Wright writes.....

[LNER4479]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

... if Era 1 represents 1825-ish to whenever, some of the eras must cover several decades!)? Is it too complicated? 

I think it's indicative of the current state of the hobby, Tony. You'd probably get as many modellers modelling 'Southern Region 1966-67 in the Basingstoke area' in the same room as you would the entire era 2 fraternity.

 

30 years ago, the Big Four era would probably have warranted three separate eras; in 30 years time (probably less) '1948-1968 BR steam' will probably be just the one era. It might even become '1948-1994 British Rail'(!). Who knows? (Who cares?!)

Edited November 12, 2023 by LNER4479

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony and everyone

 

To the best of my knowledge, the 'original' era system was set up by Bachmann - mainly to assist less knowledgeable shop assistants to put stock into broad chronological context. Continental modellers have had the 'Epoch' system for many years,

 

There were, I believe, nine eras originally - and those have been increased by others to the current 11.

 

I'm no fan of the era system myself (!) but can see that it has value to some. 

 

I know Dennis Lovett very well (late of Bachmann PR), so will drop him a line to confirm my beliefs above.

 

Brian

[robertcwp]

1 hour ago, Flanged Wheel said:

Good morning Tony,

 

I took the table below from the Hatton’s website (https://www.hattons.co.uk/newsdetail?id=799). It’s not a concept that I find very helpful but it seems to have taken hold.

 

What I don't like about this system is that it can easily be read as a series of compartments. These eras overlapped. Some of the dates are misleading too as most TOPS renumbering took place in 1974 although a few TOPS numbers appeared prior to that, mainly on electric locos, and from 1973 on Class 45 Peaks as they were overhauled and 50 were fitted with electric train heating.

 

It also does not differentiate between pre- and post-abolition of headcode displays (1 January 1976 if I recall correctly) nor between pre- and post-yellow first class bands (on some SR EMUs from 1960, more generally from c1962) or the appearance of yellow panels on green diesels (c1962). Blue diesels in general changed from two emblems to one on each side from 1969 and D prefixes were dropped from late 1968. So, you could split things up further if you were really keen.

 

Even setting aside XP64, blue/grey livery appeared in 1965 on new Mark 2 stock and Mark 1 stock repainted to run with it for the forthcoming completion of the Euston-Liverpool/Manchester electrification. Class 86s were outshopped that year in rail blue, contrary to some reports that they were electric blue. Spot the colour difference:

 

E3107 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Edited November 12, 2023 by robertcwp
Typo.

[Barry Ten]

I've found the Continental "Epoch" system quite handy when finding my way in French railway modelling. As long as it's just taken as a rough guide, not hard and fast rules, I don't find it unhelpful.

[Iain.d]

2 hours ago, Woodcock29 said:

Iain

This might sound strange but I'm now using Dulux metal etch primer in a spray can from Bunnings! (For those in the UK Bunnings is probably our largest Hardware chain here in Australia)

 

Andrew

 

2 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I get mine from Auto One, in big 400ml aerosol cans.

 

Thanks to both of you. There's a Bunnings just down the road from me (well, 5km/3mi) which I'll drop in on, on the way home from work in the week. The nearest Auto One is about 40 minutes away which we can probably combine with doing something else.

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[robertcwp]

Just now, Barry Ten said:

I've found the Continental "Epoch" system quite handy when finding my way in French railway modelling. As long as it's just taken as a rough guide, not hard and fast rules, I don't find it unhelpful.

Indeed, a rough guide is all that it can realistically be.

[BMacdermott]

Hello again

 

I have just looked at the Bachmann 2007 catalogue, and that states that the system was introduced in 2006 "...to provide extra information to new comers to our range..."

 

Brian

[TT-Pete]

"Rebuilding of the Railways" - pffft, yeah, right. Which PR twonk/politician came up with that one?

 

[Tony Wright]

Thanks to all who responded to my request for an explanation of the Era system employed by RTR manufacturers.

 

Whatever its original intention, it looks utter nonsense to me - especially the discrepancy in the number of years represented by each one. Nearly half a century for Era 2? The conclusion might be drawn that anything in one era would be compatible with anything else. Thus, taking Era 2 as an extreme, those with little knowledge might assume that, say, a Caledonian mixed traffic 2-4-0 (built 1877) would happily run at the same time as Gresley's original A1 (built 1922).  

