Why, or what, is this preponderence of affection for RR’s that couldn’t (or can’t) make “a buck”? I realize that we all have our affectations for certain “charming” RR’s, but, COME ON, did the "MA & PA ever haul more than 1 carload of coal a week? Did the Clinchfield ever do ANYTHING, other than have some cool GP-7’s?? Did the CR&P ever, oh wait, I guess they did. Never mind!
Roseanne Roseadanna
I think this message more properly belongs in the “Trains” section.
Since this question is posed in the Model Railroader forum, I believe he’s asking why many people model such railroads. The choice of prototype is rarely based on how much money a railroad did or did not make over the years. Simply put, smaller railroads are easier to model. The big ones, like the Pennsylvania or Santa Fe had hundreds of each type locomotive and thousands of cars, not to mention thousands of miles of track. Unless you have an old airplane hanger to set up your model railroad, you’ll never come close to modelling the whole thing. Smaller railroads are more managable, from a modelling point of view. These “charming” railroads may have had only a few locomotives and a couple dozen cars, something more of us can manage to model in a standard home basement.
PS: I find it strange “Jimmy” would sign with a fictional female character name. (Yes, I watch SNL)
Possiby because to a lot of us, the “Underdog” is a lot more interesting than the smoothly run, successful empire.
Definitely one reason I prefer to model Rio Grande, a two-state wide ‘bridge’ line with a much tougher mountain profile than the parallel double-tracked Union Pacific to the north with their little ‘bump’ called Sherman Hill. UP gets it there fast, Rio Grande just gets it there through sheer guts and determination.
Tom [:)]
I think this could be asked of both groups really. Myself, I’d say that there is a kind of romanticism towards the off beat RR’s in that there was more of a uniqueness to them. Uniqueness having a certain cache within a certain population of fans/MRR’ers.[:-^] For me it is more of a likelihood that they would be, in my case, smaller to deal with in terms of modelling. There is no way I’d try something that’ll get a little out of hand down in the basement-------[^]
I can’t help thinking that the basic premise of the original question is flawed. Look at the mumber of people who model N&W, the Pennsy when it really was, “The Standard Railroad of the World,” Santa Fe (and, more recently, BNSF,)…
OTOH, a lot of those, “Never out of debt,” lines had interesting equipment, or operated through interesting terrain, or served places with interesting histories - all things that make for interesting layouts. I doubt that any of the people who model the Colorado narrow gauge lines, or their standard-gauge, “Two streaks of rust through the weeds,” equivalents, are concerned with the cost accounting aspects of their chosen prototypes.
Speaking only for myself, I am primarily modeling physical locations which hold many fond memories. Some of those memories center around the railroads that were present when I spent quality time in the areas. To be honest, I have no idea whether those rail lines were moneymakers or financial disasters, nor do I care. I’m modeling terrain and hardware, not stock quotes.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
A lot of it is the “cool” factor, the railroad has quaint operations or good looking units or is in a cool part of the country.
I started modeling the LV back in the 1970’s. Fascinating paint schemes, beautiful scenery. Then I made the mistake of researching the actual operations. Very little business. There were a couple core routes, after that pretty much down to just about local service, one or two trains a day. Switched over to the Reading.
I’m always amazed at some of the obscure road names companies come out with. I think the cool paint scheme thing has a lot to with it. That’s what I focused on before leaning towards a semi prototype theme.
Well first, the Ma&Pa hauled a lot of coal. There was a time when coal was used a lot for home heating and most towns had a coal dealer. In fact they hauled so much coal that when the big railroads switched from mileage to per deim charges the Ma&Pa built a coal tipple in Baltimore to transfer coal to their own cars. Second the Ma&Pa did show a profit in many years. Third, before cars and trucks they hauled a lot of people and a lot of milk. And up until the Post Office switched to trucks in 1954, they hauled the mail. Looking at the Ma&Pa say around 1958, the year when most of the Maryland division was abandoned gives a false impression.
But actually none of that matters. Model Railroading is an art form so I doubt there are very many people who model based on balance sheets. People choose to model what appeals to them aesthetically. Some love the latest big diesels pulling a 100+ cars over the well ballasted mainline others the old steam engine with a half dozen freight cars or an old gas electric going up an old shortline.
Enjoy
Paul
Roseanne,The MA & Pa was quite the railroad… The Ma & Pa hauled manufactured goods from Red Lion and York and slate from Delta and Whiteford…
I model a shortline, which is profitable, so I don’t really have these problems. It’s just that my horrific safety record over the last few years (before I tore up and re-did most of the track on the layout) is still sticking with me and leading to all kinds of “WRS jokes” between my friend and I…