And I will renew my position that railroad technology, or even railroad specific history, should not be the only defining criteria.
And that is why every 10 years, or every five years makes sense.
Sheldon
I contend that picking nice, even decadal periods or even propulsive technology is not the way to go. Broader, but visually distinctive, periods carve out times that give the individual model railroader an "era" that defines what they run without trying to tie it to years:
Contemporary: Ditchlights, reflective striping, COTS panels deleted from rolling stock, headshields on tank cars, PTC antennas
Modern: Roofwalks deleted, ACI labels, yellow dots from wheel inspections, IPD boxcars, the first wide cabs.
Mid-Century: no steam, wood rolling stock has all but vanished, pre-Amtrak passenger trains
Late Steam: early generation diesels are around, but steam rules the day. Steel rolling stock dominates, but wood hasn't disappeared.
Golden Age: Steam-only, the classic age of wood reefers and stock cars, rivets everywhere.
Earlier than that, you're already so niche that you'll just say "Civil War" or whatever, because you're in a different category compared to the more mass-market model builder.
MJ4562 1) Modern: 2000 to present 2) Modern transition: 1980-1999 3) Diesel: 1960-1980 4) Diesel Transition: 1940-1960 5) Steam: Pre-1940
1) Modern: 2000 to present
2) Modern transition: 1980-1999
3) Diesel: 1960-1980
4) Diesel Transition: 1940-1960
5) Steam: Pre-1940
NittanyLion I contend that picking nice, even decadal periods or even propulsive technology is not the way to go. Broader, but visually distinctive, periods carve out times that give the individual model railroader an "era" that defines what they run without trying to tie it to years
I contend that picking nice, even decadal periods or even propulsive technology is not the way to go. Broader, but visually distinctive, periods carve out times that give the individual model railroader an "era" that defines what they run without trying to tie it to years
I was leaning towards the "decades" idea, but MJ4562 and Nittany Lion made some really great points.
Saying I model "the 1950s" sounds different than I model "the late transition era".
This has been a good discussion. Please keep posting your thoughts.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
By way of expanding the reach of this tar-baby thread, perhaps a better 'working definition' is what is not included: no wooden-under frame cars or AC synthesis-drive engines; no plain bearings in interchange but no 53' well flats... you get the picture, but it could be any day in a range of years that your favorite equipment might 'plausibly' run the way you want it to operate.
This neatly handles the 'don't care' parts, too -- if you don't care what year muscle cars got redlines or when radios became road standard you can just 'let it be'...
NittanyLion I contend that picking nice, even decadal periods or even propulsive technology is not the way to go. Broader, but visually distinctive, periods carve out times that give the individual model railroader an "era" that defines what they run without trying to tie it to years: Contemporary: Ditchlights, reflective striping, COTS panels deleted from rolling stock, headshields on tank cars, PTC antennas Modern: Roofwalks deleted, ACI labels, yellow dots from wheel inspections, IPD boxcars, the first wide cabs. Mid-Century: no steam, wood rolling stock has all but vanished, pre-Amtrak passenger trains Late Steam: early generation diesels are around, but steam rules the day. Steel rolling stock dominates, but wood hasn't disappeared. Golden Age: Steam-only, the classic age of wood reefers and stock cars, rivets everywhere. Earlier than that, you're already so niche that you'll just say "Civil War" or whatever, because you're in a different category compared to the more mass-market model builder.
OK, I get and like the "visually distinctive" idea, but this is still not enough of a breakdown in my mind.
And again, if you are modeling "whole scenes" there is much more to it than rail technology markers.
Yes there will always be those big key changes. For my modeling one of those is the late 1953 appearance of 75' piggyback flats on the PRR, WABASH and the ATLANTIC CENTRAL .
Those cars were rare and regional in 1954, but a year earlier they did not exist.
By the early 60's those same cars were obsolite for piggyback and replaced by 85' cars.
That sets a pretty small window........
I just can't see any of these 40 to 60 year windows people have suggested, no matter the criteria.
I don't care if you decide that the best breaks in the list are not "on the decade", make it 1953 to 1963 if that matches the changes better.
But I am still thinking 5 year blocks would be most accurate.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI don't care if you decide that the best breaks in the list are not "on the decade", make it 1953 to 1963 if that matches the changes better.
Sheldon, I will say a 10-12 year window would be a better block choice.
Also I agree a lot of changes can take place in five years.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
What are we attempting to accomplish here by naming 'eras'? Serious question.
In my experience eras are only generalizations and quick reference points used to quickly/conveniently categorize and describe the style of railroading you model or are interested in; similar to using pronouns in conversation instead of constantly referring to a person by name. Also eras are commonly used for marketing purposes and surveys to group styles together.
