Barry,
50-50, the lower level is mostly will be mostly urban, that is where the yard, passenger terminal, engine terminal and most industries are. Typical of Baltimore, Philly, etc. but not specific. The upper level will be mostly open country, Appalachia.
Define "protolanced" as you see it. I heard different people use that differently.
I have my own fictional road, obviously "ATLANTIC CENTRAL", kind of a C&O meets the NYC and is bigger than PRR and coexists with C&O, B&O and WM. Interchange modeled is with those three. And it is squarely intrenched in the Mid Atlantic and extends into the Ohio Valley.
Motive power is lots of first generation EMD & ALCO diesels, and a carefull sellection of USRA cloned Steam locos, with just a few "1940's" modern steamers.
Sheldon
Protolance is a verbal kitbash between prototype--in this case a period of branchlines being abandoned in the southern prairies by CN/CP( take your pick) in the 1970's/80's. The freelance part comes from the what if so & so bought the branchline and it became established as a shortline. ----in other words I get to muck about with my train colours
I'm mostly first/second gen deisel with a few light steam as excursion and last minute desperation lokes.---RS1--3 so far, RS2/3--6each now--2 more each to come, F-M 14-44's 4 each, GP7's 5 and a small army of plymouth 40Ton and a 0-4-0 switcher. I also maintain 2 brass doodlebugs--one of these was scratchbuilt and the other is a McKeen(?) derived whatzit that I'm still trying to figure who built it. And a couple of combines for daily mixes..it's a hodge podge---The excursion steam are a couple of USRA 2-8-0's--diecast things from the 80's --heavy and can haul things up walls....
That mess does not include my HO collection of Bowsers that I bought just so that I could build something when i didn't have a layout up------I'm N scale so you can see why I keep those ones seperate-----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
AltonFan R. T. POTEETAt one time I purchased an MDC Ten-Wheeler kit; these came with inboard piston valves and I wanted to convert it to outboard piston valves with Baker valve gear. For reasons which have become obscure with the passage of time I got rid of this loke almost immediately but some time later someone published an article in one of the hobby magazines about doing exactly what I had wanted to do using Bowser as a source for outboard piston valves. I am sure that had I stayed with HO-Scale I would have assembled several more Bowser locomotives as well as a number of MDC locomotive kits. Now, with Bowser apparently gone from the steam locomotive kit market, that leaves only MDC and maybe this will be an incentive for Horizon to give consideration to reissuing MDC's COMPLETE line which they now own. I am guessing that article was one written by John Swanson, and published in Railroad Model Craftsman around 1977. (There was also a series of similar articles in the 1980s.) That fellow assembled a number of interesting engines that combined parts from Bowser, MDC, Mantua kits. (He also used stuff from Mellor and Lee Town as well.)
R. T. POTEETAt one time I purchased an MDC Ten-Wheeler kit; these came with inboard piston valves and I wanted to convert it to outboard piston valves with Baker valve gear. For reasons which have become obscure with the passage of time I got rid of this loke almost immediately but some time later someone published an article in one of the hobby magazines about doing exactly what I had wanted to do using Bowser as a source for outboard piston valves. I am sure that had I stayed with HO-Scale I would have assembled several more Bowser locomotives as well as a number of MDC locomotive kits. Now, with Bowser apparently gone from the steam locomotive kit market, that leaves only MDC and maybe this will be an incentive for Horizon to give consideration to reissuing MDC's COMPLETE line which they now own.
I am guessing that article was one written by John Swanson, and published in Railroad Model Craftsman around 1977. (There was also a series of similar articles in the 1980s.) That fellow assembled a number of interesting engines that combined parts from Bowser, MDC, Mantua kits. (He also used stuff from Mellor and Lee Town as well.)
