Won't work

Trying to define something without borders or extremely fuzzy borders will have to be so general as not lend any real clarity.

Why is there such a hang up on a difference between freelance and proto-freelance? 

The English language is

The English language is imprecise enough without adding to the confusion.

I don't mind a big tent with regards to what is Proto-freelance. I DO have a big problem with the notion that the model railroads that essentially defined the term are to some not Proto-Freelance, because they've morphed what the term means.  

I don't mind a big tent with

If the term doesn't have a definition, then they can't morph the meaning of the term.

How do you know that their definition isn't the "correct" one?

Allowing for the one or two cases that might be out there , EVERY model railroad is freelanced to some degree and EVERY model railroad follows the prototype to some degree.  Somebody can call my layout whatever they like, based on a prototype, proto-freelance or freelanced, whatever label they choose its not going to be 100% accurate and it won't change what I do.

It's just Splitting Hairs....

  Usually the folks who are hung up on this stuff do not have a layout to show!  The term .Proto-Freelance' describes something 'in between' and using parts of each.  Fuzzy? - Maybe, but it provides an alternate path for modeling!

  My Pecatonica Div of the Milwaukee Road models a connection that was proposed, but never built.  Another 'What If' layout.  It works for me.  It is not all prototype, but the Milwaukee never had a 4.5 turn 'helix' like mine...

Jim

Not over here!

Can't wrap my head around this

A point I unsuccessfully tried to make in a long ago post. For the life of me I cannot see a useful purpose for the delineation. It seems to artificially and unnecessarily divide the hobby. Just look at the frequency of snipes on MRH alone. How is that beneficial to the whole of the hobby?

I realize the terms are just labels. I question the merit of having labels. Societal history doesn't bode well for assigning labels.

Considering the source

Since the source was likely the V&O a completely made up line with no prototype to follow and was then turned into printed pages it may just be an attempt to generate a paycheck and nothing more. It could be also the attempt at "snobbery" by trying to claim more realism than say the Gorre and Dephettid or Frank Ellisons Delta lines.

The V&O was one of the lines that attracted me to the hobby in a more detail oriented way. I am building a free lanced road that is based on several rail lines that had a fictional merger. I will try and learn to operate it in a fashion similar to the real railroads. I will try and model equipment that the merger lines would have had and model a place with a great deal of "Modelers License" that the railroads actually ran through.

You can put me in what every category you like as in reality I am playing with trains and having a great deal of fun with my altered history. I am pleasing the only person I have to with my endeavor.

I would not let the sniping or category stop you from building what you like. If they are building a proto layout how do they justify 3 to 5 locos pulling 12 to 20 freight cars. That example is not designed to be offensive but just a point to show how our space and time limits toss all of us into the free lance bin, so be it.

As to a prototype train I just recently read that the Virginian when merged with the N&W inaugurated the merger with three diesel electric units pulling a 200 car coal train from one road into the yard of the other at two points on the line. From H Reid's book in 1959  "diesels units reduced to 3 for moving 200 car coal trains East of Roanoke. Formerly took 8."

So it looks like I now have to get to 200 cars to hit my prototype train in stead of 160 like the C&O used going from Kentucky to Toledo. I have some more work to do.

Rob in Texas

Why get angry?

If you are basing your enjoyment of the hobby on whether someone agrees on the definition of proto-lancing, freelancing or fully proto it might be time to have a lie down in a dark room.

Seriously, why get wound up?

So true!

I had forgotten who made this statement Alan but it's one I wholeheartedly agree with. I've been round and round on the old prototype modeler vs. freelance modeler argument more times than I can count and I don't care to worry over it anymore but the thing that still really irks me to this day is this notion that because I freelance that I have no regard for the prototype or what it did and why it did something  a certain way. Of course I do!  With everything I do I'm constantly asking myself and others too, "is this prototypically plausible?"  In the end we are all prototype modelers and we are also all freelance modelers. There is just a different balance between the two things in each individual.

Michael

Either, both, or neither - it matters not....

I've always heard Tony claim the definition, so you really can't put this on Alan's head. 

My layout is based on a prototype - quite specifically in some places - but I've also taken the liberty to leave out things I don't like (or can't really fit) including entire towns. On some of my modeled towns I've used prototype track diagrams to develop the track plan but have flipped the town so the orientation is opposite what it "should" be in relation to other places because the resulting scene is better composed. 

There's still some freelanced equipment on my railroad - there are several cars from my freelanced Southern New England, and I have a couple of cars from freelanced railroads of friends. But most - the vast majority in fact - of the equipment is very specific to the prototype and my modeled era of October 1954. 

Some people find that too limiting. Some people find the freelanced road names annoying. Some find the way I flipped the towns "confusing." 

None of that matters - not even a little bit - to me. 

What does drive me batty is people who make judgments based on their interpretation of another modelers goals. or by  telling me that I'm not finding the hobby rewarding because I choose to practice it differently than they do - and I include avid prototype modelers and dyed in the wool freelancers in that broad brush (although the freelancers tend be far more vocal in voicing their objections. 

