What % of engines made are NOT prototypical?

 

 

Looks like someone appreciates what they have.  Don't leave it up to long someone might come along and want to install electronics in it.

Do you know how long it took me to find a picture with him in his tux showing the shoes? Lot's of Titanic pics but only one that showed the shoes. I told my wife if we getting married now me and my groomsmen would be dressed like that, she wasn't amused...

 

Jerry

 

Jerry

With this like many things it come down to point of view. Those who want trains to be as close to the real deal as possible have their passion in that point of view, they love having engines the prototype had, they love scale or near scale sized equipment , they love to run simulating what a prototype may do, others on here love simply 'playing with trains' , others love recreating the toy train experience of their youth, and as they say, whatever floats your boat. The problem with passion is it often can get translated into "I love this so much, everyone else should share that' kind of thing, true of religion, politics, or food for that matter (where, for example, lovers of true NY Deli food would take out their machete and cut the hands off of someone eating corned beef on white bread with mayo. 

 

With three rail trains, with the exception of Manhattan streetcars (well, okay, not really a middle third rail, more like a trough) and some rare exceptions, they are not truly prototypical, but so what? I appreciate someone who loves to try and model the prototype as much as possible, and to me, given all the compromises we make (for example, even in N and HO, it is very, very difficult to model prototypical curve radii, even the broadest curves modelers use are often way sharp by prototype standards), or details too small to model, the art of model trains is the art of compromise. We build hidden staging yards to simulate trains coming from far away, for example, and we use tricks to make the layout seem like a railroad, rather then a relatively small length of track that for most of us, loops around and around.....so if we run three rail track that has impossibly tight radii by prototype standards, it is part of the compromise process, you live with limitations. The beauty of the hobby is you have that choice, there is no equivalent to building departments or homeowner federations or condo boards to tell you what you have to do, we have the freedom to do as we wish.

 

This isn't limited to trains, someone else mentioned car enthusiasts. With "classic cars", there are people whose mania is 'original equipment', they want cars with matching part numbers, everything just as it came from the factory, then there are people who love a 67 GTO but do things like put electronic ignition on it, put modern 4 wheel disk brake kits on it and so forth, to make it more reliable than the original; the purists can get their noses out of joint, grumbling how it is 'desecration', but the people who do that enjoy the car as it is, that is their right; and if as the purists will say, it will 'ruin its value', that is their choice *shrug*. It is like those who grumble in toy trains when people weather their equipment or put more details on it, arguing it will 'ruin the value' or some such; You might consider someone weathering an original 700E from the 30's is killing its value, but that is their right. One thing we have to keep in mind, as beautiful as we think these things are, these aren't one of a kind pieces of art, we aren't talking about spraying graffiti on the Mona Lisa or putting gym shorts on Michelangelo's David, we are talking things that though mass produced, we love as if they are great,rare art, but in the end they are simply that,mass produced items we love. Feelings are okay, I have seen old small sports cars that someone shoved a 350 engine into and I think it is idiotic, but I also can appreciate it is something they wanted to try and I wouldn't tell them that I thought it was idiotic. 

 

Loved the photo of the Daylight Shark Nose, I’m considering adding a “Shark” to my “Black Widow” fleet. My research shows that “Black Widow Sharks” were as common as the “Daylight Sharks” (not at all) on the Southern Pacific. Although Baldwin-Westinghouse Shark Nose demonstrator 6001, (a four unit A-B-B-A Set) in bright red and white colors, was tested on S.P. rails between Bakersfield and Indio in February 1950. It's performance matched the relatively new Electro-Motive Division F7 in horsepower and exceeded it in dynamic braking. No orders were placed though because Baldwin was running full capacity in manufacturing its road switcher locomotives. (Reference: Southern Pacific Motive Power Annual 1972 – by Joseph A. Strapac).

I bought a set of Legacy SP Daylight sharks a couple of weeks ago, and today I received a set of Daylight coaches to go with them. To my eye, they are absolutely stunningly beautiful, and I am extremely glad that I bought them. I don't give a rat's pet donkey  that they may not be prototypical, for they both look and sound wonderful. If you like the look of them, then go for it. After all, it is your railroad, and you make the rules there. 

I'd say 100% are not prototypical. Even my 3rd Rail N&W 2300 has at least one "mistake" with the handrail. It isn't the manufacturer's fault. Duplicating every mechanical detail is physically impossible in 1/48 scale. Omit an air pump, or fuel lines, whatever and you've got a non-prototypical situation.

 

Gilly

It all comes down to sales, if the manufactures think there is a demand, they will produce it. I am a railfan, so I generally like my equipment to be prototypical, but I am not fastidious about it. A little whimsey can be fun. On my layout, you're likely to find Union Pacific's M10000 in the same station with GM's Aerotrain.

 

This is an interesting thread from last February.  Even thought 3-rail never has been or ever will be prototypical, the trend is to make higher-end items as prototypical as possible.

 

I tend not to buy trains that never existed, with the exception of the first Polar Express set.  But I have a handsome set of Williams Santa Fe warbonnet FAs pulling a 5-car Crown Edition set of Santa Fe aluminum passenger cars and it makes a nice looking train.  Even though Santa Fe NEVER used FAs in warbonnet scheme on its passenger trains.  It still looks great and is a trouble-free layout train.

 

So, I would say it's all in the eye of the beholder.  If you like it, get it.

Your probably going to tell me that the third rail isn't prototypical either.

Can you spell c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e, boys and girls? 

