Prototype Modeling: How Close is "Close Enough"

Moose2013 Apr 15, 2022

  1. Moose2013

    Moose2013 TrainBoard Member

    747
    3,490
    47
    Moose has a Life-Like 2-8-8-2 locomotive that is screaming to be converted to a NP Z-4.

    The LL model appears to be based on the N&W Y3/Y3a and/or USRA design, which had Baker valve gear.

    Moose wants to model NP on the layout and the NP Zs were of roughly the same dimensions and design as the N&W Y3/Y3a's, but have Walschaert valve gear.

    The differences between Walschaert and Baker gear are fairly obvious, as might be other details like cab design and tender. Moose can modify the shells, replace the tender, and similar, BUT Moose no gonna try to modify running gear, sooo...

    Moose's question: What is "close enough" for you as a railroad modeler and your reasoning?

    No wrong answers. [​IMG]

    FYI: It appears that all other railroads' 2-8-8-2's were either noticeably larger or smaller than the N&W's & NP's, and they all employed Walschaert valve gear, so none of them are really good alternatives to which to convert this locomotive.
     
  2. HemiAdda2d

    HemiAdda2d Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    22,015
    27,413
    253
    The way I see it, there's Givens and Druthers in model railroading. Givens are the must-haves, the things you won't budge on, no compromises.
    The Druthers are the things you'd rather have. In N scale, it's easier to fudge some details than in bigger scales, as they are harder to see.

    It all goes back to what you can fudge and what you absolutely won't budge on. Determining the Givens and Druthers is the first step.

    As an example, I model D&RGW, up to 1983.

    Givens are 10% of the motive power roster.

    Givens are MARS lights in the nose on locomotives so-equipped.

    Givens is cutting off the era at 1983 to focus scarce hobby funds on things that fit the modeling focus.

    Druthers are a representative rolling stock fleet. I have some cars that are foobies, a car Rio Grande never owned, or not in the paint scheme it wears. I don't rivet count much.

    Some cars are very specific, and I will strive to model them as faithfully as possible (example: CCTX 4200 cu ft FMC rotary dump high side gons).

    Druthers are to model the "flavor" of a signature scene, without duplicating every crosstie, structure detail, etc. I have limitations on real estate, as does everyone who doesn't have a warehouse to build their railroad in.

    Druthers are to have a correct signal system, but I lack the electronics background to make it operate like the prototype.

    Druthers are for each locomotive to be DCC capable, but my layout is 3x7 feet, and not large enough to be a problem for non-DCC.

    Hope this helps, but it's all dependent on if YOU can deal with inaccuracies. ;):whistle:
     
  3. Moose2013

    Moose2013 TrainBoard Member

    747
    3,490
    47
    @HemiAdda2d

    Thank you for the reply! This is quite helpful. Looking forward to others' perspectives too..

    There's something about "modeling" that has this moose wanting to do as much as possible to make an accurate model, within Moose's [questionable] abilities. What is "modeling" if not attempting to recreate the prototype?

    If Moose cannot get past the valve gear inaccuracy, then an option might be to get as close as possible and then decide on whether to identify it as an inaccurate model of an NP Z-4 :unsure: or an extremely accurate model of an MT&P Z-TBD. :whistle:
     
    gmorider and Mark St Clair like this.
  4. in2tech

    in2tech TrainBoard Member

    2,703
    7,639
    78
    For me, it's called being lazy :) Me no try for prototype. But I love seeing peoples work that do.
     
  5. Mike VE2TRV

    Mike VE2TRV TrainBoard Member

    4,872
    12,455
    92
    When I feel it's close enough, it's close enough. It's one of those gut or seat of the pants feelings.

    If not, I make up a story that explains why it looks that way. :whistle:
     
  6. Shortround

    Shortround TrainBoard Member

    4,333
    5,042
    93
    "Close Enough" means being able to have my trains on the track.
     
