What % of engines made are NOT prototypical?

I don't care whether a Lionel paint scheme is authentic to a real railroad. Either it looks good or it doesn't.

I have more interest in the toy than the prototype.

Growing up, my family often traveled along the New England thruway. We'd often see GG-1's, so I know how the prototype looks. Still, I prefer the compressed "traditional" sized GG-1 to the full scale models.

To each their own!

I have no interest in prototypical fidelity, personally.  Like CW, I mostly go on aesthetics and favorite paint schemes from three railroads I like, for geographic or personal reasons.  I actually like both scale and toy trains, but have no particular passion for scale, and actually like the large couplers, large flanges, the third rail and out of proportion models of three rail history.  I can appreciate a hi-rail or scale layout for its artistry, but toy trains are what resonate most with me.

My view is that railroads are soon (within 50-100 years) going to be about as interesting as toasters and may perhaps even disappear, but the history is of interest to me.  I have no nostalgic feelings about subways, trains, etc.  They're practical and I certainly don't bemoan the passing of the noisy, air polluting, inefficient steam locomotive, although they are beautiful beasts to watch in action.  I guess I'm not primarily a modeler or railroad guy.

I am a modeler, and I was almost ecstatic when Williams introduced his first brass

steamers, actual three rail models, with a real Mikado freight engine, instead of _________.  The percentage of trains that are prototypical now is much higher than in my childhood when no three rail trains were, then the domain of HO, thanks to 3rd Rail and several others.

But there are Beeps and plenty of other fantasy trains for those that want to view

them as toys, too.  Realistic modeling takes a lot of research, for what operated in

your period is really a small, and unidentified part of what is offered.  You have to

look at every new car offering, to try to find its prototype's introduction date...i.e...

1898 or 1998.  Those high cube cars are gonna look funny transferring cargo into

30 foot boxcars at your On3 interchange.  Since diesel liveries change, prototpical ones also have to be researched, if you care.  If not, it is your railroad and there are no other stockholders to outvote you

If you like it, purchase them and enjoy. Think what bothers many here is when they do these ficticious schemes or real schemes incorrectly and don't note it. Lionel has "Standard O" but not "Standard O Real", MTH has "Premier", but not "Premier Accurate" and the same for many others. (Including some you would not think of for inaccuracies in paint schemes.) While Intermountain only manufactured scale freight cars, those that were accurate came in a brown printed box, fantasy schemes came in a red printed box. The Daylight Sharks look nice and if you like them, get 'em!

At some level no model is prototypical: look hard enough with enough detail and fussiness and there will be some point at which it is not accurate.  I think what you are asking, though, is what portion are never intended.

I'm very much in the "if it looks good, it is good" camp, and I just do not care if it really ever existed on not.  Those diesels look good.  If I were that into diesels - I'm on the other side of the fence from you, Michael - I'd have to have a set.  They are nice.  As proof that I put my money (and time) where my mouth is - that is my Legacy N&W J below.  Definitely not prototypical - a real travesty of totally ignoring the real world.   But it looks good, doesn't it?  

I think that those Baldwin Sharks look really sharp in SP Daylight paint.  They would look great pulling a SP Daylight train. 

The SP never had any Baldwin Sharks so this scheme is pure fantasy.   This would bother a real SP fan but it doesn't bother me very much.  MTH's Daylight passenger cars are also generic and don't follow the actual SP car schemes.  Fantasy Sharks pulling fantasy cars is not a problem.

I think that modelers who want accurate cars and engines will need to get them from 3rd Rail, Key or someone else.

Joe

I'd say 99.99% of locos are not 100% correct in one way or the other. Back in my HO days I'd kitbash a loco not made. I built a SD-40-2 before any manufacture made one. Lots of work and many details. When finished I took it to the hobby shop to show (pre internet days remember??) A few guys looked at it.....but one said 'it has the wrong kind of horn....they didn't use those'....so because of a detail the size of a pea....it was wrong. So using that logic.....all of them are wrong....even high dollar brass usually has a small detail issue.

But as far as a Shark in SP paint.....I own a ABA set by WbB and love them.....If I wanted to count rivets...I'd stayed in HO and been unhappy!

I believe Lee nailed the essence of the answer. If it looks good to you, then you might desire to purchase it. Lionel, MTH, Atlas, etc. produce products that they hope you will desire to purchase.

That said, some are prototypical driven. Their bottom line is that it doesn't look "good" to them. And their "good" isn't visual appeal, it's prototypical acceptability. Where they might like the Sharknose Daylights, they don't find them "worthy" for their railroad.

