My new layout, set in 1954, will have an automobile assembly plant, blending fiction with history, TUCKER MOTORS.
Wayne, I too would like to explore the idea of a GERN plant here in the Mid Atlantic.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So, regarding Kevin's opening post, freelancing did seem more popular years ago. But I think the reasons varied as much as the individuals. For some it was likely a way to overcome the lack specific models, but for others I think it was just like today, a creative outlet rather than being completely restricted by history. Personally, I am a protolance guy. I want very much for you to believe the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, and its connections to the B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND. But I fully appreciate what Kevin does as well. In fact I am very proud to have some STRATON AND GILLETTE equipment on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL as well as equipment from a number of other well known freelanced layouts past and present. I've been at this hobby since 1968, several times I considered a prototype only approach, and I have to say, the closest I could ever get was freelanced locations with trains that said B&O. I think more people go the prototype route today because they can. The wider selection of reasonably accurate well detailed RTR models makes that more possible. But I model the WESTERN MARYLAND, I still don't see any WESTERN MARYLAND passenger cars on the RTR market, or a reasonably correct Pacific to pull them from a non brass manufacturer. I guess you still have to be a paint and lettering modeler to model the WM. About the same as being a freelancer.... Would I do it all over? Based on product availability concerns, I'm not sure I would even get into this hobby if I had to start over, let alone freelance. But I already have a lifetime supply of stuff to build, stuff already built, etc. Sure, I will buy more as my new layout gets underway, but unlike some, I have no interest in "upgrading" 50 years worth of collecting and building with new expensive models built by someone else. To be clear, I do buy my share of RTR, but I also still build and run kits that are as old as I am, or older. Happily stuck in a fantasy version of the Mid Atlantic in September 1954. Sheldon
So, regarding Kevin's opening post, freelancing did seem more popular years ago. But I think the reasons varied as much as the individuals.
For some it was likely a way to overcome the lack specific models, but for others I think it was just like today, a creative outlet rather than being completely restricted by history.
Personally, I am a protolance guy. I want very much for you to believe the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, and its connections to the B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND.
But I fully appreciate what Kevin does as well. In fact I am very proud to have some STRATON AND GILLETTE equipment on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL as well as equipment from a number of other well known freelanced layouts past and present.
I've been at this hobby since 1968, several times I considered a prototype only approach, and I have to say, the closest I could ever get was freelanced locations with trains that said B&O.
I think more people go the prototype route today because they can. The wider selection of reasonably accurate well detailed RTR models makes that more possible.
But I model the WESTERN MARYLAND, I still don't see any WESTERN MARYLAND passenger cars on the RTR market, or a reasonably correct Pacific to pull them from a non brass manufacturer.
I guess you still have to be a paint and lettering modeler to model the WM. About the same as being a freelancer....
Would I do it all over? Based on product availability concerns, I'm not sure I would even get into this hobby if I had to start over, let alone freelance.
But I already have a lifetime supply of stuff to build, stuff already built, etc.
Sure, I will buy more as my new layout gets underway, but unlike some, I have no interest in "upgrading" 50 years worth of collecting and building with new expensive models built by someone else.
To be clear, I do buy my share of RTR, but I also still build and run kits that are as old as I am, or older.
Happily stuck in a fantasy version of the Mid Atlantic in September 1954.
My philosophy is similar to yours. My layout features a fictional railroad and the modeled portion represents fictional towns. My staging yards are my connection to the real world as it existed in 1956. They represent real location and interchangews with real railroads. My railroad is fictional but I want it to seem plausible as if it could have existed. What I envision is very similar to what would have happened if the Lackawanna and NYO&W had merged. For that reason, none of their equipment will ever show up on my layout. The main trunk runs from northern New Jersey to Buffalo with major branches to the upstate cities of Utica, Syracuse, and Rochester.
The reason I chose to free lance is because I couldn't find a real railroad that incorporated everything I wanted. The NYO&W appealed to me because they ran relatively short freight trains due to the lack of online customers. To a large extent it was a bridge route. I wanted to the 1950s with both steam and diesel and lots of passenger trains. Probably too many. The NYO&W dieselized early on and were out of the passenger business by the early 1950s. Creating my own reality allowed me to create my own reality.