Sounds about right! I believe I was in the Azores when Swanson's article appeared and I do remember some other articles doing somewhat the same thing. I was always going to get back to that project but I continued to build big steam right up to the day I decided to bolt to N-Scale. Were I ever to go back to HO-Scale--and I might mention that that is not outside the realm of possibility--AND my available space were to allow a layout with 27" minimum radius--what I consider is a minimum for HO-Scale--then I may just do it . . . or might have done it were I able to get MDC steamers and Bowser parts which is beginning to look like a very remote possibility.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R. T. POTEET AltonFan R. T. POTEETAt one time I purchased an MDC Ten-Wheeler kit; these came with inboard piston valves and I wanted to convert it to outboard piston valves with Baker valve gear. For reasons which have become obscure with the passage of time I got rid of this loke almost immediately but some time later someone published an article in one of the hobby magazines about doing exactly what I had wanted to do using Bowser as a source for outboard piston valves. I am sure that had I stayed with HO-Scale I would have assembled several more Bowser locomotives as well as a number of MDC locomotive kits. Now, with Bowser apparently gone from the steam locomotive kit market, that leaves only MDC and maybe this will be an incentive for Horizon to give consideration to reissuing MDC's COMPLETE line which they now own. I am guessing that article was one written by John Swanson, and published in Railroad Model Craftsman around 1977. (There was also a series of similar articles in the 1980s.) That fellow assembled a number of interesting engines that combined parts from Bowser, MDC, Mantua kits. (He also used stuff from Mellor and Lee Town as well.) Sounds about right! I believe I was in the Azores when Swanson's article appeared and I do remember some other articles doing somewhat the same thing. I was always going to get back to that project but I continued to build big steam right up to the day I decided to bolt to N-Scale. Were I ever to go back to HO-Scale--and I might mention that that is not outside the realm of possibility--AND my available space were to allow a layout with 27" minimum radius--what I consider is a minimum for HO-Scale--then I may just do it . . . or might have done it were I able to get MDC steamers and Bowser parts which is beginning to look like a very remote possibility.
I think this whole thing illustrates how Murphy's Law works really well in MRR'ing. If things can go wrong it'll go wrong in such a way people get to work a little differently ---
model production has changed with computers involved, laser cutting and so on.With DCC the electrical pickup is even more crucial. If we look for something as a kit with today's quality we would need a serious upgrade of kit quality. But for the Bowsers its a "You built it, You made it" kind of joy to it.
I hope they can keep the line available even in a limited production.
andrechapelon So what do you do when you want a locomotive that not only hasn't been made, but in all probability, won't be made? The component parts that went into the Bowser kits are useful for locomotives other than what Bowser manufactured as kits. There's a whole potload of Pacifics that could be built (partially scratchbuilt I grant you) using the K4 chassis as the starting point. How do you know you wouldn't end up being as successful as the next guy in building a locomotive? Even if you make a mistake the first time, it doesn't mean the end of the world. Mistakes can be fixed. A barebones locomotive can be superdetailed later when you've acquired the skill. Without trying, you'll never know. Up until a couple of years ago, I had never ripped old windows out of a house and installed new ones. The first one was a nerve-wracking project. The second was a lot easier and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I know enough to where I don't have to pay someone else to do it for me. More than money, though, is the knowledge that I can do it successfully. Andre
So what do you do when you want a locomotive that not only hasn't been made, but in all probability, won't be made? The component parts that went into the Bowser kits are useful for locomotives other than what Bowser manufactured as kits. There's a whole potload of Pacifics that could be built (partially scratchbuilt I grant you) using the K4 chassis as the starting point.
How do you know you wouldn't end up being as successful as the next guy in building a locomotive? Even if you make a mistake the first time, it doesn't mean the end of the world. Mistakes can be fixed. A barebones locomotive can be superdetailed later when you've acquired the skill. Without trying, you'll never know.
Up until a couple of years ago, I had never ripped old windows out of a house and installed new ones. The first one was a nerve-wracking project. The second was a lot easier and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I know enough to where I don't have to pay someone else to do it for me. More than money, though, is the knowledge that I can do it successfully.
Andre
Being a freelancer, I don't have any need for a specific locomotive. I can make do with what the manufacturers offer which is plenty. I can buy either an undecorated locomotive and decal it for my roadname which I do for my steam roster. For the diesel roster, I use locos with paint scheme in my road's colors (black and gold) and simply replace their roadname with mine. A lot less hassle than building and painting a loco from the chassis up and having paint it myself.
Autobus Prime j: And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? The hobby interstate rolls people right where they wanted to go. Sure, it's quick and popular and safe. Minimal risk. But where's the reward? Don't you want to drive up that dangerous mountain road, just to see the view?
j:
And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? The hobby interstate rolls people right where they wanted to go. Sure, it's quick and popular and safe. Minimal risk. But where's the reward?
Don't you want to drive up that dangerous mountain road, just to see the view?
Actually, I made that very choice several years ago. I was going to drive up the east face of Mt. Washington but when I got to the base, the signs warned drivers that the road was narrow and there were no guard rails and that people who have problems with heights should reconsider. I did. I made a U-turn and headed over to the west face where I rode the cog railroad up to the top. The view was just as spectacular as it would have been if I had driven myself up.
That is one of the advantages of free-lancing, especially since the last 10 years has seen the release of every USRA engine with the exception of the heavy Pacific. USRA's make a great choice for the core of an engine roster, especially when detailed to represent changes to as built condition a la doctorwayne. To my way of thinking, this also means that the layout is designed to represent a railroad that, while fictional, plausibly could have made it as a business (my degree's in Economics). It also means that it should be firmly rooted in space and time (i.e. it can only use motive power and rolling stock appropriate to the time and place). Bill Darnaby's Maumee comes to mind as does Tony Koester's Allegheny Midland. While both were freelanced, it's easy to tell what the inspiration was. In Darnaby's case, it's a cross between the Wabash and Nickel Plate.
