Paul3There's one big problem with your idea of having a generic coach available in "any" paint scheme...namely, there was well over 150 Class I railroads. How many is "any"? All of them?
Well, hang on a minute. There aren't 150 railroads to worry about. Vast chunks were paper railroads, subsidiaries, wouldn't have owned the specific category of railcar, or exited the passenger business early.
NittanyLion Paul3 There's one big problem with your idea of having a generic coach available in "any" paint scheme...namely, there was well over 150 Class I railroads. How many is "any"? All of them? Well, hang on a minute. There aren't 150 railroads to worry about. Vast chunks were paper railroads, subsidiaries, wouldn't have owned the specific category of railcar, or exited the passenger business early.
Paul3 There's one big problem with your idea of having a generic coach available in "any" paint scheme...namely, there was well over 150 Class I railroads. How many is "any"? All of them?
Well, maybe 150, maybe not, but a review of some NMRA data sheet info, D9h.1, lists 79 lines that offered passenger service as of August 1954. There is nothing in that info to suggest it is a complete list. It is simply a list of major carriers, their official names, heralds, track mileage, and indication of freght, passenger or both.
Sure, even some pretty major freight carriers had minimal passenger service. The Western Maryland only had coaches, combines, baggage, RPO's and two private company cars.
But Paul is right, it would be massive for manufacturers to make "every roadname", even on generic cars.
ConCor has 32 different paint schemes currently listed on their 72' streamliners, they use to have at least a dozen more schemes.
And as I keep saying, much of the nations passenger fleet were designs built in very limited quantities, often a quantity of one......
If you count all reporting marks of cars in interchange service, there were way more than 150 railroad "companies" prior to the 60's mergers. Clearly not all those represented passenger carriers.
But in any case, it's a lot more than a dozen or two.....
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But Paul is right, it would be massive for manufacturers to make "every roadname", even on generic cars.
Alton Junction
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL But Paul is right, it would be massive for manufacturers to make "every roadname", even on generic cars. Sure, it would be massive for manufacturers to "make" every roadname. But, wouldn't there be some way to have paint schemes "available" to make a small run of a specific railroad upon demand?
Sure, it would be massive for manufacturers to "make" every roadname. But, wouldn't there be some way to have paint schemes "available" to make a small run of a specific railroad upon demand?
Back in the day, when stuff was still made here, companies like BevBel, Bowser, and others bought undecorated Athearn passenger cars bulk and lettered them for less popular roads or simply paint schemes Athearn did not make.
But again, a generic shorter car with minimal detail.
I will use the B&O for example, from 1930 to 1968 the B&O had at least five different passenger paint schemes depending on how you define them. In 1968 you could still find cars in all five paint schemes.......
Athearn only offered one scheme on each type of car, streamlined and heavyweight, and never really had them correct. So some of these schemes have been offered by others over the years.
The selection and correctness of B&O passenger cars is limited even today.
n012944 Doughless But in answering his questions, is it safe to say that the simple answer is , no, you don't wait for a manufacturer to build the correct models? At this point in my life, I do. I have scrathbuilt and kitbashed in the past, not anymore. I will add detail to a model that is lacking, but there is not the need for that as much in the past. Doughless You mentioned scratchbuilding, kitbashing, and selling previously purchased models when the producer makes an upgraded model (so you have purchased good enough versions that you now sell.) I still have some stuff that I once considered "good enough". When I was young, a 40' box car was a 40' box car. The internet has permitted me to research models before I buy them. So I still have a few Intermountain or Red Caboose stuff from the 90's that are not correct. They are being replaced. Doughless It sounds like you actually approach the hobby pretty mainstream; looking at the situation totally. Good to know, and I didn't really think that I was that far off of center.
Doughless But in answering his questions, is it safe to say that the simple answer is , no, you don't wait for a manufacturer to build the correct models?
But in answering his questions, is it safe to say that the simple answer is , no, you don't wait for a manufacturer to build the correct models?
At this point in my life, I do. I have scrathbuilt and kitbashed in the past, not anymore. I will add detail to a model that is lacking, but there is not the need for that as much in the past.
Doughless You mentioned scratchbuilding, kitbashing, and selling previously purchased models when the producer makes an upgraded model (so you have purchased good enough versions that you now sell.)
