With the number of different narrow gauge prototypes out there do people still go freelance?

[MarcD]

This is a serious question, so don't  just get up set and say how dare you ask.

The reason I'm asking it is that I'm in the process of writing a book on building real railways in limited spaces. Narrow gauge by its very nature is designed to be more compact than standard gauge and there is a lot of good prototypes out there, yet very few narrow gauge layouts are actually of real prototypes. Is this because people don't think they can build a real prototype or is it because people don't overly care.

I would real like people's honest answers.

 

Marc

[Paul H Vigor]

I believe many narrow gauge modellers are naturally creative people? I for one get great pleasure from thinking about, designing and building something realistic - that never existed. I guess it's like creating a piece of art? - I can 'see' it in my minds eye - locos and rolling stock, architecture and landscapes. It should function as a real railway would, and the stock should show a 'family resemblance' and be limited to the amount of stock such a railway would have operated.

 

I love the concept of the 'what if?' - designing and building a railway to a real place that never was rail-connected.

 

For me, the problem with RTR narrow gauge is the potential for 101 versions of the Lynton & Barnstaple (for example) popping up at shows. OK initially, but then becomes a little tedious - the narrow gauge layout you may chose to walk past? At shows - be they narrow or standard gauge layouts - I like to be shown something new, something original.

[JZ]

What drew me to narrow gauge and 009 in particular, was the freelance nature of it. At first it was in a Welsh setting and later in a S. Devon/Dartmoor location. I did dabble with an Indian layout set somewhere in NE Bengal and this transformed into a rural, 'somewhere in Southern England' setting. After leaving NG for the best part of 20 years, I was tempted back with the models coming from Bachmann, Peco and Heljan. An Idea formed of building the proposed line from Minehead to Lynton, maybe a jointly worked line with L&B loco's and the hope that someone may introduce a Metcalf & Davies bodykit for the Heljan loco. This layout would have been 20'x10', with the emphasis in scenery. Even got as far as digging out my old Colin Ashby wagons and bought a couple of Peco L&B carriages and a Bachmann Woody Bay building. I wander, but the answer is, no, I wouldn't model a prototype, but would take hints of it, so people would know where it is, without it being a specific location. And I don't go for the compact approach anymore, I love a railway in a scenic setting.

 Anyway, in 2019 I discovered Blackstone Models, followed by a visit to Colorado and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Edge]

I think the narrow gauge modeller is drawn towards the quirky nature of virtually every prototype out there - it’s only a small step to want to create your own version of the quirk.

 

combine that with the requirements for kit building/bashing that were ubiquitous in narrow gauge modelling until recently (and still are around if you don’t want to model trench railways, the ALR or the L&B in 009 or  continental outline Germanic stuff) and you’ve got a recipe where it is actually sometimes just as easy or easier to make your own railway as it is to model a real one. 
 

In standard gauge stuff, it’s actually a lot harder to paint Mallard yellow and claim that it was from the Far Tottering and Oysterperch Railway. But a dark blue ‘Russell’ is just another Hunslet 2ft loco 

[Paul H Vigor]

1 hour ago, JZ said:

What drew me to narrow gauge and 009 in particular, was the freelance nature of it. At first it was in a Welsh setting and later in a S. Devon/Dartmoor location. I did dabble with an Indian layout set somewhere in NE Bengal and this transformed into a rural, 'somewhere in Southern England' setting. After leaving NG for the best part of 20 years, I was tempted back with the models coming from Bachmann, Peco and Heljan. An Idea formed of building the proposed line from Minehead to Lynton, maybe a jointly worked line with L&B loco's and the hope that someone may introduce a Metcalf & Davies bodykit for the Heljan loco. This layout would have been 20'x10', with the emphasis in scenery. Even got as far as digging out my old Colin Ashby wagons and bought a couple of Peco L&B carriages and a Bachmann Woody Bay building. I wander, but the answer is, no, I wouldn't model a prototype, but would take hints of it, so people would know where it is, without it being a specific location. And I don't go for the compact approach anymore, I love a railway in a scenic setting.

 Anyway, in 2019 I discovered Blackstone Models, followed by a visit to Colorado and the rest, as they say, is history.

