Oh Dear!

Hi Ken
I'm sitting waiting for trees to dry............
That means I'm waiting with bated breath for your blathering.

We both need to get more organized

Rob

Here's the problem

I am building a model of a specific prototype locomotive, the Danville & Western Ry.'s #24.  I have a few decent photos, including a print of the builder's photo, and I have a copy of the order recorded with Baldwin, which gives a handful of dimensions.  Until very recently, that would have been enough to make a decent model where all of the major dimensions would be educated guesses, and any minor errors would be either excusable or undetectable.  To that end, I purchased and have been working on an MDC 2-8-0 which has the right diameter and style of drivers, and which appears to have roughly the right proportions.

Everybody likes pictures, right?  Here's the prototype, and what I have so far on the model:

So far so good.  There are certain things which I knew from the beginning I was going to have to change.  As you can see, I am scratchbuilding a new tender.  I'll make a new cab, and move the sand dome.  I have a complete cylinder and valve gear assembly from a Bachmann 4-6-0 which, with a little work, will fit on the model and save me the trouble of building my own valve gear.

So everything's great, right?  I have a plan, I have a model in hand, and it looks like everything is coming together.  A nice simple kitbashing project, and I have a good model of #24...

That's how it started, anyway.  Remember when I said "Until very recently..."?  Two things have changed.

First, I went and carefully read the Baldwin records to see just how much information I have.  It turns out that I have the boiler diameter, firebox dimensions, driver diameter, rigid wheelbase, total wheelbase, and dome diameter (I don't remember off the top of my head whether I have one or both).  That's not a lot, but it's already enough to tell me that the rigid wheelbase of my model is a scale 15" too short.

Second, I've been learning to use Sketchup, and one of the neat things it can do is to let you draw on a photograph.  Done properly, you can use a photo to develop a 3D model based on one or two known dimensions and a little bit of knowledge about the subject's shape.  So, I started drawing #24, using the driver diameter and rigid wheelbase.  I even compared the cab to known dimensions of other similar Southern Ry. cabs (which I suspect this one is a copy of) and the dimensions were spot on.  Great!  So I kept on drawing..

Originally, I just wanted to figure out the shape and length of the frame behind the rear driver, so that I could modify the model appropriately.

See the problem yet?

I know too much!  I now know exactly (or to within less than an inch, assuming my drawing is right) what the major dimensions of the model should be, and almost none of them match what I have.  The boiler on the model is too small by a couple inches at least, the smokebox is the wrong length, and worst of all, the drivers are spaced too closely.  I have not even looked at the steam dome location yet - it's probably off as well.  I also have not tried drawing the tender, because I'm afraid of what I'll find.  I took a few wild guesses when I started making the plans for the tender in the photo above, and I'm sure the dimensions are off to some degree.  Unfortunately, fixing all of those basically involves building a new locomotive from scratch.

And there's the rub.  I have the skills, the tools, and even the materials to scratchbuild a better model.  However, I have the materials on hand to kitbash a decent model that would fool most people, with a lot less effort.  If I start scratchbuilding, there's no point working on the model I already have, and who knows how long it will take me to get it finished.  But if I finish the current model, I might never get around to building a better model, and I know that the inaccuracies will bother me.

My gut is telling me to build the model as it is now and accept the inaccuracies.  Better to get something done than to plan for perfection someday in the future.  But I'm still not sure.  So, that's my dilemma.  The joys of rivet counting!

that's my dilemma?

  I think the answer depends on whether you enjoy building locos more or enjoy operating a layout more? If the building is more fun I'd probably finish that one as planned then start on a new scratchbuilt one using the newest info.  If the goal is a loco to run on a layout I'd finish that one and forget about the inaccuracies( a third option might be to find another production or brass  loco closer to the desired dimensions to start with?) Either way you go you'll get more done working on it than worrying about it :> )  .........DaveB  

Continue .....I think

If it was me (and it isn't - its you, so I suspect you'll end up going with your gut) I would finish the project "as is", just concentrating on getting anything easily changeable to match the information you have.

