Why most layouts I come across are situated in the 1940's / 1950's?

[mbinsewi]

Doughless

I don't think I could model a winter or leafless brown/gray late autumn timeframe.

I like what Mike Confalone did with his Allagash.  Gray skies, bare trees, some snow.

Not to get off topic,   

There is another guy out there, can't think of his name.

Mike.

[Lastspikemike]

I find it interesting that movie sets usually show very clean and tidy scenes including impossibly clean cars.

This is true regardless of the period setting.

Model railroading is a kind of theatre event.

In our memories we tend not to recall the actual real life scene complete with dirt and trash. We recall the essence of the scene in all of its pristine glory.

It's as well to remember how we remember when deciding what level of detail to include in your own modelling of history. 

Even yesterday is already history as far as your own mind is concerned. 

[CGW103]

I model thee CGW(loosly) in the 50s. That was the era of my childhood.

Mike

[SeeYou190]

Lastspikemike

I find it interesting that movie sets usually show

Everything on a set is posed, positioned, lighted, and focused to intentionally set a mood for the production.

The cleanliness of any automobiles it decided upon to set mood, era, and possibly locale.

-Kevin 

[wjstix]

Also, vintage automobiles shown in Hollywood movies are virtually always rented by the studio, often from vintage car collectors living in southern California. I suspect the studios may therefore not wish to 'dirty up' these valuable rented vehicles, or the owners of the car maybe stipulate in the rental agreement that the car cannot be altered etc.

It may depend too on the era and location of where the movie is set. Cars in areas with snow often rust more than cars in warmer weather states, due to the salt and now chemicals put on roads in the winter to melt ice and snow off them.

Plus, for movies set in the past, it could just be that people in the 'olden days' kept their cars cleaner. As a kid, seems like there were a lot of TV ads for Turtle Wax and different types of products for washing and waxing your car at home. I know my father parked the '60 Chev in the driveway and hand washed it with the garden hose quite frequently.

[EarlyNinetiesCR]

Great topic ... enjoying the varied reasons for selecting a timeframe. Add me to the list of people who model what I saw growing up. Living just north of Pittsburgh, Conrail was a natural choice. As for my time period of 1989 - 1992: that's when I first "got the railroad bug" and so the nostalgia of that combined with my youth froze that period in my mind. It's a good period to model IMO -- past the rusty days of the bankrupt Eastern roads but before every car became a rolling canvas for "artists"; and plenty of different types of rolling stock that so often now are just endless intermodal trains of containers. 

[John-NYBW]

wjstix

Also, vintage automobiles shown in Hollywood movies are virtually always rented by the studio, often from vintage car collectors living in southern California. I suspect the studios may therefore not wish to 'dirty up' these valuable rented vehicles, or the owners of the car maybe stipulate in the rental agreement that the car cannot be altered etc.

It may depend too on the era and location of where the movie is set. Cars in areas with snow often rust more than cars in warmer weather states, due to the salt and now chemicals put on roads in the winter to melt ice and snow off them.

Plus, for movies set in the past, it could just be that people in the 'olden days' kept their cars cleaner. As a kid, seems like there were a lot of TV ads for Turtle Wax and different types of products for washing and waxing your car at home. I know my father parked the '60 Chev in the driveway and hand washed it with the garden hose quite frequently.

 

I got to see one such car close up at an auto show in Columbus, Oh. At the time it was owned by Len Imke, a local car dealer. It was a yellow late 1930s convertible. It had a rather impressive resume. It made its debut in Casablanca. I'm not positive since the movie is black and white but I think it is the car Major Strasser was racing to the airport in near the end of the movie. It appeared in The Godfather. If I remember right, it was passed by Vito Corleone's ambulance when he was being driven home from the hospital. I've think I've spotted it in a number of other movies made before and since then. I believe I saw it in the movie Seabiscuit. In almost every case, it makes no more than a cameo appearance in a movie. A few seconds on film than back to the owner. I'm not sure who owns it now.   

[Shock Control]

For my next layout, I am thinking of modeling Stonehenge in HO, circa 1959.  I'm looking for old photos so I can replicate the exact amount of wear and tear on the stones that would have reflected its 1959 condition.

Around the perimiter, I plan to run a Lionel HO train with the exploding boxcar, helicopter car, satellite car, missile car, and livestock car with the giraffe poking his head out of the top.  

