Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Why do we not model this ?

5685 views
49 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Northern Va
  • 1,924 posts
Why do we not model this ?
Posted by yougottawanta on Monday, September 26, 2016 8:13 AM

I have been reading MRR magazine for years now, joined the NMRA ( what a blessing that has been ) joined the N&W historical society ( of course ! ) and I have purchased a small library of books on trains, not to mention a LOT of magazines. I say all of that to say this. I have rarely seen modelers model the civil engineer side of model railroad in a serious way. For example I was lucky enough to find an old spec book that has civil details on the N&W railroad. It has specs on everything ! Slope of super elevations, tunnel arch specs, distances equipment has to be off of center line of the railroad, where to and where not to use cinder, cross sections of RR beds etc... For us as modelers that want to model a proto type RR I would think this would be a critical piece of modeling that we sould include in our Models.

If you have would you share what specs you used and some photos ?

I look forward to your positive feed back.

Thanks

YGW

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,343 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, September 26, 2016 8:34 AM

Well, some of us do.........

I don't really have any photos, but I am purposely building my layout large but simple to allow large curves, super elevation, detailed roadbed, large turnouts, spiral easements, etc.

My bare minimum radius is 36" on the mainline, most are more on the order of 40". Small changes in direction are back to back easements, not radiused curves, just like the prototype.

Not to be negative, but basicaly I have stopped talking about this kind of modeling on here because it always seems to start some sort of "space envy" discussion. 

Even with 36" curves and #8 turnouts I avoid long passenger cars and long rigid locos to get that graceful well engineered look of the prototype.

Just looked at a possible retirement house yesterday.......1900 sq ft basement......

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 2,927 posts
Posted by chutton01 on Monday, September 26, 2016 8:42 AM

I am not entirely sold on the premise of your post. I believe that most serious (and semi-serious) modelers do take notice of prototype engineering standards (if they model prototype and not purely freelance), but compromises do need to be made in the real world due to space, time, and expense constraints.
I certainly know of modelers who travelled to get soil (for example) from the area they model, while I'm OK with "close enough/looks good" school of modeling.  Things like signals and catenary supports are one thing, track clearance diagrams are another (wider than prototype to support cars swinging out further on tighter curves, for example).
Exact building plans of line-side structures are great for one offs, but when you need several of them and, say Blair line has a pretty-close kit available...

Of course, that's just my opinion, and worth about what it cost.

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • 5,072 posts
Posted by RR_Mel on Monday, September 26, 2016 8:58 AM

I fell in love with the Southern Pacific Railroad in my early teens and was hooked for life.  Our next door neighbor was the El Paso SP Yard Superintendent for many years and that really helped.
 
As far as prototyping the exact SP Standards all I can say is I try hard.  I’m not a rivet counter but I do like to keep my layout close to the SP standards.  My problem is there is so much information out there that is inaccurate it makes it tough.  Even after my 65 years of modeling the SP I still find info that contradicts what I thought were SP Standards for many years.  I continue searching for info and it’s amazing how much of it conflicts between one site to another.
 
I have two SP “Standards” sites that I follow closely, the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society and the ESPEE Modelers Archive.
 
Good topic, I’m going to follow this post to see other members input. 
 
Mel
 
Modeling the early to mid 1950s SP in HO scale since 1951
 
My Model Railroad   
 
Bakersfield, California
 
I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,534 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Monday, September 26, 2016 9:08 AM

If I may..When somebody tells me they model the Chessie System I wonder which railroad?

Here's why.

If you model the Chessie(B&O) you should have B&O type signals and buildings and the same applies to C&O and WM since all three was still independent railroads operating under the Chessie banner.

When I modeled the Chessie(C&O) the majority of my engines was lettered C&O or Chessie(C&O) as per the prototype before the formation of CSX when engines was freely interchanged-I still recall seeing my first Seaboard System engine a MP15AC switching the Russell yard in '84. The usual engine for this yard job was a Chessie(C&O) GP39.

