Mixed feelings

First of all, I agree that if anyone considers themselves the "era police", they're out of bounds.  At one time, I was modeling "2004-2006", and was given that same grief about modeling 2006 "poorly".  I completely agree that that kind of attitude is bad for the hobby.  "Poor" is a very relative term, and just because a person's era wasn't as tightly defined shouldn't, in my mind, cast doubt on the quality of everything they do.  Using that logic, someone modeling a specific month - say, June 1944 - could be said to just be modeling June 30, 1944 "poorly".  Nonsense.

However, I disagree with the assertion that the ultra-era-specific movement is, in and of itself, bad for the hobby.  Does it make manufacturers' jobs easier?  Maybe not, but that's not the responsibility of the customer.  Focusing on a specific season and year, I'm not as hard-core into this movement as some, but I'd still argue that, if it's increasing the modeling enjoyment of those who practice it, it's good for the hobby as a whole.  One reason I choose a more narrowly-defined era is that it's easier on my budget, making it more likely that I'll be able to stick with this hobby in the long haul.  Compare that to someone who's racking up a ton of debt to buy everything under the sun that fits their "1950s" era, but can't sustain their spending.  Is that good for the hobby?

I know that I was amazed years ago when I heard of Jack Burgess modeling a specific month and year with his Yosemite Valley.  The challenge of that was fascinating to me, and over the years, played a large part in causing me to narrow my own era nearly as much.  The enjoyment of that process got me more excited about building my layout, which in turn caused me to buy more and delve into areas of the hobby I'd never explored before.  When I was casting a broad net for my era, I was much more focused on acquiring all the cool new stuff that fit that period, but when I narrowed my era, the goal shifted toward putting the models that matched my era to work:  Sell what didn't fit, and build a layout on which to operate what remained in a cohesive setting.  All good for the hobby.

Finally, in dealing with any judgmental subgroup within the hobby, I think it's important to distinguish between the "police" and the silent adherents to a particular view.  Just because someone attempts to faithfully model a prototype doesn't make them the "prototype police", bashing all who don't agree with their views.  And among those of us who attempt to model a small-ish sliver of time, I'd wager that very few are casting a disparaging eye on the work of others as the "era police".  I'm simply doing what I enjoy, and I hope everyone else is following the same personal standard.

Getting out of jail

     The "prototype police" are pretty much like the monster under the bed -- a great deal worse in your imagination than in reality. I have heard modelers say much what Joe says in this editorial, but who admit that they have NEVER actually been criticized. They just believe that monster under the bed is watching them.

     But that said, this is just one more example of people having different kinds of fun. If you want to pull articulated auto racks with diamond-stack woodburners, hey, it's your hobby. Of course anyone knowing much about real railroading would see right away that your hobby doesn't have much to do with reality, but no doubt a lot of fun could be had running absolutely whatever you want. To me, no one need be defensive about whatever they choose to model, even those who say such things as, "Oh, I model lthe 1950s and 1960s." This is an awfully broad period, during which an awful lot of things changed on the real railroads, but once again, it's an okay choice as long as you sincerely don't care if it's accurate or historical.

     I think the problem comes with someone who wants to be perceived as a serious modeler, with well-done scenery, detailed locomotives, weathered freight cars, and so on, but still modeling a broad era. It's just a fact that billboard beer reefers didn't run behind SD45s, or that passenger trains lettered for individual railroads were quite rare after 1971. I have always believed that every single discrepancy you model, that someone can notice, detracts from the illusion of reality you MAY be trying to create. Of course, reality may not interest you. But if it does, every compromise detracts from it. That is exactly the source of the riposte (which I believe originated with Tony Koester) that "modeling the 1950s" is merely modeling 1959 badly (or, if it makes you feel better, modeling it inaccurately).

     As more and more detailed and accurate prototype information becomes available, and as more and more fine, era-specific layouts or individual models are publicized in magazines and elsewhere, there is an increasing awareness of what can be done -- and how impressive it can be to precisely model a specific time. 

      You can't have it both ways. Either you model reality as well as you can, or you make obvious compromises. You know it, too, which is why the "virtual" prototype police are scary to some modelers -- my gosh, what if I get found out? But the real person that is "finding you out" is yourself. Methinks Joe protesteth too much.