 

[Ulrich]

A big part of their popularity is that trains were shorter and locomotives and cars were smaller and thus more "modelable" back in the 40s and 50s. In contrast, modelling the present day accurately presents some big challenges as trains are 150 to 200 cars long typically, unless you're modelling a shortline or spur. And then there's the aesthetics.. I like the modern power and rolling stock but not the graffitti.. so I model the mid to late 90s.. 

[Shock Control]

I model the modern era, because I generally like the modern design of F units.  The modern era also had shorter cars and engines that could go around 18" radius curves.

I do not model the contemporary era.  

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Shock Control

I model the modern era, because I generally like the modern design of F units.  The modern era also had shorter cars and engines that could go around 18" radius curves.

I do not model the contemporary era.  

 

You call it the modern era, but most readers on here are not going to understand. They will, think you are talking about present day. All those elements of style that you appreciate from that time are just a blur in history to most people.

Turns out my customer who pays me to help him rehab houses has just had us get started on his latest project. A 1983 post modern revival interpratation that has seen better days. 

Been busy for a two weeks helping him plan changes and starting on 5hem.

Sheldon

[azrail]

Most of vestiges of 50s railroading were with us all the way up until the late 60s..most of the freight car fleet was still 40-50 ft, the paint jobs of the 50s were still visible, we still had the REA and its green trucks everywhere, mail (until 1968) still moved by train, we had rr operated passenger service (ableit less of it), there were still depots and freight houses, except for the dime stores and dept stores, small towns had mostly local businesses, the design of large trucks didn't change much from the 50s (Kenworths, Macks, Whites). So even if you model the 60s you can still have things from the 50s. (except for steam)

[Mjorstad]

Why model the 1940s-50s?

 

Two words: steam locomotives.

 

The transition era allows us to model the biggest, best and most easily acquired steam loco models, ones that were most recently witnessed and are the most photographed. Transition era info is the most accessible info from the steam era, and of course we get to throw in diesels too. 

 

More broadly, the variety of motive power & rolling stock, the vast catalogues of information & pictures (and oral histories!) readily available for modelers, the colorful variety of well-maintained equipment, and the vibrant local surroundings unique to each railroad (which were much closer to their communities back then) mean the transition era is the easiest and most exciting entry point for many modelers.

 

Personally, I wasn't born anywhere near the 1950s (I'm a late millennial!) but the transition era is easily the most appealing, it allows me to use the adult versions of steam locos I saw on TV as a kid, and it presents (*on the surface*) a veritable utopia, before urban decay/suburban flight destroyed our cities, rural areas emptied out, and countrysides were paved over with ugly subdivisions.

[SeeYou190]

azrail

Most of the freight car fleet was still 40-50 ft, the paint jobs of the 50s were still visible, we still had the REA and its green trucks everywhere, mail (until 1968) still moved by train.

The STRATTON AND GILLETTE was originally set in 1968. That is a great year to model. You had the distinctive design on second generation diesels, newer styles of rolling stock, but all the cool stuff from the 50s was still floating around.

Mjorstad

Two words: steam locomotives.

And there is the reason why the SGRR was back-dated to 1954.

-Kevin

[ClydeSDale]

I settled on the mid 50's for my switching layout for a number of reasons:

1) Absolutely LOVE the Great Northern paint scheme of that period.

2) Smaller diesel engines, more smaller industries served by rail, more LTL freight and colorful 40' cars.

3) Really enjoy looking at the many cars and trucks of the day that are a part of the scenery.  It became 1957 specifically so I could include the Ford C model tilt cabs (1957-1990) in my scenes. 

[Lastspikemike]

Shorter locomotives, cars and trains. Plus more stuff was moved by rail until the highway system was built out and road haulage motive power built to take advantage of the added flexibility provide by a road network. 

If you like passenger train movements the transition era pretty much maximizes that aspect. 

Comtemporary railroads are exceptionally difficult to model convincingly unless you have lots of space (and money to fill it with) or prefer N scale. 

[SeeYou190]

Lastspikemike

Comtemporary railroads are exceptionally difficult to model convincingly unless you have lots of space (and money to fill it with) or prefer N scale. 

There are several members of this forum convincingly modeling contemporary railroads in small spaces.

Maybe they are just unusually good at overcoming exceptional difficulties.

It all depends on what your goals are. Sheldon needs a basement to model 1954 to his liking, but many model 2010 beautifully on a shelf.