The same can be said for any merger railroad even the PC-PRR signals and buildings or NYC signals and buildings.

NS didn't change signals they used PRR/N&W signals until recently. N&W buildings stayed the same Southern stilled used their signals and buildings.

Yes,its very important to remember those details including the color of the railroad's buildings.

Freelance has the same discipline.All buildings should have a family resemblance. Even a modern shortline may use the former owner buildings.

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • 3,006 posts
Posted by ACY Tom on Monday, September 26, 2016 9:36 AM

It really depends how prototypically accurate you want to be. Modelers aren't all the same. Some are pretty persnickety, and others are pretty casual and devil-may-care. Don Cassler was a Civil Engineer who applied the principles of his profession to his modeling, supplemented by the generous application of the standards of his chosen prototype, the B&O.  Well designed trackwork, B&O standard signals and structures, etc. all combined to create a very believable and functional model railroad. He used the actual calculations that an engineer uses to lay out his transition curves. For most of us, we don't need to go to that extreme. A long piece of lath can give us all we need to lay out a very workable and good looking transition without all those calculations, and shims will provide good looking superelevation, even if we have not precisely calculated the appropriate height of the outside rail. Ballast color and other details can be tailored to match the practices of a particular geography or a particular railroad. Lever interlocking plants can be represented, even if the rods don't work. Making them work is icing on the cake. All of this can be done, and many do it.

But you don't have to.

I know standards books have been published, with reproductions of actual railroad specifications and drawings, showing standards for the B&O and PRR. There may be others. I don't know whether any are still in print.

Tom

  • Member since
    September 2012
  • From: Fraser Valley, BC
  • 538 posts
Posted by Rastafarr on Monday, September 26, 2016 9:50 AM

Easy answer in my case: I'm not skilled enough to pull it off. What you're discussing is equivalent to the difference between casual woodworking and cabinet making; the tolerances are WAY tighter than my fumble fingers can keep them within. Respect and admiration to the modelling titans who can pull this off, but i'm not one of them.

Stu

Streamlined steam, oh, what a dream!!

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Culpeper, Va
  • 8,049 posts
Posted by IRONROOSTER on Monday, September 26, 2016 10:08 AM

We don't model it because we don't have the space. 

Even the generous (by model railroad standards) 36" and 40" radii that Sheldon mentions are way too tight.  A 40" radius is a 20 degree curve.  This is not used on class 1 mainlines.  It is the sharpest curve on the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad - a short line noted for it's sharp curves that was limited to small steam (2-8-0) and short passenger cars.  For a mainline you need a radius of 80+ inches, 120 would be better as a minimum.  You need turnouts that are no. 10, 16 would be better.

While you could do that in a basement space, you will find that even in a basement you have too much mainline tied up in curves and you'll be limited to an around the walls layout with some industrial trackage in the center.

A 60 foot basement is only 1 HO mile long so you're protoypical 117 car long coal train takes up the length of your basement.  Even with a basement layout and double decking you can only get about 8-10 miles of mainline.

So we use tighter curves, smaller turnouts, with shorter trains on our layouts.  When it comes to things like super elevation and side clearances, we use what works with the curves we have to use.  Not to prototypical specs, but hopefully a reasonable representation of the prototype.

Paul

If you're having fun, you're doing it the right way.
  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Northern Va
  • 1,924 posts
Posted by yougottawanta on Monday, September 26, 2016 10:40 AM

Here are  few examples that I am referencing. Note the drainage ditches, the different materials in the road beds, the curbs, measurements from the centerline of the road bed, the heights given on the trestle....I understand that we all have to make selective decisions based on scale, available room...but for the items that do not necassarily have a huge impact on scale why not build in the drainage ditches, the protypical distances off of centerline etc...?