You mentioned scratchbuilding, kitbashing, and selling previously purchased models when the producer makes an upgraded model (so you have purchased good enough versions that you now sell.)
I still have some stuff that I once considered "good enough". When I was young, a 40' box car was a 40' box car. The internet has permitted me to research models before I buy them. So I still have a few Intermountain or Red Caboose stuff from the 90's that are not correct. They are being replaced.
Doughless It sounds like you actually approach the hobby pretty mainstream; looking at the situation totally.
It sounds like you actually approach the hobby pretty mainstream; looking at the situation totally.
Good to know, and I didn't really think that I was that far off of center.
Ok, so simply put, you still play with trains that you've collected in the past, but "upgrade" as the more detailed and accurate models are launched.
Its not like you're sitting at home for years with nothing at all until an RTR version of exactly what you want is built.
- Douglas
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut Paul is right, it would be massive for manufacturers to make "every roadname", even on generic cars.
Genericized PS-1 boxcars and PS-2 covered hoppers have even larger demands for "every road name" and that doesn't seem to slow anyone down.
I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands.
NittanyLion ATLANTIC CENTRAL But Paul is right, it would be massive for manufacturers to make "every roadname", even on generic cars. Genericized PS-1 boxcars and PS-2 covered hoppers have even larger demands for "every road name" and that doesn't seem to slow anyone down. I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands.
Well, being the age I am, and the era I model, I can't imagine trains without both passenger and freight operations, but I get what you are saying.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, being the age I am, and the era I model, I can't imagine trains without both passenger and freight operations, but I get what you are saying. Sheldon
Rich
NittanyLion I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands.
richhotrain...I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than "few and far between".
I agree, Rich. Over the years, I've had just over 100 passenger and head-end cars, and while many have been sold-off, I'm currently working on another 20-or-so....some for me and a few for a couple of friends, too.Some are semi-freelanced, while others are built to match particular prototypes, using photos of the real ones.
Wayne
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, being the age I am, and the era I model, I can't imagine trains without both passenger and freight operations, but I get what you are saying. Sheldon "Trains" or layouts? Rich
"Trains" or layouts?
Trains as in the hobby of model trains, so yes, the layout.
richhotrain NittanyLion I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands. A significant portion of my layout is devoted to passenger train operations. While, I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than "few and far between". Rich
A significant portion of my layout is devoted to passenger train operations. While, I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than "few and far between".
I suppose it depends on how you define "few." Lots of people have some passenger equipment. In fact, my layout is specifically designed to accomodate a 2 locomotive/11 car Amtrak Capitol Limited, despite being the only passenger train that it will ever see. Walthers definitely sells those name train sets. Seemingly every Santa Fe layout set in California seems to require an A-B-B-A set leading bi-level cars across the high desert.
But when you page through MR, how many passenger layouts do you see? Very, very few. And those tend to be skewed to the aforementioned Southern California desert or the North East Corridor. Those guys aren't buying generic. Neither are the collector-types that go for the full-up sets or the dyed-in-the-wool "I need an Empire Builder set for my Marias Pass layout." Passenger facilities are monsters that few have the space for, so it doesn't surprise me that few seem to have terminals on their layouts.
Doughless Ok, so simply put, you still play with trains that you've collected in the past, but "upgrade" as the more detailed and accurate models are launched. Its not like you're sitting at home for years with nothing at all until an RTR version of exactly what you want is built.
An "expensive model collector"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL Well, being the age I am, and the era I model, I can't imagine trains without both passenger and freight operations, but I get what you are saying. Sheldon "Trains" or layouts? Rich Trains as in the hobby of model trains, so yes, the layout. Sheldon
n012944 Doughless Ok, so simply put, you still play with trains that you've collected in the past, but "upgrade" as the more detailed and accurate models are launched. Its not like you're sitting at home for years with nothing at all until an RTR version of exactly what you want is built. Not really. Most of them are in boxes, I am not sure why I don't get rid of them until I have a replacement, I just don't. The amount left is not that large anyways. However, at this point in my life, I will not buy anything if it is not accurate. If someone doesn't make it, so be it.
Oh, the opposite then.
You don't run anything unless it is accurate.
