railway operating patterns, but then neither do the eras.

 

Anyway, that's my suggestion. Does anyone else agree with me, or have any thoughts on the idea?

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, MarkSG said:

These days it's the norm for all manufacturers and retailers to use the "railway era" concept to label models that, realistically, would have run at around the same time period in the past, thus enabling customers to buy suitable products without having to do a lot of external research. It's not perfect, of course, and the eras themselves can cover quite distinct time periods (for example, pre-war Big 4 and wartime/post-war Big 4 are both era 3 but have quite distinctive attributes of their own). But, as a rough guide, it's very useful.

 

But there's another attribute that I think could usefully be used as a rough categorisation for models, and that's geographic region. For example, the Hornby J15 in LNER livery and the Hornby J36 in LNER livery are both era 3, and both have the same livery, but would never have run anywhere near each other in real life. Equally, a 1960s Thumper wouldn't run on the same track as a Bubblecar, despite being from the same era.  So it would be helpful if the product data included some indication of this.

 

My suggestion, therefore, would be to add a "region" label to products, alongside the era label.

 

It would have to be a pretty broad brush, and we'd have to accept that it wouldn't be perfect. A J70, for example, has a very narrow range, while a Jinty has a very wide one, and a simple regional classification wouldn't address that. But then, we already acccept that the era is a broad approximation rather than a precise ctegorisation, and region would be as well. As with eras, models could cover multiple regions - it wouldnt have to be a one-to-one link.

 

As for the regions themselves, one obvious choice would be the early BR regions. But I think even those are a bit too broad, and in any case were not entirely geographic themselves, being based around operational requirements. My preference would be to go with the standard UK statistical regions, as used by ONS:

 

London

South East

South West

West Midlands

East Midlands

Eastern

North East

North West

Scotland

Wales

 

These have the advantage that most people already know which of these they fall into, and it's relatively easy to visualise them on a map. They don't entirely match up to railway operating patterns, but then neither do the eras.

 

Anyway, that's my suggestion. Does anyone else agree with me, or have any thoughts on the idea?

 

 

 

Something like a BR standard 2-6-4T, a Black 5 or Class 47 diesel, is going to collect most of those.

 

I see what you are suggesting, but problems will come with widespread items.

[gordon s]

In theory it has possibilities, but isn't that part of the research we undertake as modellers? Those that want specific stock and location will always do that work. Then there's the question of route availability where it doesn't follow, that for instance, an A4 was seen anywhere in the 'Eastern' section.

 

I have to agree it probably creates more problems than solutions and with this information just a few clicks away on the web, it would  be inaccurate in many cases.

Edited March 12, 2021 by gordon s

[MarkSG]

4 minutes ago, gordon s said:

In theory it has possibilities, but isn't that part of the research we undertake as modellers? Those that want specific stock and location will always do that work. Then there's the question of route availability where it doesn't follow that for instance, an A4 was seen anywhere in the 'Eastern' section.

 

Yes, but you could make exactly the same argument for era. As I said, it's only ever going to be a very broad brush, and people who care more about authenticity will still need to do their research. This is aimed more at people on the cusp of graduating from a train set to a model railway, as one of the things thast helps them get an understanding of what's appropriate.

[MarkSG]

23 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Something like a BR standard 2-6-4T, a Black 5 or Class 47 diesel, is going to collect most of those.

 

I see what you are suggesting, but problems will come with widespread items.

 

There's no problem with a "Region: All" option, of course.

[john new]

2 hours ago, MarkSG said:

These days it's the norm for all manufacturers and retailers to use the "railway era" concept to label models that, realistically, would have run at around the same time period in the past, thus enabling customers to buy suitable products without having to do a lot of external research. It's not perfect, of course, and the eras themselves can cover quite distinct time periods (for example, pre-war Big 4 and wartime/post-war Big 4 are both era 3 but have quite distinctive attributes of their own). But, as a rough guide, it's very useful.

