Yes.
And if you add “site:cs.trains.com” after your search word(s) your search results will be constrained to all the Kalmbach magazine sites.
Regards, Ed
I came to this thread because of a 12/12/19 Model Railroader newsletter.
Greg there are a couple reasons why people don’t like old threads in this forum.
More often than you would think possible, it’s someone’s first post and he thinks he is telling someone how to do something 5, 10 or 15 years later after the question was asked.
Second, many of the participants in the thread haven’t been in the forum for years, i.e. anyone with a forum name of Anonymous
Third the links, especially picture links to Photobucket are dead.
Forth the resurrection of the thread attracts a bunch of people who have to say “me too” (in the old sense of the phrase [:D]), or that missed that it is an old thread and the OP is waiting for their answer.
I don’t think anyone objects to new information in an old thread, but the search function of the forum leaves much to be desired.
You can start a new thread for free.
Perhaps the method we used in the Yahoo Group steam_tech is something everyone here could agree on as ‘netiquette’ going forward, and possible inclusion in the TOS and individual forum rules:
-
All threads to stick to designated topic, good or bad. If it drifts more than peripherally into a different subject, we should start a new topic explicitly based on that different subject. There are many instances here where a whole good line of discussion is buried inside a thread with a completely different subject or supposed topic.
-
If you pull up an old thread in a search, or because interested in a topic, make a note of its date and time of posting (or its URL in the browser line) and reference that explicitly in a new post on the same, or a suitably adjusted, topic.
“I saw that in 2008, in this thread (insert or paste URL or reference), tender motors driving the tender trucks were considered an alternative to using a driveshaft between tender and locomotive. Have there been improvements since then? Who has experience or thoughts?”
That gives anyone interested in answering a direct link to what prompted the question, so if they’re concerned about ‘answering a question twice’ they can go back and see what the OP of the new thread ‘already knows’ by reading that thread.
- There’s no sin in posting the same information twice or more. We can assume that every few years a new cohort of people will find this site and start wanting to learn. Ignorance is not stupidity, and at least in my opinion it is about as easy to answer the question as to give them the analogue of RTFM. (I learned the importance of this through hard experience, some of it here, some rather recently…)
Of course it’s also possible to answer by quoting the URL or even the general context or likely keywords of prior threads … just as long as the OP doesn’