Are "pure" free lanced model railroads dead?

[Anonymous]

Is there less interest in pure free lanced model railroads? By pure I mean fictional railroad companys running through fictional towns. I don't see as many free lanced model railroads as I used to.

What do you think?

[dknelson]

I see plenty of free lanced layouts on layout tours but not so many in the magazines, which might tell us more about magazine editors than about what modelers are really doing .
dave nelson

[CNJ831]

I have to agree with Dave on this one. Most layouts I've had occasion to visit have been free lance. MR did one of its rather unscientific polls regarding this question not too long ago and, as I recall, better than half of those responding said they were free-lancers.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Me too, the editors of the magazines have tried ramming prototype, research, operating sessions, and narrow gauge logging down the readers throat and then they ask why they have a declining readership. Tell a lie long enough and people start to believe it? The rivet counters have taken over the media. FRED

[Anonymous]

No - mine is the "Wisconsin & Iowa Railroad Co." (WIAR) and the towns I've
modelled are:

Wolverine, Wis.
St. Catherine, Iowa
Pumpkin Patch, Minn.
New Moscow, ND
Wautoma, Iowa

None of those towns exist (or at least not that I know of) and personally I think it'd take
a lot of the creativity out of the hobby if you confined yourself to modelling only
specific towns/cities/lines, etc. You'd spend all your time slaving over details that will
wear-out even the most ardent enthusiast and lose the real fun in the hobby.

[Anonymous]

I would say not. It just depends what you are into. Some people like doing research, etc. And others just want to have fun with it. But, I believe that a layout should have a "back story" as to why and how it developed. If you are following a prototype closely, the story is already there. If free-lancing, you have to make up the story, like Gordon Odegard, Linn Wescott, Frank Ellison did. It was made up, but the lines had a purpose and reason. Just stringing track all around the basement without some sort of plan may not end up being fun to play with in the end.

[Anonymous]

Certainly not mine! I even invented a whole new country called Dalreada with it's capital city called Marcstadt, a busy seaport called Melmatt with a major winter sports resort called Royston. I have even written a travel brochure for visiting Dalreada. The railroad serving all of Dalreada is called Dalreada National Railways No, free-lancing is far from dead, it is just not heard of enough. Have fun.

[Anonymous]

That's what in talking about. A back story, reason, etc. Al Kalmbach used to make brochures for his Great Gulch, Yahoo Valley & Northern in his spare time.

[Anonymous]

From my experience I feel most modelers, including myself, create free lanced railroads because they have more freedom to create their "ideal" railroad. You have so much freedom to create your own world, your own scenery, your own paint schemes, operate in your favorite era, etc., etc. I and many modelers like to call ourselves "prototype free lancers" meaning that we take all our modeling cues from the prototype and simply tweake them a bit to fit our fictional railroad. An excellent example of such a railroad I think would be the Allen McClelland's Virginian & Ohio. He operates a fictional railroad that operates and looks quite a bit like the old B&O or C&O Railroads.

[Anonymous]

My Eastern Gully & Gorge RR is "pure" free lanced. I copy areas that I like and model equipment of several periods. In HO from the late 40's when I started to some things of 2000. My layout is half done and will take several years to finnish. Dead NO. Just still working on it.

[Anonymous]

That word "pure" in front of "free lance" confuses the issue. My line is called "Prescott & Pacific". Prescott is real, it's the town I live in - but I'm not tryibg to model it as it is but as it might have been 50 to 100 years ago. Pacific is real, too. It's the big ocean that 100 years ago every railroad's name indicated that was where it was going. But it is pretty vague. Our Pacific coast is hundreds(maybe thousands) of miles long. I haven't reached it yet, so I don't know where it will be. Somewhere between San Diego and Seattle, probably. Is that "pure" enough, or does a real town bastardize it?

