Well, as a modern day diesel guy I think I've found a way to incorporate both into my layout.
I'm going to take my protolance modern day Rock Island and run a line through Durango. There I can cross right of ways with the D&RGW scenic railroad.
What can be better then seeing an operational K-27 sitting next to an AC4400?
shawnee wrote:I must be out of step with most, but I've never understood the fascination with steam power. To me, they all look the same. And to me, a lot of dated layouts, well it's hard for them to not sometimes come across as hokey.Whereas to my eye there is a great variation in diesel locos, both in terms of types as well as in particular (and changing) color schemes and livery. There is indeed a wide variety of diesel power in play today if one considers the interchange between short lines and class ones there is plenty of opportunity to represent a wide variety. I like modern rolling stock, which I find much more interesting. There have been great advances in rolling stock, and thus all sorts of new cars as well as a wide variety of legacy car styles (and road names) on the road today. It's not hard to find fallen flag names running in consists or unit trains. I like modern unit trains. I really like modern intermodal which I think is very cool. I like modern industries. Plus, there is modern power sharing which is very cool, so it's not uncommon to find a BNSF or UP loco running in Virginia. Certainly adds to variety. And then there is leased power and freight cars, and the ever-increasing volume of privately held freight cars which add to the mix. It's cool to be able to "read the code" in reporting marks and leases, and replicate some of that. So modern MR has really piqued my curiousity about how railroads really operate, and has led me to learn a lot. There's always a lot of cool change in modern railroading.Just wait until the MR manufacturers come out with Gensets and the new eco-friendly engines! There's a whole new generation of locos on the way - which will really add to mid-range power available.There is just something about contemporary model railroading - an excitment, power and dynamism - that, to me, is just missing with Steam. While i realize this is just my own humble orientation, the steam age just kind of bores me. So I've never understood why anyone gets so excited about a "Big Boy". It's just another black steam engine.I even like riding diesel tourist trains rather than steam ones. I have no fondness of being covered with soot every time I look out the window over a bend. The only drawback to me of modern MR is cabooses are cool, but are unfortunately bascially defunct in modern road operations. Still, one can find a use for them on occasion with backup moves or on shortline branch lines.
I must be out of step with most, but I've never understood the fascination with steam power. To me, they all look the same.
And to me, a lot of dated layouts, well it's hard for them to not sometimes come across as hokey.
Whereas to my eye there is a great variation in diesel locos, both in terms of types as well as in particular (and changing) color schemes and livery. There is indeed a wide variety of diesel power in play today if one considers the interchange between short lines and class ones there is plenty of opportunity to represent a wide variety.
I like modern rolling stock, which I find much more interesting. There have been great advances in rolling stock, and thus all sorts of new cars as well as a wide variety of legacy car styles (and road names) on the road today. It's not hard to find fallen flag names running in consists or unit trains. I like modern unit trains. I really like modern intermodal which I think is very cool. I like modern industries.
Plus, there is modern power sharing which is very cool, so it's not uncommon to find a BNSF or UP loco running in Virginia. Certainly adds to variety. And then there is leased power and freight cars, and the ever-increasing volume of privately held freight cars which add to the mix. It's cool to be able to "read the code" in reporting marks and leases, and replicate some of that. So modern MR has really piqued my curiousity about how railroads really operate, and has led me to learn a lot. There's always a lot of cool change in modern railroading.
Just wait until the MR manufacturers come out with Gensets and the new eco-friendly engines! There's a whole new generation of locos on the way - which will really add to mid-range power available.
There is just something about contemporary model railroading - an excitment, power and dynamism - that, to me, is just missing with Steam. While i realize this is just my own humble orientation, the steam age just kind of bores me. So I've never understood why anyone gets so excited about a "Big Boy". It's just another black steam engine.
I even like riding diesel tourist trains rather than steam ones. I have no fondness of being covered with soot every time I look out the window over a bend.
The only drawback to me of modern MR is cabooses are cool, but are unfortunately bascially defunct in modern road operations. Still, one can find a use for them on occasion with backup moves or on shortline branch lines.