I haven't done any of the complicated  loco building like you do, but with the things I have built I have to constantly fight with the inner voice that says - "you did that OK but you can do it better".

I would never finish anything . Rob

PS - Bit slow in mentioning  this, but I absolutely love the proportions of the tender you have built.

Navajo Rug Weavers

are taught to always include a mistake in each rug. Otherwise, they would have no reason to make another one. (Or so I've read, a lot of native folklore didn't actually originate with natives.) I'd finish this one, then start the scratchbuilding when the time is right. You enjoy building locos, this gives you twice the enjoyment.

But don't think of this #24 as a mistake, it is just a fine model based on the data available at the time.

pqe

Accurate or fun the 85 ton dilemma

See if it was me.....

I'd just have bought a close enough representation ( and close enough for me would be that the wheel arrangement was right) and slapped Danville and Western decals on it and called it a day. But, you're not me Ken and I suspect that you're probably not going to be happy unless you have the most accurate model that you're capable of producing. Only you know for sure though if you're going to be able to live with small inaccuracies or if you really want to go that extra mile.

Regards,

Michael

What did you notice without the dimensions?

Ken, I'm a bit of a rivet counter as well, and I completely understand the dilemma of having too much information.  However, I've come to the conclusion that, if I don't notice a problem without measuring, then it's probably not worth correcting.  If you start over with scratchbuilding this locomotive, you'll still end up with something that'll have some incorrect dimensions somewhere if someone takes a scale rule to it.  It's bound to happen with the very best models out there.  However, if you capture the look of the locomotive - and I believe your current model is well on its way to doing that - you've done your job.  The new cab and relocated sand dome you mentioned, as well as a new headlight and taller stack, will, in my opinion, give you an excellent representation of the prototype.

To my eye, the driver spacing issue is so slight that it's not worth correcting.  I didn't notice it until you pointed it out, and even then it was a stretch.  Once you blacken the drivers, I believe that issue will disappear completely.

At some point, the effort we expend to make a model more accurate reaches a point of being, in my opinion, wasted time.  The enjoyment of knowing that we got it right to the very best of our abilities, given all known data, is tempered somewhat by the fact that...it's still not 100% right, and never can be.  We each have to decide at what point that scale tips.  For me, once I got my layout operating, I realized that a lot of those details I'd been sweating just faded away when my brain was focused on the switching work at hand.  For example, I used to add Cannon fuel tank detail sets to all my locomotives, but in operation, those details are virtually invisible.  I've now stopped adding them, and I couldn't tell you which locomotives have them and which don't.

Know Thyself

Seems an easy question to ask yourself Ken... Is my goal to build an exact replica -OR- is my goal to enjoy building a model.

If an exact replica is what you desire then start over. Your current model is much too inaccurate. On the other hand, if you do it for the model building experience then finish the current model and have a ton of fun doing it.

One simple question to ask yourself... what's the goal?

Joe has a point.....

I'm sure most people have heard this expression before but we use it in my ham radio hobby when talking about how high we put up an antenna to get the most signal out vs. the loss of signal eaten up by the extra feedline cable to achieve that height. It's called  "the point of diminishing returns"

Model trains are not ham radio by any means but I think the  lesson still applies.....we all have to decide what  "the point of diminishing returns" is for us personally.

Michael

Scratch build the better model...

Sounds to me like if you don't just stop now on the current version, whatever time you spend on it will be wasted because you aren't going to be happy with it.  So I say, stop now, and plan to build the better version.  You only have so much time.  

Randy

Continue what you have started

I'd count my self lucky to have such a good starting place. Wheel arraignment, boiler and cab look spot on....just add a new window on the cab, move the sand done, fix the head light and air reservoirs. The model will look fabulous with one tenth the work. The way I'm going I will never finish my railroad, I wouldn't take on extra work if I didn't have to.

