Using "Modeler's License" for Prototype Modeling

[Anonymous]

In front of me sits a track plan of Santa Barbara, CA from the 1920's. It's a very small area of railroading - just a few blocks.

But in trying to create a track plan in HO scale on a shelf - as the mafia guys say, "fugget about it....".

Alright, it's painfully obvious to me that you have to capture the "flavor" of an area, rather than trying to model it even close to the actual track plan.

Back to the drawing board....

Some things that jump out at me:

Modeling a yard: single ended instead of double - let the other end "fall off the edge of the earth" at the end of the layout.

If there's 3 or 4 or five sidings, us model railroaders get, say, 1 or 2.

Roundhouse? Yeah, right. Time for chopping it in half up against the backdrop or front of the layout, or more realistically, eliminating it completely.

Wow, in my first attempts at any sort of prototype modeling, it is painfully obvious that the best we could do is capture the "flavor"!!!

[Anonymous]

CARRfan,

I hear you brother! I am currently trying to model a track plan off the line between Flagstaff and and Holbrook in the mid 50's, I have gotten ahold of some good map sources for the yards, line and sidings but even in the 24' x 20' area I have to work in , no way will it be able to even come close to an accurate reproduction... So I'm with you on the flavour issue, what Im wrestling with right now.

[jeffshultz]

Welcome to "Selective Compression," something I'm going through right now as well. Someone in N scale thought about modeling some feature, Tehachapi Loop or a horseshoe on Cajon Pass with the correct radius... until he figured out it would be 7 feet across or so.

Unless you are ridiculously rich, you're going to make compromises in this hobby.

[vsmith]

The modeling police revoked my License, apparently I was using it too much...

[waltersrails]

I would agree model an area is hard to get down. You do just get the flavor.

[Jetrock]

Indeed, sometimes I will stretch modelers' license to its limit! My own layout is based on a particular prototype, and while it is an industrial belt line with tight curves, I still need to cram and subtract in order to fit it into the confines of my "no-car garage."

Selected elements really can help capture that flavor--it's more of an aesthetic challenge than a mathematical one. If your layout FEELS like the prototype you are modeling, the rest will follow.

[BRAKIE]

I always get a chuckle when this type of topic come up.You see one does not need to model their preferred area inch by inch..Just add the details that gives it that look and you need not compress all that much.Think of this.If serious HO slot car racers can model the Daytona Speedway where it looks like Daytona Speedway in a limited space then by golly we should be able to do the same.[:D]

As far as roundhouses and turn tables why does one need these space eaters if he/she doesn't operate steam locomotives? IMHO its the same as having space eating mountains and unrealistic grades on a small 4x8 foot layout..
In my opinion its a mind set that many modelers fall into that they can easily avoid..In designing a believable layout one must look beyond the pitfalls and the tra***hey read in layout books and magazine layout articles that mountains,roundhouses and turntables are a must.
I know many will not agree and will more then likely use their prejudgment mind set and say how wrong I am or worst that grand old feeble cry"Its my layout"..When what they are really saying I have a closed mind because of what I read in layout books,magazines and on forums.

[Anonymous]

Gourmets in a gourmand world!
Will

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is: it's your layout so do what's comfortable to you.

Bob DeWoody

[ndbprr]

It is unavoidable. My mile and a half of the PRR I am trying to recreate has one major flaw that there is no way around. A mile and a half is roughly 100' in HO but the basement is only 40' long. Enter a 180 degree curve that isn't on the original even though I am trying to make everything full scale including the buildings. Blasted walls!

[cjcrescent]

Like Brakie says, get away from trying to model a prototype inch by inch. Strive instead to capture the "flavor" of the area you are modeling. Use selective compression to achieve your goals. Often times the prototype doesn't scale down that easily. I don't know of any prototype that said, "Don't use too much space, we might be modeled someday."

I once knew a guy who modeled Saluda Grade in NC. He could have used an area the size of a gym and still not have it done inch for inch. Instead he modeled it with two sidings, 4 buildings and a lot of trees. Anyone who has seen the real Saluda, and then his layout, would admit he definitely captured the prototype. What's even more amazing, he did it in 6 x 10 ft.

[trainboyH16-44]

Modeler's licence! Where can I get one? I'm not even modeling an area, that to my knowledge, exists! (The best I can say is it's somewhere in southern British Columbia, I thinK)
I am trying to convince my dad to make it a little more prototypical, but I don't think it's going too well.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CARRfan

In front of me sits a track plan of Santa Barbara, CA from the 1920's. It's a very small area of railroading - just a few blocks.

Sounds like pages 134 and 135 of John Signor's Southern Pacific Coast Line book (Signature Press, 1994). And of course, for later eras much of this industry was gone or had moved to trucks, but that's a nice thing about modeler's license.

QUOTE:

Modeling a yard: single ended instead of double - let the other end "fall off the edge of the earth" at the end of the layout.

