Form Or Function

the visual appeal is important to me -- very important.

Bob C.

Looks are everything, especially for tinplaters like myself.

Visually appealing wins every time fo me. 

Aesthetics all the way for me.  I do not care if it is prototypical or not.

I go for what looks good, but also what looks reasonably credible. I prefer a train consist to be items of about the same era, even it includes "Lionel Lines" and other 3-rail whimsies. I've mixed prewar and postwar items and different brands, if they have the same general proportions to look OK in the same train. I avoid getting identical cars for the sake of variety. It might be more prototypical for a 1950's train to have mostly brown boxcars but I don't find that particularly appealing visually.

I am not a rivet counter but I mostly like to run trains that mimic prototypical trains. I love Schnabel cars but I model mostly Pennsylvania RR and the Schnabel car was introduced after the "Standard of the World" was no more. I won't buy a Schnabel car for my Pennsy trains. You won't find a vista dome on my Pennsy or my N&W passenger sets but I have 3 on my Empire Builder set. I try to run freight that is typical for the time period I model. Of course I like stuff that looks good but to me a model of a prototype railroad looks good. I do own some sets that are pure fantasy. I have a Looney Tunes set and a NY Yankees set that I also like to run. 

Definitely looks, heck I'm not sure what prototypical even looks like.

Dan Padova posted:

When looking for equipment for your railroad do you go for asthedics or functionality.  Would you prefer a locomotive or rolling stock to be pleasing to the eye or are you more concerned with what would have been reality on the big Lionel set.  

For me, as much as I like seeing and learning about actual prototype practice, the train has to have a certain eye pleasing appeal.  

For instance, a train made up of miss-matched passenger cars and a Geep is not eye pleasing to me, as much as I know, it was probably in the majority especially toward the end of the fifties and certainly in the sixties.   

I recently had to do battle with the 4 F's - function, form, fit, finish.  And while I may think visual appeal (finish) rules the roost - I wouldn't be looking if there wasn't some function I was wanting to address.

Prototypical to me is what I saw in the 50's Lionel catalogs.

If you couldn't see... I doubt there would be this hobby. Looks might not be everything; but, overall, probably the most important SUBJECTIVE aspect...

I like, both, looking and operating; so, function is very important, too.  My senses don't enjoy being exposed to stuff, that doesn't fit my ideals...

Rick

David Nissen posted:

Prototypical to me is what I saw in the 50's Lionel catalogs.

My first postwar Lionel train was a 2175 set from 1951. Nice items, but the scale F3 locos are noticeably larger than the "semi-scale" freight cars and don't look so good together IMO.

For me it is all about eye pleasing. I do not know about the history of any rail line nor would I know what a prototypical train looks like.  My train purchase decisions are based on what interests me and what I think is neat looking. 

However I do admire all the folks whose interests are aimed at prototypical and historically accurate.  Their layouts are equally entertaining as toy train layouts are.

Ed

The 2175 sure does look nice and brings fond memories.

I suspect that Lionel felt that how it looked was as important as how it functioned and perhaps more than prototype reality. If you do nothing more than compare colors especially of the F series diesels you will see that while true to the prototype theme the actual color selection and shaping of the various roads had a lot to do with eye appeal to a young person rather than absolute prototype fidelity.

I've always felt that whomever did color selection for Lionel had a keen sense of what children will find attractive.

Bogie

I like it prototypical but everyone should run what pleases them.

Mikey

Dan Padova posted:

For me, as much as I like seeing and learning about actual prototype practice, the train has to have a certain eye pleasing appeal. 

This is true for me as well.  For that reason, I tend to run a lot of unit trains rather than mixed freight.

My formula for what I buy and how I run trains, takes pages from many of you. I have a fairly broad era that everything should fit into, mid 70's through mid 2000's. There is also locale, which for me is Minnesota, around the Twin Cities. So, whatever runs around here is fair game, which with pool power, means almost any road name works, though home roads are favored.

My goal is to create the general feel of a real railroad, in both looks and operation, without getting too hung up on small details. I'm no rivet counter. My railroad is more like a stage production. The actors need to be convincing in their performances.

