Two thoughts immediately come

Two thoughts immediately come to mind: 1) Selective compression; and 2) "Good enough."

I gave it up (mostly)

Hi Chris,

I feel this way about just about all modeling.  Many people here argue about how important it is to model from photographs.  This seems to me a small version of modeling a prototype.  I start with a photo, say of a rock face, then try to duplicate it.  My efforts fall short.  How do I get that rock to look just like that?  What exactly are those colors?  Is that vegetation?  How do I model that?  How do I make that spot look wet or sandy?  Etc. Etc.  Now I'm frustrated, and not having fun.

The same goes for car weathering, engine weathering, building or rolling stock modeling, operations.  It's a never ending chase that ends in frustration.

My solution?  I read a LOT about my prototype, look at a lot of photos, and get immersed in the feel of the period and place I'm modeling.  I also look at a lot of the work of other excellent modelers, many of them on this forum, to learn techniques and be inspired.  Then, when I model, I use my instincts and skills to reproduce what I want to see, hear and feel.

Am I successful?  Well, when I go in my train room, I often think to myself, "this is an awesome layout".  So yes!  Is it awesome from other peoples' viewpoints?  Probably not.  But I don't care, because it's what I want it to be.  So I gave up my chase for modeling the prototype faithfully and now I go for the feel and atmosphere that's in my head and in my heart.

Okay - I'm ducking the slings and arrows now . . . 

old saying applies

No arrows here

Yes! Someone else gets it the same way I do. Of course, I never had a prototype till after the fact. My railroad came from my imagination and I model from my minds eye, not photographs. It's an amalgamation of things I've seen both real and modeled. In my mind, the fact that I eventually found a real railroad that is like mine in many ways is a testament to my powers of observation.

Frankly when I saw the title of this thread my first thought was "let's hope so!" At one time the incessant never ending LOUD beating of the prototype drum that has gone on in the hobby for awhile now nearly drove me out of it. Not anymore though!

Impressionism is the perfect analogy

I consider myself a prototype modeler but only in the sense of giving the viewer and operator an overall "impression" of my branch line. This is exactly because of what you brought up, Chris – it's impossible to replicate a prototype in exact form. 

I used to sweat the details and all that ever produced was no progress on the layout, stress, and perfectionism. I also noticed that when I operated or visited other layouts I never noticed the details but rather took in the overall impression those layouts conveyed. I've come to see that developing a layout around creating a prototypical impression is all that is needed for a very successful "proto-layout". 

I'm not particularly fond of the phrase "good enough" because to me it implies too much compromise. I like to focus on how an artist would approach a representational painting. ie: creating the painting is an exercise in creating a mood or transforming the viewer to another place, but it certainly involves using skilled craftsmanship and creativity to accomplish the goal. I'd rather replace "good enough" with "achieving excellence" and leave it there. 

Because of my new outlook progress is being made on my layout. I created a full backdrop that is actually very impressionistic but appropriate, and I'm currently working on a river scene where the truss bridge will not have any (gasp) rivets. Guess what? After I paint and weather the bridge I don't think I ever would have noticed the rivets anyway!

Composite modeling

I agree with what’s been said here.  I’m modeling a Reading branchline, and while my rolling stock, operations, structures, signage, etc. are distinctly Reading, I’m not modeling one particular line.  I’ve done a lot of research through books, videos, railfanning, and “archeological” visits to abandoned lines.  The layout is a composite representation of Reading branchlines with characteristics of several branches.  I’ve had favorable reviews from quite a few Reading fans and natives of PA Dutch countries, and I’d be happy with it even without the approbation.  I don’t fret about absolute faithfulness because I model the spirit and not to the letter.

Neuro-linguistic programming, in a small way

NLP gets us to use different words to change our perceptions of the word (gross simplification), and Scott is spot on with his aversion to the ambiguous phrase “good enough” - it can mean that something meets the definition of acceptable quality, but also a point where one simply gives up on any further work. “Achievable excellence” is a good example of re-programming this concept. 

