I am responding to the recent gues editorial. There was somhing left out. Yes, todays railroads are fun to watch and model, but what about vintage modeling. I am pround to say the at the age of 30, I have enjoyed modeling the clasic era of trains. The 1950s are awesome to me and I enjoy the chalenge of researching the lines I model, and I have discovered so much along the way. We as modelers need to keep history alive and this is a great way to do it. Todays trains are fun to watch but to me, I see them all the time. Thats why I love the steam to diesel era. I can enjoy trains but with a twist.
Jay
Jay1,
Sorry I missed that one. Which guest editorial are you referring to?
And yes, the steam to diesel era is a very “cool” time period to model as a great variety of colorful equipment can be modele… MRR has had plenty of nice articles on layouts modeled in steam to diesel time period, so a wealth of ideas may be gleaned from these well designed model railroads. If I’m not mistaking, Tony Koester’s “Allegheny Midland” fits this time period.[;)][8)]
My modeling era is from 1967-71, just after the transition era but during a time of other great changes as railroads were “transitioning” from 1st generation to 2nd generation locomotives, so this is another time period of great varieties in equipment.[:)]
Cheers! [:D][:)]
I model 1971, the very year I was born. For my prototype (the Norfolk & Western), this was the most interesting time of its deisel years, in my opinion. I, too, prefer the research which is necessary to recreate a bygone time.
As for Koester’s former AM, it started out as a mid-70’s layout, I believe, to match up with Allen McClelland’s V&O. Then it was later backdated into the 50’s, before it was abandoned.
Personally, I’d like to see some more turn-of-the-century layouts, because this seems like a distinctly under-represented era. The gradual transition from wood to steel cars and from “russian iron” to “graphite” boiler jackets led to quite a wide variety of equipment, a lot of which simply hasn’t been seen in model form, or at least not in any national publication.
Jay1 and all, would like to add my 2 cents to this very interesting topic. I,m modeling the Erie RR (late 40’s-early 50’s) to bring back those fond memories I have of my childhood days on the farm etc. I’m doing it for my self as I doubt very many other model railroaders will actually see it. I too, like to see the older trains, rolling stock and buildings from the early 1900’s, however I have found that as large as the Erie was, there is not much out there that represents this road so a lot of locos and rolling stock will have to be repainted and decaled, which leads to making or special ordering them, as decales for that road are virtually nonexistent. What all this is adding up to is that I believe that, with the exception of a few, modelers in today’s world have very little time for the research and scratch building and kitbashing required to represent the early time eras. I have (not complaining) very little time for modeling as my job keeps me on the road, and my time at home is limited and I also know that my situation is not representative of the average modeler. With this said, I believe as time goes on, it’s going to be harder to model early days and I believe that it’s also the reason that more of us are unwilling to go back beyond the fifties in our modeling efforts. Thanks, Ken
Yes it’s important to remember the past. Why else would have a “History” class in school?
It’s also important to have fun while modeling as well.
A lot of people are saying you have to do this, you have to do that. That’s not proper for that railroad etc etc etc…
WHY?
I thought having a locomotive where I had to install the handrailing’s was cool. I still do!
By the way, that first locomotive was an Athearn SD40-2 #5415.
When I got back into this hobby in 1996, I thought that people were nuts for wanting to detail their locomotives & rolling stock.
I don’t now. It took me 7 years to realize just how good equipment looks when it is detailed.
When people ask ‘What to buy, because I’m new’, people are quick to say "You have to buy this or that because it’s better detailed’
WHY?
Is not more important to get new people into the hobby with a basic kit then it is to super detail everything off the bat?
I think so.
No one ever said to me in the club I joined in 1996 that Athearn was crap. Yes a lot of the guys stated that there were “better” locomotives out there but that I couldn’t go wrong with Athearn.
My point I’m trying to state is you don’t have to model a certain “era” to have steam locomotives. I have P42’s hauling 1950’s era passenger cars running beside a V&T Baldwin 4-4-0 pulling 1880’s era passenger cars.
You have to have fun before you try being a serious modeler.
But, that’s just my 2 cents
Gordon
Ya, I have to agree, FUN FIRST, SERIOUS LATER.
I remember as a kid riding the B&M passenger trains from Andover, MA into Boston, MA and all the stops along the way to get there. A whole 26 miles. And then back again after shoppingor visiting, whatever. It impressed me then and fascinates me now.
Hey, modeling is modeling anyway you do it and we all do it differently which makes it all the better as we can become richer by sharing each others experiences.
I am glad all of you are out there to call upon when I need help.
Think of this, with all the resources today at our fingertips we can all be model railroaders the likes of which the world has never seen before - if we want to. 
Gordon has said it all!!! Amen
Richard
All,
I just recently signed on with the forum here and it looks great! I would like to see more early 1900’s era articles as well. This time period has a lot going for it as a period to model. Back then it seems like just about everything moved by rail that had go further than across town. The were short lines everywhere so chances are that one once ran close to where most any of us live. Often the remains of the old grade or even some structures still exist and information can be dug up locally. For modeling scenery its great to be able look at the real location almost as easily as looking out your window. The short line railroads both standard and narrow gauge lend themselves very well to modeling in the more limited spaces we have even if our space is a full basement. The trains were short. The locomotives and rolling stock were smaller. They will operate well and look better on our normally tighter than prototype curves and turnouts. Sidings and yards do not need to be as long to be more operationally functional. Numerous stops not too far apart often with just a siding and spur would be common and even a spur or two right off the mainline would not be unusual. Rolling stock for this era is very easy to scratch build, much more so than modern era stuff. One can turn out extremely detailed and accurate models with out spending much if the budget is tight. There are enough reasonably priced locomotives or locomotive kits that can be bashed into models that would be reasonably accurate for a great many of the old lines without having to ever scratch build mechanisms. And there are many brass models that would be suitable and kits like those from Westerfield for those can afford more. Many lines didn’t have more than five or six locomotives so one doesn’t need very many yet the wide variety of industries served in those day would keep them busy and offer interesting operations. Way freight type operation would be very common so a one can run the main line from one end to the other and still get to do switch
It’s interesting to see the modeled era move up with the actual era. Like how the ‘big’ era seems to be the 50’s - which is what I model.Model turn of the 20th century is rare - and those doing it today have a lot of scratchbuilding to do. But pick up an old MR fromt he 50’s - LOTS of peopel modelling late 1800’s/early 1900’s. And plenty of rolling stock available - look at all those old Central Valley car kits.
–Randy