Are "pure" free lanced model railroads dead?

[Jetrock]

It seems like one of the arguments of freelancers is the ease of getting "off-the-shelf" equipment for prorotype roads--but what about all those little short lines for which there are few or no available models? I model the Sacramento Northern, and while there are a few models available, they are often hard to find or extremely expensive brass imports.

I model SN because I enjoy the historical research as much as the modeling--it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I've always been a history freak and finding out obscure historical details is a game for me, like solving a mystery. I also like the town where I live and enjoy learning more about how it looked in the past.

But I don't have unlimited funds, and don't want to drop $400 on an exact brass copy of the GE electrics or Niles interurban cars, etcetera.

So I add the freelance element. I'll build the $29 Red Ball GE steeplecab kit and detail it like an SN steeplecab, even though SN didn't have any of that light tonnage. I'll hack up a $10 Bachmann Brill trolley to vaguely resemble a PG&E streetcar, even though it has the wrong number of windows. If it looks close enough to look good, that's fine for me--and with the money I save I can buy more rolling stock, or research books, or I could buy food or something unimportant like that.

I'll even buy the Athearn SN 40-foot steel boxcar, even though SN never owned any, because it's got the right roadname on it, and I can buy it off the shelf, and if I park it in front of a warehouse on my layout it won't explode. I can even run my "Sacramento Belt Line" boxcar next to it, even though there were never cars labeled for the Sacramento Belt Line--the car was formerly owned by a model railroader who built a semi-free-lanced layout based on the SN (named the SBL), and custom-decaled this model for it! I figure it got switched onto the layout from an alternate dimension. Personally I think that's fantastic--in its own way, as funny as a dinosaur switcher.

And, as I mentioned before, I'm playing a little bit with the history of the "real" SN so I can run streetcars alongside early diesels, even though it didn't happen that way in the real world. Because it's fun, and I want it that way--but I still get a kick out of prototype research.

The rivet-counters out there will be very aggravated by this, and the freelance advocates may scoff at why I even bother mentioning such fiddly details. I like being somewhere in between, and while I enjoy being true to the prototype I see no reason to be a slave to it.

Nobody here has to own anyone else's layout--in fact, you sure as heck can't have mine!! It'd be boring if we all built layouts the same way.

[Anonymous]

I sure hope not! I'd hate to have to quit going to the basement. There is nothing 'wrong' with having a mythical railroad layout altho' I am not crazy about some of the whimsical names used. Having a model of an actual railroad means stretching the imagination to a degree also. Who models the complete home engine and car facilities 100%? If you do, where did you find the room? Model railroading should be FUN, or why have it for a hobby?

[vsmith]

Sounds cool, If I ever have the space I would like to model a "what if" of the Pacific Electric in Los Angeles if it had survived to present day, but that remains a long way off for me.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith
AntonyRio

Why not use the prototype as a basis for your freelance? That way you can use whats commercially avilable, paint it to match the prototype and use commercail structures the same way. Use the existing tools and supplies to as closely match your carrier without getting slavi***o replicating it exactly, you might be surprised how close you can get to the original.

I've thought along those lines in the past, but my "line of choice" has always been the defunct Chicago Aurora and Elgin... an interurban line that has been defunct for some 40+ years. My layout that i am planning will approximatly follow the same geographical and societal influences yet be set closer to the modern day.. basically what if a line, with the same approximate history of the CAE had survived as a suburban freight hauler in an area like chicago where transfer service is king? Obviously, I will need to embelish some things and downplay others to "make it work" but i am finding myself enjoying the process thus far.. simply because I am not starting with grid paper and scale rule in hand. I am starting with some story writing... basically creating the history of the line to show how it got to where it is when I model it. I dare say that by the time I'm done, that there will be little difference in "depth" between a real life proto-type and my line.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Whew. Alot of very good thoughts here. Easy on the drawbars please. I see this as a wonderful expresion of creativity. Even John Allen himself has a Dinosaur as a yard Switcher. Yes he was a stickler for detail etc.. but he taught us with that Dino, one can have a bit of fun.

