shayfan84325 wrote: Ulrich wrote: Although diesels are popular, most modelers even today seem to prefer modelling the transition era...and who can blame them..this was an interesting time when both steam and diesel ran side by side. Not to argue, but my observations are that even the transition era seems to be taking a back seat to more current times - for an interesting assortment of reasons.
Ulrich wrote: Although diesels are popular, most modelers even today seem to prefer modelling the transition era...and who can blame them..this was an interesting time when both steam and diesel ran side by side.
Although diesels are popular, most modelers even today seem to prefer modelling the transition era...and who can blame them..this was an interesting time when both steam and diesel ran side by side.
I have to agree with Shayfan and Barkie. I took a survey in TMRP (My self included) and I think it was almost every one in the survey voted for 70s-80s, or 90s-Present.
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/JR7582 My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wcfan/
Well, having been born in 1939, I guess you might say that I grew up in what is either termed "Steam's Finest Hour" or "The Last Gasp", however you might look at it. Steam wasn't gone from my area until I was a Junior in high school, so I had plenty of time to take it all in. My 'stomping' grounds were the Sierra Nevada around Donner Pass, so I was able to witness everything from 100% steam, to diesel helpers, then steam helpers, then all diesel. It was a pretty exciting time, but for some reason I began to lose interest when steam was gone. Trains still fascinated me (they obviously still do) but for me, personally, the 'edge' was gone.
Probably why my own MR is 98% steam and set during WWII. It brings back some very neat memories of my youth.
Now, if I'd been born in, say, 1969, it probably would be a different story--I know I'd still have the 'train bug', but it would be of a completely different type. Instead of remembering the passing of steam, I'd be remembering the passing of F's and GP's and SD's. And my MR would be a totally different affair.
So in my case, at least, it has a lot to do with what you remember and what excited you initially. For me it was (and is) steam.
Tom
Oh, and PS: My all time favorite diesel? Don't laugh, it's the E-2's on the pre-war "City of San Francisco".
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Interesting thread.
I agree with many that it can depend on what was running when you grew up but the dates noted for the end of steam really depend on where you live. I was born in 1947 but certainly saw a lot of steam in mainline operation as I was lucky to have grown up in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Steam did not end in the mid fifties as noted in one post, in fact steam was still going strong in 1959 on both CN and CP on the Prairies. There is an excellent DVD out called Canadian Steam 1959 from Greg Scholl Video that was all shot in Manitoba with sound. I recall that on the CN west mainline about 50% of the trains were steam in the late '50's as I spent a lot of time in the summer watching the trains. The last scheduled run of a steam locomotive on the CN was a passenger train pulled by a U-1-d Mountain in April, 1960 out of Winnipeg. I remember seeing it go by.
So while I have a few diesels, steam rules on the Mortimer sub.
CN Charlie
Modeling the N&W freelanced at the height of their steam era in HO.
Daniel G.
I am 38 years old and my father was a certified EMD Mechanic (Not on Locomotives, but standby gen-sets and fire pumps).
EMD's (and other locomotives) have fasinated me since I first saw one. (Nordbergs are even bigger... LOTS bigger, but not as visible, see pic) I love the sound of them, esp. a non turbo EMD with rotted out exhaust.
Diesel locomotives as mentioned before are colorful billboards, loud, powerful, modern, etc.
But... nothing compairs to standing 10 feet from the mainline when the UP Challenger goes buy at 60+ miles per hour. I took my son to see it go buy out in the country one day and took some black and whites of it as it roared by. They turned out awesome. (Undated too, looks like it coulda been taken back in the day)
I guess I am an all round FTN!
There are 2 or 3 Nordbergs just like this one at the Municiple Power Plant in Rochelle IL, they are 10 cylinders, almost two stories tall and I believe that their full power rpm is 150.
I definitely have a soft spot in my heart for steam. I remember the disappointment sometime around 1957 or 58 when I went to the B&O yard to take some photos of an EM-1 2-8-8-4, and instead got to watch a trio of Baldwin RF-16s coupling to a string of Taconite. Sure, there are economic reasons for diesel, but I've never seen anything diesel to match a pair of EM-1 Yellowstone 2-8-8-4s doubleheading 140 load of Taconite up a .75% grade on a cold, icy February morning, finally needing a pair of L class 0-8-0s joining on the point, and another couple heading North to do pusher duty. Just think of the mechanical motion of 6 sets of drivers, 6 sets of valve gear, the clouds of coal smoke and steam exhaust as first one engine, then another starts slipping, and after a couple minutes the whole lash-up having to back in synchronization to take up the slack and start again.
