I was going to make that same point Cliff and it's a valid one. Perfectly modeled motive power and rolling stock can't overcome the foolish appearance of trains running at excessive speed. Even the Shinkansen has its limits.
I love model railroading because of the numerous skills you learn building a 3D scale layout and your reward is a wonderful world that moves and in some cases you can hear. How you got there is the fun part and how it looks is icing on the cake. Big supporter of Rule 1. We have an abundance of modeling talent and always look forward to the thread update on many projects posted by everyone. I usually spend two hours reading the latest posts, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day. Thank you to all members who are building a layout and sharing their experience and to members giving everyone a hand in a project. We are a family. Joe
My head is starting to hurt from thinking about all the ways this can go. For me "prototypical" is just that. For my own modeling, I will make something as close to a scale replica as I can. There are so many compromises. I can get scale couplers, but do I want to deal with the compatibility issues? Wheelsets? Handrails? Six-thou wire is available, but it won't survive being handled and ends up looking anything but prototypical. Now we have to talk about my skills, the size of my wallet, my patience, etc. So yes, I will make it as close to a scale replica as I can. Well actually as close as I feel like that day. On the other hand, when I view another modeler's work, I have learned to appreciate what is in front of me. The things I know enough about to quibble over is very short. If being "prototypical" is a standout feature, I will compliment them. If it is just really "cool," different compliment. Other modelers are under no obligation to adhere to my standards. Besides, I get a big smile seeing what the Lego folks come up with at shows. Remember shows? Running Thomas and Friends? Can't wait to see it! Accurate scale model of King Street Station circa 1955? Let me admire your work. Stay safe,
My point of view comes from being a former HO scaler for some 26 years. Every time I went to a hobby shop in my HO days, I'd take a short look at the N scale section, and always have the same thought: "I'd LOVE to have trains that small, but YECH, look at those ugly square couplers, pizza-cutter wheels, toylike detail and ridiculously-high ride height! PASS!" By the time I quit HO scale some 15 years ago, I took another look at N scale trains in the hobby shop, most of those concerns were already addressed: The ugly square Rapido couplers were already being supplanted by Micro-Trains and similar knuckle couplers, low-profile plastic wheels were already the norm (with low-profile metal wheels already making their debut), 21st century tooling meant that plastic N scale models can have details that even brass models couldn't have, and newer-generation companies like BLMA, Exactrail, Fox Valley, Deluxe Innovations, etc. were giving rolling stock more prototypical ride height. For me, that meant it was the right time to finally make the switch (And I've been never been happier as a model railroader). It's a gradual evolution - Despite their high quality status in the N scale industry for most of its history, Micro-Trains was guilty of having high ride heights, but recent rolling stock like the truly amazing, as-close-to-perfect-as-you-can-get 60' TBOX hi-cube boxcars showed that MTL can also evolve in the industry as well. Of course there are other issues - N scale couplers are still not to scale (and previous attempts to make them scale - i.e. MTL true-scale couplers) were not very successful. Of course, engineering something small enough to be both reliable and functional is still a challenge. Thicker-than-scale handrails are another issue that is a little hard to overcome due to engineering and practical limitations. But I as an N scaler, having seen my previous misgivings about the scale finally addressed, can live with these outstanding issues. I guess in all scales of modeling, the level of what you would settle for is an aspect of the hobby that each of us have our own personal parameters for.
From a newbie perspective, there are a variety of aspects when thinking about prototypical... Scale Accuracy (turnouts and scenery), Era matching, Movement (running prototypical speed , Product Detail, default DCC loco Sound volume and factual vs Fictional theme. Generally will attempt to match but not split hairs if something I like comes close. However, since doing a mid 60's layout, have not bought anything later. Haven't thought about making my own #20 turnout (closer to proto), using much larger radius track. Ok with Oxford N scale larger than 1:160. Love louder bell and horns so revised loco volume CVs so much louder than in real life, made a fictional layout, are just a few I'm certainly ok outside prototypical.... Some aspects there is no choice, at least for me, can't make more realistic size turnouts nor would fit or use larger radii, and that's OK.. Running slow prototypical speed is among the ones I'm least willing to forego and strive to run as slow as possible.. In the end, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder....
I will be short and succinct. I consider myself more of an operator. I run trains in more of a prototypical manner. I care not about the level of details on the rolling stock of the locomotives. When the train is rolling at 60 smph or higher, you can not see the details. What you can see are the trains signaled into a siding to let other traffic through, you will see midline helpers and end train pushers with a 200 car train that has a 3 percent grade to negotiate. The only point of uber modelling is the ATSF Barstow yard, most of the pike is lonely isolated trains rolling across the desert where the desert dwarfs the trains. Thanks to TrainCat, while he still was doing business, I also have a nicely detailed bridge over the Colorado River. In my world the aspect ratio of scenery to trains is more on making the trains a part of the scenery, like it is in real life. So when the train is 3-4 feet back on the layout, running left or right handed at scale speeds, no ladders on box cars or imperfections on locomotives can be seen. Just a big long train out in the middle of the Arizona Desert hoping to make it to Winslow before supper time.
