Hi All: I'm sure most of us are familiar with the term "Good Enough" modeling, a modeling philosophy typically attributed to Allen McClelland as the orginator that described his modeling approach. Well, in today's HO, one really doesn't HAVE to settle for such an approach, for it seems that almost EVERY phase of locomotive has been produced! (I'm sure that's not ACTUALLY the case, surely there is a Frisco prototype that has YET to be produced in HO... isn't there? ) Not so S scale. In S scale we have locomotive models that range from very good to excellent and that run really nice. BUT... there isn't anywhere NEAR the variety of model types/phases/etc as is available in HO. SOOOO... for me it's back to "good enough" modeling. One of my key elements to accomplish this in S scale is that I'm going to return to proto-lancing via my Kansas City & Gulf theme. Doing so, I now only need to concern myself with factoring in the model(s) into the master KC&G roster. Of course, most of this was already done when I was modeling the KC&G in HO... so not a great deal of "tweaking" will need to be done in order to accomodate available S scaled models. BUT... I also want some Frisco to putter about. (An SW-9 is a "no-prob-Bob" situation as SHS has an EXCELLENT model of one.) BUT... I may have to resort to modeling like I had to do back in my Frisco modeling days in the 70's, 80's, and into the 90's: Good enough, in my Frisco realm too. Case in point: A Baldwin S-12. There is an S-12 available in S scale. It is nicely proportioned, runs nice, and is a good "starting point" for a detailed model. Consider its production detail level to be about like the older "blue box" Athearn S-12. However, perhaps its most troublesome faux paus is that it is equipped with "Alco/GE" type road switcher trucks. (Surprisingly, it's not THAT noticeable.) Now, I was quite happy back in the early 90's to take one of those Athearn S-12's, repower it with a Kato mechinism, add a bit of styrene here and there and presto: A "good enough" Frisco DS4-4-1000. Now, here's my dilemma: I am thinking about taking one of the undec S-12's I have and making an ersatz Frisco DS4-4-1000 out of it. IF I am going to have ANY type of Frisco Baldwin, a DS4-4-1000 is my best shot. (Forget trying to extensively scratchbash a VO!) BUT... I am faced with the Alco trucks under it. Yes, I COULD adapt SHS switcher trucks/mechanism into one... but this stuff ain't as cheap as HO used to be. Plus, if I DO... then essentially ALL the AM Baldwin S-12 models would need to be likewise repowered/retrucked... for the "correct one" would now make the others look more incorrect. Now we're talking some serious $$$$... AND... delays. SOOOO... I'm asking those of you that actually have Frisco locomotive MODELS (armchairing doesn't count!): What are your "Good Enough" thresholds? WHAT will you accept... and what do you feel you MUST change to conform to prototype? Fire away! I'm interested to hear your modeling approaches! Andre Ming
Back in my HO days, I took an Athearn S12 model and did it up as a stand-in for DS4-4-1000 241, black & yellow. The shell was a bit wide, but it ran. For the U30Bs, SD45s and GP35, again I had to make do with Athearn "blue-box" diesels, wide hoods be hanged. For the longest time, they did the trick (I still have my U30Bs, the other having long since been retired). I added the appropriate detail parts (proper air horn, cab sunshades, lift rings, grab irons, L-shaped windows on the SD45s, MU hoses, plow pilots) to help carry the image.
good enough should stand for whats good for you,what makes you happy, other people should stop and think before they make a comment because it could turn on them somebody might not like whats good enough for them. i feel that as long as you are happy with the results that should be all that matters
Sounds like working in S scale is as tricky or trickier than modeling a 1915ish Frisco branchline. I'm guilty of using my "artistic license" to get me by. Late 19th century steamers aren't usually as subjected to rivit counters as are 20th century diesels but I go by old photos (when available) and I go for the overall look and feel of the prototype. For examle my 4-4-0 project loco for my Zalma Branch was done using a prototype photo but mine has a humped boiler and the protoype had a straight boiler. I just did this modification on another 4-4-0 for an 1876 built SL&SF RY loco so now I won't sleep good until I redo my first 4-4-0 branchline loco. Finding a suitable replacement detail part is always a fun quest in it's own right but there's nothing like taking a razor knife and hacking up a perfectly good model for the sake of improved accuracy. I guess in the longrun it all depends on how deep you want to go. I've always respected S scalers. Have fun.