If you think engines steam or diesel look alike you need to look closer. For some but not all the attraction to steam is that even within a class of identical engines you will find a significan variety. Some times the tender was wrecked and changed out. A different piolot or paintscheme. Any of this seem similar to diesels? It's all preference. The variety argument for one or the other is totaly invalid. Both have a lot of variety. Operations are where things differ the most. At least between modern railroads and steam era. Most of the small lineside industries that once permiated the country are few and far between compared to what they once were. That is still not an argument that can be used to say one is better than the other .
A friend of mine is old enough to remember seeing the NKP steamers go bu his home as a kid but he models current railroading. Why? because it's simpler. There is a higher percentage of through trains and a lower percentage of local/road switchers. He hates switching and just likes to run from one end to the other or even around in circles. Moast of my other MR friends can't stand this and are operations focused so they model times when there was more switching(not all steam).
Seriously if you really think all steam engines look alike , look closer or get ytour glasses checked. There is a somewhat noticable difference between a small 1900 era steamer and a 1940's era streamliner complete with colorfull painting. That's like saying an E8 looks like an AC6000
wjstix wrote:Just was thinking, maybe a little off the topic, but I wonder if the increase in diesel era modellers has caused fewer people to free-lance?? I've been in the hobby since 1971; seems to me back then most model railroads were free-lance, with engines and cars lettered for fictional (though realistic) railroads. Now it seems much less common. I see a fair number of people who say they're modelling the "Tucson and Western" but their layout is all UP equipment - if you ask, they'll say the "T&W" was bought by Union Pacific in 1968 and they're modelling the line as it was in 1990 or something, when all T&W equipment was repainted...so really they're modelling a fictional branchline of a real railroad.It's a lot easier to use decals to add a road number and railroad name to a black steam engine, a boxcar red boxcar, or a Pullman green passenger car than to design and paint a free-lance diesel and passenger paint scheme.
Just was thinking, maybe a little off the topic, but I wonder if the increase in diesel era modellers has caused fewer people to free-lance??
I've been in the hobby since 1971; seems to me back then most model railroads were free-lance, with engines and cars lettered for fictional (though realistic) railroads. Now it seems much less common. I see a fair number of people who say they're modelling the "Tucson and Western" but their layout is all UP equipment - if you ask, they'll say the "T&W" was bought by Union Pacific in 1968 and they're modelling the line as it was in 1990 or something, when all T&W equipment was repainted...so really they're modelling a fictional branchline of a real railroad.
It's a lot easier to use decals to add a road number and railroad name to a black steam engine, a boxcar red boxcar, or a Pullman green passenger car than to design and paint a free-lance diesel and passenger paint scheme.
I think it depends where you are. I'm part of a small round robin group and about a 3rd of them are freelance railroads. One is a steam era layout, one is a 1970 diesel era layout and another is a up to date railroad that is partally owned BY CP rail . The railroad is called the cascade oacific so both roads are CP but they have different paint schemes and numbering.
As to the steam/diesel question. I'm starting to see more steam railroads now than I did 10 or 15 years ago. In the late 80's early 90's good running plastic affordable steam was hard to come by. Now that that has changed I see more of a mix. I helped a close fried model a line through northern california in the mid 80's because that's what he remembered. Shortly before a convention I got one of the first soundtrax sound chips in a couple of steam engines. In a matter of about 2 months we had completely changed to the transition era. The main reason?
Cost of converting 100 plus diesels to DCC VS. the 30 we needed tofor the transition era, the operational variety that is gone today on that line. There are lots of reasons for ones personal preference. It's not as simple as what you remember. I was born in the late 60's so steam was long gone by the mid 70's when I started to notice trains. My first train experience was sneaking out of a swim meet in canada and climbing into the cab of an SD-40 . I still have less interest in modeling diesels. Why? because when I finally saw a steam engine running and not in a museum I got a very different picture of what they were. There are a lot more steam engnes running around now than in the 70's. It's just what grabs you. If diesels don't grab your interest , no one will be able to explain it to you very well.
Beware: Model railroading is a highly contagous disease. There is no known cure.
I say it's because diesels cost less, and are easier to mantain.