I find this subject very interesting due to the many varied tastes of model railroaders. I respect everyone's opinion, though I wouldn't necessarily share that opinion.

What I don't understand is that, when they make a nice model of a prototypical engine, they paint fantasy paint schemes on them instead of painting for some of the actual RRs that owned them.  I mean if 5 RRs owned an F3B, E6, or used just a F3A and no B unit, then paint and offer them at least in those 5 RRs paint schemes.  If they want to paint them up for every other RR known to man that's fine, just don't ignore the ones that owned them.

I used to blame the makers for doing this, but now I blame myself for not doing the necessary homework before spending the money.

I guess we could say "Well, they don't have to listen to us and our wants" and the makers can say "All we have to do is make something and they will gladly buy it without question" but where would they be without our $$$ to keep them in business?  Where would the major league ball teams be without fan support?

Myself, I appreciate a company that asks their customers what they want.

Since they all have gigantic couplers none of them are prototypical.

My thoughts are the train manufacturers are trying to sell trains, prototypical or not, so they try for some of each to appeal to the largest group of people they can. It would be interesting to know what percentages of each they produce, but I wonder if they even know or just make what they think we will buy?

I have only modern diesels, and I am at an advantage here. I know very little about real trains, about all I can tell is the difference between an sd70 and an es44, couldn't tell a dash-8 from a dash-9. So, I just buy what I like and can afford in my single chosen road name. Also whether prototypical or not, I do like certain paint schemes in my chosen road name better than others. Doesn't matter to me if they ever really operated the actual engine or not.

Lee Willis also makes a good point, I think, probably no matter how much a manufacturer tries, one can always find some differences between the model and the prototype. That is you all that know what you are looking at can, which excludes me.

As others have already said, the main thing is to get what you like and will enjoy, whether prototypical or not.

My big Illinois Central 2363 F3 set is rapidly becoming my favorite. And be sure...there was never anything like it in real life.  They use the E-unit paint scheme, but IC never had F-units, period !   Can't tell you why this chooch is so appealing, must have something to do with the excellent running qualities for a Lionel PW repro piece. OTOH, it might be all that Rocket-Action-Power ! ! 

i thought that the big couplers were prototypical.    When I was growing-up back in England, we were always told that everything was bigger in the USA. 

Greetings Michael,

IF (and that is a BIG word) you are seriously interested in prototypical accuracy, you might want to consider 2 rail. That said, you will NOT likely find anything out there that is absolutely 100% perfect, but a lot of it is pretty darn close.

There are two ends of the spectrum, one being toy trains and the other being model trains. Toy trains tend to be not so much realistic and model trains tend toward being smaller versions of the real thing. Nothing wrong with either one, it's all personal preference. Toy trains (for the most part) are NOT so much based on scale, while models (at least GOOD ones) are. Model trains are found on the 2 rail side of the hobby.

Toy trains have features like swinging pilots and oversize couplers (some folks call them "lobster claws") that are not present on a good scale model.

Really good 2 rail models can be difficult to tell from the real thing.

My suggestion would be that you check out the 2 rail forum on this website. Look at some of the stuff there, and maybe that will give you an idea just how prototypical you want to be. The people over there will answer any questions you have.

It's all good, just depends what you like the most. Don't be intimidated by any of it!

Best,

Simon

As they like to say, color sells!

Want to see big, you ought to see those Texas couplers

Have you ever tried to look at someone in the eyes, when they have something hanging, in one of their nostrils?

Once you become "aware" of certain things... they become hard to overlook.

Rick

[quote]I guess we could say "Well, they don't have to listen to us and our wants" and the makers can say "All we have to do is make something and they will gladly buy it without question" but where would they be without our $$$ to keep them in business?  Where would the major league ball teams be without fan support? [p/quote]

It sounds like you are assuming that you represent the majority. I guess we all do.

I agree with others, that there are a variety of people in this hobby, and one of the things we all have to keep in mind is that the companies are going to produce things that will sell the most, which means appealing to a broad body of people into O 3 rail. Scale/prototypically accurate models are wonderful things, but there are tradeoffs with that:

1)Scale locomotives and rolling stock may run only on larger diameter curves, leaving out people who don't have the space for those

2)To be honest, a lot of 'prototypical' units can be pretty drab and industrial looking, and while there are those who appreciate that, a lot of others may look and to them say it looks like something designed by Soviet apparachniks or somthing *shrug*. 