Tony Thompson

Train OOES

I have a train, OOES (out of era special) I can run if the era police get too obnoxious - a wood burning shay and 2 85' hi-cubes. Since 2004, this train has been run exactly 0 times.

Charlie

Thank you Thank you Thank you!

The article says it all. My thoughts and feelings exactly. Sometimes I let the era experts get under my skin and worry that my first two loco purchases in HO have been a Mogul and a GP-7 but in my mind, it's conceivable that there might have been a few Moguls left around when the GP-7 hit the rails. Especially on a little short line like mine. Let the nit pickers pick.

Michael

getting out of jail

Good evening,

 Well this is a subject that I would like to respond to.  I have been in On30 for over 35 years, long before Bachmann ever came on the scene and long before Internet and all of the social media stuff of today.  I had the first On30 modules and I was the first American to ever have their On30 railroad covered in Narrow Gauge Downunder, and I have penned many articles on my railroad.  OK, so much for history, so here are my thoughts:

#1 Why give those folks permission to dictate to you about how and what you model.

#2 If you are happy about what you are modeling and no one else is paying your modeling bills what do you care.

#3 Who made them the boss, I didn't

#4 I used to do a few open houses for model ra, I have two operating groups, and if anyone walking through the door doesn't like what they see or what I do, I will and have shown them the door they came in.

#5 By giving them print or verbal time they are encouraged to continue their self inflated and appointed position

  So, yes these are strong statements and yes it makes me mad when I have to hear and read this stuff, because by letting these folks put their foot in the door many folks succumbed to their position.  I have pretty much removed myself from the various Yahoo On30 groups because of this and the mindless dribble of pontification.

  At a time that we as modelers are starting to really age and pass away, time is short and should not be wasted by getting into this game.  On the other hand what we could be trying to do is bring younger or newer folks into the hobby.  In my two operating groups I explain to new people that anyone can come in and operate my railroad, what is more important to me is that your personality fits in with the group.

  So that is what I think and even if you don't agree with me maybe it will cause you to think and possibly change or modify your position.

Thanks for taking the time to read my words.

Steve Fisher

Deep Run Railroad

On the shores of the Chesapeake Bay of Maryland

...

...what problem? 

I think the only problem here are those who want to deny the rank of "serious modeler" to those who are serious modelers but model a broad era...

WOW!

I thought the 'rivet counters' were bad and now, we have 'era police', too! What's Next!?

Yours truly has been in HO 50 yrs. on/off, in an HO modular club I started, which lasted 6+ yrs. and our 11 members enjoyed themselves! NOT ONE of them cared a bit if ALL our rolling stock had molded grabs & oversize stirrups. And we used good old Homasote, NO roadbed, Code 100 flex & to/s, used low-cost HO structures, which looked good enough to us, ran only d.c. and had FUN & COMRADARIE! And on top of that, when you are finally on ss, you NEVER consider spending your money on the expensive HO that's out there now! My rolling stock WILL continue to be low cost, WILL keep using Homasote w/no roadbed under rails, will run d.c. and if I can afford to; will slowly convert my huge loco fleet[all 5, LOL]to DCC w/low cost NON-sound decoders. Am more interested in how much enjoyment I can derive from tricky industry switching moves on small rural branchline in early 60s era, on narrow shelf layout [NO helixes, NO upper/lower level/No fancy lighting, etc.]. MY personal enjoyment will be just as genuine, switching with my C.I. ground throws, as someone using powered t/os. God Bless their efforts! To each his/her own! It's a HOBBY, NOT an obsession, which MUST be adhered to by all in the Same Rigid way. TTFN & Keep Your Rails Shiny[just on top, LOL].....Old Tom aka papasmurf in NH

Another boogieman editorial

I think the era police are a fiction and this is just a chance for the people who consider themselves wiser and more sensible than these omniscient and invisible judges of all things model railroad to display their philosophical superiority.  It's just a hobby people; you just need to please yourself.  Your way is NOT better than everyone else's, and their way is not worse.

I find my own era concerns are a question of what I can accept.  The more you know, the more pressure you can put on yourself to get it right, I find.  At the same time, I have problems reigning in the interests, and at times I have two things that just don't belong together at the same place and time both demanding to be built or purchased, and then the soul searching begins.  Do I scrap one or the other, or do I compromise and let them both coexist?  Will that bug me so much than I'm not happy with the result?  Do I pull the "freelance" card and say in my universe these things existed together?  It's a very personal struggle, and no one else's opinion really has any bearing on it.  It's the devil on your own shoulder bugging you more than anyone else.

