Combo!

There's nothing wrong with following a prototype and embellishing it to meet your interests.

On my layout, I have included many of the important elements that set the area I model apart from others and I have taken industries I find interesting that exist on other parts of the line and moved them into my "zone" at the same time as omitting others that I found were just too large to include. I have also added service to a few other industries that are in my area that are not actually serviced by the railroad in my time period.

Is it fun to operate? you bet! Does it feel right? I think my operators would say yes!

During my design process I came to a point where it was starting to feel too crowded, and there was a little too much fiction for me. I trimmed away some of the excess and I'm not sorry I did it. My Op sessions still take 6 hours easily - yikes!

I think the best part about not strictly following the prototype is that you have allowed yourself room to imagine and still feel like you have been there and seen it in the wild. We call it Proto-Lance.

In the end, it's your railroad and as long as it's meeting your desired level of "hobby fun", I say do what works for you. 

Terminology

I started off following a path much like Bill described.  In my case, I didn't feel like my prototype would be busy enough to make operations fun, so I reactivated a number of customers who'd been idle since RI times, as well as including some new customers that the IAIS didn't actually begin to serve until after my era.  A couple of things caused me to change course once ops began:

1. It no longer felt like the IAIS I knew and railfanned.  I was doing things I never saw the prototype do, so it fell short of the primary goal I had for the layout, which was to recreate what I experienced trackside.
2. I realized that, operating at a realistic pace, I didn't need a bunch of industries to keep my crews busy.  My local gathers up grain empties, switches two elevators, and brings the loads back for interchange, and that process takes them pretty close to the whole 2-1/2 hour op session.

So, now I model only the customers, tracks, and rolling stock that were active on my prototype during my era, and my modeling is mostly limited to the locomotives that ran then, so I consider my layout to be based on the prototype as it was in May 2005.  But...I have an ex-MILW F7A hidden in the enginehouse based on a unit that traveled over the IAIS in the late 1980s.  And a pair of Alcos that were sold in 1999 (but remained in IAIS lettering during my era).  And some ex-MP cabooses that the IAIS never had.  Doesn't matter to me.  I still consider it prototype-based.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about what others call it.  Pick a term that you feel is accurate given your choices and go with that.

 "at what point is my layout

We all draw our own line as to where prototype ends and fiction starts. My approach is to model the prototype as well as possible in the given space, if the scene  doesn't have the elements I want in a layout I then I look for a new prototype location  that does. I think choosing the right prototype scene  to model  is easier and ends up with a more realistic layout than trying to bend a lacking prototype to fit one's needs. I've found that most modelers lack the discipline to stick to realistic elements if they are trying to create a fantasy scene so going with a prototype scheme eliminates all that chance for error. As to the specific question about industries for the D&RGW layout..Have you looked for places on the railroad that have the elements you want to model? Maybe some place other than the mountain mainline would be more in tune with the goals? or model the mainline more extensively and "model" the industries off scene in staging? That allows all the same traffic as modeled industries but saves all the space and cost of building industrial models. Switch lists or car cards don't care if the destination is a detailed model or a spot in staging.......DaveB 

The biggest reasons for

The biggest reasons for choosing the D&RGW was coal trains and EMD second generation power. Rio Grande SD40T-2's SD45's and SD50's are all loco's from my childhood I read and looked at pictures of in steep grades, long drags and helper service. I also like the mix of GE and EMD found on the joint line with AT&SF and BN.

With that said, moving lots of coal between Craig and to power plants to the south of Denver and to staging south of Pueblo will keep operators busy. I just want more local and hoped to hear others make more industry to allow for that local runs.

Mike 

yup...

That's what I did, although I removed some of it from the plan before I started construction, adding a little extra in the local department allowed me to have a little more variety and to model some industry that was important to be even though it was not in my actual modeled area.

Some adjustments

My current plan is to model a section of prototype nearby that I railfan.  But space constraints make it necessary to omit a couple of industry sidings.  OTOH, I'm adding a non-existent team track so I can spot cars that I have that don't match my industries.

For whatever reason, I've never been satisfied with freelance trackplans even though there are lots of good ones out there.  I'm hoping a hybrid plan will be close enough to reality to satisfy me but also allow those "oddball" cars to be used.

Other way

Instead of picking a prototype and then adding or changing the industries to get the operation I wanted, I decided what operation I wanted then picked the part of the prototype that best fit that operation.