I'm glad you mentioned this because as I gather information and get back into the hobby, one of the most important things I want to maintain is my sense of humor. I like prototyping as a opportunity to learn more about realism, i like free-lancing to maintain my sense of creativity, but by all means, I always want to bind it all together with a laugh at the end of the day. Otherwise, it's not going to be worth it for me!

I was thinking about the things I would like to model, and for me, there has to be some funny things going on whatever I should chose. Perhaps a proto-freelance railroad with some funny scenes going on? What would happen if all the animals were released from the local zoo, for example? Or maybe there should be a HO scale axe-murderer loose in the area... I mean... all sorts of things could happen in a small layout town... [:o)]

johnny

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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

I would think that because prototype modeling takes a different approach to modeling "discipline," they are easier to write about in magazines, as it would be easier to research and make references to real historical events and places. Free-lance, "fantasy" railroads are great, a lot of fun, but in my opinion don't always have the "epic" impact that prototype modeling does. If I buy a MR mag, I always prefer projects that attempt to do the "real" thing because it inspires me to do the same, or at the very least inspires me to "go the distance." When I see the "free-lance" projects, I can admire the uniqueness of them, but unless the modeler is a craftsman like John Allen, I'm not going to be so inspired to do my own thing.

Free-lance or prototype, my inspiration often comes from those who have taken the patience and time to bring something extraordinary to the hobby using years of experience and talent. That's when I really start drooling. [:p]

Johnny [:)]

[sparkingbolt]

Wow! A bunch of guys brave enough to freelance. Cool! I am sorta freelancing and following prototype, but only as far as the two work together. Another way to put it is I'm freelancing and adding the features of the prototype so as to keep it believable, and include pieces of my hometown that I want to see, as I want to see it. It's my railroad!

[Anonymous]

“Pure”? What if you model a short line between two terminals named after real towns with fictional towns in between and a connection (interchange) with a real railroad. My railroad runs between Alpine and Terlingua Texas. Terlingua never had a rail connection, Alpine was on an S.P. sub main. My towns do not reflex the details of the two prototype towns. On my railroad Jacqueline Heights and Cat Pause lie in between and they are fictional. Is that “Pure Free Lance”? Just wondering.
JackB

[wp8thsub]

"I think Western Pacific guy is saying he's on our side, just coming from a different viewpoint..."

Exactly. Thank you.

"... I disagree with your comment about more modelers would do prototype if more product was availible. Did I miss something here?"

Maybe. As you said, every model produced has some prototype basis. What I'm referring to is the fairly recent proliferation of very accurate models that allows those who choose to do so to medel a greater variety of specific stuff without much effort. When I started modeling the WP in the 1980s, most of the equipment I was modeling had to be kitbashed and re-detailed to match photos. Most of that effort is no longer necessary.

"The "fear" of prototyping is also untrue, I would probably say its more of an "indifference" to prototyping."

Plenty of indifference to be sure, but I've encountered fear. There is a very small but often vocal minority who react to anyone who's doing more than entry level modeling with a palpable fear that the very existence of such modelers will somehow destroy their hobby. I've heard more than one such individual express out and out fear that he will be driven out of the hobby and have to do something else just because I or some other prototype modeler (or even a freelancer who talks about raising his own standards) was out there. I won't pretend to understand why.

"...but I think you are misreading most of the hobbiest out there. ... To them its all about fun, not precision."

I agree that's where most modelers are coming from. I hope I'm not misreading my fellow modelers. My comments about the direction some freelancers are taking toward proto modeling is based on talking with modelers I personally know. I include in this trend people who still model freelanced railroads but who are moving toward greater accuracy in detailing their layouts, freight cars, etc. Most modelers still don't care and that's OK.

"And Finally, I think instead of saying "done right" if you had said "done well" there would have been less angry responces."

Again, maybe so, but it could still be just as possible for someone to misread that line if they were so inclined. "Done right" is a people issue more than a modeling issue in this context. A number of operating layouts are positively no fun at all due to the stress the layout owners force upon the crews.

"loco's (like Colorado narrow gauge, Central American steam, etc.) ARE the equivalent of "cousins Bob's clapped out Plymouth Duster that's on blocks."

