How far should you take prototype modeling?

[arkansasrailfan]

I would take the model part to the max, but dispatching less seriously. Also, sometimes, I would pull some pranks on operators trains.(put ping pong balls on tunnels, freight cars, make cars have the worst rolling trucks, and fill the chosen with lots o' weight

[Mailman56701]

  Each his own of course, but I recall on one of the DPB videos, two grown men talking on radios to each other, in serious tones, terms, etc., while operating the layout, and I thought it was one of the silliest things I'd ever seen :) 

I haven't seen the video, but I have been one of those guys talking on radios. One layout, 5 decks, 25' x 75', I worked had 25 trains running at once. The dispatcher, in another room, ran the trains by computer on a schematic that was three screens wide. For it to work, you have to follow the rules. But as soon as the radio shuts down, engineer and conductor start razzing each other, dissing the dispatcher, talking trash to the guy that over ran his siding and had to back-up 50 feet to avoid a major traffic jam. It's one heck of a party.

On another layout, the rules are a little tighter, but there is beer and chips in the lounge for between trains. The dispatcher sits in a room 50 feet from the layout. This layout is celebrating it's 30th anniversary this month.

Some people model an era and location, ops guys model the function of a railroad. Even there, there is a sliding scale of accuracy.  

 

  

   Yeah, I know.  What I found amusing was these guys were talking to each other like it was life and death though; "Dispatcher xyz, train abc requesting clearance to proceed to location def, etc........." with the answer in similar language.

   To me, a call/answer on the radio of "Hey Joe, can I take my train over to x ?" would have been sufficient :)

[SpaceMouse]

  Each his own of course, but I recall on one of the DPB videos, two grown men talking on radios to each other, in serious tones, terms, etc., while operating the layout, and I thought it was one of the silliest things I'd ever seen :) 

I haven't seen the video, but I have been one of those guys talking on radios. One layout, 5 decks, 25' x 75', I worked had 25 trains running at once. The dispatcher, in another room, ran the trains by computer on a schematic that was three screens wide. For it to work, you have to follow the rules. But as soon as the radio shuts down, engineer and conductor start razzing each other, dissing the dispatcher, talking trash to the guy that over ran his siding and had to back-up 50 feet to avoid a major traffic jam. It's one heck of a party.

On another layout, the rules are a little tighter, but there is beer and chips in the lounge for between trains. The dispatcher sits in a room 50 feet from the layout. This layout is celebrating it's 30th anniversary this month.

Some people model an era and location, ops guys model the function of a railroad. Even there, there is a sliding scale of accuracy.  

 

  

[2-8-8-0]

Prototypical....hrmmm.....

Im building several scratchbuilt locos in N for my B&O layout. That being said, i also want to complete them in my lifetime. I want an EL5 to look, more or less, like an EL5. I am "cheating" and using con-cor and P2K 2-8-8-2s for most of my projects. I dont much care if the valve gear is wrong or if my smokebox access doors have the wrong number of bolts. I want my engines to resemble B&Os locos, i want my interlocking towers to resemble B&Os, etc... Dont have to be exact....but thats just me.

When i look at 2 N scale layouts that belong to other posters here, i think "Pennsy in central PA" and "WM along the Potomac". Thats the type of message i want my layout to convey. "B&O on the West End". Of course, it only needs to convey that message to me.

Tim

[Mailman56701]

  Year or two ago, I ran across a site on the web were the guy had a play on words of Koester's "Layout Design Elements".

  He chose "Plausible Design Elements" as a philosophy instead, and in reading the info., I agreed.

  Not trying to take things overly serious, etc.  Lee's post gives a good idea of it.

  Each his own of course, but I recall on one of the DPB videos, two grown men talking on radios to each other, in serious tones, terms, etc., while operating the layout, and I thought it was one of the silliest things I'd ever seen :) 

 

[Dave Vollmer]

Well now...

I am very, very pleased at the pleasant way in which this thread has maintained its civility.  Good job, folks!  All too often I have seen similar discussions end up in two distinct camps with the battlefield lying between.

This reminds me a bit of the thread on operator vs roundy-rounder...  I think that the prototype issue is also a continuous spectrum.  The spectrum is anchored at one end by folks like Jack Burgess and at the other end by the Thomas and Hogwarts modelers.  We all fall somewhere on that spectrum.  It's also a moving target, as seen by many of the posts here.  Some folks have headed from fantasy freelancing toward proto-lancing; others have gone from strict proto modeling to freelancing.  No one answer is correct for all members involved.  Clearly it's a personal decision.