And under this present method, you've accumulated enough equipment to run an accurate train with no significant gaps. Not a train that didn't exist in your prototype. Not a fantasy train.
Or do you build a "what if" train with only the accurate equipment you've presently accumulated?
Nevermind. I think I'll always be confused.
Paul3 willy6,As part of their overall business practice, ScaleTrains would much rather you buy from them directly. In this way, they can cut out the middleman wholesaler like Walthers, MB Klein, etc. and retailers like your local hobby shop in order keep that money for themselves.
willy6,As part of their overall business practice, ScaleTrains would much rather you buy from them directly. In this way, they can cut out the middleman wholesaler like Walthers, MB Klein, etc. and retailers like your local hobby shop in order keep that money for themselves.
[quote user="Doughless"]
Doughless Oh, the opposite then. You don't run anything unless it is accurate.
Correct.
Doughless And under this present method, you've accumulated enough equipment to run an accurate train with no significant gaps. Not a train that didn't exist in your prototype. Not a fantasy train.
Doughless Or do you build a "what if" train with only the accurate equipment you've presently accumulated?
It is 100% accurate as far as my knowledge.
Doughless Nevermind. I think I'll always be confused.
Not sure why, sorry to hear that.
NittanyLion richhotrain NittanyLion I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands. A significant portion of my layout is devoted to passenger train operations. While, I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than "few and far between". Rich I suppose it depends on how you define "few." Lots of people have some passenger equipment. In fact, my layout is specifically designed to accomodate a 2 locomotive/11 car Amtrak Capitol Limited, despite being the only passenger train that it will ever see. Walthers definitely sells those name train sets. Seemingly every Santa Fe layout set in California seems to require an A-B-B-A set leading bi-level cars across the high desert. But when you page through MR, how many passenger layouts do you see? Very, very few. And those tend to be skewed to the aforementioned Southern California desert or the North East Corridor. Those guys aren't buying generic. Neither are the collector-types that go for the full-up sets or the dyed-in-the-wool "I need an Empire Builder set for my Marias Pass layout." Passenger facilities are monsters that few have the space for, so it doesn't surprise me that few seem to have terminals on their layouts.
I must be way outside the mainstream......
My new layout, track plan posted earlier in this thread, will have a four track thru passenger terminal with tracks 15' long, and long enough off mainline approach tracks to handle trains even longer than 15'. The passenger terminal will have a small coach yard, access to the engine terminal and there will be four other local/commuter type small stations.
There is staging for about 34 trains total, roughly 12 of which will be passenger trains representing at least four railroads, ACR, B&O, C&O, and WESTERN MARYLAND.
And all the passenger train consists are freelanced/protolanced with many of the cars being ConCor and Athearn 72' shorties, some being full scale Bachmann and Branchline, Roundhouse 65' Harriman style, and others. Some are clearly "accurate" models. Just like the prototypes of my 1954 era, some trains will be as long as 12-15 cars, some will only be 4-6 cars, many will be about 10 cars.
There will also be commuter service provided by RDC's and doodlebugs. And the small city will have trolley buses, typical of this region in the early 50's.
The layout design also features extensive freight operations with a seven track freight yard able to handle trains over 22' long, and having an extensive industrial switching belt line separate from the mainline. Average freight trains will be 35 to 45 cars.
My layout is not set in the southwest or the northeast, but rather in the western part of the Mid Atlantic.
To make it even more out of the mainstream, it will be DC powered, have signals and CTC, use relays for the signal system, have ATC (automatic train control), and be set up to allow three types of operation - display, CTC, or walk around "tower" operation.
With wireless radio throttles......... and no onboard sound.
I think that breaks all the common stereotypes........
It's amusing the extent these forums go off topic, but Sheldon manages to top himself everytime.
After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it's very clear you've figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you're well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don't understand why you constantly try to talk about them. Are you trying to show them off? Are you trying to push your opinions onto others and get people to convert to DC wireless radio throttles and freelance their layout? Why do the same topics seem to get into every one of the forum threads that you take over?
Keep in mind this was about why scale trains products aren't as common as other manufacs in certain train stores. And now its...well...
I dont mean to be critical, but I hate seeing these threads always being locked up and sometimes even deleted due to the off topic and argumentative nature.
