I would like to keep this discussion pertinent to N Scale. Everyone has their definition of "Prototypical". What is Prototypical about about anything in our hobby ? If one thing is not "Prototypical" does that mean the sum of all that we do is NON Prototypical ? If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...quacks like a duck...is it really a duck ? Feel free to inject your .02 on what "Prototypical" really means to you in N Scale. In that vain...lets keep it 'civil'...thanks. .
Well, this thread is already above what I can afford to participate. So anyway, to me prototypical means it has the look and feel of the real thing, doesn't have to be exact. That pretty much sums it up in my book. I thoroughly respect that folks will beg to differ and that is good with me. Enjoying what we do is all that really matters.
This one could be a huge can of worms, but it's a hobby and we are all supposed to do this hobby for fun and relaxation. That being said some people take this way too far. I operated on an Erie Lackawanna railroad back in my HO scale days. He modeled it in transition era. One of the visits I brought my N&W Class J for some run time on a passenger service that I usually was tasked with. I asked the owner of the layout if I could run my J as my home layout was too small for it to run well. I was informed that the Class J locomotives never ran anything on this sub, even though there were quite a few N&W trains that did. I got a 30 minute lecture on how the EL worked in this time frame. He said if I wanted to bring 1218 with me the next time I came I could use that to pull the coal train out of the mountains... Another member jumped in and said it would be cool to see my J on the rails even though it never ran this line back in history. While I can appreciate all the effort to recreate the EL in it's glory days, and the layout was beautiful, it was just that, a model of what was. In the end I got to run my J, and after this he lightened up over what can run on the layout. During a show he seen me running an SD40-2 that he thought was a nice engine, and said I could run that next time I came over if I wanted. I said this is about 20 years too new for his layout... He laughed and said he was being a bit too "prototypical" for his own good, and we should have fun. The SD40-2 became an experimental engine, doing various jobs on the layout. For me I personally prefer things not as the 1:1 scale did things. I don't care if there are 15 rivets on my box car that had 16 in the 1:1 scale version. If my N scale rivets were scaled up to 1:1 they would be 2" tall. I also like unique cars, things that will draw attention to my train and be fun to look at. When I did HO scale I collected as many custom run cars I could. I regret selling a few of them now, Bobe's Hobby box car being one, especially since Bobe's Hobby has closed it's doors. What appeals to me is a well built layout that has a purpose and that is fun to operate. I also dont care if the HOG uncouples a car, hell it makes it much easier when that happens. How are derailments addressed? Well those can actually be fun to deal with, as it could mean a rescue train and also a support train to move some heavy equipment into place if its a bad one. Or maybe a few minutes wait for the following trains to simulate a few hours getting the car back on the rails for a minor derailment. Now that is actually prototypical of a response, but so it setting out and picking up cars. I am freelance guy all the way. I want a realistic looking railroad but I don't want to be constrained by what the 1:1 railroad I am copying had or is doing. I want to show my creativity in designing a railroad with a purpose and while modeling a fictitious division of NS I want it to also be plausible that it could exist.
Good replies kinda like what i think. If it looks like a train running down railrooad tracks it has to be good...right ?
What are you referring to? The level of detail? I get it, N scale details tend to be chunky and out of scale (handrails, grabs, ladders, etc). At what point do I consider a N scale piece to be prototypical? That's a tough one, and I'll only address one small aspect of it. In my mind, it has to have the flavor of the intended prototype. Exact scale stuff would be very finicky and break easily under even the gentlest handling. Even fine formed wire grabs are probably out of scale. Handrails from the 70s and 80s were more like stovepipes, but even today, probably still out of scale. I can live with that. As we age and our sight wanes, these details being to scale probably lessens in importance. To be honest, does the item bring a smile to your face? Are you satisfied with how it fits in a given scene or train on your layout? Does it catch the flavor of the real thing? At the end of the day, rule number one always applies--it's your railroad. If you like it and it works for you, that's what matters. It's a hobby and supposed to be fun. In N scale, I think the market has come miles from its early days in terms of prototypicality. We're not entirely there yet, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. I feel we're nearer to that point today than we have been in the last 20-30 years.
Just everything... locomotives...rolling stock...track....scenery...operations. The whole ballgame. What goes into everything to make it 'prototypical". If the scenery doesnt mesh...does that make it non prototypical and a failure ? Do couplers not looking prtotypical make the rest of it all junk ? Just everything I guess. I know people have a limit on what they can do and make it prototypical enough to pass muster in their eyes...but is it really 'prototypical ?? Yes...rule #1 is is a godsend...
I know THERR has a lot of things that may not look right...but...I think it ALL looks prototypical enough to make the entire thing prototypical. Trains run through scenery that looks pretty real whether the trains just run around and around thru the same scene in circles for hours.