Like you, I'm not sure I would get in this hobby if I had to do all over again. I certainly wouldn't have made the investment in time and money that I have. Maybe I would get involved on a much smaller scale. I'm often frustrated by the overall lack of quality in the merchandise being sold. There are companies that sell high quality products but there are far too many peddling junk and some of the junk is being sold at premium prices. I won't name names so as not to start a flame war, but there are a number of companies whose products I simply won't buy anymore because I have gotten very poor quality from them in the past. If I pay a high end price, I expect high end quality and if I don't get that, they won't get my money again.
John-NYBW Like you, I'm not sure I would get in this hobby if I had to do all over again. I certainly wouldn't have made the investment in time and money that I have. Maybe I would get involved on a much smaller scale. I'm often frustrated by the overall lack of quality in the merchandise being sold. There are companies that sell high quality products but there are far too many peddling junk and some of the junk is being sold at premium prices. I won't name names so as not to start a flame war, but there are a number of companies whose products I simply won't buy anymore because I have gotten very poor quality from them in the past. If I pay a high end price, I expect high end quality and if I don't get that, they won't get my money again.
John,
I like your layout premise, very well thought out.
I do have a question for you, and would be happy to discuss it by private message if you prefer.
Having worked in this industry in the past, and having been at this hobby for about 50 years, I am always curious to understand what expectations of quality people have, and what they are happy or unhappy with.
Without commenting on price, I find most of the quality to be what I need or expect, so I am interested in your experiances.
On another point, if I could not be in this hobby on the moderately large scale that I am now, I would just put a few favorite models on a shelf and move on to something else.
I know my own interests well enough, if I cannot run a 35 car mainline train, over a reasonable distance, I would simply loose interest.
While I like switching, and love building the models, running realistic mainline trains is my real passion in this.
I have my own fictional railroads over the years. One that stands out is the Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio Railway which was created in 2002 and continues to be worked on to this day.
The paint scheme is simple in the 1960s and 70s with blue paint and white lettering. The handrails can be gray or yellow and a red sill. My freight car logos are designed nicely and somewhat complicated. I'm not good at paint shop software on the computer.
Most of my reality is that I know that the G.N.O.R. will might or never get made. But if I decorate a few freight cars on my existing future NYC/CR layout. I'll be happy that my railroad exist in some form.
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
The OP's premise is that a free-lancing requires decals, undecorated cars and locomotives, etc - even though no particular geogrpahy or location or theme is specified - to make a plausible free-lance model railroad.
I disagree. If you define a free-lance model railroad as modeling an imaginary railroad, what is required depends on the support you want to give your imagination. If it's painted and lettered locomotives and rolling stock that helps your imagination that's great. Others find the back story, or scenery appropriate for the locale gving them the desired support for their modeling efforts.
To me, model railroading is the journey, not the end result. So I am making very slow progress on actual modeling, but having a great time imagining it. I started by imagining my prototype, and now am making decisions as to how to model it. Sometimes, the modeling will drive me to change my imaginary prototype, but mostly the imagined prototype drives my modeling. But most of my LDE's came from portions of or entire model track plans that I really liked instead of prototypes.
I had 2 starting points - the first was a transcontinental wanna-be that never became more than a short line - the Picture Gorge and Western, because I was fascinated by my first experience with Eastern Oregon. My plan was to advance in time, perhaps 5 years for every actual year, starting in 1870, once the initial layout was completed. That never happened. Ah, the dreams of youth. Later, not knowing about the real Oregon Pacific at the time, I essentially duplicated the vision, except that Tillamook Bay was the Pacific port instead of Newport.
The second starting point was my fascination with both standard and narrow gauge. I was looking for a way to justify my HOn3 version of the Gum Stump & Snowshoe. I started with the concept as a narrow gauge feeder to a standard gauge short line - the lower yard being the transfer point. Then while living in Northern California, I became fascinated with dog hole schooners and logging. I re-imagined the GS&S as an HOn3 logging line with the lower yard as a dog hole port. The saw mill and standard gauge interchange would be located elsewhere.
