I love seeing prototype layouts and models, I love seeing freelance layouts and models, I love seeing the work of very skilled modelers, I love seeing the work of new modelers... I love model railroading and appreciate everyone's work.

Is the hobby getting too serious?

In a single word, no.

The prototypers were always there. Look in a random 1950's issue of MR to find someone scratch-build a Santa Fe steam engine in brass ...and that just proves me right. The change in materials, tools and methods just made modelling a prototype easier for mere mortals like myself who are lucky enough to successfully solder a frog together ...let alone contemplate building a locomotive from a piece of brass tube that's about the right diameter.

I, like you Mr Fugate, fall into the prototype modelling crowd. But I've never forgotten which layout articles I read as a kid that got me seriously interested in the hobby; Allen McCelland's V&O and Eric Brooman's Utah Belt. Both were freelanced layouts, highly-steeped in prototype practice, but still freelanced. And though I've chosen a prototype to follow, I'm nowhere near as stringent in my modelling as many serious detail-oriented modellers out there. Knowing there are so many with these extraordinary skills, from the early days of the hobby to present day, helps keep me grounded and having fun in this hobby.

That said, this hobby if full of those who like putting down entire groups of people due to personal superiority complex issues. Nothing to do with the hobby, but everything to do with sad elements of humanity in general. You see this everywhere.

Prototypers against freelancers, and freelancers against prototypers - just different sides of the same coin.

And that said, thanks to this editorial I expect the same three people on this forum to start attacking ALL prototype modellers within the first 3 responses to this thread. Come on guys, don't disappoint me...

Has our hobby gotten too serious due to prototype modeling?  No.  Any problem, such as it exists, lies with people taking themselves too seriously.  Instead of seeing someone with a different approach as yet another hobbyist under the same big tent, there's an all too common urge to view him/her as an enemy needing to be vanquished.  Such a silliness emanates from every point on the spectrum, and infects this forum and others from time to time in endlessly annoying ways.

I love seeing prototype layouts and models, I love seeing freelance layouts and models, I love seeing the work of very skilled modelers, I love seeing the work of new modelers... I love model railroading and appreciate everyone's work.

That's the way to address it, Gary.  Well said.

100% to scale in every way, right down to the very last rivet. Ran beautifully, extremely reliable. And of course exquisitely detailed and accurate track. 

I had to give it up after 15 years though, when I moved away, and have been trying to recreate the Nirvana of it's realism ever since.

Ditto what Gary said. I try to keep my child-like enjoyment of all types of model railroads and yet sometimes the petty critic in me starts to show its ugly face. When it does I have to give myself a mental "slap in the face" and remember - having fun with trains!

Rick

to what Gary said. It's a fun hobby.

Bernd

I can find inspiration anywhere, and good modeling is good modeling regardless of the subject.  Are we too serious these days?  I don't think so.  Do people consider other points of view these says?  I don't think they do, at least not as much as they used to.  With more information and more choice out there, we can choose to be exposed only to those things which we already like or agree with.  Politics, religion, model railroading, even restaurant choice, we've become more myopic.  I don't think it has anything to do with prototype modeling, it's just a reality of the world in which we live.

If someone is building a model of a Sherman tank and finds photos of a real one, and details his model to match it exactly, do other miltary modelers call him out as a rivet counter?  I don't think so; they would congratulate him (or her) on doing such careful research.  If an automobile modeler has every wire in its place under the hood of his '69 Charger, would he be told he is "too serious" about his modeling?  You gotta be kidding; people would be drooling over the detail.  I think model railroading is unique in the model hobbies in that there is a backlash against accurate prototype modeling from some quarters.  Instead of appreciating the effort that goes into the research and modeling, there is mocking and criticism that they are undermining the hobby.  