 

Why not just state the dates when a model would run as represented by its appearance? In the case of Hornby's latest 9F I'm reviewing - 1954 (when it was built) until 1957/'58 (when it received the later BR device on the tender). In the case of the (Gresley) A1 - 1923 (when it was built) until 1930 (when it received long-travel valves and the boiler fittings and cab were cut down to the LNER composite loading gauge). 

 

To me, the system will cause more confusion and inaccuracies than anything else 'invented' to help shop assistants or newcomers to the range! 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[APOLLO]

8 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Why not just state the dates when a model would run as represented by its appearance?

 

100% agree. 

 

Brit15

 

 

[Barry Ten]

I've been doing some DCC conversions of a couple of older Bachmann split chassis models, in this case a pair of Royal Scots. Although there are undoubtedly issues with the split chassis range, these particular ones had remained trouble-free and nice smooth runners for over 20 years so I thought it was worth the trouble of converting them.

 

 

They are a bit of work to do as the entire chassis has to be stripped down, but provided one takes care with the insulation of the motor contacts, all should be well. With these, I ran the wires into the tenders and added a DCC plug so the decoders can be swapped in and out. The total cost is less than 20 for the decoder and socket, so well worth it in my view versus the cost of a new etched chassis, motor and wheels etc.

 

Examination of both models did show splitting of the wheel muffs, but in neither case had it shown up in detrimental running. In both cases I reinforced the muffs using glue or a light touch from the soldering iron to weld the crack, so they should be good for another few years at least.

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony and everyone

 

As noted, I am not a fan of the era system but - to be fair to at least some makers, including Bachmann - their websites and packaging almost always go into great detail about a model's history. Accurascale, for example, show Era 5 on the box of their  No.7812 Erlestoke Manor along with a small photo - but then supply a 16pp A5 loco history booklet in the box.

 

Of course, such a history is fairly easy with the likes of, say, Flying Scotsman and most locos that lasted until BR days or have been built since. It gets harder with PCCS and NPCCS and even harder with wagons (unless built in modern times).

 

I'd rather the system didn't exist but it seems here to stay. Perhaps best to just ignore the fact it's there?

 

Our hobby seems to be growing exponentially and - in these days of 'on-line influencers' - there are bound to be factual errors and confusions. Those who want to research their models more deeply will do so. Those who don't, won't.

 

I applaud the many makers who are now going to extraordinary lengths to give us superb models backed up with researched data.

 

Brian 

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony and everyone

 

As noted, I am not a fan of the era system but - to be fair to at least some makers, including Bachmann - their websites and packaging almost always go into great detail about a model's history. Accurascale, for example, show Era 5 on the box of their  No.7812 Erlestoke Manor along with a small photo - but then supply a 16pp A5 loco history booklet in the box.

 

Of course, such a history is fairly easy with the likes of, say, Flying Scotsman and most locos that lasted until BR days or have been built since. It gets harder with PCCS and NPCCS and even harder with wagons (unless built in modern times).

 

I'd rather the system didn't exist but it seems here to stay. Perhaps best to just ignore the fact it's there?

 

Our hobby seems to be growing exponentially and - in these days of 'on-line influencers' - there are bound to be factual errors and confusions. Those who want to research their models more deeply will do so. Those who don't, won't.

 

I applaud the many makers who are now going to extraordinary lengths to give us superb models backed up with researched data.

 

Brian 

Good afternoon Brian,

 

I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

Regarding some 'influencers', I wonder whether some of them do any actual research into the models they're reviewing. 

 

I suppose I'm old-fashioned (and grumpy with it), and, over the decades, I've built up an extensive library of historical research material. This has enabled me to comment (with some accuracy, I hope) on the three latest Hornby locos I've received for review. In the case of the 9F, books by the likes of Irwell, In Allan and the RCTS have proved most-useful; likewise books by Irwell, the RCTS and Yeadon for the A1, and OPC and the RCTS for the Castle. All of these are reliable, established works of reference. They should be on any modeller's bookshelf in my view.

 

I suppose more up-to-date reviewers (or influencers?) might not have access to hundreds of pounds' worth of heavy books, and rely on the internet for their information. Some of the stuff I've seen on this is twaddle! 