-Kevin

[NittanyLion]

Lastspikemike

Plus more stuff was moved by rail until the highway system

Freight's decline started way earlier than that.  Trucking put the knife into railroads in the 1930s, but peak mileage was hit in 1916. Track mileage decreased more between 1916 and 1945 than 1945 to 1965.

If you like passenger train movements the transition era pretty much maximizes that aspect. 

The transition era was the era of massive passenger cuts.  The 60s gets the coverage because that's when the patient died, but passenger service was admitted to hospice care in the 1950s.  Peak passenger service was 1920.  The transition era came after a generation of decline.

World War II simply interrupted a decline for about 10 years.  The problems of the late 60s and early 70s actually started in the 50s, but were caused by events in the 30s that were modestly delayed in the 40s.  The era was hardly a golden age like it is depicted.

[Lastspikemike]

Sure. You are entitled to your perspective. It doesn't affect my reasoning.  

I point out that the Interstate highway system I referred to really only got started after WWII and finished around the mid 50's. Similar developments occurred up here though later and more slowly. Really powerful long haul highway transport got going concurrently with highway improvement to make it economical. 

The passenger traffic may have diminished in the transition era but such trains continued to run well into the transition era, hauled by diesels. You only need one for your railroad. It doesn't have to make any money.

Jet aircraft killed off moderate to long haul passenger rail traffic starting in the early 50's. It continues to erode passenger rail business in Europe. 

It was a slow process. Rather than a decline in railroad business there was a sea change. Railroads were always going to transition to very heavy hauls and long trains. The less than car load, cattle hauling, dairy and even human payload never could maximize the advantages offered by rail. Even in densely populated countries passenger travel by rail is not profitable compared to freight hauling. 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

NittanyLion

 

 

Lastspikemike

Plus more stuff was moved by rail until the highway system

 

 

Freight's decline started way earlier than that.  Trucking put the knife into railroads in the 1930s, but peak mileage was hit in 1916. Track mileage decreased more between 1916 and 1945 than 1945 to 1965.

 

 

If you like passenger train movements the transition era pretty much maximizes that aspect. 

 

 

 

The transition era was the era of massive passenger cuts.  The 60s gets the coverage because that's when the patient died, but passenger service was admitted to hospice care in the 1950s.  Peak passenger service was 1920.  The transition era came after a generation of decline.

World War II simply interrupted a decline for about 10 years.  The problems of the late 60s and early 70s actually started in the 50s, but were caused by events in the 30s that were modestly delayed in the 40s.  The era was hardly a golden age like it is depicted.

 

Here is what all the negative Nancy's don't understand.

It is not about the numbers or the outcomes at the end of the decade or early in the next decade.

It is about renewal, hope and optimism.

The war was hard on the railroads infrastructure, the 50's was a time of rebuilding, looking forward, new ideas, new technolgy.

Diesel locomotives

New freight equipment, some of it with bright new optimistic paint schemes.

New ideas like piggyback, express freight trains, open auto racks, the beginning of better bulk cars like covered hoppers.

Ideas, failed or not, to compete with highways and airlines, like the RDC.

And, the last and best of steam trying to hold its own against the diesel.

Roller bearings, better trucks, better brakes, longer trains, faster trains, radios, bigger freight cars, and more.

Did they know how it would all play out in 1954 as Chevrolet debuted the 265 Small Block V8 at the Detroit Auto Show? No.

But the railroads were optimistic. So was most of the country about most everything.

Was it some sort of utopian paradise? No, no period of time ever is. 

But if you pretend in your head that it is 1954 so you can built this little model world, you don't know yet what is going to happen in 1963.

Here is what should have happened in 1954.

They should have de-regulated the trucks and the trains then rather than three decades later. And by doing so they would have fostered intergration of trucks and trains from the beginning of that technolgy.

They should have held the line with tractor trailer length and weight just on the basis of safety.

They should have compelled the air line industry to build their own infrastructure - the government never built the train stations?

But who cares? It was an interesting time for railroading, and one with a hopeful, outlook. 

Sheldon 

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

azrail

Most of vestiges of 50s railroading were with us all the way up until the late 60s..most of the freight car fleet was still 40-50 ft, the paint jobs of the 50s were still visible, we still had the REA and its green trucks everywhere, mail (until 1968) still moved by train, we had rr operated passenger service (ableit less of it), there were still depots and freight houses, except for the dime stores and dept stores, small towns had mostly local businesses, the design of large trucks didn't change much from the 50s (Kenworths, Macks, Whites). So even if you model the 60s you can still have things from the 50s. (except for steam)

 

In some cases even longer - Carolina Freight was still using early 50's Mack B models for local deliveries in the late 70's.......... 

