Prototype vs. freelance?

Interesting survey.  Did you happen to keep track of the number of prototype, proto-freelance, and freelance layouts in that period?

Prototype / Freelance... I'm Curious Also

I've wondered the same thing myself... as a prototyper gone freelance, it seems to me that the hobby is swinging more toward prototype, but I have no factual information to support my beliefs.

Funny you should mention it...

Funny you should mention it, AZPacific, as I was actually asking because I see so few prototype modelers here.  Overall, I'd agree that prototype modeling seems to be gaining in popularity, but I just don't see that much evidence of it on this forum.  There are some great examples though:  Joe F.'s SP, James McNab's IAIS Grimes Line, Frank's DRI Line, and I think I've seen Lance Mindheim's Miami Spur here in the past.

Joe, prototype modeling may

Joe, prototype modeling may not be in evidence in a pure form, but I see the increasing influence of prototype information here and all over. People may not be recreating a 100% prototype layout, but I think looking to prototypes for inspiration and influence has become far more commonplace in today's modeling than in the past.

Of the RR sites I visit online for help in my own modeling, I know I consider this one a good source or both practical and prototypical information.

As Requested

As requested, here is the breakdown for "theme".  Again these are my personal definitions.  Additions in italics to clearify the definitions of strict prototype and prototype based.

Strict prototype.  Accurately modeling an actual location, such as Tony Koester's NKP. Elements may be compressed or eliminated.  Track layout, rolling stock, and operations, to the extent possible, accurately reflect the prototype.
17%

Prototype based.  Uses prototype equipment/practices, but doesn't attempt to accurately portray real world locations.
46%

Proto-freelanced.  Freelancing with a prototype feel, and corporate identity.  Examples: Allegheny Midland, Virginian & Ohio, Franklin & South Manchester, Allagash, Washington Northern.
26%

Freelanced.  Anything goes.
11%

Prototype

As someone coming back into the hobby, I was drawn by what I assumed was more prototypical modeling.  Apparently I have thought that prototype meant getting as close to how the real railroad operates.  To scale down the mileage to something manageable in a smaller room.  I kept away after building a round the circle HO model 40 years back.  I wanted something more but couldn't put a label on what I was reading over the years.  When I picked up a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operations by John Armstrong.  That is what gave me reason to think about a new layout.  But how to put things like a mile long yard off of Tchapatoulis Street in New Orleans (33 feet in N gauge)?  How to profile the Super Dome which the Amtrack City of New Orleans flows past?

I guess that an accepted definition needs to be spread so people can see how their system compares to that.

Is there an accepted abridging of the above facts and still remain prototypical?

Definitions

James,

Thanks, that does make it a lot easier to understand.

~Never~ is such a big word

While building my miniature version of the Duluth Missabe and Iron Range placed in the mid fifties, I REALLY have been striving to make it as accurate as possible given the space constraints, and was feeling pretty sure I met the "faithful to the prototype" definition, but found myself thrown off at the first rule above:

...place sidings, spurs, or structures on the wrong side of the main track as compared to the prototype

...rats. 

Oh well, solace to be found in meeting the rest of them.  If it weren't for the word "never"...

But in trying my best to follow the Missabe, as others have noted in their pursuits, I am forced with annoying regularity to make up a myriad of little details that just can't be found in any research.

Of Course...

Of course, you know, that this doesn't necessarily reflect how and what model railroaders choose to model, but, rather, what the editors choose to publish in their various magazines. This is based more on what editors think their readers want to see than on what model railroaders are doing. Another factor is what is being submitted to the magazines for publication. Its hard to publish an article on a Z scale layout if no one submits such and article.

MR publishes a lot of layout tours simply because they know that that is what their readers want to see. They realizes that that is their bread and butter! (In fact Allen Keller of Great Model Railroad videos fame got his start at MR producing video layout tours!)

George

Never Say Never Again

Milt,

Last I checked I was not the go to authority of prototype definitions. It's simply what's important to Tom, and to me. Which is why I repeated his words here.

