Prototypical Rating Index

For me, I'd never look at the rating.  When I buy my trains, it's to get something I like.  I could care less how close to prototypical it is.  These are just toys after all.

Agreed.

I don't see that one catching on any time soon...

From what I've seen people simply say "scale size" for general dimensions and "scale detailed" for finer accuracy and separately applied detail parts.

Whether it is command control, or ratings for accuracy, this hobby will never allow  standardization of any type.

These type efforts shall always be "herding cats".

Personally, for thirty years, when I both build or look at models, I have always rated them, regardless if they are models of locomotives, ships, planes, or structures, with a distance metric:

"How close do I have to get to see the flaws/missing elements?"

If you consider a lack of complete fidelity to the prototype to be a flaw, then how close do you have to get?  For O gauge:

•  a "poor scoring" model might be six to eight feet (I can tell from here that is a Baldwin PBY47a and I know they were never painted in Daylight scheme or even owned by that RR - and the F3? From here I can tell it does not have the right number of windows).
• a good score might be one foot (Wow, you have to get within 12 inches of that 3rd Rail PBY47a to see that some of the real detail isn't quite there!).
• A great score might be three inches

Terry:

There are far too many variables, many more than you describe in your post. I think the majority of folks into O-Gauge have no interest in applying a prototypical scale. Just my opinion.

It's an interesting thought, but I agree with the others that it probably would have trouble catching on.  There has been a shift towards more realistic O gauge models for some time and I am very pleased about that. 

Art

This topic may be more appropriate or pertinent to one of the "scale" forums..

Here's an example, though not nearly the best:

I have two bay window cabooses.

A MTH Railking Chessie caboose from a set and an Atlas L&N caboose.

1. They seem to have the same dimensions, i.e., length, width, height
2. The Atlas has significantly more detail than the Railking
3. I believe the Atlas is a closer replication to the caboose manufacturer than the Railking
4. They are both 3 rail and have the same over-sized operational parts
5. Neither has an sound considerations.
6. I don't know whether either or both are absolutely true to the road color scheme or road number.

I believe most would agree that the Atlas is a better model of the actual caboose. Disclaimer: this is not to say that the Atlas is a better caboose than the MTH Railking. Considering costs the Railking may be a better value

Maybe I will start a war on here but this is how I feel about Williams by Bachmann.

Not all new items are prototypical, the Norfolk Southern heritage SD-90's. Who is Bachmann kidding, Norfolk Southern only did SD-70 ACe diesels in heritage scheme.

Another phony pony for WBB is the GP-38 in Reading Lines, the Reading never owned a single GP-38, GP-39-2's yes.

Lee Fritz

This would seem to be going the path of extreme process focused ratings, I almost see it like an ISO9000 (choose most recent variant) type thing.

Probably way to complicated for this industry, and who would implement it (or who would want to - the manufacturer's can't really benefit from it)? 

The manufacturers certainly aren't going to raise their costs to document and announce these details.  (they would effectively be announcing their own design "deficiencies" as some would see it) 

The raised cost would be passed on to 98% of the folks who wouldn't care about these details. 

No one else is going to buy one of each item to document the results.

Sounds way too complicated to implement in a way that is cost efficient.  Probably less than 2% of customers are passionate enough to care to the level you are describing.

-Dave

I don't imagine Bachmann is trying to "kid" anyone. 

No more than Toyota (no offense meant towards Toyota - pick any reasonable family car) is trying to "kid" anyone by not having the same handling and performance or finish as a Ferrari.

-Dave

Well here's your problem right there!

Jerry

To be frank, the way I look at it is: my models represent how they should have built the prototypes. If there is a difference, I figured they are the ones that messed up!

I have 5-6 PS1 boxcars of different makes.  I started comparing them to each other and to the prototypes that Seaboard Air Line had, here's what I found from maker to maker and from maker to prototype:

1) Not all doors are the same

2) Not all door hardware is the same

3) Not all underframes are the same

4) Not all underframes are mounted the same

5) Some have molded-on detail, others have separate wire detail

So I start converting, using photos for each prototype I want to model.

1) First thing was the paint jobs, had to go.