I enjoy the challenge to get as close to the prototype as I can. However it is a sliding scale depending on what is available and how much time and effort that I am willing to invest. Many times I settle on "If it can't be mistaken for something else, then it is close enough." When I started building my first NTRAK modules, I picked a local scene that I was familiar with. However I wanted to back date it to the steam to diesel transition era. This involved a lot of research which I found fascinating. Not only did the buildings and structures have to fit the era but the trains running through it all. Now NTRAK is not conducive to precise prototype modeling but it was a challenge to take it as far as I could. Starting with three four foot modules I was able to break up the triple track main in the middle and still conform to the three track standard at each end of the module set. When our club would set up a layout all by ourselves sticking with all the modules being of the same area and era, we could control the trains running through it all to the actual era and railroads. We would alternate operations between prototype trains and "Free For All" where anything went by. When my modules were set up with other clubs at a train show, it was all about fun and just let them roll. The public usually did not know the difference. I have plenty of trains from different eras and regions that I run all the time.
Hi George, Maybe the easiest way to answer your question is, what is not prototypical? To that I'd say using HO scale automobiles on a N scale layout is not prototypical because they are not the same scale. Yes, others have done the opposite to create a forced perspective. Having Hot Wheels style loops in our train tracks is not prototypical, but having a horizontal loop like Williams Loop or Tehachapi loop is prototypical. Having half stock car, half passenger car is not prototypical, but a combination baggage and passenger car is prototypical. Someone once said if you look hard enough, you'll find a prototype for everything, but I'd add "everything realistic". We can image all kinds of "funny" or crazy things like passenger cars that are all glass and completely see though, but I'd be very surprised if you found an all glass passenger car. So I guess to answer your question, What is Prototypical? If you can find it in the world we live in and you reduce that to 1:160 scale, then it's prototypical. Also in my opinion this includes the What If layouts. Just because a prototype railroad did not build a route in the exact same location as the route of Allen McClelland's V&O railroad, does not mean his V&O railroad was not prototypical. So there you go George, clear as mud huh
My objective is less to be one hundred per-cent prototypical but to give the idea of something. I want my nineteenth century pike to look like it belongs there, so I choose things for it that suggest that era. My little town on this pike probably could not afford a steam pumper, a hook and ladder, a Chief's carriage, a hose waggon and a water tank, but, horse drawn fire equipment screams nineteenth century, so I have it. The town is probably too small for a livery stable and smithy, but I have one. My equipment spans an era from the 1870s, when even the locomotives still were colorful to the 1880s, when they all started to appear in black. Colorful locomotives also scream nineteenth century, so I run them, even alongside plain black locomotives. Archbar or wooden trucks also suggest the nineteenth century for those who pay that much attention, so I make sure that my equipment has those older trucks. I make sure that all of the waggons have spoked wheels, even though there were solid wheels on waggons even in ancient times. People look at spoked wheels as nineteenth century, so that I why I use only those. I generally stop at the 1880s, which is why there are no automobiles. If I were to go into the very late 1890s or early 1900s, I could justify an automobile or two, but I want the pike to look 1880s or older.
Great discussion! Prototypical means representative of something that actually occurs, now or in the past. I'm generally NOT prototypical, but I do like to understand how real railroads (and industries, people, etc.) did things. Some I like to recreate (to some degree acceptable to me), some I don't bother with. On my layout, I get to play God, and what I want to do, and can do, is what is done. Would I like to have the skills/room/time/$ to create some of the incredibly realistic model railroads I've seen here? You bet; but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I really get excited when I see an idea that I like, and I think I can do it reasonably well on my layout. For most all of us, model railroading is a hobby, not a job or a living. Do what you want; life's too short to fret the rest for the sake of a hobby.
Well OBVIOUSLY, the eyebrows are a scale 1/8" too short AND the color of the number is a tad too dark, and the font is off, AND... (Just kidding)
But the Isle of Sodor does exist. It exists and is very real in the minds of millions of children all over the world. You are 100% prototypical.
I'm with Big Jake here: 'Prototypical means representative of something that actually occurs, now or in the past.' I like the Wisconsin Central, and like to create scenes and run trains representative of it. In the shot below, my intermodal train has just arrived in a Chicago yard, the two Geeps on the front are typical of a WC intermodal train in it's early days, as are the cars, and the trailers mounted on them.
That is what I am trying to acheive. Those Geeps and Canadian National are what I mostly see here in eastern Wisconsin.
I run 1950's trains. I especially like passenger trains. I run the B&O, NYC, UP, and Pennsylvania together at times. I'm not a purest but try to stick to the 50's. I don't run operating sessions but would like to find out more from those that do.
I enjoy prototypical modeling, to a point. But as someone said earlier "If I have 15 rivets instead of 16, oh well" When I detail one of my Rock Island units, I try to get the main spotting features so as to get a flavor of the prototype. I'll add the proper horns, a 5 chime horn was prominent on the Rock as was not having dynamic brakes. Then I'll try to get them weathered enough to again achieve the flavor. I was in Manhattan, KS years ago with our modular setup, while I had one of my trains running, a couple of older gentleman stopped and I heard one say "Those look just like the locomotives I ran while I worked on the Rock Island" At that point I knew I achieved a believable level of modeling. I also try to keep cars and locos within a specific time frame that I've chosen. Though I've strayed a few years one way or the other. One thing that really gets under my skin is when I see a video posted of someone's layout and they have a single, extremely modern loco that's pulling a string of cars from the 1940's - 50's era. It just ruins it for me. As for operation, I run my trains s-l-o-w. For me, my layout is a stage and if I can get things close enough, then your mind will fill in the details. It's like being a magician, it's all about fooling the eyes with an optical illusion!
