This hobby of ours is based on reproducing reality on a smaller scale. Even the most casual of model railroaders running the most toy-like trains are still based on the reality of it being a train with flanged wheels on track. As model railroaders get more knowledgable in the hobby, the natural inclination is to get more realistic...to get closer to the real thing. The manufacturers are following that desire by making more realistic models, and the hobby press shows it. Everyone has their own limits and wants, of course. There are the "Gomez Addams"-types that are perfectly happy running their train toys at warp speed; there are the Proto:87 guys who are probably wondering how to make bolt-on fishplates on every rail joint; and everything in between.
My thing is this: I model the New Haven RR. I enjoy it. I enjoy getting into the nuts and bolts of the NH's operations. For example, I have a 1953 NH Passenger Train Consist Book, a 1953 Engine Assignment Book, a 1953 Caboose and Work Equipment Book, a 1953 Freight Symbol Book, and a 1953 Employee Timetable. With these five books, I can accurately model to the best of my ability any passenger or freight train (if I have the equipment). I know which trains ran where and when they did so. I know what engines pulled what cars. I even know which caboose was on each freight. I get extra pleasure from not only knowing these things, but actually going out and doing them in HO scale.
I just had a 5-person operation session on my layout today. Before, I would run several passenger trains made of matching equipment so that they all looked good. It was okay, but kind of uninteresting. This time, I made a new schedule up that called for following the above books as close as possible. It resulted in mismatched trains that looked totally unorganized...but I had a lot more fun setting it up and watching my friends operate them. Just knowing that I was "doing it right" (or at least, more correct) felt better to me...like all my hard work was coming together. Running that observation car in the middle of the train? Prototypical. Running 3 boxcars, 3 RPO's, 2 coaches and 1 baggage car on one train? Prototypical. It sure beats running all the orange and black cars together, or all the green ones together. The NH was known to mix and match with the best of them.
tomikawaTT,Every magazine has one hidden agenda...to make money. Would you want to pay to read about a "...Christmas set train on a loop of Snap Track laid on grass mat on a re-purposed Ping-Pong table."? I know I wouldn't. I want to be inspired. I want to learn new ideas. I want to see and enjoy great modeling. There's not much to learn about rolling out a grass mat on a piece of wood, and there's not much to look at or enjoy, either.
Sheldon,Is it really a magazine "agenda" with DCC, stricter prototype modeling, and linear layout design, or is it just reflecting the current state of the hobby?
You said, "Because the fact is there is only slightly more product in production and actually available at ANY GIVEN MONMENT then there was 30 years ago." I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. There is far, far more available today than there was in 1983. The availablity what's on the internet alone can argue the point. And new models? Athearn made, what, 4 new loco models in the 1980's? Athearn is announcing 4 new models this year.
You went on to say, "But I just can't help but wonder how many people have become discoraged at the selection of product, again, at any given moment, and have simply given up on the hobby or settled for a lesser version of the hobby." Well, I wonder how many people became discouraged in the 1980's when all they could get were a couple dozen different generic locos in a few most popular paint schemes in one road number only? Back in the day, one could go to the same hobby shop month after month and never see anything new...just new stock of current production replacing what sold.
And not for nothing, but the B&O doesn't seem to be one of the most popular roads, sorry to say. Part of the problem is that it's been 40 years since the Chessie System took over, and it's been replaced in part in the hearts and minds of the locals by the successful CSX. Compare that to New England, where most of the old Class I's have not been replaced by successful Class I's but by regionals and shortlines with questionable success at times. That leads to companies like Rapido making the very New England-y Osgood-Bradley lightweight coach in multiple runs. NH, BAR and B&M fans bought all the models before they left China in the first run because so few of us model the modern day around here. If someone made a B&O coach, would that happen for them? I dunno about that.
Brakie,Actually, modern railroading is boring as heck, when & where there is any of it. The uniformity of the North American loco fleet has never been greater, and US track miles haven't been this low since the 1890's. Sure, where there is a Class I mainline, it tends to be pretty busy...as long as you like a lot of coal trains and container trains. Ho hum.