YGW

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: west coast
  • 5,226 posts
Posted by rrebell on Monday, September 26, 2016 10:56 AM

The real problem is what was standard and what was done. What was done was anything to get the job done. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: North Dakota
  • 8,533 posts
Posted by BroadwayLion on Monday, September 26, 2016 10:57 AM

LION has NYCT specs and drawings. Interesting they are, but him not going to build to those specs. LION is not going to take the time to set half ties in concrete.

  

ROAR

The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.

Here there be cats.                                LIONS with CAMERAS

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 22,150 posts
Posted by selector on Monday, September 26, 2016 11:12 AM

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect I'm very typical:

Time, money, interest level, effort, and the "good enough" factor all come into play.  Remember, some get intensely thrilled with a cheap train set on an oval that gets shoved under the couch when not in use.  Most of us make an attempt at more realism, although "more" is a relative term. 

I can approximate the look of groomed ballast with drainage between two parallel main lines and ditches outboard of them.  I won't spend a lot of time going through all the steps the prototype takes to build hidden layers...it's just not practical.  Instead, on the 14 degree curves I have, which a real passenger train would take at yard limits speeds, I can slam my trains through with no more regard to clearances and drainage than my NMRA gauge commends to me.  Similarly, when I purchase a Woodland Scenics rock or concrete tunnel portal, I know it will work, provided I am mindful of overhang on curves, and of high stacks, booms, or the odd pantograph in my fleet.  Dwarf turnout throws?  They have to fit where Peco puts the hole unless I am prepared to modify the throwbar..which I have done once or twice, but don't particularly enjoy doing.

And on it goes....

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: Milwaukee WI (Fox Point)
  • 10,531 posts
Posted by dknelson on Monday, September 26, 2016 11:21 AM

This topic is interesting to me.  I agree that more could be done, and that the prototype civil engineering information can be extremely interesting even to someone such as myself with a non technical background.  The civil engineering element is just one more aspect of realism, a goal which all of us share to one degree or another, and the realistic modeling of the railroad's physical plant does not need to stop with accurate rolling stock.

I have been pondering this same topic recently after re-reading part of Linn Westcott's benchwork book and noting his comment that in the real world, about 80% of the surrounding territory and scenic features are below track level.  Yet on most layouts, there is only the thickness of cork roadbed below track level.  That is why he advocated open grid layouts rather than plywood table tops.

We would benefit from more information about HOW to do it in MR and the other magazines.  The NMRA Magazine has had a few things in recent years about infrastructure.  And the C&NW Historical Society has published several volumes of materials from their archives about civil engineering issues: bridges, slope of subroadbed, culverts, and so on.  I know the similar PRR group has done similar things.

I have several books on bridge engineering, some of which are too technical for me to really understand.  I do see however that many model bridges include aspects which are just about impossible from an engineering standpoint and that with little more effort we modelers could get more of this stuff "right" -- if we had access to the information, and if it was translated into terms we could readily grasp and convert to modeling techniques.

One of the prizes in my rail library is Elements of Railroad Engineering (5th edition, 1937) by William Raymond, revised by Riggs and Sadler.  This is for all practical purposes a college level text; in fact a prior owner noted his completion of page assingments in 1943.  I am always surprised when re reading it just what topics were expected to be within the railroad civil engineer's field of work.   Not the least is economics: railroad accounting, regulation, and valuation are just a part of it.

Not all of it translates into model building information.  But it can help in addressing such issues as, what sort of locomotive would a railroad put on THIS train?  Given the traffic level what should the rise and fall look like?  How many culverts would a real railroad have given the water features our layout includes?  We all model a railroad's physical plant but again, for many this rarely goes beyond rolling stock in terms of being sticklers for accuracy, and at least part of the reason is the availability of useful information for a non-engineer.

We may not have the physical space to have, for example, the minimum radius curves that Sheldon enjoys.  But the fact we can't do everything doesn't mean we can't do anything.  Why do not our very sharp siding curves always include the gauge rods that the prototype uses?  Are we putting our model derails on the correct side of the curve?  This sort of thing.

