Steamers.... How close is good enough?

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I have a small collection of Boston and Maine steam... A Bachmann 2-8-0, Bachmann 2-6-0, MP 4-4-0, as well as a few projects: a Bachmann USRA 0-6-0 that will be a MEC switcher, a LL 0-8-0 that needs to be repainted into BM and a Bachmann Northern witch will be modified and fitted to a J chassis to make a BM R1.

Now there are some items I can change from the stock model. Headlight and bell location being the biggest spotting features. But there are all sorts of appliances - stuff I don't  know the name of and could never find parts to, that are incorrect. So where do you guys draw the line of "good enough"? As I revive old projects, and get the transition era stuff sorted for its trip to Thailand, weathering and detailing will need to be done here and I will not be able to do much to them once they arrive at the new house.

[djconway]

If it's good enough for you, it's good enough.  It's your railroad do what you want.

[Kisatchie]

If I wanted to change a loco's roadname, I'd slap a decal on the model and call it done.


Hmm... you might want
to paint it the right color
first...

[mmagliaro]

Well, if 20 of us respond to this, you are likely to get 20 different answers as to what's "close enough".

So, what's "good enough"?
For me personally, if I look at the prototype and some feature catches my eye, then I have to have that on
my model.  But let's step back.  The biggest things to me are:

1. Proportion
2. Location, shape, size of major features and appliances

The first one is by far the most important.  The sizes of all the pieces need to be in the same proportion and location,
relative to each other, as they are in the prototype.  This is far more important than the engine being
"a little big" or "a little small".

Drivers, boiler height, cab size, tender length - Things like that need to "hang together" or the engine just doesn't
carry off the appearance of the prototype.  For example:
If your cab is a little big, but your engine is a little big, don't sweat it!
If your boiler rides a little low on the drivers, but the drivers are a little small, the whole thing will probably still look
okay.

The second item: Applicances and features.   To me, this means stack, light, bell, domes, and then "second tier"
stuff like air tanks, compressors, etc., which are less important.
Anything on the smokebox front because the nose of an engine stands out so much.
Just try to copy the big stuff and stick it on there in the correct place.  You don't have to know what it is.
Just get the shape and size right.  Let the little stuff go if it doesn't show, doesn't bother you, or you just
don't care about it.

I think if you conquer those two ideas, you'll have darn good models.

If it makes you happy to look at it and run it, you win.  Thankfully, that's the only criteria for model making.

[up1950s]

 Start with the decals .

 If you are happy with how they run , maybe you will invest the time to redo one or more .

 Doing all that detail then painting first will only piss you off if the thing doesn't satisfy your running demands .

 With a quick decal job at least you will have hanger queens at worst . If you don't tell anybody who comes a visiting they won't know . This is still N scale , and we don't have brass ones .

[Nato]

                    I purchased some of the same B & M lettered steam locomotives , because even though I know B & M steam locomotives differed somewhat in details I knew I was never going to find any factory lettered B & M steam locomotives again with out using decals, it is similar to the Seaboard 2-10-2 from Bachmann I have never seen or ever will another N Scale steam locomotive marked for the Seaboard Airline. So I say change the details as much as you want or just be content to have model steam locomotives in these road names like I' am. Nate Goodman (Nato).   

[jdcolombo]

The question could be applied to anything - how good is close enough for a structure where you have a specific prototype in mind?  Or how good is close enough for the track layout in a prototypical industrial area (or mainline)?

In my case, there are certain "spotting details" that I have to see on an engine or structure or else it will drive me nuts.  But other details just don't matter to me.  Example: the NKP used a Mars light high on the nose of it's GP7/9/18's that sticks out quite a bit.  Without the Mars light, it's just not an NKP diesel.  So I added this detail to my geeps.  But what about the horns?  Do I want to model the prototypically-correct 3-chime horn on a GP9?  Single "duck" horns on a GP7?  Nope.  I just don't care about the horns. 

On the NKP Berks and Mikes, the high numberboards and Mars light above the regular headlight are also these spotting details for me.  But I don't pay any attention to the number of sand lines or whether the trailing truck has roller bearings or friction bearings.  Just don't care. 