2) Next thing was decals, had to get them special made (Thank you Jerry Glow)

3) Then I had to make new doors for 4 out of 6 cars to match the prototypes

4) Of course now I need to get some new hardware for the doors.  I look at what PSC has to offer and make my purchase.  Last night I was ready to start applying them and guess what, Seaboard used some oddball door locking mechanisms on their Superior type doors!!!  Now what do I do?

Here's the thing...once you start comparing the model to a prototype there can be many variations, even with a standard car such as a PS1, 40 foot boxcar (not to mention the PS1 50 foot boxcar!).

Where do you stop once you start making these comparisons?  That is a determination made by each one of us.

I would like to see the makers produce an accurate model of an actual prototype with enough detail that it could cover most variants with no cutting or removing of detail, simply add on parts instead of moving/cutting parts off.

Of course they could (and have for the most part) make only cars that were used by 1 RR (like PRR, NYC, UP, SP,) and while that may satisfy a lot of people, it doesn't satisfy folks like me that model RRs like SAL, ACL, N&W, L&N, VGN, WM, B&O, C&O.....

If the makers kept their offerings so generic that the basic shape and size were accurate that might help AND if they ALL used STANDARDS in their production (mainly underframes/flooring/trucks so heights of couplers would stay the same), then people could at least build something more detailed from a simple design without having to hack things apart.

But most modelers these days are open-the-box types who can't/won't take the time to try building a kit or even assembling something when all the parts are in front of them.  It saddens me to see a lot of people (without physical disabilities) on here on can't "model".  It's like having that Shelf Queen that doesn't run.  It's already broke, take it apart and find out why!!!

I don't even know if they have these kinds of "rules" when they hold modeling contests.  Maybe someone who just went to the O Scale West show can enlighten me on that.

I guess the definitive answer would be, if the prototype had it, then the model ought to have it, anything else is not accurate (unless you are satisfied with it )

(Opinion and Ramblings )

Maybe all PS-1 boxcars were the same underneath the a paint. But I remember as a kid, I was fascinated by the ATSF "Map Slogan" cars.  Loved them. My Dad and my uncle (he drove loco for ATSF) would take me down to the train-yard on weekends, and, at six years or so, I was very bothered by the fact that some had vertical door handles and others horizontal, and some were slightly different shade of color than the others.  Why? - I wanted to know why couldn't they all be the same?  My Dad and uncle didn't take my concerns seriously ( and I understand why) but the point now is, I am sure all models of the "same" prototype were not identical in every detail.  Rolling changes in fittings, etc., were par the course, I think.  I've got about 15 Map slogan cars by different companies and they differ a bit, and 25 PFE reefers that do, to, but that's fine - actually more prototypical, I expect.  Regardless, I like the small differences . . .

I believe everyone in this hobby has their own personal rating system.  It may vary from the intense 'rivet counter' to someone who just wants to run trains, as to what they like to buy.

There are so many variables and so many personal preferences that I believe a majority wouldn't care or agree with whatever the rating label would be.  And would that rating really affect what people buy?  It's not like we have much of a choice.

Imagine….. company "A" makes a F7 scale diesel.  Some 'entity' gives it a rating of, using the OP's system, "BCCEAB".  Suppose a buyer does not like or agree with the rating and doesn't want to buy.  So he or she will look for company B, C or D's offering.  OOPS!! None of them made an F7!!  Now what do they do?  They may buy it or not, just like we do now, rendering the rating non-essential.

I thoroughly enjoy this hobby, and have been involved with it both personally and professionally for a good many years.  But I'm sure glad I don't take it anywhere near as seriously as some seem to do.  It will always be just a hobby to me--a welcome respite from the trials and tribulations of existing in, and coping with, the so-called "real" world.

Is a "prototypical rating index" needed?  I think not!  Besides, such a rating index already exists within the wallet of every potential purchaser.  Seems to me that it has worked pretty well to this point.

I should add that my thought for the "prototypical rating index" was not necessarily to determine the best prototypical model (period). There are times when I might be looking at a starter set and would like to get the set that was most prototypical for its price. 

Obviously 2-Rail Scale should be close to prototype and 3-Rail Scale should be close to prototype considering the prototypical faults of 3 rails.