Looks like I blew that analogy to some extent. I also model Colorado narrow gauge D&RGW/RGS, so I know what you're talking about in modeling weathered equipment. One of my favorite models is my after-the-wreck RGS 455 rebuild. The model equivalent of the car on blocks is the layout that is in a dirty, unkempt space, that doesn't run because the trackwork isn't done well and otherwise show every indication that the builder doesn't care.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by flee307

QUOTE: Originally posted by wp8thsub

Wow, since I've apparently torqued off some fellow modelers, I figure why stop now when I'm on a roll? Seriously Paul, Fred (and everybody else I offended who hasn't sounded off) I'm not on some opposite side of the hobby from y'all.

FRED SAYS HE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY.

Flee-man,

Chill dude....I think Western Pacific guy is saying he's on our side, just coming from a different viewpoint and thats cool. Cant we all just get along?

[b] FRED NO REALLY MAD. Fred likes a good fight and loves to argue with close minded people. It's fun. Esp with people who think the universe revolves around them and any other veiwpoint is wrong. They say the funniest things if pressed, like they are the best modeler ever and they stand by it, or Walmart is t5he best thing that ever happened. FRED

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by anthonyrio

I have been working for the past few years on and off, struggling with this dilemma. Prototype modeling or freelance.

The problem comes with prototype modeling of my favorite (defunct) line is that i simply don't have the space or the funds to do as i wish, even with compression. And the fact that the traction model industry is lacking and way to expensive for what exists IMO. And i am no scratchbuilder of equipment.. structures fine.... equipment, no.

But with freelance, the problem becomes, how much freelance? I dunno if my imagination and sense of creativity is developed enough.

I have been working more and more with planning a line historically influenced off my prototype, yet freelanced for my own space, time, and budget constraints.

AntonyRio

Why not use the prototype as a basis for your freelance? That way you can use whats commercially avilable, paint it to match the prototype and use commercail structures the same way. Use the existing tools and supplies to as closely match your carrier without getting slavi***o replicating it exactly, you might be surprised how close you can get to the original.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by flee307

QUOTE: Originally posted by wp8thsub

Wow, since I've apparently torqued off some fellow modelers, I figure why stop now when I'm on a roll? Seriously Paul, Fred (and everybody else I offended who hasn't sounded off) I'm not on some opposite side of the hobby from y'all.

[b]FRED SAYS HE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY.

Flee-man,

Chill dude....I think Western Pacific guy is saying he's on our side, just coming from a different viewpoint and thats cool. Cant we all just get along?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wp8thsub

Wow, since I've apparently torqued off some fellow modelers, I figure why stop now when I'm on a roll? Seriously Paul, Fred (and everybody else I offended who hasn't sounded off) I'm not on some opposite side of the hobby from y'all.

[b]FRED SAYS HE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU GOT TO SAY.

[Anonymous]

I have been working for the past few years on and off, struggling with this dilemma. Prototype modeling or freelance.

The problem comes with prototype modeling of my favorite (defunct) line is that i simply don't have the space or the funds to do as i wish, even with compression. And the fact that the traction model industry is lacking and way to expensive for what exists IMO. And i am no scratchbuilder of equipment.. structures fine.... equipment, no.

But with freelance, the problem becomes, how much freelance? I dunno if my imagination and sense of creativity is developed enough.

I have been working more and more with planning a line historically influenced off my prototype, yet freelanced for my own space, time, and budget constraints.

[FJ and G]

I agree with Rob. The hobby is big enough for everyone's interests. If the magazines get a good layout -- freelanced or otherwise -- it will get published. A great layout will rest on its merits, regardless of label.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by wp8thsub


I think a lot of the freelancers who previously produced nice layouts would have been doing more prototype modeling back then if today's array of products were available to make that job easier. Many of the modelers I encounter these days say that's why they're doing proto modeling now. It may not be a popular trend for people who dislike prototype modeling but I imagine it accounts for much of the dearth of mostly "pure" freelancing in the model press.

The above is in no way intended as a slam against freelancers, but I think it's a valid observation.

As was stated earlier in this thread, there really isn't such a thing as a purely prototype layout. There also can't be a 100% freelance layout. To create a model railroad, you still have to use SOMETHING from the real world, like flanged wheels rolling on rails and so on. We're all on a continuum somewhere in the middle, probably closer together than most of us realize.

