Existential crisis. Freelance, Proto Freelance schizophrenia

YoHo Jun 27, 2014

  1. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    So, the below is probably better taken as a blog post, but...meh.

    And yes, I know, most people just say do whatever is fun, but that's kind of a useless answer. It doesn't really focus the thinking of someone whose trying to sort things out. And that's what I'm trying to do. Clear a muddle that I have in my head. Sure, do whatever is fun for me. But I'm trying to figure out if what I'm doing is hurting my fun, or, if I do something different, will I enjoy it more. So with those thoughts in mind. Read on. People who reply with just reply with "do whatever makes you happy" will be frowny faced with prejudice. :angry:


    I have had a number of layouts over my 39 years. Though due to moving across the country and then across the west coast multiple times and job loss and well, reality, I've not had the space I need to build the layout that exists in my head.



    And that is fine. That has not stopped me from building layouts. But I always try to make things track back to the Larger vision. My vision, since I was old enough to really internalize some of the finer points of these things was a Proto-Freelance concept. After a number of years of recording thoughts into Word, this has been distilled into a What if Scenario that is:

    Suppose that no Rock Island Track/RoW was removed or built over.

    Suppose that when UP bid to purchase the SP/DRGW, another company put in a competitive bid that had an effect similar to the breakup of Conrail. So UP had to give up a lot of track.

    The resulting Railroad is a Rock Island/DRGW/WP Transcon with assorted other cast offs in California and Oregon and elsewhere.



    That vision has stuck with me for over a decade now. And I have no delusions. My layout, whether a small one I can build in an Apartment, or the larger one that exists only in my head would depict only a small section of that railroad and this is really all just backstory for why certain trains with certain paint schemes and certain power are being run.

    And that's fine. Frankly, I get a kick out of just "roleplaying" out that backstory.



    Here's the problem. I have no interest in actually depicting any of the prototype locations on any of those lines. I mean, DRGW and WP have some pretty Iconic locations. But, that's just not my thing. Right now, I'm working on a small 4x8 with yard extension that is as much for my Toddler to watch Thomas and the Hogworts express go round as it is for me. I'm setting it in the Coast range of Oregon, a Mythical branch along the lines of the Toledo Branch or Tilamook, but not literally any location. It doesn't match with any of the route lines I've chosen. In fact, while I like Ca and Or locations. And I like Colorado Scenery, I have no interest in any locations on the Rock despite growing up in Chicago. There are a few locations I would love to replicate around where I grew up, but they aren't on the RI route and I have no interest in anything beyond those specific scenes.

    Another example, The Model Railroad club I belong to had tons and tons of donated Nscale supplies. I had a free HCD. So I'm going to throw together something. I decided rather than build another West Coast layout, I'd try my hand at a part of the Midwest that I do love Scenically. North Eastern Wisconsin. If I really wanted to create a logical proto-Freelance design, this layout would be a mythical branch of the Green Bay and Western up into Door County. But, I still wanted to tie it back to "the vision" Which requires certain hoops to be jumped through. Why would such a line be part of this larger system instead of part of the CN? or another short line conglomeration? Why even make it modern?





    Anyway, this is almost more of a blog post, because I don't have a question beyond: DO other people have this kind of "lack of focus?"



    I don't know that it's a problem. I've never been paralyzed by it. I just feel like maybe I should give up on the logic of the protolance aspect. Why even bother with the place making if I'm not going to follow through?
     
  2. Eagle2

    Eagle2 Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    5,727
    479
    82
    There are ways to get the "feel" of the prototype without nitpicking specific locations. The correct color of ballast, lineside details (mileposts, signals and the like) and patterns of company structures (shapes/materials/paint). Generally proper topography and geology. Having a good feel for the backstory will get you a long way towards selecting these elements; for example, using your story, deserts or Appalachian scenes would look out of place, as would stucco buildings in the main. In the end, I think it will be the general feel of things rather than fidelity to existing locations that will give you what you're looking for.
     
  3. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    Thanks, That makes a lot of sense.

    I mean, in reality, this is a Freelanced layout...the theme of which happens to have an entirely prototype set of tracks backing it up.

    Sometimes I just feel like I'm putting an awful lot of effort into a backstory that I don't need to.
     
