Prototype and Free Lancing

Since it is getting close to Christmas and I know new model railroaders will be joining us, I am attempting to institute a series of "articles" here that can help bring a newbie up to "snuff" so to speak. When I first started in the hobby, I can remember how "unknowledgeable" I was; it was so bad I had to look up the word "prototype" in the dictionary to determine what it meant.

I hope others feel free to comment and/or disagree. The more sides and considerations a new person is presented with issues in layout design, the more informed and re-assuring the choices he or she makes.

And so I have chosen an issue that has grown over the last decade. First a little history. Original model railroaders had many challenges in growing a layout, and often more sophisticated issues weren't dealt with. Initially just getting track, engines and and structures together, was difficult. There weren't the choices we have today in track, engines, structures, scenery material, etc., most of it had to be "scratch built (completely designed and built by the modeler)".

Often when a layout was developed, it was by definition - free lance. That is, some one put together a layout that they thought "looked right." The person wanted mountains, tunnels, bridges, a turn table and round house, a yard, a couple of towns and an industry and they were cooking. Their free lancing may have borrowed from the real thing but the entire layout existed in the mind, and finally in reality of the creator.

Prototypically modeling came about latter. By latter, I mean in popularity. I am sure some one can point out early "prototypical" modelers, but most modeler's were in to free lancing. For example, John Allen - one of the most famous modeler's to transform the hobby - was free lance. Others were as well. such as W. Allen McClelland, Larry Rice, Tony Koester and David Barrow.

Prototypical modeling is a modeling style which attempts to be as true to the "real thing" as possible. This can included not only the geography (scenery) but structures, track lay out, rolling stock and engines, and everything else that goes along duplicating a scene. To choose one popular example from out east, Horse Shoe Curve is famous in its own right and many choose to model it as close to how it looks in real life as possible. Prototypical modeler's love research, railfanning their "baby", and conversing with others in the hobby working on the same area and/or railroad.

In the summer of 1999, I met Ed Rappe on the Royal Hudson Steam Excurion train (or was it running the Consolidation then.. memory fails). His layout in "O" scale was featured in the March 2000 of Model Railroad (Assault on the Alleghenies: Ed Rappe's O scale Pennsylvania RR) pp 65. Ed told me about modeling it and the research he had done. Clearly he had put plenty of home work into the project. Tony Koester and other's feel that prototype modelling helps to preserve history, gives a "higher" sense of purpose to the layout, and is just as challenging - if not more so - in modelling skills required to bring to fruitition a rail road. Most, but not all, are into the steam/diesel transition period.

Free lancers enjoy the creativity of bringing their own dream alive in a realistic believable representation so that the visitor might actually believe they are seeing a "prototypical" rail road. My son, for example, is busy creating a mythical subsidiary of Montana Rail Link, except his is going to be called the "Eastern British Columbia Rail Link" or "EBC Rail Link" for short. He is taking Montana Rail Link engines, removing the word Montana and replacing it with "EBC" instead. So a knowledgeable visitor might well inquire whether Montana Rail Link indeed has this subsidiary under its belt in reality since the engines will look "genuine."

Others enjoy creating their own paint schemes and heralds for their rail roads. They will also create box car, intermodal cars, and passenger cars with their own paint schemes. Most will base their "free lancing" on some prototypical area or rail road. Especially when new to the hobby, it is safer to "borrow" a track plan from your local rail road's yard, than try and create your own, for example.

Some switch from one to the other. Certainly the flow seems to be away from free lance to prototypical modeling. But there have been some who have gone in the opposite direction for a host of reasons. Those moving towards the prototype want the challenge of making the real thing come alive in their basement. The free lancers enjoy the creativity they can have in creating their own empires.

Which side am I on? Well I was going to model the Vancouver Port, but I kept running into constraints and challenges I just haven't been able to over come, using the space I have. The Vancouver Port area is really a branch line of CP, with interchange with BNSF and CN. The trains brought into the port area are from the main CP yard. You don't see SD90's, etc in the port area. Yet in my layout with reversing loops, I would have to run mainline CP and CN through the Vancouver Port area - a sight you never see in reality.

