Model what's common?

Good article, but I didn't know there was a problem nor did I think there could be a problem. Yes, sizing is important if you care what others think. But if you model for fun, rather than counting rivets, deviation in any part of the layout is fine by me. So long as you have fun while doing it...

W. Hudson

I really did not think that

I really did not think that modeling the normal was a problem or a contrary view. Look how many folks build smaller buildings, or skip building the tremendous bridge or structure or do not build the Omaha yard. Many folks build smaller sections of a railroad or only one signature scene.

Heritage units

I have noticed that people really like heritage units. I mean really, really like heritage units. This has been a good thing. It shows that the railroads understand their heritage and want to honor previous workers. It shows the railfan community that they notice their efforts and want some positive publicity pictures and videos.

It has also been a economic boon to the manufacturers of all scales. All of the engines have been produced by multiple makers with all the latest sound and lights you can stuff into a DCC chip.

I like the designs of some and even wanted one or two for my shelf display. But now I see them ( models) on the front of every train in YouTube videos, on everyone's layout, and they pretty much throw you out of a train show unless your club display has them on every train. I get it, flashy and exciting and new. 

I guess heritage units are this generations answer to the Santa Fe war bonnet F units. 

Thomas Gasior

Tom, I have to admit being

Tom, I have to admit being tempted to get a Virginian unit even though it misses my era by several decades. So far I have been able to resist. For me its easy I am modeling the heritage era not the modern era trying to remember the past.

...

I'd rather model a place that inspires than a place where I only go because there's trains...

Luckily, I live iN AZ, and we have no shortage of scenery like that!

In my experience...

In my experience, there are basically two kinds of model railroaders: those with an engineering mindset, and those with an artistic mindset. The engineering side is mostly concerned with depicting equipment and operations as accurately as possible. To them "realism" is the Holy Grail of model railroading and many can't even fathom a different viewpoint. Then there are the artistic souls; the Malcolm Furlows, John Olsons and John Allens; men more interested in telling stories with their trains that are visually compelling and, yes, even a tad whimsical. The artistic ones bend and twist reality to suit the needs of the story they're trying to tell. Obviously, there needs to be some overlap for any kind of modeling to be done, and neither approach is right or wrong. Personally, I bristle when anyone tries to tell someone that their modeling style is "wrong." If you like the exceptional, model the exceptional - heck, even the fantastical if that's what gets you going. If you prefer corrugated steel dog food plants and modern container trains, then, by all means, model that. Just go build something cool.

Why bother?

I like to run my trains realistically, with a switch list and timetable, even if is just me 99% of the time. The engineer in me (although I'm an architect by profession) wants the high tech DCC controlled, sound equipped locos, to go through JMRI controlled switches. The artist in me sees the extraordinary in every building, road, bridge, and tree. What I choose to model needs to "fit" but is never common. 

Life is too short to be building strings of identical reefers or gons. A few well beaten examples will keep me busy enough. Who wants to build another Walthers or DPM "Kirsten's Kitchen" just to have more buildings on Main Street? Maybe town isn't even on the tracks. If I am not excited with what is on my bench it gets tossed - why bother?

Neil Erickson

"Contrary view" or model railroading basics?

The Reverse Running column was supposed to present a "contrary view", but this is just a collection of long accepted basics. I'm sure I first read and heard the idea of modelling the common rather than the exceptional at least a half century ago, and it wasn't presented as new even then. I've heard it again dozens of times since, and have never heard it contradicted. Never seemed to be a problem on layouts I've visited, either. 

The bit about making industries big enough to justify rail service probably hasn't been around quite as long - and you do see that one ignored on a lot of layouts - but it's still hardly a "contrary view". 

And "Contrary view" or model railroading basics, that arrogant, condescending last paragraph needs to go. 

Yeh, well ...