Proposed US model railroad eras

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

In April’s 2021 MR on page 9 is an ad by Hatton’s, a well known British Hobby store. The ad proposes their idea of an era system for US railroads.

What are your thoughts to such a system?

I quite like the idea as a quick easy reference when in a model store and questioning to myself whether or not a cool looking model actually looks correct on my layout. I think for newcomers to the hobby it would be helpful. For those who enjoy the historical research this may be of little value.

There no doubt would be disagreement on when the changeover from one era to the next would be most correct, but in general I quite like the idea.

I can think of one downside and that is models that are not based on a prototype, or in an incorrect paint scheme etc. Manufacturers obviously have to support such a system and if such a system brought to light their inaccuracies then it could hurt sales of said model.

Your thoughts?

2

This has been done in Europe for a long time, seems like a good idea. But it would take some work to be sure a 1940’s boxcar repainted in the 1960’s was in the right era.

3

What about models that span several “eras” - e.g. EMD SW1s? It’s considered an early diesel (40s) but some made it into the 80s or even 90s. I’d rather know what “years” the particular locomotive scheme was used in. Or, maybe that’s what you or the ad are proposing?

Tom

4

I felt there were too many different eras, as many models can cross many of their proposed eras.

Then get your oddball shortline still using 40+ odd year old locomotives currently in everyday service and really throw a monkey wrench into their proposed era scheme…

5

I’ve seen references to the UK concept of era that says a particular loco was used across some rnage of eras, so when it was used is not really out of the picture with the era system. You have the eroa it was introduced, ie, it would be out of place in an earlier era, as well as an era it was generally in service until, so you have the range of eras where it fits.

It’s a finer range than typically used to describe US railroading, and worth considering. Like anything, there are crossovers, especially at the era boundaries - but there are with the way we try to describe things today, with “transition era” and so forth as well. You could go on forever and never reach a firm concensus. Well, yes, XYZ railroad bought the first “Model G” loco in 1941, but it was built in early 1940 and tested on the ABC railroad in revenue service during that year - so when do you set the cutoff date between eras? It HAS to be a bit loose.

–Randy

6

I do not model an era, I model a specific point in time.

I don’t know who is credited with this, but a prominent model railroader once said something to the effect that people who say they are modeling the ever popular “transition era” are actually doing a poor job of modelling 1959.

Eras have proven to be pointless for my needs. 1954 is in the transtion era, but a lot of product that fits the “transition era” is useless to me.

So, as stated by a previous poster, information on the paint scheme, repaint information, reweigh/service data, etc. are more useful.

Back when I had prototype freight cars, it was frustrating to find out that my boxcar built in 1952 has reweigh data from 1963 stencilled on the side, or, maybe the paint scheme had a herald that was not used until 1957 repaints.

-Kevin

7

I agree Randy, I understand the concept is that if you were to model the 1980’s then a locomotive or rail car from and earlier era would be very appropriate, go too early and maybe not so much.

I quite like the idea when i think of myself in my LHS deciding if a particular railcar would fit the era I model. I struggle the most with early covered hoppers and tank cars.

Kevin, I appreciate the frustration you mention with repaint / stencil schemes and dates etc. Very interesting.

8

One issue with the era system proposed is it is locomotive centric (sorta) and doesn’t really take into account changes in technology, rolling stock or the industry as a whole.

Era 2 could be redefined to 1880-1910. In 1880 cars were mostly 30-34 ft long, wood underframe, link and pin couplers and no air brakes. By 1915 most cars were in the 34-40 ft range, steel underframes were common, all cars had knuckly couplers and air brakes. In 1906 air brakes and knuckle couplers were required and in 1910 the lettering and grab iron requirements changed so the cars looked significantly different, I would propose backing the end of the era to 1910. That would keep the rolling stock physically looking the same as far as grab irons and lettering goes and lessen the number of steel and steel underframe cars.

Era 4 and 5 should break at 1960. That is half way between the introduction of the U25b and RS27, and the GP30, when locomotives really changed from the boxy hood design to a more modern shape.

Era 5 should break at about 1971. 1970 was when the BN was formed and 1971 is when Amtrak was formed. Putting the break there would provide a clear delination in the look of passenger and freight trains.

As for era 9, please, please don’t name it the “Modern Era”, unlesss of course you think railroads will never change or anything new will happen. Name it the “6th Generation” or the “Big 6 era” or something like that. There will be eras after this one and the current era is always the “modern” era.

9

It is fun to read Model Railroader magazines from the 1950s where the Transaition Era was being called the Modern Era.

-Kevin

10

Hatton’s eras are way too broad, every 10 years, more or less, is a different era.

We discussed this on this forum not all that long ago before Hatton’s.

People in the UK and Europe have a different view because railroading has largely been a regulated, standardized and government run enterprise there.

The US is different and way more diverse, both because of the size and nature of this country, and the private enterprise nature of railroading here.

This makes places in time more specific and broad ranges simply have too many exceptions and anachronisms.

1915 to 1945? - come on, that puts truss rod wooden passenger cars in the same era as second generation streamlined cars? Or the earliest Pacifics in the same era as the last great 4-8-4’s?

And 1958 to 1975 is even more rediculous.

The wide ranges of the older eras shows a clear bias or lack of understanding of history, thinking the “past” can just be lumped together.

Just becuse that sort of thing works over there, does not mean it will work here.

In a perfect world, maybe manufacturers could put a date range on each product?

Some are already doing that in their product info.

One more thought, that might not make me popular with some. Hatton’s add comes across with that “exclusive collector” vibe to it. That alone turns me off to them.

