Modern Image - is the phrase outdated?

[grahame]

Been there, done that discussion many times before.................

 

 

Mick

 

You're right. It's comments like that which are boring.

 

G.

[57xx]

 

 

[t-b-g]

So the post re-gauging GWR is modern image? The railways have been continuously modernising since the very beginning.

 

I should have included "since the phrase was coined in the early 1960s." when the first major modernisation of the major parts of our railway network started to be carried out.

 

Railways were, other than advances in locos and rolling stock, pretty much the same in many places from the earliest days right up until recent times. Although constant improvements were always under way, the 1960s saw the start of the biggest change in the appearance of the railways since they were invented. Before then, it was a gentle evolutionary change but the "Modernisation Plan" (the clue is in the title) was the first attempt to create, from a corporate point of view, a new, "modern" image for the railway system.

 

It didn't happen everywhere overnight though, which makes pinning a date on it tricky.

 

As an example, I used to go to watch the trains at Stainforth and Hatfield in the mid 1970s. We had a signal box, semaphore signals and buildings dating back to the 1800s. You could have modelled that as it was in 1974 and you could hardly call it modern image.

 

Now it is a bus shelter and high security fencing and not much else. I am not sure what date that happened but that is, to me, "modern image".

 

Going back the the GWR broad gauge, many stations and structures survived the change of gauge and are there to this day. It is hardly appropriate to call a station with lovely original Brunel buildings "modern image". Knock them down and put up a bus shelter or a concrete and glass box and yes, that is modern image.

 

The point I was trying to make is that I feel that the phrase "modern image" is more about the appearance of the railway than about a specific date. If it is used in that context, it makes a bit more sense than trying to use it to describe a period of time.

 

At the moment, people use the phrase to mean different things and that renders it very misleading.

 

Tony

[coachmann]

............At the moment, people use the phrase to mean different things and that renders it very misleading.

 

Tony

I really don't think this is the case t-b-g. To test it, ask anyone in railway modelling what they think 'Modern Image' means and I'll bet you get a 95% return on 'Diesel era'. In retrospect I shouldn't have entered this debate as I honestly feel it is simply not worth chewing the fat over when it won't change a thing, not here on RMweb and not in the wider field outside of forums.

[t-b-g]

I really don't think this is the case t-b-g. To test it, ask anyone in railway modelling what they think 'Modern Image' means and I'll bet you get a 95% return on 'Diesel era'. In retrospect I shouldn't have entered this debate as I honestly feel it is simply not worth chewing the fat over when it won't change a thing, not here on RMweb and not in the wider field outside of forums.

 

 

But when did the "diesel era" start? The transition from steam to diesel was a long period of time. Is modelling a preserved railway in 2013 "modern image"? Is a modern train running through 1890s infrastructure really an example of "modern image"?

 

I agree that no discussion on here will pin down a firm conclusion but I was just  putting forward my thoughts on what I consider to be meant by the term "modern image". It is interesting to see what others think about it especially as there is no "right" answer.

 

Tony

[Ron Ron Ron]

But when did the "diesel era" start?

 

 

Wasn't it with the first diesel electric rail vehicles (trains) in 1903 ?

(Electric powered rail vehicles even pre-date that.)

 

110 years is quite a spread of time !

[Talltim]

I think modellers (and rail fans in general) have a preoccupation with motive power as a signifier of era. Really its only a very small part of the story. Traffic patterns, methods of working, social expectations, architectural fashions etc have had far more influence on the look of the railway than the change from steam to diesel. As someone mentions above, when BR dieselised the trains were much the same as those that came before (although maybe a bit cleaner and not as nice smelling).

Also many classic railway structures were very modern in their day, using the latest in technological advances in building. For example, while the hotel frontage of St Pancras might have been conservative in its style, its scale and the arches of the trainshed behind it certainly weren't

 

Personally, I try not to use the term, and when I do it tends to refer to the railway as it was when CJF coined the term, the early days of British Rail as opposed to British Railways, the time when the organisation made a concerted effort to move from being a continuation of the big four and create its own identity.

However if someone else uses the term, I tend to just think they mean diesels...

Edited November 26, 2013 by Talltim

[Ron Ron Ron]

I agree that no discussion on here will pin down a firm conclusion but I was just  putting forward my thoughts on what I consider to be meant by the term "modern image". It is interesting to see what others think about it especially as there is no "right" answer.

