to prototype or not to prototype?

[slotracer]

Having learned from when I was into model railroading in the past, I would freelance if I get back into it in the future. I guess I am somewhat blessed in that I have zero equipment right now so any venture back into the hobby would be totally from scratch. My kids will still be of age that we will be collecting, modeling and racing slot cars for a number of years, BUT my wife has shown a soft spot for old architecture, old steam trains, the history of our Northeast hometown and an expressed interest in the elements of scenery and structures......So maybe....someday.....

But from what I learned, I loved too many roads to choose just one and nail down an era, and with all the excellent equipment made now it is far too easy to get casught up in the purchasing trap. The next thing you know there are over 100 locomotives etc and the focus on the hobby gets dilluted.

I think I have learned enough from some of the landmark freelance pikes, and know enough about railroading and rail history in teh region that would insire us to nail down a time, and place and pull off a great freelance. It would make it easy to say no to all the neat stuff I'd like to own and focus more and enjoy my stuff more, not have more stuff to enjoy.

The choices in really nice RTR steam available today makes this possible, where a few years back it would have been more difficult and expensive. A guy could build quite a pike and have 30-40 engines, steamand deisel and a nice fleet of well detailed cars, really do a good job and focus on the railroad, not buying moire engines that interest me and expanding the roster indefinitely. A nice superdetialed spectrum 2-8-0 or athearn light mike, a wood caboose scratchbuilt, a string of tichy hoppers, make a fine line and enjoy myself more while buying and owning less.

[CBQ_Guy]

I considered going completely prototype with my layout as I thought it would really be neat to try and model exactly as possible, a specific place on a railroad line...and still do. However, I decided it was too limiting for some of the things I wanted on a layout. So I combined a bit of proto and a bit of freelance -- a term I call "protolancing", so I get the enjoyment of modeling both.

[on30francisco]

I modeling an On30 freelance small logging railroad set somewhere in the eastern part of the country. Although it's mostly a logging theme, I also run boxcars and a few passenger cars appropiate for that era. My logic is that one of the tracks on the logging line is shared with another railroad that offers passenger servive. I model based on the plausability that the equipment could have existed for the era I'm modeling (no modern trucks on wooden flatcars), on the laws of physics (no bridges suspended in the air with no supports etc.), and on sound engineering practices. I use equipment from back east (SRRL archbar trucks and other two foot prototypes) and from the west (DRG&W trucks and rolling stock). However the terrain, vegatation and structures are of the types that would be found in the eastern part of the country (no praries, cacti or adobe buildings). Narrow gauge railroads usually used any equipment (a lot of it second-hand) they could obtain.

[M636C]

AntonioFP45,

Really hot news! I hear that Pacific National want more GT46CWs! These will add to the dedicated coal train power and release some of the double cab JT42C units which are lighter and can be used in intermodal traffic.

These units are on what we call a Ready Power lease, (like the BN Oakway units) so once the decision has been made, they should be built fairly quickly.

I don't know how many, but I'd think they wouldn't be able to justify less than ten units.

They may look a little different, but I'm told they want just the same units as they have now.

So, if there are enough changes, they may test another one, either in LaGrange or London.

Peter

[AntonioFP45]

I really appreciate that info Peter! Would be neat if some photos are in a TRAINS issue. Now I can really justify having an "Aussie" unit on my road.

I wondered if GM had tried to market locomotives with these body styles used by roads "Down Under", but then again when one thinks about it, U.S railroads do tend to stick with what's been time and tried for decades. The standard cab; from the SD/GP35 all the way to the SD/GP70 still has the same basic design. I was really, pleasantly, shocked when the "FP45" styled "Wide Cab was adopted by U.S railroads.
Safety was the motive but for railfans they were "Eye Pleasers".

Thanks again! [;)][:D][8D][:)][8)]

[M636C]

AntonioFP45,

I meant to mention that the first GT46CW did actually run in the USA. It was painted in grey undercoat, and ran down from London Ontario where it was built to La Grange Illinois for testing, being the first of its type. It also carried the number 9301, which was a number series proposed but not used.

When the first batch of units was shipped to Australia, it was still at La Grange, and the third unit was given the new number 9001 which it still carries. When 9301 was eventually shipped with a later batch of units, it had been painted and numbered 9003.

This is relevant because it shows how easily things thought to be not prototypical actually happen. I don't know how it got to La Grange, but I assume it was hauled. It could have run as second unit, because it is basically an SD60, and the MU would have worked!

When these units came to Australia, it was found that they had standard AAR couplers which had knuckles that wouldn't interchange with the Australian ones, so they were fitted with brackets to carry spare knuckles on the pilot beams, in case one broke. The couplers worked, of course but the parts weren't the same!

Peter

[Anonymous]

I do both.

