Layout at a Glance
Modeling standards do evolve over time. There has been a lot written about the subject in the modeling press, from John Nerich/RPI Green and Tan Dot system, to the through freight vs. local freight model concept, the old standby '3-foot' rule, and your tolerance for stand-ins.
Locomotives and cabooses tend to be the most detailed and accurate because there are fewer of them in a typical roster and they are signature models. Freight cars tend to be well detailed for the home road, less so for foreign cars.
Modeling standards for scenery and structures will be covered elsewhere on the site.
Modeling Standards
For all equipment models on the layout I have some general standards.
-
Era accurate equipment
-
Era accurate painting and lettering
-
Era appropriate weathering
-
Major dimensions and components accurate
- Accurate appliances per prototype
- Separately applied detail parts (grab irons, ladders, etc)
-
Visible appliances modeled (brake gear, etc.)
-
Fine-scale wheelsets
Roster Standards
I have two basic categories for freight car models; 'Must Have', and 'Can Have'.
'Must Have' Models
'Must Have' models are those that I need for the layout and will pay full price as soon as they are available. This primarily consists of specific locomotives, cabooses, and home road equipment. Other equipment is layout specific. For example, there are Armour and Swift meat-packing distributors in New Britain. So I need a reasonable number of accurate Armour and Swift reefers.
Others are might be a specific prototype that was so numerous that it must be represented. PRR X29 box cars and NYC USRA-design steel box cars are good examples.
'Can Have' Models
'Can Have' models are everything else. When a manufacturer releases a model, I try to determine which prototypes it accurately represents with reasonable modifications. I'll compile a shopping list with that information and keep my eye open for bargains.
As far as I'm concerned, any prototype that was in interchange service in the era I'm modeling is a candidate for appearing on the layout, however unfrequently. Of course, this is partially because of the 4 daily through freights through New Britain. Chris' Valley and Air Line layout would be different in this regard since there are no through freights.
I've used Ted Culotta's Essential Freight Car series, plus books like his Postwar Freight Car Fleet as well. To me,with resources like this readily available I don't accept the idea that foreign road cars should be held to a lower standard than home road cars.
While I don't mind kitbashing or modifying a model, these types of projects (including cars that require removing a lot of molded detail) are lower on my list of priorities. Even if there is no other available option for a 'Must Have' model, I would rather work on other models first and wait to see if a better model is available in the future. While I haven't progressed to brass freight cars yet, considering the cost of some no-longer produced resin kits, an available brass version may be a cheaper option. Before I go that route, I'd probably look at scratch-building the model first.
Some cars appear in both lists, such as a 1937 AAR box car. I must have NYC 1937 AAR box cars since they directly interchanged with the New Haven. Most other roads are 'Can Have' since the specific road isn't as important as having a good representation of models.
Roster vs Operation
There is also a difference between a car that is appropriate for the roster, and appropriate for an operating session.
For an operating session, the mix of both prototypes and road names is important. Running an operating session in 1947 will have a greater proportion of composite box cars to steel box cars than an operating session in 1953. In addition, since I'm modeling the New Haven Railroad, a couple of ATSF box cars would be appropriate. Having 15 of them on the layout in a session, probably not.
So acquiring cars for the roster is one thing. I will address the mix when setting up operating session. John Nerich has a lot of good information and thoughs on the mix of freight cars on the
RPI Railroad Heritage Website. One month access is $8.00 or continuing access is $5.00/month. I highly recommend it. There is a wealth of information on paint schemes, models, etc. The information on appropriate scenic details is also very good.
Compromises
Some compromises are inevitable. The primary goal is to have an operating layout that depicts a specific time and place reasonably accurately. Areas where I'm likely to accept compromises, at least temporarily are things like:
Locomotives
Some molded-on details on locomotives, particularly if very fine (handrails along doors, etc.) is acceptable if a more accurate model is not affordably available.
Plastic vs Resin
I will accept detailed plastic models with separately applied details that meet my standards, even if I know a more accurate resin model exists. The Atlas 1932 ARA Box cars are fine, even though Sunshine and others released resin versions. However, there are a handful of prototypes that are not accurately modeled by Atlas. For these cars, if I need them I will build the resin version.
Manufacturer Supplied Details
Separately applied details must be reasonably fine. For example, for most of the modern plastic models (Branchline, Intermountain, Proto 2000, Red Caboose, etc.) the detail parts provided are fairly fine. I usually use the supplied parts and replace them with wire parts later if broken.
Manufacturers models evolve as well. Early Red Caboose kits have very little in terms of brake gear. In many cases, the brake gear is molded out of a single piece of styrene, which means all of the pipes and rodding are on a single vertical plane. In that case, I'll replace some or all of the detail with separate parts.
I've moved toward replacing the kit running boards with etched metal or scratchbuilt wood ones for the appropriate thin profile and see-through appearance. In addition, a lot of railroads didn't paint their running boards, and these are modeled accurately where known.
Weathering and Reweigh Dates
Since I'm modeling a wide range of years, there is no easy for me to affordably model all of these eras. I don't recall who to credit with this, but somebody said something like, "somebody who models 1950-1960 is just modeling 1960...poorly.'
While I appreciate this sentiment, I think that by selecting a primary operating year for each model and weathering and dating appropriately, the mix is more important while operating. In addition, while I can run operating sessions reasonably accurately for the range of eras, most sessions will focus on particular years, the primary ones being 1947, 1949, 1951, and 1953.
For example, while I might paint, letter, and weather a couple of 1947-built model as brand new for a 1947, most of them will be moderately weathered to be more appropriate for a 1951 session.
Operations vs Photography
This is similar to the old idea that lesser detailed cars are OK for through freights, while the local freights use only the more accurate cars. Companies like Accurail and Bowser have really raised the bar on shake-the-box style models. Although they have molded details, the fidelity is so fine and near scale that it's sometimes hard to tell they aren't separate parts. This is particularly true with a weathered model at layout distance.
But with digital cameras, photographing models is much easier than it used to be. What may seem to be an obsessive level of detail when building a model becomes much more apparent when photographed. This is because the picture essentially scales up the model to 1:1 scale. Out-of-scale or missing details become much more evident.
Once again, though, not every model has to be up to this standard. Not only are few cars needed, if the goal is to make the photograph look like the prototype, then the photography itself is framed as if photgraphing the prototype. Most railroad photos are 3/4 views, focused on the locomotive with a string of cars behind.