I standardised on Colin Ashby 009 wagons (3-plank, steel-sided, 1-plank) back in the days (1980s) when they were 80p each - with wheels! To my mind they were delightfully 'freelance' - they weren't associated with any real railway and yet looked authentic? Glad I bought as many as I did, production ceased and prices rose.  

[Nyeti]

As well as what others have said I think there's a genuine appeal to building "your own railway".  In standard gauge it makes more sense to model with real stock even if the location is fictitious, but in narrow gauge it's much more easy to justify having everything all your own, locos, rolling stock and all.

I chose O9 when I came back to modelling partly because of the appeal of freelance engines and carriages as built by enthusiasts in a shed somewhere, inspired by real examples but unashamedly individual.

[Paul H Vigor]

5 minutes ago, Nyeti said:

As well as what others have said I think there's a genuine appeal to building "your own railway".  In standard gauge it makes more sense to model with real stock even if the location is fictitious, but in narrow gauge it's much more easy to justify having everything all your own, locos, rolling stock and all.

I chose O9 when I came back to modelling partly because of the appeal of freelance engines and carriages as built by enthusiasts in a shed somewhere, inspired by real examples but unashamedly individual.

Don't forget that real industrial narrow gauge railways did similar. There were many weird and wonderful internal combustion locos cobbled together from whatever parts were found lying around the workshop/yard - sometimes they even had cabs!

[Talltim]

Completely freelance standard gauge UK railways are hard to conceive and model convincingly. The ones that work tend to be light railways or industrial. In the US, because of the way that locos tended to built by external builders they are much more commonly and convincingly modelled, simply by some models of EMD locos and paint in your scheme.

Hence the type of people (in the UK at least) that want to make up their own railway tend to be drawn towards narrow gauge as am outlet for their creativity. Its not so much that people who model narrow gauge do freelance, its that people who like freelance do narrow gauge.

[Hroth]

Yep!

 

As you say, narrow gauge has the possibility to create a realistic model of a real railway, especially in OO9. O-16.5 results in a larger model, but is still more compact than full blown O gauge.

 

I suppose people go freelance for a range of reasons. My attempt is because I wanted to do an early days of preservation, but not in a way that attempts to exactly mirror the real world. Also, I do like quirk!

 

I really do respect those with the skill and patience to build a realistic railway representing a time and place, with correct locos and roling stock, but that's not for me. I'll do simplistic kits and scratchbuild buildings and stuff that satisfies my own inclinations and be happy with that!

 

 

[Nearholmer]

I spent c30 years building mainly NG models and layouts, and the core reason that I freelanced to varying degrees was that almost all British common-carrier NG railways, the Ffestiniog possibly excepted, were operationally pretty dull.

 

If your overriding interest is the look/atmosphere, then a strictly prototypical British NG line can doubtless be hugely satisfying, but if you want to include a fair bit of operational interest, then it becomes very limiting.

 

With even a simple SG BLT, you can ring the changes with goods wagons, or by operating more than one historical period, or by running a pigeon racing special from Pontefract, but with NG you might be stuck with the same four coaches, fifteen goods wagons, and two locos.

 

Cross over to Ireland, or even to some degree the Isle of Man, and there is more potential operational interest.

 

Over time, I gravitated to industrial NG, which is generally even less operationally interesting, but does allow for very plausible free-lancing, because many such railways were equipped from manufacturers' catalogues - the locos and stock weren't anything like so location-specific as with the few common carriers.

 

If you want protoypes for limited spaces, some industrial NG would suit very well, being exceedingly compact (and operationally exceedingly dull!).

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Keith Addenbrooke]

It’s an interesting question for discussion and well asked.  There’ll be as many answers as there are modellers (if not more). I agree with the observations above - a couple perhaps to add:

 

1.  We can be influenced / inspired by what we see others doing - it’s natural to follow a popular trend.  Some early inspirational NG layouts were freelance (Craig and Mertonford in the UK, Carabassett and Dead River in the US), so can set the trend.  (I think John Ahern’s Madder Valley was technically standard gauge, but managed to appear Narrow Gauge - I stand to be corrected by those who know more here).

 

2.  Maybe there’s something in the fact it simply isn’t ‘standard’ to start with - if I start by colouring outside the lines, perhaps I’m less likely to try and get inside them?

 

Keith.