As time goes on, and I learn more about my favorite Norfolk & Western, my prototype-ishness is becoming more pronounced (I'm settling on MDC-Roundhouse's 40 foot 3-bay open hoppers as representatives of the H10 class of N&W coal hoppers, even though it has one more panel and two more feet of length than the real deal, FOR INSTANCE), but I've always been more committed to developing my fictional railroad, just as I like it. Of course, I'm crafting a full back story for my WP&P so that in my mind, it exists as a "prototype"; I've gone to the length of figuring out an all-time motive power roster, from its inception in 1896 to its merger with NW in 1967, even though I am modeling 1971. I would never be able to do that without having researched some of the real railroads. My fictional efforts are helped by the prototype research, and that's why I tend to read a lot of the posts in the "Prototype Info" forum even when it doesn't apply to me. Even if you don't model it, it doesn't hurt to learn as much as you can about the real thing- STUDY YOUR PROTOTYPES!

Or not. It's just a hobby, right?

[CP5415]

I agree with all the above, strangely enough.
It's your railroad, a world you are about to create with your own two hands.
With my railroad, I have the MEC meeting up with the D&H in northern New York State.
I don't know if they ever met there or ever, but in my world they do.
In my world I have B&M GP40-2's running along side CP AC4400's

Gordon

[mikebonellisr]

I just use the prototype as a guide.It helps my modeling by giving me a source of reference. BUT..If I want to paint a penncy K4 to operate on my N Y C,I have that leeway.

[AntonioFP45]

Tony Koester has had some excellent articles regarding "prototypical style" modeling. His freelanced Allegheny Midland is very believeable and realistic, even though there is no Allegheny MidLand in the real world. Tony still bases his operations, equipment, and scenery on a prototype road (I think the Nickel Plate). I must say his trackwork is virtually "flawless!".

I lean towards having locomotives and cars detailed prototypically as well as operating in a prototype style but still have room for flexibility.

For example: On a recent thread to M636C and Kozzie I indicated that after viewing many pictures of Australian locomotives built by General Motors, the GT-46 CWL to me is a very "cool looking" locomotive. I would like to model at least one on my railroad. My "Prototypical" explanation being that EMD had jumped the gun anticipating that the Austrailian "Pacific National Railroad" would order more of these units. Instead the railway got a cheaper offer from GE and stopped ordering the EMDs. So EMD modified it for American use and sold it at a "bargain price". [;)]

For those that are curious, go to www.railpictures.net
Move down to the white "Enter Keywords" category box and type in Austrailia. Then click on the gray "Find the photos" box. Lots of interesting photos. To U.S railfans some units may look strange; some really neat! Still can't get over mounting locomotive horns on the noses. Practical but looks quite odd, IMHO.[8)]

Overall the photos helped me develop an appreciation for American made units "Down Under".

"Cheers!" [C):-)][;)][tup]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chewie8han
Your model railroad is your world. And guess what... YOU ARE GOD!!!!

And God said, "That engine shall move foward!" The engine did move foward and god saw that it had moved foward and god was pleased with the engine.

Gandy Dancers 39:85

[ndbprr]

Do you nedd to follow a prototype? - no. Why do it then? Because it is very difficult without a lot of thought and research to pull off a freelance well. The V&O, Utah Belt, Gorre and Daphetid, Cat Mountain & Santa Fe were/are the exceptions. The trouble we get into is not being disciplined in equipment purchase and plausability. I model both. I model the PRR and a fictitious Allegheny Railroad that buys used engines from major railroads that the PRR never had. That way I can stay true to the prototype and also model equipment it never had.

[ClinchValleySD40]

There is no such thing as a prototypical layout, at least as far as operating the trains are concerned. Some people try hard and come close, but running a long train on a model railroad and running a long proto train cannot be compared. The best you can hope for is to capture a "feeling" of what it must be like. And actually, I do not know of many people that would want to operate a model railroad truely proto. They would either get bored real quick or feel it's too much like work. We all love trains and want to create our own world for our (and hopefully share with others) enjoyment and if we hit that mark, that is all we need - it's a hobby to have fun with.

[IRONROOSTER]

Prototypical can mean several things - some of which are:
1. Model a particular place exactly.
2. Model a particular place selectively (i.e leave out what you don't have room for) but follow the flavor.
3. Model a railroad faithfully in equipment and consist makeup and it's trackside structures and bridges and signaling and paint schemes
4. Model your railroad, but do so in a logical fashion. That is your paint scheme, equipment choices, trackside buildings have a family look (i.e no southwest adobe passenger station next to a victorian freight house. No anamolies like archbar trucks under streamline passenger cars.
5. You run your railroad like the real thing with waybills, dispatchers, etc.

Is any of this necessary - certainly not - it's your railroad do what gives you pleasure. A good layout is one that you like. If that means you run streamline passenger cars behind shay locos so what. If you want to faithfully follow the NYC, then go for it.
Enjoy
Paul

[Fergmiester]

I say no

For the simple reason that there is so much out there from so many manfuacturers that for me I like to run anything that would appeal to me without getting bent out of shape as to the realism issue.