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
richhotrain,Limited runs are not really "discontinued", they are just run in batches. They are, in a sense, "discontinued" the second they are finished being manufactured.
I assume the high price for a Rapido Monon car is about what they are going for when auctioned. Otherwise, why bother to list it as "Buy it Now" at such a high price? So is it really "gouging", or just reflecting free market supply & demand?We also don't know how many Rapido made in the first place. Perhaps as few as 200 Monon cars were ever made by them (Jason has said in the past that that's their minimum per paint scheme).Sheldon, You know neither one of us are normally brief. More like we get paid by the word.RE: the twin 50' TOFC; my point is that by the early 1950s, railroads were already going away from twin vans on a 50' flat. Instead, they were focusing on single vans on 40' or 50' cars...until the 75' F39A's showed up.I think 24'-26' vans in TOFC service were getting pretty rare on the East Coast in the early 1950s. Things were quickly going to 32' and 35' vans.BTW, interchange of TOFC before TrailerTrain were almost unheard of. Deck heights, apron plates, rub-rail dimensions, tie-downs, etc. all varied. All NH TOFCs before 1957 were in captive service, for example. Not that it was impossible for a TOFC to end up on another road, but they probably never took the trailer off the flat car when they did so (and not in unit trains, that's for sure). Side door trailers were probably the way to go for such single-car moves. We have photo evidence that the REA sent such trailers to South Station in Boston on flats (and South Station certainly had no TOFC ramps).The Athearn caboose in NH colors, they sold that thing for decades. Someone was buying them. One of those someone's was me, back when I was 15 and just getting into the hobby (before I knew any better).About the question, what does one do for the stuff that has not been made? Either change what you do or make do with what's available. Some want to model a certain town, state or area. Some want to model equipment or a railroad. Each hobbyist must decide what's the most important thing to them. And perhaps this is why so many modelers switch railroads and even scales as their interests wax and wane.n012944,The Athearn twin van on flat car is kinda good for the 1930s-1940s NH 17200-series TOFCs except the NH cars were cast, not riveted, and the handbrake should be a stem winder type (they would drop out of the way when loading/unloading). The major issue is that the "rub rails" on the Athearn car are not in the pockets on the side of the car where they should be, but are instead on the deck itself. This makes the trailer quite narrow, and it should be around 8' wide.NittanyLion,Well, take a look at this list:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Class_I_railroads
By my count, there's 335 Class I's listed. I figured 150 would be a fair number out of those. With freight cars vs. passenger cars, to me the difference is stark and obvious. Passenger cars are like locos and cabooses; they set the scene. The presence of them tells the viewer exactly where and when you are (within reason). For example, put down some track on bare 4 x 8 plywood sheet. If you put a PRR GG-1 on it, you're suddenly modeling the Northeast. Replace that GG-1 with a SP Cab Forward, and just as suddenly you're modeling the West Coast. Same with passenger cars.Freight cars, OTOH, can be seen all over the place (for the most part). Put a GN boxcar on that plywood layout, and it doesn't tell you anything. It could be Portland, Oregon or Portland, Maine. So for me, freight cars do not matter that much (with rare exceptions). I'll spend hundreds of bucks on the correct engine or passenger car, but for a freight car...? Meh. They are not worth that much to me.richhotrain,Of course there's a way to have a "small" run of a specific railroad on demand. It's called a custom run, and many clubs do this all the time. Usually, the "small" run is 300 to 500 cars.Lastspikemike,Yes, making model trains with robots could be done but it wouldn't be worth it. Using robots to assemble $40,000 autos with a 20,000 to 30,000 annual production run is one thing; using them to make just 3000 $50 boxcars is another.
Trainman440 It's amusing the extent these forums go off topic, but Sheldon manages to top himself everytime. After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it's very clear you've figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you're well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don't understand why you constantly try to talk about them. Are you trying to show them off? Are you trying to push your opinions onto others and get people to convert to DC wireless radio throttles and freelance their layout? Why do the same topics seem to get into every one of the forum threads that you take over? Keep in mind this was about why scale trains products aren't as common as other manufacs in certain train stores. And now its...well... I dont mean to be critical, but I hate seeing these threads always being locked up and sometimes even deleted due to the off topic and argumentative nature. Charles
PM sent.
Trainman440After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it's very clear you've figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you're well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don't understand why you constantly try to talk about them.
