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.
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
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.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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!
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.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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.
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.
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Alex
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
macjet wrote: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?
I wonder how many of us have actually tried modeling the other era/technology before we settled on the era/technology that we chose. In other words, how many diesel guys have tried steam and how many steam guys have modeled an exclusively diesel era? This is not a "walk a mile in the other man's shoes" piece, rather, I'm wondering if we've really given that much thought to it or just defaulted to what we know, or what we are willing to study.
Here's the way I ended up modeling the early 20th century: I think shays are fascinating locomotives and if they had a heyday, that was it. What I've discovered is that period, like any period, was very interesting in its own right (even without trains). The things that went on in the early 20th century included conversions to indoor plumbing, figuring out a lot of the things that could be done with electricity, mass production of all kinds of goods that were never mass produced before, the Cubs won the World Series (1908), Babe Ruth was the winning pitcher in 2 of the four Red Sox wins over the Cubs in the 1918 World Series, piston valves were the new thing on steam engines, World War 1 happened, Prohibition was fun, figuring out what to do with airplanes was going on, and so on. Ships and trains were the way folks got around and the way they transported stuff. It was an interesting time.
By the same token, right now is an interesting time, 1995 was interesting, even 1977 was interesting (insert disco joke here). I hypothesize that we choose our subjects to model based on something specific, and that leads us to select an era. Someone who has passion for cabooses would find right now a little unsatisfying, but a layout set in 1967 would include a lot of possibilities (groovy!).
I can't bring myself to accept the "those were the trains of my childhood" selection process as the most common selection method. I think it's more likely to be something like " I got a cab ride in a RS-3 and I've loved diesels ever since." Or something similar.
Your thoughts?
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
As I stated in my previous post, I am a fan of what I personally saw (and heard, and smelled...) so I have a mix of steam (ranging from 0-4-0 to 2-8-2,) diesel (3 classes) and electric (7 classes); plus DMU and EMU.
I have been reading with fascination the, "Little old locomotives can't run," part of this debate. Among my steamers are two 2-6-0s with rigid-frame 6 wheel tenders. They don't have any power pickup issues. One of my 0-4-0s is a lead block with a wheel at each corner, picks up just fine and will pull the layout room door open if you rig a string to the knob. The other is a very light loco - Koppel 1912 prototype - that won't move much but has no power pickup problems. Just as an aside - these are not new technology. All of them were assembled from kits in the 1960s.
The pre-WWI era has been described as, "Light locomotives, short cars, short trains, low speeds." I have the same, while modeling what I actually saw in the 1950s and 60s. It's just a matter of picking the right prototype.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Saw steam as a kid, once you've seen it, you don't forget, I model diesels to make my layout time frame accurate, they were there so they're included. As a kid they were very unpopular as they drove my beloved steamers into retirement, wanted to be a steam locomotive engineer, when I was 10 that possibility went away, pretty much stopped going to the train station too. Yes, diesels are necessary, less polution, guess today I am glad we have them but to me they are in the words of a CN steam fan a "motorized boxcar."
CVBOB
The first train that I remember was in Trenton(?) New Jersey in 1976/77. On point was a hulking 4-8-4 G4. I have seen diesels since, one can't help but see them, but since that G4 no diesels have ever captured my imagination like that steam engine. Of course no whistle has ever made me jump my own height either.
If that 4-8-4 was the 4449 pulling the American Freedom Train, the time fits, did the 4449 go all the way to NJ? Then it would be class GS-4 which stood for Golden State, then during WW2, SP wanting more of them, had to tell the War Production Board that "GS" stood for "General Service" because passenger power was not allowed to be built during the war, but freight power was.
Anyone know if the 4449 went all the way to New Jersey?, I believe that there was a Reading T-1? that also did some AFT duty as well as the 4449.
I live in Portland, OR where the 4449 is kept and maintained, she is a Beautiful Locomotive. I am occasionally Fortunate enough to see her when she is on the loose, and that whistle is something that will stay with you for a long time.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Well, I like both so I model transition steam and diesel - no local childhood memories either as I model the SAL located in Gulf coast Florida - a place that I have never visited. Personally I respond to things visually as a predominant sense so the Citrus color schemes of early SAL diesels in a tropical setting were a wonderful reason to model something distinctive. And then, how can a guy born in 1947 resist a high steepin' Pacific on straight track.