The question I ask myself when thinking about these things, and this is not just era, but accuracy and detail etc., is will it look obviously wrong to me, or to a knowledgeable observer?  Will it undermine what I am trying to convey to myself or my chosen audience?  If I can't say no to these questions, then I will rethink what I am doing.  But that's just because those are the parameters which will make me happy with the result. 

Naturally, your experience will be your own.

Well said Jurgen!

Very well put Jurgen.  You've summed up what can be both the most frustrating aspect of modeling a narrowly-defined era, and at the same time one of the most fun, once you've resolved the struggle.  As a modeler on the Proto-Layouts list puts it, "The more you know the more , the less you can model".  That's not to tout an individual's level of knowledge, but to say that sometimes, finding the information we've been seeking can be both a boon and a curse.

I've been blessed with a complete record of all of my prototype's car, locomotive, container, and trailer movements for my three-month era.  It's the kind of resource that's a modeler's dream (well, mine anyway).  However, it also has a downside, and it's the very reason I don't narrow my era further from "spring 2005" to, for example, "May 2005".  By my own personal standards and choices, no longer is it okay to run a locomotive just because it was on the IAIS during my timeframe, or to spot cars to a particular customer just because they used rail in 2005.  I now know that a favorite locomotive didn't run on my portion of the IAIS in May of that year, and I know that that customer didn't receive any cars that month.  Rather than do without those things by modeling May specifically, I've chosen to expand my scope a bit and model the spring of that year.

It's a completely personal choice, but one that brings a great deal of enjoyment once you've resolved things to your own satisfaction.  When I got serious about narrowing my era and started idling customers that were no longer active or hadn't yet started up, I actually enjoyed the process of taking them out of service and selling off the associated cars.

Would anyone else on the entire planet have known that my favorite locomotive was out of place if I set my era at "May 2005"?  Unlikely.  But I would know, and that's all that matters to me in these choices.  That is where the fun of the "ultra era-specific" challenge comes in, and it has nothing at all to do with pushing my choices on anyone else.

Taking it too seriously?

I have a general time (late summer 1973)  that I try to aim for on my layout, but I'm not making it a hard & fast rule about it.  If someone asks, I usually say early 1970s.
At the end of the day, you should be having fun.  Otherwise what is the point?
If you like to challenge yourself by narrowing into a specific day & time and your having fun, do it!
I'm somewhat analytical, so I enjoyed doing the research to find what was "running" during a particular year.
At the same time, I have some modern trainsets that ran in the 1990s.   I may have a "time machine" moment and run them for a bit.
Thanks,

-Rob Rousseau
Durham & Southern, Norfolk Southern
http://durhamsouthern.com/
/>  

Who says it's "too serious?"

If you find a personal challenge in "getting it right" (and what "right" is, is a personal choice,) then that is the point.  Challenges are not always easy, but are frequently satisfying in their own way.  We may not always sympathize or empathize with someone else's goals in the hobby, but that doesn't invalidate them. 

November 1952 is my era.

November 1952 is my era.  Well except for the 1953 automobiles. Oh and the Billboard Reefers that I love.  Well, some of the paint schemes are a little later.  The foreign cars with archbar trucks aren't quite right either. .... Hmmm, guess I'm not all that serious  In reality my era spans the mid 30's through the mid 50's.

Great column.  I think the current era of seriousness in the magazines sometimes loses sight of the idea that this is supposed to be fun. I suspect that most of us run some stuff just because we like it.

Paul Tenney

...

This issue becomes reality, though, when one person's reality collides with another person's envisioned perfection, and then the era police indeed DO exist.  It's not just a boogieman, it's a real and serious villian with the effect of robbing people of the enjoyment of this hobby.  The reality that person enjoyed before Officer Killjoy arrived is no longer; in some cases he has the effect of outright assassinating any desire that other person has to be in the hobby in the first place.

Those people who want extra points because they're "more serious" really need to re-evaluate what this test is they're taking and who wrote it up in the first place. 

pointless

Intolerance is the real Officer Killjoy.  There is still no evidence that anyone is condemning people for temporal anomalies on their layouts.  Now if you think that your own efforts are lacking because someone else is trying harder, that's your problem.