 

But there's another attribute that I think could usefully be used as a rough categorisation for models, and that's geographic region. For example, the Hornby J15 in LNER livery and the Hornby J36 in LNER livery are both era 3, and both have the same livery, but would never have run anywhere near each other in real life. Equally, a 1960s Thumper wouldn't run on the same track as a Bubblecar, despite being from the same era.  So it would be helpful if the product data included some indication of this.

 

My suggestion, therefore, would be to add a "region" label to products, alongside the era label.

 

It would have to be a pretty broad brush, and we'd have to accept that it wouldn't be perfect. A J70, for example, has a very narrow range, while a Jinty has a very wide one, and a simple regional classification wouldn't address that. But then, we already acccept that the era is a broad approximation rather than a precise ctegorisation, and region would be as well. As with eras, models could cover multiple regions - it wouldnt have to be a one-to-one link.

 

As for the regions themselves, one obvious choice would be the early BR regions. But I think even those are a bit too broad, and in any case were not entirely geographic themselves, being based around operational requirements. My preference would be to go with the standard UK statistical regions, as used by ONS:

 

London

South East

South West

West Midlands

East Midlands

Eastern

North East

North West

Scotland

Wales

 

These have the advantage that most people already know which of these they fall into, and it's relatively easy to visualise them on a map. They don't entirely match up to railway operating patterns, but then neither do the eras.

 

Anyway, that's my suggestion. Does anyone else agree with me, or have any thoughts on the idea?

 

 

 

Given at least one main manufacture retails sets that are a total, anachronistic, hotch-potch of mixed eras I doubt the will is there. 

[caradoc]

2 hours ago, MarkSG said:

Equally, a 1960s Thumper wouldn't run on the same track as a Bubblecar, despite being from the same era.

 

It's an interesting idea but perhaps fraught with even more inconsistencies, and room for misunderstanding, than the Era system; From your example above, Thumpers and Bubblecars did run on the same track ! (Reading area).

 

[Butler Henderson]

The era system is bad enough - would really be better to put in the models description (c.1950) for example; it would also be likely to stop people complaining a model is wrong when in fact it is correct albeit a bit obscure like Dapols smokebox numberplated GWR lettered tender Mogul.

[Chris M]

I recommend each item comes with a label - “If you want to know when and where this was used ask the internet”. That’s all you need. Especially as things often don’t fit into neat categories anyway. 
 

Liveries took many years to change and would certainly have jumped across eras. As a general rule the less important the stock the less likely it was to receive the latest livery in a hurry. And you can’t trust stock to stay where it should. For a few months in the early 1950s it was possible to see Stanier Pacifics pulling scheduled trains in Devon while the Kings has their bogies strengthened , a couple of pannier tanks escaped to a branch line Scotland, some LNER 0-6-0s were used on the Severn Valley line during WW2, a Gresley buffet car in blue & grey livery was a regular  on West of England expresses for a while etc etc.

 

Part of building a model railway should be finding out a bit about the stock you are running. I think it’s fine for folk to run whatever they want on their layout ( I do on my garden railway) but knowing even little about the real version of each item helps to give some depth to running the trains.

[The Johnster]

There’s also the issue of locos transferred to different areas over time and of inter-regional trains.  Class 33s were transferred to Canton in the 80s, for example, and worked to Crewe, but had occasionally appeared at Cardiff on Portsmouth trains back as far as the early 60s.  L & Y pugs appeared at Gloucester, Bristol, and Swansea docks, and 16xx at Dornoch. 
 

Southern Railway PMVs would be rare off that railway pre-nationalisation, but inescapable everywhere for 30 years after it.  In the late 50s and early 60s an observer at any main line station would be able to record several types of coaching stock each from each of the big four as well as mk1s if he/she was there for more than a couple of hours. 

 

For locos, my view is that this information is best conveyed in the potted history that comes in the box with the exploded parts diagram.  