[Paul H Vigor]

6 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I spent c30 years building mainly NG models and layouts, and the core reason that I freelanced to varying degrees was that almost all British common-carrier NG railways, the Ffestiniog possibly excepted, were operationally pretty dull.

 

If your overriding interest is the look/atmosphere, then a strictly prototypical British NG line can doubtless be hugely satisfying, but if you want to include a fair bit of operational interest, then it becomes very limiting.

 

With even a simple SG BLT, you can ring the changes with goods wagons, or by operating more than one historical period, or by running a pigeon racing special from Pontefract, but with NG you might be stuck with the same four coaches, fifteen goods wagons, and two locos.

 

Cross over to Ireland, or even to some degree the Isle of Man, and there is more potential operational interest.

 

Over time, I gravitated to industrial NG, which is generally even less operationally interesting, but does allow for very plausible free-lancing, because many such railways were equipped from manufacturers' catalogues - the locos and stock weren't anything like so location-specific as with the few common carriers.

 

If you want protoypes for limited spaces, some industrial NG would suit very well, being exceedingly compact (and operationally exceedingly dull!).

 

 

 

 

BLT? Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato!? 

[Nearholmer]

Building on what KA says:

 

Maybe part of it is because in NG one is ‘allowed’ to free-lance, it isn’t frowned upon or met with total bafflement as it is in SG (mostly), so the NG format attract people who like making stuff up.

[TangoOscarMike]

• Freelance modelling allows us to play at being Brunel, or Stephenson, or Churchward, or Gresley, or some other creative engineer.
• Freelance narrow-gauge modelling allows us to do it discretely, in a quiet little corner!

 

[Edwardian]

51 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Building on what KA says:

 

Maybe part of it is because in NG one is ‘allowed’ to free-lance, it isn’t frowned upon or met with total bafflement as it is in SG (mostly), so the NG format attract people who like making stuff up.

 

I think there is something in that.  I cannot help but feel apologetic when I explain to a fellow modeller that my SG railway is freelance, because I assume, often sense, it's then written off as no longer serious or worthy.  If anything, pre-Grouping makes it worse, because I think people assume from that that they are talking to a serious modeller (whatever one of those is, I don't qualify), but then the freelance part hits then and you can see them revising downwards the credibility of your project! 

 

This evidently doesn't happen in the NG world!  A freedom to treasure, I should say.

 

One day I hope to make manifest the NG feeder line you invented (the West Norfolk Soil Amendment Company), in the meantime, I do have a sort of NG LR station to finish, haven't I?  

[Hroth]

54 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

so the NG format attract people who like making stuff up.

 

Taking things to their illogical* conclusion...

 

Joking apart, what is produced may be freelance but it should have some sort of internal logic, no matter how tenuous, approaching reality from the other side.

 

 

* Approximating something like the Far Tottering and Oyster-Creek Railway

[TangoOscarMike]

On 12/05/2021 at 22:49, Paul H Vigor said:

BLT? Bacon, Lettuce & Tomato!? 

Just a very small amount of mayonnaise on mine, please.

 

Ta.

 

[Paul H Vigor]

Just now, TangoOscarMike said:

Just a very small amount of mayonnaise on mine, please.

 

Ta.

 

Ah ha! A man of impeccable taste! 

[TangoOscarMike]

It seems to me that these considerations sometimes have a sort of moral subtext. I think there might be people who believe that it is bad and wrong to make a freelance model railway.

 

Such views (if truly held by anybody) would be purest nonsense, except in cases where inaccurate or invented models were represented as historically accurate (perhaps at an exhibition, or in an educational context). That would be bad and wrong.

 

In any case, railway modelling is an activity awash with compromises. Many of us (I) cheerfully model SG using track with the wrong gauge. Many of us (I) accept couplings that are woeful eyesores. Some people carefully model real buildings, but (tasetully) lop off a storey and a wing to make them fit. Few people have space for curves with realistic radii, or realistic train lengths. Practically everyone who paints a figure out-of-uniform is choosing colours - that's freelance modelling! There are people who would not tolerate freelance locomotives and rolling stock, but don't mind putting them in a fictitious setting.

 

Nobody has a 2mm finescale robotic station master, limping up and down the platform because the cold weather exacerbates his war wound, and frowning because he cannot light his pipe.

 

And nobody models realistic timetables for modern rural branches, because two trains a day would be pretty dull.