[Anonymous]

Long way from dead to my thinking and hopefully my own imagination will continue to satisfy my enjoyment. Don't want to get too technical and exact to drive the hobby to perfection and take the real joy out of the creation. Wonderful to see in the magazine and capture some ideas but, too complicated to enjoy the hobby for me.

[Kent]

http://sunnydale.kenttimm.com

[Anonymous]

From the replies above I'd say "free" lancing is very much alive and well. As much as I"d like to "model" the Great Northen right down to the last rivet and pine cone it just ain't gonna happen so in that regard I'm pretty happy to just see that goat slapped up on the side of a boxcar or loco and if my railroad serves a grain elevator that is actually in Missouri but on my layout is in North Dakota well then it is MY layout. All of which is to say that free-lancers are great and so are "purists". The important thing is to just build that model railroad. Start tonight!

[Anonymous]

Far from it! The Bucolic & Ft. Nubbins is intended to compress maybe 250 miles of scenery changes into a couple of scale miles of track. This is going to take the rest of my life, and may remain forever unfinished. It is necessary because I don't have a hundres acres under roof. tebo41

[Anonymous]

What's nice is that freelanced model railroads seem to have elevated out of the "humorous name" and "fanciful paint" levels of 30+ years ago when I started. If you get out the venerable 101 Track Plans, any two words with an "&" between them were a railroad name. All of the names that have been posted above seem reasonable and possible, some give a geographic hint (if we didn't know, where would we think CSX ran???) and some have mentioned that "my railroad isn't real, but I run it as if it was.

More power to the guys and gals who model their prototype very accurately, but I bet the best of 'em can only get about 10 or 20 scale miles into their layout, even in HO or N.

I have fun not only doing "the backstory," but managing my railroad in a fiscally responsible way -- all EMD (one set of parts), four axle locos (simpler, SD's not needed in the Midwest), no turbos (cheaper, simpler for the mechanics, simple paint (cheaper than fancy), as little deferred maintainance as possible (it's easier to fix small problems) -- so it seems unified and likely. Industries reflect the midwestern setting, even schedules are leisurely. This is not a high-intensity railroad.

While I honor friends with structure names, I keep the humor somewhat restrained or "coded" because even John Allen said he got tired of the "Gory and Defeated" pun fairly quickly, but by then it was famous. "Sam 'n' Ella's Dinette" is about as bad as it gets...

This may not get it for others, but it's just what I want.

Bill M

[CBQ_Guy]

Well no, they're certainly not dead. If so, George Selios and Allen McClelland would sure be surprised! I think there is definitely an increase in prototype layouts, and I'm not talking proto-freelanced, but layouts which are based on all the research now available which is easier to accompli***hese days with the internet and the plethora of historical societies out there. In other words, it's just "easier" to do, so more people are doing it. On the other hand, I don't think this automatically would mean a corresponding decline in "pure" free lanced layouts, but I really can't say.

My layout is to be proto-freelanced - based on the CB&Q and it's double track mainline between Chicago and Galesburg, Illinois as much as is do-able based on my current level of knowledge at the time I build, scenic, and detail the layout. Finding out this information and being able to implement it is just plain FUN to me. BUT, the rest of the railroad is a fictional branch line of the Burlington. So it will be typical but not proto-typical in a sense.

Early in the layout planning stage, I seriously considered trying to model a specific and strictly prototypical area of the Burlington. My thinking was, and in a way still is, that doing this sucessfully would be just plain cool and very satisfying. But I finally decided that it was way too limiting to how and what I wanted to see and operate on my layout. Therefore, I abandoned that idea and created my current plan and way of modeling the CB&Q.

This isn't strictly an either/or question either. I say this because you can have the most prototypical layout in the world, but can still satisfy an urge to free lance just by adding a made up short line, belt railroad, etc. to your layout and interchanging it at some point with your "real" RR. Yeah, I know that adding an interchange to the prototype depiction isn't prototypical then, but you get my drift.

Finally, I guess a "pure" free lanced model railroad won't ever be dead unless we let it die - and I don't really see that happening.

