Prototype or Freelance
Ian Venables recently wrote an interesting article for the newsletter concerning those who model a prototype railroad and those who are seduced by locomotives from various railroads.
According to Ian I am classified a ‘mighty modeller’ because I have stayed with one prototype, the Pennsylvania Railroad. So I felt that I should respond so that my ‘mightiness’ can be placed into perspective.
I totally understand why someone would be attracted to locomotives from different railroads, every time a visiting modeller runs their models on my layout I start to feel the restrictions of following a prototype. There have been magnificent locomotives representing the UP, SP, Santa Fe, DM&IR, L&N, GN, JJ&E, CB&Q, PRR (the S2 Turbine), and a OO scale Flying Scotsman.
They were all magnificent, I lusted after each of them, (including Flying Scotsman if in HO); however I wouldn’t contemplate operating a layout with such diversity.
Ultimately it’s a hobby and of course there is no reason why a modeller shouldn’t diversify and of course many do, it’s called a freelance layout.
However if you are a ‘mighty modeller’ and stay with one prototype all is not lost when it comes to being tempted by ‘foreign’ motive power. There are ways of being able to add a little variety to your roster with locomotives from other roads.
Locomotive from other railroads were often leased, purchased or tested and that can validate these foreigners running on your prototype layout. There is also the possibility of delivery movements of new locomotives from the manufacturers, although the majority of new steam locomotives were shipped unpowered, some were delivered under steam. Regrettably one of my favourite locomotives, the DM&IR Yellowstones travelled from Baldwin unpowered, so I can’t justify having one.
To use the PRR as an example the following steam locomotives (relevant to my era) were leased, tested or bought by the PRR:
12 RF&P 2-8-4 and 4-8-4 locomotives leased
Reading 4-8-4 locomotives leased
C&NW 4-6-4 for testing
C&O 2-10-4 for testing
N&W J class 610 for testing. (Trialled on the Broadway Limited)
N&W Y6bs leased
N&W class A for testing
N&W Y3s purchased from the N&W
Santa Fe 12 5011 class 2-10-4s leased
So far I have only acquired models of two of the above, the N&W Y3 and a Santa Fe 2-10-4.
I have modelled the Pennsylvania for a long time because I like the ‘family’ appearance of most of its huge fleet, which was a result of the standardising of components such as boilers etc. However I am also intrigued by that period in the late 1930s - 1940’s when the usually conservative mechanical department went totally mad and made some very strange design decisions and then inexplicably went on to build them.
I have a theory about what happened and it has to do with a Swiss Chemist, Albert Hofmann who in 1938 synthesized Lysergic acid diethylamide which we know as LSD, it surfaced in the US in the late 1930s - 1940s about the same time these strange locomotives began appearing on the PRR. It seems the only explanation for their hallucinatory behaviour.
It should be noted that this era overlapped the U.S. either preparing for WW2 or being involved in it. Surely given those circumstances the ‘standard railroad of the World’s’ philosophy of standardised and proven engineering would have had advantages. Because of the failure of most of these locomotives (except the J1) the wartime demands had to be met by the vast fleet of older motive power.
Examples of the madness from this substance-fuelled era are:
The S1 duplex passenger locomotive was so large that it could not negotiate the curves and track clearances on most lines of the PRR system; turntables were also a challenge, it didn’t fit on them.
It was larger than a Big Boy.
The S1 L140ft 2 ½’’ and H16ft 6”
Big Boy L132ft 9 ¼” and H16ft 2 ½’
The S1 couldn’t always maintain traction because it had less than half its total weight on the driving wheels, the rest being carried by the massive six-wheel pilot and trailing trucks. This left the two sets of four duplex driving wheels susceptible to wheel slippage which resulted in over speed damage.
Unsubstantiated high speeds (exceeding Mallard’s record) were claimed to have taken place.
Life span 6 years (Before entering service the S1 was on display at the New York World’s fair for 1 year)
The Q1 duplex streamlined freight locomotive was a locomotive with 77” drivers and the second set of smaller cylinders, facing forward and positioned under the firebox, which restricted the size of both. The area near the firebox was also dusty and hot, which increased cylinder wear. During its short service life it spent more time in shops or the engine house than being run, accumulating only about 65,000 service miles.
Life span 7 years.
The only conventional locomotive to emerge from this era was the J1 2-10-4, a highly successful copy of a C&O loco. Perhaps a copy was the best a mechanical engineer could do on the rare occasions when he wasn’t laying on the grass watching the clouds making love.
Life span 17 years
In 1957 K4s 5351 was the last PRR steam locomotive to haul a revenue train. No 5351 had been built in 1924, well before LSD.
I have models of the Q1, Q2, J1 and T1 and thoroughly enjoy their uniqueness within the ‘family look’ of the Pennsylvania railroad. The S1 has been modelled but it would take a large layout with very broad curves for it to operate well and look realistic. I feel that it would look too ungainly even on my 48‘ radius curves for me to consider operating one.
Back in the ‘60s I saw a brass S1 model in a showcase full of brass models at the Model Dockyard in Melbourne, it looked like an elephant standing in a flock of sheep.
Regardless of what modelling philosophy you have or the models you choose to own, in the end its just about enjoying the hobby; but remember we are merely guardians of these models.