Even in something as "defined" as prototype modeling, we're bound to have our own areas of comfort as far as accuracy and fidelity. My own car fleet is woefully inaccurate despite have great information at my disposal. One day I'll get there... just not today.

With any venture it's always a good to determine your will do, your will not and your maybe. Otherwise known as defining yourself... and your layout.

James

Some of that was tongue in cheek

Thanks, James, but then, I knew the authority for what is good enough ultimately rests in the owner's mind. 

Still, it's interesting to entertain the idea of benchmarks, however arbitrary, because in the case of your prior post, it gave me a sense of what others are striving for.

I will never...

Perhaps instead of "will never" it might be worded "should never".

Definitions

I think having these definitions is part of the fun of the hobby.  However, if you or I don't live up to someone else's, maybe consider what they're saying, make your own choices, and have peace with that.  I believe Tom and James would tell you the same thing.  We take part in hobbies for our own enjoyment, not to live up to a standard set by other modelers.  As James pointed out, neither he nor Tom is trying to force this definition on anyone.  It was just submitted for an interesting discussion on the Proto-Layouts list.  I, too, think it's a great definition of what I aspire to, but I fall short as well, on this point:

It doesn't mention structures, but I think the implication is there.  I model 2005, yet the prototype for an Atlantic, IA grain elevator I have on the layout was torn down in 1996.  Unfortunately, its replacement was built two miles north of town on a branch that I don't have room to model.  It bothered me, but I learned to accept it, model the original structure, and move on.  We can only do the best we can with the space we have available.  

Personally, I find it much easier to overlook compromises like this that are forced on me by space limitations (e.g. curves that weren't there, sidings that are too short, etc.) than compromises I originally made in order to beef up operations, such as reactivating customers that hadn't used rail in decades.  I've since weeded out all the latter, and I consider my circa 1996 elevator to be part of the former group, since I wouldn't be modeling it if I had room for its replacement.

Now that I think about it, though, I'm also disqualified on that point by the presence of a UP caboose in storage on the layout, seen at  http://www.iaisrailfans.org/gallery/8-30-2012-update/CB_2012_08_30_01 .  The IAIS stored a privately-owned UP caboose at that spot back in the 1990s, but it was gone well before my era.  However, the brass model was an anniversary gift from my wife years ago when I modeled the UP, and there's no way I'd take it off the layout in the name of prototypical accuracy.

I once hosted one of the most serious, no-compromises prototype modelers I've ever heard of.  The kind of guy that even rivet counters (like me, to a certain extent) shake our heads at.  Surprisingly, though, he operated like a kid who had his first Tyco train set.  Jackrabbit starts and stops, shoving through a yard at probably 45 mph, etc.  That was a good reminder for me that NO ONE...or at least no one I've ever heard of...has the prototype thing down perfectly.  That's not to say that it's not fun to set that as a goal to be worked toward, but just do it for the right reasons.  I often have to remind myself to pursue my modeling as though no one else will ever see it.  If I do that, I believe my motives will be correctly aligned and the result will be something I enjoy.

Definitions and living with them

Joe,

I agree that removing the caboose would be a tough choice.  I have to think that with the creation of the Heritiage engines like NS, that more would run their 'older' equipment once in awhile on their era layouts.

Doesn't one of the older City of New Orleans run around doing charity work here and there?

I read about UP having events and bringing out some older equipment to give people what they want.  Nostalgia is a great motivator to bring others into the hobby.  Just because I am doing a contemporary layout doesn't mean that I don't want a coal fired locomotive to run around once a year on a special occasion. 

I model 2003-ish....but....

...on my layout will be a representation (more involved than the real one) of a plywood mill that was torn down in 1992.

Basically I have one section of my layout, at the "north" end, that fulfills my need for semi-fantasy, where I include two industries that have no business being on my layout in a prototypical world - the aforementioned plywood mill and a Pepsi bottling plant that is probably about 30 miles away from it's location in reality. I needed someplace to send all those corn syrup tank cars Atlas and Walthers produced...