It's a long and well established very oft repeated (ad nauseum) pattern; PM sent
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 Trainman440 After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it's very clear you've figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you're well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don't understand why you constantly try to talk about them. It's a long and well established very oft repeated (ad nauseum) pattern; PM sent
Trainman440 After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it's very clear you've figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you're well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don't understand why you constantly try to talk about them.
I for one would be very interested to hear more about your modeling goals, your choices and compromises, and the reasons behind them. Your layout construction always looks top notch, but it would be interesting to know what your end goal is and why.
And yes, you are correct, most everybody, for now, likely knows what mine are.
Personally, I find every post in this thread relevant. Scale Trains makes a specific type of product, and generally sells it in a somewhat different way than others.
Obviously they see something with their market that makes their product standards and selling methods work.
Knowing what others look for, how they approach the hobby, is extremely relevant to a Scale Trains thread, IMO. If the thread talks about the specificities of passenger cars, which ST doesn't make AFAIK, that doesn't mean the thread went OT, IMO.
Also, there was a recent thread about what articles we want to see in MR, and many mentioned articles that speak to the reasons behind certain goals, choices, and compromises.
If a person doesn't compromise, I'd like to see exactly how much equipment they have and how often they actually run trains, if that is even a goal. And its fine if it isn't. That would be part of the discussion. And that would be part of the reasons behind choices.
I run a shortline. One train at a time. About 8 cars max. I could accumulate all the equipment I need in about 2 months if I was strictly disciplined. Yet I keep buying.
Sincerity is a big part of a well functioning forum. Some responses seem to only want to let readers see the part they want others to see.
While repetitive, at least the repetitive responses seem sincere and open.
Doughless Personally, I find every post in this thread relevant. Scale Trains makes a specific type of product, and generally sells it in a somewhat different way than others. Obviously they see something with their market that makes their product standards and selling methods work. Knowing what others look for, how they approach the hobby, is extremely relevant to a Scale Trains thread, IMO. If the thread talks about the specificities of passenger cars, which ST doesn't make AFAIK, that doesn't mean the thread went OT, IMO. Also, there was a recent thread about what articles we want to see in MR, and many mentioned articles that speak to the reasons behind certain goals, choices, and compromises. If a person doesn't compromise, I'd like to see exactly how much equipment they have and how often they actually run trains, if that is even a goal. And its fine if it isn't. That would be part of the discussion. And that would be part of the reasons behind choices. I run a shortline. One train at a time. About 8 cars max. I could accumulate all the equipment I need in about 2 months if I was strictly disciplined. Yet I keep buying. Sincerity is a big part of a well functioning forum. Some responses seem to only want to let readers see the part they want others to see. While repetitive, at least the repetitive responses seem sincere and open.
Lastspikemike I remain puzzled why critiques are offered for posts one might disagree with. It is quite feasible to just ignore anything of no interest. I for one find all posts potentially of interest. It doesn't take long to discover whether a particular post is or is not interesting. Since this forum doesn't use stickies repetitive posts have value. At least some do. I do not get tired of Sheldon's repeating himself, I move on if there's nothing new to read but often there's a fresh rendition of the "themes". For example, you'd think DCC is the "only way to go" but Sheldon describes an alternative using DC equipment. Surely it's of value to have that information. Possibly thousands of hobbyists and potential hobbyists access this site. Who knows what they might find useful.
I remain puzzled why critiques are offered for posts one might disagree with. It is quite feasible to just ignore anything of no interest. I for one find all posts potentially of interest. It doesn't take long to discover whether a particular post is or is not interesting. Since this forum doesn't use stickies repetitive posts have value. At least some do. I do not get tired of Sheldon's repeating himself, I move on if there's nothing new to read but often there's a fresh rendition of the "themes".
For example, you'd think DCC is the "only way to go" but Sheldon describes an alternative using DC equipment. Surely it's of value to have that information. Possibly thousands of hobbyists and potential hobbyists access this site. Who knows what they might find useful.
Hmmm.
Here's my take on this thread:
This entire thread is a really good reading justification of exactly why I no longer have any passenger equipment, or even steam locomotives, on my layout. The whole good enough versus not so argument. (Last steamer is being sent out for sale because I decided plastic diesels were more fun to actually play with, especially with dcc control of class lights and numberboards, but mostly for their reliability).