I guess to answer Dan's original question, I can't pick, I need some of both to get the job done.

I try to stick with my favorite road names......and then look at visually pleasing offerings in each....However, it the colors are right, I can fall for a road name/engine outside my usual.

I'm a NYC/NH/Conrail/NYO&W fan........but, if you show me a blue/white/yellow D&H set, I'll fall for it every time.

Dan, hope to run into you later today.

Peter

With my intention to model a fictional railroad set in fictional timeframe of the late 60's -early 70's, from the point of view of the 1950's, pretty much anything is fair game.  As the fictional railroad in question pooled all locomotives and rolling stock of any age I'll have no problem with cars and engines from different eras running side by side.  

When it comes down to it, I run whatever looks good, and do not care a bit about prototypical looks.  That said, I tend to prefer scale/well detailed engines and rolling stock over more toy-like versions.  Most of what I own is traditional sided due to my budget, and as long as it doesn't look too mis-matched, I'll keep running it even if the budget improves.  Still love tin plate as well, but it won't have a home on my main layout.  

JGL

The John Galt Line - A la Atlas Shrugged.

Putnam Division posted:

I try to stick with my favorite road names......and then look at visually pleasing offerings in each....However, it the colors are right, I can fall for a road name/engine outside my usual.

I'm a NYC/NH/Conrail/NYO&W fan........but, if you show me a blue/white/yellow D&H set, I'll fall for it every time.

Dan, hope to run into you later today.

Peter

I like what Lionel did with the NYC lightening stripe trim coloring the white to red. That really sharpens the look. I can't find anything that says red trim striping on that scheme ever happened in the 1 to 1 world.

Bogie

To me this is more of a do-what-I-like vs realism question, and like Pat I'm not a rivet counter but do like to be as prototypical as possible.  For example, my passenger trains are a mix of lightweight, heavyweight, and head-in cars with various paint schemes, just like the real railroads did in the late 40s on.  I don't have any Hudsons with PRR painted on them, but I don't mind model boxcars that aren't prototypically accurate as long as it is close and has a paint scheme that was near accurate for my era.  I guess I'm doing what I like on my mostly prototypical layout.

I like to think that on my layout, currently in the building stage, form follows function in that the shape of the layout is based upon its intended function of some loop running with switching opportunities.

Putnam Division posted:

I try to stick with my favorite road names......and then look at visually pleasing offerings in each....However, it the colors are right, I can fall for a road name/engine outside my usual.

I'm a NYC/NH/Conrail/NYO&W fan........but, if you show me a blue/white/yellow D&H set, I'll fall for it every time.

Dan, hope to run into you later today.

Peter

I'll be there Friday.  

Good topic...I would say I am 50%/50%. I love how the old prewar switchers look and I love the history behind them, but I don't care what the original sets were made up of and don't mind mixing prewar with postwar. On my last switching layout I had no problem glueing a chuck of coal in place as a bumper. 

Tom

CAPPilot posted:

To me this is more of a do-what-I-like vs realism question, and like Pat I'm not a rivet counter but do like to be as prototypical as possible.  For example, my passenger trains are a mix of lightweight, heavyweight, and head-in cars with various paint schemes, just like the real railroads did in the late 40s on.  I don't have any Hudsons with PRR painted on them, but I don't mind model boxcars that aren't prototypically accurate as long as it is close and has a paint scheme that was near accurate for my era.  I guess I'm doing what I like on my mostly prototypical layout.

I like to think that on my layout, currently in the building stage, form follows function in that the shape of the layout is based upon its intended function of some loop running with switching opportunities.

Exactly. Over on G Scale Central, there is Rule 8.  Run what you like, how you like, etc, etc,etc.  If it makes you happy, great !

I try to run as prototypical as I can on O36 curves on a 48" by 76" layout. Modeling L&N with a touch of NC&StL in the mid 1950's. The most extreme measure so far was having Brother Love paint my Lionel Legacy Southern RR ALCO S-2 in L&N (black with appropriate graphics and road number)