Texas Zephyr,I know what you mean about realism being "too real". I tell the guys at my club all the time about the fine line between work and fun during operations. One guy wanted to do real, honest to goodness TTO, but we talked him out of it when we pointed out that no one wanted to write Form 19's over the radio. Likewise, some folks want to imagine stopping and pumping up the brakes and walking the application, etc. Which is very real, but very dull.
Paul A. Cutler III
Geared Steam BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Offended??????????????????????????????????? Seemed like a nice friendly conversation to me? Sheldon I agree..I don't see a hornets nest nor anything that would be offensive.. Yes, nowhere did I read anything, by anyone, that even hinted that they were "offended?
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL Offended??????????????????????????????????? Seemed like a nice friendly conversation to me? Sheldon I agree..I don't see a hornets nest nor anything that would be offensive..
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Offended??????????????????????????????????? Seemed like a nice friendly conversation to me? Sheldon
Offended???????????????????????????????????
Seemed like a nice friendly conversation to me?
Sheldon
I agree..I don't see a hornets nest nor anything that would be offensive..
Yes, nowhere did I read anything, by anyone, that even hinted that they were "offended?
Even if I wanted to be offended, I'm not sure which way to be offended. This is a pretty civil conversation.
Enjoy
Paul
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
ATLANTIC CENTRALUNLESS - one ASSUMES that the ONLY way to model a real life prototype is to try to replicate some real life place. And one once tries to replicate a real life place, what level of selective compression is "acceptable" and what level is not?
Interesting question that deserves a article.
To my mind modeling R.J.Corman's Western Ohio lines two things stands out as must haves-the shops and distribution center at Celina and the wye track at St.Marys,Ohio other then that one could use generic Ohio scenery.That would be easily accomplish on a bedroom size layout and still be fully believable.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Texas Zepher NittanyLionI see it as a logical progression. From spaghetti bowls to more realistic representations to (what I think the next phase is) closer to scale representations of specific locations. As this shift takes place, the board starts to tilt towards prototypes more.And that can be carried too far too. I know a layout where the person did a 100% accurate representation of a couple of the areas in the Sliver San Juan mountains. The sidings are all the exact length and position, during an operating session the mines get exactly the number of cars the real one did, the passenger trains stop at the station for the prototypical period of time. The fellow spent forever putting all this together. It is so realistic it is almost boring. How many enjoy looking out the car window at miles of unremarkable "normal" scenery. Since the passing siding is about 1/4 mile long at prototypical speed it takes over 5 real minutes to do a simple run around move. I found the whole layout and operating it to be tedious and boring. There is a reason they had to pay people to operate trains like that in real life. In my opinion it would have been better used as a static display in the historical museum for this part of the country. I did however learn a lot of what NOT to do on my layout.
NittanyLionI see it as a logical progression. From spaghetti bowls to more realistic representations to (what I think the next phase is) closer to scale representations of specific locations. As this shift takes place, the board starts to tilt towards prototypes more.
Agreed, it can be taken too far.
And, I would suggest that spaghetti bowl track plans, or the lack thereof, has little to do with prototype vs freelance modeling. I have never built a spaghetti bowl track plan and I have never followed a prototype very closely.
UNLESS - one ASSUMES that the ONLY way to model a real life prototype is to try to replicate some real life place. And once one tries to replicate a real life place, what level of selective compression is "acceptable" and what level is not?
Why can't someone model the B&O or the PRR and simply name their "places" for real places, have track arangments that reflect the "flavor" of those places, and scenery that reflects the region, without trying to follow prototype track diagrams?
That level of "obsession" or "seriousness" would really exclude me from the prototype thing - but a few of my best friends do just that - it works for them.
alco_fan Some of the usual suspects finding a way to be offended _at nothing_ here.
Some of the usual suspects finding a way to be offended _at nothing_ here.
alco_fan Some of the usual suspects finding a way to be offended _at nothing_ here. I see the original poster never came back to the hornets nest he stirred up ... no surprise. The initial post is a canard. Lots of freelanced layouts are featured every month in the magazines. layout features in the recent months of MRR ... May: Gypsy Trolley Line (completely freelance), Emerald Springs Division (freelance locations with santa fe equipment) April: freelance layout project, Forest Park Southern (freelance locations with C&O equipment), freelance car ferry track plan March: East Berkshire Branch (freelance locations with Rutland and B&M equipment), Sugar Valley & Sweetwater (completely freelance), Lehigh Valley prototype track plan So out of 7 or 8 layout articles, only one is prototype.