I changed to ALL freight, say post-2000 modern era, and literally every single diesel unit and every single freight car is a correct model of its prototype (excepting one old Athearn blue box 50' box car that remains for the cat to attack--he occasionally bats the last car of a train off the track). Oh, wait, I do have one Athearn "too fat" PS 5344 Illinois Terminal boxcar. I'd replace it with the Exactrail totally correct car, but they never offered the yellow IT paint scheme.
Now, I don't have as big a roster as some folks, only about 75 freight cars and 10 diesels, but I've been able to purchase (rather than build) models that are as correct as reasonably possible, especially for rtr. This includes the Intermountain see-through autoracks, etc. etc.
There's one MTH Christmas gondola and one foobie Athearn 52' Santa Fe gondola with incorrect lettering. That's it for foobies.
And NO I'm not inferring that others should do what I do, ONLY stating that this was my means to "correct" models on the layout. Others like Howard Zane are still having a ball constructing high end kits and older wooden freight car kits. That is just not for me; with kids sports and demanding job, I lack time and desire for that kind of approach. Yet I acknowledge Howard's trains look simply outstanding and the massive numbers of built kits can be overwhelming to see.
John
"collector of fine models"
Since I freelance, highly plausable free lance, near proto-lance, the details on any particular locomotive cannot be TOO prototype specific......or else I'd be modeling that prototype.
It does me no good to pay for a particular model of a specific loco, or rail car, like you might find pictures of on the internet.
If I ran passenger trains, generic cars would be more desireable than proto specific cars.
I guess I'm running against the grain of what the manufacturers emphasize, which I suppose also means what most consumers are emphasizing.
As an example, I wanted to buy a new Rapido SW1200. They are all proto specific, and pretty era specific. Great if you're modeling a specific railroad in a specific era.
A modern shortline would likely not be running an (ex)-SP SW1200 that still had its 1970's light package and angled numberboards intact and functional (and I'm not going to pay for their installation just to then remove them)
So the I consider the generic Walthers Mainline version of an NW2 a "better" model than the Rapido for my goals, mainly because they do NOT have proto specific details.
Lastspikemike If you freelance why would it matter if the model exactly matched a prototype?
If you freelance why would it matter if the model exactly matched a prototype?
Bingo!
Proto specific details are of no use to a large portion of the model railroad market.
The local shop in Greentown, Indiana is the Scale Trains dealer for this part of the state. He has quite a bit of product in stock including some of the harder to find road names on SD40-2's. A lot of products got pushed back as there is a shortage of raw plastic pellets to make our trains from the lock downs last year. So there is a bit of a lag in getting product to market. Mikie
Silly NT's, I have Asperger's Syndrome
Well, sometimes it does not matter. But, here is the thing about freelance modeling, or a different version of freelance modeling often called protolance modeling, the goal is for your freelanced fictional model railroad to be believable and plausable.
So I will use my ATLANTIC CENTRAL as an example.
I don't have any BigBoy 4-8-8-4 locomotives lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL. By design those locos would not have been successful in the eastern mountains/piedmont region I model.
My loco roster is made up of designs/types that were typical and successful in this region which is were the ATLANTIC CENTRAL is set.
Rolling stock choices, layout design, scenic goals, operational plan are all geared toward making the fiction believable. And, connecting it to railroads that did exist.
My layout has trackage/interchanges that represent connections with the B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND railroads. I model those three railroads with a pretty high level of correctness/accuracy.
So sure, I can just say that my freelanced piggyback cars that are not quite "perfect" were built in our home shops, as were our passenger cars.
I can say we made a deal with the READING to have their shops build us a small fleet of their T-1 4-8-4's.
But at the end of the day, items are selected to give a distinctly Mid-Atlantic/Appalachian feel - structures, natural scenes, etc.
And then there is the issue of era - it is September 1954, and we stick to that pretty close. While there may be a few "stretches", you will have to be really on your game to pick them up.
So maybe that is the most important area of prototype accuracy - nothing made after September 1954, and little or nothing that would have been long gone.
Believable accuracy is very important to most freelance modelers, like making a movie and having the correct period sets and props to tell your fictional story.