My apologies in advance for maybe resurrecting a dead horse for additional beating...
On another forum, an individual started a thread showcasing his "vintage" layout. He used sectional track set up on a flat grass mat, Tyco engines and rolling stock, buildings & accessories from Plasticville & Life-Like arranged to look like there might be roads between them, Hot Wheels cars, etc. It celebrated all that makes scale modelers and officianados of good equipment shudder.
Last night I read the Trains of Thought column in my January issue of MRR. In it, Tony Koester offered this advice to modelers considering freelancing a railroad: "Don't." Of course, his reputation for strict prototypical adherence in equipment and operations is well known.
I consider these two to be the opposite extremes of the Model Railroading Spectrum. So if Mr. Tyco were a 1, and TK were a 10, where would we rate ourselves falling on that scale?
I'd say I'm probably about a 6. My roster is centered on the Monon, though it represents a period spanning roughly from the end of World War I to the early '70's. I even have some locos the prototype never owned that I've repainted into its scheme. As I've learned more about the Monon, my equipment has drifted closer to a better representation of reality, but I'm also quite happy with 'close enough' representatives. My layout represents no specific location on the original line. It's basically two conjoined continuous loops with no staging. I have a car card and waybill system set up for operations, but a couple of operating sessions convinced me I prefer just railfanning.
I'd like to hear others' self-evaluations. And please let's not turn this into a Tyco- or TK-bashfest.
Jim
"I am lapidary but not eristic when I use big words." - William F. Buckley
I haven't been sleeping. I'm afraid I'll dream I'm in a coma and then wake up unconscious. -Stephen Wright
Like you Jim, I would say I am about a 6. Maybe leaning towards 7. But I think I lean more towards a 9 when it comes to operating like the real railroads. My layout is fictional although I use CSX equipment. My location is somewhat fictional in that its located here in Northeast Florida. Some of the industries are real although some are not served at all by railroads. But my focus, as I mentioned, is geared more towards operations. I follow the Lance Mindheim approach of taking my time, building up the air pressure, giving my ground man time to walk to a turnout and unlocking it. Then moving it back when we are done. Giving him time to walk to an unguarded grade crossing and throw a couple fusee's down before we move. I use switchlists rather than CC&WB's. If I don't get all the way though a list, I leave it until the next time I get in the train room to relax. And thats the keyword for me. Relax. Its my man cave. Just my two cents.
John
The Dames Point Industrial Railroad
http:\\dpirr.blogspot.com
mononguy63Last night I read the Trains of Thought column in my January issue of MRR. In it, Tony Koester offered this advice to modelers considering freelancing a railroad: "Don't." Of course, his reputation for strict prototypical adherence in equipment and operations is well known.
That's quoting Tony Koester out of context. In the next paragraph or two, he notes that he draws a distinction between those trying to freelance something that looks like a real railroad and those who freelance with no ties to the real thing. He notes that he is not writing for the latter.
The point of the full column is that basing a freelanced layout on a similar prototype is a good way to make it more plausible. The point he makes a bit later is that when he says "don't", he means "don't reinvent the wheel".
Since Tony built one of the most famous freelanced railroads ever, the Allegheny Midland, before he built the NKP and has written books about plausible freelancing, it's not accurate to characterize his general philosophy (or the view expressed in the most recent column) as "don't freelance". That's not what he did -- and not what he wrote.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Let me start by saying that there is nothing wrong in creating a vintage layout, using old materials and making it up in the fashion of the 1950´s and 1960´s. I have seen layouts which certainly deserve my admiration.
In a way, we all are "freelancing", whether we closely follow a specific prototype, do some "proto-lancing" or are complete freelancers. With the exception of maybe very few, none of us to completely make a scale copy of any stretch of the road we favor - space, time and many force us to make concessions. So most layouts appear to be proto-lanced, due to the modeler´s licence we have to apply.
As for complete freelancing - why not? as long as we follow 1:1 practice, our "could have been" road is quite OK.