There is certainly more latitude and variety in model railroading than other model hobbies, and this is probably because it has its roots in train sets which were intended for kids, and because modeling a prototype has been difficult to impossible until recently, due to the diversity of prototypes and lack of appropriate models.  Now things have changed, and not only are there more models than ever before, there is a wealth of information thanks to the internet, which makes it possible to be more realistic than ever before.  I don't see a problem with that.  Maybe others should stop making it a problem.

I have embraced every form of model railroading from tinplate trainsets, to freelance to prototype modeling.  Right now I'm modeling a prototype, but maybe I'll dust off my Märklin tinplate, because there's something neat about that old stuff that prototypical models don't have.  That's up to me, and that's the way it should be.  Let everyone do what they enjoy in this great hobby, and stop making prototype modelers the scapegoats for whatever you think is wrong with it. 

And the answer is a resounding YES....at least in some cases anyway. In my opinion, SOME (not all)  prototype modelers take themselves and their layouts way too seriously. But hey, even if I think that, it's their hobby and they are free to enjoy it however they want.  Where I take issue with a lot of them  is their penchant for putting down anything that is not "prototypical" enough for them. The Gorre and Daphetid is what got me into this hobby. It is my inspiration for basically everything I do  in this hobby. Heck you could say the G&D is my prototype! I think it was a masterpiece and that it still deserves standing as one of the finest model railroads ever built. You'll excuse me if I get a little upset when someone comes along and poo poos it for "not being prototypical enough" or derisively calls it a "caricature". Either that or they criticize the "spaghetti bowl track plan". Never mind that most all layouts built in that time were the same way, it was the popular thinking on layout design back then. Just look at  "101 Trackplans for Model Railroaders".

The irony of it is that by all accounts, John Allen was very concerned with the prototype and most especially with operating his layout in a prototypical manner.  I would go so far to say that John was one of the pioneers of realistic operation. The first " unwrapped" track plan I ever saw was one of the G&D drawn by John Allen. The first system I ever encountered for moving cars about a layout was the "tab on car" system he used.

I'm sorry, the G&D is infinitely more interesting to me than Tony Koesters take on the NKP. Honestly, I can't imagine anything more boring than modeling the countryside that the Nickel Plate ran through. That is not a criticism, it's an opinion that people are free to differ with. Some folks need to learn the difference in the two.

I don't know what else to say, I think Joe has eloquently summed up both sides of the coin. In fact though, I do need to apologize for something in some of my previous post, I should have never used the term "anal" to describe prototype modelers.  I know what I meant, and it wasn't anything malicious but the word has a very negative connotation and was a very bad choice on my part. So I do apologize and hope the people I offended will accept that.

BTW, in case anyone is interested, I model the Gorre and Daphetid on October 15th 1970 at 12:01 PM when the temp outside John's basement in Monterey was 60 degrees and the relative humidity inside was..........LOL ( this is humor folks...please take it as such!)

Michael

was considered to be outstandingly different at and for it's time.

considered to be outstandingly different at and for it's time

It was, but as for me, I think the magic and allure of it as well as the superb modeling is timeless. Good modeling is good modeling is good modeling. Doesn't matter whether it was done now or in the 1960's and 70's.  John Allen's modeling was wonderful and Tom's rendition of the Gorre and Daphetid is excellent modeling.  It doesn't deserve to be run down or looked less upon because it's not some rivet by rivet duplicate of a real prototype or an exact, to the last blade of grass, model of some town in the midwest.  No prototype modelers work is necessarily  done to a "higher benchmark" or a "finer standard"  simply because it is modeled after a specific prototype rather than freelanced from someone's imagination. The work should stand or fall on it's own merit.  In a nutshell, that's all I've ever said.

Michael

...modeled to a higher-fidelity to the prototype-benchmark.  And for some of us, that is the goal, and though other work might be impressive to others, there are some who are not impressed at all with those layout's that are not modeled to that standard.  Doesn't mean they are bad, doesn't mean the modeler's skills are awful, it's just to a different benchmark and some of us have little interest in that kind of modeling. 