Take care all,

[CP5415]

I guess how you define "pure free lanced"
My layout consists of a stretch of track somewhere in the US northeast.
It has no towns named after actual towns. It has no industries named after any actual industry. That's freelanced
Sure I'm using CP livery locomotives but since on my layout, I own Canadian Pacific!
I guess I can call it freelanced.

Just my 2 cents

Gordon

[Anonymous]

Sadly, I have to agree with those who see the magazines having lost the focus. Freelance RRs still are popular, but the magazines have forgotten to write much to serve us. They've gone overboard on prototyping and therefore produce ever fewer articles I find useful.

[potlatcher]

When I first got into model railroading as a youth in 1978, free lanced railroads seemed to be the norm, based on what I saw in the magazines. I sure this is because there were so many years when there were so few models available. Modelers had to create free lanced railroads to justify running steam locomotives obviously based on Pennsylvania, Santa Fe and B&O prototypes (for example) together on one railroad. Even into the early nineties, both MR and RMC "pushed" free lance railroads on their readers - at least as much as they tend to push prototype layouts today.

Based on this influence, I spent several years planning a free lanced railroad with multiple branch lines radiating out of my hometown to some of my favorite nearby places. But by the time I was ready to start building a layout based on this free lanced line, it just didn't make sense any longer. Instead, I found a prototype shortline that interchanged with three local railroads, had an interesting traffic mix, and a small stable of locomotives that I would enjoy running. I am now actively builing a layout based on this prototype and having a great time doing it.

I am sort of a stickler for details and when details don't fit together it bugs me. So, it just didn't work for me to create a free lanced railroad. When I first realized that free lancing didn't work for me, I resented the magazine editors for making me feel that I "had to" create a free lanced railroad. But now I realize that by planning one, it gave me time to develop my interests and tastes, and learn that a prototype railroad works better for me.

Obviously there are still plenty of modelers who don't sweat the small stuff, and build free lance railroads. I think that generic railroads, where you can run whatever you want in a non-specific setting, are probably equally popular, especially on club layouts. From my side of the prototype/free-lance debate, I think the tendency toward building and operating prototype-based layouts in the magazines is great, but I don't think they'll ever kill the free lancers. Who knows, one day the pendulum may swing the other way and the prototypers will be complaining about not seeing their interests covered in the press.

[wp8thsub]

"...the editors of the magazines have tried ramming prototype, research, operating sessions, and narrow gauge logging down the readers throat and then they ask why they have a declining readership. Tell a lie long enough and people start to believe it? The rivet counters have taken over the media."

I see this argument a lot, and I don't buy it. There need be no fear or loathing of prototype modeling.

1. For a lot of modelers, working toward greater prototype accuracy INCREASES hobby enjoyment. Even if you're a freelancer, high quality models with greater prototype fidelity can have a place on the layout. Who looks on the hobbyshop shelf and makes a purchasing decision trying to get the least accurate model possible? You don't HAVE to strive for greater prototype fidelity just because a magazine features articles on research. It's a philosophical cafeteria where you pick how much accuracy is for you.

2. Most of the operating session stuff printed in major magazines like MR emphasizes fun and comarederie as much as adherence to prototype practice. I host operating sessions on my layout. It greatly increases my enjoyment and provides entertainment for my friends in the hobby who don't have layouts of their own. I regularly participate in op sessions on other layouts too, and for the same reason...it's fun if it's done right. They're also a great way to get kids involved; I have a regular operator who's 10 and prototype operation doesn't scare him a bit.

3. Prototype modelers tend to adopt higher modeling standards. As a result, their models tend to be of higher average quality than those of hobbyists as a whole and are more presentable in photos. The best looking, best running layouts I encounter on layout tours thus tend to be the products of those with a commitment to represent the prototype, including pure proto layouts like Ted York's Cajon Pass and freelanced but proto inspired layouts like Lee Nicholas' Utah Colorado Western. They're often also more active modelers and produce more that they can submit to the magazines.