  4. Eagle2

    Eagle2 Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    5,727
    479
    82
    At the risk of earning the frowny face, doesn't having a coherent story behind a pike (even if freelanced in the main) make things more enjoyable? I know I have toyed with the idea, in the past, of imagineering what could have been if a proposed MP/ATSF merger had gone htrough. In any case, having a coherent sense of where your tracks came from should help focus thoughts and tie things together.
     
  5. Kenneth L. Anthony

    Kenneth L. Anthony TrainBoard Member

    2,749
    524
    52
    I look of my layout as like a historical novel. The individual characters are fictitious, except for major real historical figures who appear briefly. The novel tries to be true to the time and place, if not to specific exact people and places. Like the movie "Saving Private Ryan." It tried to show D-Day pretty realistically even if there was no exact real life Private Ryan by that exact name and circumstance- tho there were similar situations.
    On my East Texas Santa Fe layout, I had a lumber-company-owned shortline connection. It had some similarities to the Moscow Camden and San Augustine, the Texas and SouthEastern and the Kirby Lumber Co.'s tram operation via trackage rights over Santa Fe. Texas and SouthEastern had an ex-Southern Pacific wooden slope-cupola caboose which gave me a good excuse to use the Kadee (now MicroTrains) SP caboose...
    [​IMG]
    although T&SE did not have a canine employee as assistant conductor.
    The Dream/Nightmare Monster layout I thought of but will never actually build had places that somewhat represented different scenes within 50 or 60 miles north or south of Houston-
    [​IMG]
    Karanakawa would be "my" version of Galveston (I am actually building this...) with the two-mile long railroad causeway
    [​IMG]
    Tidelands would be Hitchcock with its WWII blimp base (This I have modeled as a 2x3 foot portable layout)
    [​IMG]
    Johnston WAS (now dismantled) a combination of Conroe, Cleveland, Silsbee...
    [​IMG]
    It would be unmanageable for me ever to build the big system I dreamed and my personality is too picky to get along with as many operators as it would take to run it. But I can do bits and pieces of it in pieces. The Dixie Darlin peanut butter factory (based on Bama on the north side of Houston) I built in my Johnston scene is gone, but the Galveston scene has a real life Peanut Butter warehouse (repurposed as an antique store)
    [​IMG]
    where I can ship boxcars of peanut butter as if it were all part of the same layout, that never all exists at once.
     
  6. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Agree with post #2.

    As to "I have no interest in actually depicting any of the prototype locations on any of those lines", then don't. I envisioned mine through an area where nothing but a few short lengthed logging operations once existed. This area is familiar to me and is a place I love, so I knew the terrain. It was an area just like where my favorite RR would have built, as they did so elsewhere. Thus #2, known patterns of the prototype were used, so it looked correct in all other aspects. It essentially was a branch off of a branch, which had developed heavier traffic. A wholly owned subsidiary company, independently operating with their own power, which came to see run through parent company engines. Later all parent company power, (a common practice), but still holding the same time frame.

    Your "GB&W" scenario does not need to in any way connect to that core system described. It can also be a wholly owned subsidiary. So the back story is also much simplified.
     
  7. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    Thanks guys, lots good advice.
     
  8. jpwisc

    jpwisc TrainBoard Member

    1,766
    452
    35
    YoHo,
    I think the biggest challenge when going proto freelance is not over reaching. You are totally right that is is tough to do the DRGW justice on an HCD.


    The other challenge I always had was that if I am going to model a freelance line, it is going to be based off of something, so why not just model the thing it is based off of, then I can work from prototype photos for rolling stock, engines, industries and so on.


    If you like the NW WISC look, maybe there are some lines that could fit what you want:
    WSOR Plymouth Branch
    ELS
    Wisconsin Northern
    LSI
    Great Lakes Central


    Why recreate the wheel when you have to many good examples you could use?
     
  9. Doug A.

    Doug A. TrainBoard Supporter

    3,509
    161
    59
    In my mind, this is an easy one to answer: because if you are recreating such a specific prototype, there is much more pressure to research all of those items versus modeling to a "general flavor of a prototype railroad".