Dave Nelson

  

 

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: US
  • 2,362 posts
Posted by wp8thsub on Monday, September 26, 2016 11:24 AM

I model as much of this kind of thing as practical - cuts, fills, ditches, specific bridge abutments and tunnel portals, variations in ballast types and contours, etc.  I mostly base such modeling on photos.

This scene has little vertical relief, but the roadbed is on a fill, and it has a stepped profile like the prototype.  I added appropriate drainage features, including culverts under the dirt road.

Here's a similar prototype location to the above.  Note the step in the ballast and roadbed.

This culvert was copied from WP prototypes and cast in plaster from a homemade mold.  The dark ballast emulates WP practice from the era and location modeled.  Note the variation in shape, texture and color between the railroad fill and the natural slopes around it.

These bridge abutments were scratchbuilt from styrene sheet, again to match prototype photos.  The timber retaining walls were also based on photos.  Close attention was paid to ditches and provisions for drainage.

This branchline fill shows larger material at the bottom to guard against erosion, topped by finer material, including compacted cinders near the top, and the final layer of current ballast.  A ditch provides for drainage at the base of the cut.  The wood trestle and its abutments were built from prototype photos.  This track is intended to look less heavily built and maintained compared to the mainline shown in the other photos.  The ballast is shallower and the fill narrower.

 

Rob Spangler

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • 1,276 posts
Posted by trainnut1250 on Monday, September 26, 2016 3:37 PM

I spend lots of time doing exactly what you are suggesting., I have built turntables, bridges, stations etc. based off of plans or photos of the real thing. I use a proto-lance approach in that I am mixing up various prototypes that never existed but most things on my layout are models of real locations or equipment.

 

I get my info from a variety of sources:

 

SP standards books: For the SP there are set of blueprint books called the SP standards books… From these books I have built water tanks, trestles and stock pens. I have also used them to determine the slope angle (similar to your photos) of ballast, the distance from centerline for signal placement etc…

 

Yosemite Valley reference CDS and books: Jack Burgess has put together a tremendous collection of drawings and diagrams detailing many of the YV structures and right of way items. I have used his drawings cd to build bridges, tunnel portals, buildings and turntables.

 

There are lots of other resources including old MR articles, Gazette articles, online Yahoo groups etc. where you can glean information about your prototype. I used these resources to build models that are close, but usually not literal reductions of the prototype. I am seeking a more realistic layout and by basing the models on the prototype I feel that I am achieving that goal.

 

Here are a few examples:

 

 

 

The water tank in this scene was built from plans of the water tank along the RGS at Los Pinos. The scene is from the Hetch-Hetchy railroad.

 

 

  

 

 

 

This bridge is built from Jack Burgess’ drawings of the Briceburg bridge found along the YV right of way.

 

 

  

 

 

These stock pens are built from plans in the SP standards book. The scene is from the Hetch-Hetchy railroad.

 

 

This bridge is built from plans in the SP standards book. The scene is from the Western Pacific railroad.

 

  

 

 Have fun,

 

Guy

 

see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,343 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, September 26, 2016 3:41 PM

IRONROOSTER

We don't model it because we don't have the space. 

Even the generous (by model railroad standards) 36" and 40" radii that Sheldon mentions are way too tight.  A 40" radius is a 20 degree curve.  This is not used on class 1 mainlines.  It is the sharpest curve on the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad - a short line noted for it's sharp curves that was limited to small steam (2-8-0) and short passenger cars.  For a mainline you need a radius of 80+ inches, 120 would be better as a minimum.  You need turnouts that are no. 10, 16 would be better.

While you could do that in a basement space, you will find that even in a basement you have too much mainline tied up in curves and you'll be limited to an around the walls layout with some industrial trackage in the center.

A 60 foot basement is only 1 HO mile long so you're protoypical 117 car long coal train takes up the length of your basement.  Even with a basement layout and double decking you can only get about 8-10 miles of mainline.

So we use tighter curves, smaller turnouts, with shorter trains on our layouts.  When it comes to things like super elevation and side clearances, we use what works with the curves we have to use.  Not to prototypical specs, but hopefully a reasonable representation of the prototype.