Were I to freelance, the inspiration would come either from the Cotton Belt or the Maine Central, but with a significant change to the motive power policy of either. Cotton Belt owned no engines with trailing trucks prior to the Baldwin built L-1 4-8-4's and the Maine Central only dabbled in USRA power. However, the core power of either the Missouri Southwestern or New England Northern would be USRA. All Mikes and Pacifics would be redetailed USRA lights. The MSW would also get light 4-8-2's and the NEN probably would too. The largest power on the MSW would probably be Westside GS-8's (Cotton Belt L-1's) with the train indicators removed. Being a New England road in frugal Yankee country, the NEN's most modern steam power would probably end up being USRA light 4-8-2 copies built in 1927 with the only concession to modernity being Worthington BL FWH's and booster equipped Delta trailing trucks.
Having a background in economics, I can't really see either of these fictional railroads competing with actual historical prototypes and I would probably rewrite history so they don't. In the case of the NEN, it would also serve areas served by the Bangor & Aroostook which would also cease to exist in my little world. Unlike the MEC, the NEN would have had no affiliation with the B&M.
Brutal, ain't I?
Andre,
Modelers, and the choices they make have always been, and always will be driven by the available products, the skill set of the modeler, and his goals and interests in the hobby.
These things will never be the same for any two individuals. Hence my earlier comments about not having any interest in saving any of them from themselves.
I have been at this for 40 years and when I began designing my latest railroad ten years ago, I strongly considered the "prototype" route.
I quickly rejected it for several reasons:
None of my favorite railroads covers all my interests in railroading.
Even with all these new products, too much would have to be scratch built and, as explained earlier, I've done plenty of building, I now want to shift the focus to operating.
If I chose the prototype route, "good enough" would not have been good enough. But as a freelancer, plausable is PERFECT!
So for me, its about a 1954 fantasy where the government gets right out of the way of piggyback in 1952 and the post WWII recessions where milder than they actually where, and all is right with the world. It looks real, but its not a history lesson.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Andre, Modelers, and the choices they make have always been, and always will be driven by the available products, the skill set of the modeler, and his goals and interests in the hobby. These things will never be the same for any two individuals. Hence my earlier comments about not having any interest in saving any of them from themselves. I have been at this for 40 years and when I began designing my latest railroad ten years ago, I strongly considered the "prototype" route. I quickly rejected it for several reasons: None of my favorite railroads covers all my interests in railroading. Even with all these new products, too much would have to be scratch built and, as explained earlier, I've done plenty of building, I now want to shift the focus to operating. If I chose the prototype route, "good enough" would not have been good enough. But as a freelancer, plausable is PERFECT! So for me, its about a 1954 fantasy where the government gets right out of the way of piggyback in 1952 and the post WWII recessions where milder than they actually where, and all is right with the world. It looks real, but its not a history lesson. Sheldon
DITTO!!!
Sheldon, we think so much alike it's scary. I could have written just about every line in your post. We've even chosen the same era for our freelanced railroads. Mine is set in 1956, just before merger mania began taking over the industry. My struggling carrier is being courted by the NYC which already has traffic rights over their line which gives me an excuse to run a lot of great looking NYC equipment. There's still plenty of steam on the roster as declining revenues have made it difficult to complete dieselization. Hence, the courtship with the NYC.
andrechapelon That is one of the advantages of free-lancing, especially since the last 10 years has seen the release of every USRA engine with the exception of the heavy Pacific. USRA's make a great choice for the core of an engine roster, especially when detailed to represent changes to as built condition a la doctorwayne. To my way of thinking, this also means that the layout is designed to represent a railroad that, while fictional, plausibly could have made it as a business (my degree's in Economics). It also means that it should be firmly rooted in space and time (i.e. it can only use motive power and rolling stock appropriate to the time and place). Bill Darnaby's Maumee comes to mind as does Tony Koester's Allegheny Midland. While both were freelanced, it's easy to tell what the inspiration was. In Darnaby's case, it's a cross between the Wabash and Nickel Plate.
I can see there are huge advantages to freelancing---All those USRA's literally had the same--OK Almost the same chassis. All one had to do was change what was needed in the first place.
If someone were to produce kits--all one would need would be the basic chassis/boiler/tender/drive and wheelsets---you would be able then to detail with the optional detail sets as sold by whomever--no need to quibble.