[Butler Henderson]

And then their is the modellers Rule One anyway. Realising my BR black 1363 has never actually run as such in preservation I have come up with a reasoning for its use on a LSWR  terminus c.1960 - the harbour company had most of its locos registered for use on BR tracks but had run into a shortage of serviceable locos. A loan of a loco was sought from the Southern Region but was declined due to the terms of the operation of harbour lines specifically excluding the operation of most by locomotives of the LSWR or its descendants. The Western Region was judged not to be excluded and Laira having acquired a couple of Class 03s offered 1363 for a few months. 

[SD85]

You're also going to get some weird anomalies whereby technically a loco will qualify for one region but only on a very narrow basis, for example all the ex-GW engines that worked over the Reading-Redhill line. Technically that would justify a Southern/SE region operations notice, but then you'd have to explain that they were only seen in a limited capacity there, outline all the caveats etc.

 

And then there's the issue of the S&D....

Edited March 12, 2021 by SD85

[Flying Pig]

29 minutes ago, SD85 said:

And then there's the issue of the S&D....

 

 

The issue of the S&DJR is that it was far from unusual, at least once it stopped running its own trains - there were numerous joint lines large and small all over the place run by committees  (in the pre-grouping era this could get quite silly).  There were many more lines where running powers meant that locos of more than one company could be seen, which won't always be apparent on maps.

 

[Wheatley]

There are so many variables and exceptions that this would be so generic as to be almost meaningless. Do you include exceptional workings, 'specials', loco exchanges etc ? If you don't, how do you decide what counts as 'exceptional' ? Caley 0-4-4Ts worked in Yorkshire for several years, but not many of them. GW panniers worked in the far north of Scotland for several years, but in a very specific part of it on very specific duties. A Class 31 made it to Mallaig, a J69 finished up at Dumfries. It's a complete minefield. 

 

I'm not a fan of the Era system either for the same reasons, but this is even more labyrinthine. I suspect the people who are actually bothered whether a particular purchase 'fits' already know how to find out. 

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

And then their is the modellers Rule One anyway. Realising my BR black 1363 has never actually run as such in preservation I have come up with a reasoning for its use on a LSWR  terminus c.1960 - the harbour company had most of its locos registered for use on BR tracks but had run into a shortage of serviceable locos. A loan of a loco was sought from the Southern Region but was declined due to the terms of the operation of harbour lines specifically excluding the operation of most by locomotives of the LSWR or its descendants. The Western Region was judged not to be excluded and Laira having acquired a couple of Class 03s offered 1363 for a few months. 

Not at all unfeasible, Butler, though the LSWR ban is pushing it a bit... It was common in South Wales and no doubt other mining areas for the NCB to hire locos from BR to cover unavailability of their own locos.  BR delivered the loco, and NCB crewed it; this was usually a short term temporary arrangement, and the loco was taken back to it's BR shed and replaced when boiler washout was due.  It is human nature that a shedmaster asked to provide a loco for a temporary hire is not going to use a good one; the worst suitable example to hand would be dispatched and everybody would be glad to see the back of it for a few days...

 

On Cwmdimbath, 2761 is considered to be the go to understudy to the colliery's W4 until I acquire a round tuit and rebuild Cyclops, the old Triang Dockafority, but a small loco like a W4 would normally have weekly washouts and minor repairs on Saturday avo and Sundays when there is no work for it anyway.  Possible that materials may need to be moved around the site, though...  The Bridgend Valleys branches were all closed on Sundays, but of course work carried on at Tondu shed and there were ballast workings to consider.

[Nearholmer]

Maybe this is one of those things where buyers fall into two camps:

 

- buy what they like the look of, with no care to compatibility, either out of blissful ignorance or because Rule 1 is RULE 1 on their layout. These buyers would disregard any area code; and,

 

- buy very carefully, with compatibility at the forefront of their mind, because they know the subject inside-out already. These buyers would disregard any area code because they would be able to "see straight through it".

 

From a supplier viewpoint, the danger would be that it might limit sales, because the formerly not-bothered would cease to buy nominally incompatible things.