Scouring my topo maps and learning the history of the South coast of Oregon, I saw Port Orford as my dog hole harbor that would justify the switchback down to the docks. Port Orford cedar was/is highly valued, both in Japan and California, and brought (and brings) a significant premium over redwood. Now I had the justification for the dog hole schooners making the extra distance to Port Orford. Era was determined by the conversion from sail to steam for the ships, and the desire to have knuckle couplers. So 1900 was selected.
I moved the standard gauge PG&W south to use Coos Bay as the Pacific port, and the interchange between the 2 to be inland. PG&W only got as far as the Oregon and California (never taken over by SP in my world), and so I had my imaginary short line.
In today's HO (and HOn3), there is a real dearth of plastic small and/or 1900-era and earlier steam locomotives. So I've bought NOS MDC and Mantua kits and a couple of brass pieces. Until I get the locomotives built/rebuilt and chipped, decals aren't a big deal.
Cars are really pretty easy if I'm willing to buy and build wood kits. Here decals become a little more important, but that's in the near future. AHM, Mantua, MDC, and Bachmann all made cheap plastic versions of truss rod cars which can be redetailed and repainted to look a lot better.
Buildings - there are plenty of wood kits that are suitable, although prices are getting pretty high.
Since I'm free-lancing, I don't have to have Floquil paints to match a particular prototype. Mix the colors I like from available paints. If it changes slightly as paint brands change - that would be prototypical.
I have no regrets, and I'm just not into strict prototype modeling.
Fred W
fwrightThe OP's premise is that a free-lancing requires decals, undecorated cars and locomotives, etc - even though no particular geogrpahy or location or theme is specified - to make a plausible free-lance model railroad. I disagree. If you define a free-lance model railroad as modeling an imaginary railroad, what is required depends on the support you want to give your imagination.
Fred: I have seen "freelanced" railroads where there were zero freight cars lettered for the home road, and the locomotives were "leased" from the NORTHERN PACIFIC or something.
That does not do it for me, it just seems like the builder liked the NORTHERN PACIFIC paint scheme, but wanted to model the Louisiana Swampland, so pieced everything together and made an excuse to run whatever he collected.
That of course is fine, but not for me.
To me, building a freelanced railroad means to actually build something that looks like a railroad. In my case I model a small part of a major Class A railroad, so I need a lot of equipment to pull it off and make the illusion acceptable.
Others are modeling small local routes, but again, have a collection of equipment that makes the point of what they are modelling.
If you are happy with what you are doing, that is all that matters, but the vast majority of free-lancers have created their own roadname, and want at least a small fleet to represent it.
That will require decals and undecorated models, or as others have pointed out, the willingness to remove paint or paint over a factory paint job.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 fwright The OP's premise is that a free-lancing requires decals, undecorated cars and locomotives, etc - even though no particular geogrpahy or location or theme is specified - to make a plausible free-lance model railroad. I disagree. If you define a free-lance model railroad as modeling an imaginary railroad, what is required depends on the support you want to give your imagination. Fred: I have seen "freelanced" railroads where there were zero freight cars lettered for the home road, and the locomotives were "leased" from the NORTHERN PACIFIC or something. That does not do it for me, it just seems like the builder liked the NORTHERN PACIFIC paint scheme, but wanted to model the Louisiana Swampland, so pieced everything together and made an excuse to run whatever he collected. That of course is fine, but not for me. To me, building a freelanced railroad means to actually build something that looks like a railroad. In my case I model a small part of a major Class A railroad, so I need a lot of equipment to pull it off and make the illusion acceptable. Others are modeling small local routes, but again, have a collection of equipment that makes the point of what they are modelling. If you are happy with what you are doing, that is all that matters, but the vast majority of free-lancers have created their own roadname, and want at least a small fleet to represent it. That will require decals and undecorated models, or as others have pointed out, the willingness to remove paint or paint over a factory paint job. -Kevin
fwright The OP's premise is that a free-lancing requires decals, undecorated cars and locomotives, etc - even though no particular geogrpahy or location or theme is specified - to make a plausible free-lance model railroad. I disagree. If you define a free-lance model railroad as modeling an imaginary railroad, what is required depends on the support you want to give your imagination.