As for my own layout, it´ll be freelance all the way, but with a story behind that makes sense. A true, "well it really could have been" layout. Does that me a "(you fill in the #)"
mononguy63 ...I consider these two to be the opposite extremes of the Model Railroading Spectrum. So if Mr. Tyco were a 1, and TK were a 10, where would we rate ourselves falling on that scale?... Jim
...I consider these two to be the opposite extremes of the Model Railroading Spectrum. So if Mr. Tyco were a 1, and TK were a 10, where would we rate ourselves falling on that scale?...
If they are extremes on an open continuum, and if we are to use the word extreme, it would be entirely arbitrary to assign either of those two values to either extreme. For those of us who don't really 'model' per se, but who simply enjoy setting up a notional Plywood Pacific, one and many could just as easily agree among themselves to assign Mr. Koester's approach the value of "zero" and to give their version of fun the hefty 10. Just sayin'. And that's if we agree that Mr. Koester says one must only model with full fidelity or go home. I don't think he would take that view.
They key word, I suppose, is 'model'. If we are going to employ fidelity to the prototype, everything visible ought to be a miniature representation, right down to the nth detail. Except that most of us would only be able to model 1/4 mile of right-of-way and the adjacent environs. I honestly do appreciate that it would be a marvelous and long challenge. Me, I just like to run trains, take images that please both me and a few lookers-on, and to enjoy the 'close enough' aspect of the hobby as I define it.
This hobby would be 1/10 its current market size if we were all constrained to high-fidelity modelling of any one quarter-mile of any one railroad's right-of-way, in the past or extant.
Crandell
I agree with Cuyama, on what Mr. Koester was discussing in the January issue. Personally, I feel freelancing in whatever way that the modeler decides he wants to do it, is perfectly O.K.! Be that the fellow with the Tyco and Plasticville buildings; or, following closely a prototype; but, freelanced. I don't get the snobbish position some take up about being prototype; or, freelanced, this is a hobby, what I do for fun and whatever I decide is fun is my right! You like prototype, well good for you.
As for my own railroad, it is based on the Northern Pacific and dated in the middle of N.P.'s transition period. However, the track plan is totally freelanced and any resemblance to a specific location is totally accidental. With all the N.P. stuff I have I'd still only give myself maybe a 6.1 %
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I agree with Byron's assessment. I actually had to reread Tony's comments carefully when I first saw them, as I wasn't quite sure what point he was getting at initially.
That said, I think it's going to be difficult to rate myself on a 1 to 10 scale of prototype fidelity. I am practicing what Tony says works, but I think about it in a different way. My layout is based on Rio Grande and other connecting line practices, so, check, got that. But like all model railroads, there's not enough space to do everything; I have to pick, choose, and condense. That's gone well enough.
But I model a line, Durango-Silverton, that didn't really have enough ops to drive the typical model railroad operating crew. And I like to experiment. So there are lots of diesels and other very nonprototype equipment running around, too.
All is based on prototype practices, so that much is like Tony says. I do want to know and understand what really went on and what equipment was like. On the other hand, I don't use the prototype as the only permitted bounds within which I must play or be banished from the realm of "real" model railroaders. I see that very often, especially in some of the critiques I read of new items, complaints about old ones, etc.
Model railroading is still a compromise from Day One. My layout is recognizably Rio Grande, but what the Rio Grande actually did is not a limitation on what I do in enjoying my layout.
What my point is here is that I think in some respects the hobby may have swung a little too far in the prototype direction. When new folks are already obsessing about getting just the exact model to build their XYZ RR, it's a sign of either rapidly rising expectations or a bit too neurotic approach to the hobby already rubbing off -- or both.
I've seen lots of arguments about what to do on your layout that start out with all the things you can't do because your prototype didn't. I can see that could be a good thing -- I don't want a Disneyland model in my Durango, for instance -- or a bad thing, the paralysis of planning that often takes hold to curb the enthusiasm for the XYZ RR.