Fun

With all respect, Paul, I think you might be misunderstanding "our side".   Every modeler I've ever spoken with who sticks with a tightly-defined era does so because of the fun they derive from that approach.  By your comment, you seem to be implying that, because we're being "serious" in imposing some boundaries, that we're doing so at the expense of fun, but that's not at all true.  It's just that everyone derives fun in different ways.

If someone has tried both ways (loosely- and tightly-defined era), and they have more fun with your approach, then that's great!  I'm honestly happy for them. But for me, I found greater enjoyment in an approach with more "boundaries", in part because I thought it was fun to determine exactly how things were in my timeframe and to then model accordingly.

As a simple example, when I set out to scratchbuild the sand towers at IAIS's Bluffs Yard, I learned that the light fixtures and sanding spouts hung from the west sand tower changed over the years.  In August 2002, there was a light and sand spout on the east side, but nothing on the west:

By May 2005, the spout had been removed from the east side, and one had been added on the west:

Finally, by June 2006, a new spout had appeared on the east side, and a new light on the west.  Also, the ladder was replaced with a new stairway with telescoping platforms, and the spout from the east sand tower (a retired tank car) had been removed:

Since I model Spring 2005, I based my towers (viewed here from the north) on the second photo above:

I didn't find the background research "serious" or burdensome at all.  It was just plain fun!

...

Oh, there is more than enough evidence in the archives of MR's letter to the editor section alone to support the existence of the Era Police.  Ever since the Challenger pulling double-stacks became an anachronism to play against these era police, we have evidence of a La Resistance against them.

I saw another Officer Killjoy at the Trainshow last weekend, even if he was of another breed - though I'm quite willing to bet he has era intolerance in his genes too, like red hair and green eyes. This breed, they're like {questionable images}, I can't exactly describe to you what it is, persay, but I know it in a heartbeat when I see it.  By their actions, they are indeed condemning People - even if they appear to be aiming at objects.

Intolerance may indeed be Officer Killjoy, But I see no reason whatsoever to tolerate the intolerants, or should we say, in-tyrants, even if I run the risk of being suggested as intolerant myself by doing so.

Re: Jurgen

That's what I observe as how this problem most commonly manifests itself.   The person who feels picked on usually receives no direct criticism from the era cops, but perceives they look down their noses at him.  An assumption is made that an era conscious modeler is invalidating someone else's choices merely by making or expressing his.

...

Joe, that is indeed much fun, for those who enjoy doing it.  I've done this in my efforts to construct the SP Gaden Tracks at Burlingame; a, I only have one picture to work with, I really need two or three to do it right...

But, for as long as you have a "side," well, there in lies the heart of the issue.

I've seen it play out at N scale layouts where a guy bobs in, sees it's N scale, proclaims he only deals with "Serious Trains," and bobs back out.  Now I model in HO - it works well for me, and I really enjoy it - I have a LOT of fun playing in HO scale.  But HO scale is not my "side."  Model Railroading is my field.  It's N scale, and i can quite happily enjoy it too.  I'm not going to sit there talking up HO scale, or talking down N scale - that's irrelevant to my time and place.  This guy who just bobbed out, he's a member of the Scale Police - the people who go around insisting THEIR chosen scale is the golden chalice of the hobby - and they do nothing to strengthen our hobby - if anything, they turn it into a number of smaller, tighter cliches [aha, the word I wanted is Cliques, but Cliches is another image altogether!!!!], each bent on either pushing their chosen agenda or pushing back against chosen agendas.  It's unbecoming. 

Apply this same reasoning to Eras, and you may see what I'm trying to say here.  Era modeling is your cup of tea, but the pot need not have a cup of sugar and two tablespoons of Raspberry in it to satisfy yourself.  But you'll see people come around who take one sniff and then look down on the kettle for it not being this or that - and not just that it is not a certain specific tea, but by going further and making disparaging remarks about that tea that is in pot.  While one might say they're only stabbing at the tea, in all reality, they're also stabbing at the person who put that kettle up for offer in the first place.

I'm not immune, of course - there are things I believe in that I am perhaps a bit bullish about too.  We all gotta remember the people, I dare say.

...