Now, that said...  I have never belonged to a model railroading club.  I play well others at work (heck, I'm a military officer, I have to!), but I have very strict standards to how I want my layout and rolling stock to look and behave.  When it comes to construction, I'm a lone wolf.  I'd love to have people over to operate, and I'm very open to new ideas about operation, but construction is my job and mine alone, because no one else shares the exact same vision I have for my layout.

I imagine that many of the challenges facing model railroad clubs stem from this issue.  Prototype-ness (to coin a new word, patent-pending) is a personal choice, a unique position along the prototype spectrum...  and finding two dozen guys with that exact position on the spectrum has got to be difficult.

[SpaceMouse]

Space mouse:

How long is a piece of string?

bout yay long

[Anonymous]

I AM A CUSTOM  PAINTER  WHO  RUNS  BNSF  FROM  95 - PRESENT. I  LIVE  NEAR  BELEN  NM.  WHILE  I  DO  NOT  DO  THE  EXACT  ROAD  NUMBERS  I  SEE GOING  THROUGH  BELEN,  I  DO  HAVE  ALL THE  DIFERENT  TYPS  OF  ENGINES  THAT  I  HAVE  SEAN  GOING  THROUGH  THERE.  THAT  INCLUDES  ATSF  DASH 9S  BNSF  DASH 9S  IN  RED-SILVER  H1-H2-H3  AND  SD40S-45S-40-2S  IN  BOTH  WAR BONET  AND  GREEN AND BLACK. I  ALSO  RUN  WHAT  THE  NORMAL  RUN  THROUGH  POWER  IS..CN  DASH 9S AND 40-2S.NS  DASH 9S AND OTHER SUCH ITEMS.    I PREFERE UNITS THAT REALY EXCIST.  UNITS SUCH AS THIS YET TO BE FINISHED ITEM  are included   ARE INCUDED  SINCE THE 2ND ORDER  OF DASH 9S CAME IN THE RED-SILVER BONET IT WOULD NOT BE  ILODGICAL THAT THE 70MACS WOULD HAve been repainted the same way.    i like to add the proper shaped railings when i can.                               i felt that these hand bent grabs look beter then what kato ofered.    and i like my nand rails to have good seperation  between colors. other then m u hoses and a very few other details this  is what i feel is prototypical modeling

[loathar]

Just to the point where it's still fun and not work and I'm not driving myself crazy worrying about what others are going to find wrong with it.

[Charlie]

A good way of putting it into perspective is to look at Pelle's layout. He models Modern UP and BNSF in a fictional setting yet making it look prototypical for the UP. That's how I model the ATSF and SP in NE Kansas during the 80's. But, Business trains will rule in conjunction with freight.

Charlie

[Tjsingle]

Its at the topf my to do list, and yes  prototyping can make or break the realism of your railroad. like cactus growing on a snowy mountain it doesn't work

 

TO THE LIMIT!

[Texas Zepher]

We all know at least one person, and possibly you are one yourself, that modeler that goes to extremes to make sure there model railroad is as accurate as possible, but how far should you take prototype modeling?

As I've posted in other threads on this same topic I have two other people that in my opinion go to extremes.   One of them has modeled and exact piece of Colorado narrow gauge.  They have a very large space but not a whole lot of exact railroad fits into that space.  The locomotives accelerate and move at prototypical speeds.  Since it is all to scale there is no fast clock.  It can take 30-45 minutes to  spot a single car at an industry if a run around is required.  The most boring operating sessions I've ever attended.  Even though we tell him there is a reason they have to pay people to do that in real life, he doesn't understand why no one wants to "come over and operate" his layout.

The other person is a procedure person.  In order to work a train one must take into account the brakeman and flagmen.  To switch onto a side track you have to stop the train at the turnout so the switchman can get out (ignoring the fact that before OSHA switchmen used to just jump off as the train slowed). Then the train proceeds onto the siding and stops you have to account for the time that the brakeman climbs down out of the caboose and walks up to disconnect the cars at the appropriate location.   Starting up is the same in revere you have to allow the brakeman to get to the cars and connect the air hoses, and then you have to charge the system.  etc, etc, etc.   It is interesting for one or two times to really understand what a real train crew would have to do, but then it becomes just downright tedious work.  They also wonder why they can't keep a full roster of people who operate there on a regular basis.

On the other hand my club, has recently moved to the opposite end of the scale.  At an operating session last month I watched in shock as a member went to the main yard and made up a train using the 0-5-0 switcher.  That is TOO far the other way. I mean then what's the point?

In my opinion these are examples of going too far toward the extremes. 

[IRONROOSTER]

I think that a lot depends on the effect you are trying to create or whether or not you are even trying for an effect. 