To get back to the original post - why do we need "a revised" definition of prototype freelance? Actually, a model, and therefore a model railroad, can only be prototype or freelance - not both. It's not a judgment or an indictment - it's a simple statement of fact. To me it always seemed like a term designed to make a freelancer feel like he or she was someone more legit than other "typical" freelancer. 

Proto-freelaning...

...to me indicates a modeler who is following CLOSER to a specific prototype.  That is the benchmarks being set are closer to an actual prototype.  Take the AM for example, it used the NKP and C&O as it's prototype benchmark.  The Ohio Southern uses the DT&I as it's prototype benchmark.  The former Cat Mountain and Santa Fe obviously used the AT&SF as its prototype benchmark.  Gary Siegel's L&N, though is an actual railroad, as I recall correctly, created a fictional division of the L&N, so I would consider that proto-freelancing.  Joe Fugate is another good example of proto-freelancing with his Coos Bay Branch.   

Proto-freelancing is Freelancing, its just a sub-category of it, and I use the term to describe the fact it is closer to prototype benchmarks than compared to how others model.  Doesn't make it better or worse.  It's not a judgment on other's work, even though there are some who insist that it does.  It is just a descriptive term.

Ken L.

Umm... maybe splitting hairs...

But a Mogul with a freelanced road name on it is still a Mogul.  It still has a prototype. You can paint a GP38-2 pink with polka dots on it and it's still a GP38-2. The model itself was still patterned after the prototype, just maybe not the paint scheme. So I kind of disagree with the "it's either one or the other" blanket assertion. The only instance I can think of a train model not having a definitive prototype is the so  called "critters" that some folks design and build from their imagination. Not that there's anything wrong with doing that. BTW, pure freelance or proto freelance or strict proto modeler, I think one modeler  is just as "legit" as any other.  We still are all modelers. 

Michael

As to why proto-freelance

As to why proto-freelance should exist at all, I think that Ken L. kind of hits the nail on the head.

Or another way to describe it is: The Not John Allen method of freelancing.

Are you a whimsical Freelancer or a proto-freelancer? Where do you fall on the spectrum.

And I should clarify about my anger, I want to discuss things with fellow modelers. I get annoyed when language gets in the way, such as when a well established portmanteau like Proto-Freelance is divorced from it's original meaning. It's very hard to have a fun conversation when not everyone is on the same linquistic page.

Perhaps my definition isn't the right one. Perhaps, being merely a categorization of a subset of freelancing, it doesn't matter, but I've seen too many online polls asking "Do you freelance, Proto-freelance or Prototype model" where what Proto-freelance means is in question. 

Uggh....I can see where this one is going....

Y'all have fun with your bash fest.....not going to stick around for it....

Michael

NO ONE..

...is bashing the way John Allen modeled!  **HEADDESK**

Ken L.

On second thought, I have a question....

John Allen's modeling isn't what I think was about to be bashed, more so artistic and creative freelancing as a whole, but anyway that beside the point of my question which I will pose below....

Everyone knows that I model a freelance line located "somewhere in the west"  and that it's steam era. I don't mix equipment of different eras and I look to the prototype to give me examples on how many things were done. Other than that I go where my imagination takes me and I really don't care to get too specific on many of the details as they are usually in a constant state of flux. I like it that way.

 Thing is though, as I related in another thread just the other day, I have a very soft spot in my heart for the diesel era SP, SF and D&RGW especially during and shortly after the time that the failed SP and SF merger was to take place. In other words back when it would have been fairly common to see locos in the " Kodachrome"  paint scheme plying the rails. I've often thought of doing a layout that featured locos in that scheme along with a mix of "bloody noses" and "warbonnets" as well. Again, I would not mix eras and all the rolling stock and equipment would be appropriate for what would have been seen on track at that time.  I have speculated that I might do something akin to Tennessee pass or Donner but knowing myself as well as I do I'd probably be much more likely to just model generic western scenery that came more from my imagination than photos of any specific place. I'd still probably model an assortment of different types of bridges and trestles  and scenic canyons and name places and towns fictitious names.  The only thing I would be strict about is the equipment and maybe I'd have a few signature style structures here and there that would say "SP" or D&RGW" to those that looked at them.

So my question to those who seek to label and define everything is this.... What would I be doing?  Would I be proto freelancing?  Or would I be  freelancing?   Not trying to argue here, this is a serious question and maybe its cuts more to the topic the OP is addressing.  I'm curious what people would call it.

Michael

Multi-dimensional

Model railroading has a wide variety of aspects on interests:  road, era, geography, operations, types of motive power, customers, paperwork, rules, signaling, etc.

Figuring out the ends of the spectrum are easy, maybe I was wrong and saying the edges are fuzzy, maybe its really the middle.  Just where do you draw the line between "freelancing" and "proto-freelancing"?  Is it the coat of paint on the engines?  Is it the names of the towns and the route?  Is it the rule book?  Is it the same point on any scale? Who is more or less freelancing/proto-freelancing:  The person who builds a faithfully compressed version of a real route, but paints his own road name on the engines or the the person who exquisitely details every car and engine for their prototype road and runs it on a totally made up route?

