The use of 'prototype' to mean 'real railroad equipment' in modeling is because the real thing provides the dimensions, details, blueprints, etc. for the smaller replicas. It is the 'original reference' just as a prototype in manufacturing is an early or initial example.
We bear this out by calling a good model 'prototypical' (meaning it looks or acts similar to the real thing). On the other hand, we should be careful using a term like 'American prototype' because that refers to the reference source of the models, not the models themselves as 'American outline' would do. The semantics might be clearer in the case of freelanced or 'foobie' models, which have no "prototype" but are clearly models reminiscent of a particular country, era, etc.
Now, I confess the use of 'outline' is a bit excessive in the sense other posters mention, in the sense a phrase like 'precision crafted motorcar' is... the sort of 'Wardour Street' gallery-owner talk that Fowler didn't approve of. On the other hand it is certainly an unambiguous technical term as the British have come to use it.
NorthBrit Trevor has beaten me to answering the query and answered it well. The 'Era' system works very well here in the U.K.. Any model now made says on the box when the real one ran. Many items made ran in different eras, so on the box would say Eras 3,4,5 & 6 (for example). If a person was modelling era 6 then they know that item is suitable. Modelling Era 8, then the item is unsuitable. As I say, the system works well here and saves people asking the question 'is it suitable for their layout.' David
Trevor has beaten me to answering the query and answered it well.
The 'Era' system works very well here in the U.K..
Any model now made says on the box when the real one ran. Many items made ran in different eras, so on the box would say Eras 3,4,5 & 6 (for example).
If a person was modelling era 6 then they know that item is suitable. Modelling Era 8, then the item is unsuitable.
As I say, the system works well here and saves people asking the question 'is it suitable for their layout.'
David
In my opinion, I find placing the built date or the date the car was modeled on tthe end of the box, as Tangent does (thank you Tangent) a lot more useful than an ambiguos "era". The life of an average car used in interchange is 40 years. That could span two, or three "eras". Think about the SD-40-2. First built in 1972, yet almost 50 years later, they are still on Class One rosters, and will be for a while. When the SD-40-2 first appeared, F-units, Alcos and even the GP-9s were the mainstays of many railroads. Now, its the SD 70 something or the latest widenosed, ditch lit something from GE. Yet the SD-40-2 has its feet firmly in yet another era.
If someone wants to pull open ended wooden coaches behind his SD-40-2 or his GE AC4400, that's fine with me but, I won't. Same with freight cars. Don't try to pass off a Pullman Standard 5344 cubic foot boxcar as an FMC 5347 cu. ft. boxcar. Yes they're both from the IPD "era" and they're both 50 footers, but the same thing, they ain't. Fortunately, in the 1980s, we had a model railroad media that educated those that wanted to learn and know, about the differences of that which we model. We don't have that now.
An era system is not an accurate indicator of the life span of railroad equipment, its an approximation that for me does not work. Give me a build date and I will take it from there. Again, thank you Tangent.
Gidday Douglas,I’m certainly not answering for Trevor, but for me the definition of prototype depends on what hat I’m wearing. As a licenced aircraft maintenance engineer, (while not getting into the nitty gritty, in US parlance, Aviation and Powerplant Mechanic would be the closest equivalent), “prototype” means “the first of type, generally requiring a test programme and not excluding rectification if defects are found during said test programme. However, as a Model Railroader who attempts to model the American prototype, I use the additional US meaning, “an object/thing that is typical/the normal for a region/country. So having been exposed to “Outline” and “Prototype” and this forum being US based, then I think it is not only polite to use US terminology but I’m not going to get much response here when asking a question if I start banging on about, shunters, guards’ vans, wagons etc. English is an evolving language, which in itself is a two-edged sword, far quicker to write car than horseless carriage, but can be confusing when trying to use the correct nomenclature. Propeller, airscrew and helix are the same thing but it depends who I am communicating with as to which actual word I use. (Don't get me on about different accents!!!) I can quite understand why a person happily domiciled in the Heart of Georgia, Maryland, or in fact anywhere in the US, and who especially doesn’t have to correspond with us foreign types would have difficulties with foreign English phrasing/words. It’s just that I have to get with the programme!!