The back track in the reversing loop would somehow have to be hidden as it is in a major scenic area requiring intermodal, Granaries, sugar plant, animal reduction plant, etc. This is something I couldn't do effectively. So... my latest idea is to create a "Ports West" area in which I can do whatever I like with mainline trains running through, and switching servicing the industries. That way, I won't have to listen to the prototypical police tell me all the flaws in my "prototypical modeling." Don't get me wrong, I would rather do the prototype, but I know I wouldn't be able to do it justice so I have moved towards free lancing the area.

And so I ask both prototyper's and free lancers to say what moved you towards your choice of modeling.

 

Great job of explaining the two choices, Rick. I tend to think the idea of a major trend toward prototype RRing is more in the eyes and minds of the Tony Costners, et al, than in the reality of the masses of us out here actually modeling. I am a freelancer, under the subheading " This is the way it would be today if the RRs had done it right". I model the mountain RRing in NE Arizona today as if all the small RRs that hauled copper, coal, pearlite, timber and cattle had merged together into one efficient company offering freight and passenger service to all the many towns up here. I like having my own copper colored locos [and cabooses] hauling goods and people all over in an efficient, friendly and cost effective manner. I model real industry and real places that have run the long haul truckers out of the area by providing cheaper, faster service. Amtrack is a thing of the past here except for some dining cars we purchased from them. Passenger service is fast, dependable and affordable and has no government subsdies. Fun stuff! Curt

 

I tend to use the best of both worlds. I proto-freelance. I found if you try to be prototypical you may not be satisfied with yourself if you can't get the perfect item you are looking for. Also if you do research, you may not find things to your liking or what you want to achieve with your modeling.

Whereas freelancing can let you leave behind the prototypical guidelines/restraints. However, if you are not careful with freelancing you may be wandering around in a fog, and in the end you may not be completely satisfied with what you wanted.

These are extreme cases, and there are a lot of people who can do either strict prototypical or freelance it. As for me I have a mythical route, but use prototype equipment. The mythical route also allows me to have certain operating practices that the real railroad my have never done. The prototype equipment allows me to model my favorite roads. With my route being jointly owned by my favorite class one railroads, I can feel good and justified about running equipment from either railroad.

 

I've chosen to freelance primarily due to lack of restraint. There is simply too much I like about several roads to try to pick one. This is a hobby I got into for fun, not to recreate history. And while I enjoy reading all I can about my favorite roads, I certainly would not enjoy having to go to great lengths to make sure everything I build is correct for a given time. To each their own, but I agree with the previous comment about Tony Koester not representing the hobby in general. Many years ago when I started I did not have an overwhelming fondness for any particular road. I chose to create a fictional line located in North Jersey and southern N.Y. Back then, I felt I just had to have a B&O EM1. Never got one tho. But that was the type of desire that persuaded me to freelance. Because I had zero desire to model the B&O. Over the years, I've come to settle on the NYC along the Hudson as my choice to model. I have a two level railroad, where the bottom level is NYC, and the top is freelance, they interchange. Nonetheless, my NYC portion is still not faithful to prototype. For example, I have modelled Spuyten Dyvil without a wye, due to space considerations. It is also a mirror image for the same reason. Yet to be built are the 60th St. yards, obviously will be compressed. The biggest transgretion is the inclusion ot the wood trestle at Bear Mountain(on the west side of the Hudson) on a line which is the main along the east side of the Hudson! But again, I model what I like, and omit what I don't. Many years from now, I will start modeling trains of the NYC to run thru the scenery of the Hudson valley. The trains will be as faithful as possible. But first, I have a lot of work to do.

Gary

 

It's interesting Gary- i grew up in NJ [Camden], but the only RRing i saw was the Pennsy stuff across the river in Philly. That's where i found my great love, the GG-1. Being a freelancer allows me to not only have GG-1s on my Arizona RR, but allows me to convert them to diesel power, and thus become GG-1Ds- definately only allowed in the world of freelancers! Curt

 

Gary, Dane (BC Rail King) and I are doing something similiar with free lance on the upper level and prototypical on the bottom level. Do you keep your trains basically to their own respective level, ie. free lance stays up and prototype down. Or, do you run the mainline with both trains (proto and free lance) running throughout your layout - top and bottom. I am curious as to how you operate it.

 

I have been a freelancer the whole time I've been a model railroader(23 years plus).I have never enough interest in any one proto-road to want to model it.