I agree with you. After years of running foreign road rolling stock and undecorated locos, I finally made the plunge into decaling for my home road. I had dabbled with a few locos and cabeese but I finally went all in over the weekend. I got a number of boxcars and a few locos lettered. My railroad is largely a bridge carrier so having lots of foreign rolling stock makes sense but I really need more home road rolling stock.
Eventually I'll need to add even more home road rolling stock. With boxcars, I can just paint over the shell of some of the foreign roads and add decals. I also discovered some long forgotten Nickel Plate coal hoppers. It's a set of five with all different numbers. All I need to do is take some flat black paint, paint over the road name, and add my own decals.
I had a dozen unlettered boxcars, 6 Bowser and 6 Athearn. The bows came with the data portion already on so I only had to supply the roadname and number. After trial and error process, I thought I had the background color of my decals matched perfectly to the color of the Bowser boxcars but when I went to print on the decal paper, it came out a couple shades darker than what he looked like on plain paper. I've found I can disguise the difference in shades with weathering. I have to say as was very impressed with Bowser's boxcars. The roll extremely smoothly with the wheels included in the kit. Normal I replace the plastic wheels with metal but that proved to be unnecessary with these.
The Athearns had to be painted and are a little lighter than the Bowswer boxcars. I haven't decaled them yet but I think I'll print another sheet of decals with a much lighter shade for the background color. I also bought a sheet of data decals although parts of them are so small and they are against a light blue background that it's hard to even see them to cut them. I'm saving that project for another day. Today, I'm going to decal my passenger cars, a few locos, and the rest of my cabeese. .
ATLANTIC CENTRALMy new layout, set in 1954, will have an automobile assembly plant, blending fiction with history, TUCKER MOTORS.
Would the body style be updated from the 1948 original? Even better... would Tucker have added a wagon? This could be a really neat resin casting project.
John-NYBWThe bows came with the data portion already on so I only had to supply the roadname and number. After trial and error process, I thought I had the background color of my decals matched perfectly to the color of the Bowser boxcars but when I went to print on the decal paper, it came out a couple shades darker than what he looked like on plain paper. I
The only "Data Only" cars I have been happy with are the ones where the data is printed in black. Accurail yellow refrigerated boxcars and Red Caboose silver tank cars are like this.
For most of the Non-SGRR cars I paint, I have started using data from some prototype decal sets.
There is a lot of variety in the real world with the way data is applied to rolling stock. Plus, if I follow the placement instructions on the decal sheet I have a pretty good chance of getting it right.
My premise will be that like CHECKER, TUCKER did not change body styles often. I have some resin TUCKER '48s to build, but that they also added other models and body styles.
Yes, it is a side project I have in mind to create some cars.......
Just like they were advanced with the '48 car, in 1954 they are ahead of the pack in offering cars of different sizes and models.
Being a car guy, and a CHECKER guy as well, on paper many years ago I created CHECKER convertibles, two door wagons, etc., sure I can do something interesting with the TUCKER.
To build a wagon TUCKER might have needed to reconsider the rear engine thing, and may have actually come up with a practical car like the CHECKER A8, which was still 8 years way in 1948.
I have also considered calling it CONSOLIDATED MOTORS - home of TUCKER and CHECKER.......or COMMONWEALTH MOTORS, one of the orginal companies that became CHECKER.
I'm gong to stretch history a few years there too, I have plenty of ATHEARN A8 CHECKERS.
And if you think a merger of TUCKER and CHECKER seems unlikely, think again. The are several historical facts linking TUCKER and CHECKER.
In the 30's CHECKER was partly owned by Pierre Du Pont's car company, Aulburn-Cord-Duesenberg (A-C-D), which also owned Lycoming who was making engines for CHECKER.
Alex Tremulis who designed the TUCKER came from A-C-D and the TUCKER 48 used the CORD self shifting 4 speed transmission.