Paul

 

Exactly, my specs are based on something that has a chance at actually looking like a Class I railroad, still very selectively compressed.

I like long trains, but still run shorter trains than were common in the era I model. But rather than settle for 20 cars to simulate 70-100, I can get in the 40-50 range easily - much more convincing.

And, in my chosen era, rolling stock was still generally shorter, helping with the illusion.

We all are going to make the compromises we need to make, but it seems like many people do not even consider other approaches.

My first layout at age 10 was built with TruScale wood roadbed track, so right away I was made aware of the issues of ballast, drainage, roadbed elevated from the surrounding terrain, etc.

Just because John Armstrong designed a track plan with 30" curves, does not automaticly make that the best choice. After all, his counterpart published by Carstens, Paul Mallery, recommended 48" minimum for an HO Class I. Can't say it's my minimum, but 48" is my target goal for many curves.

I see a larger layout space not as an opportunity to make the layout more complex, but an opportunity to make it less selectively compressed. It will still be compressed for sure, just not as much.

And yes, if you plan to model a specific prototype, than knowing what they did, helps you with your "version" in compressing it.

Sheldon 

    

  • Member since
    March 2015
  • 1,349 posts
Posted by SouthPenn on Monday, September 26, 2016 4:09 PM

With some items, like super elevation, would you even notice it on an HO layout if you scaled it down from the specs?

South Penn
  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,534 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Monday, September 26, 2016 6:52 PM

SouthPenn

With some items, like super elevation, would you even notice it on an HO layout if you scaled it down from the specs?

 

From my past viewing of elevated curves on a club layout the engines and cars very slightly leaned going into the curve. Looking at the road bed it was very hard to see the roadbed had cardboard raisers under one side.

I ask what they used and was told they used thin layered cardboard.

-----------------------------------------

Guy,The photo of the 9 spot fooled me..I had to look closely to ensure it was a model and not a period photo. Bow

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,343 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, September 26, 2016 7:05 PM

SouthPenn

With some items, like super elevation, would you even notice it on an HO layout if you scaled it down from the specs?

 

Just like in real life, you may not notice it looking at the track alone, but you will notice the rolling stock tilted at a slight angle.

In his Trackwork Handbook, Paul Mallery was neutral on the subject of super elevation and suggested care in not over doing it.

And of all the various details of railroad civil engineering, I would say it is the one we can skip on our layouts with little or no negitive effect.

Most important in my mind is the broadest possible curves and proper easements.

That combined with a properly elevated roadbed gives the necessary "smoothness" of a mainline railroad for a realistic appearence.

I find it very interesting the number of modelers who insist on highly accurate rolling stock models, and then, in the case of passenger cars for example, will settle for those cars being coupled too far apart so they can "lurch" around what are effectively toy train curves.

That ruins the effect for me.

I would rather have a selectively compressed 75' car, with working touching diaphragms, close coupled, gently gliding through sweeping curves just like all the real life trains I have observed......but that's just me.

Remember, my 36" radius curves would only be found in the coach yard on a Class I railroad, and 24" curves would derail most passenger cars......so I prefer the idea of compromise from both ends to get closer to the real thing. 

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    January 2009
  • From: Maryland
  • 9,343 posts
Posted by ATLANTIC CENTRAL on Monday, September 26, 2016 7:09 PM

yougottawanta

Here are  few examples that I am referencing. Note the drainage ditches, the different materials in the road beds, the curbs, measurements from the centerline of the road bed, the heights given on the trestle....I understand that we all have to make selective decisions based on scale, available room...but for the items that do not necassarily have a huge impact on scale why not build in the drainage ditches, the protypical distances off of centerline etc...?

YGW

 

The original NMRA data sheets given to new members back in the 60's and 70's included lots of this kind of information.........still have mine, joined in 1968.