On rolling stock - is the door correct (corrugated or paneled, and if paneled, the right number of panels)?  Other than that, I don't get bothered by the ride height being too high, or the roof or ends being not exactly right. 

So I think the right answer was given earlier: if the model is fine with you, then it's fine.  If you look at it and start gritting your teeth, it's not.  Alter it until the jaw relaxes!

John C.

[mcjaco]

I've gone with the "close enough" approach because 1) I can't find a lot of photographic evidence that show similar set ups through out the lifetime of the particular steamer I modeled (Soo Line Light Mountain).  They moved stuff around so much during it's tenure, you can always find a photo that somewhat closely matches the model.

I ended up with really doing the main spotting features, such as the off center headlight, the Delta trailing truck, and the trucks on the tender, as well as replacing the oversized bell. 

I've had more than one Soo guy come up and say it's a perfect model of the N-20.  I'll take it.  And I'm happy with how it looks.

[thomasjmdavis]

I could have posted this topic myself.  I am trying to make the same decisions.  In my case, trying to model a 3 GTW passenger trains in the mid 1950s (International, Inter-City and Maple Leaf).  GTW was one of the last hold outs on steam power, and its signature locomotive at the time was the streamlined "bathtub" nose U-4 (4-8-4), although also in the mix were their first pair of boiler equipped GP-9s, and U-3 4-8-4s and U-1 4-8-2s.  None of these is ever likely to be manufactured in N scale, even in brass (maybe some of their CN cousins?)

I figure when budget allows, I will try to pick up one of the Con-cor Northerns with a Vandy tender, add some detailing, kitbash the tender for coal, and call it a U-3.  In the meantime, I am decalling a Bachmann USRA light 4-8-2 (a bit too small, I think, for the GTW prototype, at least judging by weight of the USRA ptototype), that I picked up 2nd hand for cheap.  I figure at some point in the future, I will try to upgrade it some with GTW features, but for the time being, I will at least have an honorary steam engine to run around the layout if I ever get started building it (clearing out and cleaning the basement of this old house being priority #3 right now.  #1 is to evict the squirrel from the attic, #2 is to get more insulation into said attic).

Now, if anyone is contemplating casting or RP'ing a U4 shell or one of its CN cousins (at a reasonable price) and looking for potential customers, do let me know, I would definitely be interested.  At some point in the future, I might take a shot at it myself, but that is years away, if ever.

Tom D

[Maletrain]

I suspect part of the question is "How good should be good enough for me?" 

If you are worried about what others will say or even think but be too polite to say, you will drive yourself nuts in this hobby.  Even manufactured proto-specific models come in for critcizm from some quarters (along with whoops of joy from the rest of us that realize those same models are far better than anything we are ever going to kit-bash or scratch build for that prototype).

It may help to realize that most of the people who openly criticize others' models are not so great at making models, themselves.  Of course, if you typically run with guys that actually compete in scale model scratch building contests, then you are in a different league, and really a different hobby from most of us.

Typically, people who build a model know its faults better than those who only view it, especially if it is running around a layout.  Especially in N scale.

So, the real question is what are you happy with, if you don't worry about impressing anybody else.  That may change over time, as you learn more about your prototype and gain skills to model the things you discover.  There is no shame in redoing things, later.  So, remember, a hobby is a journey, not a destination.  Relax and enjoy the trip.

[learmoia]

I agree if it's good enough for you, then it's good enough...

Since the person asking is scratch building a trio of Conrail E8s that rivals the Overland Brass models in accuracy.. I think your 'good enough' will satisfy most pepole here..

You could talk with 'superturbine?' About doing a shrink cast of the HO model..

~Ian

[drgw0579]

I know you guys have the attitude of "it's my railroad and I set the standards".  But don't you at least care a little what others think?  If you didn't why did this question get asked in the first place

One thing I have observed is that you can get away with a lot more if others around you don't know much about the prototype you are modeling.  For instance, if I live in Colorado and I model the Reading RR, there are very few around here that might call me on whether I use the right shade of green paint model their rain gutters correctly.  However, if I model the Rio Grande narrow gauge and I get one minute detail wrong, there will be a whole lot of "experts" who will get on my case about it.

