R. T. POTEET ... at the "turn-of-the-nineteenth-century" trains were powered by horse manure -- think about that for a moment;
OK, I've thought about it. Since much of our passenger rail system is now run by the government, and the government is now talking about spending billions on a "high-speed" rail system that the old New York Central would have laughed at before World War II, I've concluded that our trains are still powered by horse manure.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
yankee flyer You guys have way too much time on your hands. Go chase a train. Lee
You guys have way too much time on your hands. Go chase a train.
Lee
But what if I catch it? My wife won't let me bury it in the yard...
Woof! Woof!
Chuck (Off to the layout room to model more of Central Japan in September, 1964 - right hip willing)
Robt. Livingston I never understood why the quote in your "sig" claims that "only dead fish go with the flow". As anyone who has spent any time observing or reading about the behavior of salmon can attest, the fish swim upstream to lay eggs, and they swim downstream (with the flow) after they hatch. If it was only one way, there wouldn't be any fish at all!
I never understood why the quote in your "sig" claims that "only dead fish go with the flow". As anyone who has spent any time observing or reading about the behavior of salmon can attest, the fish swim upstream to lay eggs, and they swim downstream (with the flow) after they hatch. If it was only one way, there wouldn't be any fish at all!
Note the difference between swimming, in any direction, (power applied, for propulsion and steering) and bobbing along with a zero speed differential between the fish and the water. Living salmon swimming downstream will reach the ocean long before the remains of their deceased parents.
Likewise, there is a difference in management styles between, "Let's try this new (whatever) and see if it works," and "Well, all of our competitors are doing this, so I guess we should, too."
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
(Your answer is) not actualy(sp) giving any usefull(sp) information. You, however, feel the need to add your two cents worth to every topic on this forum. . . . . . . . . . . both Greg H.
You, however, feel the need to add your two cents worth to every topic on this forum.
. . . . . . . . . . both Greg H.
Icefoot I've been wondering something lately that has been causing me a bit of consternation. It is the phrase "turn of the century". We now have two periods in the history of railroading where the century has changed. Therefore, we now have two "turn of the century" eras. One in 1900, the other in 2000. Due to habits formed over 25 years of working in a technical field and needing to be very clear and unambiguous when communicating, having two turn of the century periods with no clear way of differentiating between them has been bugging me for some time now.
I've been wondering something lately that has been causing me a bit of consternation. It is the phrase "turn of the century". We now have two periods in the history of railroading where the century has changed. Therefore, we now have two "turn of the century" eras. One in 1900, the other in 2000. Due to habits formed over 25 years of working in a technical field and needing to be very clear and unambiguous when communicating, having two turn of the century periods with no clear way of differentiating between them has been bugging me for some time now.
Tis, indeed, a puzzlement!
Actually we have had three periods in the history of railroading where the century has changed and the method of power was different at each change: at the "turn-of-the-nineteenth-century" trains were powered by horse manure -- think about that for a moment; at the "turn-of-the-twentieth-century', with a few exceptions, trains were powered by steam; and at the "turn-of-the-twenty-first-century", again with a few exceptions, trains are powered by internal combustion -- for you people who prize Al Franken as your dearly beloved Senator that's what you probably have under the hood of your automobile and which you probably call a car. The way things are developing there will probably not be any trains around at the "turn-of-the-twenty-second-century."
IcefootI find myself wondering if people (even fellow model railroaders) understand which one I refer to when I say "I model the Southern Railway around the turn of the century". I am referring to the first turn (1900) that most of us older MRs have always know as "turn of the century". As the current century progresses and we gain new, younger modelers born in this century, will they assume "turn of the century" is the time period around 2000 and get confused as to why there are no diesels on a "turn of the century" layout?
There should really be no problem because Southern Railway existed at the "turn-of-the-twentieth-century"; it had long since bit the dust as a corporate entity by the "turn-of-the-twenty-first-century" -- in fact, the Onion Specific and KCS are the only two Class Is around at the "turn-of-the-twenty-first-century" who were also around a century before -- that's 100 years for those of you who prize Al Franken as your dearly beloved Senator!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Robt. Livingston Back at the (real) turn of the century, 100 MPH was considered very fast, so "the century" was an expression used to describe a speed at or above 100 mph. In that era, railroads, autos, and airplanes struggled to break the century barrier.
Back at the (real) turn of the century, 100 MPH was considered very fast, so "the century" was an expression used to describe a speed at or above 100 mph. In that era, railroads, autos, and airplanes struggled to break the century barrier.
I was listening to NPR the other day, and they were discussing the near-term future for high-speed rail in this country. It was pointed out that in the 1930s, crack passenger trains routinely hit 100 miles per hour on many routes. Now, the only train that can touch that is the Acela in the Northeast Corridor, and even that is only for very limited sections of the right-of-way. The people speaking thought that the current "high-speed rail" would end up being more like 80-90 mph trains, nowhere close to the 200 mph bullet trains of Europe and Japan which are typically pictured. To me, that sounds like we're building a dinosaur if we invest all that money and can't even reach the speeds that were common almost a century ago.
As for "turn of the century?" I still think of it as 1899->1900. "Momentous" occasions like this seldom have anything more than fanfare to mark them, and my own life was certainly no different from one day to the next on either side of the mellenium mark. The most recent "turn" has nothing to distinguish it from the current day, at least railroad-wise, so I don't see much reason to mark the event with a grand and eloquent name.