Good Luck,

Don C.

Look at this one as practice

What I'd suggest is finishing up this one, first of all. When complete except for decals, look at it awhile on the layout. If you decide it's good enough, put the decals on and you're done. If you decide the inaccuracies bother you too much to represent #24, number it for another locomotive for which you haven't developed such detailed data, then scratchbuild the one you really started out to emulate. Consider this one a practice run to develop your approach to the second one. You'll have two great locos when you're done!

If you don't want to keep this one after all is said and done, give it to a friend who will appreciate it, or sell it and use the proceeds as you see fit.

Just my thoughts - either way you go, let us know how it works out!

Good advice

Thanks, Joe.  I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but now that you've pointed it out, it makes perfect sense.  I think that's what's been bothering me - I know I can build the model I have and nobody would ever know the difference, except for me, so is it worth letting that bother me?

I was talking about the problem with a friend this afternoon, and another point came up.  I do not have anywhere near as much information about any of the other D&W locomotives, but I still plan on modeling as many of them as possible.  I already have donor models for a total of 8 locomotives, and the remaining 7 are going to have to be educated guesses.  If I build #24 as a perfect scale model, it might bother me more to know that the rest are not.

On the other hand, there are 3 more Consolidations, and all are to be built on the same drive.  One of the things I have wondered is just how much the longer frame of #24 would make it stand out as being different.  While I like locomotives to have a family feeling, I don't like it when they all end up looking like clones with different jewelry.  I am trying to represent products of two different builders spanning 30 years and from three different railroads, so each one should be unique and not look like just another MDC 2-8-0.

In the end, I think I will keep going on the model as it is.  I have so much time and work invested that it seems like a shame to throw it away now.  Maybe one day I will build a better model from scratch, possibly when I move to S scale (If I don't win the lottery and start modeling in 1/8" scale live steam).  I loved logging on after work tonight and reading all the comments - there are a lot of good points.  Also, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who struggles with this issue!

If it's going to

gnaw at you, then rivet-count to your heart's desire and change it.  That said, I agree that maybe you should run it awhile- the tender and sand-dome change alone may speak to its TRUE interpretation, and short of measuring the real 24, all we have (mostly) in model railroading is interpretations and 'inspired-by' etc.

My fleet is not for the rivet-counter.  It DOES gnaw at me that with a little here and there I could make it perfect, close or close enough.  However, I like to run trains and try to get the feel or representation at least of what I am after.  My audience (other than me) wouldn't know the differences of a 4-8-2 Light to a 4-8-2 Pacific..they'd just know it was a 4-8-2...or even simpler- that it was a 'big train with lots of moving parts...cool! (as spoken by the grandkids).

Good luck, buddy.

Great!

You posted as I was typing!

LOL!

"the remaining 7 are going to have to be educated guesses"

another way to handle it is to number this loco for a vacant number in the same class series then no one can say it is not correct :> ) .......DaveB

No such luck, Dave

It's a nice idea, but it won't work in this case.  Of the 8 locomotives I plan on modeling, only two were sisters.  As far as I have been able to determine, the D&W only had 15 standard gauge steam locomotives in its entire history, and an additional 2-3 Southern Ry. locomotives seem to have been on long-term lease.  Even in that list, there were only two pairs of locomotives (#s 17&18, and #s 22&23).  The Southern engines that I am aware of came from the same class, but were modified at some point and so would have each had their own distinct look.

So whatever model I build, there's not much chance of passing it off as a lesser-known sister engine.  On the other hand, I am one of probably 4 people on the planet who would even recognize a D&W locomotive, or care whether it was correct or not.  For the other few billion people, my model will be perfect!