I see the original poster never came back to the hornets nest he stirred up ... no surprise. The initial post is a canard. Lots of freelanced layouts are featured every month in the magazines.
layout features in the recent months of MRR ...
May: Gypsy Trolley Line (completely freelance), Emerald Springs Division (freelance locations with santa fe equipment)
April: freelance layout project, Forest Park Southern (freelance locations with C&O equipment), freelance car ferry track plan
March: East Berkshire Branch (freelance locations with Rutland and B&M equipment), Sugar Valley & Sweetwater (completely freelance), Lehigh Valley prototype track plan
So out of 7 or 8 layout articles, only one is prototype.
I agree with this........however I do see it like this......................
Some at the magazine have their own ....."agenda??".........they are basically going with what they know........and sometimes they have to because of a lack of contributions from subscribers as far as articles ......so........what to do?
Eventually I would like to send in a few articles myself to the magazine ...but.............I need a good camera......not just the point and shoot I have now...........and I need to actually get a few projects done so that I can contribute .
Like the above poster had said .............some seem to gripe just to gripe.
Take the magazine for what it`s worth.............if you don`t like what you see then don`t look at / read it.
As most here know by now I do have my own freelanced road the Birdsboro & Reading (<------shameless plug)..........it`s MY road .....although I do follow some prototype practices I may not follow them all.
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
ATLANTIC CENTRALWell here is the fly in the ointment that keeps me primarily a freelancer.
I wanted to model the GN until I learned of all their unique Belpair fireboxed locomotives that will probably only ever be available in brass and out of my price category. sigh.
I must have been lucky in that I decided to model prototypically what was in my local area in the 1975 to 85 time period. And that was the last part of Penn Central and the beginning of Conrail. Coal was king!
Now everyone knows that Conrail has just about one of everything and if they didn't then they got it from all of the merged railroads that came to form Conrail!
So why fight this lack of road names and model the Conrail change over era!
I can run Erie Erie/Lackawanna, PC, PRR, CNJ, Reading and so on! So just about anything the MFG make in eastern roads I can purchase and run on my layout.
It sure makes building a large roster of engines(over 65 on the layout annd counting) and well over 1100 cars from all over as the part of western PA I do was a bridge line between the Pittsburgh/Buffalo Main and the Harrisburg/Buffalo main.
And with the Lowgrade Line being up in the sticks - Contrail push all of the old stuff up here to run and kept the new Engines down in Pittsburgh or Harrisburg to run the mainline between NYC and Chicago.
So I have PC paint outs and EL and Reading and so on!
I can't purchase them fast enough as I have so many to choose from. So have fun trying to find the lesser railroads or spend the rest of your life redetailing your equipment to match some obscure railroad - I on the other had will just keep buying anything the MFG make for the eastern roads and run it on my layout knowing full well it DID run through here once or twice in its lifetime!
Having more than one person should be allowed! ;-)
BOB H - Clarion, PA
Well here is the fly in the ointment that keeps me primarily a freelancer.
We have all this great, high detail, RTR, "correct" equipment - or do we?
Well we do if you have deep pockets and lots of patience - to wait for pre orders, hunt at train shows, surf Ebay - to find all of those limited production gems that fit your prototype.
Because the fact is there is only slightly more product in production and actually available at ANY GIVEN MONMENT then there was 30 years ago.
So if you have a long range plan, and the money to jump on stuff at a moments notice, it is a great time in the hobby.
But I just can't help but wonder how many people have become discoraged at the selection of product, again, at any given moment, and have simply given up on the hobby or settled for a lesser version of the hobby.
I have been at this a long while, about 43 years now. A good portion of that time I have had the same layout goals and plans. And while I have taken full advantage of the idea that high quality RTR gives me more time for other aspects of the hobby and building the layout, there is still not a suitable selection of prototype equipment to prompt me to go the full on prototype route.