 

No doubt the manufacturers do extensive research for their models, and for the prototype information they supply on the packaging, though why a paragraph is repeated on the Castle's box, I'm not sure. For emphasis?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Brian,

 

I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

Regarding some 'influencers', I wonder whether some of them do any actual research into the models they're reviewing. 

 

I suppose I'm old-fashioned (and grumpy with it), and, over the decades, I've built up an extensive library of historical research material. This has enabled me to comment (with some accuracy, I hope) on the three latest Hornby locos I've received for review. In the case of the 9F, books by the likes of Irwell, In Allan and the RCTS have proved most-useful; likewise books by Irwell, the RCTS and Yeadon for the A1, and OPC and the RCTS for the Castle. All of these are reliable, established works of reference. They should be on any modeller's bookshelf in my view.

 

I suppose more up-to-date reviewers (or influencers?) might not have access to hundreds of pounds' worth of heavy books, and rely on the internet for their information. Some of the stuff I've seen on this is twaddle! 

 

No doubt the manufacturers do extensive research for their models, and for the prototype information they supply on the packaging, though why a paragraph is repeated on the Castle's box, I'm not sure. For emphasis?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

IMHO, 'influencers' come under the same category as 'celebrities' - famous for being famous, but nobody can tell you what they were originally famous for!!

 

Both sets are a waste of space!!

 

CJI.

[65179]

1 hour ago, BMacdermott said:

Hello Tony and everyone

 

...

 

Of course, such a history is fairly easy with the likes of, say, Flying Scotsman and most locos that lasted until BR days or have been built since. It gets harder with PCCS and NPCCS and even harder with wagons (unless built in modern times).

 

I'd rather the system didn't exist but it seems here to stay. Perhaps best to just ignore the fact it's there?

 

...

 

I applaud the many makers who are now going to extraordinary lengths to give us superb models backed up with researched data.

 

Brian 

 

I think the value of the era system is as a rough guide/starting point for those that don't have any, or at least any detailed, knowledge of what should run with what (if they care).  It's unrealistic to expect people to get everything spot on, and we all have our blindspots.

 

To pick up on Brian's point, this thread illustrates neatly what the limits of knowledge are in terms of accuracy of models.

 

To generalise Tony, you model your Pacifics with every detail spot on for your period and then things get steadily more vague with a bit more room for inaccuracy in the condition of the freight types, coaches of as near as possible the right formation with a not inappropriate livery (except where type, number and livery are easily correlated) and then broadly representative freight stock.

 

If a manufacturer put "locomotive X in a condition suitable for 3 February 1954-1 July 1957" on the box it would take someone 10 mins to point out the detail that was wrong for half that period or that there was a photo showing the loco running in on 20 June 1957 in a different condition (the quoted date of 1 July being just a dodge to even out the works output figures or similar).

 

Good luck to them too providing dates for all the PO wagons out there where, even if the wagon in reality ever existed, its existence in that livery is likely to be proven by a single undated photograph.

 

Even amongst the popular loco types there are huge holes in knowledge making accurate/sensible time periods difficult to list.  To recycle an old example, how many LMS Jubilees made it to nationalisation in LMS red? Look through the reference books and the number recorded in red steadily increases as each new volume appears. Even Ray Townsin's sterling attempt to record every livery/number change in his RCTS volume has known omissions.  I have half a dozen photos of 45628 in 1949/50. Not one of them allows me to determine with confidence what colour the loco is in - black or red?

 

If a system, however imperfect,  discourages people from running a rake of RCH 1907 POs with a class 66 and nudges them towards thinking about what would be seen with what, then I'm all for it. We all started from a zero knowledge base.

 

Regards,

Simon 

Edited November 12, 2023 by 65179

[Willie Whizz]

Also worth bearing in mind that in modern times there are literally hundreds of models and variations of models available for steam, and the same again for diesel. For someone fairly new to the hobby who is looking at, say, the Hattons website for a suitable steam locomotive for the period they fancy modelling,  it must be if nothing else a useful shortcut to eliminating 90% of the stuff you’d otherwise have to wade through to get anywhere near what you wanted. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 65179 said:

 

I think the value of the era system is as a rough guide/starting point for those that don't have any, or at least any detailed, knowledge of what should run with what (if they care).  It's unrealistic to expect people to get everything spot on, and we all have our blindspots.