So the two companies were linked by both people and engineering.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...Wayne, I too would like to explore the idea of a GERN plant here in the Mid Atlantic.
Hi Sheldon, I've sent you a PM in regards to your comment.
Wayne
The '30s Checker was hands-down one of the best-looking automobiles of the mid-Thirties -- never mind that it was a bespoke taxicab of delightful robust construction. Why more isn't made of that car I don't really know.
It could easily be said that they made a mistake NOT retooling their large postwar car right around the time of the Tucker -- perhaps as the less-exciting but still groundbreaking large taxi version using the construction methods and safety features; there was certainly room in that plant to do it. THAT would have been memorable, in the brief age of very large torpedo postwar cars before the industry went to boring shoeboxes and then three-boxes. Checker restyled just in time to be stodgy, before the lower look came in after '58, and then had to stay stodgy forever... inagine if they had redone their chassis and body system just a couple of years later, using the modern welding techniques of unibody together with the strength of hydroformed box frame... with style. They had the corporate 'bones' to prove it could be done. And if anyone could protect Preston Tucker from GM weaselry, Mr. DuPont would have qualified...
The Tucker 'wagon' would have been better as a kind of mini-bus, with the engine arranged as rear-midengine, flat under a raised floor like a Hall-Scott bus engine if not horizontally-opposed (and a big raised, almost walk-in trunk for the whole rear). See the contemporary late-40s interstate buses for some of the applicable design language. Start the VW-bus revolution a decade earlier, with something far more stable and perhaps economical ... and easily converted to a taxi-style vehicle or sedan delivery, too...
Is freelancing basically anything but pure prototype? Most of us, then, qualify as freelancers. I have a freelance public transit system and a freelance carfloat system, but really, my railroad runs Milwaukee equipment, my cabeese are Milwaukee and I have a lot of home-road boxcars.
Ok, I have a few oddball rolling stock pieces, like a salt hopper and a couple of ice- bunker reefers, but I don't think of myself as a freelancer. I'm just a model railroader.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I created my freelance Millvale Valley around 1962 and have lettered many cars using alphabet decals. While working for Chessie System I decided that I would like to model their equipment including the B&O, C&O, and WM. Thus the MV was taken over by the Chessie System. Now I can use Chessie decals and can convert the WM initials to MV.
If I ever get around to building a layout I will probably model ex Millvale Valley territory since it is very hard to model prototype scenes that you are familiar with convincely in the space available for even large layouts.
Mark Vinski
Overmod The '30s Checker was hands-down one of the best-looking automobiles of the mid-Thirties -- never mind that it was a bespoke taxicab of delightful robust construction. Why more isn't made of that car I don't really know. It could easily be said that they made a mistake NOT retooling their large postwar car right around the time of the Tucker -- perhaps as the less-exciting but still groundbreaking large taxi version using the construction methods and safety features; there was certainly room in that plant to do it. THAT would have been memorable, in the brief age of very large torpedo postwar cars before the industry went to boring shoeboxes and then three-boxes. Checker restyled just in time to be stodgy, before the lower look came in after '58, and then had to stay stodgy forever... inagine if they had redone their chassis and body system just a couple of years later, using the modern welding techniques of unibody together with the strength of hydroformed box frame... with style. They had the corporate 'bones' to prove it could be done. And if anyone could protect Preston Tucker from GM weaselry, Mr. DuPont would have qualified... The Tucker 'wagon' would have been better as a kind of mini-bus, with the engine arranged as rear-midengine, flat under a raised floor like a Hall-Scott bus engine if not horizontally-opposed (and a big raised, almost walk-in trunk for the whole rear). See the contemporary late-40s interstate buses for some of the applicable design language. Start the VW-bus revolution a decade earlier, with something far more stable and perhaps economical ... and easily converted to a taxi-style vehicle or sedan delivery, too... And then there's Tucker's answer to the Chrysler Town and Country -- but with the technique of the Labordeur skiffs...that could be the best woodie of all time...
I had that thought too, to build a wagon around the rear engine TUCKER driveline would require it to be more of a van.