Magazines publish what is submitted to them. If they aren't featuring as much freelanced modeling couldn't it be because they're receiving less of it? The greater availability of high quality models is allowing modelers with higher standards to move more into the ranks of proto representation (more accuracy can be had with less work, thus it's an attractive option); many of those guys used to be freelancers.

4. Apply the emotion behind the anti-prototype stance to other magazines. What if an auto restoration magazine decided that the average reader was put off by features on high quality work and discontinued them in favor of stories on cousin Bob's clapped out Plymouth Duster that's on blocks. After all, Bob doesn't like researching how to do anything and doesn't think he should be held to any standards for presentability of his project in print. What would happen to readership there?

5. Last, we prototype modelers really don't care what you do on your own layout. Just have fun! I do.

[Anonymous]

I'm new to the hobby (but I had a Lionel as a youngster) and even the prototype layouts in the magazines have some kind of "cheating" involved. There seem to be areas where personal preference over-rides accurate reproduction with regard to things like couplers or signal lights or even the choice of one brand of track over another where the prototype specs are not exactly reproduced in a given scale.

I agree that the magazines are too focused on models that feature the real world but I personally find the slavish reproduction of reality to be a bore. If you have the time and money it is easy to find the parts and "build" a real line. I more enjoy the articles that feature a freelanced world that shows me the personality of the modeler, not their ability to copy something in miniature.

As someone who has worked in Hollywood for nearly thirty years, much of it in miniatures and visual effects ( and a lifelong science fiction fan), I am designing my first layout (in N) as a lunar colony sometime later this century or early in the next. I intend to include scratchbuilt lunar structures, futuristic vehicles, a monorail, a rail launcher, and an ore processing facility as the base of the colony's economy. I won't have any trees but who knows what might be found deep in a crater on the Farside?

[Anonymous]

well Folks My railroad has to be free lance. I like all the engines,I have interchange tracks that bring in the big '70's and '90' to pick up freight, and then dissapear off the pike. but then comes saturday and sunday and we go down to the museum for fan trips on all the old steamers. they can run all day. the little guys love to see the tains turn on the table, [me too]. This way i can use any name that i can buy. Any engine that i like. In my worls they have all been donated to the museum. Reality?
Not likely. But fun, Oh Yes Jim

[Anonymous]

Now wp8thsub, I take some exception to what you wrote, first "Prototype modelers tend to adopt higher modeling standards. As a result, their models tend to be of higher average quality than those of hobbyists as a whole and are more presentable in photos. " So prototypers are better modelers that freelances? What an elitist attitude!!! I could say that prototypers are dullards who are incapable of creativity and have to have some one else do all the planning for them, including their hobby. Does that sting, or is it true? Second, quote of wp8thsub "Magazines publish what is submitted to them. If they aren't featuring as much freelanced modeling couldn't it be because they're receiving less of it? " You are right, they publish a random per cent of what comes in and have NO say in what they choose to publish. DUH! Last, and I quote again from wp8thsub, "What if an auto restoration magazine decided that the average reader was put off by features on high quality work and discontinued them in favor of stories on cousin Bob's clapped out Plymouth Duster that's on blocks. After all, Bob doesn't like researching how to do anything and doesn't think he should be held to any standards for presentability of his project in print. What would happen to readership there?" Well you do have a point as you state a restoration magazine, but the name Model Railroader isn't Prototype Model Railroader. Also, I don't remember seeing that Automotive Restoration Magazine on the shelf at the store. I did see Hot Rod and Popular Hot Rodding and I think adding big wheels, wild paint, and monster big blocks would be more a a freelance thing? I bet if they ran restore articles they would soon go broke? I myself think that the above Duster would sell more magazines being built up into tricked out non prototype form over articles about returning it to a fully restored slant 6 version. So you say prototypers are a better modeler than freelancer, better writers than freelancers, more social than freelancers, better photographers than freelancers, and enjoy the hobby more than freelancers. THAT WHAT YOU WROTE. Man you are so much better than me there is no reason for me to model anymore. Thanks for showing me the light. FRED

[jghall]

My own layout, The Bulldog Lines, is a "wholly owned subsidiary of the NYC, circa 1961. This way I might have the best of both worlds. I have Bulldog Lines engines & rolling stock along with accurate models (autos & buildings as well as RR items). My towns are fictional but our group does operate using the system created by RMC a few years back.