 

To pick up on Brian's point, this thread illustrates neatly what the limits of knowledge are in terms of accuracy of models.

 

To generalise Tony, you model your Pacifics with every detail spot on for your period and then things get steadily more vague with a bit more room for inaccuracy in the condition of the freight types, coaches of as near as possible the right formation with a not inappropriate livery (except where type, number and livery are easily correlated) and then broadly representative freight stock.

 

If a manufacturer put "locomotive X in a condition suitable for 3 February 1954-1 July 1957" on the box it would take someone 10 mins to point out the detail that was wrong for half that period or that there was a photo showing the loco running in on 20 June 1957 in a different condition (the quoted date of 1 July being just a dodge to even out the works output figures or similar).

 

Good luck to them too providing dates for all the PO wagons out there where, even if the wagon in reality ever existed, its existence in that livery is likely to be proven by a single undated photograph.

 

Even amongst the popular loco types there are huge holes in knowledge making accurate/sensible time periods difficult to list.  To recycle an old example, how many LMS Jubilees made it to nationalisation in LMS red? Look through the reference books and the number recorded in red steadily increases as each new volume appears. Even Ray Townsin's sterling attempt to record every livery/number change in his RCTS volume has known omissions.  I have half a dozen photos of 45628 in 1949/50. Not one of them allows me to determine with confidence what colour the loco is in - black or red?

 

If a system, however imperfect,  discourages people from running a rake of RCH 1907 POs with a class 66 and nudges them towards thinking about what would be seen with what, then I'm all for it. We all started from a zero knowledge base.

 

Regards,

Simon 

Good evening Simon,

 

I take your points, entirely. 

 

It's just that I think the Era System is far too vague. I know that the prototype's established works can be contradictory (my copies of Yeadon and the RCTS 'green series' have countless examples of my scribblings in the margins, pointing out errors!), but I think dates listing a loco's appearance 'from and to' is better than a bland era. Certainly, the 9F in question could accurately be described as running between 1954 and 1957 without a change in its appearance, other than it getting progressively dirty (or the real pedants might suggest a dent here and there after its initial braking problems!).

 

Granted, as you suggest, it's very difficult to pin down the likes of RCH PO wagons (the latest picture I've found of one in operation on BR is 1965!), so it could only be a rough guide. 

 

However, since I never take any notice of it (apart from listing it in an RTR model's review), then it's not for me.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Following on from the recent discussion regarding Hornby's b-t-bs............

 

 

 

I can only report that the A1 and the Castle performed faultlessly on Little Bytham's mixture of hand-built and Peco pointwork.

 

Being DCC-onboard (with its chip programmed, it would seem, not to operate on a DC system), I'll have to test the 9F elsewhere............

 

 

[MJI]

To me the influencers are modellers in the magazines mid 70s to mid 80s.

 

Nearest modern one to me would be sorry to call him that, Tony.

 

Online video ones, who are they?

 

A good example some rich car influencer i have never heard of had a delivery from a customer of ours.

 

Switchable visibility glass. I could name more technical staff there than influencers.

 

 

[MikeParkin65]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Brian,

 

I'm in complete agreement with you.

 

Regarding some 'influencers', I wonder whether some of them do any actual research into the models they're reviewing. 

 

I suppose I'm old-fashioned (and grumpy with it), and, over the decades, I've built up an extensive library of historical research material. This has enabled me to comment (with some accuracy, I hope) on the three latest Hornby locos I've received for review. In the case of the 9F, books by the likes of Irwell, In Allan and the RCTS have proved most-useful; likewise books by Irwell, the RCTS and Yeadon for the A1, and OPC and the RCTS for the Castle. All of these are reliable, established works of reference. They should be on any modeller's bookshelf in my view.

 

I suppose more up-to-date reviewers (or influencers?) might not have access to hundreds of pounds' worth of heavy books, and rely on the internet for their information. Some of the stuff I've seen on this is twaddle! 