Bruce
challenger3980 wrote: Anyone know if the 4449 went all the way to New Jersey?, I believe that there was a Reading T-1? that also did some AFT duty as well as the 4449. Doug
Sure was a Reading T-1, #2101 roared through Waverly, NY on June 16, 1976. She was running about 2 hours late and didn't do the scheduled stop in Waverly on her way to Binghamton, NY. My family (My boys were 10 and 7 at the time) was standing behind Clark's Busy Market on Broad St. and had a great view. While she didn't stop for a photo shoot, the engineer laid on the whistle all the way through town. What a site (not to mention sound and the smell of coal smoke). No diesel could begin to match that show. My son's remember that day very well and my oldest son's wife happened to find a photo a few years ago of her roaring through Waverly that day. It became a Christmas present to me that year.
Fast forward 25 years and my son and I went down to Scranton, PA to ride a Fall Foliage excursion behing their 1917 Mikado. We got off the train at Tobyhanna Junction, PA to tour a working Ice House. When we got back to the train they were moving the Mike to the other end of the train. She couples on and gives the customary WWWHHHOOOOOT! to say she is stopped. We then hear the Nichol Plate Road diesel lumbering up the track to help on the way back (No coal or water available at that end). She rumbles up and couples on, then goes BLAT! My son starts to laugh and looks at me. "Just isn't the same, is it Dad?"
For me, nothing comes close to steam. That said, from a 21st. century standpoint, I would not like to see steam brought back even if it was possible. Diesels are far more efficient, powerful, and economical for today. BTW, I love riding on and working with antique "diseasals" too!
NittanyLion wrote:Let's just suppose the average model railroader is 45. In 1970, a 45 year old was born in 1925 and grew up with steam. In 2008, he was born in 1963 and never saw steam outside of a museum. If my theory of "what you grew up with" generally holds true (and it seems to. the best cars are the ones from when you were 16-20, the best athletes are the ones from when you were trading their baseball cards or whatever, and so on), its just a natural part of technological progress.
Not true. I was born in the the early "60's" and today I can remember a Southern Pacific branch line behind my house that had a 0-8-0 switcher that ran down the line. I love steam and miss it. Every time UP runs there 4-8-4 or 4-6-6-4 out here I've got to chase it down. I see all diesel's all the time with UP mainline not to far from my house now. Now for trading cards most of them are Hallafamers now
4x8 are fun too!!! RussellRail
Seen a lot of steam, seen a lot of diesel in my lifetime. Diesels are sometimes impressive in their own right, but steam, especially larger steam, somehow just seems alive, what with the sounds associated with power stokers, injectors, periodic releases of steam from automatic relief valves, traces of smoke. And a steamer in operation is a sight to see, with the visible motion of the rods and valve gear, the streamer of steam exhaust mixed with the smoke from the stack.
Of course, crosskitting to come up with something different in HO is usually much easier with plastic diesels than it is with brass or other steam. Only easy steam I ever did was to switch the boiler from a 70s Tyco 2-6-2 with the boiler from an older Mantua Big Six 0-6-0. Just remove the boiler held on by a single screw in each and switch to the other running gear, giving me a road engine with a single sand box and a switcher with 2. Closest thing on a diesel was to cut the steam boiler detail from an Athearn GP-9 and install it onto the short end of an Atlas SD-24. Or to cut the long end of a Rivarrosi Alco RS-2 and replace it with the long hood from the Athean Geep. Atheran GP-9B was easy, a few others, but my current effort to build an FL-9A from a couple Athearn Super Power F-7As approaches some of the more involved brass steam loco conversions I've read about or tried.
Like em both, have em both, (79 Diesel, 42 Steam) still visually prefer to watch steam in operation.
I was born in 1943 and you'd think I'd like diesels best, but the thing is I like them both. I was never lucky enough to live close to the rail lines, except one short 2 years when I was about 5 and 6 years old. I can barely remember the steam engines that went by and that would have been in about '48 and '49. It was only after I retired that I started my first layout and I'm still having a devil of a time trying to figure out exactly what era to model. Therefore my 'earliest' steamer is a 4-4-0 American, right up through a 2-6-6-4 Norfolk and Western. My earliest diesel is an H16-44 Fairbanks Morse and the latests would be a Norfolk Southern D8.
The main reason I like diesels is it's what I see on the roads now. I also love the diesel sound. SO! I guess I'm modeling from 1890 to present day.
What a mess! :)
Jarrell