3)Those who are that into it that they want true to life numbers on the units, prototype detailed paint schemes, detail down to the rivet IME are a relatively small minority of those in the hobby, so building stuff to their needs alone would from a marketing standpoint would not always make sense. Another poster made the point that if a particular engine was used by 5 railroads, it makes sense to focus on those roadnames and paint schemes, that the companies 'should do what the customer wants'..which raises the question, which customers? By having a wide variety of roadnames, even those that never had such a unit, they capture those who love the way the unit looks and maybe wants to have it lettered for a particular railroad they like, even if it never existed....so by having, to use the OP's example, an engine set in SP Daylight colors, they will capture the fancy of a lot more people then the relatively few turned off because the SP never had such a scheme. It all boils down to demand, and while they might lose a few sales to those let's say modelling the SP who don't want an ABA painted in Daylight Colors because it isn't real, they probably will gain sales from someone seeing it and saying "neat looking engine, I love the Daylight". In a perfect world all needs would be met, but with like modelling in general, compromise is part of the game. 

It has really only been the last 15-20 years where this has become something of an issue with 3-rail trains. The whole history of 3-rail Lionel trains is unprototypical. If you look at old Lionel catalogs, words like "realism" are used a lot, but not prototypical. Some folks do not like this, but it's the truth: 3-rail trains are TOYS. We have a third inside rail... they're TOYS!

It's as silly as wanting a cat to be a dog. If you like dogs, get a dog. If you like cats, go get a cat. But wishing a dog could be a cat is a waste of time.

The whole reason for the rise of HO trains was that some modelers wanted more realism and accuracy, so they abandoned their toy trains for scale model HO trains. Since the rise of command control and digital (which has brought back many former HO modelers into the 3-rail fold), there is this concern over prototypical models and paint schemes in 3-rail trains.

I think if anyone is really concerned over this, the answer is simple: Go to HO scale. But today, some are wanting to forget Lionel's history and real majority market share, and turn 3-rail into large HO.

I'm glad we have the selection today we DO have. I'm thankful the train companies that are still in business have remained in business. (Not so long ago, many wondered if Lionel and MTH would survive past their legal disputes.)

All the train makers are companies that have to make a profit to stay in business. If scale fidelity is your thing, then there's Weaver, Atlas, Sunset, and Third Rail. Even Lionel and MTH both have fine products aimed at this market. The train makers are not fast food restraunts, where you pull up to the window, order something and then have it in a moment or two.

But we've all been spoiled by this instant gratification culture. And one does not have to be on public assistance to have an entitlement attitude.

If all that we have in 3-rail trains isn't enough, well, be happy and go to HO where there is a much larger market, and thus a much larger selection of accurate scale models already available.

I know a guy at the LHS that does n scale.  In his world the SP/UP merger went the other way and everything is SP.  So he has former UP engines with an SP Bloody nose and Southern Pacific painted over the UP stuff, everything else still gray and yellow.  

It's fun and works for him.  I have not the time nor interest to research everything down to the finite level.  If I was going that route, I would have stayed in HO where you have a better fighting chance with that.

I prefer the mix we get with O, toys with some realism mixed in.

I am a 2- railer, and even go to the extent to make my models fit the track gauge.  I am also a complete SP nut.  That paint job looks pretty good to me.  The coupler and that center rail do not look good to me, and if I could see the flanges in the photo, I would be totally turned off.

O-27 and three rail is simply by definition outside the realm of prototypical.  You may get more sympathy on the 3- rail Scale forum, where they care far more than I do about small inaccurate details.  My 2- rail friends do not care when I paint PAs B&O, or paint SP switchers yellow with red lettering.

i think those sharks are sharp! go for it.

just some of what i have that never existed, C&O alco fa they never had any, my LV trainmaster in the snowbird scheme the LV i don't think ever had a single FM unit yet alone a TM. one that see lots of run time is my lionel lines orange and blue SD-28 just love the looks of this one, and the holiday show stoppers for me seem to be my live savers, and tootsie roll cars.

if you like em buy em

Dave

I think the manufacturers move to scale and prototypical details and paint schemes is what has given the rebirth and growth of the 3 rail O gauge market.

The increasing  availability of 3 rail "scale locomotives and rolling stock made me switch from ho to 3 rail in 1987.

Thank you Mr Weaver and Mr Wolf.

It's a trick question. Over 99% of model railroad engines made are NOT prototypical for the following reasons:

• Flanges too big (except Proto:48)
• Gauge too wide (5' vs 4' 8.5")
• Electrically powered from running rails or center 3rd rail. Should be running on live steam or traction motors from on-board diesel generator. Electrics should run from overhead wire or outside third rail.
• Large locomotives capable of turning on curves of 144' radius (36" radius/O-72).
• Couplers too large. Applies to lobster claws and even to Kadee 800's.
• Overly rapid acceleration and braking.
• Traction tires

That said, while I like to stay true to prototype (as close as I can on three rails, anyway). I do roster checks when an interesting locomotive is offered. I've been accused of rivet-counting. I take that as a compliment since I can barely see rivets. Of course if I show up at Bob's with a microscope to inspect one of his models, he'll throw me out of his shop.