[Fritzi]

If the model magazines are over-emphasizing "prototype" modelling over "pure free lancing", it may be because most of the prototypes aren't around anymore and this is one way to try to preserve awareness of them and interest in them.

With that said, there does seem to be a de-emphasis in the "pure free lancing" type of modelling. I remember a series of articles that addressed building a true "pure free lanced" railroad. The line was called the Portage Hill and Communipaw and was set in the early 1900's. Gordon Odegaard and others built a nice free lance pike that was authentic to the era but imaginary as to the railroad. The builders created a whole story line for the pike, had articles relating to roling stock, motive power, buildings, the whole works. They even came up with rationales not only for the industries served, but even for the bandstand they put in the municipal park. That type of series of articles I'd like to see again. Then, perhaps, some of our fellows would be inspired to share the stories of their own free lance railroad empires.

[Anonymous]

I have a all times era that even has a small army of miget kinghts! My towns are from a dementional warp and now i'm thinking of bulding not up but down and have a underground city

[Anonymous]

I don't think they're "dead", I think there are a lot more prototype modelers submitting stuff to the magazines. But wait a minute, David Barrow's Cat Mountain and Santa Fe adhered to Santa Fe practice, but it "replaced the Santa Fe" in part of Texas, remember? It served fictional towns and fictional industries. I know it's gone now, but it was a fictional railroad holding to ATSF practices. I like the "what if" layouts. What if the Pennsy had run a branch line to (insert a town not on the Pennsy), what it the ATSF had bought the Blooming to Kansas City portion of the Alton & Southern when GM&O offered it for sale in the late 40s, what if they Pennsy had survived into modern times and PC & Contrail never happened, etc.

It's all fun!

Ed

[BRAKIE]

No,I don't think so..At the club I go to of the 44 members 17 has a free lance railroad..I have my own short line the Columbus & Hocking Valley Ry which is owned and operated by my fictitious CDB Industries which also owns 6 other short lines and yes I have cars and some locomotives lettered for all of the CDBI's short lines besides C&HV after all it belongs to CDBI...
My C&HV is just as real to me as the C&O I also model..

[wp8thsub]

"So prototypers are better modelers that freelances? What an elitist attitude!!!"

I described what I've observed and I stand by it. What I have noticed is that people who like prototype modeling often do so through an inner drive to pu***heir own individual modeling envelope. I don't think it's unfair to state that modelers who are driven to improve the accuracy of their work TEND to produce higher quality work ON AVERAGE than those who reject such standards. Many freelancers do great work, but many former freelancers (myself included) have been drawn to prototype modeling because of the increased availability of accurate models that make such representations easier.

I also don't think it's unfair to note that modelers who have this internal drive to improve accuracy might TEND to produce more photogenic models, and then have a desire to share their latest successful project, than people who just do whatever. Nothing in what I wrote was intended to imply that freelancers can't produce something outstanding.

"I could say that prototypers are dullards who are incapable of creativity and have to have some one else do all the planning for them, including their hobby. Does that sting, or is it true?"

I don't see any difference in creative abilities between the proto and freelance modelers I know, but that's just dumb ol' me. Since my own creativity and powers of observation are likely dulled by my proto modeling you can take that for what it's worth.

"Man you are so much better than me there is no reason for me to model anymore."

Jeez Fred, if that's how you want to look at it, go ahead. I'm reacting to the oft stated notion that proto modelrs have no fun and are trying to expunge all fun from the hobby for everyone else by stating that I don't think that's true.