MSRP for a good DCC/sound diesel: $210-$260
MSRP for a good DCC/sound diesel: $300+
Also for many prototype specific locos (which are usually steam) and cars brass is the only way to go (according to some) and brass is expensive.
At a recent trainshow I was giving the following choices for $100 bucks
1. Teshendo Brass F7 A-B
2. unknown Brass Amtrack MTH car
3. Plastic FT ABBA with DCC (bachmann) and 13 plastic (rivorassi) cars with kadees and weighted up.
I chose the latter. I didn't have a use for the MTH car, and the brass F units didn't look very DCC freindly (or even very good, IMO the FTs shells looked more like an F-unit)
Vincent
Wants: 1. high-quality, sound equipped, SD40-2s, C636s, C30-7s, and F-units in BN. As for ones that don't cost an arm and a leg, that's out of the question....
2. An end to the limited-production and other crap that makes models harder to get and more expensive.
This is what I love about model railroading.
One poster says that the problem with steam is that all the engines are different and that the benefit of diesels is that they are standardized.
Virtually the next poster says that the problem with steam is that they all look alike and the benefit of diesels is the variety.
Yah gotta love it.
Dave H.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I must be out of step with most, but I've never understood the fascination with steam power. To me, they all look the same. And to me, a lot of dated layouts, well it's hard for them to not sometimes come across as hokey.
Diesels weren't any more standardized than steam in the beginning. The first truly standardized diesel was the FT, and the later F units and GP's. Mechanical and electrical components from EMD were pretty much interchangeable from one to the other, which is the main reason EMD became the pre-eminant builder through the late 1980's. And even in the wake of significant upgrades, EMD's could easily be used together in a consist regardless of model or vintage.
Compare that with the early Baldwins and Alco's, which couldn't MU with themselves, much less each other.
I'll also take issue the notion that power pick up from a 4-4-0 with tender pick up is superior to a diesel model... First off, the tender and pilot wheels are all idlers, which means they are more likely to pick up grunge from the rails since there's no grinding or slipping action like you get from the drivers, second, for them to maintain significant contact, you have to apply weight to them... weight that is not on the drivers. This adds to the load the drivers have to move, thereby reducing the pulling power of the locomotive. So, while the pick up may be marginally better, it's probably a zero sum gain due to the negative factors.
A diesel model, on the other hand, has power applied to all axles, so to a degree they are all self-polishing (obviously, all wheels need to be cleaned sooner or later, but it's a heluva lot easier to clean drivers than idlers...), also, the weight of the diesel mechanism is distributed evenly over all the drive axles, so the torque is more directly applied to the rail. Really, as far as the physics go, it's the same reason Diesels develop more pulling capability at slower speeds than even super powered steam could. (Again, we'll grant that at speed, there's nothing more efficient than a steam engine...)
That being said, I agree that there are a lot of possibilities to make more smaller locomotives based on the increasing availability of smaller and smaller motors and electronics. F'rinstance, it baffles me that Bachmann cancelled the N scale 10-wheeler because they couldn't find a motor small enough to work in it, yet Maarklin has been making Z scale steam for decades...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
True, cars were shorter and lighter in the 1800's and so are the models. However, I don't think 50-car trains were uncommon back then, were they? Certainly 25 cars should have been normal at the very least. I can't imagine an HO-scale 4-4-0 pulling even 25 cars up a slight 1% grade even with a rubber tire.
Speaking of them, I agree that 4-4-0's should have better contact since they have twice as many contacts as a B-B diesel. However, I have yet to see any steam engine model that's ever had pick up on a pilot truck. Every time I've seen one, both wheels are isolated from the axle, meaning no power is coming to the frame. And I've certainly never seen one with a wiper on it. Most pilot and trailing trucks are just there to look good and go along for the ride (I've seen several steam engines with both trucks removed that run better than if they had them...obviously not 4-4-0's). All wheel pick up on the tender is becoming more common, but they can't be weighted too heavily or the loco's performance suffers (and heavier tenders make better contact).
As for the GP40X or the TurboTrain, I could say the same about the UP Big Boy, SP Daylight, or the NH I-5 (all one-of-a-kind steamers that only ran for one railroad that all have HO models made for them). The Turbo and the GP40X at least had multiple railroad owners, and at the very least were identical to each other for each road that had them.