I'm trying to recreate the Ma&Pa in the early 50's.  Little changed from 1951,  when the 4th diesel was bought, to 1954 when passenger service ended so that's really my era.  I also try to have more eastern railroad cars than western and so forth.  OTOH I have the NMRA's Heritage and Living Legend series of cars that I plan to use.  And if I there's ever an affordable camelback in S scale I'll include that also.  They don't violate my era, they just didn't exist on the Ma&Pa.  I don't have enough room to recreate in minature locations of the Ma&Pa, so I'll do an impression that will be (at least to me) reminescent of the road.  I also have some Maine 2 footers that I plan to include.

I'm more like an impressionist painter than a photographer.  So the inconsistencies don't bother me and hopefully I'll have a pleasing effect of a shortline railroad in the 50's that can't modernize very much.  It will not be an exact reproduction of the Ma&Pa, but may remind you of her.  And of course this is an evolving process for me, so I'll probably have some changes along the way.

Enjoy

Paul 

[PASMITH]

Sandarne . It was a tall oil plant owned by International Paper at the time.

Peter

 

That is not to far away from here actually. Well as you know Northern Sweden is a rather big place but Sandarne is not to far away from Sundsvall(I live north of Sundsvall). Was it a plant that created ethanol from pine trees? Or did they make pine oil? I know their is a lot of experiments going on right now.

 

Magnus

Pine chemicals - Tall Oil Fatty Acids (TOFA)

Peter Smith, Memphis

[Kenfolk]

 

My completely freelanced layout in every way matches the prototype in my mind.

[Anonymous]

I just want to model realistic scenes to the regular everyday people not for the "PROFESSIONAL" model railroaders.  I really do not care about the tiny details that vary from locomotive to locmotive or whether the numbers are incorrect on a boxcar.  I want my scenes to aww the audience because of how realistic it looks.  I do my best and from my best I get great results.  Regular audiences would agree too.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of Jack Burgess and his Yosemite Valley Railroad modeling the prototype as it was on August 17, 1939, in every little detail -- he's a great example of going about as far as you can go to model the prototype accurately.

Jack showed me the street in front of his main depot at Merced and then took the manhole cover off! He showed me a peephole in the fascia that you can look through and see that he has correctly modeled the proper under-the-street plumbing, complete with a removable manhole cover -- in HO!

Jack also told me of one structure on his layout that has interior detail and a removable roof. He was showing the layout to some visitors and one of them happened to be a child in 1939 who *lived* in the house he modeled. When he took the roof off and showed it to this lady, she remarked something like: "Green bed spreads? My mother hated green and would never have put green bed spreads on the beds!"

So back to the workbench for Jack ...  

Wow...pretty neat. Lots of work though! 

My layout is completly freelanced, although I do try to stick to prototype paint schemes except when freelanced railroads are concerned. I have around 4 freelanced railroads, cars from the Texas Central, Pennichuck Railroad, and Midland New England (all friends' railroads with another planned) then an interchange with a freelanced shortline which no one models, plus a rock company with a run-though train.

I do have a few freelanced cars though, which were home built by my different freelanced railroads. 

TCRR Woodchip Car

WRS Plow

Pennichuck Rock Car 

 

[tomikawaTT]

When I see the word, "should," I always say, "Obey the Golden Rule."

The Golden Rule of model railroading is, "He who pays the gold, makes the rule."

If I contemplate joining a club and I'm told, "We only model (fill in railroad and era of choice," and I don't, I don't join.  They have paid their gold, so it is their choice - and it is my option to respect that choice.

OTOH, on my home layout, I have put up every penny (and yen) and therefore, when a visitor says, "I'd like to try my cab-forward on those grades," I respectfully point out that a Southern Pacific locomotive would be out of scale and out of place, not to mention that there are already locomotives assigned to all the scheduled freights on a railroad where extras are unknown.  If he wouldn't toss a handful of jalapenos into his wife's pound cake batter, why should he expect to insert a wildly anachronous piece of motive power into my carefully choreographed miniature rail ballet?

So, how far DO I take prototype modeling?  My signature identifies time and place.  For the Japan National Railways my field notes determine locomotive (and car) numbers and train consists, the prototype's published timetable determines which train runs when.  OTOH, the rolling stock is not detailed to museum standards.

How about my admittedly freelance coal-hauling private railway?  There, imagination and whimsey have been allowed free run of the engine house and car shed (ever see a seven-axle articulated coal hopper!)  However, the timetable is still king - and is taken from the JNR branch line in Kyushu which inspired my first interest in modeling Japan's railroads instead of the NYC.