The Checker A8 thru A12 cars were "stodgy" no question, but the utility of the design was hard to beat, with the wagon being almost magical in its ability to carry 4x8 lumber with the tailgate up.....
Yes, CHECKERS from the 30's were styling art of the highest order, a shame virtually none survived.
Yes, the CHECKER A8-12 cars would have benefited from a stronger, tighter body, but as designed the relatively light body on the heavy truck like frame allowed the car to be upright and roomy while still having a reasonable center of gravity for handling that was respectable for a car of its size and era. It was also a light weight design for its size and roomyness, which made the 6 cylinder fuel economy rather good.
The original A8 cab only weighed about 3400 lbs, and even after crash bumpers, safety steering columns, internal door braces and V8's the last of the fully loaded A12 Marathons were still around 4,000 lbs. My FLEX weighs in at 4850.........
The 6 cylinder Marthon wagon I owned never got less than 20 mpg city, even if you drove it with brick on the gas pedal. And unless you tried to go 80, it would provide about 28 mpg on the highway.
The several small block V8 Checkers I owned also easily exceeded 20 mpg on the highway.
Except for building a few staff cars, Checker mostly build those trailers pulled behind jeeps and 2-1/2 ton trucks during the war. Not sure how well positioned they were at the end of the war? Getting anything back in production may have been very important for them.
Also, the design of the A-8 was largely driven by new taxi regulations in New York and Chicago requiring cabs to have shorter wheelbases. Before the war, those big classy CHECKERS had 127", and sometimes longer, wheelbases. New regulations in the 50's said new cabs could not exceed 120" in an attempt to releave traffic issues.
So the A8 thru A12 cars were an exercise in building the roomyist possible car on a 120" wheelbase. To this day I don't think any vehicle meets that goal any better.
Yes, with somebody like DuPont in the picture the TUCKER story might have been rather different. From what I have read, GM and Chrysler feared TUCKER, but FORD on the other hand welcomed the competitor and made parts for them.
FORD was also friendly to CHECKER, lending them their full size car front suspension design for the A8-A12 cars. That's right, what does a 1956 thru 1982 CHECKER have in common with a 55 thru 57 Thunderbird and a 49/50 Lincoln, and few other FORD products?, the entire front suspension.
CHECKER also used the BorgWarner version of the FORD FMX three speed automatic transmission, until costs and government regulations drove them to GM not only for engines but for brakes, steering wheels/columns, and transmissions.
MisterBeasley Is freelancing basically anything but pure prototype? Most of us, then, qualify as freelancers. I have a freelance public transit system and a freelance carfloat system, but really, my railroad runs Milwaukee equipment, my cabeese are Milwaukee and I have a lot of home-road boxcars. Ok, I have a few oddball rolling stock pieces, like a salt hopper and a couple of ice- bunker reefers, but I don't think of myself as a freelancer. I'm just a model railroader.
Well, I guess everyone will define it differently.
But in my opinion, if I run locos, caboose, and passenger cars that say B&O, even if my track plan or scenery does not make any attempt to model specific places on the B&O, but is more "generic", that is not freelance modeling.
That is simply modeling the B&O with artistic license.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL MisterBeasley Is freelancing basically anything but pure prototype? Most of us, then, qualify as freelancers. I have a freelance public transit system and a freelance carfloat system, but really, my railroad runs Milwaukee equipment, my cabeese are Milwaukee and I have a lot of home-road boxcars. Ok, I have a few oddball rolling stock pieces, like a salt hopper and a couple of ice- bunker reefers, but I don't think of myself as a freelancer. I'm just a model railroader. Well, I guess everyone will define it differently. But in my opinion, if I run locos, caboose, and passenger cars that say B&O, even if my track plan or scenery does not make any attempt to model specific places on the B&O, but is more "generic", that is not freelance modeling. That is simply modeling the B&O with artistic license. Sheldon
But, I continue to ask myself, what is prototypical and what is freelance. Thanks to the need for selective compression, my layout is based upon the prototype, but it doesn't totally and accurately reflect the prototype because I lack the necessary space to do so. So, what am I really doing? Is my layout prototypical, freelanced, or something in between?