Example: Who produces the best prototypical GP9 that runs on 031 3-rail track?

Who produces the best prototypical PS-1 40' boxcar that would run on 031 3-rail track?

I guess I would sort of a hypocrite but I have the Reading GP-38 by Williams and the unpowered GP-38 which I put an older Station Sounds unit into.

MTH did a nice job with the Norfolk Southern Heritage diesels, I have the Reading Lines SD-70ACe diesel with PS-3.

Very few companies have done that much in the Reading Company and Reading Lines.

MTH has some interesting items in Reading railroad names, even the Philadelphia & Reading caboose.

Lee Fritz

Proto-48 comes to tinplate?

I don't think it is a bad idea. Maybe needs a little more developing. I agree that #'s 1 & 6 seem to be most critical.

Big question is, will it sell?

I think so.

I know, it's scary! 

And can you imagine the in-fighting when the 'committee' meets? 

As far as I am concerned, all of my trains would be rated 'AAAAAA', as I bought them because I like them. To be honest, I don't care the back end of a rat about what some other people may think. They are my trains, not theirs. In my train world, anything can be 100% prototypical. (I sometimes use my Trackmobile to pull O27 passenger cars. )

This is one of those headache inducing excursions into never never land, where there is some imaginary rating of 100% as model trains are imaginary by design, to be used by such unless you have a room that is a minimum of a mile long and fifty feet across. 

How many angels can you fit on a needle? As many as you imagine you can...100% prototypical equipment running on a compressed environment where there are two inches of space between a representaion of ten miles...just how silly can this get?

No, because it is very incomplete in this manner, in the sense that it would not help resolve many (maybe most) of the disputes/discussions/decisions that arise even on this forum, much less the scale 2-rail forum, about prototypical accuracy.  

The Vision Hudson/K-Line Hudson come to mind as examples. Both score 100% or very close to it on both #1 and #6, but many criticized the VH for various reasons related to details and a lot of people said the K-Line Hudson was more detailed/truer to the original/whatever.  Personally I  don't care about that myself, but any metric you design for this purpose has to be very useful to those who do.  

So, until you have a fact-based, indisputable-to-measure-and-count method & formula that gets the same score when done by different individuals and can get a significant portion or those interested in it that it is fair , this idea won't go anywhere: you need something demonstrable that ends up with - "While both score at or very near 10 on size and paint scheme, the K-Line averages 9 while the VH scores 7 on the other attributes measured."  

I don't think this will ever happen - but I wish those who want to try all the luck in the world if it's important to them.  Anyone who is serious about getting a group together to do this, I'd suggest drafting a metrologist (there must be one on this forum - there are what, 12,000 folks registered?).  I worked with a bunch of them from NIST when I was on the National Research Council and they are brilliant at figuring out how to objectively measure things in ways you can't really dispute.

Of course theres the modification of steam and diesel equipment by road and then the corresponding road numbers assigned to each unit that changed over time. Yeah..good luck on that one. Then theres the transitional schemes that have variations, patched emblems, etc. Then there are re-engined diesels that have relocated louvers and stacks again that have changed designations within those variations. It would take a encyclopedia to set the standards for even a moderate compendium..there would be no time to run the" toys"..

To me, it is not a matter of whether my imaginary world measures up to the real world; it is a matter of whether the real world measures up to my imaginary world.  Why should I care if what I do with my toys doesn't match some exalted standard of approval?  The name of this forum is "Hi- Rail, 027 and Traditional 3-Rail O Gauge."  Why is prototype standardization by "committee" even being discussed here?

Yes we will have standardized prototypical metrics to rate while having no standards in the scale that has no scale, or standardization in of itself. Makes perfect sense. 

An old video of prototypical operations on my railway. 

Obviously, Nicole, you are having way too much fun that needs to be reigned in by "the committee".

Thanks for sharing the video, I really enjoyed it.

Happy railroading,

Don

Nicole - you're definitely not dead yet!  Lovely, fun video!

BETTER: "Approaching scale size", "Scale-Like", and "Close to Scale" are the terms I prefer! 