My take is that some of the fever for prototype accuracy is driven by it being the fallback position for something one has no better ideas for. Well, that's what happens IF the prototype rules all you do -- and you end up finding that you're not doing much and not really enjoying things...boom, there goes someone else who's left the hobby.
So use your imagination and creativity, along with your prototype knowledge. You'll likely be happier somewhere in the middle of the 1 to 10 scale. No one is passing out medals for being a finicky 10 about prototype accuracy. If that's your thing, no problem, but I think it can be something that unduly discourages some who might find things more interesting if they remembered to also use their creativity, as well as their prototype knowledge.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
We were asked for a number 1-10 and like many, it depends on your idea of what 1-10 means to you.
1 to me would mean out of scale hot wheels are OK and DD-40s are run on the same layout co-jointly with a Tyco General.
10 would be that of a rivet counting nut-ball not stepping left of right of reality one iota.
I would rate myself as a total fantasy road free-lancer modeling towards a 7 on the scale.
I demand everything be in the same scale and era, rigidly. I also demand that all items on the fantasy road be linked to some well conceived and historically realistic possibilities with a fully researched backstory on why the line exists, where it got its motive power, etc. Yet, this leaves lots of open modeling possibilities based on the shortline's simple shops ability to turn out or modify rolling stock or even locos to some mild extent. It is expected to link to a real road at one or more points without the need to build or operate any part of that real road as part of my layout.
My special case and qualifications, much like others who have responded, shows that the extreme diversity found in MR is just too varied and specialized to blurt out a 1-10 number without lots of qualifiers.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
I would say I am 6-7 as well. My loco fleet is mostly CSX and I try to stay more modern but that does not mean I have some " too old" cars or locos to be playing with my SD70Ace or my 3GS21B switcher. I also model a more desert like setting that CSX does not operate in. I would say if you like running Tyco trains on grass mat or a rivet counter, have fun, because really we are all just grown men playing with expensive toy trains.
I'd rather not pick a number because I'm literally all over the map, plenty of projects planned like custom scheming locos, fictional roads running alongside the BN, fictional areas of washington and real ones, the Use of F units along modern locos, even steam still running, and various other things.
this is a thing I learned from social problems, what is normal?
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
[I somtimes long for the good old days when every model railroad was a 4x8 oval with a freight train consisting of a 4-8-2 steam locomotive , a boxcar , a gondola, a tank car, a flatcar and a caboose.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
I would claim 7 or 8, with allowances for necessary selective compression. I think of myself as like the historical novel writer. who attempts to be true to the history, but who invents fictional characters who are not specific real people.
My layout under construction is based on the Santa Fe in Galveston ca. 1957.
I call it by th fictitious name "Karankawa" so I don't have to copy the scene exactly. A number of interesting signature landmarks are located a couple miles from the railroad- the notorious nightclub pier,
the world war two naval short defense bunkers ("Guns of Navarone")
the motel made to look like a ship
I am twisting the geography to include them in.
But I still inbtnd it to be a recognizable place and time.
One of the problems a lot of freelancers (or those on the 0-5 range of the scale) run into is when they go towards the low end of the scale then ask, "is this plausible?", "is this prototypical?" or what would the prototype do?"
Then they get upset (and others also) when the answers come in no, no, and not what you did.
If you are driving towards the low end of the scale, don't ask those types of questions. When you made the decision to aim below 6 you pretty much made the decision that you would accept negative answers to the "is this prototypical?" questions. I also don't feel bad about telling people IF THEY ASK, sorry, their whatever isn't prototyical for whatever reason. Its not being mean, they chose the low end of the spectrum and asked the question. I'll tell them the truth.
That has nothing to do with whether they should model in the 0-5 range or whether that's fun or whether its good or bad. If you want to pull auto racks with balloon stack 4-4-0's around 18" brass snap track curves on a Life-Like grass mat surface, GREAT! Go for the gusto, Have fun. Just expect that if you ask me, "Is that prototypical?", I'm gonna say no.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Don't ask the question if you don't want to know the answer. If you do ask the question, be very thankful about all the responses, including those you feel are wrong.