And yes, Paul, I think there IS fear of prototype modeling out there. There are modelers who passionatley believe that anyone who is trying to get closer to the prototype on his own railroad is a threat to everybody else being able to have a good time. ....

Oh, for cryin' out loud. "Done right" to me means that we have a good time and make the sessions completely non-stressful. Obviously since I'm such an elitist snot, it must mean that "done right" implies I shove my more-prototype-than-thou philosophy down everybody's throat and force them to toe the line or else.

Western Pacific Man, just a few quick thoughts on your posting.

First, I agree we have to have "definitions" regerding "freelanced" or "prototypical" or whatever, so we know more or less where the layout ideas originated.

Second, I disagree with your comment about more modelers would do prototype if more product was availible. Did I miss something here? EVERYTHING being produced in the last 50 years was based on Prototype carriers, there has always been tons of stuff to choose from, so your aurgument doesnt hold water I'm afraid.

Thirdly, an I think this is the biggest issue. The "fear" of prototyping is also untrue, I would probably say its more of an "indifference" to prototyping. Most of us are space, time, budget, and spousaly challeged and are restricted as to how deep we can research a layout. Also most simply DO NOT want to model so precisly or specifically. Theres nothing wrong with that either, to most this is a hobby, something to do after the dishes are washed and before putting the kids to bed. It simply is not a priority to be so specific. There are those like yourself that strive to be historically correct and thats cool, but I think you are misreading most of the hobbiest out there. Like me, they do not belong to a club or other orginized operating group. To them its all about fun, not precision. thats why there were so many frelanced responces to this post.

And Finally, I think instead of saying "done right" if you had said "done well" there would have been less angry responces. I like to think my kitbashed hacksawed locos are done pretty damn nice, but I would never call them "done right" because that defines a right way and a wrong way, and I firmly believe there is no wrong way to kitbash a loco if your happy with the end result.

Also you mentioned something about old cars...

>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.<

Well I'm into narrow gauge and if you ever seen the current dirty condition of most K-36's on the Cumbres and Toltec line, or seen the beat up steamers operating in Peru or Cuba, or seen the beat up backwoods locos modeled on most narrow guage lines, you'de know that those loco's ARE the equivalent of "cousins Bob's clapped out Plymouth Duster that's on blocks" to us these beat up dirty old loco's are a things of pure beauty and a joy to model...To each his own I guess, Eh?

[fischey]

TextText My own problem is that I belong to a modular group, which means that we must compromise. What are achieving is a look and feel of a prototypical environment on the layout that lends credibility to the trains that travel through. Although our group hasn't achieved the very optimum "look and feel", we are reasonably happy with it. But for discussion, I would like to point out a true inspiration.

The Midwest Modular group is a good example of the dialog of prototype modelling vs. freelancing. (The Midwest Group was published in MR a few years back and every now and then you see a pic in Trackside photos or whatever). This sectional layout (maybe it's modular but that's not the point) clearly sets the stage for realistic railroading in the Midwest. The grain elevators, the type of topography, the minor buildings, the signage-- all of it looks like Missouri or somewhere in the upper Mississippi drainage. Doesn't matter what RR the trains are-- the sense of realism is conveyed when they are operated in a believable way, such as a 50's streamliner being seen with a 50's freight, sharing a mainline that would be shared by the depicted roads. It's easy to jump to the conclusion that what you are witnessing is shared running rights, if you happen to see an ICG train whip by a Missouri Pacific.

The point? We're getting bogged by the terms, "prototype" vs. "freelance". Look at it from these two points: Believability and Realism. The Midwest group's modules are clearly freelanced but convey the exact feeling of "being there" in the Midwest on a summer day, and your presence is projected into the scene. Your senses tell you it's "believable". The trains convey "prototype" as they follow a given carrier (at least in the published shots), and your education in the hobby tells you that you are seeing a slice of "history" or a realistic "prototype". The experience is admirably completed.

