Are "pure" free lanced model railroads dead?

[FJ and G]

*

[Anonymous]

First, I don't buy the "historical" part of the preservation arguement for protypical modelling. If Mr. Joe Blow decides to build a layout depicting a fallen flag and does it admirably; he has indeed added to the history, but only for a limited amount of time. For unfortunately Mr. Joe Blow's time to go to the big layout in the sky comes and the layout is dismantled and turfed. So much for the history. I think there are great reason's to model protytpically - the challenge, the research, the skill in duplicating scenes, and operations.

And what of us who prototypically freelance, and I suspect a great many free lanced layouts fall into this category. I'm building a sub division of CP that didn't exist, but I'm basing it on prototypical track and operations that do exist. Then this prototypical free lance line merges with a completely free lanced mythical subsidiary of Montana Rail Link in the interior of British Columbia.

Prototypical and free lance can get fuzzier than what I have described above. I have learned over the years in various forums, that what at one point seems to be "obvious" isn't so obvious after you begin scrutiny. I put a query in at the layout design sig about the width and breadth of my layout - and found the answer wasn't so obvious. I once questioned "selective compression" and "layout design elements" and found that people have a wide range of interpretations of notions we assume to be universal. I asked the question, can the Horse Shoe Curve be model using straight track only. You'd be amazed at how many said "Yes." A common retort was: "if the track mimics the operations of Horse Shoe Curve and has familiar structures, then it can be modelled." Needless to say, I'm one of those who believes you have to have a curve in your modelling of Horse Shoe Curve before I'll accept it is the aforementioned.

Then again in the layout design sig, I challenged when does a modelling element move from prototypical to free lance. How much detail do you need to have a "prototypical" model. I was surprised at the answers this brought forth. Again there were those who insisted there didn't need to be much prototypical for a modelled element to be prototypical. To me, this philosophy enters the realm of prototypical free lancing.

My agenda is not to have a modelled erea that is prototypical or free lanced, instead I suscribe to the "wow" factor theory. If you can make your visitor's say "wow!" when they see your layout, you've got a great layout.

[krump]

a Duster on blocks in the back yard is a great idea Flee307 - how large would the blocks be in HO Scale though? think I might give it a shot for the Junkyard Warts business that I'm adding track side.
cheers

[techguy57]

I'm just starting my HO scale MidWest Valley RR. Purely fictional although I'm planning to piece together a lot of the towns from towns in the NW Chicago suburbs and from around where I grew up in Indiana. I think that prototypes have their places but I'm not planning on putting mine in a museum so why not have a little fun, right? Best wishes to my freelancing friends!

Mike

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: ...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,...

The Bloomington to Kansas City line that the GM&O was offering was not on the Alton & Southern, which is a belt railway in the St. Louis area, then controlled by the Aluminum Company of America. The GM&O, in its efforts to secure the Alton Railroad (formerly Chicago & Alton) as a Chicago gateway, offered the "Jack Line", which ran from Bloomington, IL to Kansas City via Jacksonville, IL, to Santa Fe. The sale was nixed by the ICC because of the objections of Santa Fe's competitors.

Where the Alton has been buried under several layers of mergers, the Alton & Southern still exists and operates in the St. Louis area. For a time, it was owned by the Missouri Pacific and the Chicago & North Western.

Sorry for the tangent, but you have to keep your Altons straight!

[FJ and G]

I must be the only one here who by and large likes models based on a real railroad. To me, a lot of the fun is researching the real railroad and then modeling it.

I suppose a counter argument to mine would be that many free-lance RRs are based on one or more real railroads anyway, however. I guess that running a railroad like the Turtle Creek Central has some good points. Not only is the name cute, you could also mix motive power in ways you otherwise would get criticized for by the rivet counters. Also, you could make some neat paint schemes (much more creative than the drabber Pennsy or Norfolk & Western, for example).

I do admit enjoying many freelanced railroads such as John Allan's and the recent Malcolm Furlow bizarre masterpiece.

However, I'll stick by my guns and go against the grain on this one and vote for modeling the prototype.

[Anonymous]

I suspect there may be a growth in layouts depicting fictional locations but using real railroad company names and realistic situations, track plans, etc. - my line is home to a museum (this allows me to run FM C-Liners and Erie-Builts alongside SD40-2s). However, CSX also uses the line to reach some small industries, so motive power for freight trains can either be CSX (Dash 8 and AC4400, planning to get a Dash-9 when I can afford it), or some of the museum's locos (It's assumed the museum has an agreement with CSX to operate some of the services). there are also two passenger services, one using leased Metrolink Bombardier bilevels and the other using the museum's C&NW PS bilevels.

[Anonymous]

Dear MR Editor: The Thunder Gulch Traction Company of Gulchville, Ohio is loosely modeled after Ohio and other interurban and street railways of 1910-1938, "0" gauge. I have scratch built, kit built, kit bashed Pitman trolleys, and custom brass cars. All kinds. The company has a complete fictional history, and is in the 89th county of Ohio, Gulch County, heretofore undiscovered, in the southeast quadrant, connecting with the Northern Ohio Traction Co. at Urichsville, with overnight freight service to Cleveland. Bill Vigrass, Superintendent.(Native Ohioan now resident in NJ).
1813 Cardinal Lake Dr., Cherry Hill, NJ 08003.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jmkraker

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?

I think a lot of people are saying that the magazines are pushing porto type layouts. To tell the truth they only print what is submitted by model railroad authors. That is us folks. Maybe the durth of free lance model artiles are from lack of us "Free Lance" modlers it what is missing.
I am a free lance modeler and I seem to kitbash everything on the layout. I have as much fun as anyone. I aslo adminer the person that can take a proto type and build it fathfully, I say more power to them and as long as they are having fun I'm happy.
To say that "Free Lance" layout are dead is to say that hmuan imigination is dead!!

LEde CEO
Ba***ewak & Pindingle R.R.

[Anonymous]

Not by a long shot!.. However this preoccupation with rehetorical questions is silly. Prototype / freelance..who cares. Each has all the merits in the world...just different ones in different order. Personally I love a "glow in the dark" toxic waste hopper and it makes me chuckle. That's fun and anything fun is what this whole hobby is all about.

[krump]

mine is the CCAST-AWAY Railway - stuff I've had in a box, plus all the other stuff collected, discarded, and given to me (or anonymously left at the house). It's a start, and who knows what it will evolve into. I'm not even sure what free-lance is, I'm constructing more of a deliberate, highly detailed mistake.Having way too much fun with it now - tough to go to work... the name also has the initials of my family members.

[Anonymous]

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 have seen many layouts that are "Free lanced." usually they have a influence of one road or another however as people there are many examples of humor and creativity in the hobby.

Let us enjoy what we can even if as a 8 year old with a loop of track. In time he or she may grow up to run big trains. And that for many of us would be a blast.

Good Luck

Lee

[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.

[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..

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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,

[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

[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]

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!

[Kent]

http://sunnydale.kenttimm.com