As for prototyping--well the same situation except for frame size etc---and the detail sets as per prototype---no need to quibble
On to the research---heeheehee
I have no desire to "save" anyone from themselves either. It's all I can do to save myself. However, I don't particularly care to be labeled "elitist" if someone shows me a layout where steam (other than as occcasional excursion power) runs side by side with SD70ACe units and I don't fall all over myself lavishing praise. If the owner likes it that way, more power to him since it's his layout. Just don't expect me to do more than politely say "that's nice" or at least keep my mouth shut.
Neither do mine. I'm at heart an SP fan of the transition era, but the SP covers a wide range of territories and operating conditions. Rather than try to accommodate most or all my interests, I decided to focus on the main ones, which are local freight operations, at least one significant passenger train, engine terminal ops and some minor passenger train switching. That's why I chose SP's Monterey Branch from the Monterey station to end of track (about 4.3 miles in "real life"). Unfortunately, that leaves out helper operations, which is right up there on the list of my favorite things. However, the choice has some salutory effects. It limits the number of locomotives I need ( could get by with 3, but 5 is a more comfortable choice for variety). It limits the locomotives to 4-6-0's, 2-8-0's, a P-6 4-6-2 and maybe a 4-8-0. All of these except the Pacific are readily available, if not in mass produced plastic, at least in 60's to 80's era brass (the Spectrum 2-8-0, with some suitable added detail is a good stand-in and probably could be modified to a C-9). I do have an MDC Harriman 4-6-0 kit stashed away. I don't need any more than 8 passenger cars (the maximum number I've ever seen on the "Del Monte") and I figure 40-50 freight cars along with 3 or 4 cabooses would be ample.
Every building will have to be scratchbuilt. However, there won't need to be that many and they would comprise the stations at Monterey and Pacific Grove, flats of some of the canneries and the sand plant at Asilomar and some assorted others. The layout will be an around the walls shelf type with staging at the Monterey end. I'm trying to figure how how to fit it into a 10x13 room without having to give up any of the 4 LDE's required (probably not really feasible, but I'll try). The biggest challenge is Cannery Row, which scales out to about 25 feet in HO and represents the major selective compression issue. I've considered N scale, but I want sound and I doubt I can get a speaker in a Model Power Vanderbilt tender.
All in all, I think it's doable in a reasonable time with a reasonable budget and with a reasonable balance of building vs operating. Had I chosen to free-lance instead, the layout would have been based on Maine Central's Rockland branch in 1950. Pretty much the same type of motive power would have been used (except for the 4-8-0). I'd need more passenger cars since there were 4 trains a day each way and Pullman service in the summer. Rockland also has (it still exists) a nice compact engine terminal. I'd probably have a Pacific or 2 more than with Monterey due to the increased passenger traffic. Other than that, there'd be a lot of similarities except that I could use commercial kit buildings. I don't see that there'd be that much difference in time effort and expense.
I like operating, too and have had the good fortune to operate on a couple of what can only be described as "mega layouts". I enjoyed the operation immensely. I also left with the feeling that I was glad I didn't own the layouts in question. In the past I've made the mistake of thinking that large, although not necessarily mega, layouts were the ideal. At one point, I wanted to do SP from San Luis Obispo over Cuesta grade up to Santa Margarita (I had a 20x15 space at the time). I even accumulated a baker's dozen brass SP engines, with no class duplicates (big mistake). And then I started calculating how much rolling stock and additional motive power would actually be necessary. OUCH! It really doesn't matter if it were SP over Questa or a free lance line in the same space with the same operational focus. It would be expensive and time consuming regardless. It really isn't a matter of prototype vs. free-lance, at least not if your favorite railroad has been favored by the manufacturers.
This is just an opinion, but I think there are a considerable number of people who want to do too much. I've seen it in myself as well as others. It's a sure road to frustration.
If I chose the prototype route, "good enough" would not have been good enough.
Why not? SP modeler Tom Dill redetailed a Spectrum 2-8-0 to resemble one of the ex-SSW 2-8-0's that the SP got in 1956. The Spectrum tender is larger than the prototype SSW tender. Mr. Dill chose not to alter the tender to more closely resemble the prototype tender other than converting it to oil and putting on the requisite details. The loco won first prize at an SPH&TS meet.
I understand and I'm sure that your doing what is right and fun for you.
For me I want big, but not necessarly complex. My layout room is 24 x 40, my double track mainline 8 scale miles on two decks. But I am not tring to see how much I can cram in around it. There is only one visible yard and engine terminal, etc. Scenicly I don't model more than one of anything on the layout except maybe commuter sized passenger stations.