Rob, I wish I had it in front of me, but alas, it's buried in storage - There's this editorial from I dare say Linscott, but it may have been a little bit later, in Model Railroader, extolling the virtues of Operations.  The editor in this editorial doesn't just say "Operations is a great way to enjoy your Railroad" - that would have been fine.  What he says, though, is something along the lines of "just running your railroad is all find and dandy, but the very best way to get the most out of your railroad is to Operate, just like the real ones."

In what amounts to really only just one sentence, in my memory, he puts down those who "just run their railroad," anoints his champion Operations, and uses a common sales tactic, Authenticity Appeal, to pull people in his direction - as if somehow "the hobby" will not be enjoyable unless the masses rush out in demand for Operations.

It's all the same Elephant.  It amounts to "if you're not doing it our way, you're something less."

And as for direct criticism, I daresay it does indeed exist,  If you have an era specific layout and a layout tour coming up, put the theory to test: place a couple [for lack of better word] anachronisms on there that you KNOW are 10-20 years out of date from your timeframe - just enough where the commoner won't notice, but enough so you'll really draw the ire of the purists. 

Your objective here isn't in seeing who catches what; rather, you objective is to gain insight into how those who do notice these things react.  I guarantee you, you'll have some real working material in your hands after perhaps only the first 1 who notices...

"Sides"

I was trying to be light-hearted about the "our side" comment Benny, hoping the smiley would denote that.  I don't doubt that there may be some out there who enjoy belittling others in the hobby (and in life) for their choices, but I also don't doubt that some of this may come from people feeling as Rob said, that others are looking down their noses at them.  I see freelancers on a regular basis who launch into preemptive defensive mode about why they're okay with freelancing and how it's just as valid of a choice as prototype modeling, when no one has even attacked them.  It's like they're constantly trying to convince us and themselves that they're okay, when they seem to be the only ones who doubt it.

A few months ago on the Proto-Layouts list - a group devoted to prototype modeling - we were discussing layouts that appeared in print that had a major impact on our modeling from an early age.  I'm what I consider to be kind of a hard-core prototyper, yet some of my biggest influences, and those I recall the rest of the group bringing up, were proto-freelanced:  Eric Brooman's Utah Belt, Doug Leffler's Lenawee Central, Allan McClelland's V&O, Jim Hediger's Ohio Southern, etc.  Hopefully that says something to the folks who think that those who choose the "hard line" prototype approach with narrowly-defined eras are looking down upon everyone else.  We've simply taken a different path that's more enjoyable for us.

different department

Working material to do what?  Sounds like you have appointed yourself chief of the Thought Police.

Uh...

See, that's my point from earlier.  Someone expressing his opinion is just that - HIS.  He thinks following his advice will benefit everyone, but you need not agree.  No need to be offended or take it personally.  If you wish to take it as an attempt to invalidate your approach, well that's your decision. 

Here, again, it's the difference of actually caring what somebody says, and making the decision to take offense.  I have a few details I keep on the layout although they're too old here, or too new there.  Sometimes people notice and say something, but if they don't like it, I DON'T CARE.  A comment, even a critical one, shouldn't necessarily be taken as an attempt to stifle what I'm doing - sometimes it's just a comment.  The era cop has no power that I don't grant to him.

Judgmental terminology

What I have issue with is judgmental terminology being used around era. Those who chose to use this terminology are setting themselves up to be the "era police", knowingly or unknowingly.

The phrase "your just modeling 1959 and doing a poor job of it" needs to be stricken from our vocabulary.

When Allen McClelland introduced his "good enough" philosophy, the hobby collectively sighed a huge sigh of relief. Allen, one of the more serious prototype-inspired modelers to appear in print up to that time, with that statement, made it okay to cut corners on your modeling as long as you had some reasonable rationale for it. Sloppy modeling would always be sloppy modeling, but "good enough" modeling involved a deliberate choice to stop somewhat short of perfection, and that was okay.

We need to say instead "you're modeling 1959 but it's less accurate when you generalize" and "if your goal is to get a general feel of the 1950s, then your result is good enough". Let's end the "judgmental" terminology - using less harsh wording means you step down from the role of era police.

Some folks . . .

would complain about the music or the lighting when having sex, too!

"I thought the 'rivet counters' were bad and now, we have 'era police', too! What's Next!?"