To Prototype or not? round 2

[Anonymous]

[I have been trying to model the Erie division point @ Salamanca N.Y. (Circa mid to late 40's)for a few years now. I've Tried to follow as close as possible with some liberties. How close should following a prototype go? How much selective compression and adjustment is reasonable? I understand the good enough idea, yet still debating fesabiltiy of it all.Is it better to have a layout running or always in progress? Should I narrow my focus on certain area's or head towards proto-freelance to stop the headache? Headache increases when I look at the 1/2 completed 216' N scale Station that I started 6 month's ago...
Any and all suggestions help, thanks to those who've answered already.
.

[Anonymous]

[I have been trying to model the Erie division point @ Salamanca N.Y. (Circa mid to late 40's)for a few years now. I've Tried to follow as close as possible with some liberties. How close should following a prototype go? How much selective compression and adjustment is reasonable? I understand the good enough idea, yet still debating fesabiltiy of it all.Is it better to have a layout running or always in progress? Should I narrow my focus on certain area's or head towards proto-freelance to stop the headache? Headache increases when I look at the 1/2 completed 216' N scale Station that I started 6 month's ago...
Any and all suggestions help, thanks to those who've answered already.
.

[dknelson]

These are all the same issues I face on my own layout -- I want it to remind me of what I railfanned as a teen in my hometown (that means the late 1960s) What is funny is that when a friend gave me a stack of phtoos he took back then during our youthful rainfan jaunts, I realized my memory was pretty faulty. Buildings I was pretty sure were still there in 1969 evidently had been torn down some time before, and trains i was sure were headed by second generation GP35s all seem to be headed by GP7s. A crossover I was pretty sure was right at the depot was in fact over two blocks south. So what should I build -- my memory, or "the truth" which evidently I have an imperfect recollection of, assuming I can even get the data.
I am now into the seventh month of building a bridge which I wanted to be a 100% exact replica of one I remember. Every little compromise is driving me nuts and I have redone and redone parts till I have enough stuff sitting around to build three bridges.
I have come to the conclusion that waiting until every little piece of prototype information is in hand, waiting until exact replica structures and rolling stock have left the workbench and are good to go, and waiting until I can build custom trackwork to exactly duplicate the scenes I saw as a teenager, are all invitations to get so totally bogged down -- not to mention disgusted with myself with each and every little compromise -- that I have to take a totally fresh look at the situation.

The answer is to be found in Allen McClelland's philosophy of "good enough." The point is to get the darned thing built right, and run right, and only THEN start to go berserk with scale accuracy and make changes in what you have, because if 100% accuracy guides you from step one you might well have a "notional" railroad -- perfect in its accuracy in your head, but nowhere to be seen in the basement.
Dave Nelson

[dknelson]

These are all the same issues I face on my own layout -- I want it to remind me of what I railfanned as a teen in my hometown (that means the late 1960s) What is funny is that when a friend gave me a stack of phtoos he took back then during our youthful rainfan jaunts, I realized my memory was pretty faulty. Buildings I was pretty sure were still there in 1969 evidently had been torn down some time before, and trains i was sure were headed by second generation GP35s all seem to be headed by GP7s. A crossover I was pretty sure was right at the depot was in fact over two blocks south. So what should I build -- my memory, or "the truth" which evidently I have an imperfect recollection of, assuming I can even get the data.
I am now into the seventh month of building a bridge which I wanted to be a 100% exact replica of one I remember. Every little compromise is driving me nuts and I have redone and redone parts till I have enough stuff sitting around to build three bridges.
I have come to the conclusion that waiting until every little piece of prototype information is in hand, waiting until exact replica structures and rolling stock have left the workbench and are good to go, and waiting until I can build custom trackwork to exactly duplicate the scenes I saw as a teenager, are all invitations to get so totally bogged down -- not to mention disgusted with myself with each and every little compromise -- that I have to take a totally fresh look at the situation.

The answer is to be found in Allen McClelland's philosophy of "good enough." The point is to get the darned thing built right, and run right, and only THEN start to go berserk with scale accuracy and make changes in what you have, because if 100% accuracy guides you from step one you might well have a "notional" railroad -- perfect in its accuracy in your head, but nowhere to be seen in the basement.
Dave Nelson

[emdgp92]

>The answer is to be found in Allen McClelland's philosophy of "good enough." The point is to get the darned thing built right, and run right, and only THEN start to go berserk with scale accuracy and make changes in what you have, because if 100% accuracy guides you from step one you might well have a "notional" railroad -- perfect in its accuracy in your head, but nowhere to be seen in the basement.

Mr. McClelland is a wise man. I too subscribe to that theory. If you can't see it, I don't bother with it. Right now, I'm more concerned with getting (and keeping) things running. I have no problem with people who like to do things exactly like the prototype, but I just don't have the time to be constantly researching things... remember the "Schnauzer's Revenge" article in MR awhile back?

[emdgp92]

>The answer is to be found in Allen McClelland's philosophy of "good enough." The point is to get the darned thing built right, and run right, and only THEN start to go berserk with scale accuracy and make changes in what you have, because if 100% accuracy guides you from step one you might well have a "notional" railroad -- perfect in its accuracy in your head, but nowhere to be seen in the basement.

Mr. McClelland is a wise man. I too subscribe to that theory. If you can't see it, I don't bother with it. Right now, I'm more concerned with getting (and keeping) things running. I have no problem with people who like to do things exactly like the prototype, but I just don't have the time to be constantly researching things... remember the "Schnauzer's Revenge" article in MR awhile back?