Take someone who has a 4x8 layout, or an 8x12 layout who is modeling the Santa Fe, using only Santa Fe equipment from a specific era. Does that layout look anything like the Santa Fe railroad? Not really, because there isn't the space to really simulate the prototype. Give me a 100' x 100' outbuilding, and I will duplicate what I am currently trying to model without any selective compression.
Rich
Alton Junction
Rich,
One of the older definitions of the word "freelance" is "independent", or "without allegiance".
As in this case no allegiance to a prototype railroad that existed or an actual place.
It is a given that even the largest layouts will require selective compression. My view, and the historical use of the word in this hobby, suggests that most any attempt to follow, or have "allegiance" to an actual railroad prototype make you not a freelance modeler.
In my case I am both, in addition to the ATLANTIC CENTRAL I model the B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND, as closely as is practical and blending them into the fiction of the ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
I consider you a pretty serious prototype modeler, just like my friend here who's 1800 sq ft, double decked layout only tries to model the short stretch of the PRR mainline as it passes thru the Baltimore metro area.
But even a 4x8, with western scenery, and Santa Fe equipment is making some attempt to bring the spirit of that railroad to the modeling.
And then we have the revised term "protolance" and maybe the more liberties we take, the more that term applies? But that term originated as freelance modelers tried to make their "fiction" more believable? Like I do with carefully thought out engine rosters and equipment choices, regionally correct scenery, etc.
Guys, You can "protolance" a prototype.. I've done it several times with my last Slate Creek ISL. When I used my CR engines it became 22nd St industrial lead. When I used my CSX engines it became Proctor Ave Industrial park, on the SCL it was simply Atlantic Industrial Park and when I used my NS engines it became 17th St industrial lead. I doubt if any of those places exist beyond my imagination.
I take great care in planing my freelance railroads.. Let's look at Slate Creek Rail.. SCR is loosely based on Progressive Rail's Airlake industrial park operation. While I did not invent Summerset Ry. I still took great care in planing its rhyme and reason for being and thus it follows PR's Airlake operation just like SCR..
To my mind a freelance railroad needs to be believable including selection of cars,locomotives and those need to be era correct. Prime examples would be the AM,V&O,Maumee Route and the Utah Belt.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
BRAKIE To my mind a freelance railroad needs to be believable including selection of cars,locomotives and those need to be era correct.
To my mind a freelance railroad needs to be believable including selection of cars,locomotives and those need to be era correct.
richhotrain BRAKIE To my mind a freelance railroad needs to be believable including selection of cars,locomotives and those need to be era correct. If the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance. Rich
If the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance.
I would agree, the more important "believability" is, the more it is protolance modeling.
My best example, there are no Big Boy's lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL. It is a western design made for open country, not the winding river valley trackage of the Ohio Valley or Appalachia.
Eastern locos generally had to be more nimble. When eastern roads wanted Big Boy kind of power and speed, we got the N&W Class A and the C&O Allegheny with their much shorter engine wheelbase, higher axle loading, and ability to maintain medium speeds on winding trackage.
richhotrainIf the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance.
They don't have to be era correct, I suppose, but it probably helps to create a better sense of realism, than, f'rinstance, a teakettle steamer shuffling well-cars carrying containers, and auto-racks with a FRED on the last car.
If your layout is freelanced, and you've chosen to put it in a particular year or era, shouldn't the cars and locomotives be appropriate for that era, even if none of them represent a real railroad?