I counted 140 triple hoppers and a caboose. By the time the caboose got to me, the pushers had dropped off.
When I retire, the layout I am planning is going to be strictly freelance, the basis is going to be based on a group of millionaires recovering some abandoned track, and obtaining some favorable legislation to let them run about any kind of locomotive, steam, diesel, electric, including some of my 1860 era 4-4-0s, and the Hogwarts and Thomas the Tank Engine equipment I have.
The idea is to have fun and enjoyment. You do your thing, I'll do mine.
my05hammer wrote:There are 2 or 3 Nordbergs just like this one at the Municiple Power Plant in Rochelle IL, they are 10 cylinders, almost two stories tall and I believe that their full power rpm is 150.
Ah, power plant Diesels. That brings back memories of my home town power plant, which had three Diesels and a bunch of steam turbines. When I was ten or twelve or so, the operators were very nice to me and showed me around the whole place. I even learned how to synchronize a generator to the line. I remember standing right next to one of the Diesels (a Fairbanks-Morse, I think) and listening carefully to the noises coming from inside the engine. As I moved along the engine I stopped to listen to each cylinder for a couple minutes. Each cylinder had its own distinct variation of the internal sounds.
Diesel locomotives started coming to our town around 1952. I was very familiar with steam locomotives by then, because my friends and I used to hang around the depot and the small industrial yard a lot. Plus, we took rides on the trains whenever we had a little extra money.
Eventually, I will buy a steam locomotive for my model RR, but right now I have two modern Diesels, my old Varney F3 from 1952, a Budd RDC from 1953, and an old GG1 that I recently bought from the LHS.
I model Diesels mainly because that's what I see in my railfanning.
Autobus Prime wrote:Folks:-Snip---"...there are probably a lot of people like me who never knew steam, and *that* fact only increases their interest in the steam era...it's something they can only know through research; models can help bring it to life." ---Snip---
"Models can help bring it to life." Wow! That says it all for me. It won't take ten fingers for me to count the number of steam locomotives I've seen in operation - none in regular service - all of them have been in excursion service and I've never seen a prototype shay (my favorite) in operation. Even so, I'm a steam guy and a shay fan. I railfan diesels, but my heart belongs to steam.
For me, much of the attraction is the amout I can learn about steam locomotives if I make the effort. Throughout the steam era a lot of very smart people tried a multitude of variations to make the steam engine do a specific kind of locomotion, or make them faster, more reliable, safer, more efficient, etc. Thus, hundreds of variations on the theme were created. The volume of information about steam locomotives is vast, colorful, and also finite. It is theoretically possible to know it all, yet it is practically impossible - there is so much to learn. On my layout, I can realistically enjoy them and study them in minature. Models do make the past more real for me.
The other part of the attraction for me is the lack of bodywork - I can see all of the moving parts. As a machine, a steam locomotive is nearly 100% engine - the wheels themselves are the cranks that convert reciprocating motion into rotating motion. The cab is virtually the only component that doesn't contribute to this train-moving mechanism in a positive way.
Yes, I know they were horribly inefficient (around 15%), miserable to fire and miserable to operate, filthy, noisy, and unreliable. They are none of that on my layout. On my layout each one is a tiny symphony of motion, bristling with detail - the modeling equivalent of a fine spring-powered watch mechanism. In my thinking, diesels are more like a quartz watch - reliable, efficient, and precise, but not holding my interest due to their lack of moving parts and lack of character.
I started this thread because I wanted to understand more about the attraction of diesels as objects to model; I've larned a ton. I've also gained a lot of respect for you diesel fans. Thanks to all who have posted.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Alex
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
1) As a Z/Nscale modeler, it is a lot easier to buy good running diesels than steamers. There's no question the locos produced today are a lot better than those from the bad old days of Nscale.
2) For the transition period, you can build a fleet of colorful diesels. Most of the first generation equipment has been done at least once, sometimes twice. Yes, N/Z scale needs a small switcher.
3) The best feature of the transition period may be the wide variety of roadnames. MR seems to be promoting increasing proto modeling over fantasy roads. It's bad enough for ConCor to do locos in schemes & roads that never had them. Don't get me started on the MTL cartoon schemes.
macjet wrote: Born in 1975 my idea of a "classic" locomotive is a GP38-2 or an SD40-2. I've never seen an operating steam locomotive outside of the Durango-Silverton line. Steam was gone twenty years before I was even born and thirty years before I was able to lay track on my own. Like anything else I go with what I know/remember.As a side note I think this is a problem with a lot of club layouts. Too many old guys (the ones with the most amount of knowledge) get stuck in this transition mindset and won't allow you to run anything except steam/E/F/GP7 types. This puts off the younger ones (with less knowledge and the future of this hobby) who have never seen this type of equipment outside of a museum. Just my $.02
Born in 1975 my idea of a "classic" locomotive is a GP38-2 or an SD40-2. I've never seen an operating steam locomotive outside of the Durango-Silverton line.