A side note - Sketchup as a modeling tool

I have to say, regardless of fact that Sketchup has caused me to find all of my dimensional errors, I have to say that I am thrilled with some of the things it has allowed me to do.  For example, I was able to use it to figure out the shape of the firebox on this engine, including the angles of the sides and the thickness of the insulation.  I had just been assuming that the firebox sides were straight, but it turns out they were angled.  When I drew them that way, all of the geometry lined up almost perfectly, including the opening n the cab wall.  While I could have probably mocked something up in cardboard or styrene and figured it out, I now have the ability to design it to work from the start.  That's not bad for having a single photograph to work from.  I'll bet I could do even better if I started checking the dimensions against other views as well.

"not much chance of passing it off as a lesser-known sister"

Call it #26 or whatever the last used number was then you can build it anyway you want? Here's SP narrow gauge cars 185 and 306 for example. ....DaveB 

Other Consolidations

What were the major differences in the others?  I'm guessing that, even leaving the driver spacing on #24 alone, there would still be plenty of opportunities to make each model distinctive, while retaining a family appearance.

Oh, you've definitely got company in your "too much information" struggles Ken.  As prototype modelers, we strive so hard to gather information on our prototypes, but once we have it, it can be a struggle to get the most out of it while at the same time not letting it drive the fun out of the hobby.  It's easy to let information become our master.

Several years ago I was able to compile a complete list of all equipment (locomotives, cars, trailers, and containers) that moved on my prototype during my era, and I used that list to dictate everything I bought or built.  I developed ratios based on all that data, and built my models to those same ratios.  For a smaller road like the IAIS especially, where common, repetitive rolling stock moves make the associated equipment much more recognizable, it was important to me to replicate those ratios in order to get the right overall look of the railroad.

At that time, I was modeling "2004-2008", but over the years, I whittled away at that era, since I enjoyed the challenge and constraints of focusing on a smaller slice of time.  First I went to 2004-2006, then 2004-2005, followed by just 2005, then trimmed further to April-October of that year, and then Spring 2005.  Each time I'd shrink my era, I'd adjust those ratios and then buy and sell equipment to ensure that my model percentages continued to match what moved in that specific timeframe.

Finally, last December I decided to trim that era one last time to just May 2005 so I could zero in more specifically on appropriate appearances for crops, trees, etc.  In the past, that exercise of adjusting my equipment ratios would consume a couple weeks of hobby time, but this time I decided it just wasn't worth it.  It occurred to me that I'd reached a point where striving for more accuracy had no tangible benefit to the railroad.  An exercise that started out as a means to give the roster an accurate overall look had done its job, and fine-tuning it further was just wasted effort.  The fact that I had the information and wasn't taking advantage of it made that a difficult choice at first - much like the choice you were facing with #24 - but almost a year later, I've never regretted it.

This is supposed to be fun

One of the things I really enjoy is researching and learning new things about old things.  That's a big part of the reason why I model an obscure short line.  While there are plenty of questions about the big Class 1 railroads, it's hard to justify running a PRR 4-8-4 by saying that you didn't know any better - most of the big questions have already been answered.

However, I have to remind myself that I cannot always model the D&W perfectly, and that I will have to accept compromises.  Also, I have accepted that what may be the best model I build today may turn out to be wrong tomorrow.  That's already happened with a caboose I built.  I kitbashed an MDC caboose into something that I thought was reasonable, but later learned that I was way off on the size.  I will eventually have to scratchbuild a new version, but for now the old one is still in service.

Just because I know it, doesn't mean it's always easy to accept, though!  Why bother doing less than my very best?

Perfection?

I would finish it up from where you are now, stick some other road name on it and say it is on loan to you. Then go after the #24 with a fresh start and determination to get it right this time. End result, the engine you want and a interchanged spare to keep or send back (sell) to the owner's railroad. Win, win either way.

BTW, I think it looks great and just tell the rivet counters that "other" railroad built it in their shops from a couple of wrecked locos. There's an answer for everything.

Keep up the good work and let us see this one when it's done!

God's best to you.

I think you're going to scratch build it