I think I'm all over the spectrum since I'm high on prototype operation and I base my freelance railroads using a mixture of believability and good enough/close enough modeling with restrictions like cars in era,believable industries and believable scenery in a industrialized area.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I miss the old Philosophy Friday threads, so I thank you for coming up with a topic worthy of those memorable discussions we used to have.
I'm probably a 7. Or, maybe I have a goal of being a 7. If you took a look at my layout, you'd find too few home-road freight cars, and too many locomotives that would never have run on the main lines or yards of the Milwaukee. I've added significantly to my Milwaukee boxcar roster lately, though, and I've been working on my engine-painting skills to "naturalize" those immigrants that have been hanging out in town for so long.
Maybe it's easier to judge based on what I don't do. I don't add road-specific details to match old photos of steam engines. I don't read the built-on dates and reject rolling stock on that basis. I don't limit my choice of railroad signals. At the same time, I won't run autoracks or boxcars without roof walks.
My Tyco operating clamshell hopper cars are just fine, now that they've been weathered and equipped with Kadees, even if all 7 of the cars from the PRR have the same road number. And there are no Hot Wheels cars and no dinosaurs.
Every freight train has a caboose, though. There are some things about adhering to prototype that can't be ignored.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
mononguy63 My apologies in advance for maybe resurrecting a dead horse for additional beating... On another forum, an individual started a thread showcasing his "vintage" layout. He used sectional track set up on a flat grass mat, Tyco engines and rolling stock, buildings & accessories from Plasticville & Life-Like arranged to look like there might be roads between them, Hot Wheels cars, etc. It celebrated all that makes scale modelers and officianados of good equipment shudder. Last night I read the Trains of Thought column in my January issue of MRR. In it, Tony Koester offered this advice to modelers considering freelancing a railroad: "Don't." Of course, his reputation for strict prototypical adherence in equipment and operations is well known. I consider these two to be the opposite extremes of the Model Railroading Spectrum. So if Mr. Tyco were a 1, and TK were a 10, where would we rate ourselves falling on that scale? ... I'd like to hear others' self-evaluations. And please let's not turn this into a Tyco- or TK-bashfest. Jim
...
You seem to mixing two different spectrums (and there are many more than 2 in model railroading).
If all of Mr. Tyco's engines are labelled for the Santa Fe along with his cabooses and passenger cars, then Mr. Tyco is a protoype modeler, modeling the Santa Fe. If he uses grass mats for his scenery he may be modeling the Santa Fe in Illinois.
A free lance layout would be the Gorre and Daphetid - a railroad with no prototype in a mountain setting that doesn.t exist.
The other spectrum here is the toy train - scale fidelity spectrum. As you describe it, Mr. Tyco has a toy train layout. You may correctly say that Mr. Tyco's models are not very detailed or accurate, but he is still a prototype modeler if all his models are for that prototype. The Gorre and Daphetid has lots of detail, is well done, and artistically pleasing, but it's still free lance.
Personally, I am following the Maryland and Pennsylvania, but am perfectly happy including my PRS 1937 AAR boxcar decorated for the Gorre and Daphetid. On a scale of 1-10 I'll be closer to 10 than1 on both these spectrums, but probably not more than a 7 or 8. So I'm not 100% pure, but still feel I am capturing the essence of the Ma&Pa.
Enjoy
Paul
Interesting reponses thus far. Obviously my initial standards cited for establishing the continuum were perhaps not the best thought-out comments I've made, but it seems you all have generally figured out my intent.
Interesting that the initial responses of rating yourself on the 1-to-10 scale quickly distilled into more of a "where am I in the 5-to-8 range" evaluation. If I'd paid more attention years ago in my psychology class, I might be able to make something of that...
The forum's been kinda slow lately. Let's keep the discussion going, try to liven things up a bit going into the holidays!
I have my own road called the Birdsboro & Reading.