My GVR does interchange with several proto-roads though and I find that I do enjoy the research needed to be sure the locos are accurate.

Having created NARA along with Robin,Brian,and Larry has also given me the chance to interchange with other freelanced roads also and just simply adds to the hobby for me.

I can find no fault with the prototype modelers as long as they don't try counting my rivets.

 

It is possible to model prototypical but take a few liberties here and there. My 'version' of the Soo Line's Tomah Sub in Wisconsin will have a bit more industry and switching than existed in the early 1990's (the plan is to base it on industry that once existed but may not have featured rail service in the early 90's.) Might even feature a La Crosse Intermodal Yard (no such thing in reality - this pushes the limits that I am comfortable with.) You can have the freedom to model things that you like within the framework of how your chosen prototype did things.

You have to remember, even Tony Keoster had to make compromises to fit the NKP into his basement. Where we draw the line as to what is or is not acceptable is what makes our model RRs our own, not mater how prototypical our principles.

 

What do you mean by ACCEPTABLE?

TO WHO?

Are you building your layout to be acceptable to me? To Tony Costner?

I built my layouts to be acceptable to ME!

Sure its PERMISSABLE! It is YOUR layout, build it like you want it, and enjoy it!

The only time you have to seek and plead for acceptance from anyone else, is when someone else is footing the bill for you.

No one ever contributed anything to my layouts, so if they didn't like the way I did something, you don't need 21 guesses as to how much difference that made to me!

Enjoy your own layout! The whole idea is to please your self, HAVE FUN with it!

 

From my reading, I take Rob refers to the design parameters a modeller finds acceptable when modelling a railroad whether prototypical, freelanced, or a combination of both, whilst maintaining a personal level of fidelity. It is where the individual chooses to stop their quest for fidelity that makes what they have created acceptable to the individual. Afterall, it is their layout, their world.

Rob's desire to have a non-existant intermodal yard in La Crosse is a compromise to the prototype that he finds acceptable to himself, even with the discomfort of not being entirely prototypical.

Whether someone agrees or disagrees with this compromise is up to that individual agreeing or disagreeing. No-one is forcing anyone to accept anyone else's decisions, nor has that premise been entreatied here.

Gary.

 

Regarding the GG1, I actually have a place in mind for one on my layout. I saw a picture in a book on the Jersey Central where the Pennsy crosses over the JC and there is a GG1 sitting there. I needed a way to disguise the exit of my freelanced lines west end to hidden staging in another room, and I will duplicate this scene to accomplish this. And it's not quite such a stretch of the imagination either, since my line runs (in theory) from Philly to Boston. The GG1's, of course, ran from Philly to the Amboys and on to Penn Station in NYC. Mine will have to be content to just sit there with one or two head end cars since the track it will be on will be 3 or 4 feet long, running into walls at each end. A diesel GG1 sounds interesting!
Rick, To answer your question regarding operations, official operations have only a couple trains which run from one level to the other. Loaded coal drags run the freelanced line (will be refered to as JGL from here on)from west end staging to a yard at the east end of the modeled section. NYC power will be waiting at the yard with their hack. JGL steam will come off and go to the roundhouse, the NYC units will couple up, run down the helix, and take the drag into Manhatten. This is another example of something that never happened on the NYC, by the way. JGL locals will bring cuts of interchange cars down the helix to the interchange on the lower level where NYC crews will exchange cars. A RDC will run between the interchange town (which has a passenger station where local NYC passenger trains will stop) and the as yet unnamed town where the JGL yard is located. JGL passenger trains, running form Philly to Boston, stop here to allow passengers destined for NYC to detrain and take the RDC to the NYC connection. The Boston end of the JGL is a staging loop one turn further down the Helix, below the NYC. These are the only trains planned to run between levels in an "official" operating session. In practise, since only the yard on the upper level has been built so far (the lower level mains and staging are complete) I run whatever I feel like up to the yard where it can be run around, switched and return. No turntable yet, so I don't run steam there yet. When I get there, most trains travelling from Philly to the yard will be powered by steam and have their power switched to diesel before continuing on to Boston. The yard serves primarily as a division point, with litle classification. It will originate two locals for switching the many industries on the upper level, which is including many scenes from the Erie, Susquehanna and Lackawanna in the general area of Clifton, Paterson and Butler. Probably more than you wanted to know.