For a some of us it is modeling to that higher fidelity to the prototype benchmark that makes it fun for us, and without that, there would be no interest in the hobby at all. 

Ken L

Model railroading is fun, but you must understand, we're really all quite serious about our fun!

alcoted wrote:
And that said, thanks to this editorial I expect the same three people on this forum to start attacking ALL prototype modellers within the first 3 responses to this thread. Come on guys, don't disappoint me...

 Michael (noah_count) - check
 Who are the other two? 

 Smile,
 Stein, who agree with Joe that there is plenty of room for all in this hobby

Michael (noah_count) - check

Yes I responded because the subject is something I feel strongly about. I exercised my right to express an opinion about it but where did I attack anyone???  Stating a contrary point of view from another person or group of people is not attacking them. In fact, I actually apologized to said group for a poor choice of words in some earlier post.

Michael

Prototype modeling is modeled to a higher-fidelity to the prototype-benchmark.  And for some of us, that is the goal, and though other work might be impressive to others, there are some who are not impressed at all with those layout's that are not modeled to that standard.

If you can look at John Allen's work or look at Tom's work that is inspired by it and not be impressed with it even though it may not be your particular cup of tea, then I really don't know what to say. I give credit where it's due to all types of modeling even if it isn't my particular taste. My problem has NEVER been with good examples of prototype modeling, I like  and very much appreciate Joes work for instance, and Jack Burgess too. My problem is with SOME prototype modelers who look down their nose in sneering condescension at anything that does not fit their narrow definition of "prototype modeling". What I've never figured out about your disagreements with me Ken is that you're not even what I would consider a "prototype modeler" in the strictest sense of the word.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gathered from your post is that you model "what might have been" not "what was or is". In that respect , I can't see how you much differ from me or John Allen or Tom  in modeling a "romanticized vision of what we might like to have been".

Michael

..... is harder to create a BELIEVABLE freelanced layout than to make a faithful copy of the prototype. And for the prototypers that always find a way to derogate your freelanced empire, they can go and have a blast with that mechanical piece that usually goes along with a nut.

...i may rewrite history, but I keep to as close to the prototype as possible.  in my proto-freelanced creation, I have studied the various railroads that existed as far back as the mid 19th Century.  I changed history by having certain railroads that became defunct become part of the P&A, but those lines did exist (in in some cases still do exist)

I can point to several places where John Allen's "humor" I find detracts from his modeling.  Again, my opinion, if you and others find it brilliant, that's great.  There are people who look at and even pay millions of dollars for a painting of a Campbell's soup can, I personally don't see the value of it, but obviously some people do. 

I would think John Allen considered Model Railroading more as an art form.  Though yes it is an "art", but to me, it's more a historical recreation of either what was, or what might have been.  Is that still an "art" I would have to agree yes, but not in the same sense and context.  From reading his book, he was more interested in what it looks like, grand majestic scenes, with floor to ceiling scenery.  And though he did operate with some prototype practices in mind (car cards, having some kind of electornic timer so if you didn't stop for water, the loco stopped working,etc) , I find very little in comparison to most prototype, and proto-freelanced layouts that exist today, or even back in the 1950s and 1960s. 

The best way to perhaps describe my pov on this would be comparing the G&D and V&O in THIS CONTEXT:  To me if I ask the question could or even "did" the V&O exist in the real world, my answer is "Yes".  When I ask the question about the G&D?  No.  Now, I don't think on of John Allen's objectives was to have that question answered as "yes".  That's fine.  But for me it's a very important question.  And for what' i'm doing, I hope for most when they see the P&A, they will be able to answer "Yes" the P&A could have existed, it's believable enough, the backstory is plausible enough, most everything on the layout will not be so out of the ordinary that causes people to question whether it could have been that way.  All throughout the G&D, I find so many things I would "question" that it raises doubts.  Now his is not the only layout I have this kind of "criticism" for, but since his layout was brought up, it's why I focus my attention on it, but there are others as well. 