The issue is not a different word that means the same thing, like Bonnett, or Wagon, or Bloke; but using the word outline simply makes no sense.
A MODEL is already a reproduction of a real locomotive. If a minature loco is not a model, its a toy train. There is no such thing as an outline model.
Personally, I think using the word outline, prototype, types; are all redundant and confusing.
"Hatton's carries models of American, Canadian, and European locomotives".
Simple.
Its just another example of how this hobby is dominated by precision to the nth degree in so many ways. Since you're an engineer, I can see where you might see a distinction in the terms.
- Douglas
Paul3wjstix,The problem is that the use of "outline" doesn't make any sense.
Not my problem! I don't use it, I was just explaining how our British friends use it. It's like how the trucks under a freight car here are 'bogies under a goods wagon' over there, or railroad ties being 'railway sleepers'...or a truck that drives on a road being a 'lorry'.
There are a lot of phrases that we use everyday that, if you think about it, don't really make sense. (I think it was George Carlin who asked "why do we drive on a parkway and park in a driveway?")
There are also terms we use in model railroading like "stirrup steps" or "roofwalks" that real railroaders don't use.
Hattons was very responsive to my question, and did ask what term we use here. I explained our use of the word "prototype", also admitting that like their term, our use of prototype was unique to our hobby and somewhat outside mainstream definitions for that word as well.
They were very interested in my feedback.
Also, thanks to all here for your comments and answers. I get it now, "outline", like the silhouette of a Big Boy is different from that of the Flying Scottsman.
Like the way we taught people the outline of aircraft and ships in WWII so they could identify friend or fow.
Sheldon
BEAUSABRE Not only is it polite, it's smart to use the locals language when you are trying to penetrate a market. Why should I expect you to know anything about American (including Canada and Mexico) railroading when you don't speak the language. I get the feeling that Hatton's views that subject the same way I do European railroading, exotic and a bit weird
Not only is it polite, it's smart to use the locals language when you are trying to penetrate a market. Why should I expect you to know anything about American (including Canada and Mexico) railroading when you don't speak the language. I get the feeling that Hatton's views that subject the same way I do European railroading, exotic and a bit weird
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
"So having been exposed to “Outline” and “Prototype” and this forum being US based, then I think it is not only polite to use US terminology but I’m not going to get much response here when asking a question if I start banging on about, shunters, guards’ vans, wagons etc."
I know I am joining this discussion late, but my recollection is that "outline" was initially used to describe a model of a steam locomotive which was, in fact powered by an electric motor.
This was described as a "steam outline model" so as not to be confused with a live steam model. Presumably the same applied to clockwork powered models and to models of diesel locomotives powered by electric motors (so diesel outline model).
Presumably a model of an electric locomotive could be called an electric locomotive if desired, but was probably called an "electric outline model".
I am not familiar with using the term "outline" to describe the country of origin of a model (or its prototype) but I assume it is an extension of the practice I describe above...
Peter
DoughlessSheldon, did you ask them how they use the word "Prototype"?
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
My goodness. SUbstitute "type" for outline. We sell not only European types but also American and Canadian types of trains. Is it really any more complex than that?
If you make cars, you start out with a prototype. If that gets approved you then make multiple models of that prototype. If you make model trains, you start with a "real" locomotive, then if it is approved, you make lots of models using that as a prototype.
My career was in electronics. we describe many semiconductors with "outline". A tiny surface mount chip might be an SOIC, small outline integrated circuit. Transistors come in various shapes, listed as TO92, TO220, TO3 etc. TO means transistor outline. That refers to the particular shape.
So right here in America, I use the word outline to describe the physical shape of things every day.
And it wasn't that long ago someone on this very forum was begging the manufacturers to come up with an era system.
xboxtravis7992,Nah, no need to bring up the war. I'd just say that while the Brits invented railways, America perfected them. Then we'd get into a bigger argument (I kid! I kid!).As for Brits not liking our "brutish" engines, you won't find too many Yanks who like glorified tea kettles posing as locos. Well, outside of the Thomas fans, anyways... (the above was written as humor humour)dknelson,I think the closest we are going to get are some major milestones in US railroading:
wjstix,The problem is that the use of "outline" doesn't make any sense. That definition is not even in their dictionary (Cambridge or Oxford). Heck, in your example it would make more sense to omit the word entirely: "American passenger cars are bigger than British cars."