Sheldon

[Shock Control]

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 You call it the modern era, but most readers on here are not going to understand. They will, think you are talking about present day. 

You are correct.  But misuse of the word "modern" is really jarring to me.  

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Shock Control

 

 

ATLANTIC CENTRAL

 You call it the modern era, but most readers on here are not going to understand. They will, think you are talking about present day. 

 

 

You are correct.  But misuse of the word "modern" is really jarring to me.  

 

Well, the first definition in the dictionary is:

1 : of or characteristic of the present time or times not long past modern machinery.

So that is how people not trained in Architecture read that word.

Sheldon 

[Lastspikemike]

Many people believe railroads were not paid for by government but in many if not most cases that is illusory. Subsidization of railroad construction was widespread. Ubiquitous up here in Canada. The extent of subsidization is staggering up here. I have just finished "The Last Spike" and the descriptions of the financing are amazing.

Then of course there is the public utility case supporting such subsidization which is very easy to defend. Competing airport locations funded by competing entrepreneurs are not even advantageous theoretically. Neither are train stations.

Regulated interstate commerce  was a subsidy system.  It worked for railroads. It did not work for road freight. Reason? Roads were the subsidy. Road freight did not need the additional subsidy provided by operating authorities. That was pork barrelling taken to the extreme. Ditto taxi licensing. Uber's greatest contribution to our economy was to illuminate just how corrupt the taxi licensing schemes became. Doubt that? Check out the pricing of sales of taxi businesses. Historically, the sums exchanged for trucking outfits just to acquire their operating authorities were staggering. 

So, I suspect that the popularity of modelling the transition era is unconnected to the economics of the times. Many of us were born during that era. Travel by train was still not only feasible, economic and relatively pleasant it was still in many ways superior to plane travel and way better than a Greyhound bus. It still is in Europe. The private car is the main competition to passenger rail in Europe.

Freight by rail still competed with road haulage leading to interesting short trains with short cars, small classification yards and repair and service shops everywhere and the ubiquitos branch line so beloved of current hobbyists.

[Doughless]

Lastspikemike

Many people believe railroads were not paid for by government but in many if not most cases that is illusory. Subsidization of railroad construction was widespread. Ubiquitous up here in Canada. The extent of subsidization is staggering up here. I have just finished "The Last Spike" and the descriptions of the financing are amazing.

Then of course there is the public utility case supporting such subsidization which is very easy to defend. Competing airport locations funded by competing entrepreneurs are not even advantageous theoretically. Neither are train stations.

Regulated interstate commerce  was a subsidy system.  It worked for railroads. It did not work for road freight. Reason? Roads were the subsidy. Road freight did not need the additional subsidy provided by operating authorities. That was pork barrelling taken to the extreme. Ditto taxi licensing. Uber's greatest contribution to our economy was to illuminate just how corrupt the taxi licensing schemes became. Doubt that? Check out the pricing of sales of taxi businesses. Historically, the sums exchanged for trucking outfits just to acquire their operating authorities were staggering. 

So, I suspect that the popularity of modelling the transition era is unconnected to the economics of the times. Many of us were born during that era. Travel by train was still not only feasible, economic and relatively pleasant it was still in many ways superior to plane travel and way better than a Greyhound bus. It still is in Europe. The private car is the main competition to passenger rail in Europe.

Freight by rail still competed with road haulage leading to interesting short trains with short cars, small classification yards and repair and service shops everywhere and the ubiquitos branch line so beloved of current hobbyists.

 

I agree with how Sheldon put it at let me explain my take on it.

True, government gets into the subsidy/regulation business when it feels that any privately owned company deserves to have a monopoly in a market.  Example:  A utility company gets awarded an area....and in turn is highly regulated....because its not a good idea to have three purely capitalist companies string three different sets of power lines on three different towers down city streets.

We don't want United, Delta, America, etc, building three different airports, so the government gets involved in building, managing, and sometimes propping up the airlines. 

My beef, and I think what Sheldon was saying, was how are those things are paid for.  Airports, control towers, pilot training (military), aircraft evolution (military reasons too), IOW, general tax dollars; all go to support the airlines, allowing ticket prices to be artificially low.