    Yoho, to me it seems that the elaborate backstory is something you enjoy, and it ties into your modeling even if a specific prototype place isn't being nailed down. In my mind, *not* modeling the specific town or geographic feature is no different than modeling a specific prototype but combining elements and selective compression to represent, say, a certain subdivision in a short bit of space. Either way, the fidelity needle is probably struggling to reach a 5 out of 10 or something along those lines. It's the difference between "whoa, you've modeled my hometown" versus "wow, this really reminds me of my hometown." Subtle, yet clear differentiation between the two.

    I struggle with this. I want to model a specific prototype, yet there are obvious concessions to be made. When I start getting really "out there" with the combining of elements and morphing of towns together, then I start thinking..."what if I just modeled a very general, protolanced version of this?" In my mind, the Frankensteined prototype plan might end up being less plausible than if I just made a very generic "North Central Texas to Southeastern Colorado" layout and didn't really have any research to answer to.
     
  10. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    As I recall, he stated not wishing to recreate prototype scenes along the lines described. It would seem that using the examples cited would pull him more toward just such a situation.
     
  11. GP30

    GP30 TrainBoard Member

    3,527
    2,337
    81
    I don't think I would call it a lack of focus, it sounds you have a plan in mind and you've recorded your thoughts.

    I guess I'm in the same boat, too. What I model (and my vision for the future) started with notes and thoughts. I always knew I wanted to model a coal hauler in WV, as that is what I grew up around. I also knew I didn't want to model a direct prototype and I had certain influences that typically influence all Appalachian coal hauler modelers, i.e: Virginian & Ohio and Allegheny Midland. After living along the Ohio River for a few years, my direction changed slightly to having some chemical and non-coal industries as well.

    I ended up initially creating the G&OM, then reincarnating into the CC&CI, as a larger system that interchanged with other railroads and had multiple sources of traffic so I could primarily coal, but otherwise anything I wanted to. But I'm not going to model all of that. I couldn't possibly fit everything between Norfolk, VA and Louisvile, KY in one basement..... not that I wanted to. This "Beyond the Basement" concept is a common tool used in planning.

    Despite being hindered by only having space for a switching layout, I thoroughly enjoy planning. I have excel spreadsheets with a full roster for my railroad, I already have numbers and pain schemes picked out for future motive power. I just recently finished recording specific station names and towns in order (with mileposts) along the actual route the CC&CI mainline will follow from Norfolk to Louisville. I'll only need the West Virginia and Ohio pages, but I enjoy planning.

    I enjoy planning so much I created another railroad on paper that most likely will never be built. A post-war Class I from Union City, GA to Fort Worth, TX with complete roster, name and herald. I also have thoughts for a C&NW line somewhere between Chicago, Ill & Dubuque, IA in 1980 and for a Rock Island layout based on the Memphis-Little Rock line around 1960. None of these are likely to be built, but oh well.

    Once you settle on what you want to model, have it your way. Make an extension or branch of the RI pass through your hometown, perhaps just trackage rights on the way to another city. I suppose if you were to build double deck in the future, you could do Colorado on one level and something more mid western on another.... after all it is transcontinental and hundreds of miles can pass by on a helix!
     
  12. friscobob

    friscobob Staff Member

    10,534
    707
    129
    On my last N scale layout, I modeled a freelanced Frisco branch in the general vicinity of the Ark-La-Tex area (Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas), and named it the Little River Subdivision. It had the generally flat topography and lots and LOTS of trees, plus an interchange with the Mop a la Nashville, AR. Major shippers included a paper mill and a poultry feed facility, which are two very big industries in that area. The town of Little River was on a secondary Arkansas state highway, and crossed over the Frisco line at the west end of town. While it wasn't really a Frisco line, it looked like one, and could easily remind one of the east end of the Ardmore & Arkinda Subdivision.


    You could swap out Frisco and put in MP, SSW, KCS, or even Rock Island, and still have a feasible layout (Rock Island had a line from Little Rock to Alexandria, LA, so the plausibility is there). Or, even a freelanced short line close to the GN&A, AD&N, or D&R could be used.

    On yours, perhaps a GB&W Alco being borrowed by the railroad to handle chores while the regular engine is in for repairs, or even a fictitious GBW branch.