Steam was gone twenty years before I was even born and thirty years before I was able to lay track on my own. Like anything else I go with what I know/remember.
As a side note I think this is a problem with a lot of club layouts. Too many old guys (the ones with the most amount of knowledge) get stuck in this transition mindset and won't allow you to run anything except steam/E/F/GP7 types. This puts off the younger ones (with less knowledge and the future of this hobby) who have never seen this type of equipment outside of a museum.
Just my $.02
I think this is a very important observation. Not only that, but the older guys, essentially naturally, are often less tolerant of change and new ideas/items/methods. So, established club layouts tend to reflect their "conservative" nature, and it gets hard for young enthusiasts who universally prefer diesels to feel at home. (This is a generalization, and not meant to represent the truth in all cases...just a tendency.)
selector wrote: macjet wrote: Born in 1975 my idea of a "classic" locomotive is a GP38-2 or an SD40-2. I've never seen an operating steam locomotive outside of the Durango-Silverton line. Steam was gone twenty years before I was even born and thirty years before I was able to lay track on my own. Like anything else I go with what I know/remember.As a side note I think this is a problem with a lot of club layouts. Too many old guys (the ones with the most amount of knowledge) get stuck in this transition mindset and won't allow you to run anything except steam/E/F/GP7 types. This puts off the younger ones (with less knowledge and the future of this hobby) who have never seen this type of equipment outside of a museum. Just my $.02 I think this is a very important observation. Not only that, but the older guys, essentially naturally, are often less tolerant of change and new ideas/items/methods. So, established club layouts tend to reflect their "conservative" nature, and it gets hard for young enthusiasts who universally prefer diesels to feel at home. (This is a generalization, and not meant to represent the truth in all cases...just a tendency.)
Indeed..I have visited clubs where nothing newer then 1960 could be ran..I know another club that is modern-1975-2008.Only excursion steam locomotives can be ran like the 765 1218,611 etc.
Of course the majority of the clubs I have visited has "open running" where any era can be ran.
Including GG1s,AEM7s without overhead wire!!
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
WaxonWaxov wrote: mechanic wrote: One reason I can think of off the top of my head is cost.It seems like you can get a quality diesel locomotive for quite a bit less money than the same quality steam loco.I know, the top of the line diesels with dcc and sound can be pretty pricey but the largest fully featured steam engines make them look cheap by comparison.(unless I've been frequenting the wrong hobby shops)just my 2cents.YMMVEricDING! DING! DING! We have a winner!Transistion era: lots of models available, diesels are cheaper than steam locos, I think as more people choose "1953 early diesels" because they are cheaper and more models for that era available, then that will just cause that era to become more and more dominant.Honestly, I would like to model 1920's but I am simply afraid that the locos will be too expensive and there will not be enough rolling stock available. Hell, I'd like to model the 1850's but I simply know it would be a headache to find anything.So I guess I am a diesel person by default.
mechanic wrote: One reason I can think of off the top of my head is cost.It seems like you can get a quality diesel locomotive for quite a bit less money than the same quality steam loco.I know, the top of the line diesels with dcc and sound can be pretty pricey but the largest fully featured steam engines make them look cheap by comparison.(unless I've been frequenting the wrong hobby shops)just my 2cents.YMMVEric
One reason I can think of off the top of my head is cost.
It seems like you can get a quality diesel locomotive for quite a bit less money than the same quality steam loco.
I know, the top of the line diesels with dcc and sound can be pretty pricey but the largest fully featured steam engines make them look cheap by comparison.(unless I've been frequenting the wrong hobby shops)
just my 2cents.
YMMV
Eric
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
Transistion era: lots of models available, diesels are cheaper than steam locos, I think as more people choose "1953 early diesels" because they are cheaper and more models for that era available, then that will just cause that era to become more and more dominant.
Honestly, I would like to model 1920's but I am simply afraid that the locos will be too expensive and there will not be enough rolling stock available. Hell, I'd like to model the 1850's but I simply know it would be a headache to find anything.
So I guess I am a diesel person by default.
This is the Biggest single reason that my Model Railroad collection was mostly Diseasels when I was young(I am 43 Today) Those Athearn Blue Box Diseasels were just hard to beat, they were AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE, Excellent Selection and Looked Good for the money, even if the hood units were a bit thick at the waist.