So, I'm a prototype schedule modeler, and a prototype country modeler, but not one to take a magnifying glass to anything and not one to stage a hissy-fit about MINOR anachronism.  (My JNR DE10 class diesel-hydraulic is about two years early - but, then again, there were no coal mines in the Upper Kiso Valley...)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - sort of)

[Lillen]

Sandarne . It was a tall oil plant owned by International Paper at the time.

Peter

 

That is not to far away from here actually. Well as you know Northern Sweden is a rather big place but Sandarne is not to far away from Sundsvall(I live north of Sundsvall). Was it a plant that created ethanol from pine trees? Or did they make pine oil? I know their is a lot of experiments going on right now.

 

Magnus

[PASMITH]

Magnus, I sure wish I could have met you before I retired when I was traveling on a regular basis to Sweden.

I sure agree with your thinking.

Peter Smith, Memphis

 

Thanks for saying so. It really warms my heart.

 

You know what they say. Great minds thinks alike!

Where in Sweden did you use to go?

 

Magnus 

 

Sandarne . It was a tall oil plant owned by International Paper at the time.

Peter

[Dallas Model Works]

How far should you take prototype modeling?

To one end of the basement and back again!

 

[wm3798]

I definitely follow a particular prototype's practices, but all of it is filtered through the lense of my layout's limitations.

I try to faithfully represent WM equipment to the extent that satisfies me.  There are details missing, some of the paint jobs could be better...  The rolling stock is representative of the era, but I don't worry if a paint scheme is off by a year or so. 

 

It's interesting to read old consist lists, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to replicate one in scale...  First off, who's got that kind of time (and budget!) and second, a prototype train might be 100 cars long, my sidings can handle 20 on a good day.

 

I do consult the rosters to make sure the road numbers on engines aren't botched, and I'm gradually getting around to things like sunshades, m.u. hoses and snow plows.

When someone looks at Dave's layout, there's no question about what it represents, especially for anyone who is familiar with central PA. 

I hope that my layout is equally representative of the Western Maryland and its stomping grounds.

In fact, I believe that capturing that essence is far more important to the success of a model railroad than faithfully replicating every bolt and grab iron.  My goal is to model the WM as it was, a busy coal hauler with hot priority fast freights running through spectacular scenery with an interesting variety of locomotives.  Is every mile of track there? No.  Are the structures exact replicas? Certainly not.  Is the equipment detailed to the nth degree?  No, it's built for running not for display.

At the end of the day, as realistic a portrait as we can paint, it still has to fit in the frame.

Lee 

[Lillen]

Magnus, I sure wish I could have met you before I retired when I was traveling on a regular basis to Sweden.

I sure agree with your thinking.

Peter Smith, Memphis

 

Thanks for saying so. It really warms my heart.

 

You know what they say. Great minds thinks alike!

Where in Sweden did you use to go?

 

Magnus 

 

[PASMITH]

We all know at least one person, and possibly you are one yourself, that modeler that goes to extremes to make sure there model railroad is as accurate as possible, but how far should you take prototype modeling?

 

For example, if you are modeling modern day railroading and a locomotive that you have for a prototype road is retired, or repainted should you repaint/re-decal it to stay true to prototype, or leave it be? 

 

 

Personally I believe that prototype modeling is very important, but to an existent. Repainting and re-numbering would add to the realism of your railroad, but the extra time and effort will be lost to people who have no idea that the locomotive or car was repainted to stay in your roster. Leaving me at a crossroads, how far should you take your prototype modeling?

 

I am interested in what others think about this subject.

 

-Tom   

LETS GO TIGERS! (clap, clap, clap clap clap )

Now that's something I can agree to!!!!!!!!!

Peter Smith, Memphis

[PASMITH]

The word should must only apply to you.  You are the judge, so you should determine when enough is good enough.  When you slide down the slope of looking for the approval of others, you'll never rest because yet another someone will always have a new way of suggesting "improvements".

I satisfy myself, and when others signify their approval I appreciate it.  Such expressions merely add to my conviction that I "should" do as I do.

 

I'm with you Crandell.

 

I want to model the way I want to model. If someone else likes it I'm happy. If someone would be upset over a Big Boy pulling a B&O train then that is their problem, not mine. 

 

We should do what we like and change it when we like to.

 

Magnus

Magnus, I sure wish I could have met you before I retired when I was traveling on a regular basis to Sweden.

I sure agree with your thinking.