What the best freelance and prototype modeler does, is to set the stage for the experience of believability and realism. The viewer's mind takes care of the rest, and the viewer's reaction in "WOW" terms, is the affirmation of success in the project. The more "wow" you get, the better your project has achieved the goal. Even if it is a lunar railway.

Delight and humor can turn the experience all the richer, whether in the prototypical or freelance "environment." In the prototype layout, a viewer is going to delight in seeing a detail such as the right gas station, with the right cars for the era, the right ads plastered on the wall, in the right location, in the right historical period. Example: A Sinclair station along a UP line near Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 1966. A little humor could be tossed in by creating a repair scene with a frustrated vacationing family waiting for the station wagon to have a new fanbelt installed, and the mechanic is found asleep out back. Put a New Jersey license plate on the car for even more effect.

In the freelance, the delight and humor is there allright, just look at John Allen's Dinosaur switcher. More examples abound.

Both are effective, both are rewarding to build and show, to the extreme. But you know what? Unless you faithfully duplicated a photograph from 1966, even the prototype gas station scene in Cheyenne would have to have been "freelanced", or creatively handled, in some way. Let the show begin.

So Have Fun and get out there & do some freelancing, no matter how accurate you get doing it.

[wp8thsub]

Wow, since I've apparently torqued off some fellow modelers, I figure why stop now when I'm on a roll? Seriously Paul, Fred (and everybody else I offended who hasn't sounded off) I'm not on some opposite side of the hobby from y'all.

Let's try again:

I personally see a greater proportion of article-worthy proto-based layouts these days compared to the past. I think a lot of the freelancers who previously produced nice layouts would have been doing more prototype modeling back then if today's array of products were available to make that job easier. Many of the modelers I encounter these days say that's why they're doing proto modeling now. It may not be a popular trend for people who dislike prototype modeling but I imagine it accounts for much of the dearth of mostly "pure" freelancing in the model press.

The above is in no way intended as a slam against freelancers, but I think it's a valid observation.

As was stated earlier in this thread, there really isn't such a thing as a purely prototype layout. There also can't be a 100% freelance layout. To create a model railroad, you still have to use SOMETHING from the real world, like flanged wheels rolling on rails and so on. We're all on a continuum somewhere in the middle, probably closer together than most of us realize.

And yes, Paul, I think there IS fear of prototype modeling out there. There are modelers who passionatley believe that anyone who is trying to get closer to the prototype on his own railroad is a threat to everybody else being able to have a good time. I'll give you an example...

I ran into this guy at a local hobby shop. He knew I was a WP fan and asked how many of these new Brand X WP boxcars I was going to be taking home. I said probably none because of inaccuracies with the doors and ladders, since I'm trying to get most of my home road equipment to match photographs. He was polite to my face, but next thing I hear I've become Public Enemy #1 down at the club because I'm trying to keep everybody from having fun. Pretty silly because he was specifically asking for my opinion on what I would purchase. One of my operators belonged to the club and said the guy frequently recounted just what a killjoy I was to those who would listen, as if I was trying to shut his hobby down.

I am VERY critical of my own work, and enjoy the challenge of pushing my personal standards to new levels. The same is probably true for most prototype modelers. I really, absolutely, positively do not care what you do with your own hobby time or money. The more of us there are in the hobby, the more easily our suppliers will stay in business. More is better, regardless of philosophy. It never fails that when a prototype modeler states that he and others of like mind enjoy their hobby, there will always be a visceral response that such a statement implies that we think we're the only ones who are able to do so.

"Whoa, Nellie. Say what?! I think that statement [that op sessions are fun if "done right"] gave more readers than just myself pause, and for obvious reasons."

Oh, for cryin' out loud. "Done right" to me means that we have a good time and make the sessions completely non-stressful. Obviously since I'm such an elitist snot, it must mean that "done right" implies I shove my more-prototype-than-thou philosophy down everybody's throat and force them to toe the line or else.

[CBQ_Guy]

All,

Robbie wrote a whole bunch of stuff taking a superior sounding position IMO, but in the end it all really just comes down to do whatever you like - one persons preferences aren't another's preferences, standards, or likes.

There are a couple statements he made I thought would be fun to respond to, though...please indulge me.