Gary

 

i like my layout to be freelanced. i can run any era of train on it and any road name. Mix the new with the old. It all looks good. But individually i like my models to be prototypical or close to prototypical. But kitbashing is lots of fun too. But the bottom line of it, i just love running and building my model train world.

 

I'm not a rivet-counter, but some of the prototypical layouts I have seen are simply awe-inspiring. It means a lot to be able to capture a moment in history, and recreate it. All that more poignant if that moment has a deep meaning for you.

Personally, I enjoy a mix of both worlds. I like layouts with a realistic and believable theme, but with some individuality from the builder, something unique or humorous. I also enjoy listening to the histories and stories that people have created for their layouts, especially those small and struggling little backwoods lines.

Myself, I am doing my best with my lilmited talents and just having fun with it along the way. The worlds greatest hobby, but still a hobby...

 

Watash and others,
Let me challenge you with a question: "When does prototypical modeling cease to be prototypical modeling?" To be honest I don't know. I think many would agree that if the prototype had 4 tracks in the yard, and we model 3, the design element may still be considered prototypical. How far does the modeling effort have to stray before it is considered free lance.

I am faced with the same kind of choice that Rob is dealing with. I want to model an area that doesn't have mainline consists running through it, but for the space I have, they must run through it. I want to model Vancouver Ports with many of its industries, including intermodal. Yet to do that, I have to have a reversing loop right smack dap in an area that basically has all straight track... lol. However, the backdrop will be a photo backdrop of North Vancouver as viewed from Vancouver Ports. The industries will be relatively accurate, given my talents...lol.

Or perhaps another area as an example. Dane (BC Rail King) and I do a lot of railfanning in the Fraser and Thompson Canyons. Our favourite place to eat is in North Bend, a small suburb...lol... of Boston Bar, BC. What is in this area is very simple - a couple of long straight track, track crossing signals, the CP diner, a very small yard and that is it. But in my mind, to capture its flavour you need a very long stretch of straight track (this is often where the engine will stop - by the diner - and the crew change, or the crew stop and eat).

Dane and I would like to model it. However, were it would go on our layout is a very curved mountainous region. So I thought that to model it prototypically just wouldn't work, so we are free lancing this area based on North Bend. Instead of the CP diner, we will have "Daisy's Beaner" (based on a waitress who works at the CP diner). There will be multiple track, maybe with a vehicle crossing area complete with gates and signals. But it won't be prototypical.

So when is a design element prototypical and when does it change into free lance?

 

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by watash:
What do you mean by ACCEPTABLE?

TO WHO?
<hr></blockquote>

To me and no one else. I do not hold anyone else accountable to the level of prototype accuracy that I desire. That is IMO the best part of this hobby.

The point I was trying to make is even as high as Tony K has set the bar for himself he cannot and will never be able to achieve 100% accuracy. Selective compression cannot be avoided - we simply do not have the space for scale curves and distances in our layouts. If we model a small area and do it in Z scale maybe but then we have oversized rail, wheels, couplers etc - there is always a compromise.

Please note that I say where HE set the bar for HIMSELF - I hear to many people saying that "Tony says this" and "Tony says that" - so what? Unless you are building a model for Tony's layout, you do not have to model to his standards.

There is no right or wrong in model railroading - as long as you are having fun.

 

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by rsn48:
Watash and others,
Let me challenge you with a question: "When does prototypical modeling cease to be prototypical modeling?"
<hr></blockquote>

To a certain extent as long as you have trains running on track I reckon there is some level of prototype modeling involved I guess if you rip up the track and put in slot cars and still call it the 'plywood central railroad' then you have probibly removed all protypical elements.

 

FWIW: Concerning the question : 'When does prototypical modelling cease to be prototypical modelling?'

This is of course a very subjective matter, but might I suggest that prototypical modelling ceases to be 'prototypical' the second (literally) that one builds a layout or, indeed, places anything on a 'prototypical' layout which departs from faithfully copying what the railway does. Note that the crucial word here is 'faithfully'.. IF one is modelling a specific prototype railway, then one must model exactly that - the things that that specific railway uses, the things that it runs, the buildings that it constructs, etc. etc. The whole package. Such is the nature of 'prototype' modelling.