One advantage of modelling the prototype is that we don’t have to think up the details and the design. One disadvantage of it is that we become aware of how our model “should” look, which can become a constraint and lead us inevitably to view choices and decisions as some form of compromise. I have learned at work that compromise is not always a way to satisfy both parties: it can lead to neither party feeling satisfied. Rather, it is better to find a solution that satisfies both parties (“win-win scenario”) but failing that, it is often healthier for one party to win and the other to lose, providing that it isn’t always person A who wins, and that people are taught how to lose. And when modelling a railroad, with its generous curves and long trains, we start off with a pretty big headache: unless the prototype is very simple, or the space very large, or the scale very small, we will never be able to model everything correctly. In short, we start off being compromised.

Compromise is not a good word! What we have are choices and consequences, plus a challenge. 

Every choice, every decision made, will have an outcome and the trick is to make sure that the outcome is aligned to the desired objective. The challenge is to selectively remove things from the prototype such that the choices lead to the desired objective, which is to create something which captures and displays the essence and image of the prototype, despite the compressions and omissions which have been made.

That is where the creative joy comes to the fore, and what makes prototype modelling so much more rewarding than “pure” freelancing, for the quest is to try to distill the real thing and present the model as a believable replica of the prototype. We can reduce the number of sidings, reduce the curvature, shorten the trains, allow for greater than scale flangeways and wheel profiles, suggest rather than accurately model some of the barely visible fine detail.

In short, we can define our long-term objective as creating a credible representation of a prototype scene with the resources we have at out dispoal. And then it doesn’t seem so bad.

The first hobby magazine I bought as a child of 10, contained two layouts which were extremely effective. One of them took the track plan of a real location, slightly modified, and added buildings from the area but not at that station, and the other was a model of a real location, compressed into ⅓ of the required space. Yes, one or two features were a bit too compressed maybe: getting a horse and cart between a spur and the freight shed was a tight squeeze, but in both cases, the prototype locations were instantly recognisable, yet neither was “true to scale” nor in some respects particularly accurate. But they worked as layouts, and achieved the aim of looking like prototype locations. Both were authentic representations.

”Authentic representation” is perhaps a better target than “prototype fidelity” - it’s that reprogramming again.

So, what are you after? The point has already been made: you are ultimately doing this for yourself. That may involve seeking the approval of some of your modelling peers, it may not. Doesn’t matter either way. Just reframe your objectives, and work with rather than against the resources (time, space, money and temperament) you have.

Depends on the Zoom Level

More Specific

Are you referring to prototypical operations, specific era or even year, specific railroad,track layout, location, rolling stock, locomotives?

"All of the above?"

The way I approach it is "getting in the ballpark" which a "prototypical purist"  would probably scoff at.  However I don't really care so won't lose any sleep at night!

For example, the layout I am building now is a Missouri Pacific switching layout in the 1970-1980 era set in Fort Smith, Arkansas.  One of the more famous industries in Fort Smith and served by Missouri Pacific was a company called the "Wortz Biscuit Company".   (The only thing left today is a historical maker where the plant once stood)

To date, I cannot find an image of this company with the exception of a 1920s advertising drawing. (Although I am sure they are out there somewhere) So, I will have a Wortz Biscuit company on my layout which may not look like the prototype in the 70s-80s era.  "Later, I can always change out the structure when I come across a more modern image of what it looked like". 

Another example is rolling stock.  Maybe I don't know what specific type of rolling stock or which railroad owned the rolling stock that served a certain lumber company in Fort Smith during the era I am modeling. 

However, I can make an educated assumption and model rolling stock that served lumber yards between 1970 - 1980.  "Easily changed out if I come across more specific information later on" 

Not knocking those that are prototypical purist.  However, in my opinion, the prototypical quest should end when the fun stops!