The Steam available in my Youth just wasn't as reliable, for the most part or affordable for QUALITY Locomotives. The other thing that just drove me to distraction was the unusable "DUMMY" front coupler(Still does today, BTW.) Could it Really cost that much more to intially design with a WORKING front coupler, THANK YOU, BACHMANN SPECTRUM for being among the first to change this.
As I got older and could afford better equipment, and the Steam also improved during the same period, I finally started to buy more of the equipment that TRULY interested me, which was Steam.
To ME, Diseasels are not very interesting to watch, just "Rainbow Bricks with Wheels". With Steam, I enjoy the motion of the side rods and valve gear, especially on articulateds that don't have the side rods in sync.
The "All Black" claim about Steam is LAME, Union Pacific alone had 3 different non-black steam paint schemes that I can think of quickly. The SP Daylights were Simply BEAUTIFUL. The Great Northern had the Attractive "Glacier Park" scheme, the MILW "Hiawatha" was another Handsome train. The Mighty Pennsy's Steam were Brunswick Green, not black and the Southern's Crescent service Pacific's were also considered among the Best looking steam built. It would take very little effort to find enough Non-Black Steam Locomotives to fill a small book, there were PLENTY of them.
Being born in 1965, I missed all the class 1 revenue Steam, and I grew up seeing mostly GP's and SD's, so that isn't the motivating factor for Me either. Now that I mainly model in 3-Rail O-Gauge, I am back to accepting non-working front couplers on small road steam, but at least most of the high-end Locomotives do come with interchangeable Scale/working front couplers.
That was my modeling evolution, and I enjoyed every step along the way(with more than a FEW Frustrating moments along the way). The Hobby now has a better selection in every era than ever before, so there is usually something available for most(I Know, NOT EVERYONE).
I Hope that everyone else gets as much enjoyment out this Hobby as I have over the years, Regardless of what era, road or equipment that they model,
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
shayfan84325 wrote:Of course there were lots of changes in the hobby over the 20 years I was away, but one really puzzles me: It appears that the majority of modelers are real fans of diesels; it's something of a reversal from 30+ years ago. I'd like to understad why.
Texas Zepher wrote: shayfan84325 wrote:Of course there were lots of changes in the hobby over the 20 years I was away, but one really puzzles me: It appears that the majority of modelers are real fans of diesels; it's something of a reversal from 30+ years ago. I'd like to understad why.I don't understand why this would be a mystery to anyone. People generally like what they know about. People know about what they see or have seen. How many modelers that have come to the hobby in the last 30 years have even seen a steam locomotive in revenue service? Probably none. A few excursions here an there and the tourist railroads. The alternate to modeling diesels is to do all the research and model from documents and photos. That seems more like work.
To give the devil his due, a REALLY accurate model of a diesel - even the present-day one that idles on the siding down the street every day while the crew goes to beans - requires a lot of research and modeling from documents and photos.
That said, people are impressionable - and that is NOT confined to children. Most of us can pin down one or a few incidents in our lives and say, "This is why I'm a model railroader." Mine occurred at five months, four years plus, twenty-three and twenty-seven. Since there were no diesels involved in the first three, I'm not much into diesels. There WERE diesels involved in the last, mostly four-wheeled 762mm gauge 'critters,' but also 1067mm gauge diesel-hydraulics. Therefore, no one should be surprised that I have a liking for center-cab diesels with simple grey over cream over traction orange color schemes. Of course, that's rather overbalanced by a liking for dirty black coalburners and grunge-colored catenary motors.
As for US prototype, I haven't even tried to keep up with the various makes and models of diesel-electrics, any more than I've bothered to keep up with the automotive products of GM et al. Garish paint schemes and freights that stretch from here to next week just don't have the appeal of an elephant-eared mike tackling a steep grade with a train shorter than a New York subway consist. If this be heresy, so be it.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Wdlgln005 wrote: 1) As a Z/Nscale modeler, it is a lot easier to buy good running diesels than steamers. There's no question the locos produced today are a lot better than those from the bad old days of Nscale.2) For the transition period, you can build a fleet of colorful diesels. Most of the first generation equipment has been done at least once, sometimes twice. Yes, N/Z scale needs a small switcher. 3) The best feature of the transition period may be the wide variety of roadnames. MR seems to be promoting increasing proto modeling over fantasy roads. It's bad enough for ConCor to do locos in schemes & roads that never had them. Don't get me started on the MTL cartoon schemes.
1) Of course they run better today. The technology to produce them was developed over the last few years and together with miniature electronics you have N Scale locomotives every bit as good as you'll find in HO or large scales. But don't sell the old equipment short. I still have my original Trix locomotives and they still run very nocely though not as nicely as my brand new Katos.