If there's 3 or 4 or five sidings, us model railroaders get, say, 1 or 2.

The key thing to deciding what to leave out (what I sometimes call "compressive selection") is to decide what you want to accomplish with the layout. Does it need to look like the prototype or work like the prototype? ("Both" is a viable answer, but takes a lot of room or very careful selection).

My friend Robert Bowdidge did a neat job of "looks like" in a small section of layout depicting San Jose's Market Street area
http://home.earthlink.net/~bowdidge/marketst.html

By contrast, my suggestion for a 1'X6' N scale layout of the Alameda Belt Line in MRP 2005 was "works like" almost exclusively.

If you want a little bit of "looks like" and a little bit of "works like" for Santa Barbara, a good compromise might be to start with the passenger station (what a great looking building!) and freight house/team tracks with three or four mainline and siding tracks passing in front. (I'd view the scene from the ocean side) Since it sounds like you won't be having copious amounts of staging at each end of the scene to provide through trains, no need to bother with any of the roundhouse or service tracks ... you wouldn't use them much any way.

Then I might run the tracks to the Johnson brothers and gravel loader behind the station scene and the tracks to the Boyd lumber mill along the front of the scene ... let the lumber mill exist in the imagination in the aisle.

If there's still room, sprinkle in a few more of the prototype sidings. I like Icing Plants, so that might be my next addition if modeling in an ice reefer era.

With this approach, you'd have the scenic elements that say "Santa Barbara" (don't forget the Eucapytus and the big Moreton Bay Fig) and still have enough work for a local switch job to putter around. Be sure to leave in a few crossovers on the mains/sidings to allow for runarounds.

For more industry, you could reach a little farther north to Goleta for the packing plants and such. But it sounds like you don't have much space to work with.

But the most important question is, what do you want to accomplish? Really knowing that makes the trade-offs clearer, IMHO. (Not easier, but clearer ....)

regards,

Byron
(former Santa Barbara area resident -- and miss it)
http://www.modelrail.us

[dgwinup]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

I know many will not agree and will more then likely use their prejudgment mind set and say how wrong I am or worst that grand old feeble cry"Its my layout"..When what they are really saying I have a closed mind because of what I read in layout books,magazines and on forums.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Hey, it's my layout and I can cry if I want to......

I LIKE the crap they print in layout books, magazines and on forums.....

Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!!!!



I hope you are howling with laughter, because I don't mean a word of this!!! I just couldn't resist the tempation to disagree with your comment I quoted above. LOL

I think you are on the right track, Brakie. The 'flavor' of the prototype is what we really model, not inch by inch. Now, as you said, when it comes to roundhouses, if you model the transition era, you almost always need a turntable and often the roundhouses associated with them. Yes, they are huge space-eaters, but they are the TRUE "flavor" of transitional modeling. Steam engines + roundhouses = 1940's to 1950's. Without them, you can pretty much run SD60's and not look out of place, but put an SD60 in a roundhouse and you might as well be running Amtrak steam engines! LOL

As far as the hobby press goes, I think it's a lot like this forum; ask a question, get as many different answers as respondents. None of it is cast in concrete, it's just someone's way of solving a problem. Besides, if you slavishly follow a magazine article, you are not really modeling for yourself. You might as well just photocopy the article and hang it in your train room!

Gee, I started this reply just to be a smart alec. And the more I thought about your comment, the more I tended to agree with it. I guess I just had to disagree with you so we could agree! ?? Much clearer now, don't you think?

Darrell, being quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuyama



Sounds like pages 134 and 135 of John Signor's Southern Pacific Coast Line book (Signature Press, 1994). And of course, for later eras much of this industry was gone or had moved to trucks, but that's a nice thing about modeler's license.

Byron, you've got it, that's exactly what book I'm looking at!

Yes, I'm working on a plan to include the passenger station (cool scratchbuilding project, and I think it will fit ), a 4 or 5 track yard, and a few industries.

State Street will separate the passenger station from the "industrial" section.

That is an interesting concept you threw out there - to have the yard tracks go right in front of the station also. Hmmmmmm. I'd get a lot more yard that way!

The setting will be 1955 or so, and "changeable" to 1998, I think.

I'm still debating, but I think I'd like to pull off a layout that can transform from the steam era to a pretty modern era by swapping out a few buildings, and using my "modelers license" to make up some modern day industries , or possibly a combination of modern industries and abandoned buildings on the same tracks - could have the tracks be very small rail, mostly buried in dirt.

The current size I have in mind is 2.5ft x 12ft.

I'll post a picture of the concept before long.

Byron, do you have any idea where I could get dimensions of the Passenger Station? (Worst case scenario, I'll pace around the building to get some approximate dimensions myself).

Thank for the tips!!!