  7. Moose2013

    Moose2013 TrainBoard Member

    747
    3,490
    47
    Lok! Yes, that'll work if it doesn't get "close enough" in the end, what ever that turns out to be, to call it an NP. There's a couple other projects that'll be ex-SP that the MT&P will have rebuilt to MT&P standards to avoid having to strictly follow prototypes...
     
  8. Mark St Clair

    Mark St Clair TrainBoard Member

    430
    3,065
    39
    I find myself doing what I am motivated, or maybe inspired, to do and fudging on a lot of other stuff. The Vanderbilt tender I am making for the Mikado is going to be as accurate as I can make it with respect to the ladders, platform and handrails. However, the water tank itself is wrong. I know it is wrong and I am going to let it go. I think I will enjoy the loco in spite of the "flaw." If I thought it would spoil my day every time I look at it I would take a different path.

    Stay safe,
     
  9. gjslsffan

    gjslsffan Staff Member

    2,626
    5,747
    69
    I did the hand wringing prototype thing for about 15 minutes. I then freed myself from that restrictive oppression ( hallelujah) and have never looked back. You are the one you need to make happy, and you are the one to do it Sir.
    Please carry on.
     
  10. Dave1905

    Dave1905 TrainBoard Member

    266
    285
    22
    It depends on why you are building it. If it is for your audience (people who see or visit or operate on your railroad) or for you. If its for you, it's what you are comfortable with and what fulfills your need to have that piece of equipment. Other people will not notice the changes unless you tell them, they radically change the appearance, or they are a knowledgeable modeler of the NP.
    If its for other people, to create the ambiance and feel of your prototype, to help tell your story, then it needs to be detailed enough to create the difference, the feeling of the scene you are trying to create.
     
  11. Shortround

    Shortround TrainBoard Member

    4,333
    5,042
    93
    I completely agree with Dave. When I worked on the community layout the details were important. On my private it was not so important.
    The future will tell.
     
  12. acptulsa

    acptulsa TrainBoard Member

    3,344
    5,868
    75
    Some people like impressionist painters.

    Some people won't hang anything but photographs on their walls.

    Some people tape a banana in a frame and call it art.

    I appreciate history and really want to recapture a piece of it. Just not so much I'm going to rip out a wall and roll a genuine Pleasure Dome into my living room.
     
  13. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    As the old saying tells us "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". The same applies in model railroading. Whatever makes the individual doing the modeling happy, is close enough, good enough.
     
  14. Moose2013

    Moose2013 TrainBoard Member

    747
    3,490
    47
    Thank you very much for the feedback, good sirs! :)

    Your comments, observations, personal experiences and anecdotes are very much appreciated! (y)

    Really like this -- probably the best way to put into words what Moose would best approach modeling. Thank you! :)

    Moose's initial studies of the model and prototypes seemed to suggest that this could be a straightforward conversion, the valve gear aside. Not so much after closer review. Arrrg!

    Moose will have to think long and hard on how much conversion Moose really wants to tackle on this locomotive -- there's sooo many other projects to do! Since the Life-Like model appears to resemble the USRA 2-8-8-2, converting it to a MT&P Z-# based on the USRA is always an option. Would still have to modify some shell details, the pumps, front railings, head and tender lights and replace N&W tender with a Spectrum USRA Long tender. Once all of that is completed, then the big decision would be "close enough" for the feel of a NP Z-4 or if not, "close enough" for an MT&P Z-#? :whistle: Moose seems to keep coming back to that approach...
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2022
  15. MRLdave