Hey... good input! Thanks! (Didn't understand the spray paint input, though. ) 1915, eh? I love TOC19* railroading. (Turn Of The 19th Century.) I like to use my V scale medium for that, though. I know that in the long run, I mainly have to please myself. BUT... one would always enjoy other modelers viewing one's effort as "sincere". (Especially if it's a Frisco model being shared with other Frisco modelers.) To better illustrate what I'm talking about, here's a quick (and poor quality) snap shot showing a couple of S scale S-12's. I have already started modifying the undec one. (Note footboards, seams being sanded, etc.) I've also considered possibly modifying the existing trucks to look more like switcher trucks. Cut this off, cut that off, sand here... attach a stand-in brake cylinder: Presto. Possibly "Good Enough". In order to turn it into a DS4-4-1000, I would have to add frame "falsies" at the ends of the sidesills, create small cab windows above the hood, (though it appears these were painted over in the mid-sixties on SLSF 241), and a few other assorted tid-bits. In the final analysis... I think it could make an acceptable facimile for a Frisco DS4-4-1000... just depends on how much work I want to expend, huh? Andre
andre, looks great ! i dont model in s scale, cant afford that size but wish i could i have several projects i need to do when i find time, but anyway great job keep up the good work looking forward to seeing it done craig
Very nice indeed. I wonder if it's any easier to scratchbuild detail parts in S scale? One more note on my modeling approach. Paint and weathering go a long way towards creating a suitable representation and can sometimes mask model surgical scars or it can be a detail in it's own right. I realize most of us know this but there may be a new modeler reading this thread. Keep us posted on your progress. Jim
Craig: Like I said, the proportions and basics look "Baldwin". Some esthetic tweaking here and there might make a dandy lil' Frisco DS4-4-1000. Jim: Ahh... WEATHERING! I LOVE weathering! Most of my impressionable years were spent around railroads that were letting their 1st generation degenerate (as was the Frisco, Mop, KCS, etc.) and those that were in/or nearing bankruptcy. (Rock Island, for example.) So, tatty looking engines really stoke my modeling fires. In the past, my HO scale KC&G theme represented a line that was near (or in) bankruptcy. One that was having to "fix up and make do". Doing the theme this way allowed me to utilize weathering effects that I had witnessed on various line's motive power. Such things as eroding paint, battery leakage, oil leaks, you name it. So to, will my S scale version of the KC&G represent a line that is really struggling, and their motive power will reflect it. As mentioned in another thread, I have decided that the KC&G will be my "primary road" on my KC West Bottoms theme layout. Of course, the Frisco WILL be in evidence... but I also like the flexibilty and creativity allowed via protolancing. As another example of KC&G power, below is another dubious quality pic (I really need to learn how to photograph models "one of these days") of an HO KC&G F3 I modeled for my theme back in the mid-90's... Andre
Holy cow, that's fantastic. I like it when someone's not afraid to pour on the weathering without a heavy hand. I think we all have some artist in us and your work looks right on the money. Do you build other models such as military or ships?
Thanks Jim. Nope... I don't do military or ships... just trains. All the techniques were developed to reflect weathering effects I've seen (or seen in pictures). Like I said: Weathering really stirs my modeling juices. In regards to our topic of choice here (Frisco), from a weathering standpoint, the orange and white scheme can reflect weathering effects more vividly than the black and yellow scheme. Lighter colors show up modeled weathering effects better. Haven't done such weathering work in many years... so I'll have to dust off my skills in order to pick up where I left off. For the fun of it, here's another KC&G engine... Andre
Craigh: I totally agree with your statement. I am sure that as you grow older and more experienced what you find good enough now will not be good enough then. I know that is what happens to most modelers. All that really matters is that you are enjoying what you do and having fun. Keep it up and enjoy yourself! Bob Wintle MMR Parsons, Ks.
Bob_Wintle's admonition to enjoy modelling and do what satisfies you now, with the understanding that it will not be good enough in the future after more experience is right on the money. Oliver Wendell Holmes "The Chambered Nautilus" presents Bob's main ideas in a different way. The poem is at the link below. The core message is in the last verse. http://www.legallanguage.com/resources/poems/chamberednautilus/ George
In response to progress pics, here's one of what I've accomplished merely piddling. I don't think I want to retain the large diameter cast handrails. (The engine comes with both plastic and cast brass versions. Both are quite oversized.) So, thought I'd experiment to see if I could make my own (again). First order of business was to plug the existing holes and redrill. That done, figured I'd tackle the easiest first, so formed up some corner grabs in .022" brass. Worthwhile, IMHO. However, it's going to be a pain to fabricate/figure out something for the Y uprights needed on the end rails. Haven't decided at this point to convert it to a DS4-4-1000 and do a Frisco, or to keep it an S12 and let it become a KC&G engine. Decisions, decisions! Anyhoo... here's a pic to illustrate... Andre
This is a really good subject for every modeler to ponder. Everyone's response to the question is really a window into each modeler's philosophy about modeling. For someone like myself, with limited space and resources, "good enough" will be a lower standard than for someone who has more time and experience in the hobby. In my specific case, I'm not to a point where I want to be modifying my locomotives to match specific Frisco prototypes. So, I adjust my philosophy, and history, from exact prototype modeling to freelance-prototype. I want my locomotives and rolling stock to be close to prototype, but, since it is equipment that was absorbed into the Frisco from a made-up railroad, it doesn't matter if the details are not exact. This allows me to be satisfied with the models I have, they are 'good enough' for me to enjoy. Later, as I get more experience (and real estate), my philosophy may change.
