Sorry - I find the whole notion that we need a systems of authoritative standards - absurd and archaic.
Why do we need this system? Where do we use it? When?
Its just a short hand hack that requires you to refer to some set of predetermined definitions.
The use of these "standards" dates back to when guys used a typewriter and a sheet of paper to keep inventory - and a shorthand code was a handy way to save space on an inventory list. (or memory on old 64K computers!)
Times have changed! We now all have (obviously) computers - with enough memory that we don't pine over how many characters we use.
And - hi-resolution digital cameras - have made the old truism "A picture is worth a thousand words" even more true!
Why not just describe the train using the very excellent ENGLISH language?
Any other system is INFERIOR.
I'm grabbing a train off the shelf - here's my description:
LIONEL ALCO 2023 Union Pacific
Tandem Variation B. Overall condition is very good. Signs of use/play/runtime - but no major scratches. Yellow finish has nice patina. Decals intact. Shells exhibit some - but minimal warping commonly seen in this model. Frame is clean, no corrosion in battery compartment. Wheels and motor move freely. Takes power, but has E-unit issues and won't run. No box.
There isn't much more to say about this loco. A few pictures included will tell the whole story.
Isn't that infinitely preferable to "C-6"? - which is just a generic pigeonhole...with no specifics to this loco.
I do support the referencing of descriptors and classifications created by third parties like Tandem.