The add offering to buy stuff just drips with that “we know you bought this stuff as an investment, now we will help you cash out”. Well no, my stuff is not all factory pristine in its original boxes…

Sheldon

11

I like the basic concept of having the manufacturers identify when a particular piece of rolling stock came into use, and when it went out of use. The issue with that is how do you define ‘came into use’ or ‘went out of use’? Is that when the locomotive/car was first built or when it was scrapped, or is it when it was updated or renumbered? I think the latter would be the best option.

Quite frankly, I think that the manufacturers have been quite remiss in not providing that information all along. However, perhaps it is naive to expect them to provide information which might negate a purchase.

Dave

12

I like the idea. Surely not everything fits into neat little decade long boxes, but I think a general timeframe suggestion would be very helpful. I sometimes struggle with if a piece of rolling stock would be appropriate for my 1940s-ish to 1950s-ish era. Woops, turns out it’s from the 1970s.

As for Hattons, as a yank who is currently having a love affair with OO gauge steam (and who doesn’t pay attention to the eras in this instance of British motive power - full disclosure) they are some of the friendliest people to deal with in the hobby as far as shops go in my experience, either in the US or the UK. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

13

Well said!

Dave

14

Personally, I think defined eras by year are kind of a waste of time for hobbyists. IMHO, we should have a number of mileposts to watch for. If everyone knew (or could easily find out) when certain things happened, we’d be better shoppers.

For example, when did the following happen?
Air brakes
Knuckle couplers
Electric headlights
Steel underframes
All-Steel cars
Streamliners
ACI tags
COTS lables
No roofwalks
No cabooses
Conspicuously stripes
25’, 32’, 35’, 40’, 45’ and 53’ trailers
And so on…

So I model pre-1969. I could have a few ACI tags as they were mandated to be used starting in 1967, but I can’t have anything with COTS because they didn’t go into use until the 1970s.

BTW, for more freight car info, this is pretty good: http://vanderheide.ca/blog/2017/09/29/dating-via-the-details/

Going back to the original point, I think eras are a hopeless idea in the US. The NH’s last steam engine ran in revenue service in 1952; other railroads were still building new steam engines after that.

15

Tangent does a pretty good job at that, and probably Rapido, too, and I’m sure that there must be others.

I chose to set my layout’s era in the “late '30s”. This was a time when the Depression was waning, and carbuilders were coming up with new innovations. There were still lots of cars from the '20s and even earlier, still in service, but also new designs being introduced, too.
A few years later, the world would be at war, with production diverted to that more-pressing issue.

I have a pretty good collection of books on freight cars, and while I generally follow along keeping my locos and rolling stock in the proper era, I am unapologetic when including some cars which are a decade-or-so too modern, but have a strong appeal to me. Most of these anomalies are lettered for my various freelanced roads, whose management was always on the cutting edge…well, that’s my excuse anyways, and I’m stickin’ to it.

I would guess that about 90% (or more) of my rolling stock is is not wearing factory paint and lettering, and I try to ensure that the lettering reflects the timeframe in which it’s operating, not only in BLT. dates, but especially in re-weigh dates. This, of course, eliminates billboard reefers, and most lettering schemes which include slogans…I re-painted and re-lettered many such cars which would have used those slogans a few years later.

I’m satisfied with my decision on choosing this era, and not at all bothered by the handful of somewhat too-modern cars that periodically show up in some of my photos

Wayne.

16

Hi Wayne,

I think that there are precious few of us who could identify any cars in your photos that don’t quite fit your era.

For me, the issue is about helping me identify rolling stock that does not belong in my era when I am making a purchase. For example, I love the billboard reefers but I believe that they were defunct prior to the mid 1950s (I could be wrong - please correct me). If the manufacturers had labelled them in the manner of which we are speaking, i.e. with specific run dates, then I wouldn’t be looking at the dozen or so that I have on my shelves in my workshop.

I am glad to hear that some manufacturers are already dating their products. It only makes sense.

Dave

17

This one has been a stickler for me.

I have seen some references that said Scotchlight and conspicuity items (stripes, dashes, diamonds, or dots) were used on some cars in the 1950s. Other references have said they did not exist until the 1960s.

Micro-Trains used to be the best with this information. They printed a monthly newsletter with detailed information on all new releases. They included (usually) when the car was made, when it was painted into the decorated paint scheme, when it was repainted again, and what it was used for.

-Kevin

18

Hi Kevin,

I’m sorry if my following comment will offend you, but I think that getting concerned about the presence or absense of individual data reporting marks detracts from the basic discussion. I’m going to go out onto a limb here by suggesting that for the majority of average modelers that sort of fine detail is not very important. Rather, they would like to know that, for example, does a billboard reefer fit on their late 50s layout, or does an outside braced 40’ boxcar belong there too.

Just my [2c] worth,

Cheers!!

Dave

19

When the idea of Eras was first mentioned in the UK it was met with a mixed reaction. Now it is accepted and is a neccessity. A large number of modelers have their layouts set in timeframes. Being able to know what model locomotives, carriages etc are available and fit in that timeframe is very useful. Young modelers like it a lot as they model the modern eras.

What about models that span several “eras” - e.g. EMD SW1s? It’s considered an early diesel (40s) but some made it into the 80s or even 90s. I’d rather know what “years” the particular locomotive scheme was used in. Or, maybe that’s what you or the ad are proposing?

Tom

To answer that. The model would say the Eras it ran. For example Model X ran in Eras 5,6, and 7.

This is at the beginning of the Hornby catalog. https://uk.hornby.com/catalogue/era

Other UK Manufacturers follow the same system.

Off course those not following a timeframe follow Rule 1. [:)]

David

20

I model what I enjoy, not a timeframe. I like billboard reefers and openended passenger cars. If how I model, or what I model, bothers someone, they can leave my house. If you enjoy the models you have good there is not, nor should there ever be an era police.