<There need be no fear or loathing of prototype modeling.>

I don't know where fear would come in, Never thought of model railroading as something scary. Loathing is probably felt by people who think a certain way of enjoying the hobby is being forced down their throats, as many obviously do, whether one agrees or not..
...........................................................
<For a lot of modelers, working toward greater prototype accuracy INCREASES hobby enjoyment>

And for a lot it doesn't.

.........................................................
Rob asks:

<Who looks on the hobbyshop shelf and makes a purchasing decision trying to get the least accurate model possible? >

But then answers:

< It's a philosophical cafeteria where you pick how much accuracy is for you>

So basically it looks to me like he's answered his own question.

Of course, the implication and resulting message of condesencion that only some sort of mental cretin would pick the lesser or least accurate model on purpose comes through loud and clear. Good job, Rob. [Damn good-enoughers!].

...............................................................................
< Most of the operating session stuff printed in major magazines like MR emphasizes fun and comarederie as much as adherence to prototype practice.>

Most of ANYTHING printed in major magazines like MR emphasizes fun and comraderie, or should. It's not the exclusive realm of operating sessions OR 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>

No problems there. I think others who host operating sessions would whole heartedly agree.

...............................................
<...it's fun if it's done right.>

Whoa, Nellie. Say what?! I think that statement gave more readers than just myself pause, and for obvious reasons.
.................................................
Rob continues on. . .

> 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.>

In the words of former president Ronald Regan, "There you go again." Start out by saying something no one objects to or should have a problem with, then WHAM, another shot to those who don't do it the way YOU do. Again, I didn't think this hobby is supposed to be scary. If it is to some, it may be advisable to find another hobby.

................................................................
> 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. >

GAWD, what more can I say? The above is literally dripping with an air of condesencion, judgementalism, even loathing for any participant in the hobby who would be such a low life form to even think of doing things differently than Rob and company, and going against THEIR STANDARDS. Not to mention the usual and ubiquitous re-enforcement of the MR dominant in-group clique of those who've been published, who quickly come to each others defense and shameful promotion, as I've read SO many times over and over on various lists and forums over the past few years, even in the mag itself. Talk about a good old boy network!

............................................................................
<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?>

Puhleeze! Now there's a tired cliche we've all read before ad nauseum. If it were true, why do the magazines have staff writers or or even editorials? They wouldn't be needed if, as Robbie is seeming to imply, the magazines would cease to exist if no one sent them anything to print. Not to mention complaints I have read about authors who either a.} can't get published or b.) have their article(s) purchased by a publication, only to never be printed.

..................................................................
>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.<

Well good for them, I'm glad they're doing what makes them happy. Of course since they live on a higher plane with a higer standard then the rest of us mere mortals, I'm not surprised they are the only ones who have attained true enjoyment and enlightment. I don't know what being a former free-lancer has to with it, though. Or was that just a declarative statement?

.............................................................................
>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.<

Hmmmm. I had the thought after reading this that it shouldn't matter WHAT the magazine thought they should be favoring as story types to print, since according to you, they can only print what they are receiving. But I won't mention that thought.

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

Yeah, Rob, that's real obvious after you wrote at length about how doing what YOU and your buds do on your own layouts is better than what anyone else may be doing. Geez!

Well, writing this has been fun for ME, but now it's time for my nap!

[Anonymous]

I dont think Freelance is dead at all.

I base my road on the B and O at the sea port to a WM interchange and also a C and O interchange. The rivet counters probably will say that not good. However, I do try to keep my equiptment consistent and industries dependant on each other among the 3 roads.

There is a planned spot for Thomas the tank engine. For the kids you see.

The MR tries to keep new products and reviews as well as fine articles abound. If there was no MR, the hobby would not be as strong as it has been. If the MR team wrote a articale based on the forum, the size will increase to a phone book and the cost will be more expensive than a walthers catalog. It is good to see healthy discussion on this thread.

Good Luck all.

