- New member checking in
Re: New member checking in
I understand your point. I too don’t
intend to try for full prototype accuracy. My goal though is to be at least
sort of accurate.
Since my layout is more or less complete
(and building seems to be the part of the hobby that I like the most) I have
decided that my next phase of modeling is two fold. One is to upgrade the
decoders in my fleet (most are from 2005-2008 time frame with a few that are
even older), and to get rid of the completely inaccurate cars (like my many
Athearn blue box cars) and replace them with ones that may not be 100% accurate
but are at least in the ball park. I don’t know how well this will
turn out but it will give me something to work on for the next few years
main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Jim Betz
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] New
member checking in
Jim Pattison in MossyRock,
It is easy to take "prototypical accuracy" too far - far
enough that others may not
even notice and probably don't care ... one of the costs of ultra high
accuracy is the time it takes to do the research, build/modify the models, etc.
If "that's your thing" then by all means Go For It.
All of the "formulas for freight car mixes" that I've seen
have been very good - but also
they usually use a relatively small data sample - even a sample as big as
"all of the
trains passing one location in the month of April of '53" are
"relatively small". Same
thing for using the ORER numbers.
Before anyone gets their panties in a twist - I am -NOT- saying that
are wrong. And I'm not saying ignore them and totally do what you
want. I'm saying
that compared to the number of cars "on the SP Coast line in the years
_____ and _____ it is a small sample.
What I'm doing is using those formulas to -adjust- my freight car fleet
- but not to
-define- it and most certainly not to build up the consists of the trains I'll
run on my
The result of my approach is that if you inventoried the cars in my
fleet you'd say
"pretty close" - but if you tried to apply those formulas to an
individual train you'd
say "well, not so much".
My layout is a "switching layout" based upon an isolated
segment of the country
and in a specific era (PNW, Skagit County, GN, and 1946-1955). And I have
-chosen- to fudge and run far more steam than the GN did in those years
(because I love steam more than diesels).
If an individual train is "believable" then I am happy.
If all of the trains on my
layout are "believable" (one at a time) then I am happy. If
they aren't believable
in the aggregate ... I quite frankly don't care. ("It's my RR
..."). I'm focusing on
the Op itself and the layout second and the prototypical accuracy a distant
YMMV and that's fine with me.
Perhaps the real wisdom is simply to get away from the bright shiny
syndrome and make an attempt to be more prototypical. If that's your
Jim (also in the PNW)
Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.