 

A potted history on the back of the box could be more informative, although some of the ones I've seen have contained significant errors, which possibly doesn't aid anyone!

 

As a footnote, I never cease to be amazed by how very date, modification, livery, type of bread in the driver's sandwiches specific the more informed buyer now expects models to be . These are not people who need to be told where a loco ran - they know which day it ran there, and whether or not the left headlamp lens on the B end was cracked.

[pH]

11 hours ago, MarkSG said:

... For example, the Hornby J15 in LNER livery and the Hornby J36 in LNER livery are both era 3, and both have the same livery, but would never have run anywhere near each other in real life. 

They definitely worked at places within 60 miles of each other in that livery, and without stretching things much at all, could quite possibly have met. You can look it up - an exercise in prototype research.

[Steamport Southport]

I can't see how it would work.

 

As an example I'm in Liverpool. What railway is my local? It was all LMS apparently. But in reality it wasn't.

 

Within ten miles of me there was LNWR, L&Y, MR, GCR, GNR, CLC, GWR, and a myriad of smaller railways. There were ex NER J72s which even got as far as North Wales. You would see things like NER B16s coming from Yorkshire. Many other areas were the same.

 

As an example people often wonder why the model of Herculaneum Dock is interesting locomotive wise. Just look at some of the locomotives allocated to Brunswick. Even ex GER J67s and J69s.

 

https://www.brdatabase.info/sites.php?page=depots&subpage=locos&id=98

 

There are quite a few omissions on that page as I know there were D11s at one point.

 

 

But how would you explain all that to a newcomer without confusing them even more?

 

 

Jason

Edited March 12, 2021 by Steamport Southport

[pH]

12 hours ago, MarkSG said:

My preference would be to go with the standard UK statistical regions, as used by ONS:

 

London

South East

South West

West Midlands

East Midlands

Eastern

North East

North West

Scotland

Wales

Scotland as a single region? That would not be very specific. While it is correct to say a SR ‘Z’ class tank worked in Scotland, using that information to justify one shunting a model of Thurso would not be accurate!

 

I agree with what’s been said about doing prototype research yourself if ‘compatibility’ matters to you. A lot of people start off using ‘Rule 1’, even if unintentionally, and many are quite happy to continue in that way. If people want their models to become more prototypical, there is plenty of information out there to guide them, certainly much more than could be conveyed by a single ‘region’.

[Ian Simpson]

I think it's quite a good idea. Regional information might not be very useful for experienced modellers on RMWeb, but it might help new entrants to the hobby and people who just want a bit of info on the prototype. Yes, they could do the research themselves - but as the manufacturer already has this information, why not share it as a courtesy to potential customers?  

[MarkSG]

3 hours ago, Ian Simpson said:

I think it's quite a good idea. Regional information might not be very useful for experienced modellers on RMWeb, but it might help new entrants to the hobby and people who just want a bit of info on the prototype. Yes, they could do the research themselves - but as the manufacturer already has this information, why not share it as a courtesy to potential customers?  

 

That's my point, really. Like the era, this isn't necessary information for most of the people who hang around in places like RMweb. But it's potentially useful for people who aren't, yet, all that knowledgeable about railways but would like to start to become more so. 

 

After all, there's no absolute need for the manufacturer to include any information at all about the prototype. Experienced modellers can always do their own research! But, yet, most catalogue entries do include background information on the prototype. Take, for example, this (randomly selected) product from Hornby:

 

https://uk.Hornby.com/products/rog-class-47-co-co-47812-era-11-r30046

 

The product description tells us how many of the class were built, where they were built, when they were built, who designed them and which operators use them. None of that information is necessary to someone who already knows it (or is willing to research it). But it's useful background information for someone who doesn't.