For 4-4-0's, the differences were great between railroads and manufacturers as there were so many more of each of them. Rogers, Taunton, Mason, Rhode Island, etc. And that's not counting all the home-brewed locos built, for example, by Griggs of the Boston & Providence RR, one of which is on display in St. Louis, the "Daniel Nason".
Note, BTW, it's inside connected. You won't find something like that in diesel-dom.
As for the diesel details, these things are mostly pretty minor. And the major differences were "standard" choices. Dynamic brakes, for example. Either you had them or you didn't on GP7/9's. There wasn't an option of fan sizes, blister sizes, or shape. A GP7/9 that had dynamics had the same dynamic blister as all other GP7/9's. Compare that to smoke stacks. I have John H. White's book on American Steam Locos, and there's a page that shows something like 20 different steam locomotive stacks available at one time in the 1800's. It was from a locomotive supplier's catalog, IIRC.
If I want to make a New Haven GP9 for 1960, I can take a standard GP9 model and just replace the airhorns with Hancock Air Whistles and add two water tanks with piping to the running boards. I would then have a very accurate NH GP9.
If I want to make a New Haven 4-4-0 for 1890, I have to take a standard 4-4-0 model, then perhaps change the boiler, pistons, drivers, tender, trucks, headlight, stack, domes, piping, etc.
The B-17 was actually obsolete before WWII, performance-wise. It was a large plane with a medium bomb load that first flew in 1935. But she was a tough bird, and the '17 has become a symbol of both WWII and airpower.
WWII and steam power... I don't necessarily agree that WWII kept steam around longer. Sure, EMD and ALCO could not make new diesels designs because of WPD restrictions, but the RR's ran their steam into the ground during the war. The NH, for example, completely dieselized by 1950-51 mainly because they ran the wheels off their WWI-era steam fleet (the NH only had 3 classes of steam power built after 1920-ish, IIRC). Let's just say it's an interesting debating point.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: 2). Locos in the 1800's were mostly 4-4-0's and 2-6-0's, meaning that you only have 2 or 3 powered axles to haul with.
True, and the real problem is that with the samller engines the amount of weight you can put on the drivers is less, so less tractive effort. on the other hand, the cars are smaller and trains are shorter anyway so you don't need to be hauling 40 cars with one engine.
If you add a rubber tire, then you've lost another point of electrical contact, further decreasing reliability.
Here's where I have to disagree. A 4 axle diesel has 8 wheels. Assuming all of them are used for pick up, that gives you 8 locations for electrical contact. A 4-4-0 has 4 drivers, plus a tender with two 2 axle trucks, plus a 2 axle pilot truck, giving you a total of 16 contact points for potential power pickup. The problem is that most smaller steam engines are 1960 or 1970 era designs with really poor electrical pickup (the diesels from that era aren't so swuft either, compare an AHM RS2 to a Stewart RS2). By all rights a 4-4-0 should be MORE reliable than a GP or SW diesel with regards to electrical pickup since it has twice the number of potential contact locations.
Standardization was not the norm for steam, even among one railroad's engines in the same class. Not only piping and paint jobs, but even larger items like tenders and boilers were switched around. Meanwhile, diesels are far more alike from road to road, and certainly within a railroad's own roster.
So I guess the recent offering of the Turbo train and the EMD train of tommorrow and the GP40x were all made because they are model of engines that were used in the hundreds by every railroad in N America. Or not.
I'm not saying that every 4-4-0 was the same or every 34' boxcar was the same, but its not as bad as people make it out to be. So maybe out of the 10,000 or 20,000 4-4-0's that were built, only 100 or 500 were to each of the same designs.
details like water tanks, radio antennas, and air horns, but a stock GP7 from XYZ Railroad was the same as a stock GP7 from ABC Railroad. Let me put it this way, in diesels, standardization is the rule while in steam, it was the exception.