That said, I model the late '30s, with prototype roadnames and and era-appropriate equipment, but while all of my freelance roads have equipment suitable to the era, too, I have some that are era-appropriate only because my road designed and built them long before the real railroads even realised that such cars could be useful - despite what common sense might dictate, I'm the owner, and I sez that's the way it is!!
doctorwayne richhotrain If the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance. They don't have to be era correct, I suppose, but it probably helps to create a better sense of realism, than, f'rinstance, a teakettle steamer shuffling well-cars carrying containers, and auto-racks with a FRED on the last car. If your layout is freelanced, and you've chosen to put it in a particular year or era, shouldn't the cars and locomotives be appropriate for that era, even if none of them represent a real railroad? That said, I model the late '30s, with prototype roadnames and and era-appropriate equipment, but while all of my freelance roads have equipment suitable to the era, too, I have some that are era-appropriate only because my road designed and built them long before the real railroads even realised that such cars could be useful - despite what common sense might dictate, I'm the owner, and I sez that's the way it is!! Wayne
richhotrain If the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance.
doctorwayneIf your layout is freelanced, and you've chosen to put it in a particular year or era, shouldn't the cars and locomotives be appropriate for that era, even if none of them represent a real railroad?
YES!
That is why I have chosen such a specific date for my layout. I have a "devil-may-care" attitude about a lot of things, but the date is rigid.
richhotrainIf the selection of cars and locomotives need to be era correct, that sure doesn't seem like freelance to me. It sounds more like a form of protolance. Rich
Rich, Allow me to explain.. One can freely run any era cars he/she chooses that is no means freelancing.
Freelancing is not protolancing.. Freelancing is like the V&O,AM,Utah Belt and the Maumee Route. You invent a railroad following prototype gudelines.
Again let's look at my SSRy or SCR in 94/95. You will look in vain for a 40' boxcar,40' gon or a IPD boxcar. There will be N&W,Southern NS,CSX,CR BN,WC and other roads that fit the era. You will see a C&NW,MP,SP,Soo B&M, AA, D&TSL and Cotton Belt since those cars was still being seen as late as 94/95. Some is still seen today.
Protolancing is when I use one of my CSX,NS or CR units and call Slate Creek by another name. Its generic modeling of a prototype that has no real location..
This is an interesting thread in the sense that it tries to categorize layouts based upon the extent to which the modeler adheres to the actual prototype railroads.
So, if freelance is another category, side-by side with prototypical and protolance, what about the modeler who builds a layout with complete disregard for prototype and era, who mixes railroads that never ran on the same tracks or even within the same geographic area? I have been referring to those layouts as "freelance", but apparently, that is not how others think about those 'anything goes' layouts.
How about faux-lance?
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
richhotrain This is an interesting thread in the sense that it tries to categorize layouts based upon the extent to which the modeler adheres to the actual prototype railroads. So, if freelance is another category, side-by side with prototypical and protolance, what about the modeler who builds a layout with complete disregard for prototype and era, who mixes railroads that never ran on the same tracks or even within the same geographic area? I have been referring to those layouts as "freelance", but apparently, that is not how others think about those 'anything goes' layouts. Rich
Here in the Mid Atlantic we just call that a "train garden" or "Christmas Garden" as it is a long standing tradition here to set up model train displays for Christmas.
Often such displays make no effort at era or historical context.
But that's not even model railroading......
- Douglas
richhotrainThis is an interesting thread in the sense that it tries to categorize layouts based upon the extent to which the modeler adheres to the actual prototype railroads.
That was not my intent when I opened this thread.
But since it went that way... Freelanced railroads, TO ME, are when a significant railroad is just made up, and then modeled. Magnificent examples are the ALLEGHENY MIDLAND (my favorite), MAUMEE, or UTAH BELT. There are countless other fantastic freelanced railroads that have been featured in one-off articles in the model railroad press.
I did not want to discuss all the various morphations that exist in the spectrum between freelance and prototype modeling.
I wanted to discuss what a modeller would need to do different today than what I had to do 35 years ago when I created the STRATTON AND GILLETTE, because it is an entirely different market out there now.
I am pretty sure I would not be a freelance modeller with today's availablility of products.
Conversations happen, and topics evolve, and that is OK.
richhotrainWhat about the modeler who builds a layout with complete disregard for prototype and era, who mixes railroads that never ran on the same tracks or even within the same geographic area?
I do not consider that to be freelancing, but anyone should do whatever they want to in order to enjoy their model trains.
I have known many people that ran anything they wanted with no regard to era or location, and that should be encouraged if that brings them happiness.