Prime example - despite the large number of proto specific passenger cars out there, there are only a hand full of cars correct for the B&O and not one of their flagship trains has been done except in brass.
BLI talked for years about doing B&O Pacific's, in the end they just slapped B&O on generic USRA locos and without even the simplest B&O classic details as head light position. And they offered two road numbers on their heavy version - painted in the B&O green "President" scheme - but put the same presidents name on both locos - come on now.
And the B&O is/was not some little back woods line, it was one of America's biggest and most known Class I railroads - and our first railroad.
All this high quality product has made me a more prolific and detailed "protolancer", but has not even come close to making me a strict prototype modeler.
BRAKIEMaybe the younger modelers(the next generation) are turning from building kits to building high quality layouts for operation.
Yes, there's a lot of this. Since the availability of high-quality detailed models means there's less need for kitbashing and detailing, there's more time to devote to other modeling projects.
If you so choose, you can get a good deal of prototype accuracy from today's RTR equipment. Many a modeler who used to freelance did so because the investment in time to create accurate models was simply too much to do that and make progress on the layout too. I used to spend dozens of hours on certain individual models of cars and locos to achieve a base level of accuracy, but no longer do much of that as I don't have to. Investing the time saved into the rest of the layout helps with scratchbuilding structures and other projects.
Rob Spangler
NP2626Times change, what was important, becomes not so much so. The focus may change from one thing to another. Doesn't mean its better; or, modelers of today, are better than they were!
Absolutely..My Dad's generation of model railroaders was kit and scratch builders and the majority enter the brass steam engine era gladly even though the choices was limited,then came the shake the box generic car kit era and generic early RTR cars and locomotives and each decade saw improvements and today we have museum quality models readily available.
At our train show yesterday I seen a lot of young 20 and 30 year old modelers carrying Geneses and Atlas Master and Atlas Gold locomotives-the end of the boxes was sticking out of their thin paper bags and one couldn't help but notice..
Maybe the younger modelers(the next generation) are turning from building kits to building high quality layouts for operation..I don't know.
UPinCT I'm just trying to add as much detail as I can. I have a preference for building over operations so detail is a way to up my game. I also have a desire to get away from "Toy" and tilt toward "Hobby"
I'm just trying to add as much detail as I can. I have a preference for building over operations so detail is a way to up my game. I also have a desire to get away from "Toy" and tilt toward "Hobby"
While I enjoy the building aspect the best and have found that operation, by myself really doesn't get my juices flowing, I think that HO has always been about the "Hobby of model railroading" as opposed to running "Toy Trains". I also think that a lot of the detail that I enjoyed adding to my cars and locomotives only real benefit is: That I enjoyed adding it, as it isn't easily seen while the train is in motion!
I think that some people portray a "chauvinism" about how they think things are done today, as compared to 20,30,40,50 and 60 years ago! If it wasn't for the people who were in this hobby and pushed the boundary of what was possible back then, we wouldn't be where we're at today! I find this disrespect for the past to be akin to Talking trash about farmers, with your mouth full of food!
Times change, what was important, becomes not so much so. The focus may change from one thing to another. Doesn't mean its better; or, modelers of today, are better than they were!
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But my modeling choices have never been driven by what others are doing in mass. Sure I have learned from others, embraced specific ideas (some popular some not) learned from others and I enjoy seeing what others are doing. But my self esteem is not invested in the opinion of others regarding my modeling. After 40 plus years at this, I know how to do it and what I like. Sheldon
But my modeling choices have never been driven by what others are doing in mass. Sure I have learned from others, embraced specific ideas (some popular some not) learned from others and I enjoy seeing what others are doing.
But my self esteem is not invested in the opinion of others regarding my modeling.
After 40 plus years at this, I know how to do it and what I like.
I see it as a logical progression. From spaghetti bowls to more realistic representations to (what I think the next phase is) closer to scale representations of specific locations. As this shift takes place, the board starts to tilt towards prototypes more.
Technology has helped out a lot.
First, as noted, the internet has made researching the prototype massively easier. Before the internet, modelers were limited to whatever was published in the hobby magazines or books in the local library. If you were interested in some obscure shortline, your odds of finding information about it were low. Good books are still invaluable resources, but with the internet you can find massive amounts of resources in minutes without leaving the house. Photo sites are especially great, because the internet is flooded with more photos than could ever be published in a book.