 

(my Bold type Tony).

 

As you've concluded, there's no right answer because, as we've already established, M..... I.... is a meaningless term.

 

Without re-reading the whole thread over again, I can't recall if anyone considered that some (possibly older?) people who use this dreaded term, may actually consider the 1960's to the present day as all the same era and that the demise of steam was something that seems to have occurred just a couple of years ago?

 

Personal perception can be a very curious thing.

I was born in 1955 and I can barely remember steam trains (pre-68).

I think I only ever went on three or four rail journeys as a small child before then anyway.

 

To me the Blue era was in the very distant past.

I missed the sectorisation period almost completely outside of NSE, as the only railway I ever went near was for local trips into London from the Thames Valley.

 

Railways only came back onto my horizon around the period of privatisation in the mid 90's - almost 20 years ago.

That seems like quite a long time ago too and to my mind is quite a different era to the railway I've observed and taken an interest in from the early 00's to today.

 

So you see my perception may be a hundred miles away from that of others.

 

Surely a description of what we model, era etc, would be stated as....

 

What .......(...we model)

When .......(time period - wide or narrow)

& Where ......

 

...in some permutation or other.

 

Strictly defined time periods don't always work. in some situations they may do and others they don't

 

However, IMHO nebulous terms like M..... I.... or Steam era, don't say or mean anything meaningful at all.

 

 

 

.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Black Hat]

My general opinion on times for periods and the phrase modern image is something that moves on constantly. To illustrate Im using the north of England as a context.

 

I think the phrase modern image stands for the current scene. To me, this would be the 2nd phase of privitisation. At the moment the current scene of operators, like DB Shenker, Freightliner, Colas Rail, GBRf for freight, along with Nat Express/East Coast, Arriva Cross Country, Northern Rail. This modern scene has a number of changes from events around 10 years ago. This would be the first period of privitsation, being GNER, EWS, Virgin Cross Country, Arriva Trains Northern, GBRf, Fragonset. The operations have slightly changed between the two. There are more regular working patterns and flows as well as the closure of depots marking a change in diagrams. The changes are the introduction of new and in some cases old stock, which has since been transfered over to a new franchise. Old workings like HSTs, class 47 and stock, Mail trains and how charters operate have all gone or changed considerably.

 

Even in these two fairly immediate periods, the operation, stock, liveries, layout, performance and appearance on the layout should all take into effect the differences between the two. My own layout bridges the two periods, and is now loosely Modern Image as the first scene of privitisation has gone. Most would still think that privisation is the modern image, but to back date everything to around 1995 would be an error of judgement I think. Different periods last different amounts of time. Sectorisation was one that really doesnt last as long as the Blue and Grey period that went before it. This Id group everything in together right from D numbers and the advent of TOPS right through to the start of sectorisation in the late 1980s. These periods tend to last about a decade or so, but no one would seriously suggest that the life span of an engine from grouping to scrapping through the Big Four and British Railways would be one period. As such the same approach to diesels from the classic transition period to the present day is nothing but foolhardy and almost ignorant of the changes that have happened since.

 

Periods and events on the railway show distinct periods and the term modern image does not apply to these now. No one would say the Cuban Missle Crisis, The Falklands War or the collapse of the Berlin Wall were all part of exactly the same modern period we are in now. These have been placed in different period and highlight events of what was happening then.

 

Having periods is all well and good, but they need to reflect not just the engines, but the stock, the operation, the society and passengers they served and the technology used on the railway to differenciate it from another. Modern Image is I think a useful phrase, the only problem with it is that its been used so long and for some, hasnt adapted to the change that has happened on the real railway when some modellers remain fixed on the classic transition period and then dont allow to adapt to what happens afterwards.

[newbryford]

 

 

Without re-reading the whole thread over again, I can't recall if anyone considered that some (possibly older?) people who use this dreaded term, may actually consider the 1960's to the present day as all the same era and that the demise of steam was something that seems to have occurred just a couple of years ago?

 

 

 

 

It's a generalisation, but I don't think you're far off the mark.

Rose tinted spectacles and all that.....

 

Cheers,

Mick

[newbryford]

If you happen to like todays scene are you wearing rose tinted specs? And what about the young men that had good thrashes behind the Class 40's in the rail blue era? Were they wearing pink specs? Those who watched trains in the steam era were no different to later generations of train watchers. I suspect the rose-tinted specs are actually worn by those who regret having missed a particular period. Plenty of those showed up when they suddently realised steam was almost at an end. Same happened when the Deltics and Class 37's suddenly became the 'fad' but they weren't lifelong railway enthusiasts.