Sheldon

    

  • Member since
    April 2012
  • From: Huron, SD
  • 855 posts
Posted by Bayfield Transfer Railway on Monday, September 26, 2016 10:21 PM

We do model this.  You just haven't found anybody doing it yet.

 

Disclaimer:  This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.

Michael Mornard

Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,534 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 2:18 AM

rrebell

The real problem is what was standard and what was done. What was done was anything to get the job done. 

 

Not really.There were guide lines and rules that had to be followed by the engineering department from the same type of buildings to the type of rail used to the type of locomotives used.Mother Nature had to be part of that planning.Signals types was standardized for safety.Switches and curves was standardized based on several things including locomotive and track speed.As locomotives became bigger and freight cars heavier rail replaced the lighter rail and bridges rebuilt. Even tunnels was rebored by lowering the floor with improved drainage.

Truth be known only we modelers do things that the railroads would never do.

 

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • From: A Comfy Cave, New Zealand
  • 4,220 posts
Posted by "JaBear" on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:15 AM

SouthPenn
With some items, like super elevation, would you even notice it on an HO layout if you scaled it down from the specs?

When building a new HO layout at the club, I was quite interested in using super elevation on the main line curves but the others were concerned over the possibilities of uncoupling, “string lining” or rolling stock just “falling” over, so it was not viewed as a good idea.
 
However as I ended up doing most of the track work (and the prior bench work), I decided to super elevate a 26” curve that then transitioned into 40” “S”, using .020” cereal box card as shims, I ended up with .060” super elevation at the apexes.
 
Unless you looked really hard and knew what you were looking at, you couldn’t see the super elevation in the track work but as Sheldon has mentioned you could see it in the tilt of the rolling stock, and in the S, a longish train looked really good, the members who worked out what I had done thought it was well worth it.  Sadly though a lot of the other club members never cottoned on that it had been super elevated. BTW it never gave any trouble and at the time there was a lot of “ropey” rolling stock that was used on that layout.
 
Personally I think its well worth the effort and fully intend to incorporate it into my own layout where appropriate.
 
My 2 CentsCheers, the Bear.Smile

"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 574 posts
Posted by DAVID FORTNEY on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:16 AM

Truth be told is that we can only model very small parts of any railroad no matter how much space you have. I think we try our best to model what we like and know. But in the end we model to the size of our space. 

The whole point of model railroading is to have fun no matter how you do it. 

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • From: Grew up in Calif, left in 84, now in Virginia
  • 7,672 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 7:59 AM

So the assumption in the original post that we do not model these engineering features isn't entirely true, at least for the many modelers who try to seriously represent real railroads.  My guess would be that as modelers develope from beginner to more serious, those elements are included more and more.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    April 2007
  • From: Northern Va
  • 1,924 posts
Posted by yougottawanta on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:18 AM

I think many are missing the point of the question and getting lost on the subject. We as modelers spend a great deal of effort in modeling accurate, the correct period, etc....on engines and rolling stock. The railroad and landscape itself plays a HUGE part in railtroads. I would say that is as much as Half of the real railroads. The cost or land, the cost to construct...To maintain consistancy the RR standardized equipment, buildings, RR beds, signals, turnouts etc.. We do a great job of modeling the stuff that rolls on the RR but we hardly give the civil part of the RR itself a second look or we neglect to really research it and make it as proto typical as the stuff that rolls on it. How many articles do you see in RR Magazines on that subject ? Is it boring? Not that many modelers interested ? Not much money to be made on the products ? Is it not promoted and they are not aware of the civil side ?

Yes I understand we make decisons on space, money, our interest etc... BUT I put it to you for anyone who wants their RR to be pototypical shouldnt we start first with the correct RR specs ? Build drainage pipe, culverts, tunnels with the correct arche, Mainlines with drainage ditches, actually scale how far the passenger building is to the center of the track ....? Why do we neglect the civil side ? To me the civil side is as much a part of the RR as rolling stock and engines.