    The possibilities are many in number.......
     
  13. jpwisc

    jpwisc TrainBoard Member

    1,766
    452
    35
    I totally get that. If you are prototype modelling Tehachapi or Stevens Pass or something well known there is more pressure. When you proto-freelancing you can take the line (the proto part) and rearrange towns and industries as you see fit (the freelance part). If you want a paper mill or a logging line, you put in or take something else out.

    What you are pushing towards is staight up freelancing, which is just fine too.
     
  14. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    Well, it depends on what you mean by Protofreelance. Did the Alleghany Midland or Virginian & Ohio have strict fidelity to a location? Not to my knowledge. They couldn't since the routes involved didn't have trains in real life. Protofreelance isn't just about scenery. In fact, some would argue it has nothing to do with scenery. My issue was that I'd brought specifics into the backstory, but don't want to build specifics.
     
  15. Doug A.

    Doug A. TrainBoard Supporter

    3,509
    161
    59
    OK, I can't help but throw out a nod to The Simpson's....model a town and call it Springfield, but just don't say which state it is in.
    :closedmouth::teeth:
     
  16. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    But then I'd feel compelled to build a monorail:)
     
  17. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    The definition of proto-freelance, (as I understand it), is using a real railroad and it's practices, but constructing a line and serving customers where they never actually ran. Pure freelance is everything being fictional, except your line might pass through real life locations. Or are things defined differently these days? :uhoh:
     
  18. traingeekboy

    traingeekboy TrainBoard Member

    5,677
    580
    82
    Why box yourself into doing just one railway, or just one scale for that matter? Just do what you like. follow your intuition and you'll be a happy model railroader. :)
     
  19. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    We've had this discussion before.

    This is the description from the Proto-Freelance Special interest group Yahoo:

    Allen McClelland and Tony Koester invented the Term, therefore, I'd say any definition of the term must include their respective model railroads. Neither modeled a real prototype railroad.

    In the case of Koester, the Allegheny Midland was owned (or related) to the NKP, but a coal hauling bridge line, so NKP operating practices and motive power logic and signalling and such, but the actual company name of the railroad was fictitious as was the route.

    In other words, there is absolutely positively no requirement that a proto-freelance layout involve a real existant Railroad beyond operating practice. And even then, the connection may be tenuous. In the case of Koester it was really all about operating practice. In my case, There is some amount of operating practice involved. Some amount of train type involved (short fast intermodal ala DRGW/ATSF). And a well planned out, motive power plan that is basically related to WP/ATSF practice of the 70s and 80s, but updated and fitted to the financial "reality" I've established.

    In other words, I've set up a bunch of rules for the game of model railroading I'm playing and those rules are to a certain extent based on prototypes.

    That is what Proto-Freelance means, the rules you set up define what you do and don't do and those rules have a basis in reality.
     
  20. YoHo

    YoHo TrainBoard Supporter

    5,508
    2,011
    98
    I think the most common type of Proto-freelance now adays is:
    I like say BNSF, so I'm buying BNSF engines, but the layout is entirely freelance.

    I would not be one to look down on that. That's a perfectly valid way to do it, and certainly with today's ready to run equipment, it is the easiest way to get into it. But That's really just barely even scratching the surface of proto-freelance. That's freelance without coming up with your own paintscheme. (nothing wrong with that at all by the way.)


    In the Yahoo group, as another example of "the rules" a number of contributors are really into basically having their own Altoona shops or mimicing the old ATSF Cleburne shops. So they come out with their own rebuilds of older units. That's something I'm interested in too.

    NS's SD60E program for example where they're doing the ECO skid engines, but not putting in EMD's new Radiator cores, but doing something custom. That's fun.

    Or, for me, My vision includes operating, as I've said, Pacific cost branch lines. The SP often put SD9s on these jobs. Well, SD9s are getting pretty old and the Rent-A-wrecks are getting pretty picked over, so in my reality, The railroad is rebuilding some SD9s with ECO packages. Something EMD never built a demonstrator for and nobody has done in real life.

    But EMD did do a GP9 ECO demonstrator and they also did some complete rebuilds for CP and there are other examples. So I'm going to Proto-lance an SD9-ECO based on that.
     

Share This Page