I model 1957 to 1960 in Nova Scotia and that's as close as I want to get to being protypical. If I wanted to get deeper then I would have to spend a lot more energy and time on research then fine detail and I just don't have the time. At the same time I have about 35 RR books, some local just to help me achieve "flavour". It's a question on how far you want to take it.

[Anonymous]

chewie8han

How did I not see this one coming.[:p] I will keep you all posted and pic'ed as much as I can. This layout is still in the early to mid planing stages, so it might be a bit. Hope not though I like to think It is going to take a long time to get something done. But I work here, there, and here again so I will have a lot going on at once. Looking to have my benchwork started with in the next 2 weeks and should have my foam down as soon as it comes in, had to special order it (4" thick). Its going to be so cool, a decking I can realy dig in to [:D] I still have some track things to work out but soon. My big problem now is how to build a train elevator.

My luck and good times find us all.

GreenIron

[Anonymous]

I say you have a good idea of what you want to do. So do it!

And yes... I think I speak for everyone here.... We want to see every little town/station/service in those 250 miles... and DETAILED!!!

Yeah, like you'll believe that with my last comment (as well as everyone else's)

Have fun, and keep us posted!

[trainfan1221]

You can always do a freelance layout with real railroads as a basis. I guess this is a sort of best of both worlds thing.

[Anonymous]

WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What more is there to say. Thank you all for that bit of confidence.

I am doing my layout of the old " Frisco " line from Rogers AR to Van Buren

AR with 2 off shoots 1 to Springfield MO and 1 to Bentonville AR. This line realy

did exist but as several short lines never realy running togather but there is

track from SpringField MO to Van Buren AR. the reason I asked this question is

I did not want to have to model every little town and service in between

SpringField and Van Buren that is like 200 to 250 miles of track (WOW). I may

be wrong but I don't think it would fit in a 2 car garage. I grewup in Springfield

and Live in Rogers ( which was named after the vice president of the frisco

railroad at the time of the towns conception.) which has a realy neat old down

town where the train runs.



The other day my boy (4y's old) and me were coming home from his

school and say the train stoped unloading some sand cars at the local

concreat plant, So we had to stop and talk with the engener of the train. He told

us alot about what they hall and to where and how often. It was a good day. [:)]




How dose one get a ride in the cab of a train? I have always wanted to

do that, and maby blow the horn to [:D]


Here is my webpage http://www.engraverlane.com/layout.htm

it might give you an ideal of what my layout looks like. Any suggestions would

be helpful.

Thanks

GreenIron

[Anonymous]

Only Chaos is true conformity....... interpret that as you wish.

I say do your own thing. If you want to put the Acela train in San Fransisco. Do it. If you want to model the Strasburg RR and scratchbuild everything/some things, do it.

Your model railroad is your world. And guess what... YOU ARE GOD!!!! If you want to put power lines in the middle of your streets, go for it (I've actually seen that in real life).

[Supermicha]

I think prototypical is that what you want and think! Its your railroad, so you can decide what is correct and what is not...

[Anonymous]

Thats why I model the reality inside the twilight zone. Then I can have a 4-4-0 Running next to a Big Boy, Running next to a DD40AX, Running next to a SD90MAC. And if anyone wants to call me on it. The answer will be "Hey! Run your own darn falooten railroad your way. Leave mine out of it!!!!"

Although I admit that I am prototype oriented. I only see it as a guide. I often go off on wild tangents and do my own thing.

James

[Anonymous]

Hello!

Here is my pick on this question:

If you are modeling a prototypical railroad say for instance NS Pittsburgh Division... you've pretty much said I'm modeling this area and all my trains track and towns need to reflect this cause if you do not....then number one people will say hey you aren't modeling this correctly or that like it is suppose to be. BUT if you model free lance you can pick and choose what you want and still be correct for that area.....but in teh end it is your choice and whatever brings you joy in doing it makes it a great layout and an enjoyable hobby!!

[michealfarley]

What makes a layout "prototypical" is a can of worms that would feed every fish in the lake. Do you really want to know what's "prototypical", or do you want someone to say it's OK not to be prototypical? Also, on what aspect are you asking? Prototypical operation, track arrangement, correct cars?

My opinion on need is that you don't need to be prototypical to have a good layout. If you have fun with it, it's a good layout. If it offers you enjoyment, then it's a good layout.

My opinion on "prototypicality" is: representational (plausible) track arrangement, accurate train and car routing operations, and buildings and equipment that "fits" your favorite railroad.

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I was thinking about my layout and reading the forum seeing this word "prototype" every where. Dose one realy have to, to have a good layout? What makes a model railroad prototypical?

GreenIron