So if for example you model contemporary railroading, you don't waste your time looking at golden era of steam products or discuss operations of that era or vice versa.
When it comes to detailing your layout, era is meaningless as you need to focus much more narrowly if you are trying to model a prototype time period. For example, a Kennedy-Johnson campaign poster is inccorect detail if your layout is dated prior to August 13 1960 or after November 22 1963. Likewise you better not have Spring foilage in New England if set in the Fall. While I'm not one of them, there are rail historians that can similarly date photos to a very narrow time range just by looking at the type of diesel unit being used. While these are important details, they are well outside the scope of Model Railroad Eras.
MJ4562What are we attempting to accomplish here by naming 'eras'? Serious question.
Sheldon (ATLANTIC CENTRAL) started a thread asking everybody what "era" they model, but he did not provide a list for anyone to choose from.
I did not want to throw his thread off-topic, so I started a new thread to see what eras we have to choose from, and what they are called.
I model the "transition era", which is a term that everyone understands, but I do not know if other eras have names that are as obvious.
The "modern era" keeps changing.
This is really just a light discussion, nothing to change the world.
MJ4562 What are we attempting to accomplish here by naming 'eras'? Serious question. In my experience eras are only generalizations and quick reference points used to quickly/conveniently categorize and describe the style of railroading you model or are interested in; similar to using pronouns in conversation instead of constantly referring to a person by name. Also eras are commonly used for marketing purposes and surveys to group styles together. So if for example you model contemporary railroading, you don't waste your time looking at golden era of steam products or discuss operations of that era or vice versa. When it comes to detailing your layout, era is meaningless as you need to focus much more narrowly if you are trying to model a prototype time period. For example, a Kennedy-Johnson campaign poster is inccorect detail if your layout is dated prior to August 13 1960 or after November 22 1963. Likewise you better not have Spring foilage in New England if set in the Fall. While I'm not one of them, there are rail historians that can similarly date photos to a very narrow time range just by looking at the type of diesel unit being used. While these are important details, they are well outside the scope of Model Railroad Eras.
Well, OK.
The OP, Kevin, and myself, are pretty specific.
He has a set date and time of day, despite being a freelance modeler.
I have a set month and year, despite being a freelance/protolance modeler who also models three real railroads as closely as practical.
"era is meaningless as you need to focus much more narrowly if you are trying to model a prototype time period"
Everybody in this hobby decides for themselves just how "accurate" or "fussy" they want to be about stuff, "need" is a strong word here.
Some people are happy just describing their layouts as being "approximately" between 1977 and 1983 for example, and don't care about small anacronisums.
Some don't care at all.
I have long contended that as time marches on, there are more different prototypes to make models of, more "eras" to choose from, but not a similar growth in the number of modelers.
Thereby reducing the demand for any one model, or models from any one "era", which is part of the product conundrum we are in today - products made to order via preorder.
So defining "eras" to some degree and possibly determining the level of interest in each, likely has value to both modelers and manufacturers.
Personally, while I make a strong effort to make my layout very "era" correct for my September 1954 "era", I make no effort to model real places. Maybe that fails your "need" test as well?
In another thread, a poster suggested that he "knew" that "most" (or a large percentage) modelers are interested in and model present day trains.
I started a thread to take an informal poll. The results suggested that the late 40's to the early 50's remains the most popular range, with other time periods in the late 20th century also being popular.
I suspect Kevin desired to further define people's thinking on this.
Another interestnig question would be "why did you decide to model a specific era"?
The answer for many would be "I didn't", and that is fine.
The first STRATTON AND GILLETTE did not have a specific era. This was mainly because the N scale equipment available in 1982 did not allow for too much era selection, especially on my budget.
Then the SGRR went to 1968 because of the excellent equipment Kato was bringing to the market. SD-40s, GP-40s, GP-35s, GP-30s, and more. Add to that the Atlas SD-9s, and it was 1968 heaven.
Then after two more N scale layouts I switched to HO. The HO scale STRATTON AND GILLETTE was originally 1968 also, but my desire for steam, and ability to live without anything newer than a GP-9 made that happen. The date ws moved to 1954.
I model a specific date because I hate anachronism. You will not see any equipment on my layout that could not have existed in 1954 (The SGRR went into TOFC service early and heavy).
However, I play fast-and-loose with everything else. The location of my layout is purposefully impossible to nail down. It could be the midwest, Georgia, or Oregon. No one knows, and I do not say. I have regional things from all over the United States, but I don't even claim the layout is in the USA.