Speaking of photos, modern digital cameras make it easier to take and share a lot more photos when you don't have to worry about the expense of slide film.
The internet also makes it easier to find those cool books that aren't in the local public library. :-)
New technology has also changed how layouts are designed compared to 50 years ago. Better and more widely available walk-around throttle systems means layouts no longer need to be operated from fixed positions.
Also, years ago I think there was more articles on scratchbuilding rolling stock in various media, and every magazine issue had at least one set of scale drawings of something (I haven't really read an MR in a little while, do they even still regularly publish drawings??), and actually some of the famous free-lance railroads like Allen McLelland's V&O were pioneers on things like command control, staging and designing for realistic operations. And John Armstrong's seminal "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" was first published in 1963. (After all, operational concepts to a totally fictional railway or one based on a real line.)
So, I'm not sure that a trend to realism or being "prototype-based" is actually necessarily new; just that it's become easier to accomplish over the last 20 years.
Chris van der Heide
My Algoma Central Railway Modeling Blog
Rastafarr Yes. The net has made both research and purchasing much easier and wide-ranging than before. Gone are the days of simply running with whatever the LHS happened to have on the shelf. Stu
Yes. The net has made both research and purchasing much easier and wide-ranging than before. Gone are the days of simply running with whatever the LHS happened to have on the shelf.
Stu
Absolutely! We can pick and choose the cars we need to fill our freight car needs and find the locomotives we need for our roster.
One of the best research tools is Bing or Google maps which releases tons of modeling ideas for industries and track.
Texas ZepherWith the advent of the internet one doesn't need thousands of dollars of books in the library to learn about the prototype. 10 minutes of research and I can find the proper consist for a specific time of some named train I had never even heard about a week ago. That is as opposed to spending a couple weeks going to 2 - 3 different libraries trying to find a single book on the railroad in question.
Streamlined steam, oh, what a dream!!
wp8thsubI think the big reason for the proliferation of prototype based layouts is that is easier than it used to be.
My Golden State Railroad is a "Proto/Fereelance" railroad. The area that I model is northern California into southeren Oregon. An area of the country that I love having lived there for ten years when I workd fo ther Department Of Defense . I use real towns names with a history based on the purchase of some of Southern Pacific and Western Pacifics abandoned lines along with the acquistion of some small railroads. This gives me the best of both worlds.
IRONROOSTERBut it's not just the layout, it's also operations. There is a real push to include all the jobs and paperwork to operate just like the prototype.
Funny that..As a brakeman all the paper work I needed was a switch list..The conductor did the other required paper work.
So,I don't really understand what all the fuss is about since we cover the operating trades engineer,conductor/brakeman-even our "yardmaster" is in the operation trade(yard engineer/conductor) unless we want him/her to sit behind a desk handing paper work and supervising the yard crew..
This is becoming the familiar proto vs. free lance thread. There is definitely a proto mindset out there (witness a specific forum here for it, yet no forum for free-lancing.) While a rabid free-lancer, I live and let live on all issues related to another guy's layout. It is his sweat and treasure poured into his little kingdom...Let 'em have fun.
I'm 100% narrow gauge (HOn3). I longed for a narrow gauge discussion group and found one on Yahoo, but on landing there I noted 25 response threads on decaling a 3000 series D&RGW box car in which minute detail was the order of the day. Too much nit pick and hyper ventilating over precision fer' me! Prototype max'd out on steroids. Some serious folks there. I'm glad they are havin' fun though, picking at points until there is no meat left on the bone.
For my part, free lancers are a lot looser crowd and accept model rails of different and varied standards better than the strict proto guys. Still, proto is fine if that's your interest.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
I agree that there has been a push in the last 20 years or so towards more prototype layouts. In addition to some other ideas mentioned above, I think the increase in batch production of locomotives has been part of this. Manufacturer's like Bachmann produce a wider array, but in batches. On the rolling stock side, the advent of resin kits has allowed for small runs of specific prototypes.