Joe

"The more you learn about

    The key is reducing the scene to something that fits your space and scale(more N scale track can be modeled than O scale track in a given space). Reduce the trackage to what will fit into the space and there's no reason one can't make a reasonably accurate prototype layout..A  classic example is the DL&W Harlem Transfer which is well documented and can be modeled exactly to scale in a 4 by 8 space in HO scale( Tim Warris did a similar layout of the CNJ which is just down the river from the Harlem Transfer) ....DaveB 

Everything said was fine with me except this

Way to much of a generalization. It depends on who you are and what your goals are. I find my brand of pure freelancing extremely rewarding and wouldn't change it even if I had a huge empty warehouse, unlimited resources and models of every piece of equipment any certain prototype had. The only thing I've ever had the urge to model either strict prototype or proto lance is Kodachromes over Tennessee Pass and I seriously doubt even the aforementioned conditions would sway me to do it over the pure freelance pike I pursue now. It took me a long time to figure out what I wanted and to start to fully realize the whole concept of it but now that I'm there, in my case at least, you are dead wrong about the reward.

On another note, what's a "vestie" anyway?

By Who's Yardstick?

So, who's yardstick do we use to validate that we're modeling correctly?

Some quotes:

"...the phrase "good enough" because to me it implies too much compromise."

EVERY modeler employs the "good enough" principle in our modeling. All of us. No exceptions. The difference merely being: At what point "good enough" is reached for that modeler?

ANY model can be made "more realistic", no matter the level it reaches, it can always be made better. Thus, we ALL have to reach a point that our model (or modeling) in question is GOOD ENOUGH and move onto the next model or project.

"Compromise is not a good word!"

Again, compromise is THE word that defines the entire hobby of model railroading. NONE of us can faithfully replicate a prototype of any size. Even choosing a prototype that is tiny, you WILL end up making compromises in regards to attempting to replicate it ACCURATELY. No way around it. Period.

So, once more, each modeler has to establish FOR THEMSELVES just what degree of "compromise" will be acceptable concerning all points of the effort.

"That is where the creative joy comes to the fore, and what makes prototype modelling so much more rewarding than “pure” freelancing..."

Again, see Michael T's post above.

To which I shall add: It all depends on the MODELER and where THAT MODELER finds their rewards.

Over the 50+ years I've been a model railroader, I've done both: Tried to replicate my favorite prototype (on two different layouts), and also modeled via proto/free-lancing (on two different layouts).

I finally faced the fact that FOR ME, trying to replicate a prototype was more FRUSTRATING than it was rewarding. AND, it STIFLED my creativity. I came to look at this way: The prototype made all the decisions as to where they ran and how they got there, and thus my challenge was trying to fit what they did into the space I had available. (Which resulted in being frustrated with the space limitations/etc.) Same with their engine roster and rolling equipment: They made all the decisions, and it was up to me to try to emulate it. Removed was the fun of researching what regional railroads ended up doing for engine rosters, what they did for their rolling stock needs, and then apply such knowledge in the creation of my OWN engine roster and my OWN rolling stock needs, and the create a plausible history that my mind was comfortable with. (And was entertaining in the process.)

As for prototype scenes: No matter how you try, you simply CAN NOT shrink a typical prototype mainline scene that contains good operational opportunities, into a typically sized home layout setting. When you get down to it, even a SHORT main line pass siding in the diesel era is LONG.

SO, for ME, I'm avoiding modeling a specific prototype like the plague. Instead this upcoming layout (and likely my last) will return to proto/free-lance, and I've been happy with that decision since making it some time ago.

In recap: In my view, this ENTIRE hobby is one of "compromise" and "good enough", determined on a personal level and not to be imposed upon other's personal choices they've made concerning same. The same can be said about a modeler's choice of pursuing a prototype or choosing to proto/free-lance.

We EACH have to find where our rewards are in this hobby, and set out to maximize those rewards, and encourage others to do likewise with THEIR modeling pursuits.

Andre

Proto 87

Anyone who isn’t doing proto 87 has choosen “good enough” right out of the gate.  It’s all downhill from there.