 

No doubt the manufacturers do extensive research for their models, and for the prototype information they supply on the packaging, though why a paragraph is repeated on the Castle's box, I'm not sure. For emphasis?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Sadly perhaps you dont need to spend hundreds of pounds to build up a quality library anymore . Most older railway books and often pretty recent titles can be picked up very cheaply from charity shops, preserved railways or online  - I've got all of the LMS Essery & Jenkinson books by this route and I dont think I've paid more than £10 for any title. The books that are expensive are the apparently endless supply of Pen & Sword or Crecy titles very few of which are worth buying imho and and certainly not at full published price as they are easily found marked down  - I've just bought the Tim Hillier-Graves book on Edward Thompson for £10 new, marked down from £35. 

[Dunsignalling]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks to all who responded to my request for an explanation of the Era system employed by RTR manufacturers.

 

[1] Whatever its original intention, it looks utter nonsense to me - especially the discrepancy in the number of years represented by each one. Nearly half a century for Era 2? The conclusion might be drawn that anything in one era would be compatible with anything else. Thus, taking Era 2 as an extreme, those with little knowledge might assume that, say, a Caledonian mixed traffic 2-4-0 (built 1877) would happily run at the same time as Gresley's original A1 (built 1922).  

 

[2] Why not just state the dates when a model would run as represented by its appearance? In the case of Hornby's latest 9F I'm reviewing - 1954 (when it was built) until 1957/'58 (when it received the later BR device on the tender). In the case of the (Gresley) A1 - 1923 (when it was built) until 1930 (when it received long-travel valves and the boiler fittings and cab were cut down to the LNER composite loading gauge). 

 

To me, the system will cause more confusion and inaccuracies than anything else 'invented' to help shop assistants or newcomers to the range! 

 

[1] Leaving aside the miles-too-long Victorian era(s), post-privatisation refranchising led to new liveries being applied to entire fleets of units over months or (substantially) even within weeks. However, taking Cross-Country as an example, other TOC areas through which their trains passed changed "era" on multiple different timescales. Any livery overlap between XC and other TOCs alongside which their trains might be seen could be less than a year, with none of them otherwise coinciding with immediate neighbours! That makes even attempting clear delineation of "modern image" eras virtually impossible.

 

[2] Is basically the system adopted by Airfix-GMR back in the late seventies, and which I consider the only clear and reliable way of advising chronological compatibility of models.

 

They stated the date when the vehicle first appeared in the livery portrayed (e.g. 1956-on for coaches in BR maroon) but no end-date (i.e. the crimson/cream it "replaced" remained "in the mix" until around 1964). Back in the day, such processes were  determined by subsequent overhaul/rebuilding, withdrawal or a combination of those factors.

 

John

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Northmoor]

2 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Sadly perhaps you dont need to spend hundreds of pounds to build up a quality library anymore . Most older railway books and often pretty recent titles can be picked up very cheaply from charity shops, preserved railways or online  - I've got all of the LMS Essery & Jenkinson books by this route and I dont think I've paid more than £10 for any title. The books that are expensive are the apparently endless supply of Pen & Sword or Crecy titles very few of which are worth buying imho and and certainly not at full published price as they are easily found marked down  - I've just bought the Tim Hillier-Graves book on Edward Thompson for £10 new, marked down from £35. 

I strongly endorse this advice and would suggest that for enthusiasts, there will never be a better time to build a railway library.  As you say, preserved railways/society stalls (and to a lesser extent, charity shops) are being donated more books from the 1990s or earlier in record numbers, as older enthusiasts pass away.  There will come a point when these sellers will become so overloaded, they will stock-check and dispose of - probably for pulping - a lot of older stock.

 

It is also worth considering magazines contemporary to the era you are looking to model; to an even greater extent than books, people are disposing of huge volumes of magazines for nothing.  There is no resale of most - many railways will no longer take them, especially model railway magazines - as so few people have the space to keep them (plus some magazines, like Railway Magazine, the whole archive is available electronically to subscribers).  But if you want to research the 1960s, collecting early Trains Illustrated/Modern Railways, Railway Magazine etc., is worth doing NOW.  In another ten years, vast numbers will have been pulped and it will be harder (and costlier) to find copies.