I like scale or nearly scale length trains and lots of action. Hence the double track. So my layout is large not so it can me jampacked, but so the 40 car trains look good.
andrechapelonHowever, I don't particularly care to be labeled "elitist" if someone shows me a layout where steam (other than as occcasional excursion power) runs side by side with SD70ACe units and I don't fall all over myself lavishing praise. If the owner likes it that way, more power to him since it's his layout. Just don't expect me to do more than politely say "that's nice" or at least keep my mouth shut.
Well I agree with you there, I too would just keep quiet. But what is a SD70ACe? It's still 1954 here and modern trains bore me silly.
I must say your goals and atitudes sound like me years ago. Some would still call me an elitist, and others would say I don't take this seriously enough at all. I think that puts me right where I want to be.
Here is some of my "standards" that break the mold:
I don't like sound in the small scales - unless I build a good layout based system latter.
Even in my large space with 36" radius curves I prefer selectively compressed passenger cars, but close coupled with working diaphragms.
I want good "display value" running as well as good prototype operation.
I still use DC, but with wireless radio throttles.
"I wonldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member" - WC Fields
Enjoy your trains!
andrechapelon I have no desire to "save" anyone from themselves either. It's all I can do to save myself. However, I don't particularly care to be labeled "elitist" if someone shows me a layout where steam (other than as occcasional excursion power) runs side by side with SD70ACe units and I don't fall all over myself lavishing praise. If the owner likes it that way, more power to him since it's his layout. Just don't expect me to do more than politely say "that's nice" or at least keep my mouth shut.
That has a very strange image---a 4-8-2 switching and two SD70ACe's in a consist---YEECKS!! Andre--what did you do to come up with that combination? There is at least 3 generations of deisel missing!!LOL!!---mind--I wouldn't be laughing there but still--- But seriously folks--how could anyone 'save' someone from a rational--such as it is --decision from themselves?
andrechapelon This is just an opinion, but I think there are a considerable number of people who want to do too much. I've seen it in myself as well as others. It's a sure road to frustration.
If someone is setting this up with a group of people specifically for operation I could see that happening--as in the neighbours down our street. If the person is deliberately going to set up a HUGE layout and try to run the thing on their own---I'd suspect Evil Twin issues!!BTW--this above statement has nothing to do with anyone currently here---do I make myself clear!?
It's actually only about 25% what's fun. It's 75% an effort to keep from driving myself nuts. I can think of a lot of things I'd like to do.
You said in an earlier post that your favorite railroads couldn't satisfy your wishes. I don't think I'd be out of line assuming that your favorite railroads are all located in the US or at least North America. Count yourself lucky, I'm not so lucky to have a purely domestic list. To SP, you can add New Zealand Government Railways, South African Railways, the Deutsche Bundesbahn, Austrian Federal Railways, Swiss Federal Railways (particularly the Gotthard Line), British Railways (particularly the Settle-Carlisle line), New South Wales Government Railways(Australia), Victorian Railways (Australia). Heck, I even like the steam era RENFE (Red Nacional de los Ferrocarriles Españoles). You'll notice that the list covers 4 continents and at least 4 gauges (42", standard gauge, 5' 3" gauge and 5'6" gauge). The domestic list is just about as long.
The real kicker is that after SP, my favorite railroad/railway is New Zealand Government Railways. The only time I ever rode behind a steam locomotive that was actually in revenue service was in New Zealand (Ja class 4-8-2). I know I'm going to break down and buy one of these kits (http://www.ironhorsehobbies.co.nz/product_info.php?cPath=31_32&products_id=167 ) to rekindle the memory. What I'm afraid of is what might follow even though I'm trying to focus on something else. The Internet is pure evil.
I will admit that while one prototype does not cover my interests, my current interests are very narrow and focused, on purpose!
Things not on my radar:
Anything out side the US, for that matter, if its west of the Mississippi it may be in my knowledge base but not part of my modeling interest base.
This all gets back to the postion I took about the orginal topic of this thread. I feel that to fullfill my modeling goals requires a balanced application of resources and a reasonably acheavible goal.
You do that by limiting size, I do it by limiting diversity. I don't "collect" anything that is not a piece to the puzzle I am working on, period. I don't buy or build models of stuff just because they are famous, or interesting or pretty. Or, no offense intended, because I have some memory of them.
I have focused in on what I find interesting about trains, developed a plausable freelanced prototype based on most of that, and am focused on creating that miniature world, period. Out of the hundreds of models I own, I can count on one hand those that do not have a logical place in my scenario.
To that end I don't own many of the models out there that the manufacturers think "everybody" wants.
No PRR K4, SP GS4, PRR GG1, UP Big Boy, UP Challenger, etc, not even a N&W J, and I model east coast railroading, but not that road.