 

In my opinion, prioritising one type of realism over another is purely a matter of taste. But everyone has an obligation to give a lucid account, to exhibition attendees, of the ways in which their model is realistic or unrealistic.

 

[phil_sutters]

Standard gauge companies got into most corners of England, if not the whole of the UK, so if you want to go totally free-lance. rather than just add an imaginary branch-line, you are rather boxed in by real lines, with their distinctive and somewhat standardized liveries and designs. You have to develop a narrative about your line's connections to its neighbours, where it got its motive power, carriages and goods stock from, what its traffic was derived from and who designed its infrastructure. Standard gauge lines, even ones serving industrial complexes, nearly always were linked to the national network eventually, with consequent requirements to meet common standards for safety and compatibility.

Narrow gauge lines were far more frequently not connected to other similar concerns. Indeed they could be unconnected to any other railway, perhaps running down to a port or canal basin.. In many cases they were more dependent on outside builders of locos and rolling stock. Some did have some weird and wonderful bits of kit. The vast majority of the population only ever comes across standard gauge railways. Narrow gauge is an unfamiliar world and one where you find unusual and often charming small scale operations in the real life. So free-lancing can be more easily accepted.

[F-UnitMad]

On 12/05/2021 at 22:01, Nearholmer said:

Building on what KA says:

 

Maybe part of it is because in NG one is ‘allowed’ to free-lance, it isn’t frowned upon or met with total bafflement as it is in SG (mostly), so the NG format attract people who like making stuff up.

In the UK, certainly. Decades of a Nationalised system has conditioned UK modellers to slavishly copying what real UK trains look like, even if the location modelled is made up - or freelance in other words. Even the modern Privatised network has not opened up modellers' minds to the potential to create their own freelance Train Operating Company with it's own name & livery - despite the fact some of the real liveries are far more outlandish than anything a modeller might make up!!

In the USA the scene is very different, and real Short Lines exist in great quantity which are almost literally freelance in every sense, so the concept of a modeller's own freelanced railroad is not far-fetched nor frowned upon.

On 12/05/2021 at 11:41, Talltim said:

Its not so much that people who model narrow gauge do freelance, its that people who like freelance do narrow gauge.

Well summed up, I think!!. Or, as my comment above, for those who like freelancing, the alternative to doing UK narrow gauge is to do US Short Line.

[Paul H Vigor]

On 12/05/2021 at 22:42, TangoOscarMike said:

• Freelance modelling allows us to play at being Brunel, or Stephenson, or Churchward, or Gresley, or some other creative engineer.
• Freelance narrow-gauge modelling allows us to do it discretely, in a quiet little corner!

 

Yes! "Doing it discretely, in a quiet little corner" = still planning to adapt and motorise Atlas Editions trams! 

[Fairliewell]

Historically, NG modellers have had to use whatever commercial N gauge chassis were available for locomotives in OO9 modelling, as no British-prototype RTR NG stock was available. Body kits, often freelance or semi-freelance became available to fit these chassis. The alternative was to adapt continental models. Either way, a freelance model railway was the only sensible option.

[PatB]

I tend to agree with other posters, that UK standard gauge is very hard to freelance well enough to achieve the necessary suspension of disbelief. Even non railway nerds are at least vaguely aware of the ubiquity of BR, and, previously, the Big 4, which wipes out most of the C20th for plausible freelancing. You either need to do a really major alternative history or, as did the Rev. Awdry, create a substantial extra landmass to fit your imaginary railway in. 

 

NG lines, OTOH, have/had a tendency to appear in all sorts of odd corners of the country, serving all sorts of specialist purposes. Many (most?) were so geographically confined that it's relatively easy to accept that a fictional one could have fitted into this or that little corner of countryside. You can (well, I can) look at almost anywhere in the UK, even places that have never been rail connected, and plausibly imagine where a small NG line might once have been. That road verge looks a bit wide, could it have been a NG tramway trackbed? And what about that suspiciously goods shed looking building on the edge of the village? That sort of thing.

 

That and, unless you want to do the L&B, you still can't buy a comprehensive range of prototypical stock r-t-r or as simple kits, AFAIK. 

[Giles]

I'm fine with freelance - if done realistically! 

One of the benefits of narrow gauge is that locos had a tendency to move around, and have a 'second life' at another site or railway- so why not a third?