Ian Venables recently wrote an interesting article for the newsletter concerning those who model a prototype railroad and those who are seduced by locomotives from various railroads.
According to Ian I am classified a ‘mighty modeller’ because I have stayed with one prototype, the Pennsylvania Railroad. So I felt that I should respond so that my ‘mightiness’ can be placed into perspective.
I totally understand why someone would be attracted to locomotives from different railroads, every time a visiting modeller runs their models on my layout I start to feel the restrictions of following a prototype. There have been magnificent locomotives representing the UP, SP, Santa Fe, DM&IR, L&N, GN, JJ&E, CB&Q, PRR (the S2 Turbine), and a OO scale Flying Scotsman.
They were all magnificent, I lusted after each of them, (including Flying Scotsman if in HO); however I wouldn’t contemplate operating a layout with such diversity.
Ultimately it’s a hobby and of course there is no reason why a modeller shouldn’t diversify and of course many do, it’s called a freelance layout.
However if you are a ‘mighty modeller’ and stay with one prototype all is not lost when it comes to being tempted by ‘foreign’ motive power. There are ways of being able to add a little variety to your roster with locomotives from other roads.
Locomotive from other railroads were often leased, purchased or tested and that can validate these foreigners running on your prototype layout. There is also the possibility of delivery movements of new locomotives from the manufacturers, although the majority of new steam locomotives were shipped unpowered, some were delivered under steam. Regrettably one of my favourite locomotives, the DM&IR Yellowstones travelled from Baldwin unpowered, so I can’t justify having one.
To use the PRR as an example the following steam locomotives (relevant to my era) were leased, tested or bought by the PRR:
12 RF&P 2-8-4 and 4-8-4 locomotives leased
Reading 4-8-4 locomotives leased
C&NW 4-6-4 for testing
C&O 2-10-4 for testing
N&W J class 610 for testing. (Trialled on the Broadway Limited)
N&W Y6bs leased
N&W class A for testing
N&W Y3s purchased from the N&W
Santa Fe 12 5011 class 2-10-4s leased
So far I have only acquired models of two of the above, the N&W Y3 and a Santa Fe 2-10-4.
I have modelled the Pennsylvania for a long time because I like the ‘family’ appearance of most of its huge fleet, which was a result of the standardising of components such as boilers etc. However I am also intrigued by that period in the late 1930s - 1940’s when the usually conservative mechanical department went totally mad and made some very strange design decisions and then inexplicably went on to build them.
I have a theory about what happened and it has to do with a Swiss Chemist, Albert Hofmann who in 1938 synthesized Lysergic acid diethylamide which we know as LSD, it surfaced in the US in the late 1930s - 1940s about the same time these strange locomotives began appearing on the PRR. It seems the only explanation for their hallucinatory behaviour.
It should be noted that this era overlapped the U.S. either preparing for WW2 or being involved in it. Surely given those circumstances the ‘standard railroad of the World’s’ philosophy of standardised and proven engineering would have had advantages. Because of the failure of most of these locomotives (except the J1) the wartime demands had to be met by the vast fleet of older motive power.
Examples of the madness from this substance-fuelled era are:
The S1 duplex passenger locomotive was so large that it could not negotiate the curves and track clearances on most lines of the PRR system; turntables were also a challenge, it didn’t fit on them.
It was larger than a Big Boy.
The S1 L140ft 2 ½’’ and H16ft 6”
Big Boy L132ft 9 ¼” and H16ft 2 ½’
The S1 couldn’t always maintain traction because it had less than half its total weight on the driving wheels, the rest being carried by the massive six-wheel pilot and trailing trucks. This left the two sets of four duplex driving wheels susceptible to wheel slippage which resulted in over speed damage.
Unsubstantiated high speeds (exceeding Mallard’s record) were claimed to have taken place.
Life span 6 years (Before entering service the S1 was on display at the New York World’s fair for 1 year)
The Q1 duplex streamlined freight locomotive was a locomotive with 77” drivers and the second set of smaller cylinders, facing forward and positioned under the firebox, which restricted the size of both. The area near the firebox was also dusty and hot, which increased cylinder wear. During its short service life it spent more time in shops or the engine house than being run, accumulating only about 65,000 service miles.
Life span 7 years.
The only conventional locomotive to emerge from this era was the J1 2-10-4, a highly successful copy of a C&O loco. Perhaps a copy was the best a mechanical engineer could do on the rare occasions when he wasn’t laying on the grass watching the clouds making love.
Life span 17 years
In 1957 K4s 5351 was the last PRR steam locomotive to haul a revenue train. No 5351 had been built in 1924, well before LSD.
I have models of the Q1, Q2, J1 and T1 and thoroughly enjoy their uniqueness within the ‘family look’ of the Pennsylvania railroad. The S1 has been modelled but it would take a large layout with very broad curves for it to operate well and look realistic. I feel that it would look too ungainly even on my 48‘ radius curves for me to consider operating one.
Back in the ‘60s I saw a brass S1 model in a showcase full of brass models at the Model Dockyard in Melbourne, it looked like an elephant standing in a flock of sheep.
Regardless of what modelling philosophy you have or the models you choose to own, in the end its just about enjoying the hobby; but remember we are merely guardians of these models.