This is what is fun for me, hope you can keep yours fun.
Autobus Prime bc: RMC took a tour of Roundhouse Products back in the 60s (IIRC...I'll have to dig up the back issue if I can) and they were making their modestly sized locos with quite limited equipment. They had some small tabletop DCMT die-casting machines. They were turning drivers in a drill press. They had some small punch presses and lots of little jigs and fixtures to drill boiler holes etc. The whole operation was seemingly built of large blocks of ingenuity and a thin mortar of cash. It's interesting to think about that. If it was possible then, why not now? I was being a little facetious with my time-estimate before. Two summers is more likely. But still...why not?
bc:
RMC took a tour of Roundhouse Products back in the 60s (IIRC...I'll have to dig up the back issue if I can) and they were making their modestly sized locos with quite limited equipment. They had some small tabletop DCMT die-casting machines. They were turning drivers in a drill press. They had some small punch presses and lots of little jigs and fixtures to drill boiler holes etc. The whole operation was seemingly built of large blocks of ingenuity and a thin mortar of cash.
It's interesting to think about that. If it was possible then, why not now? I was being a little facetious with my time-estimate before. Two summers is more likely. But still...why not?
As for this one, I did one of my datamining searches again and came across a few more sites that I'm going to check into more before posting--it may take a couple of summers of woodshedding but what the hey.
The idea of a niche market thing does come off like a british 'Fine Scale' modelling set off with a larger RTR market. That route may very well work here. A base kit that can be built on using detail parts from, say, other sources, or even your own built detail parts may be an approach that could work here. I don't think that every single RR had a radically different boiler etc hence a base chassis/boiler plus then the detail parts as required to make say an SP, or NYC, 4-8-2 or such.
Anyways off to the woodshed---
No offense is taken. However, I don't think you quite grasp what I was saying.
I'm actually limiting diversity by focusing on SP's Monterey Branch. The size is a limit imposed by the available room dimensions. IOW, it's a "given" rather than a "druther". However, if I did have a larger space, it would just be a case of giving the Monterey Branch some breathing room rather than going whole hog modeling some other SP location with its requirement for a vastly expanded motive power and rolling stock roster.
As for my comment about the Ja 4-8-2, the appeal isn't just that engine because I rode behind it, but the whole idea of modeling some particular line where they ran (along with Ab Pacifics and Bb 4-8-0's, etc.). There's a couple of things working here. The Ja's were designed to be the biggest engines capable of running on rather light rail (53-56 lbs/yard). They had a very wide route availability, so modeling a relatively high traffic main line is not a requirement. Even though the most common modeling scale in New Zealand is S, the loading gauge of NZGR limited locomotive height to 11 1/2 feet. S scale New Zealand locomotives are no bigger than HO scale standard gauge North American locomotives. The same can be said of rolling stock and a lot of the steam era freight stock was 4 wheel.
None of this would have come up if I hadn't joined the Brasslocobuilders Yahoo group where I got into a discussion with a fellow who turned out to be from Christchurch, NZ, a city I visited 40 years ago. The discussion re-ignited a dormant interest in New Zealand. Had I not joined the group and met Peter (who was rather surprised that a Yank would know about NZGR's failed Garrats), you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.
While I've put a lot of research and mental energy into dreaming and planning for the Monterey Branch, not a lot of cash has yet been expended and I'm really fighting the urge to chuck it for New Zealand. I wanted to do something that wasn't just another generic layout or a copy of someone else's work. Either qualifies, but how many Americans model the railway of a small Southern Hemisphere country? It's really appealing.
EDIT: Like I said, the Internet is pure evil.
Darth Santa Fe WAHT!??!1? NONONONONONONONONON0N0!! THIS CAN"T BE HAPPINNING!! What am I supposed to build if the Bowser kits are gone!?
WAHT!??!1? NONONONONONONONONON0N0!! THIS CAN"T BE HAPPINNING!!
What am I supposed to build if the Bowser kits are gone!?
Luke
- Luke
Modeling the Southern Pacific in the 1960's-1980's
This is an interesting subject that started out with advise that Bowser are shutting down their steam locomotive production line.
Many kit builders lament this closing and so the subject expanded out into a kit vs. RTR debate. I think that the lesson here is that if Bowser were experiencing a level of sales activity nessesary to continue their production of die-cast bodied steamers they would do just that - viability is the issue here.
Who knows, Bowser may be considering replacing steamer production with some other kind of business activity they have identified will lead to more sales and be more profitable.
