My layout ( HO ) is a twenty by fifteen two level " L ". It has no name, motive power a mix of steam and diesel ( mostly CN and CP )and a wide variety of freight- road names from all over North America - and passenger cars from the fortys to near present day. It gives me great pleasure in my retirement years and I have never thought to make it period or location specific. Am very impressed with what I see and read here from those who are specific in what they do. However just wondering tho if there are many out there that model in a similar manner as I ?
Ever since the early years of model railroading, no one has hardly modeled any specific place but rather have always done just as you have and built table layouts with buildings, trees and all most of which were built from scratch back in the beginning. In fact my own layout which is the ficticious community of Redwood is very much like yours with all of the basic businesses and so forth and has a mountain with a tunnel through it which I've always sort of based on Nevada. I think when you try to model an actual place it takes some of the fun out of it because if it's not close to exact you'll never be 100% happy with it. Just my two cents worth...
Tracklayer
Tracklayerno one has hardly modeled any specific place
Objection, Your Honor!
Certainly, most of the layouts built are generic as to location, but there are quite a lot of folks worlwide, who model specific locations, or parts of it. It is most unlikely that one is able to fit a scale model of any station into a regular sized basement, so length and width have to be selectively compressed.
Just a few examples of layouts based on real locations I have developed for friends of
I have seen a number of beautifully executed layouts, such as a Z scale model of the Cinque Terre region in Italy, or famous Z scale layout of the Gotthard line in Switzerland.
OK, it may be just a European craze to buils location specific layouts, but I bet there are also numerous model railroaders at your end of the Big Pond doing this.
It goes in many variations. Some folks strive to be strict in their local, time era and specific about the equipment, being as accurate as possible. Others choose a given locale, and model what is charictaristic of the area and era. Some freelance, but follow some chosen prototype practice closely....then like you, some run what they like. And there are degrees in between.
I'm about in the comfy 2nd catagory. South Oregon coast, strong SP influence, but going more for what could have happened if they developed the Coos Bay harbor a bit further south. Industries typical of the area, but a larger engine facility for all those favorite little loco projects. And I'm enjoying it too!
One thing I'll do is jump eras, from late '40s to late '60s. Dan
Tracklayer Ever since the early years of model railroading, no one has hardly modeled any specific place but rather have always done just as you have and built table layouts with buildings, trees and all most of which were built from scratch back in the beginning. In fact my own layout which is the ficticious community of Redwood is very much like yours with all of the basic businesses and so forth and has a mountain with a tunnel through it which I've always sort of based on Nevada. I think when you try to model an actual place it takes some of the fun out of it because if it's not close to exact you'll never be 100% happy with it. Just my two cents worth... Tracklayer
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
First of all I want to apologize for my statement above when I said that no one has hardly modeled a specific place. The fact is a lot of model railroaders try and model places or as close to it as they can get of places that might be near and dear to them for one reason or another. You have to forgive me. I was trying to watch a movie and write at the same time when I wrote that which was very unwise... The reason I went with Nevada - or as close as I could get to it was because I had a boat load of pine trees I needed to do something with and because I like the roads that ran and still run through the state. I did however take it upon myself to create a fictional community so that I could use many of the structures and buildings that I also had on hand. For the past ten years I've been fairly well pleased with the layout until recently when I've become tired of looking at it and am considering changing the town and roads around to appear more like the small desert community of Black Rock from the Spincer Tracy movie Bad Day At Black Rock which I've written about in another thread.
In my personal modeling, I'm with Ulrich (check my signature.) Also, consider the magnificent layouts in Balboa Park, San Diego, two of which are VERY location specific (Carrizo Gorge - the mother of all trestles! - and the route over Tehachapi.)
Which isn't to say that 'generic' modeling (the Here, There and Everywhere Railway and Navigation Corporation, reporting marks ????) is in any way less valid than the 'pure prototype' variety. If the individual who owns and operates the railroad is happy, other opinions don't count.
As far as having freight equipment from all over North America, that's perfectly prototypical. Unless, like me, your modeling locus is on the far side of a wide ocean...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in Septemer, 1964)
I have to admit, that my own layout is set in a generic location on the coast of Maine, has a generic gauge (2 1/2 ft.) and has generic locos as motive power ...
TracklayerFirst of all I want to apologize for my statement above when I said that no one has hardly modeled a specific place.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I have never seen a "prototype" designed layout that was 100% accurate..
First its a impossibility since we are limited by space so,we model the scenes and industries that suggest the prototype location.