Some time ago I wanted to add a glass factory to my O scale switching layout.  I was familiar with a Thatcher Glass plant with tracks into warehouses on two sides and a couple tracks into the center for the inbound glass ingredients.  It was pretty neat.  I figured I’d just copy it.  Yeah, right.  Once I’d measured it carefully on the satellite photos I realized I’d need a backetball court sized room just to include it and it’s supporting trackage with nothing else at scale.  My basement was not the size of a basketball court.

Selective compression is a good thing.

Good enough is a good thing.

Too much of a generalisation?

Michael,

You may be right - for you - but my experience of trying both the freelance and the “close to prototype” was that the latter won hands down. But that’s just my experience, rather than untried opinion. Others are free to differ, but obviously I cannot speak of their experiences or ideas, merely state my own.

On the other tack, I am simply suggesting that phrases such as “good enough” and words like “compromise” have ambiguous and indeed potentially contradictory interpretations, so other ways of expressing these are worth considering to re-frame the mindset.

Obviously I failed to explain that.

Perspective

I find the prototype makes for an excellent blueprint. In can't get everything exactly right but I'm satisfied with modeling several elements of the prototype as pest as I can. If you look at a prototype scene to model, there are many elements; freight cars, locomotives, track infrastructure, trees, structures, ground textures, water, roadway infrastructure, etc. I concentrate on the smaller elements that can be achieved in a shorter amount of time. 

Almost all of us need to compress the track geometry of a certain place or a set of prototype miles. That is a given. Prototype maps, photos, and data offer a guide to ease our efforts. One of our major details items is our rolling stock. I feel the rolling stock fleet is also rolling scenery. A setting with minimal scenery looks bare until you populate the rails with period-specific, weathered rolling stock. 

Adding a few prototype specific structures and signage pushes our efforts another step forward. it all takes time, not matter if we are free-lancing or using a prototype as a blueprint. We tend to look at a layout as one big project when in fact it is a collection of many smaller projects. If you alter the perspective and focus on adding these smaller projects to the overall plan, then it can become less of a futile exercise and a more enjoyable hobby.

At least, that's what works for me. YMMV.

Eric

Hmmmm...

"I'm satisfied with modeling several elements of the prototype as pest as I can."

I'll bet your wife thinks you're doing a great job being a pest with your modeling.

Andre

Expectations

In my experience, frustration typically comes when my expectations exceeded the actual outcome.  If my expectations are set properly out of the gate - that I'm unlikely to convincingly recreate a 50-mile section of railroad in a 33'x16' space - frustration never enters the picture.

My expectations for prototype modeling are that I want to recreate my prototype at a time when I especially enjoyed railfanning it.  I was never attempting to model everything exactly as it was, or to trick anyone into believing that they were looking at the real thing, but just to give my mind enough visual cues so it could transport me back to those fun days of May 2005.  So far, I've been able to accomplish that to my own satisfaction, so frustration hasn't been a concern at all.

A big part of that recreation involves modeling the operations and the specific moves that the prototype made, so it was important to me to replicate the operational track schematic as closely as possible.  Mission (mostly) Accomplished on that front, as I only had to leave out one of seven yard tracks and one of two RIP tracks in my primary yard at Council Bluffs, and neither compromise endangered the ability to operate prototypically in those areas.  On the other end of the spectrum, some structures, such as a pair of major highway overpasses, were less important to me in replicating those memories.  Those bridges impaired my ability to operate around the areas over which they passed, so they were left off altogether.

To me, learning more about my prototype only increases the fun of modeling it, as it helps me to fill in blanks and bring things closer to reality, and that's where the fun is for me.  Even little things, such as my recent discovery of what switches were locked on my prototype, and where derails were placed, have been fun to replicate.  Yes, the end results still fall short of the prototype, but again, I expected them to.  In the end, all those little things add up in more effectively transporting me back, so my ultimate vision for the layout continues to move forward as a result of those finds.