Whats the diffrance if there was no REAL locomotive exactly like it a thousand years ago?If it looks cool and you like it,go buy it and run the HE%$ out of it.Thank you,Nick 

 

This subject seems to show up every so often and (trying not to step on any toes), the same conclusions seem to show up also. Is it scale or not? Even overlooking the fact that there is the third rail, oversized knuckles and paint jobs that are oh so close but not exact, none are scale. No matter how meticulous one can be, trying to make a scale model in 1/48 is impossible. That is just too small to get every detail exact. So, working on that premise, what's a high-railer to do? Enjoying the hobby should be everyone's first and foremost priority who participates in this hobby. Secondly, we've all heard it said and we've said it ourselves, "it's your railroad, do as you want". Thirdly, set yourself some guidelines that have plenty of leeway such as modeling the 50's, not August 5, 1957. I believe that with these three criteria, your railroad will become more colorful, more interesting, more eye-catching and definitely more fun to you and others. I know that I've gotten hung up on an issue concerning my layout in the past and because of it I have wasted valuable fun time with my trains. I also know that I will fall into that trap again sometime down the road and hopefully I will remember what I've written here and as good ole Barney Fife would say, "nip it in the bud" and get back to having fun. I hope what I've written here is helpful to us all.

1/4" to the foot is NOT prototypical! Neither are curves.

I don't know what scale has to do with prototype.

100% are technically inaccurate. This is irrespective of the drive mechanism involved. The reason is that there are exterior details that won't be visible if done to scale, so some rivets, bolt heads, hand railings, hinges, etc. are actually too large. Some details are omitted altogether. It's a reality that means that all scale models (in our scale) are inaccurate. The larger the scale, obviously the more accuracy that can be attained. I'd say you can get pretty close modeling in 3-inch scale.

I don't think that most of these responses are addressing what the OP really wanted to know (ok, I'm speculating on his intentions here).

 

I think a better question would be "What percent of locos are pure fantasy?"  ie, sd70ace in a santa fe warbonnet).  I think that would have gotten the answer he wanted (probably between 25% and 50%?).

 

Otherwise, it seems the question as stated has yielded 0% are prototypical as the most common response.  Plus the responses preaching how trains SHOULD be enjoyed (not really the original question)

Whether  that was on his mind or not, that is a much more interesting and worthwhile question to discuss.  This thread has beaten a very dead horse to a pulp not thicker than a postage stamp.  

 

As for fantasy locos: I understand there never were any SPDaylight Baldwin Sharks. Apparently they are a fantasy loco.  But Nicole's are sooooooo beautiful! I never really liked Sharks that much, but After watching the video she posted, I spent way to much time this afternoon trying to find a place to buy them and a four to six car set for them to pull.  No such luck, but I will keep trying.  I am all for fantasy locos, if well done . . .

Michael, I look at it this way; if it makes you happy, enjoy it. You are in charge of your layout. I choose to only purchase engines that actually ran on the prototype. They are not all perfect, but that's OK. I enjoy them just the same. I am modeling 1955, but as I started to purchase engines, I found myself buying motive power with the same road name ( Long Island), but before and after that time period as well. I have engines that never would have been seen together, but who cares? A prototype modeler wouldn't go for that, but my layout is for my enjoyment, no one else's. You're right, this is a great hobby, and I hope you continue to enjoy it in your own way.

 

Andy

How many?  Just the right amount in the traditional/semi-scale lines; way too much in the scale lines.

My guess is that in 50 years 3-rail layouts will be be a small niche within the hobby, and almost everything will be radio controlled and running on some type of 2-R track. People smile when they talk about the old days when trains ran off of track power....

 

Jeff C

I sometimes get caught up in what's prototypical and what's not but I do own one of these.

Track power.......When did that come in?

Is that why I can never find where to insert the key to wind my trains these days? 

 

I really must start paying attention. 

The big problem I find is that i tend to wind things too tight....

 

Jeff C

I have my moments when I have desire to go prototypical. Then I remember I own one of these!

I didn't have time to read this entire thread so I apologize if this was mentioned elsewhere.

 

What I got out of the original post was that the person who started this thread was asking how many models were complete fantasy items as apposed to how many items are based on reality.

 

True the history of 3 rail is largely unprototypical and true there is no model that is perfectly or exactly prototypical for the reasons mentioned earlier. I don't think the person who started this was asking how many accurate models there are or have been made. In the 1950's didn't Lionel put out SF and NYC F3s based on actual locomotives that existed? True they weren't super scale exact models but IMHO they were very good facsimilies of the real thing. Especially when you consider their time. Earlier than that didn't Lionel do a NYC Hudson that captured the look of the prototype extremely well?

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding his meaning. But my answer to what I think is the original question is I don't know. I would have to research every engine in every catalog to have a real answer. I wonder if the manuafacturers don't tell folks what is fantasy and what isn't because it might hurt sales. Then again a bunch of folks in this thread said that they don't care so would it really matter?

Unless Lionel got into 2 Rail in a big way there is no way that I can see that happening. Guys, 3 rail is here and it's here to stay. There is nothing to worry about. It's not going anywhere.

Yeah, I sometimes feel like I'm wound too tight, too.

Wacky thread.
Prototype is the original.
Prototypical means having characteristics of the original.
Not an exact scale model.

Some if us model prototypes.
Some of us play with models.
Some of us play with toys.
Some of us toy with each other.
And some will argue and complain about all of the above instead of doing one of the above.