I have seen this trend in modern industrial switching layout(ISL) designs more and more since Lance Mindheim brought the ISL out of the closet-that would be and has been a thought provoking topic on a forum I moderate on..
Now with that said generic layouts has been the mainstay of the hobby and will be for years to come but,even some of those layouts suggest location.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
bruce22 It gives me great pleasure in my retirement years and I have never thought to make it period or location specific. Am very impressed with what I see and read here from those who are specific in what they do. However just wondering tho if there are many out there that model in a similar manner as I ?
It gives me great pleasure in my retirement years and I have never thought to make it period or location specific. Am very impressed with what I see and read here from those who are specific in what they do. However just wondering tho if there are many out there that model in a similar manner as I ?
Me.
Part of my layout is loosely modeled on Dearborn Station here in Chicago. In addition to Santa Fe, five other roads (Wabash, Erie, Monon, C&EI, and GTW) ran in and out of Dearborn. So, all of those roads are represented by locos and passenger cars on my layout. But, so are C&NW, U.P., PRR, and NYC, all of which were in Chicago but not at Dearborn.
Like you, it gives me great pleasure in retirement to do what a do, prototype be damned.
Rich
Alton Junction
I wouldn't excactly call it GENERIC modeling, I call it "modeling what I want" I don't have any prototype plan, I have all sorts of rolling stock from everywhere, motive power from the 1800's to present day and scenery that represents anywhere. I do try and stay with quality when I purchase engines and rolling stock, I also use Digitrax DCC, trying to keep all Purchases of good quality, and alot of the products for scenery I use is home made.
Certainly there are a lot of "generic" modelers simply because many, perhaps the majority of model train purchasers tend to buy what they like, which is a mix of stuff. Nothing wrong with that - as we've read over and over, people assert that it's their hobby in their house and they make the rules etc. So my conclusion is generic model railroading is probably the most common.
Then there is the other side which we do see at train shows and in magazine articles where people to varying degree's try to model a real railroad and imitate real life. IMO, that is more difficult and takes more discipline and research because 1) there is a lot of "generic" or dare I say, fantasy models produced, and of course there is a wide range of models produced which represent all manner of production dates. 2) We have to resist purchasing things we like or want to impulse buy to help us focus our limited funds and time on our goal to copy a real RR, which for some is very satisfying and worth denying ourselves whimsical purchases, which we often sell at a loss later anyway.
Ever since I was a teen, I have always wanted to model trains I watched (in my case Southern Pacific in the Sacramento CA area) and later D&RGW in the Rockies after I drove to and through Colorado a number of times. While I was without space for a layout, I took the opportunity to buy books and begin refining my fleet of rolling stock so that at present, it much better reflects freight and motive power of northern California and the Rockies in the 70's and 80's. Many people do similar things for their favorite RR in other parts of the country for similar reasons as I.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
My town of Moose Bay is imaginary. The Milwaukee Road that runs through it is real. I have a number of engines that don't belong there, but one of these days I'll repaint them and add decals. If the Milwaukee never had a particular class of steamer, well, that's OK if I like it.
One plan (eventually) to restore some order is to use the dual-era concept. I started out with a late Transition Era layout with mostly diesels, but I fell in love with steam. The plan is to put all the steam era stuff in boxes, including engines, rolling stock and vehicles, and run diesels only. Then, I'll reverse the process and run only steamers. Right now, I've got everybody on the layout because I'm still doing trackwork and I want to run them all to look for problems.
And, running Gigi the GG-1 under wire will have to wait for the next layout.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
riogrande5761Then there is the other side which we do see at train shows and in magazine articles where people to varying degree's try to model a real railroad and imitate real life. IMO, that is more difficult and takes more discipline and research because 1) there is a lot of "generic" or dare I say, fantasy models produced, and of course there
Jim,Speaking of modeling and prototypical discipline one of the hardest layouts to build is a believable generic or prototypical ISL.With these layouts its all in the track work and industrial details.
One can slap down a spilled spaghetti bowl of track work and be happy but,in this case I am talking about advanced ISL layouts like one industry per industrial spur,no industries on a switchback where cars must be moved from industry A to switch industry B.
Add the weeds,lightly or no ballast track with buried ties, grass,dirt,weeds and parts of broken skids.The industry buildings calls for details remembering industries do not leave loaded pallets on the dock-a unattended pallet invites pillage by a undesirable passerby and by a dishonest employee.Security cameras should also be mounted on the building(s)---don't forget the security fence and gates that must be modeled.If the industry receives covered hoppers don't forget the unloading grates, silo conveyor and some spillage.Any tanks will require concrete catch ponds for retaining any accidental spillage.
