What the Classic Trains forum is about NEWCOMERS read this

[arkansasrailfan]

I have taken it upon myself to help clear this mess.
NEWCOMERS READ THIS.
this a forum about real classic trains, you know, 1:1 scale, now, if you are interseted in toy or model trains and you have a prototypical question, then please ask. I've read some posts about old toy and model trains because some people got confused and thought that this was a forum about classic toy and model trains. Now, if you are intrested in real trains, then you're in the right place. If you're new, then look at the top where all the magazine logos are, click on your topic, then you will come to a menu bar, there will be a button that says "Forum", and just click it.The SHORT WAY; just look under the "tra" in trains.com, where it says "forum", click it and look for the forum that relates to your topic, but if it's something different- that doesn't fit in any of the catagories ex. movies, tv shows, songs, then it really doesn't matter where you put it.

hope this helps the problem

anybody who wants to do more explaining or correcting is welcome to

[wjstix]

Might be nice if the moderators could make this (or something similar) a 'sticky' or otherwise keep it up front to remind people this is Classic REAL Trains, not Classic TOY Trains magazine's forum.

[doctorwayne]

Hmmm.  It looks better than what I normally see when I visit here:  only 7 out of 23 threads on page one are about non-prototype trains.  A moderator or administrator should be able to move the offending posts to more suitable locations, but it might also be a good idea to re-title the forum "Prototype Classic Trains"  (I know, that's not the name of the magazine ).  Most of the mis-placed posts are by newbies, so their mistake, while annoying, is somewhat understandable, although I find it strange that the first entry on the list of forums is "Classic Toy Trains Forums".

Wayne

[Anonymous]

It's quite possible that the 'Newbies' don't think that they have 'Toy Trains', and so they go to the 'Classic' forum because they have a classic train set.  I was/am in O, HO, and now G and I don't think that any of the stuff I have or had should be labeled as 'toys'!!!!

Kalmbach didn't choose the names of the two publications too wisely, in my humble opinion. That old saw about 'unintended consequences' is at work. 

These postings, since this isn't a 'sticky' thread, won't do the trick. And if Bergie puts a sticky up at the top, in all probability it won't get read,

 Art

[arkansasrailfan]

The first two replies, I perfectly agree with, the third one, wellll... I don't know, but it's good, I give you( artschlosser) for throwing in a good idea. But how about the forum saying Classic Trains, and under it classic prototype railroading, hopefully some higher power can fix this problem!!!! Oh yes, i'm a teen, and if I was new, i would probably see the magazine titles first, and say ah-ha!, it's Classic Toy Trains, or Model Railroader, those magazine(s) are just right for me! So, what's my point? well my point is, is that newbies aren't seeing those magazine titles, and they rush over the forums, and see Classic Trains, and say their stuff when we say, umm, sorry, but you're looking for MR or CTT, don't worry, many people make that mistake. but they can come back and talk about real classic trains and all that good stuff.

[arkansasrailfan]

in order to keep this post on top and visible, I ask you... PLease!!! reply to this forum , say something about the confusion- anything!!!!


thank you

[JanOlov]

I think that the signs up at the top are easy to see. Anything that's too large to put in your garage is either Trains or Classic trains.....anything smaller probably MR, CTT or GR.

[egmurphy]

I think it's great that people post here by mistake.  At least it gives the forum some traffic.  I mean, only 6 threads have been posted in today. 

It's not like the misplaced threads are pushing the "real classic trains" topics off the front page.  I would suspect you can deal with them and merely politely point them in the correct direction.

It's going to be fun and more confusing when Kalmbach continue to expand their magazine selection and come out with "Classic Trains for gardens" and "Classic Scale Trains", and their associated forums, of course. 

Regards

Ed

[arkansasrailfan]

Please tell me you're joking about those two new magazines. but in my oringinal post i said ,"you can come back post things about real trains." that solves it right there, posts go to proper forums everbody's happy, it's all balenced(spelling).

>-

[Anonymous]

Since we are on the topic of distinguishing Classic Trains from model trains, I would like to ask exactly what distinguishes the forum, Classic Trains from the forum, Trains.  And once we get that mystery sorted out, I would like to know what distinguishes the Trains forum sub-forums, steam & preservation, locomotives, transit, and passenger from the forum, Trains and from the forum, Classic Trains. 

[egmurphy]

I would like to ask exactly what distinguishes the forum, Classic Trains from the forum, Trains.  

Just like the content of the two magazines, Trains tends to be more (but not entirely) about current day railroading, while Classic Trains tends to be about the stuff that's gone.  Just like that '55 Chevy is a Classic.

And once we get that mystery sorted out, I would like to know what distinguishes the Trains forum sub-forums, steam & preservation, locomotives, transit, and passenger from the forum, Trains and from the forum, Classic Trains. 