Of course most of the "experts" sometimes get things wrong.  You just need to do your homework and be able to respond with some factual information, like caboose 0577 had a original pre-WWII logo and 2-window cupola, where as 0579 didn't get the 2-window cupola until after the railroad switched to the "flying Rio Grande" logo.    Some real details certainly takes the wind out of those people who don't know everything but think they do.

Bill Kepner

[Cajonpassfan]

Oh boy...
I may be a little off topic here, and I'm probably going to catch some flack but am I the only one to cringe at the use of the word "steamer" for a steam locomotive? It's something that seems to have come into vogue relatively recently, and with the interrnet, it's used more and more to my dismay. During the steam era, steamers were ships and steamer trunks and Stanley road pavers and even steam powered automobiles; today it's something I use to prep my frozen vegetables, pasta, or clams, or take out wrinkles out of my garments, but it's never a steam locomotive. Of course, it's not quite as bad as the word "units" when referring to steam locos

So, now that I have that out of my system, back to the topic at hand. It's been covered by others, and I agree it depends on how important specific things are to each of us as individuals. Me, I'm much more forgiving (to myself) with diesels, and as long as the proportions, finishes and detailing are reasonably correct, I'm fine. With steam, which I love, I tend to be much more critical. It's the "whole" that needs to be in proportion and balance, starting with driver size. When I see a model done with substantially undersized drivers, I lose interest, no matter how well detailed and finished it may be. It just feels deformed to me.

US steam, at least generally in the more modern era, had a specific range of driver sizes for both freight and passenger locomotives. Give or take an inch or two, passenger locomotives had 69/73/77/80/84" drivers.

Freight ranges were in the 57/63/69" categories (okay the ATSF Texans were 74"!, but a rare exception).

I do understand that our oversized flanges require compromises, but subscribe to the theory that driver size needs to be balanced against the overall proportion; i.e. splitting the difference. (Slightly smaller drivers, slightly longer wheelbase; trying to do one or the other correctly results in way oversized engines like CC 2-10-2, or way undersized drivers). Getting a good start on the driver size vs. loco size equation is in IMHO essential to good steam locomotive modeling, and without it, no "steamer " is close enough.

Otto K.

[peteski]

Oh boy...
I may be a little off topic here, and I'm probably going to catch some flack but am I the only one to cringe at the use of the word "steamer" for a steam locomotive? It's something that seems to have come into vogue relatively recently, and with the interrnet, it's used more and more to my dismay. During the steam era, steamers were ships and steamer trunks and Stanley road pavers and even steam powered automobiles; today it's something I use to prep my frozen vegetables, pasta, or clams, or take out wrinkles out of my garments, but it's never a steam locomotive. Of course, it's not quite as bad as the word "units" when referring to steam locos

A steamer could also be something brown deposited by a dog on a snowy street. 

Yeah, the American English language is evolving, but not always in a positive way. Devolving is more like it. The way the Internetz instantly spreads the "improved" language is not helping.  I had the same problem with the word hack used in a positive way.  I guess we are just grumpy old man. 

[Dave V]

Having kitbashed a few "steamers" (in both uses of the word) in my day I think you go with the so-called "spotting features."  For PRR steam that includes a Belpaire firebox, a distinctive smokebox front, keystone number plates for some, and a Pennsy style cab.  Tenders can also be challenging.  But now as I model the Colorado Midland I've been happy just to have a similar wheel arrangement.  It all depends.

As was mentioned above it depends on audience.  On PRR models I expect vastly less slack from others because a) there are so many other knowledgeable PRR modelers in my circles and b) there is a veritable mountain of information available about every single class and class variant of locomotive the PRR built, bought, or borrowed.  My 1905-era Colorado Midland OTOH is esoteric enough that only a handful of people here would really know what I've done wrong.  I also have different intents for my layouts.  The PRR scratches my proto itch while the CMRy is more of a fantasy/caricature that's based on a real railroad.  Sometimes I get picky about stuff in CMRy-land but not usually.

Your mileage will of course vary...this is what has worked for me.