I had originally been interested in a more mountainous region that focused on mining, but then found that there was very little industrial switching because its hard to locate industries in the mountains, so I moved to a different part of the railroad.  I wasn't really concerned about "signature scenes" because very few people are familiar with my prototype and I have moved back to the 1900 era, so most of my railroad has changed or been abandoned.  Most of the "signature scenes" for my railroad that people would be familiar with would actually be anachronisms for my era.

Having said that, I have incorporated as much of the prototype into the layout as I can fit and I know where the things are that match.

If fidelity is important to you and to your vision of your operator's experience, then I would suggest keeping a few signature scenes really "clean" and intentionally include some non-descript areas between those signature points.  Then make your changes and additions in the non-descript areas.  If you add stuff in areas that people are not  familiar with, then they won't know and will be more willing to accept the added stuff.  If everybody takes pictures of the curves at mp 100 and the bridge at mp 175, but nobody bothers with taking pictures around mp 155 because there aren't any good photo angles, then put your added stuff at mp 155.

Don't worry about labels.  Every layout has compromises and some made up stuff, its a sliding scale in multiple dimensions so trying to pigeon hole "prototype" or "freelance" is pretty much a waste of time.  That's what i find so ridiculous about the "prototype" and "freelance" columns in MRH.  About half the time either article could be put in either column.  For example the December issue, its a nice article on reconfiguring the layout and adding a drop leaf, but its not an article on modeling the prototype, its a layout construction article.  It could have been in the freelancing column just as easily. 

 "I'm hoping a hybrid plan

One reason I chose to model the CCT is it was a bridge line for ATSF traffic to Sacramento so pretty much any type of car can show up on the layout. Modeling the thru traffic is easier than trying to build an industry for each car type.....DaveB

Definition

"Technically" your diehard prototype modeler will define prototype as modeling a specific time and place to include operations, track layout, rolling stock and locomotives, etc... correct for that time and place. Many prototype modelers can get extremely detailed based on the information available. 

Certainly nothing wrong with that "if that is an interest to you" and it can be a source of pride and enjoyable challenge.  

But I would go with what you will find enjoyable and certainly not worry about labels.   For my layout, I make sure rolling stock and locomotives are correct for the area and time period I model.  Track layout follows railroad standards but is not an exact design match of the track layout in the area I model.  The scenery represents what you would see in the area I model but certainly not an exact match.

"Prototypical-Freelance" is what I use to describe mine.

Joe

Sliding scale

As Dave H mentioned you can be anywhere along a range from 100% scaled-down proto modeling to fully-freelanced fantasy. The trick is you have to be happy with your choice, and live with it. Don't worry about what the others will think, unless that bothers you - and only to that degree.

I've "slipped" from my original intent to proto-model and am now building a 'fact-ional' or 'proto-freelanced' adaption of the old Detroit and Milwaukee Ry. This line was absorbed into the Grand Trunk System over a hundred-years ago but in my adaption of history is reborn in my basement as a contemporary freight carrier.

My D&M RR is a company that uses the equipment of its parent owners - in this case CN and NS - much like present-day Conrail Shared Assets. Amtrak also serves the route, and you might find the occasional steam excursion powered by MILW S-3 Northern #261, hence the 'Milwaukee' connection. As a life-member of the Friends of #261 group I had to have my favorite coal-burner included somehow.

Do what makes you happy in this hobby. In my case I wanted to pay homage to my lifelong interest the Milwaukee Road, yet keep my locale closer to home and allow for modern-day GE and EMD power. A railroad name that ties both together and so-happens to be my initials is a bonus I just couldn't pass up.

What's your goal?

Not that I'm a John Armstrong or Tony Koester, but the only important question in the end is: Will it make you happy? I describe my Algoma & Northland as "based on" the Algoma Central but:

• I wanted permission to run ONR power (because I love the chevron scheme), so in my world there's been a recent merger.
• The basement won't allow everything to fit where the geography says it is.
• ACR equipment is hard to find, so the era is implicitly "smeared-out", e.g. includes power that wasn't all there at the same time.
• There are a couple of bridges (or will be when I build them ) that exist just because they look cool.

Nonetheless, I have correct industries (iron ore, steel, forest products), mostly real place names, and a couple of "signature scenes" (again: once I've built them). I guess that makes it a proto-lance. I'll consider it a success if *I* get the same feeling I got from my trips on the line -- that I'm amongst the rocks and trees and little lakes and swamps in the middle of freakin' nowhere, Northern Ontario.