Personally, the debate over RTR versus kits is largely irrelevant. Only for the reason that opportunities to build locomotive kits, like the Bowser range of steamers, are by now virtually nonexistent. Whether it is an acceptable alternative to kits, RTR is what today's modelers are being offered to run on their layouts or to collect and display as static models. Buying, modifying - so much easier in plastic than zamac - running or just gorping at - is where the satisfaction lies for me. It's only natural to morn the passing of some aspect of our hobby we enjoyed so much, but one of the true certainties of life is that there will always be change - good or bad, change is a hard reality and our hobby is not immune from that.
Andre. the NZGR of old is now called, Kiwi Rail and once again after several owners with varying management styles the NZ government has bought the rail system from it's last owner, the Australian logistics company, Toll Holdings. Just like their miniature counterparts in the modeling world, Kiwi Rail has placed an order for new diesel locomotives - this time with China. These will be the first new locomotives in 20 years,
The Ja class steam locomotives were operating as late as 1971 ripping along the Canterbury Plains at 100mph speeds hauling the Southern Express from Christchurch to Dunedin. Of equal majesty was the systems K, Ka and Kb 4-8-4 steam locomotives, the Kb, with its rear truck mounted booster engine wound it's way through the southern alps from Christchurch to Greymouth - one of the most spectacular, but little known, railway journeys in the world. Although NZ Rail operated diesel locomotives from the late 40's or early 1950's they hung on to steam power for longer than most countries. The diminutive 3'6" real life narrow gauge system carried many different classes of locomotive and although very few of them were built there, NZ Locomotives bore a strong resemblance to loco's built in the US.
From what I can remember, there was still one steam hauled train operating in NZ's South Island during the tourist season. This was the "Kingston Flyer" with a vintage Ab class 4-6-2 hauling vintage passenger cars. The Ab's had a Vanderbilt tender as did the J's, Ja's and Jb (oil fired) steamers.
At over $USD300 a pop, kits of NZGR locomotives are very expensive, FSM and Sierra West as two exapmles of craftsman's kits that are similarly priced they are probably of comparable value.
Although railway modelers in New Zealand choose to model the rail systems of several different countries, primarily the US and England, there does seem to be a large contingent of people who model the indigenous prototype - 1/64 running on HO track. The market however in terms of production is very small yet the costs of producing their kits would be the same if not more than a US company doing the same thing, but in a much larr market. It's still a cottage industry really and this is reflected in their prices. The scratch building and serious modification of existing models from outside of NZ was all that local modelers could do until kits specific the NZGR became available.
In response to an earlier posting; it is not uncommon for people to choose to model the railroads of other countries, states or cities other than those with which they have the most experience or understanding of.
There must be thosands of people who develop interests that are outside of their country or home town experiences.
There are British, Commonwealth, Japanese and European modelers who choose US prototypes to model. US modelers who have had business and family connections off-shore choose to model prototypes running in Europe and Japan. What tickles your fancy is often difficult to define.
Although I have not been there or have any personal experience with Florida and the SAL that is what I choose to model. In kennel club parlance I am a half breed, NZ/American cross and, through my mother, have an emotional attachment to this road and geographical location. Much in the same way that Andre (NZGR) and Chuck (Tomikawa railway system of Japan) have towards their modeling interest. It's how we feel about stuff and what we relate to that is important.
Look at this, it's what happens when, with a tummy full of grub, three constantly weary feline friends, a head full of words and the Mrs. not expected back home until tomorrow and a good days resting up on the couch can do.
Bruce
From what I can remember, there was still one steam haulded train operating in NZ's South Island during the tourist season. This was the "Kingston Flyer" with a a vintage Ab class 4-6-2 hauling vintage passenger cars. The Ab's had a vanderbilt tender as did the J's, Ja's and Jb (oil fired) steamers.
At over $USD300 a pop, kits of NZGR locomotives are very expensive, FSM and Sierra???? as two exapmles of craftsmans kits that are simerlarly priced they are probably of comparable value.
Check out the web. NZ has an amazing number of operable steam locomotives of various classes given the small population of the country. I'd post some links, but I'm on my stepson's computer and we're leaving shortly for dinner.
As for the price of kits, I really don't consider them out of line given the small production volume. The current price of a Ja kit is about what it would have cost for a United Santa Fe 1950 class back in the 1960's on an inflation adjusted basis and considerably less than the price of a Varney Super Pacific back around 1950 on an inflation adjusted basis.
Gotta go.
citylimitsPersonally, the debate over RTR versus kits is largely irrelevant. Only for the reason that opportunities to build locomotive kits, like the Bowser range of steamers, are by now virtually nonexistent. Whether it is an acceptable alternative to kits, RTR is what today's modelers are being offered to run on their layouts or to collect and display as static models. Buying, modifying - so much easier in plastic than zamac - running or just gorping at - is where the satisfaction lies for me. It's only natural to morn the passing of some aspect of our hobby we enjoyed so much, but one of the true certainties of life is that there will always be change - good or bad, change is a hard reality and our hobby is not immune from that.
