Where do we fall on the modeling spectrum?

[DSchmitt]

[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.

[Burlington Northern #24]

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? 

[Eric97123]

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. 

[narrow gauge nuclear]

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

[mlehman]

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.

[NP2626]

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 %

[selector]

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

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

[Anonymous]

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 #)"

[cuyama]

mononguy63

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.

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

[jbu50]

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.

[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 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