It is based on lines that were owned by the Reading Co. and the Pennsylvania RR.
I model in October 1974......the very month and year that I was born.
I do have some Reading Co. locomotives that in my world are being leased by the B&R.
Detailing on the B&R fleet of locomotives is a combination of what other roads had on their loco`s......but yet keeping it looking realistic.
My freight car fleet has Arch Bar trucks up to a few pieces with Roller Bearings.
Passenger cars range from real wood old time cars up to 4 and 6 wheel trucked heavyweight cars.
I won`t rated myself on the aforementioned scale..........I basically build and run what I want ...but keep it looking prototypical.
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
A six
mononguy63 Interesting reponses thus far. Obviously my initial standards cited for establishing the continuum were perhaps not the best thought-out comments I've made, but it seems you all have generally figured out my intent. Interesting that the initial responses of rating yourself on the 1-to-10 scale quickly distilled into more of a "where am I in the 5-to-8 range" evaluation. If I'd paid more attention years ago in my psychology class, I might be able to make something of that... The forum's been kinda slow lately. Let's keep the discussion going, try to liven things up a bit going into the holidays!
The "Retro Guy" on the "other forum", does not attempt to claim that he is modeling a prototype. He is modeling a '60s-70s HO version of a delightful '60s Hi-rail type layout.
Koester, on the other hand is attempting -quite successfully, I might add - to duplicate a real railroad during a specific era.
I find myself in a different category than either. Equipment wise,I model the PRR in the 1965-1968 period just before it became the PC. My track plan is based on a specific 5 mile Reading line, in Southeastern Pennsylvania, while my industries are based on locations in North Jersey and Baltimore. My operations are based on yard and local freight operations on Conrail. No waybills, just drill orders. Essentially, I'm broadly modeling my 42 year railroad career, not a specific prototype operation/ location. Everything is based on historical operation, selectively compressed, but nothing is exact.
I'm not quite sure where I would fit in on a numerical scale. But I'm having fun doing it.
A spectrum is one-dimensional. The concept we're kicking around is at least two-dimensional, with toys at the bottom of the vertical axis and Proto87 at the top, while the horizontal axis runs from pure freelance at the intersection to absolute prototype fidelity at the farther end - so a 10/10 would be a Proto87 standard dead accurate model of East Urbana, IL, in 1974, with every weed and ballast stone in place. A 36 x 45 loop on bare plywood, with a warbonnet F7 pulling a Geoffery (TRU) boxcar, a Vlasic reefer and a NYC caboose, would be zero/zero.
So, where do I stand? my JNR modeling is somewhere above 9 in fidelity, but only about a 5 in the toy/masterpiece scale. My Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo is actually higher on the appearance scale (I put more effort into cosmetic detail for TTT rolling stock) but is at best a 1+ on the freelance-prototype scale. Both of them coexist amicably on the same double garage filler, even though their only real commonality is track gauge and compatible couplers...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - sort of)
I can't put it on a scale but I try to get as close to prototype as I can within the limitations of space I have and scope I want.
well I don't fit any where.
The wide variety of trains I have in terms of period and national boundary's crossed, built up over many years say train set. The scenery says model railway.
The big one starting next year just will not fit in a pigeon hole
Given current layout is very small and actually trying to be a particular type of railroad even to the point of leaving non fitting stock in its boxes this ones probably a 5. At the moment still a lot of details to find out yet
regards John
mononguy63I consider these two to be the opposite extremes of the Model Railroading Spectrum. So if Mr. Tyco were a 1, and TK were a 10, where would we rate ourselves falling on that scale?
Then there could also be a separate scale or triangle for the various aspects of a layout. The trains, the scenery, the operations. One could have 100% prototypical trains and run them in a loop with zero operational realism. One could have a 100% accurate track plan and run toy trains on it.
Another problem with the question is that is assumes that each person has only one modeling outlet. Many people have more than one layout and even model in multiple scales. I used to model prototype in O and freelance in N. I tried to both in HO!