First off, I'm not bashing

First off, I'm not bashing anything or anyone. I am as in awe of John Allen's work as anyone and I appreciate Model Railroads that rely on Whimsy quite a bit. It is not what I'm interested in, but it is interesting if that makes sense. 

Michael, I would actually call a layout that was generic western scenery with specific paintschemes being featured and that being the primary prototypical aspect as more a whimsy Freelance layout, but it's not a clear and fast rule.

The reason I'd say whimsy is that to my mind, you're really creating a visual tableau. Now, you could make the case that it was proto-freelance, because it does have a prototype railroad involved and a paintscheme and motive power/rollingstock choices are some of the aspects of a proto-type that can make a proto-freelance MR.

I think it depends on how far you went with it. That's where the definition gets murky.

But reverse the scenario. Say, rather than liking Kodachrome paintschemes, what you built was a freelanced railroad company, but your motive power, train composition and operating principles were all based on SP of the late 1980s. So, Tunnel motors, big tains large DPU consists, etc etc. Then I'd say it was also Proto-freelance. Even more in the Koester definition of the term. 

"So my question to those who

"So my question to those who seek to label and define everything is this.... What would I be doing?  Would I be proto freelancing?  Or would I be  freelancing?   Not trying to argue here, this is a serious question and maybe its cuts more to the topic the OP is addressing.  I'm curious what people would call it?"    

I tend to base it on how close to the chosen prototype it is intended to be ?   Lets say "proto" is choosing a railroad and a specific area or location and compressing it while maintaining as close to the original as possible in your space. One step removed would be using the prototype equipment and methods but changing the route or location to one it never had. Two steps removed would be using the railroad name but not the right equipment or methods or locations. three steps removed would be using freelanced equipment and non similar methods or location. The steps are not fixed but are a sliding scale infinitely variable between them as the situation requires. Note that the classifications have nothing to do with modeling skill or layout quality and the most prototypical layout could well be the worst of the bunch as could the freelanced layout be the best of the bunch? 

I consider..

proto-freelance railroads more than just paint schemes on equipment, though that is a significant part.  It involves the "history" of the railroad (does it somehow tie into actual history), location (a specific location on an actual map for the route the railroad takes).  Does the model railroad follow specific prototype practices in terms of equipment it has.  I have seen some model railroads that have equipment, though appropriate for the time period being modeled, would not be justified by what the prototype would have for the terrain and freight traffic it has. 

Again, NONE of this should be seen as judging that this is a wrong way to have a model railroad.  HOWEVER, if your goal is to have what I consider a proto-freelance railroad, these are all factors in determining the answer to that question. 

Ken L.

 

It's very real possibility...

...that I might someday model the afore mentioned scenario, it's not just a passing thought. I'll have to make the decision someday between that and  a totally freelance  steam era  line much like I'm modeling now. It's also possible that I may choose to get more specific with the locale and start modeling real places or at least fairly recognizable representations of them but I also know that my artistic and creative side will probably want to embellish things and try and make them more visually interesting than they might normally be. Therein lies the rub for me in being a strict prototype modeler.  As I've said before, frankly I find many facets of the prototype, especially  the more modern day one, visually boring.

Michael

This looks like a beauty is

This looks like a beauty is in the eye of the beholder type thing. If you are a prototype modeler you will need to become a bit of a rivet counter as to all of your equipment and the date and time it was running as Jack Burgess has done with his layout. But even Jack falls short in some areas as far as modeling the prototype goes because of selective compression, and some other compromises he has had to make to fit that fantastic layout into his house.

He had discussed them in one of his articles and I am not aware of them enough to discuss them at this time but I do remember he talked about things he had to compromise on. So if we toss his fantastic layout up as an example he would be a prototype free lancer even though he tries to do everything as it was done on some bygone day and is very particular about his models both structure and rolling stock.

It seems that the only modeler who is building layouts that could be accurate to a really high degree is the guy that built that switching layout depicting Miami. If that is the goal you may get to build a layout with one switch and few industries and need to scratch build your structures etc. That to me does not sound like a lot of fun, compared to capturing the flavor of something.

I will add though it could be possible to be a proto modeler when it comes to specific models though it will likely take a lot of extra work to build the contest quality models needed to accomplish that. We have seen some great posts on here with some fantastic models being produced.

To me in the end we are all free lancing if we are building anything less than a tie by tie duplicate of the real thing, the only difference is in degree, and to me it does not matter how you try to split the model railroaders into groups. We are all model railroaders.

Rob in Texas

Veritas

Exactly!

I am pleasing the only person I have to with my endeavor.

Rob in Texas sums it all in one easy sentence.  I do believe the majority of us have moved beyond the peer pressure stage of life and your choices should matter to only 3 persons...me...myself and I...and of course, maybe the Mrs!! 

Jeff in Indiana

EL Marion 2nd Sub Circa '64