U.K. Era System
https://uk.hornby.com/catalogue/era
I operate Era 2 steam engines and Era 6 when running diesels.
The most common "era" system I think is a European/Continental thing. I know Marklin and I think Preiser and some other German makers use it. For example, what British modellers call the "Between the Wars" period (1920's-30's), German makers call "Era II".
https://www.reynaulds.com/beginner.aspx
"Outline" isn't really that mysterious. I've been reading British model RR books since the 1970s so have seen it a lot. It just means the type of equipment. "American outline passenger cars are bigger than British outline cars." "A model railway built to US mainline outline might have trouble running British outline OO equipment, even though it's the same track gauge."
As far as the era issue, American manufacturers do have some era information included with their products. Atlas's website includes a bit of history about the outline...er...prototype.
Athearn Genesis UP GP38-2 have been made for era 2000-2010 and 2010- present, based upon the striping and details the locos have.
The GP40P-2 that was built for commuter service on the SP in the 1970s had passenger boiler equipment on its roof. The SP model version has this. The later 1990s UP acquired version properly has the passenger water equipment stripped off of its roof.
The Genesis GP7u painted for BAR in the 1990's is just that. The model that is painted for the 2000 Morristown and Erie (ex-BAR) version has patch outs, faded paint, and ditch lights added.
There are many others where the private nature of railroads create changes to prototypes that go beyond the typical generational changes that EMD or GE introduced.
Not sure how any of these specific railroad models of similar, or even the same, loco would fit into a uniform era bucket.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAgain, I still don't see where "in service from 1935 to 1958" in harder than "era III" or whatever? The manufacturers have this data these days. Even for the older generic stuff still in production.
In your example of a 58 Impala, I can see where this could be an issue for what you want if you know the difference. I, on the other hand, have some very early 1950's automobiles on my "1940's" layout, but to my eye they fit in fine. I wasn't around to see them when they were new so it doesn't bother me. Ignorance is bliss in this case! You will not find a 55 Bel Air or 57 Nomad on my layout though. Wasn't around when these were new either, but I know what I'm looking at there and to me they are different enough from the more era appropriate stuff to not fit in. Would stick out like a sore thumb to me.
I really don't think there is a right or wrong approach here. Just different strokes for different folks.
Mike
My own hunch is that by "outline" they mean that you know at a glance that it is US or Canadian and not British. Maybe they do not mean this at all, but I'd give as an example the famous and prolific Mantua/Tyco die cast 2-8-2. Prototype? None, actually. It takes bits of this and bits of that, a Wabash 4-6-4 boiler (or so say some) with a cab and tender borrowed from their B&O (mostly) 4-6-2. But it is unquestionably American in outline which is why so many people bought it and happily ran it for decades and decades, often detailed to look more like a particular railroad's locomotive.
A recent NMRA Magazine cover article features a beautifully done kitbash of a Russian 2-10-0 to make it look Canadian Pacific. It does not replicate a CP 2-10-0 but it has so many CP features that it has the "outline"of a typical Canadian enclosed cab steamer.
Hattons seems to be trying very hard to do us a favor with this proposed "era" categorization that we have not felt needed to be done for us, or at least, not done in the way they seek, particularly if it isn't going to be done (or cannot be done) with an insider's knowledge and expertise yet be broadly applied. One problem with applying Hattons' "era" fixation to US models is that unlike, say, England's nationalization, there was no external authority blowing a whistle and announcing "OK it's repaint time" or whatever. And we have many hundreds of railroads to have to know about, and that does not even get into granular things like how PRR Lines West did things like 2-8-0 tenders versus PRR Lines East.
They can create all the era systems they like for the US but it won't tell you when the last 4-4-0 ran on the Chicago & Illinois Midland, when the last slatted pilot PRR K4 stopped running or had its pilot changed to solid cast steel, when the last Milwaukee Road passenger diesel got UP style paint and lettering, or when the last C&NW diesel with "Route of the 400s" on the side was retired or repainted. The "era" for Stephenson inside valve gear in the US was essentially just about the entire steam era, way beyond when it was an outdated technology. The info we need defies era - it is railroad specific.