Speaking for myself alone, for a layout to be 'prototypical' means recreating as far as possible a specific time and an specific place. There are obvious limits to this -- you cannot create a whole eight city block main street in three feet or so, etc. It also presupposes an unlimited amount of space and funds. By that yardstick, there are few 'prototypical' layouts. On my own layouts, I have not re-created any specific place, but I have tried to remain reasonably faithful to a time period. Perhaps a more useful definition would be that a prototypical layout accurately recreates the feel of a time and place, with room for some compression, editing of details, omission of some details that just won't fit; but still faithful to the 'feel' of a specific place and era. I feel that sometimes we lose sight of the fact that this IS a hobby and is supposed to be fun. If your idea of fun is running late 19th century steam freight along side 21st century Amtrak Acela passenger service, go for it and have a blast. If your 'fun' is creating scenery that reflects a favorite season and making a town or city purely from your imagination, hats off, and revel in the ability to create your 'dream'. There is (or should be) room in this hobby for fantasy as well as accuracy. I respect the knowledge and skill that shows in a highly accurate recreation of a region and a specific road name's operation in that region and time. I also enjoy seeing someone's imaginary ideal, or a creation of a 'what if' scenario. Let's have fun!
Yup...not trying to create arguements or discord. Just like knowing what everyone thinks being prototypical means in their minds. I like the responses so far We all have different definitions and I like that A layout ...of any size...that has a train moving on railroad tracks is pretty prototypical in itself IMHO.
I agree here 100%. I model mainly passenger trains, I have a lot of Amtrak equipment, but I also love the European high speed trains and own quite a few TGVs, and I run them together, and alongside my NYC 20th Century limited and MWR Olympian Hiawatha… why? Because I like to and who says there isn’t a train convention somewhere that has classic excursions alongside some modern high speed units that are being “tested” on US rails. I mean after all you could be prototypical and have the Flying Scotsman running on US rails… it did happen.
Um, er, ah, never mind. ☻ Grockit! The infinitive 'to grock' means to have the capacity to accept an entity that may have no semblance to realty but somehow just works. It is acceptable and credible to the person experiencing it. I painted a company of my modern 1/285 armored viewless with the pattern of a diamond back rattlesnakes. It worked. It was not prototypical. I had @HemiAdda2d paint my: UP U50s in Great Northern colors. It worked. It was not prototypical. FP45s in Canadian Pacific bright red with multi mark. It worked. It was not prototypical. I run all eras side by side along with Shinkansen. It works for me. It was not prototypical. I am using selective compression to 'recreated' the Roslindale Village commuter rail station. Um, Steve, hey! Steve! *That* is NOT an MBTA Bi-Level. Right, it is a Shinkansen, get over it. Oh, um, my definition: Prototypical for N Scale (for me) l is a close as possible adherence to realty as practical. I would not have any fun doing that way.
I abide by the "Good Enough" to me mantra. BUT(!) what's good enough for me may not be good enough for you and vice versa. This is a tricky question to answer as everyone has different standards. It's like asking if a certain item is expensive or not.
Very interesting discussion. To build a prototypical layout of northeastern Wisconsin would require one of the very large abandoned buildings here in Green Bay, Appleton or Oshkosh. Even in tinny N scale. I'll stick to an imaginary dream land in N and HO. Richard
A long time ago I gave up on prototype modeling because no one made locos that even came close to my roads with the exception of Kato and then only one model.
In a nut shell - I am a protolancer. I try to get as close to the SP as is feasibly possible in N scale. I try to get the "flavor" of the SP and its locals. I try not to sweat the small stuff (Doesn't always work - but, I try) Just enjoy the hobby - in your own way. Remember - we are all model railroaders - with our own tastes Wolf
I love B&M as it ran through northern New England. But it's my B&M and my northern New England. I'm happy with it. There's only one rule, everything has to fit before June 1953 when I graduated from high school. Other than that, have at it. My layout gives me a warm tummy, that's all I ask.
Especially in our diminutive 'N' Gauge world, to me, it's look and feel. I purchase and run stuff I like. My layout era? From the 1950's to present day. I have an ATSF Zebra Stripe GP7 and I run the latest Tier 4 GE Locos. Those locos are not not on the same train, that wouldn't be prototypical. I like to assemble and run trains where one could normally expect to see that equipment running together and let 'em go. I like to run at prototypical speeds. On YOUR pike it's what you like to see run. Why can't an NYC Hudson be re-lettered for the Santa Fe? Looks great pulling single level streamline cars. Certainly there are many who like to run 100% by TT&TO, others run all Track Warrants. I don't have 1 train card or switch list in my train room and that's fine by me. What I am trying to say is 'Prototypical-ness', like beauty is in the eye of (and defined by) the beholder.
One of the reason for even asking the question... I've done things with the layout...even locos...rolling stock and scenery that some say "That's not prototypical !" So ok...this begs the question...what does that statement even mean? What is it Barstow Rick used to say ? Something along the lines of "If you look hard enough you can find something IRL that shows what you did is ok" Help me out here Rick...LOL