Again, If that is what and how you want to model, GO FOR IT! If it brings FUN for you and those around you, I will be very happy for you.  Honestly! I do mean that.  But for me, I find little to no enjoyment at all in such a layout.  But that's me.  I have been told i'm very unique.  I have no doubt of that!  

Ken L

Pippy,

You got me thinking with that first line.

My railroad is based on 4 prototypes. I'm using the concept of those four to create my own railroad. One will be narrow gauge based on the East Broad Top, the second is the BR&P that became part of the B&O, the third is the Lehigh Valley's Rochester Junction and it's branch north into Rochester, New York. The fourth is based on the Rochester Transit Company. Since I like electric locomotives I will probably string catenary wire.

The concept of the railroad is a coal hauler in the transition years. The mine will be located on the 3 foot gauge Otter Creek Falls Coal Company. That railroad will haul it to a coal processing plant. The processed coal then gets loaded into standard gauge cars for shipment to Rochester to be loaded on to boats for Canada. 

What would you call what I have put together here for a railroad? A freelance? Couldn't be since I'm not modeling the exact prototype. The BR&P did haul coal from the southern states and brought it up here to load onto boats headed for Canada. So it's partially based a prototype. But I'm going to use juice jacks, steam and diesel to run the railroad. Electric's never ran on the BR&P or LV. The Rochester Transit was an electric railroad.

So what I have hear is a freelance railroad based on the real thing. IYHO is it BELIEVABLE OR NOT? If not can you tell me why?

Bernd

however, i'm not too knowledgeable of the area and era that you are modeling, so those who are more familiar might. 

This is why I went back and have done TONS of research.  I find a railroad called the Allegheny Valley Railway, whose mainline ran along the east bank of the Allegheny River starting in Pittsburgh.  PERFECT for the P&A to acquire (instead of the PRR) and is the main trunk of the P&A's mainline.  I have a very believable backstory that brings the railroad to 1953 which is the year I am modeling, including how during the USRA Administration controls over the railroad, had the NYC was leased the P&A main to connect Buffalo to Harrisburg then onto Philly, via the P&A and Reading.  After WWI, shortly after the Stock Market Crash and collapse of the economy in the late 1920's the NYC decides to buy the P&A, but keep running it independently (like the P&LE).  Now can the true nitpicker's pick that, and other details of the backstory apart?  I'm sure they can, but I believe for MOST people, the story is plausible and believable, which is one of the benchmarks I have set.

Ken L

steinjr wrote:

_{^{Who are the other two?}}

A certain model railroad coffin monger, and the guy who likened prototype modellers to subjects Sigmund Freud should study due to "mommy issues" ...which is pretty deeply insulting if you understand where that's going.

For now I'm somewhat amazed this thread has hit 20 posts and has remained civil (so far). Maybe there's hope for the MRH forum after all? Happy to be reminded that 99% in this hobby are pretty easy going.

Every model railroad can be picked apart by someone deterimined to do so.  Some of the criticisms may be frivolous or stupid if the critic is just being a jerk, or some may be valid to varying degrees.  No model is a perfect reproduction, and very few model railroads come close to duplicating a prototype foot for foot.  And what difference does it make anyway?  We only have to suit ourselves, and meet our own standards.  We should not have to justify those standards to others, and no one has the right to demand that we explain our modeling choices to them.  

Why don't we all just go build something instead of wasting all these electrons?

Is there such a thing as Protolance - a combination of prototypical and Freelance? My Richlawn Railroad features the L&N - a very real railroad with realistic locos and rolling stock. The towns and industries are a combination of real and freelance. So, is my layout Protolance?

Rick

....proto-freelance, prototype-freelancing to me mean all the same thing! So to answer you're question Rich, I would say Yes, that is what your layout is!