But it's not just the layout, it's also operations. There is a real push to include all the jobs and paperwork to operate just like the prototype.
I also think that the rise of HiRail modeling as covered in Classic Toy Trains has been a factor. A lot of those guys are having fun running whatever appeals to them. This takes them out of the "serious" scale modelers arena.
Personally, I follow a prototype - the Ma&Pa, but I also include fantasy cars like a boxcar decorated for the Gorre & Daphetid railroad of John Allen. I am fortunate that S scale has kits for 3 Ma&Pa steam locomotives plus a flatcar and I was able to get undecorated models of the line's first 4 diesels (not currently in production). But anymore will have to be "close" enough which in my case means matching the wheel arrangement. One of the "benefits" of the Ma&Pa is that most of the freight cars on the line are foreign, so I can use whatever is available and appropriate to the early 50's. But then I also include billboard reefers that were outlawed in the '30s.
I guess you could call me a casual prototype modeler - I follow the prototype, but deviate wherever it appeals to me to do so.
We modelers have choices to make. I started out freelanced and changed to prototype due to my interest in the history of my local lines here in Minnesota. Specifically, I am interested in the Northern Pacific and am a member of the Northern Pacific Railroad Historical Association. Having a history to research has added a layer of interest for me that would not be there, had I chosen to continue to freelance.
There are locomotives available for the N.P. However, I find them to be more expensive than I am willing to pay, so I am constantly on the lookout for very good deals, rare!
I also understand the many good reasons for freelancing and think these reasons are as valid today, as they ever where! You can buy any piece of equipment you want, decorate it for your freelanced railroad and have exactly what you want. I think that is fun and pretty cool!
In the end, I don't care one way or the other the direction this hobby might be taking, as I'm in this for my own pleasure and don't "Give a rat's patoot" what others think, say; or, do! I also don't care if the hobby press has a lean to one side; or, the other. If I can find a use for information the magazines have printed, I will use it!
I like to build models and would prefer to build my locomotives from kits, if they were still available. I don't buy RTR freight; or, passenger cars, as I simply want the pleasure of building them myself. My one true objection to any direction being taken by the hobby is a move away from "Building Models"!
Another reason why there is more prototype based modeling going on is that there is so much more prototype information available. Things like the Morning Sun color books that focus on a given road's freight and passenger cars were unthinkable years ago. The internet has also made available a wealth of material, including wonderful photo archives. It is the rare rail-served city or town that does not have some sort of photo coverage these days. The research necessary to do a prototype based layout has become not just possible but ever more enjoyable.
The reasons for the Wisconsin bias in MR back in the day is that Paul Larson was an avid scratchbuilder, probably the best craftsman ever to be editor of MR, and as I understand it nearly every weekend he was driving around Wisconsin looking for projects. By the way there were also plenty of Wisconsin based articles and photos in Railroad Model Craftsman when Russ Porter, and then Paul Larson, wrote for RMC. Gordon Odegaard and Jim Hediger continued the Wisconsin link with their photos and projects for MR
The early days of Trains magazine had the same emphasis because Al Kalmbach and Linn Westcott were taking many of the photos for the articles.
And don't look now but an awful lot of the Walthers structures are things found in Wisconsin because the Walthers product development guys also go for weekend jaunts.
With Kalmbach and Walthers both being Wisconsin based, and with the NMRA being formed in Milwaukee, the Wisconsin element should not be surprising at all.
Dave Nelson
There are still a lot of modelers who "build what they like", but you are right - they don't appear as often in the major magazines. The editors do have a "slant" to what they want to see in their magazines, somewhat based on preferences, somewhat to support the advertisers and somewhat for sales appeal. MR has pushed advances in electronics and controls since Lynn Wescott's days, sometimes subtle, sometime quite overt. I think the magazine wants to be a trend setter in the hobby and right now the trends are DCC and closer-to-prototype models. It's not just the magazines though, the customers must have a "push" for prototype models and info otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't be selling their products. For a manufacturer it had t0 be easier in "the old days". Irv Athearn marketed the same generic 40' boxcar for fifty years in different paint schemes - no new tooling required. Personally I like the current trends but there will still be room for creativity and imagination.
There is still room