Evidently you haven't studied much about Baldwins. 8-)
Diesels were very standard if you ignore dynamic brakes, hood nose length, horn placement, grab iron placement, fuel tank size, air tank placement, air system piping, MU connections, snowplows, window arrangements, pilot sheet arrangement, filter grill placement and style, radiator and dynamic brake fan style. The same thing that allows you to see a MP GP7 looking the same as a PRR GP7 is the same thing that allows me to see one 4-4-0 as basically the same as another 4-4-0. Its just a matter of how much latitude you are willing to give the details. and what you want to consider a significant difference. Since you have access to a hundred different makes and models of 4 axle diesels and I have access to only three 4-4-0 models, I am willing to make a few compromises.
Link and pin couplers were a fact of life in the 1800's. Doing that era without them seems rather counter to the idea of 1800's modeling.
WWII and the 1940's was really the zenith of steam power, so it's no surprise to me that it's the most popular steam era. The same can be said of propellor powered airplane models. There are far more P-51 Mustang & B-17 Flying Fortress models that have been made than there are Wright Flyers, Sopwith Camels, or Fokker Triplanes. In general, people want the biggest, the best, the fastest, etc.
Some see it as the zenith, some see it as the last death throes. The B17 was obsolete before the end of WW2 and the handwriting was on the wall for the P51, the jets had already demonstrated that prop planes were history. The real "zenith" of steam power was probably the late 1920's or early 1930's, not the 1940's. During the 1930's steam was the ultimate king, the epitomy of power and speed. The only thing that kept steam alive in WW2 was WW2. Otherwise steam would have died in 1950 or 1952 rather than around 1956-1960.
I agree with the "biggest, fastest" part. Modelers tend to want all these huge engines (diesels or steam) and ignore the fact that a real railroad would have never used that big of an engine on a train or that the size of the engine is entirely inappropriate to the size of the train or curvature of the layout. There is one thread on this forum about "what engine should I use" for every 20 threads on "can I get my 2-10-10-6 around a 18" radius curve?"
Actually some of why I like to model steam is because of the challenge. My layout won't be just another of the 2036 transiton era or 978 modern era layouts on the forum. It takes more thought to research, to plan and to build because it isn't supported by the hobby industry at large (just a small network of smaller companies producing low volume, high quality products). Some people enjoy being able to buy a train RTR from engine to caboose, some people like the challenge of having to drill every grabiron hole in a car they had to make from sheet styrene. Different strokes.
Alex
dehusman,1). N-scale cars are incredibly lightweight, meaning that many cars can be hauled by one engine. I don't think it's possible to make an all-wood HO-scale 30' boxcar equal to the weight of an N-scale 40' all steel boxcar, especially if you add metal wheels to the HO car.2). Locos in the 1800's were mostly 4-4-0's and 2-6-0's, meaning that you only have 2 or 3 powered axles to haul with. If you add a rubber tire, then you've lost another point of electrical contact, further decreasing reliability.Standardization was not the norm for steam, even among one railroad's engines in the same class. Not only piping and paint jobs, but even larger items like tenders and boilers were switched around. Meanwhile, diesels are far more alike from road to road, and certainly within a railroad's own roster. Sure, some railroads had different diesel details like water tanks, radio antennas, and air horns, but a stock GP7 from XYZ Railroad was the same as a stock GP7 from ABC Railroad. Let me put it this way, in diesels, standardization is the rule while in steam, it was the exception.
This is an interesting conversation... I like to describe my modeling era as the "second transition", not steam to diesel, but traditional railroading to modern railroading. This involved the transition from first to second generation diesels to be sure, but also the end of private passenger service, the beginning of piggyback and COFC, the end of Railway Express... a whole myriad of shifts. The main one, though, would be the end of the regional class 1 lines, and the beginning of the consolidation of the industry.
For a fan of modern (current era) diesels to claim that the paint schemes are what interests them, then I feel bad for them. There are what, 6 primary carriers in North America right now? Anywhere you go in the east you've got NS and CSX, in the west, BNSF and UP. **yawn**
Sure, there's a handful of regionals and short lines, and they can be fun to watch, but they're purpose is to feed the big boys, not to compete with them outright. The drama of the Alphabet Route passing a train between 5 different railroads, yet getting it from Chicago to New York faster than the PRR or the New York Central is gone.