Even operation is much different then running main line trains.
Specific Places:
LION had modeled specif subway stations, let us see how many you can correctly name. They are not modeled in the correct order. I planed to model some, and others just "looked like" a certain station would fit there.
If you were to follow the trains in the order that I have built them, your subway map would look like this:
As for the period, obviously 1958 to 1990 given the kinds of cars in use. But then those are the only subway cars available inexpensively, and so that is what dictated the era, not that I am that fussy about such things.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
I have been at this model train thing for about 45 years now, and known a lot of modelers, worked in several hobby shops, built a number of layouts and been a member of several noted clubs and organizations.
And from what I have seen, from an "artistic" standpoint most people do model a specific time and region, even if they don't duplicate exact sturtures, track arrangements or natural features.
Most of the larger layouts I have visited left me with very clear impressions of what was being modeled - New Enland in the 1930's or the South West in 1975, or West Virginia in 1954.
And that is just talking about scenery - you need not model every building or rock formation to capture the "feel" of a region or place.
Then there are the trains themselves - today many people are very concerned with every detail being "just right", and that is fine, there have always been those who worked toward that goal - impossable as it maybe.
But many of even the most knowledgable are simply concerned with enough accuracy to create the "feel" to protray the C&O, or the UP, or the NYC in the particular era and place they have selected.
Truth is even with the vast resources now available, it is impossible to get it all correct. We simply don't have enough data to built "the B&O at Brunswick, MD exactly as it was 3:47 PM on September 23, 1954" - or any other place/time............We can only recreate an artistic vision of what it was probably like.
And if one just wants to buy model trains and run them around a track - that's good too.
Sheldon
No need to apologize Tracklayer, it was an observation. I'll admit to modeling somewhere generic, my original 2 x4 could've been anywhere.... come to think of it I never had a real location or name for it....
While you can try and capture a place in whole or in part of a particular RR. What really makes a model feel like the real thing is if you can capture the flavour of the RR.
Through work I had a lot of exposure to half a dozen different railroads, marine shipping, any airline that would fly in to Canada, every couier company/ Post offices of many countries and dealt with Customs officials from all over the world. Just by the environment (offices, rail yards, equipment and condition of all of the above etc.) I would enter when going about my daily rounds I could tell what company/country I was dealing with.
Not all railroads are the same and I can spot a good Canadian Pacific layout a mile away just by the way the layout environment looks.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
After being a model railroader for 200 years ... anyway ... that doesn't matter, everyone gets something different out of the hobby. There are no rules really except for those you choose to follow, unless you belong to a club or clique I suppose! =P
Some years ago I posted a similar observation here about running what I like at the expense of, shall we say, complete fidelity to a prototype, as the OP has stated. I recall one of the more respected members of the forum at the time replied that "you have the right to make as crappy a layout as you want." While that statement might sound harsh, it is essentially true at its core.
In the interim years I have drifted toward a more specific prototype to model (though I still play pretty fast and loose with the "rules" within even that loose framework). But, I shall never approach the level like that in Tony Koester's latest MR column, where he won't run different locomotives he really likes together on his layout because they missed each other by a year or two in real life.
Loosen up, run what you like. It's your hobby. Make it fun for you. Those who want to rain on your parade of fun should just go back and rain on their own layouts.
So there.
Jim
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
I have seen articles on layouts of a specific location on one specific date. Then there are layouts with double stacks being pulled by wood burners.
To me, the idea of this hobby is to do what you like and enjoy yourself. Yes, we do have those days when we get frustrated, but overcoming the obsicles is one of the chanllenges that goes along with most anything we do.
Have fun,
Richard
I do both. I have a large layout that is under construction to represent the Maryland & Pennsylvania RR in 1952.
But I also have a 6x12 test layout where I run whatever appeals to me in various scales to include 3 rail O, 2 Rail O, On30, S, Sn2, HO.
It's all fun.
Enjoy
Paul
mononguy63Tony Koester's latest MR column, where he won't run different locomotives he really likes together on his layout because they missed each other by a year or two in real life.
Tony would probably faint straight away if he saw my Seaboard System GP38-2s pulling a long string of IPD boxcars..The SS GP38-2 started in '82..The height of the IPD boxcar era was the late 70s.
Still,I think those SS Geeps looks pretty good pulling those boxcars.
BRAKIESeaboard System GP38-2s pulling a long string of IPD boxcars..The SS GP38-2 started in '82..The height of the
Russell