Ah, Grasshopper, now you've stumbled onto the real question.  You might as well as ask "What's the meaning of life?"

No, actually, the Trains Magazine sub-forums were just an attempt to provide some way of keeping the Trains Magazine General Forum from getting so much traffic that topics quickly drop to page 2.  None of them really cross over into the Classic Trains realm.  Here, let's look at the descriptions of what those sub-forums are supposed to include.

Steam & Preservation
Contemporary mainline steam excursion operations, museums, tourist railroads. Learn about restorations, talk about techniques, and discuss the future of railroad museums.

Note that Classic Trains generally does not deal with museums and preservation, although they occasionally include something.

Locomotives
The power that moves the nation's freight and passenger trains every day. Find out about new locomotives, the fate of old favorites, and ask experts about locomotive performance.

Transit
Commuter railroads and light rail. Talk about the latest developments in urban transit systems from coast to coast.

Passenger
The place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals.

You'll also note from a quick perusal of the index, noting number of posts and last posting time, that while these sub-forums get some traffic most people continue to just lump everything into the General forum.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

Regards

Ed

[Anonymous]

I would like to ask exactly what distinguishes the forum, Classic Trains from the forum, Trains.  

Just like the content of the two magazines, Trains tends to be more (but not entirely) about current day railroading, while Classic Trains tends to be about the stuff that's gone.  Just like that '55 Chevy is a Classic.

Thanks Ed

That is what I would have concluded, and I imagine that most people would agree, but it is incorrect according to Robert McGonigal, the editor of Classic Trains.

I once asked him if the reason that they did not cover the period from around 1900 or earlier was that polls showed no interest.  He said that was not the reason.  He said the reason was that Classic Trains is targeted to a specific, narrow timeframe.  I don't recall exactly the brackets of that timeframe, but I assume it goes no earlier than about 1930.  He said that it is the mission of TRAINS to cover the entire history of railroads, even though they devote more coverage to the more recent era.  He cited the TRAINS article on Casey Jones, and said that article belonged in TRAINS rather than Classic Trains because the 1900 timeframe of the Casey Jones wreck was too early for the coverage mission of Classic Trains. 

This information applies to the magazines, according to Mr. McGonigal, but I am not sure if it applies correspondingly to the forums. 

 

[MOJAX]

bump

[arkansasrailfan]

Oh yes, and if everybody who is KINDLY directing people to the right forum would add a link to this post, so we don't have explain the details, which I've provided

[FloridaPanhandler]

I don't think this problem is going to go away unless the forum name itself is changed.  Someone who just sees "classic trains forums" could easily assume it refers to classic toy or model trains.  I realize the forum titles are intended to conform to the magazine titles, but anyone who isn't familiar with each magazine could easily make the mistake.  I would suggest the moderators change the forum name to "classic (real) trains" or something like that.  Just my 2 cents.

[dbaker48]

Very Good thread !

[JanOlov]

Maybe it's time for a redesign of this forum, to make it more recognizable in what it deals with? As for the timeframe of Classic Trains, to me classic trains is from the very beginning to the arrival of Conrail...shivers.... Are you sure that the magazine begin coverage from 1930? In that case you miss the first NYC Hudson's (1927) and NP's first Northern's (1926)....oh well.

Need to go and check....

[Anonymous]

Maybe it's time for a redesign of this forum, to make it more recognizable in what it deals with? As for the timeframe of Classic Trains, to me classic trains is from the very beginning to the arrival of Conrail...shivers.... Are you sure that the magazine begin coverage from 1930? In that case you miss the first NYC Hudson's (1927) and NP's first Northern's (1926)....oh well.

Need to go and check....

When I said that the editor of Classic Trains told me that they cover back to about 1930, that is my characterization of the general date based on my interpretation of what he said.  But he indicated that clearly there was a cutoff in how far back Classic Trains would cover whereas there was no such cutoff with Trains.  He did make it clear that anything as old as say 1900 or earlier is out of the time range for Classic Trains, and the appropritate magazine to cover that timeframe is TRAINS.  And he cited the Casey Jones (1900) article in TRAINS as an example of something that would not be covered in Classic Trains because 1900 is too early for that magazine, but not for TRAINS.

[arkansasrailfan]

I think they should put a description beside each forum
It should be:Trains-real trains, C. Trains-classic real trains, CTT-toy trains, GR-garden railroading, amd MR-model trains.

[arkansasrailfan]

someone needs to put this post in the box above the main thread. It's kind of tiring trying to keep this afloat.

[arkansasrailfan]

Holy cow, I looked back at posts from 2004-03 and people were doing it then!!

[arkansasrailfan]

Maybe someone needs to upgrade the webpage to direct newcomers to thr right place.oh well, at least it's genrating some traffic, and it makes some excitment(maybe?????????????)