The idea of going to another part of the country, and knowing where you are by the paint scheme on the locomotive or the name of the railroad is gone.
To me, the modern diesel era is dullsville. Container trains and bathtub gons... one after the other. Or if you're lucky, you'll see a train load of garbage from New Jersey roll by... no romantic smell of coal smoke there, I can assure you... The most interesting part about railfanning these days is seeing the creativity of the graffitists... And if you're like me, the very idea of vandalism as art turns your stomach.
So yeah, there's as much nostalgia tied up in diesel modeling as there was in steam a generation ago. I guess the fact is that nothing new is ever as good as it was when "we" were growing up, and as time marches on so does our perspective. There will always be special interests that pursue pre-1900 railroading, electric interurbans, and narrow gauge or what have you. On the whole though, the great bulk of modelers will pursue what they personally experienced in their youth.
I have to admit that I am one of those bad people that use the term "Dieseasal" to descibe them newfangeled rumbly things....... Sorry, I have never intended to offend anyone or their modeling preferences. It is, as has been said before, just an attempt at something called "humor". I actually love them all. In fact I like to play with 1/1 sized diesels whenever I get the chance. I spent the weekend working train crew on this old girl:
I use the term "Diseasals" out at the museum and hear audible chuckes from other members. On the other hand, they all know me and my sense of humor....
That said, I have loved steam since I was a very young child (about 2), ever since I had the living daylights scared out of me by the first one I saw in motion. I was playing in the backyard at my Grandmother's house that the NYC came right up to. It was probably a Niagra pulling a passenger train. She was blowing down the cylinders leaving the station and I was surrounded by the steam! I love all kinds of railroading, but there is just something about dirty, smelly, greasy, hissing steam locos that is infectious. They are a symphony of sound and motion.
Whatever you prefer, just have fun and don't be upset when someone has a little fun with what you choose......
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Paul3 wrote: That being said, the 1800's is a relatively minor time period to model for several reasons. Small locos + small cars = poor running, etc.
People trot out these same poor excuses every time. If small locos and small cars = poor running, how do you explain N scale? If small engines and cars are so horrible, how come N scale is the second largest scale? If you can make an engine 4" long that runs well in N scale, surely you can make an engine 6" long that runs well in HO. Part of the problem is that with the exception of Roundhouse's recent engines, all the pre-WW1 equipment has been in production for over 30 years old or is train set quality. Its not that good running equipment can't be made, its just that the manufacturers haven't made it.
The total lack of any real standarization, link and pin couplers, and so on.
There was actually more standardization than you realize and in the modern era there is really less standardization than you realize. Diesels are standard if you ignore the details too.
Link and pin couplers are something that will probably have to be worked around.
Generally speaking, when folks talk about steam, they are more likely to mean WWII than the Civil War.
Which is quite ironic considering that the pre-WW2 time span of steam is 110 years and the post WW2 era of steam was only about 15 years.
hi shayfan 84325
I am a steam man I find them far more interesting
Most of the reasons for choosing diesel locos sleak clean colourfull are precisly why I don't want them.
I want the early dirty ugly highly ineficient buckets of snot the almost pre diesel era ones if you like.
Unfortunatly the diesle loco's that fit that description are exactly the ones that are not manufactured often and drawings seem hard to come by.
regards John Busby
Autobus Prime wrote:Folks:Reading this thread, I wonder if it isn't the *diesel* fans who are hung up on nostalgia. Why do we invent limits that don't exist?Isn't it more than possible that somebody could not have known something at all growing up, but have become so fascinated with it through books and pictures as to want to see just what it was like? Think about it. Why do people see the steam era as something only old people who personally experienced it can be interested in, when all you need to do is look around and see all the Civil War reenactors, arrowhead collectors, WW1 airplane buffs, Egyptologists, and fans of classical music?
Actually I am 29 and am actually quite fascinated by history in general especially World War 2 German military operations and The Old West. One of my friends is a big fan of Renaissance Faires and she's even younger than I am at 23. It's just with railroading my interests are in modern operations particularly Conrail in the 1990s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
And black is a problem... why?
Just curious!
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.
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) 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: 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.
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.
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)
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
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.)
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.)
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!!