Lee

[timthechef]

I don't think that free lanced railroads are dead, even in the magazines I've seen many fictonal branch lines modeled to be branches off of real rail roads. I'm currently building my first model railroad and it is a fictional branch line in a fictional town branching off the B&O in the 1920's. I'm researching for proto typical accuracy of the equiptment and scenery for the era and area (western Maryland) to lend authenticity to my layout but still have the freedom of creating my own town. I'm enjoying learning about the time period and what people went through to get things done in what is considered "a simpler time". It seems that everything was much harder and took a lot more work . I don't think that free lancing will ever be dead because very few of us have the room to build a exact replica of an existing rail road.

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by MarkOliva

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.

Now this could become an interesting can of worms! The terms DCC or RTR rolling stock, or even dominos could be substituted for "Freelance RR's" in your statement above, and it would still work.

Question is, then, are the mags driving, or just reporting, trends in the hobby? For the record, I feel their role is to report - period! - and let you decide (Oh wait, I think someone's using that one already.)

[potlatcher]

vsmith is correct in his assertion that all layouts will never be perfect scaled-down versions of the prototype, and perhaps all are "freelanced" then. But for the sake of this discussion, I think that freelanced or not freelanced should be determined by the builder's intentions. If he intends to create a ficticious railroad, or a real railroad in a ficticious location, or a real railroad in a location where that railroad never ran (a "what if"), then he is freelancing to a greater or lesser degree. But if he says "I'm trying to recreate the New York Central between Toledo, Ohio and Butler, Indiana as it was in 1957," then he will certainly be forced to selectively compress and omit to fit his space, and the resulting layout will reflect his interpretation of history, but I wouldn't call him a freelancer.

Based on this definition Allen McClelland (Virginian & Ohio), Bill Darnaby (Maumee Route), David Barrow (Cat Mountain & Santa Fe) and Tony Koester (in his Appalacian Midland period) would be freelancers, while Jack Burgess (Yosemite Valley) and Tony Koester (in his present Nickle Plate Road period) would be "prototypers".

Personally, I'm shooting for the latter category with my shortline layout, but I plan to stray into the former category on occasion. With my particular shortline, I plan to build a layout based on the prototype circa 1955. I also expect that I will build and run models appropriate to the location from several different time periods (different era for each operating session) without changing the layout between operating sessions to reflect the time change. And, I may create a ficticious version of the same shortline with different locomotives to suit my taste. These plans will certainly qualify me as a freelancer from time to time.

Funny how the harder we try to draw lines within the hobby, the fuzzier those lines get. Guess it's best to live and let live and show mutual respect for all modelers.

[dharmon]

I guess its all in your personal definition of freelanced. I made up my own roadname, serving actual locations but I can't accurately or properly model them realistically. And the routes do not follow what is actually in place. So freeelanced by my definition yes, but trying to model it as if it were the prototype based on how actual roads do business.

I was and still am influenced by the John Allens and other greats from time past.

One great "freelanced" pike I remember reading about in MR long ago was an N scale lines someone made based of the Toliken books. He had if I remember correctly the dwarf mines and smog mountain, etc. Not my particular style, but hey it was his domain and he made it the way he wanted. Pretty cool I thought.

[vsmith]

Oh by the way, My layout (under construction, all the track is down) is also a pure FREELANCED layout.

The Borracho Railroad, a 1/2" scale 42" guage desert narrow guage serving the towns of Borracho, Purgitory, the Borracho Distillery, and the F.U.B.A.R. mining consortium.

Made up, Yup!

Whimsicle? It will be!

Reailsticly detailed? Oh you better belive it will be.

Prototypes? I've already found prototype Mexican mining cars I'm dying to scratchbuild.

Will I have fun? Oh Hell Yes!

The biggest Advantage I have is that I can model whatever I decide I want to run on my layout, I'm not limited to "Oh the D&RGW never ran those EBT Mikado's , I couldn't possibly put them on MY layout" Of course I can. I can choose anything that tickles my interest, and I will. I've always been more into the actual modeling of trains than the running of a layout. For some the "layout" is the main thing. For me the "layout" exists for me to run the trains that I model.

[vsmith]

In other words, a FREELANCED layout based on a one time existant PROTOTYPE carrier.

The FACT that the extension to Ogden never existing DID NOT limit your vision of what you wanted to model, Thanks for illustrating my points.