2) N needs more than just a small scale swicther. It needs self propelled passenger cars like those running on PATH, NJ Transit, Metro North and the LIRR. More references are needed on these lines as well that pay more attention to operating schemes, stations and equipment usage, etc.
3) Concor isn't the only company doing fanciful power. Everey cxompany has done it at one time and they've even done it like Tyco did in HO by placing a GG-1 shell on a chasis with BB trucks. Greater realism is available today but it comes at a price and that price is based upon exactly how many locomotives of a particular model and in a particulkar paint job with appropriate decals and marking can be sold.
To us what is available is a boon. To the manufacturers it's a business. And business dictates just about everything or this hobby would only be for those who can afford to spend thousands on a single locomotive or those who could make their own from scratch like it once was.
As MTL schemes, they are also in business and they are selling to collectors who arew really part their customer base and not just the model railroaders alone. Afterall, How many of us have one of every car or locomotive MTL ever made? So what if they make stuff a Peral Harbor commemorative set or 50 different 50' boxcars decorated for each state in the Union? If it keeps them in business, it just makes it easier for those of us who run these car and locomotives for fun and not just display.
I have to say one more thing, most of us have pretty good imaginations. If we didn't how would it be possible to have fun playing with what are essentially children's toys? And because of our imaginations, it wouldn't be suprising if we incorporated a Pearl Harbor commemorative train into our operations in order to remember those who gave their lives so that we Americans could be model railroaders in our leisure time rather than slave laborers to some heartless dictator with a bad haircut.
Irv
Texas Zepher wrote:The alternate to modeling diesels is to do all the research and model from documents and photos. That seems more like work.
It is.
But so is building a model railroad. Some people like doing research. I'll bet I know more about my chosen railroad in 1900 than many modelers know about their railroad set in 2000. Doing reaserch is the thrill of the hunt. Finding some tidbit of information, putting some little facts together to create a whole.
One of the most active and informative Yahoo Groups is the EarlyRail group. All sorts of information is out there. If I want to know the number series of a boxcar in 2000, I can look it up in a book. There's one on my shelf. If I want to know the number of a car in 1900 I also have to merely pick up a book (well actually its a book on CD). Not really that much different.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
And black is a problem... why?
Just curious!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Doug said:The "All Black" claim about Steam is LAME, Union Pacific alone had 3 different non-black steam paint schemes that I can think of quickly. The SP Daylights were Simply BEAUTIFUL. The Great Northern had the Attractive "Glacier Park" scheme, the MILW "Hiawatha" was another Handsome train. The Mighty Pennsy's Steam were Brunswick Green, not black and the Southern's Crescent service Pacific's were also considered among the Best looking steam built. It would take very little effort to find enough Non-Black Steam Locomotives to fill a small book, there were PLENTY of them.
---------------------
Those are more the exception then the rule..UP also had black steamers as did the Southern.Get realistic on the PRR.Brunswick Green..Only when freshly painted beyond that better paint 'em grimy black with faded lettering.
I gotta agree with Brakie here. Colors other than black on steam are so rare compared to the thousands of all black locos that stayed that way all their lives. A book showing all the non-black painted steam engines in the 20th Century would be a pamphlet compared to the multi-tome encyclopedia of all-black steamers.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: I gotta agree with Brakie here. Colors other than black on steam are so rare compared to the thousands of all black locos that stayed that way all their lives. A book showing all the non-black painted steam engines in the 20th Century would be a pamphlet compared to the multi-tome encyclopedia of all-black steamers.
And you say that only because the pre-1900 era is so poorly represented. If you average in virtually every locomotive built before 1880 then the number of colorful steam engines goes up dramatically. Steam engines built before 1880 were rarely black and were a riot of colors compared to a typical modern diesel. Stripes in 3 or 4 colors, pink tenders, tenders, boilers and cab all different colors, cars were a variety of colors too. Ironically the most boring (colorwise) was the transition era.
That's exactly right. Steam locos of the 1800's were, as a rule, very colorful with most loco paint jobs being unique for each loco. Locos tended to be named. For example, on the Hartford & New Haven RR, they had an 0-4-0 name "Taurus". It had a large framed painting of a bull under the cab with a heckuva lot of scroll work and pin striping all over the cab and tender.
That being said, the 1800's is a relatively minor time period to model for several reasons. Small locos + small cars = poor running, etc. The total lack of any real standarization, link and pin couplers, and so on. Generally speaking, when folks talk about steam, they are more likely to mean WWII than the Civil War.