 

I remember the end of steam well - my bedroom overlooked one of the last few steam worked goods yards, with locos from Lower Darwen, Lostock Hall and Rose Grove being regulars (maybe that's where my closet interest in BR Standards comes from?). I even saw the 15 guinea special - twice. I may have missed the period before that, but as I wasn't around then, I can't comment and I don't feel I missed any of it.

 

I have gawd knows how many photos of 25's, 40's, D*lt*cs,, 47's, whatever. Too many miles behind them to remember.

 

I can safely say I've been a railway enthusiast for as long as I can remember, and pretty much always modelled the (constantly moving) current scene, although there have been diversions on odd occasions.

 

I don't mourn the passing of steam, or Class 40's, or Mk1's.

 

By all means, record previous eras, but my interest is kept up by the constantly changing railway scene, I wouldn't want to stay in the past.

 

My spectacles aren't rose tinted - they have blinkers to prevent me looking back.

 

Variety - that's most of what makes this hobby great.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[coachmann]

Rose tinted spectacles and all that.....

 

Cheers,

Mick

You solicited opinions when starting this thread questioning the use of a phrase ('Modern Image'), yet you find it hard in accepting that others peoples opinions might differ. In addition, you have this extraordinarry assumption that only linesiders who were active in the steam-era wore rose-tinted specs.  

[newbryford]

 yet you find it hard in accepting that others peoples opinions might differ.

 

 

I think that maybe makes two of us.

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Pete 75C]

 

PLEASE NOTE: this is not a place to air the diesel v steam debate.

 

 

Yeah right, and my kitchen doesn't have an oven in it...

[Andy Y]

Breathe in and count to ten.

[newbryford]

Yeah right, and my kitchen doesn't have an oven in it...

 

Too right and I can only apologise for being drawn in.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Clive Mortimore]

I remember the end of steam well - my bedroom overlooked one of the last few steam worked goods yards, with locos from Lower Darwen, Lostock Hall and Rose Grove being regulars (maybe that's where my closet interest in BR Standards comes from?). I even saw the 15 guinea special - twice. I may have missed the period before that, but as I wasn't around then, I can't comment and I don't feel I missed any of it.

 

I have gawd knows how many photos of 25's, 40's, D*lt*cs,, 47's, whatever. Too many miles behind them to remember.

 

I can safely say I've been a railway enthusiast for as long as I can remember, and pretty much always modelled the (constantly moving) current scene, although there have been diversions on odd occasions.

 

I don't mourn the passing of steam, or Class 40's, or Mk1's.

 

By all means, record previous eras, but my interest is kept up by the constantly changing railway scene, I wouldn't want to stay in the past.

 

My spectacles aren't rose tinted - they have blinkers to prevent me looking back.

 

Variety - that's most of what makes this hobby great.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Like Mick, I too recall the end of steam but was living in another part of the country where the change took place a couple of years earlier so my exposure would have been less. Nether the less I do recall 8Fs taking coal to the power station I was later to work in. A Black Five shunting loaded cattle wagons in Holyhead. Spam Cans whistling through Farnborough when I went to visit my Nan. All this steam action was happening in the time period I model.

 

I have chosen to model the ex GER lines in the early to mid 1960s which was one of the first areas to lose its steam locos. My time period is set in between July 1962 until April 1967*, predating the end of steam. I have also chosen to model a diesel depot. In doing so, to many other railway modellers I am a “Modern Image” modeller, because “Modern Image” means diesel. No diesel means diesel.

 

My modelling has a closer affinity with Larry’s mid to late 1950s modelling than Mick’s present day trains. In fact I enjoy seeing Larry’s BR liveried coaches, his recent LMS period II open seconds in post 1956 BR maroon do far more for me than Mick’s  bright yellow Network Rail Mk2 and 3 track recording coaches.   

 

Unlike Mick I have stayed in the past but only with my modelling interest. I have not mourned the passing of steam, my favourite diesel classes or anything on the railways. In fact today I wish I had my camera as I saw I train that I had not seen before going through Chelmsford, a EWS 66 with a rake of Mendip Rail open bogie wagons.