You cannot alway model everything precisly, nor would you want to. That would be slavish, and take the the creativity factor out of Model RRing. It YOUR railroad, YOU build it YOUR way, thats the fun part of this hobby.

[plainsman]

I've been a modeler for over 40 years , and I am a rivit counter. Years ago ,accurate data on the prototype was not as easily obtained as it is today, so I made up my own railroad so I could "control" what cars, locomotives and industry I would model and it would be accurate in my own mind. As my railroad evolved to its present form, I began incorporating prototype history, and technical items into it, and it has become more prototypical. I try to develope what "probably would have been" had my railroad really existed. It is a ficticious railroad using prototype practices.
By the way, I model a line from Colorado Springs to Ogden, over what was the Colorado Midland, and what would have been, had they fullfilled their plans to extend to Ogden. My railroad competes with the Rio Grande and allies with the Rock Island.

[vsmith]

What happens if a modeler recreates a scene that once existed say 40 years ago but today doesnt look like that anymore? Would you still feal disconnected between the model and the place?

Its the same with all layouts since they are all viewpoints based on one modelers opinion. The same is true for equipment livery, paint schemes, etc. They all changed over time and if the model evokes an era before you experinced the real place it will have that same disconnect from the current reality. How many open landscaped of the 30' and 40's are today urban?

As for your definition of freelanced it seams that anyone doing a mythical railroad would still strive for a realism based on existing or historic examples. There were onces literally hundreds of small carriers and branch lines criss-crossing the countryside. those hundreds of carriers and hundreds of small towns and villages they served have vanished over the last century also. So who's to say whats "real" on a layout, if a modeler choses to do a layout based on a never-existed-in-reality carrier, but they use the same level of detail and realism to do it, where's the difference. I can't see it. It's all just a different point of view from yours, so don't condemn, it just accept it as such.

Hence I still stand by my original point that ALL layouts are FREELANCED, even yours...Think about it.

[FJ and G]

vssmith

You are correct and your point is well taken.

However, in general terms (emphasis on general), a non-freelanced model RR will usually take familiar elements of the real railroad: e.g., correct engine livery and decals and forested mountains or farming area instead of deserts or Rocky Mountains. While not 100% (or even 25%) prototypically correct, the non-freelanced model RR will nontheless evoke (emphasis on evoke) feelings of realism.

While a free-lanced RR may have correct scenery, the whimsical or fantasy paint scheme of the engine and sometimes the names of the towns and stores and other things, makes it harder (but not always impossible) for me to form a connection between the model and a real place.

To confuse the issue even further, some free-lancers mix non-freelanced. For example, Turtle Creek may be connected to the Reading.

[vsmith]

OK, LETS ALL GET ONE THING STRAIGHT.....

EVERY MODEL RAILROAD IS FREELANCED!!!!!

Yep, thats right ALL are. Heres the reason,

Even if you are modeling a specific railroad, specific place or even a specific time, it is still YOUR interpretation of that specific item. No one can accurately model every detail or even most details froma specific place. Are your prototype switchyards layed out using scale blueprints from the specific railroad? of course not, if you did one scale switch yard in HO could be 10 feet long. Same with towns, or corners, or even buildings, the exact scale building could be several square feet of layout.

So what do we do, we SELECTIVELY choose what we want to model, we COMPRESS scale on yards and structures, and we interpet what it is that we want to show. In other words, your FREELANCING the prototype.

Example, I have seen published and in person over the years several layouts all based on the same Denver & Rio Grande Western narrow gauge railroad, especially the Ophir loop, NOT ONE OF THEM LOOKED THE SAME. All were unique.

If they were prototypicaly based wouldnt you expect then to be at least similar? The answer is of course NO. Even if the same modeler rebuilt the same layout they wouldnt do it exactly the same each time. Because each new time the layout would be built the modeler or group of modelers would want to try something new or different. And each Layout was different because each individual modeller brought to the table his owns vision of what he wanted to portrait.

Hence each layout is a unique FREELANCED vision even if it is based on a real prototype. The very act of altering it, changes it to a unique one of a kind version.

If you dont believe me then simply send me photos of your exact to scale based on actual blueprints and layed out in a warehouse cause its the only space big enough to house the whole dang layout. I cant wait to see it.