 

[MarkSG]

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Maybe this is one of those things where buyers fall into two camps:

 

- buy what they like the look of, with no care to compatibility, either out of blissful ignorance or because Rule 1 is RULE 1 on their layout. These buyers would disregard any area code; and,

 

- buy very carefully, with compatibility at the forefront of their mind, because they know the subject inside-out already. These buyers would disregard any area code because they would be able to "see straight through it".

 

I suspect that most buyers are actually somewhere in between those two extremes. They don't want to be overly pedantic about what goes with what, but they do like to have at least some consistency.

 

18 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

As a footnote, I never cease to be amazed by how very date, modification, livery, type of bread in the driver's sandwiches specific the more informed buyer now expects models to be . These are not people who need to be told where a loco ran - they know which day it ran there, and whether or not the left headlamp lens on the B end was cracked.

 

But maybe that's because you're not the target market for that kind of information.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, MarkSG said:

maybe that's because you're not the target market for that kind of information

 

Well, sort of: its because I'm no longer exactly young, and remember when everyone was jubilant if a half-decent model of Brush Type 2 came on the market, so find it more than a little bemusing when people start moaning that the one that just landed from China isn't the Class 31 that they've been hoping for. TBH, it comes across as a tad spoilt.

[Butler Henderson]

A partial solution would be better information with the model; a clear example of this is in thread on the Heljan 25/3 where a missing overhead warning sign on one model has been confirmed by the manufacturer as being prototypically correct but peoples concerns that the model had not been completed corrected in the factory could have been immediately nullified by an appropriate descriptive leaflet with it.

[The Johnster]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Well, sort of: its because I'm no longer exactly young, and remember when everyone was jubilant if a half-decent model of Brush Type 2 came on the market, so find it more than a little bemusing when people start moaning that the one that just landed from China isn't the Class 31 that they've been hoping for. TBH, it comes across as a tad spoilt.

It does, to people our age.  But the 'norm' nowadays is for RTR to supply models of a huge range of prototypes and a choice of numbers, liveries, and appearance, where it altered over time, and looked at in that light, it becomes more understandable that younger modellers who have never known the situation to be otherwise voice their dissatisfaction if the exact loco they wan't isn't being made.  Of course, it isn't reasonable to expect all examples of any class to be represented in all the liveries, but it is frustrating when the particular version of the loco you want is not available, and sometimes repeatedly not available. 

 

For example, there have been GWR 94xx panniers avaialble RTR (not continuously) since Graham Farish did one in the early 60s, but until the recent Bachmann appeared, they could only represent 9400-9409, the original 10 GWR 1947 locos and not the 200 ordered by BR from outside builders; the difference being a sloping plate over the valve chests ahead of the smokebox on the GW locos, a tough job to remove to represent the open space between the frames at this point on the BR locos. 

 

Only one company TTBOMK makes an RTR Black 5, with only one tooling, an essential for a huge number of layouts based anywhere on the LMS, and for  through running to the other big 4, or, in BR days, for most LMR and a very large number of ER, NER, and ScR based layouts, not to mention through running on to the SR.  Black 5s have a rather large variety of boilers, different forms of firebox, and come in long and short wheelbase varieties; there are domeless and domed boilers and different positions for the top feeds, and this is before you start to consider the Ivatt Caprotti and double chimneyed versions or Stephenson valve gear.  Were I modelling a layout that needed Black 5s, and any layout that needs Black 5s probably needs more than one, I would find the limitations of the available model quite irritating.

 

I get a little bit frustrated and go into 'bl**dy entitled millenials/generation X' mode when I read some moans about specific liveries and numbers for some prototypes; these are matters which our generation consider easily resolved by paint jobs and transfers, a huge variety of which are available and which can be made to order, admittedly at extra cost.  But the world has changed and so have attitudes since we were lads, Nearholmer, and the cost of RTR is only going in one direction, which will further strengthen the concept that customers should be able to have exactly what they want straight out of the box.

 

Even I get a bit miffed that I can't buy a Bachmann 64xx, 57xx, or 8750 without a top feed...

Edited March 14, 2021 by The Johnster