My current goal for my primary layout is to be on that pint of the triangle that is the 100% amazingly awsome freelance that everyone wonders if it is really a prototype. Unfortunately I've think I've used up all my best ideas for the club's freelance.
The modular layout is more concerned about half way decent looking scenes, the trains are whatever runs well at a show. Not much attempt to match trains / scenery or even time periods.
On the other hand I enter models into the various historical society modeling contests which have to be 100% prototypical.
On the third hand I have toy trains around the Christmas trees that I make zero attempt to be prototypical....
So does that make me a 5 - 10 - 1 ???
And then there are all my other modeling interests (caboose collecting, fantasy reefers) which lie at different points in the triangular spectrum.
Warning! Warning! About to talk out of both sides of my face!!
One the scale suggested by the OP, I'd say I'm a 7. Real world locations, matching scenery, prototypical operations, concentration on one line in particular (CP). Where I lose points is a) my insertion of non-existent industries to make operation more dynamic and b) creation of a wholly fictitious luxury passenger excursion service (so I can plausibly run whatever the heck I want).
On the other side, the OP misses something critical. Even if Tyco guy isn't up to TK's admirable and difficult standards, at least he's playing with trains. That he's having fun with trains is really all that matters in the long run; the rest is just details.
Stu
Streamlined steam, oh, what a dream!!
I think Texas Zepher has gotten closest to how complex our modeling realities actually are. There simply isn't a linear scale or even a X/Y axis that can encompass the range of desires and intentions found across the model railroading community.
One thing I specifically object to is judging anyone on a 1 to 10 scale that measures protypical accuracy. First, what are you measuring it? How are you measuring it? However it's done, it's on the basis of the assumption that what's really important is how close to prototype it is.
That's fine if you're measuring the minority in the hobby for whom that is the most important thing. Often enough, this doesn't really apply to someone's layout as a whole, just to equipment. And it doesn't really apply very accurately to most of us, even those like me who are very-prototype and location driven.
But over and over again, you'll hear someone say "the prototype did this" as if that ever really settles anything when what we're discussing is a artistic and somewhat symbolic representation of reality. Maybe I've spent too much time in grad school, but to me that's just the beginning of a serious discussion, not a way to end it.
Each year, there is a model train show in Utrecht/The Netherlands, where some of the finest layouts are being displayed. Search youtube, using the keyword "Ontraxs", and you will see them.
Most of them are not following any specific prototype, and some of them may not even be near any real prototype practice, but,heck, they certainly are some of the best and most atmospheric layouts I have ever seen.
IMHO, closely following a specific prototype will not automatically result in a good layout. It´s the overall effect, consisting of operation, detail, scenery, atmosphere, which separates "the boys from the men".
to each their own , would probably be the best analysis for this 1-10 scale which is just a category of labeling. the problem is that many of us are not tony koester trying to follow a railroad exactly to the last screw on the long hood of a Locomotive. some of us are serious modelers and some are more laxed, it's like someone said earlier " as long as you're having fun you're fine." fun is very subjective but read it with a loosely based meaning( operating or just running trains to run trains, etc.) this is probably what often leads to bolt counting comments going against casual MRR comments. I run trains to run trains but sure next layout(s) will be built with Operations in mind so I can mix it up.
Burlington Northern #24to each their own , would probably be the best analysis for this 1-10 scale which is just a category of labeling. the problem is that many of us are not tony koester trying to follow a railroad exactly to the last screw on the long hood of a Locomotive.
I don't think TK is advocating that at all.
In reality there are multiple "dimensions" (probably over ten). Something that hasn't really been addressed is operations. So far what everybody has been talking about is how things "look". Nothing really about how it works. That is a critical aspect of model railroading that separates if from all the other small scale modeling hobbies (except RC planes). There is an aspect of how the trains physically operate, how the trains operate, how the cars are routed. There is whether the models are accurate physically, whether they are accurate in how they are painted. There is the accuracy of the track. There is accuracy of era. All sorts of dimensions.