Ken L

  For me the interest in model trains is in running them. Do they need to be accurate to a particular date and time for me to enjoy that?  For some it is about the model building - whether it be trains, track structures or scenery.  For some it is the overall scene, or a sense of time and place - real or inspired.  Just because I cannot fit the actual track arrangement into my space AND make it interesting to run trains on, does that make it any less "valid" as a model railroad.  Or do we need a semantics lesson and these would be "replica" or "caricature" railroads.  Some folks who consider themselves model railroaders don't even have a railroad to put their models on!  OH MY - the horror!

  Just relax and have fun with it.  If you want to have an SD90MAC pulling wooden reefers through Futurama-ville - hey - it's your railroad!  Of course it would be cool if you can model the green glow of the time warp field around the train too - just to be prototypical...

Toni  :)

......... to model would be to model what you like and do not let anybody else see it... EVER!!

Probably one of the most inspirational articles I ever read was Utah Belt.  The single most important thing about the operation of Utah Belt was the motive power roster.

I think freelance and proto lance operations can be just as compelling.  But what appeals to me more importantly than if it's prototype is standards.  Standards by definition is setting an acceptable level to which you wish to achieve your goals.

With that being said all those that may not be prototypical were often taken seriously because they had high standards for what they wished to achieve.

I left the hobby once when it seemed any club I belonged to treated operations like it was a swear word.  Or would bend a rule just because they wanted to run 4 trains at one time all night long.  

Scenery no matter how serious you are is going to be admired if it looks good by anyone.  But in the past bringing in operations was though of being to much stress in what is supposed to be fun.  For me personally I could run on plywood if a good operation is taking place.  Perhaps that could classify me as not a serious modeler and they could be right.

I think while I've been happy at my current club, I've tuned out what else is happening.  Perhaps it's more hysteria, and fear that the hobby has evolved.  

Thanks

Sean

I can point to several places where John Allen's "humor" I find detracts from his modeling. 

A stegeosaurus is obviously a hideous choice for a draft animal, much less a numbered rostered form of motive power...

I for one enjoy the humor...it's rather serious humor...

Probably the safest way to model would be to model what you like and do not let anybody else see it... EVER!!

There are many who do just this...

I left the hobby once when it seemed any club I belonged to treated operations like it was a swear word.  Or would bend a rule just because they wanted to run 4 trains at one time all night long.  

If the rules can't be bent, how is it fun anymore?  It's not.  I personally find dictated operations to be one of the biggest bores in the world - My train length is determined, my motive power is out of my hands, my train length is a measily 3 cars [for crying out loud, give me a steamer with 15 cars or a double diesel with 25!], my motive power is restricted to One, and then I have to run on a time table derived by someone who imagines it takes 8 hours for a train to run over what he has deduced is a 64 mile long layout.

Scenery no matter how serious you are is going to be admired if it looks good by anyone.  

I'd go one step further and say that it is scenery and scenery alone that keeps a good layout fun. My rule of thumb for a big layout is 10 feet for a town, ten feet for scenery on either end before the next anything, regardless of whether its a whistle stop, a grand station, or a medium sized station, unless you're running between a suburb to the metropolis.  But that's a matter of track planning in unreal sized places, so all in all, eh...

But in the past bringing in operations was thought of being to much stress in what is supposed to be fun.  For me personally I could run on plywood if a good operation is taking place.

The operations people have been driving their spike into this hobby since the 1930s, and operations is still just about where it was back then.  Some people like it, some people love it, and some people down right hate it - and there's nothing you can do or say that will make them accept it.  There's absolutely no reason they should like operations either, because it's not model building, it's modeling paperwork and transactions. A lot of people don't need any rhyme or reason or need to know WHERE or Why the cars are going where they go, they just want to see trains run around and they have  BALL doing it. 

You'd do well to just learn that operations is not every man's cup of tea, but when you're in a club setting, every man must drink from the same tea kettle.  If you want raspberry in your tea, then put a little raspberry in there, but don;t go insisting the hole kettle must have raspberry in it!!