Well, he could be modeling in the Leslie LaCroix universe, where the NS is still a Virginia shortline and the PRR decided that a J with a Belpaire firebox would be a better idea than the T-1 of dubious fame, while Altoona was developing the superlocomotives that were described in the old Trains article Did We Scrap Steam Too Soon?
However, if he was referring to the Neil Armstrong universe (aka reality), even the least bit of context will make it very clear which century turned. Steam, cabooses, Pullman, TTTO... the list of things that faded away during the 20th century goes on and on. OTOH, there is an even longer list of things that make it obvious that the century/millennium referred to is the 21st.
Of course, for even greater accuracy, the specific place and date should be specified. As you can see from my signature note, I settle for specifying the month...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in the Alfred E. Newman universe)
It seems to me that if you say...
"I model the Southern Railway around the turn of the century"
That it couldn't be more clear. Did the Southern Railway have a turn of the century 9 years ago? I was under the impression that it ceased, due to merger in 1982.
I think many of us use the term to still refer to 1900; however, it would be less confusing to say turn of the 20th century (turn of the century being 2001).
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
wjstix Good point, 2001 (the century really started Jan 1 2001 not Jan 1 2000) was not just a new century but a new millennium (1000 years), and has been referred to that way...Millennium Park, Millennium Bridge etc. It may be too soon to know if it will continue to be used or if "turn of the century" will be used to represent 2001. On a side note, it will be interesting to see if after 2009 we continue to say the "two thousand" part, rather than the more normal "twenty"...i.e. say "two thousand twenty-three" vs. "twenty twenty-three" for 2023 for example.
Good point, 2001 (the century really started Jan 1 2001 not Jan 1 2000) was not just a new century but a new millennium (1000 years), and has been referred to that way...Millennium Park, Millennium Bridge etc. It may be too soon to know if it will continue to be used or if "turn of the century" will be used to represent 2001.
On a side note, it will be interesting to see if after 2009 we continue to say the "two thousand" part, rather than the more normal "twenty"...i.e. say "two thousand twenty-three" vs. "twenty twenty-three" for 2023 for example.
I use a little bit of inference when someone states "turn of the century". Since you said you model the Southern RR, I can readily infer that you are modelling the around the 1900s since the Southern RR (at an individual name) is currently defunct. Then again, as everyone else has said, its easier to state which century you speak of.
It's like when you talk about the 90's (or 80's). If you mean the 1890's (or 1880's) you need to specify that. When I started in the hobby in the early 70's, the 90's were 1890's - not so anymore. I suspect that in about 10 years or less "turn of the century" will mean 2000 (I know 2000 is in the last century, but very few use it that way) and you'll have to specify 1900.
Enjoy
Paul
I would say generally speaking when one says "turn of the century" they are referring to the transition from the 1900's We generally refer to 2000 and above as the new millennium. I have yet to hear anyone refer to it any other way. It's strictly a matter of semantics weather you use this term or not.
I would be willing to bet if you posted your question in a different way such as what time period do you consider turn of the century in model railroading or railroading in general the majority would have answered the obvious 1900 plus.
Generally, "turn of the century" means the start of the century you're in. When used for other periods, the century would be mentioned. "At the turn of the 19th century, few could have guessed the changes that lay ahead." It's generally not applied to the current century until you're far enough into it that it represents a different time period from the one your in, maybe 20-30 years.
Robt. LivingstonI don't hear the turn-of-century phrase applied to the '99-'00 shift. I think it was referred to as the "millenium" at the time.
I don't hear the turn-of-century phrase applied to the '99-'00 shift. I think it was referred to as the "millenium" at the time.
I've been using "At the turn of this century..." and "At the turn of the last century....." for the two most recent.
In re-enacting circles, I name the century. For instance, "At the turn of the 18th century...." when discussing the period between the American Revolution and the War of 1812.
Vernon
Vernon in Central Indiana
Rich,
I assure you it is not a flame bait but something that has been on my mind. Just wanting to make sure I communicate my chosen modeling era correctly. The next post after yours brought up a term I remember hearing in 2000 but forgot about: millennium. Which is probably what will get used to refer to that era of railroading as the future arrives. If so, you are absolutely correct: this is a non issue.
Personally, I am of the opinion that you have a legitimate topic. One I can't recall receiving much if any coverage.
Dave
This is a non-issue. Sounds like an attempt at flame bait.
Rich
If you ever fall over in public, pick yourself up and say “sorry it’s been a while since I inhabited a body.” And just walk away.
Icefoot I am referring to the first turn (1900) that most of us older MRs have always know as "turn of the century".
I am referring to the first turn (1900) that most of us older MRs have always know as "turn of the century".
Technically speaking, there were lots of "turns of the century" before that. 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500, ...
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
I find myself wondering if people (even fellow model railroaders) understand which one I refer to when I say "I model the Southern Railway around the turn of the century". I am referring to the first turn (1900) that most of us older MRs have always know as "turn of the century". As the current century progresses and we gain new, younger modelers born in this century, will they assume "turn of the century" is the time period around 2000 and get confused as to why there are no diesels on a "turn of the century" layout?
I wonder if it may be time to further refine the phrase to help with this perceived problem (it may just be me and not really a problem). Perhaps something like "turn of the century steam" for 1900 and "turn of the century diesel" for 2000? Or "turn of the 19th century" and "turn of the 20th century"?
I realize it is probably silly to be bothered by this, but thought I would see what others in the hobby think about the subject. So what are your thoughts?