But... all the flags have 48 stars, and there are no 1955 Chevrolets anywhere.
I believe Kevin and MJ54562 have hit on a reasonable breakdown on era. I model transition era(with license). I guess my upper limit is defined by autos. No models past 1956 are on the layout. I do fudge a bit on rolling stock.
LastspikemikeMost serious modellers want their railroad to represent something
We try to avoid the terms "serious model railroader" and "real model railroader" in these forums because it always brings the conversation to a bad place.
If you want to discuss what makes someone a serious model railroader, please start a new thread, and then it will be locked very soon, but I do not want this brought up in my thread about eras.
Thank you.
I model the Transition Era, (1947-1963) and little bit of the Present Day, (1980-2017).
Sometimes I don't join into a thread when I just don't know Kevin.
My way of thinking whether right or wrong has always been...
Old west steam, wood burners and darn near everything was made out of wood, horses and no cars.
More modern steam when they started burning coal and started building steel Bridges, also Stone Masonry, abutments, portals Etc. Oil is discovered and people start putting around in thier Model T's and model A's. Industry begins.
Pre-transitional steam when they started burning mainly oil, concrete forming and structure without Stone. Steel-framed everything. Industry starts booming.
Transitional era.
Modern day era
And double stack modern day now.
So I guess it looks like I think six
I have a railroad roster of both transitional and modern-day. My plan is to be able to clear off the layout and switch eras once and awhile.
I sure like the old west steam though. My plan is someday when I finish the layout I'm on is to start an HON30 layout in an old west logging town theme. The kind of layout where you can fit bigger into smaller not having to worry about radius and grades as much and it still looks good.
TF
SeeYou190 "serious model railroader"
Kevin, Serious model railroader isn't as bad as many think. You and I are indeed "serious" modelers in the way we choose to model.
I am very serious when it comes to have era correct cars,you enjoy collecting freelance railroad cars so, you too are "serious".
In short everybody is serious in their form of modeling.
As I historian, I tried to avert my eyes from what I knew would be a trainwreck. Era definitions are artificial constructs with a useful goal to help better define how one thinks about history. Beyond that, don't get too hung up on them. History doesn't care, because it's mostly about facts with a big helping of argument about what those facts imply. By the act of choosing how to define eras, no matter which way you turn, you're making an argument about history with the facts. And your era definitions are only as useful to you as you can make them and only as persuasive to others as you can build credible evidence for. There aren't really right or wrong answers here, it's more about how good a case you can make from your POV.
There are literally hundreds of eras in RRing alone. Big, broad eras, like steam vs diesel are easy enough to bring up if not precisely identify.
Consider that every major RR and many smaller ones each have their own set of eras defined by technology, people, money, and the economy they operated in. Then confuse things a bit more by throwing in outfits like the Rio Grande, which operated modern stuff at the same time they ran steam, through the 70s, the 1970s.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
If sufficiently motivated, you could model any give year, or any month of that year, since the first commercial run of Stephen's Rocket.
Some would interest me more than others. You would probably like a different time.
mlehman Era definitions are artificial constructs with a useful goal to help better define how one thinks about history.
They cannot really be used outside the topic they are describing.
I don't think any model railroaders model the "Napoleanic Era", but a lot of military buffs have that as their main interest.
Grouping years together that are visually similar is very handy for descriptive purposes. It makes it easier to commmunicate with one another.
MJ4562Dominated by steam. Yes, diesels exist but they are a minority. Team tracks can refer to trucks or horse drawn wagons. Era covers everything from vertical boilers and the Best Friend of Charleston (name?) to Superpower steam locomotives. The reason this era is so huge is because these earlier time periods are so underrepresented in the hobby. If you're modeling the 1840s you are pretty much scratchbuilding most of your equipment. Same with 1900. That's why I lump this era all together.
You may be correct, but some steam modelers would break this era down into early steam, civil war, 19th century, TOC19, Pre-depression era, and depression era.
Gary
SeeYou190Grouping years together that are visually similar is very handy for descriptive purposes. It makes it easier to commmunicate with one another.
Yeah, sometimes it does and that's usually when people discuss the stuff involved, rather than spending a lot of time trying to fit things into somewhat arbitrary boxes. Among historians, such discussions are thought of as part of historiography or the "history of history."
While it can be a helpful device to open a discussion, I tend to find it boring and dry when it gets stuck on that and really doesn't advance understanding because people focus on their disagreement on how to classify things rather than dealing with topics that often can't be reduced to. A discussion about which somewhat arbitrary slot something goes into is relatively less interesting than looking at its overall significance to me.