I will take a non-prototypical paint scheme if it's Isle of Denial compliant -- i.e., a locomotive that would likely have been rostered had the road continued. So an ATSF DD40, SD80, AC4400, or AC6000 (pre-1996) wouldn't work, but an ATSF SD70ACe, ES44AC, or ES44 Hybrid (post-1996) would.

"I think the manufacturers move to scale and prototypical details and paint schemes is what has given the rebirth and growth of the 3 rail O gauge market."

I rather doubt it.  I'm sure there are some who have been attracted by this, but Weaver has a tiny market share, and MTH makes plenty of non-prototypical models.  Their major growth occurred when they were still making toy accessories and Sponge Bob trains.

The best selling train of the last decade or so has been the Polar Express. The best selling train from MTH in their history was the Coors fantasy train.

I wouldn't overestimate the economic relevance of hi-railers and 3 rail scale fans in the hobby over the period of maximal growth 1990-2000 or so.  It's still mostly about the toys, in my view, and the sales records seems to support that.

I used to be a rivet counting modeler who was bothered by everything not prototypical.  I would worry about what others thought of my modeling, and that what I did was not good enough.

One day I realized that I had taken my hobby and made a job out of it.  I was worrying more about what other thought than I was about making myself happy.  So I changed my attitude to this.  Except when I am doing work for others I only have to please myself.  If someone has something constructive to say I will listen to him/her, and then decide whether to act on that advice.  Otherwise I don't care about what others thing of my trains or models.

That same attitude applies to whether a locomotive or car is painted for a  railroad which didn't have them.  If someone likes it then that is all that matters.  Not what I or anyone else thinks.  If it bothers me that a company painted a set of Baldwin Sharks for SP, or a N&W J in a fictitious UP scheme, or a GE Dash 8 in Santa Fe Zebra stripes then I don't have to buy them.  But that doesn't mean that nobody else can like them or buy them.

Remember that this is a hobby.  Making yourself happy is what it is supposed to be about.

Stuart

I am not a rivet counter either.

Has to be that way, I guess, to be in 3-rail.

Think we all know about oversized wheels, couplers, etc etc. 

"Close enough" is good enough for me.

I have no idea of the % sale of the scale vrs traditional O gauge three rail.

And I couldn't care less.

Just an impression I got visiting hobby shops back in the late eighties and early nineties; and the excitement the new "scale" sized products coming from Lionel, MTH and Atlas were creating.

100% are not fully prototypical.  Doesn't bother me in the least.

People keep bringing up rivet counting on this thread.  When was the last time locos and rolling stock were assembled with rivets?  Hasn't everything been welded for most of the last century, or at least since diesels appeared?

I wouldn't want to leave the impression that I don't think the hi-rail or 3 rail scale movement has contributed to the growth of the hobby in many ways.  These new approaches are enriching and stimulate new ideas and products.  I just think the toy aspects are still a major, if surely not the only driving force in three rail O gauge, past and present.  The future is, well, the future .

The "everything welded for most of the last century"? Certainly not. Check out steam locomotive tenders manufactured into the 1940s, as well as freight cars, LOTS OF RIVETS! Also note how steam locomotive smokeboxes are attached to the main boiler structure, i.e. rivets.

I think this is one of those questions that can drive you crazy if you let it.   

It is all a question of degree.  If you approach the question by asking "Did that railroad ever have that particular locomotive (however well or poorly it resembles the real thing), then I think it is a reasonable question. 

George

I follow the TLAR approach: "That Looks About Right"

I couldn't care less if every single detail is correct so long as when I look at the engine or train it meets the TLAR criteria... i.e. it looks pretty much like a miniature version of the real thing that I admire so much, with the added benefit of being able to drive it around my home layout (trains operating inside a single family home is definitely NOT prototypical!)

I enjoy having toys/models/whatever of prototypical trains that I find inspiring... the Santa Fe Super Chief, the Amtrak Surfliner, and the NRE 3GS21B Genset in Pacific Harbor Line livery are my faves. Fortunately the major makers have seen fit to offer plenty of choice in this area so I'm well-served.

For the rivet-counters (we call them "Scale Weenies" in R/C airplanes), I'm probably part of "the problem", but whatever. I'm happy

Steve

I try not to think about it, If I like it I buy!

The more I think about the more it can suck the fun right out of playing with my trains and I don't want that to ever happen!

NONE.