Sure there are and were safety appliance rules and rule changes often with very precise dates rather than era. But even there, sometimes rule changes were delayed or for that matter, were violated. So, quick, when was the very last day for an archbar truck to be allowed in interchange? What day was the last violation of the archbar truck prohibition detected? Was even that car allowed to return to home rails? That sort of thing. Did some freight cars run during and after the entire ACI label "era" without ever receiving an ACI label? Some don't care, so an "era" system isn't needed. Some do care, so an "era" system is too generalized and unspecific. Some would like to be at least close. They might be helped, but it is still railroad specific isn't it - not "American railroads" but "THIS American railroad."
Dave Nelson
Paul3 For the UK, a small country with a nationalized railway system for many years, an Era System works well for them. It also helps that most of the British Isles have the same environment and terrain (within certain limits), which means engine design doesn't have to change much to cope with that.
For the UK, a small country with a nationalized railway system for many years, an Era System works well for them. It also helps that most of the British Isles have the same environment and terrain (within certain limits), which means engine design doesn't have to change much to cope with that.
I agree with Sheldon on this one.For the UK, a small country with a nationalized railway system for many years, an Era System works well for them. It also helps that most of the British Isles have the same environment and terrain (within certain limits), which means engine design doesn't have to change much to cope with that.Currently, the National Rail network in the UK has 10,261 route miles; in 1925, the New York Central alone had 11,584 route miles, the Pennsylvania RR had 11,640 in 1926, Southern Pacific has 18,337 miles in the 1970s, and today's Union Pacific has 32,200 route miles. By size comparison, the entire UK system makes up one good-sized American railroad from before the big mergers. A System Era would work well for one American railroad; it doesn't work so well for multiple American railroads. The N&W didn't buy a diesel until 1955 and dieselized completely in 1960; the NH bought their first diesel in 1933 and last ran a steam engine in revenue service in 1952. There's no era system that can cope with that kind of variation. The best we can do is just put down a range of years that each model is good for and let each modeler choose their own timespan.
Water Level Route ATLANTIC CENTRAL I model 1954, I don't want stuff from 1958 because someone decided it was the same "era". I understand where you are at Sheldon, but I appreciate what the concept could do. For example, I believe I've seen some Preiser figure sets listed as "Era 3" or something to that effect. It gives folks who are trying to get the general feel of an era in place some guidance so they aren't too out of bounds so to speak. I tried being nailed to a date like you but quickly found that trying to model railroad wasn't much fun for me anymore. I didn't see the point in pulling a particular train car off the layout that had a build date of 1952 in really tiny letters just because I want to model the 1940's. It could easily pass for a car built in the 40's and I doubt anyone who ever sees it would look that closely. My hats off to those modelers that go to that length of detail. For the (dare I say) average modeler though, I think the era system is a good idea. You don't have to follow it if you don't want to and it provides some basic guidance for those that aren't as concerned about specific dates. Would also lessen the work needed to provide a more exact date range for a particular model. Just my .
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I model 1954, I don't want stuff from 1958 because someone decided it was the same "era".
I understand where you are at Sheldon, but I appreciate what the concept could do. For example, I believe I've seen some Preiser figure sets listed as "Era 3" or something to that effect. It gives folks who are trying to get the general feel of an era in place some guidance so they aren't too out of bounds so to speak. I tried being nailed to a date like you but quickly found that trying to model railroad wasn't much fun for me anymore. I didn't see the point in pulling a particular train car off the layout that had a build date of 1952 in really tiny letters just because I want to model the 1940's. It could easily pass for a car built in the 40's and I doubt anyone who ever sees it would look that closely. My hats off to those modelers that go to that length of detail. For the (dare I say) average modeler though, I think the era system is a good idea. You don't have to follow it if you don't want to and it provides some basic guidance for those that aren't as concerned about specific dates. Would also lessen the work needed to provide a more exact date range for a particular model. Just my .
Your freight car example assumes that 1952 car is accurate to begin with. I don't worry about build dates or service dates if I know the car and paint scheme are correct.
I'm talking about obvious stuff, like a 58 Impala on my September 1954 layout.
Or motive power, the newest locos I own are to SD9's, fresh from EMD.