P.S. - I have your Alameda Belt Line article scanned into my computer. I slice out my favorite articles and toss the rest of the magazine to avoid clutter build up. I'm going to study it up just for ideas. I really dig these small layout articles!!!

[BRAKIE]

Darrell,I am still laughin' over your first comments..As soon as I finish laughin' I'll finish reading your comments..[:D]

[leighant]

Selective compression layout design is fun.

Austin, Texas in 9'x10' N
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/age.jpg

Island seaport based on Galveston
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/ael.jpg

1950 passenger operations at Houston Union Station, 10x12' H
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aft.jpg

Navy blimp base in 2x3’ layout
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/aac.jpg

MGM movie studio backlot railroad ca 1940 18" x 80" HO
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abs.jpg

Port of Corpus Christi scene in 1’x4’ N
http://www.railimages.com/albums/kennethanthony/abo.jpg

[ereimer]

where's an abandoned warehouse when you need one ?

[Anonymous]

Byron, I noticed in your MRP article you mention Iain Rice style "puzzle pieces" - changing out buildings, etc. That is exactly what I'd like to do, but rather than just changing the type of industry, I will also be changing the era of building.

Unless, of course, I could figure out what type of building would be standing in the 40's and 50's, as well as today. Then I'd only have to change out signs, cars, etc. to change the date from the 50's to the 90's.

I am very much starting to see how you just have to pick an era. Just saying, "present day" is not good enough, unless you're going to be constantly changing eras, a'la Eric Brooman.

I'm only 30 yrs old, so if I try to do "present day", I'll have way too many locos to buy in my lifetime! So I'm thinking like 1955, and 1998 or 2000 or so. 2000 - there's a nice round number! Oooh, maybe 1950, and 2000?

I'll study up more in John Signor's book and see what date from the 50's gives me steam as well as early diesels (I'm wanting to have both steam and diesel versions of the coast daylight).

[tatans]

What a topic ! ! are these responses from the same people that spend hours and hours detailing a locomotive down to the amount of rivets on the fire extinguisher panel???? are these the same people who comment that a boxcar is 1/600th of an inch out of scale, and now they say it's alright to do anything you want when it comes to a layout? -eliminate this?, shorten the track? leave 1/2 of the railyard missing? leave whole sections of scenery out?
What's going on??? am I to believe that those that believe in absolute prototype modelling in rolling stock will sacrifice authenticity on the rest of the layout? am I reading this right or do "prototype modellers" have a double standard? I don't "prototype" but I sure hear some sarcastic comments from people that do(not everyone)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ereimer

where's an abandoned warehouse when you need one ?

Amen.. or maybe a barn would be more likely where I am [;)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tatans

What a topic ! ! are these responses from the same people that spend hours and hours detailing a locomotive down to the amount of rivets on the fire extinguisher panel???? are these the same people who comment that a boxcar is 1/600th of an inch out of scale, and now they say it's alright to do anything you want when it comes to a layout? -eliminate this?, shorten the track? leave 1/2 of the railyard missing? leave whole sections of scenery out?
What's going on??? am I to believe that those that believe in absolute prototype modelling in rolling stock will sacrifice authenticity on the rest of the layout? am I reading this right or do "prototype modellers" have a double standard? I don't "prototype" but I sure hear some sarcastic comments from people that do(not everyone)

I think the idea is more of dealing with what you can have over what you want... if I had the room I'd love to model my line down to the scale foot, but I cant... so I have to accept that I will have to make compromises, I don’t like it, but there it is a reality, just like the rest of life. The same holds true for me of the hobby at all levels; I will have to compromise on many if not all things, scenery, structures, rolling stock, engines, etc...

But on that note it doesn’t bother me because it is a Model, a hobby. If I had a perfect scale representation of my chosen area, something would be missing... my own artistic input!

A perfect reproduction of reality is simply craftsmanship (an incredible level of it mind you, not to knock craftsmanship) its the 'tricks' that show off our artistry... in fact I don’t like to think of them as 'tricks' it implies we are somehow cheating or cutting corners, what we are really doing is showing the artist that lives with the craftsman and that to me is the greatest part of this Hobby which can be argued to be an interactive art form.

So to me Selective Compression, backdrop creation, mirror use, etc is where the craft and the art meet...

*blinks*
Whoa... my first [soapbox]... my apologies... what got into me
*shakes and rubs his head and wanders away*


Peace.
Coyote

[icmr]

Sounds good.



ICMR

Happy Railroading.[swg][swg]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

The modeling police revoked my License, apparently I was using it too much...

"Modeller's License"......I think I saw it on sale at Home Depot....big honkin' spray bottles of the stuff....next to the Elmer's glue

[eastcoast]

This jailcell just isn't big enough for much. The modeling police want
quite a bail, and csx wants quite a settlement for copywrite infringement.
Amtrak has pressed charges as well,just so they can stay in business,
since the passengers can no longer afford to ride.Oh, well!!