Peter Smith, Memphis

[jeffrey-wimberly]

There was a time when I would try to stay as close to prototype as I could, to the exclusion of all else. I didn't run anything that wasn't in actual operation. If I had a type of loco that was taken out of the service of the road I was modeling then mine were taken out of service as well and sold off. I wouldn't even think of creating a ficticious road to use them on. If I had a fully detailed model of a loco that was in actual operation and I noticed one day that the prototype loco it was modeled on had something on it that my model didn't have then everything else, homework, chores I was supposed to do, etc, all were forgotten until my model looked just like the prototype. I kept this up for eight or nine years to the point that it was beginnin g to effect my health then one day I thought 'What's the point? in a hundred years who's going to care? In fact, who's going to care in just ten years.'. It was at that point that I extricated myself from what I call the 'Prototype trap' and started doing my modeling on a much looser basis. Today I'm still using locos and cars that my prototype road (KCS) got rid of many years ago and I couldn't care less. They're part of my operation, that's all that counts. I run them when I want and with whatever other locos and cars I want.

[Lillen]

The word should must only apply to you.  You are the judge, so you should determine when enough is good enough.  When you slide down the slope of looking for the approval of others, you'll never rest because yet another someone will always have a new way of suggesting "improvements".

I satisfy myself, and when others signify their approval I appreciate it.  Such expressions merely add to my conviction that I "should" do as I do.

 

I'm with you Crandell.

 

I want to model the way I want to model. If someone else likes it I'm happy. If someone would be upset over a Big Boy pulling a B&O train then that is their problem, not mine. 

 

We should do what we like and change it when we like to.

 

Magnus

[PASMITH]

The further back in time you model, the harder it is to module with accuracy even if that is what your goal is and for me, that is an very important but secondary goal. Fortunately my primary goal is to model the feeling of the time and place and if I miss some details due to lack of data, lack of availability of prototype equipment or time and cost restraints I can live with that. I model SP in the early 1900's in northern California and I find it very difficult to achieve any reasonable degree of rivet counting success mostly because of the lack of data no matter how much research time I expend. I will give you one example.

In 1901 the Weed Lumber Company located near the base of Mt. Shasta purchased three locomotives and began building a logging RR to the north to gather their timber cuttings. I decided to model this logging RR along with a small portion of the SP which serviced the Lumber town of Weed along the SP Siskiyou line from From Dunsmuir to Portland ( Speaking of "prototype modeling", this is the line that Bruce Chubb chose to ..." change history a little to achieve the level of traffic and motive power utilization I wanted") I started to model the logging line in 1988 and planned to build the three Weed RR locomotives. Most of the historical literature and books at that time identified these locos as a ten wheeler, a 45 ton Heisler and a Baldwin 2-8-0. I had several pictures of the 2-8-0, one picture of the Heisler and what I thought was at least 5 pictures of the ten wheeler. After careful study, I concluded that the ten Wheeler in the pictures did not belong to Weed. Their locomotive was a very strange looking 4-4-0 and until last year ( almost 19 years later) I did not have sufficient data to built a single model of those three locos for all the reasons previously stated. I found the 4-4-0/ 4-6-0 mystery was a result of " The old post card trick" and when I finally built the 4-4-0 last year (C & NE No. 1) I had corrected history and had the definitive book on the subject revised. ( Which itself was kind of neat) and the story of the 4-4-0 is getting even more interesting today. The Weed logging RR turned into the C&NE and SP's Cascade line which became the main route for the SP to Portland and despite the fact Bruce Chubb ...."assumed that instead of constructing the Cascade line, the SP decided to upgrade its Siskiyou Line", he is still one of my all time heros of model railroading and there is just so far even he can or wants to take prototype modeling.

Peter Smith, Memphis

[pastorbob]

Have to go with Selector, I model Santa Fe, era 1989.  But as close as I try to stay, I make little side trips out of reality.  For example, I bought some of the new Kato SD40-2 mid productions.  They actually should be on an early to mid 90's version of the Santa Fe as they come, but I decided to leave them alone.  Then I had a dupe number, and without consulting all my ATSF records that I have accumulated over the years, I decided to change the last digit of the existing cab number.  Wrong!  I found out the hard way during an op session that Santa Fe had not used the number I put on. ( darn these people with photographic memory)  So, those units are wrong for my era, and one is numbered wrong.

 After great deliberation and thought (about 2 minutes), I decided they were "good enough" to quote a great pioneer in the hobby.

Bob

[stebbycentral]

An interesting fact that no one has touched on is that by definition, prototype modeling is impossible.  Because very few of us have the space to create a true scale scene, except in bits and pieces.  Even in N scale, to exactly reproduce one mile of a prototype scene would require a layout 33 feet long.  So we all have to live with some degree of selective compression or we wouldn't have a layout at all.