NOT a "rivet counter", NEVER have been nor will ever be one. "TOY trains are forever!", to quote the Blue Comet poster from TM Books and Video! 

It seems that many are viewing this thread from a "digital" perspective, i.e., the model is either merely a toy train devoid of any reasonable semblance to the prototype or a museum quality model. I was hoping the thread would be viewed from a "analog" perspective, i.e., varying degrees of prototype-like. 

I see it a little like golf: Either challenging Tiger Woods for PGA Player of the Year or we're never breaking 100 is "digital", while averaging in the mid-80's is a more "analog" perspective.

I must consider the inherent limitations of my prototypical modeling expectations. I am limited to 036 curvature, and 4' by 8' table space, but that doesn't mean I should have to limit my prototypical look to a Lionel Starter Set. 

I left O-gauge in my teen years to go to HO because the trains looked more real. Then in my later years O began offering much more prototypical models. I went back to O for that reason.

So, I attempt to model as close to prototype as fits my finances and area limitations. It's not an all or nothing view. Sure my third rail and sharp curves and stupid looking loop completely disqualify me from a digital view of prototype, but I still strive to approach prototype within my limitations.

I don't like to purchase an MTH caboose only to later find that there is world of difference in detail from an Atlas caboose. That is what I call wasting money. 

I'm really quite surprised no one has mentioned this avenue...

Now I may be an 027 conventional operator that happily lives with the "prototypical" constraints which is part of semi-scale. But I do like somewhat accurate or represenational paint schemes.

So whenever I wonder about a particular paint scheme, I research either by using my Morning Sun books (excellent and highly recommended) or by using the internet.

Examples: Blue Conrail box cars have been made by Lionel, K-Line, Williams and MTH. I found that Conrail only had one, done as an experiment. They had far far more box cars done in Penn Central green than in CR blue. In my reseach on this car, I found to my surprise, the Penn Central had a box car done in standard box car brown, which prompted me to repaint one for myself.

Lionel, MTH and Industrial Rail have all made black Norfolk Southern box cars. Yet my in my research I cannot find one single mention of NS ever having all black box cars. Lionel did that NS set a couple years ago with the grey high cube tribute NS box car, for which there is a real counterpart.

I would have rather Lionel made a NS box car in the typical red oxide color, but I've repainted some for myself. I could have written some threads asking Lionel to make one for me, but I figured it'd be faster and easier to make some myself.

One of the reasons I like Conrail and the Lehigh Valley so much is because there was so much variety and exceptions to the norm. Years ago, I saw a Conrail MOW train where there were cars in a wide variety of colors not normally associated with Conrail, which was a big inspiration to me when I started to paint up my own CR MOW train.

But I really don't obsess about it too much. I have Alco FA's repainted in Nofolk Southern, CSX MOW scheme, Conrail, Penn Central and Lehigh Valley (snowbird and yellow jacket schemes). While based upon a prototype, Alco FA's did not have these schemes, and were long retired by the time of CR, CSX, and NS. Same goes for the K-Line S-2's and RMT S-4's, which came in roads that never would have an S-4. I didn't let that stop me from getting some.

Heck, with the NS heritage schemes, I feel a little bit of justice running a Lehigh Valley Alco at the lead of a NS train. I would have done it anyways, but NOW there's some prototypical justification - even if I am stretching that justification a little bit.

But I run trains for fun, not frustration. I guess someone's experience will go by how one defines "fun."

Getting close to "Ford is better than Chevy".

But I'll dip in.

If I wanted perfect scale proportions, I would go Proto-48 and my back would be sore from ducking under the layout of a single loop of track because that is all I could get to fit in my work room, since I couldn't run on the floor anymore.

Have thought about going S scale, or even N Kato, and every time a coupler opens up. Kato is making a nice Metra set and SD40-2 in Illinois Central Death Star. How long will I have to wait for that in 3 rail O gauge.

Went to see the Lego Movie last night with my grandson and after having read these posts and others concerning scale, prototypical and varying degrees thereof all I can say is that some of the guys who want a "prototypical index rating" really need to go the the movie, really puts it into perspective and what the hobby or any hobby is supposed to be about.

jerry