 

It is too easy to assume, "It's all on the Internet"; it really isn't.  While books do have errors of course, at least there is a reasonable assumption that most of the content has been fact-checked.  Most material on the Web has had no such editorial control, so sites full of errors get equal hits to the correct information and a lot of myth and conjecture gets repeated as fact.  The same has happened in published books of course - the historical record on Thompson's reign* for instance - but the opportunity is so much greater on-line.

 

*I'm sorry for mentioning it; not so long ago the author of the new work on the subject was contributing to this thread and it didn't end happily.

[Tony Wright]

I bought most of my reference library books many, many years ago - when they first appeared; Essery & Jenkinson, the RCTS, Yeadon, Russell, Townroe, Bradley, etc, etc. Many are tatty and well-used now, but they've proved their worth.

 

I agree entirely with the comments about such books now being available quite cheaply. As well as finding new homes for models on behalf of bereaved relatives of the deceased, Mo and I have also tried to sell books, but have now given up with that aspect. In many cases, they're almost given away!

[Clearwater]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Following on from the recent discussion regarding Hornby's b-t-bs............

 

 

 

I can only report that the A1 and the Castle performed faultlessly on Little Bytham's mixture of hand-built and Peco pointwork.

 

Being DCC-onboard (with its chip programmed, it would seem, not to operate on a DC system), I'll have to test the 9F elsewhere............

 

 

 
Presumably a castle did pass through Little Bytham in roughly that guise in 1923/24 on the exchange trials?  Though hauling teak stock not clerestories!

David

[BMacdermott]

Hello Tony and everyone

 

Dennis Lovett has kindly supplied the following with permission to post here. This fully sums up the situation.

 

Finally, I did omit saying in an earlier post that when makers and retailers show their era systems, they do go to reasonable lengths to explain that they are 'guides' only. Dennis alludes to that below.

 

Brian

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

The Epoch system has long been part of the continental modelling spectrum. Bachmann’s sister company Lilliput is well versed in it.

 

Back in my Virgin Trains days there was considerable debate on the old MREmag forum run by Pat Hammond asking why we had no such system in the UK? As a result, I suggested one which Pat duly published and there was considerable debate around it. Broadly it seemed to be acceptable to those who saw a benefit in it and unnecessary by those who knew what they were buying. It was appreciated by many that received models as presents ensuring that they no longer received Mark 4 coaches to run behind their LMS liveried steam locomotives!

 

After I joined Bachmann in 2006, it became clear that many were not as knowledgeable about railway history as many on RMweb. It was therefore suggested we adopted an Epoch or Era system to assist both retailers and their customers in identifying suitable products to run on their layouts. The system adopted was similar to the seven era one that appeared on MREmag with two additional eras suggested giving us early emblem / late crest and also Pre-TOPs and TOPs in the BR post steam periods (when five digit class numbers were introduced).

 

At the time, Bachmann challenged various organisations such as the Historical Model Railway Society to devise something better and if they did Bachmann would adopt it. No one did and the Bachmann system became established with retailers, in the model railway press and eventually by other manufacturers. The first eight periods are all in the past and therefore, do not need any great refinement. The only controversy appears of Period 9, the Privatisation era where there have been umpteen changes in franchises, franchise holders, liveries and ownership. Hornby decided to split Era 9 to create two more covering the privatisation period whereas Bachmann have not. The next big change will no doubt come with the creation of Great British Railways, however none of us know how that will pan out over the coming year or so.

 

Of course, the Era descriptions are only a guide. I can recall seeing Network SouthEast EMUs working out of Kings Cross almost ten years after the BR sector ceased to exist. There is now an InterCity Mark 4 set with a Class 91 working on the ECML which was not foreseen when the system was developed, not sure how we explain that one!

 

Nothing beats good research and I expect many on this forum will be able to obtain the information they require from a variety of sources. For those who have neither the time or the inclination to find it for themselves, then the Era system fits the bill.

 

No system will suit everyone’s needs or tastes. The Bachmann Era system was designed to help those who required such information. That it is now widely used seventeen years after it was introduced, shows it is still relevant today. If it was not, it would have disappeared years ago. There will of course be overlaps between eras, changes do not and cannot happen overnight on a specific date although in these days of vinyl stickers they are now quicker than when everything had to be repainted in a major works.

 

Hope this helps

 

Dennis

Edited November 13, 2023 by BMacdermott
transposed words.