Therefore, based upon these criteria, if one is modelling a specific railway and places this specific railway in a mythical location where it never ran, then one is no longer modelling prototype, rather one is now modelling IN THE STYLE of the prototype! By creating a mythical location for a favourite 'road, there has been a sideways shift. The result is no longer prototypical - it simply cannot be so.

No doubt this will come as a shock to many, yet if one logically considers the matter there is no other conclusion that can be reached; Prototype is exactly that - prototype.

Prototype modellers CANNOT place a specific 'real' railway in a mythical location then add all the 'real' bits and still call the result ''Prototypical', because by the mere act of creating a 'mythical' setting they have abrogated the meaning of the word 'Prototypical.

Having said that, of course, it is noticeable that the majority of those who call themselves 'prototype' modellers quite deliberately ignore the ramifications of exactly what 'Prototype' means and carry on 'playing trains'; practicality trumping a 'slavish adherence to the exact meaning of the word'. it is also noticeable that even those who do attempt to strictly adhere to the 'prototypical' philosophy, eventually 'ease-up' and discover that pragmatism is better than reality (and it also means that one can actually run trains... )

As i said, FWIW. it's an interesting question and is one that has been exercising modeller\s minds for several generations.

Ultimately, it all comes down to individual perception really - doesn't it? To quote a certain Wallace Greenslade, 'It's all in the mind, you know...'

BTW: A point to consider: Due to the limitations imposed by manufacturing techniques, and the limitations imposed by various scale-related strictures, it is probably useful to recall that NONE of our so-called prototypically-accurate models are actually that; at best, they are toys which happen to be very good approximations of prototype (aka, 'Close, but no cigar'.).

As I said, FWIW. Thanks for asking.

Komata

"TVR - serving the Northern Taranaki..."

.

 

I am a new modeler in the railroad scene. I am definitely going freelance. I buy and run and build what I like the looks of. Some of the comments here seem to sneer at one or the other as a choice of preference, but thru it all we are just modeling what pleases us. I have certainly seen many fine examples of both schools of thought and I am learning all the time. I say "nice work people". As I progress in this hobby I am sure I will move towards more realism in what I build. Keep it up and remember it is all your own. Have much fun.

 

A very interesting subject. I grew up with relatives working on both the Milwaukee Road and the Northern Pacific, and as a kid, spent countless hours riding the the cabs of both railroads. Needless to say, I was hooked on trains. I originally wanted to model either of these railroads, but due to the amount of space I had, there was no way that I could have done justice to either railroad. The choice was then to freelance.

I chose to model the area right where I live and what "could have happened". Growing up in the 50's, I chose the transition era, in 1957. The railroad is a point to point, with a yard and engine facility at each end. At one end, it connects to the Northern Pacific at Logan, MT. The railroad then goes through actual towns and ends in Gallatin Gateway, MT, there it connects to the Milwaukee Road, and then travels south to West Yellowstone, MT. There is a hidden staging track, actually 3 tracks that will allow for continuous running, but is mainly used for interchange with the two real railroads.

I try to run my railroad like a prototype, with locomotives that I have custom painted trying to give them a "family" look, and also custom painted a number of freight cars for my railroad. The main line run isn't very long as the layout was built for switching. There are quite a few industries on the layout, and many of them supply other industries on the layout as well as shipping freight to points beyond the layout using the MILW or NP.

A railroad need a reason to exist, and by using industries that do, or could exist where I live, the plan was hatched. Grain elevators supply grain to a mill on the layout. Cattle pens supply cattle to a meat packing plant. A logging spur supplies logs to a lumber mill which in turn supplies lumber yards and a furniture factory on the layout. This generates a lot of traffic to industries within the layout as well as shipping to points beyond. The layout was started over 20 years ago and came to a screeching halt when the last hobby shop in my area closed, but in recent years e-retailers have come on line and the layout is moving forward again.

Here are a couple of videos posted in another area the first is an overview of the layout that is under construction in areas as you will see. http://youtu.be/BOXCb5yIoAw

The next video is a cab ride from one end of the layout to the other. http://youtu.be/CnUKT4__S1w

The nice thing about freelancing is that it is your railroad and anything goes. I try to be as close as possible on the motive power for the MILW and NP, but also enjoy the freedom of enjoying my own equipment.