OTOH, railroads own everything they run, and run on, and AFAIK, are solely supported by the fees they charge.  Not by tax dollars.

Could you imagine if the airline industry had to fund their airports, airplanes, air control systems as they do their employees, extremely high safety measures, pollution controls, noise controls; solely by airline ticket prices?  My guess is that the minimum fare would be about $2,000 for any flight anywhere. 

Cargo flights could not compete with railroads.

So if we never had the subtle assistance that went into the airline industry, I think railroads today would look different.

[Overmod]

Doughless

Could you imagine if the airline industry had to fund their airports, airplanes, air control systems as they do their employees, extremely high safety measures, pollution controls, noise controls; solely by airline ticket prices? 

They could do that nearly as easily with a mutual compact that is funded with self-imposed fees as they currently do with the trust fund... which, one notes, takes in more than it spends still (compare this to the Highway Trust Fund and how it got in trouble)

I could point out just as easily 'could you imagine if the railroads didn't have to fund their tracks, maintenance, dispatching, local taxation, etc.?'  (I leave trains out, but 'airplanes' are only indirectly subsidized insofar as military considerations apply to civilian product)

That was the probable situation right up to passage of the Esch Act in the early '20s, the decision to return the railroads to private control.  It would have been relatively easy to have 'split' the industry along the lines Kneiling would later advocate, with the track infrastructure treated just as airlines treat 'the sky' -- not exactly open access, but an 'iron ocean' devoid of property-rights and huge stranded-capital concerns.  Since civil seems always at war with mechanical T&E this might allow more sensible allocation of expansion (or resist expedient contraction like all that unfortunate Conrail double-track shucking) without the issue of contributing national tax-based revenue to the sole benefit of 'owning' railroads...

[Doughless]

Overmod

I could point out just as easily 'could you imagine if the railroads didn't have to fund their tracks, maintenance, dispatching, local taxation, etc.?'  (I leave trains out, but 'airplanes' are only indirectly subsidized insofar as military considerations apply to civilian product)

Perhaps I don't understand railroad funding like I thought, but its my assumption that signals, crossing gates, steel for the rails, (okay the land for the ROW was initially stolen from Native Americans by our military, so to speak),  bridges over hiways, locomotive and conductor training, etc, are not funded by general tax payer dollars; compared to the bond issues for airports, military training of pilots, the FAA paid air traffic controllers, etc. all of which factor into the rates UPS and Fed Ex can charge to fly cargo across the country as opposed to what BNSF might have to charge. 

[Lastspikemike]

We all pay for everything. Business pays nothing, including no taxes. It's all paid for by the individual consumer. Only money losing businesses contribute to their cost and we all know how that works out over the long haul. The taxpayer picks up that tab too to some degree when the losses are claimed by the business against income. 

So, given a rational business plan it really makes no difference whether the consumer funds business development by purchases or taxes. Really it doesn't.  

The only difference is who decides what gets built. 

Public expenditures made for what one might think are private capital interests are not fundamentally different. Business has notoriously short sight and requires much faster returns on capital. Leave some stuff to the private sector and it doesn't get built. Government investment can be very remunerative for the consumer.

I estimate that all modern railroads were originally built using a combination of tax payer funding and investment losses suffered by many of those tax payers who invested their after tax dollars in uneconomic railroads. Those failed railroads did not disappear, they're still being used today.

[SeeYou190]

Lastspikemike

We all pay for everything. Business pays nothing, including no taxes. It's all paid for by the individual consumer. Only money losing businesses contribute to their cost and we all know how that works out over the long haul. The taxpayer picks up that tab too to some degree when the losses are claimed by the business against income. 

Please be careful.

This is a thread about why people model the transition era.

Now it is drifting into politics, which is forbidden. We do not discuss general tax policy in here at all.

-Kevin

[MisterBeasley]

Sure, I model the Transition Era, plus or minus.  I'm not particular.  I was born in 1947 so it matches me.  It's a time I liked and I still remember well.

I like the engines and the rolling stock.  I like roofwalks and I LIKE CABOOSES.  I like the buildings and the vehicles.  To be honest, I really think many of the visual aspects of railroading have deteriorated since then.   Railroads evolve, and in ways they became better, but at a cost.  The Transition Era, to me, was perhaps the high point where the rich history of the railroads that developed our nation gave way to today's more commercialized and dollar-oriented lines.