Modeling should be fun and I agree this may not be for everyone. And yes I would run a 2000 diesel down my N&W transition period RR. Just because it is fun. BUT my RR will be built to transition period specs.

YGW

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,534 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 9:02 AM

riogrande5761

So the assumpsion in the original post that we do not model these engineering features isn't entirely true, at least for the many modelers who try to seriously represent real railroads.  My guess would be that as modelers develope from beginner to more serious, those elements are included more and more.

 

Exactly..We can model the correct type of buildings and stations they railroad used and can paint them in the correct color.We can model the correct style of signals the road used.We can even model the type of ballast used.

Picture a Rio Grande passenger train stopped in front of a  Rio Grande style station..Beautiful and it shows advance top notch modeling.

Now let's take that same passenger train and stop it in front of a generic style station..Nice looking train but,it fails to gain the "Wow!" factor.

The only difference between a average layout and a advance layout is nothing more then attention to detail and by taking that extra step to gain that "Wow!" factor by modeling the correct infrastructure like stations,mow buildings interlocking towers etc.

The same applies to a ISL but,more attention to industrial details is needed to gain the "Wow!" factor.

And guys,leaving freight spread all over the dock is not part of gaining that "Wow!" factor..

But,I freelance and none of that applies..

Ahh, but,it does more so then one may think.If one wants a Wow factor freelance railroad like the Utah Belt,The Maumee Route,the former AM and V&O then your signals and buildings will have a family resemblance.

Even if you freelance a modern short line then some of the former owner's identification should be seen even if its no more then (say) a Conrail logo on a bridge over a highway.

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,266 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:11 AM

yougottawanta
We do a great job of modeling the stuff that rolls on the RR but we hardly give the civil part of the RR itself a second look or we neglect to really research it and make it as proto typical as the stuff that rolls on it.

As others have pointed out, this statement is not correct. Some modelers are spending time and money on exactly this. Not many post here -- they are busy modeling!

There are also other forums where this might be discussed mroe often -- Internet railroad forums have been around long enough that they have become specialized. Just because it does not appear here doesn't mean that it's not happening.

yougottawanta
How many articles do you see in RR Magazines on that subject ?

Depends on the magazine. This sort of topic is covered quite a bit in the magazines of the various historical societies -- and some have published or reprinted prototype standards books. Historical societies are an important resource for prototype modelers. Even for freelancers, a membership in the historical society of the railroad with which your imagined line connects or which travels through the same sort of territory can be a good investment.

This topic has also been the subject of articles in the Layout Design Journal (although less recently as so much information on this topic has become available on the Internet and from historical societies). And it has been featured in some magazines that have gone out of publication such as Mainline Modeler.

This sort of detailing seems to be a bit less popular than accurate rolling stock and structures. It’s probably a bit less noticeable, for one thing. But like any other superdetailing, folks incorporate it to an individual degree based on their preferences. 

If the Original Poster wishes to model in this way, that’s terrific. Incorporate these features in a section of your layout or on a diorama and post some photos. That would be informative and interesting (more so than yet another thread asking “Why don’t other people model the way I think they should?”)

  • Member since
    August 2013
  • From: Richmond, VA
  • 1,878 posts
Posted by carl425 on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:14 AM

yougottawanta
Why do we neglect the civil side ?

What do you mean "we"?

I don't mean this to be an insult, but you sound like a kid who just discovered cookies and is running around telling all the adults that they just have to try them - without realizing that they had all decided years ago what their position was on eating cookies or not.

Why do you think this document that you just "discovered" was available to you in the first place?  It was because modelers and railfans are interested in this type of information.

I have the right to remain silent.  By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Omaha, NE
  • 9,768 posts
Posted by dehusman on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:29 AM

yougottawanta

 

The major reason I wouldn't model this is its not North American prototype.  It is British or European designs.  We don't use sleepers, chairs and wedges on our track and the rail is a completely different shape.

I try to model US engineering as my space will allow.  Track on a ballast section, ditches along side the track, prototypical switch tie spacing, etc.

Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!