I would also note that I found it amusing that on Bruce Chubb's Sunset Valley, he modeled an industry from an unmodeled town in another town, and he basically reversed the track plan of the SP Mainline through Woodburn, OR - it fit in the corner better than reality would have.

I agree with Possum...

Exactly what he was getting at, your survey is of published layouts, and that may or may not have any reflection on what the real numbers are for what real model railroaders are modeling. Especially the part about their choice of prototypical exactness, and over to total freelance. Perhaps magazine editors think people want to see more prototypical layouts? That does not mean that most real layouts are prototypical, or proto-freelance, or what have you. Although it is an interesting survey, and says a lot about what the model railroading press is thinking these days, which has a major influence on the model railroading public at large.

I remember a reader's survey performed by MR magazine last year, or the year before. In an issue they put a card to fill out, or you could go on line and enter your stats into their survey about what people are modeling. I can't remember the exact outcome as far as eras being modeled, or if they even asked about how prototypical your layout was, but I do remember what they said about scale. Their findings on scale  were 75% HO, 17% N scale, and all other scales make up the rest. When I read that, I questioned it too. But that is what they found of their readers who chose to participate in their survey. perhaps it's time for MRH to perform their own survey? I would love to see the outcome, and the inclusion of the other pertinent questions such as your era and your "Prototypicallity", for lack of a better word.

What other questions should be included? Layout size? Track length? Money invested? Control system? Age of modeler? Club or private? Or even perhaps  what is your favorite part of the hobby? Operations? Scenery? Computer control? Sure we could design a survey and post it in a blog, but I think if the Magazine gave the survey it would receive much better participation.

Just my thoughts on the subject,

Is Prototype Easier than Fantasy?

I for one give more credit to the Fantasy modeler than the prototype modeler.  The prototype modeler is copying what existed in a specific locale during a specific era.  The modeler has tremendous amounts of materials to obtain for research.  The Fantasy modeler has to create the environment from the ground up based on some basic assumptions and build that environment.

He has to determine which industries might exist for his era that would still use rail service, develop a series of motive power that would have been used by that railroad to serve its customers and create that railroad from scratch.

Even a hybrid of the two poses some interesting challenges.  Take the idea of mergers and bankruptcies for example.  What if Conrail was never formed in the Northeastern US?  What if the SP was never folded into the UP?  What if the BN took over the SP and the Sante Fe went to UP instead?  You would be modeling the Prototype locale, but the railroad you model doesn't exist.  It makes for some interesting options in your modeling.

MRH 2011 Reader Survey

Comments: Not a lot of surprise here – but it is gratifying to see that we’re reaching a good mix of modelers in every scale across the entire hobby population. As a general model railroading magazine, it appears we’re reaching all the scales equally since our demographic tracks closely to the expected headcount in these scales. HO scale is the largest, with N scale being roughly 1/3rd the size of HO, O scale is roughly 1/3rd the size of N. We seem to be especially popular with S scale modelers, disproportionately so. We’re not reaching a lot of G or Z modelers. Most of the “other” category list themselves as On30 modelers, or some other “narrow gauge” like HOn3.

NOTE: The above was from our 2011 Reader Survey.

To large degree, surveys represent readership

The magazine surveys represent who reads the magazine, not necessarily what the scale makeup actually is. MR has a disproportionately low number of N scale modelers because (based on an informal survey I've done of N scale modelers) N scale modelers feel MR does an especially poor job covering their scale.

Makes sense to me

The only paper mag I buy these days is N Scale magazine as it does a much better job of covering N scale (can't wait to see M.C. Fujiwara's articles!) than MR, though there are still some useful things in MR.  I might buy the MRP or GMR annuals if I see something intriguing, but pretty much just N scale magazine.

Scale makeup

What is the scale makeup for the hobby?  Joe's survey results above reflect MRH readership, but what about the hobby as a whole?  OO is not even mentioned in the survey and it's the most popular in the UK.  Is it less than 0.1%?  I have searched Google and can't seem to find that data.

BTW I am taking a working display with trains in 9 scales to the Intermountain Train Expo in Salt Lake City next weekend and would like to be able to explain popularity by scale.

Thanks,

Dave