It may very well be irrelevant to a lot more people than you personally. I'm thinking that with RTR having dominated the MRR hobby as such for a number of years now it might be more useful to start thinking about kit building as a fine scale model type of endeavour. Somewhat along the lines of say, model cars,trucks--and now, locomotives--be they steam or diesel. It can be still a MR thing but I'll think of any development here as one evolving into a new arena, such as this may become---
blownout cylindercitylimitsPersonally, the debate over RTR versus kits is largely irrelevant. Only for the reason that opportunities to build locomotive kits, like the Bowser range of steamers, are by now virtually nonexistent. Whether it is an acceptable alternative to kits, RTR is what today's modelers are being offered to run on their layouts or to collect and display as static models. Buying, modifying - so much easier in plastic than zamac - running or just gorping at - is where the satisfaction lies for me. It's only natural to morn the passing of some aspect of our hobby we enjoyed so much, but one of the true certainties of life is that there will always be change - good or bad, change is a hard reality and our hobby is not immune from that. It may very well be irrelevant to a lot more people than you personally. I'm thinking that with RTR having dominated the MRR hobby as such for a number of years now it might be more useful to start thinking about kit building as a fine scale model type of endeavour. Somewhat along the lines of say, model cars,trucks--and now, locomotives--be they steam or diesel. It can be still a MR thing but I'll think of any development here as one evolving into a new arena, such as this may become---
If theres that rare engine not found RTR you may plunk the bucks for it. SOme modelr (Tony Koester or Bill Schopp or other RR magazine author) had an article about kitbashing brass to get the engine you wanted. :yikes:
I think when Bowser released the Challenger/Big Boy and other engines on its roster, they werent available at all to the hobbyist at the time except maybe in expensive brass.
I blame the guy on this forum for buying 40 Big Boys on this problem, he coulda gotem cheaper 8-P
Now you can buy high detail plastic but these are at the early brass prices actually, guys.
If Bowser does not want to handle the line anymore perhaps he should look to sell it off, perhaps some entrenepour can do something even have upgrade drive kits for existing owners, even create new steam kits.
dinwittyIf Bowser does not want to handle the line anymore perhaps he should look to sell it off, perhaps some entrenepour can do something even have upgrade drive kits for existing owners, even create new steam kits
That is the thing that made me go --"What the---". Discontinues the line but won't sell off the tooling. Oh well--if that is so then what I would do is go into the 'Woodshed' and see if I can't come up with the tooling myself to develop the molds, jigs and etc----as another poster had replied on here some of the early kit mfg'ers had fairly simple set ups for their lines. As for the drives and wheelsets--it becomes the same thing---retool.
http://www.athabascashops.com/
just found these guys
dinwitty http://www.athabascashops.com/ just found these guys
Linked
blownout cylinderdinwittyIf Bowser does not want to handle the line anymore perhaps he should look to sell it off, perhaps some entrenepour can do something even have upgrade drive kits for existing owners, even create new steam kits That is the thing that made me go --"What the---". Discontinues the line but won't sell off the tooling. Oh well--if that is so then what I would do is go into the 'Woodshed' and see if I can't come up with the tooling myself to develop the molds, jigs and etc----as another poster had replied on here some of the early kit mfg'ers had fairly simple set ups for their lines. As for the drives and wheelsets--it becomes the same thing---retool.
This discussion is starting to remind me of the old joke, "How do you make a small fortune in the model railroad business?"
Milepost 266.2blownout cylinderdinwittyIf Bowser does not want to handle the line anymore perhaps he should look to sell it off, perhaps some entrenepour can do something even have upgrade drive kits for existing owners, even create new steam kits That is the thing that made me go --"What the---". Discontinues the line but won't sell off the tooling. Oh well--if that is so then what I would do is go into the 'Woodshed' and see if I can't come up with the tooling myself to develop the molds, jigs and etc----as another poster had replied on here some of the early kit mfg'ers had fairly simple set ups for their lines. As for the drives and wheelsets--it becomes the same thing---retool. This discussion is starting to remind me of the old joke, "How do you make a small fortune in the model railroad business?"
I think if you read some of these posts Bowser is willing to sell the steam kit line off. I did some net scouring and so far Bowser is the really only big dealer in the Steam kit business today.
I think there are a few companies out there doing some kittage I recall some specialized HOn3, On30 place.
One does wonder sometimes---we do live in 'interesting times' I guess--
blownout cylinder dinwitty http://www.athabascashops.com/ just found these guys Linked
Don't forget this guy: http://www.miniaturesbyeric.com/