    MRLdave TrainBoard Member

    1,261
    1,151
    40
    I do a lot of running on NTRAK layouts.........very few visitors have a clue what things SHOULD look like. Even people you would expect to know things frequently don't. We set up in the Milwaukee Road Depot in Harlowton a few years ago......2/3 of the visitors had worked for the Milwaukee Road. I ran a Bachmann Superdome that I painted in the 1952 Milwaukee scheme........the Bachmann isn't really even close to the Milwaukee superdomes (other than the dome), but not one person seemed to notice. I got a lot of "look, a superdome", but not one "the doors are wrong" or it's too short" or any other negative comments. I recently purchased a BLI P5 boxcab because they offered it in a fantasy Milwaukee Road scheme ( the scheme is correct, but the model isn't even close to a Milwaukee boxcab) Again, I had visitors commenting on "I remember those", and not one "the wheel arrangement is wrong". For public displays, I've adopted a "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" philosophy. The whole point of my modeling is to REPRESENT my chosen RR..........it's NEVER going to be perfect, so as long as people can look at it and it brings back memories, I've accomplished my goal. Perfect models are great, and I can see where people get joy from producing them, but super detailing isn't for me.
     
  16. Mr. Trainiac

    Mr. Trainiac TrainBoard Member

    1,540
    2,131
    46
    I have a relatively small collection, so I don't mind spending a bit more time and effort on accuracy and research. For those modelers with large layouts or club layouts, I understand the need to simply get the railroad running. Molded-on grab irons and minor details like that probably aren't worth the effort fixing, especially when there are a million other things that need to get done on a large model railroad.

    We are constantly balancing practicality and prototype accuracy. We are limited by what models and tooling have been produced, and model companies are limited by money and time too. Sometimes foobies or 'close enoughs' are understandable, especially when the differences between models is minor, like piping or even side sill profile on boxcars. Arguing over the cubic capacity of two similar Place C 50' boxcars probably isn't worth it for most modelers.

    Back to the original question of Baker vs Walschaerts; this is probably one of the things that's impractical to change, especially in N scale. If you were a brass locomotive rivet counter in HO or O scale, you may worry about it more, but the feasibility of remanufacturing the valve gear and making new rods probably isn't worth it for you.

    I would rather focus on other details like the air compressors on the smokebox or the type of tender trucks used. Those are easier to fix and help you achieve an acceptably realistic model without having to completely redesign the running gear.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2022
  17. Moose2013

    Moose2013 TrainBoard Member

    747
    3,490
    47
    @BoxcabE50 @MRLdave @Mr. Trainiac

    Thank you for your replies and perspectives. All very appreciated!

    Moose has continued to review photos of NP Z-4's and compare them to the Life-Like model and building a rather extensive list of cosmetic modifications that would have to be considered to make the model resemble the prototype. The scope of work to make this a Z-4 in Moose's eyes has grown...
    :eek:
     
  18. BigJake

    BigJake TrainBoard Member

    3,259
    6,173
    70
    I'm kinda partial to impressionism...

    "What rivets?"

    Instead of "What rivets!"
     
  19. Tad

    Tad TrainBoard Supporter

    1,270
    662
    37
    There were only ever 31 GP28’s built. Sixteen of those were built for US railroads. The GP28 was basically a non-turbo GP35. As far as modeling goes there are some significant differences in fans and such.

    The AD&N had three GP28’s, 1812, 1815, and 1816.

    If you count Fordyce & Princeton 1805, the F&P was a sister road that shared power, 25% of the US production wound up on the AD&N.

    No manufacturer is ever going to make an N scale GP28.

    I made the decision to use GP35’s as stand-ins. I have some GP35 shells stashed in case I ever get the urge to try to actually build a GP28.

    But for now, I think that I am just going to let it ride.



    05E73BB8-B0AA-41FC-85F2-39B2DE827048.jpeg 46B185F6-CA56-42B0-B673-FC7CAE3EBB1E.jpeg 26EEA034-2DC7-4723-8A4B-9C4C097BFB2F.jpeg 290C8643-C434-4708-82CB-0EF09069A0FA.jpeg CC8B6CFF-336F-4EA6-88C0-395394E36E4D.jpeg
     
    Pfunk, gmorider, fordy744 and 10 others like this.
  20. Kurt Moose

    Kurt Moose TrainBoard Member

    9,814
    14,202
    147
    They look great!:D
     

Share This Page