I've often said that I'm more

I've often said that I'm more of a student of the prototype than many would believe and I think that's true of a lot of pure freelance folks. Even though my little line is fictional with names of the old masters and family names and it's history has a bit of humor thrown in, that doesn't mean I don't pay a lot of attention to the prototype. My equipment is all era specific and I follow logic in things I do. Sometimes I think I worry myself too much about "Is this feasible?" "Would this have been." It's been said that plausible freelancing is harder to do than prototype modeling and I think to some extent that's true.

Bottom line, what gets people in trouble and draws considerable ire is blanket statements about either type of modeling, proto or freelance. I can't speak for what irritates the proto guys but I know what irritates me. Anything along the lines of "prototype modeling is more rewarding" or "prototype modelers model to a higher standard" or benchmark or blah blah blah and on and on... I'm going to leave this one alone now. Just enjoy the hobby, no matter how you pursue it.

My choice....

My choice to freelance is based on the fact I could not model a prototype with anything approaching realism or fidelity in the space constraints i have.  My modeling pays tribute to the prototypes I love, but also not trying to model Tehachapi Loop on a 4x8 sheet of plywood.  I am not modeling fantasy, but a plausible scenario which allow me to use equipment and techniques of the prototype in a fictional scene.  it would be impossible for me to accurately duplicate even the small town i live in, within the spaces i have.  If i can give the feel of the things I grew up with, the local flavor so to speak, I'll be happy.... i don't need to know what locomotive or boxcar were on what siding at 3:42pm, July 8, 1980, just make the scene look plausible and well modeled.

Peace Bill

Model Operations...

I model the operations. I want to recreate the moves made by the prototype. My tracks are pretty faithful to the prototype. I try to make sure all my turnouts follow the prototype in number and orientation, that way the moves will be the same. The more I learn about the prototype, the more the tracks make sense. Learning how the prototype operated is one of the most fun things to me. My sidings and spurs are shorter, but so are my trains. I'm mainly interested in replicating the work. The research and the challenge of recreating that work are what I find most fun about the hobby.

Randy

 "phrases such as “good

"Good enough" can be replaced with "Engineered for the job"  but that's a bit more to say or type......DaveB

Prototype Purists

I think many modelers have really created a mythical bogeyman to hide under the layout.

Even the most fanatical "prototype purist" recognizes the limitations in accurately modeling even a single station on a railroad. 

Distances are compressed, entire sections are cut out entirely, certain types of equipment that the prototype had are missing because there's no model, etc.

I gave it up (mostly)

Michael A,

Are you behind cover? 

You asked, ". . . are you successful?"  Only you can answer that, but if you are happy then I think you are most definitely successful.

I carefully read your message expecting do disagree with you, but after reading then re-reading it I concluded that you and I the same approach to model railroading. We follow that prototype and model the feel of the prototype. Yes, I do pan attention to prototype specific items and details but only model what is reasonable and easy to do. If something is not reasonable to do, them I don't do it. Simple as that. I think this is where you are too.

Thanks for your message. It was refreshing to read.

Jim Six

We all have limitations in

We all have limitations in our ability and space. Our scale also has a role to play in the accuracy of our models. Since our models are not powered by fossil fuel we have diverged a great deal at the outset. With that in mind we must choose the level of realism we like. For me it will be free lanced so I can do a better job of things than reality did. I will base it on a real place and go for the impression of the place rather than a board by board recreation. For me that is very satisfying and achievable in my lifetime.

With that being said my vision of what I enjoy is fine for me. It may not be what works for someone else. There is nothing wrong with a different opinion and a different way to approach the hobby. One of the best prototype layouts I have ever read about is a marvelous layout design and very accurate in many details. That layout has no appeal to me as a subject to model or a prototype I would want to model.

A free lanced line like the V&O on the other hand has great appeal to me and if I was going to model something other than my vision I could be very happy doing something like it. I suspect this debate is much like beauty and it is in the eye of the beholder.