 

Larry’s 1950s modelling, my 1960s and Micks present day help make this a great hobby with the variety of time periods, locations etc. we can model and enjoy seeing others model.

 

My glasses are not tinted either. I do have some extra strong dark glasses for next time I see Mick’s demo stand.  

 

*April 1967 being when the first whole class of locos that appeared in all blue were introduced.

[roger440]

Why not call what you are modelling what it is?

 

Im modelling the late 80's.

 

Modern it isn't. Almost everything i remember/want to re-create is gone.

[Ross34]

Why not call what you are modelling what it is?

 

Im modelling the late 80's.

 

Modern it isn't. Almost everything i remember/want to re-create is gone.

 

I think that sums it up.

 

Why not just use the year? for example - Wigan 1980, 4mm scale. .. or Wigan 1880, 7mm scale.

 

The former tells me I'm likely to see diesel or electric traction - the latter steam (obviously).

 

A layout labelled "Wigan 1960" tells me I'm likely to see a mix of diesel and steam traction. (again, perhaps rather obviously)

 

If you are unaware of what traction ran when I'd suggest generally you wouldn't be that bothered either way.

 

But giving a layout a year tells me more than just what's hauling the trains - building design, road transport, signage, the fashions of the day (a detail often so overlooked its criminal).. plus the many small details that give a layout a sense of place.

[Guest]

Basingstoke 1970 (for example) just wouldn't work for me as a layout name. I'm not disciplined enough to want to model a single year. Changing the nameboards and the road vehicles is often enough to (semi) convincingly span a layout from, say 1975 right through to  perhaps 1995. That allows a greater variety of stock. Getting back to the OP, I grew up with modelling magazines in the late 70s and became accustomed to the phrase "modern image" which was everywhere. It stuck in my head. To me, the absence of steam engines from a layout means "modern image". I know some folk don't like the term, but what does it really matter?

Edited October 28, 2017 by Pete 75C

[Ross34]

Well, how about "Basingstoke in the early 70s" - at least that still tells me I'm not going to see steam. Or "Basingstoke around 1970" then it perhaps justifies the odd aging steam - just.

 

IMHO 20 years is too big a gap to create a convincing model ( a good layout isn't just about the loco or the stock). Personally, I don't want to see an exhibition layout with a big time span that allows that much variety of stock - it smacks of being a bit "train-setty"... but hey each to his own.

 

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure why D + E needs to be given a label at all; the first mainline diesel was when? 1948 with 10,000-10,001 - that's almost 70 years!. 

[Steamport Southport]

I grew up in the 1970s and if you asked me what "Modern Image" meant to me back then, then I would have said BR Blue with double arrows, no steam (except VOR), no BR green diesels/electrics or maroon coaches (even though a few still survived). I would say that's the cut of point.

 

Just because it's a diesel or electric, doesn't mean it's modern. I travelled on LMS EMUs quite often, they were old, but they were still part of the "image" as they were painted in B/G. But I wouldn't call a Liverpool Overhead Railway coach "modern image" even though some of them worked alongside each other at one point.

 

 

 

 

Jason

[RJS1977]

IIRC CJF coined the phrase when BR dropped the 'ways' from its title and replaced the various lion and wheel emblems with the double arrows.

 

 

So pre-War Southern Electric units wouldn't be 'modern image', but rail blue VoR tank engines would be! Also by that definition, an Underground layout running S-stock would not be modern image unless BR or its successors impinged on it in some way. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by RJS1977

[APOLLO]

Modern Image definitive start date.

 

 

 

That's it then, end of thread !!!!!

 

Brit15

[Nearholmer]

Several posts back, it was said that the transition to diesel was very gradual. I’d argue the opposite.

 

In 1955 I think there were five or six mainline diesels, and oodles of steam locos on BR. By 1967, no steamers, VoR excepted, and a whole stack of mainline diesels. And, deliveries didn’t start until, I think, 1959, so it was a very sharp transition.

 

DMUs were slightly earlier, and the shunted transition spread over about thirty years, but mainline diesels arrived in a hurry (and a muddle). The 25kV electrics burst forth over the same span too.

 

The gentlest transition was probably on the SR, where electrification started in 1909, and isn’t yet finished.

 

And, Ron Ron Ron, there wasn’t a DE in 1903, the first was in 1912/13 in Sweden; in 1903 there were a few PE, but they dated back to c1887, so weren’t totally novel.

 

Kevin