I get the no fun part, that's why I stopped worring about ribs on boxcar ends, etc.
Almost all my passenger equipment is freelanced, generic, and selectively compressed, but it all looks like my era.
Again, I still don't see where "in service from 1935 to 1958" in harder than "era III" or whatever? The manufacturers have this data these days. Even for the older generic stuff still in production.
NorthBrit Outline of a real engine in U.S.A. & Canada. Prototype is a real engine in U.S.A & Canada I have four locomotives that a mix of 'whatever', sold for the U.K. market, but never seen in real life. They do not have a British outline nor British prototype. Good fun though. David
Outline of a real engine in U.S.A. & Canada.
Prototype is a real engine in U.S.A & Canada
I have four locomotives that a mix of 'whatever', sold for the U.K. market, but never seen in real life. They do not have a British outline nor British prototype. Good fun though.
Prototype model would say the same thing as Outline model. A model of a real engine.
Maybe Hatton's is trying to say that they prefer to stock models of real engines, and therefore don't deal much in foobies?
It's confusing because it's not "outline model", that's not a real term. It's "British outline" model or "US outline" model.
The British modellers use "outline" in the sense you would use it in a diagram or drawing, like you were looking at a blueprint. The Oxford dictionary's first definition of "outline" is "a line or set of lines enclosing or indicating the shape of an object in a sketch or diagram."
The "outline" is the overall shape and dimensions. In a sense, an NRMA gauge gives you an "outline" as far as the width and height to allow for US railroad clearances. US engines are bigger than UK engines, so if you built a layout to the UK "outline" you might not have enough clearance to run US engines made to the same scale.
Nicely said, Mike.
Dan
ATLANTIC CENTRALI model 1954, I don't want stuff from 1958 because someone decided it was the same "era".
ndbprr From what I have glanced through looks like UK for foobie.
From what I have glanced through looks like UK for foobie.
??????
Just the opposite, the term seems to imply some reasonable level of accuracy.
But what level of accuracy is close enough?
I'm not interested in having that conversation. I gave up rivet counting years ago in favor of reasonable artistic impression.
I can count rivets with the best of them, I can tell you what is incorrect on my models, and I can tell you why those compromises don't matter to me.
I model the early 50's, how much do you know about the dozens of variations in early piggyback flat cars?
Or, can you visually identify the year of a Checker Motors taxi? I can.
I just choose to run equipment that is close enough to give the correct visual impression overall.
I have $100 that says you could come to my layout, when I get it back up, and you or most people, would have a hard time with the correctness or incorrectness of most of the rolling stock.
PS - I hate that term "foobie", as it implies someone deliberately tried to fool, cheat, or take advantage of you. Yes, I am a grumpy old man today.
But the divisions proposed by Hattons for North America are too broad, maybe because of the private industry nature of North American railroading and the diverse geographic differences of various regions.
The beginning of some of their "eras" bear no resemblance to the ends of those eras.
Again, if you can do the research to put a piece of equipment in a "cubby" for an era, than you can just put the correct range of years on the item.
Or is that too much reading and thinking for some people?
I model 1954, I don't want stuff from 1958 because someone decided it was the same "era".
ATLANTIC CENTRAL JaBear and Trevor, Thank you, the nice people at Hattons have confirmed this AM your information. And they asked me what term is commonly used here. So I advised them that the word "prototype" is the common descriptor over here. Trevor - As a side note, I get the desire for the era thing, but North American railroads seem to have a much more diverse history making the broad categories Hattons has proposed still full of possible bad matchups like you describe. If manufactures are going to any trouble at on this topic, why can't they just identify the range of years for that specific item? Why do we need a "system"? Sheldon
JaBear and Trevor,
Thank you, the nice people at Hattons have confirmed this AM your information.
And they asked me what term is commonly used here. So I advised them that the word "prototype" is the common descriptor over here.
Trevor - As a side note, I get the desire for the era thing, but North American railroads seem to have a much more diverse history making the broad categories Hattons has proposed still full of possible bad matchups like you describe. If manufactures are going to any trouble at on this topic, why can't they just identify the range of years for that specific item? Why do we need a "system"?
Sheldon, did you ask them how they use the word "Prototype"?