Re: Why not model actual train consists?


Bill Welch
 

This might be Matt Zebrieski. I was trying to help with info on a L&N 36-ft boxcar he needed for a ATSF freight train he was trying to model.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, tyesac@... wrote:


I've seen only one example of such a train, at the annual Santa Fe convention held in San Diego years ago. I don't remember who brought it but it was a sight to behold in regards to the level of model building work shown and background documentation & research behind it. As I recall it was around 25 - 30 cars and had only a few "stand ins". Each car was the correct version (rebuilds), appropriately weathered relative to the car age. The train in question was a version of the nightly northbound San Deigo/LA Surf line way freight.

The shorter the train, the likelihood for being modeled in it's entirety increases often because the whole train fit with in the frame of one camera shot. There is a well published set of photos by Stan Kistler of a way freight operating on the El Paso to Belen NM "horny toad" line. It's a nice candidate to be modeled exactly since Stan took a broadside photo of the whole consist of the short train. It's pulled by a 2-10-0 and included at least one MILW ribside box car as well as a PRR X29 & NYC steel side rebuild among other cars.

Accumulating the necessary information and then building the models can be a hobby with a hobby even without trying to get to an exact consist.

In relation to passenger trains, it's rare to have a conductors report for a specific consist on a certain day. Most passenger train modelers are, like freight train modelers, modeling a facsimile of a typical consist.

For example the Super Chief is one of the most documented & photographed trains in the west, yet, to cover daily LA Chicago service, Santa Fe had to have a minimum of six cars of each one/consist type cars (eg diners). For the usual four sleepers drawn from four separate groups (Pine,Regal,Blue, & Palm series) there were more than just six of each available to make up a typical Super Chief. Without a conductor's report, the permutations that are possible become impractical to model short of going into "ground hog day mode".

Tom Casey


I concur with Richard -- and I do find Bruce's description rather
condescending. Nowadays a home layout can run into 10's of thousands
of dollars, not to mention requiring space in one's home (which costs
a whole lot more). And many operating venues -- clubs and modular
layouts -- are not amenable to traditional "operations" where you can
leave your equipment, and know it won't be tampered with, mistreated
or even stolen. I like realistic operating too, occasionally, but it's
not my main focus. But I do like to run the trains that I build. If
you're lucky enough to find a consist you can model, it can be very
rewarding to model it, and know with certainty that this train really
did exist!

Tim O'Connor

--------------------------------------------------

Bruce Smith's objection that modeling specific trains would make it
impossible to do prototypical operation is, of course valid. but
modeling specific trains is a viable alternative for those of us who
don't have the space to build a model railroad that's suitable for
prototypical operation. My diorama is intended to be what Bruce
refers to (I hope not condescendingly) as a "railfan's" model
railroad; sit down on a stool (standing in for a pile of crossties)
and watch the trains run through a scene that is, as accurately as I
can make it, a miniature of a real place at a real point in time. I
find prototypical operation rewarding, too, but when I feel the need
for an operating fix I can get it at the La Mesa club's Tehachapi
Pass layout in San Diego or at Bill Darnaby's in suburban Chicago.
On both of those large model railroads, operations are realistic
enough that it's well worth the air fare to get there occasionally.

Richard Hendrickson






-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 12:57 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?





I concur with Richard -- and I do find Bruce's description rather
condescending. Nowadays a home layout can run into 10's of thousands
of dollars, not to mention requiring space in one's home (which costs
a whole lot more). And many operating venues -- clubs and modular
layouts -- are not amenable to traditional "operations" where you can
leave your equipment, and know it won't be tampered with, mistreated
or even stolen. I like realistic operating too, occasionally, but it's
not my main focus. But I do like to run the trains that I build. If
you're lucky enough to find a consist you can model, it can be very
rewarding to model it, and know with certainty that this train really
did exist!

Tim O'Connor

--------------------------------------------------

Bruce Smith's objection that modeling specific trains would make it
impossible to do prototypical operation is, of course valid. but
modeling specific trains is a viable alternative for those of us who
don't have the space to build a model railroad that's suitable for
prototypical operation. My diorama is intended to be what Bruce
refers to (I hope not condescendingly) as a "railfan's" model
railroad; sit down on a stool (standing in for a pile of crossties)
and watch the trains run through a scene that is, as accurately as I
can make it, a miniature of a real place at a real point in time. I
find prototypical operation rewarding, too, but when I feel the need
for an operating fix I can get it at the La Mesa club's Tehachapi
Pass layout in San Diego or at Bill Darnaby's in suburban Chicago.
On both of those large model railroads, operations are realistic
enough that it's well worth the air fare to get there occasionally.

Richard Hendrickson






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.