# How accurate to the prototype should I expect model trains to be?



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

How accurate to the prototype should I expect model trains to be?
I recently ordered a new locomotive (a Bachmann model # 63563). After doing a little research on the model number (EMD GP40) within seconds I found a WHOLE LOT OF INFO on the prototype loco. It seems that the manufacturer (Bachmann) used the wrong locomotive prototype number for their model (#63563). 
For the RR named Sante Fe, the locomotive model used was an EMD "GP 39-2" not "GP40" as described in the Bachmann catalog.
Should I ask Bachmann to make the correction?


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

Not really sure what you’re asking here. The 63563 is the Bachmann stock #. That’s a Santa Fe GP 40 with road number 3808. 
Are you saying that the prototype Santa Fe 3808 was actually a GP39-2? If so, then you need to realize that you are buying a model of a GP40 with that number, not an exact replica of Santa Fe 3808. 
Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your question.


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

ATSF 3808 wasn't a GP39-2 but a GP40X. Maybe he's annoyed that the model is of a "stock" GP40 but the number Bachmann gave it was of a pre-production model - there were only 23 of the things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP40X


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

it's not surprising that models are not very accurate for specific railroads considering that steam locomotives were often unique to a single railroad but models were sold with various railroad names. The believe the Rivarossi 2-8-8-2 was a model of the N&W Y6b but also sold with Pennsylvania name and Mantua sold camelback locos with AT&SF.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

GNfan said:


> ATSF 3808 wasn't a GP39-2 but a GP40X. Maybe he's annoyed that the model is of a "stock" GP40 but the number Bachmann gave it was of a pre-production model - there were only 23 of the things.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP40X


Could be. If that level of prototypical accuracy is required, then Bachmann is probably not the brand for that. 

There is a company called Scaletrains which has a line called ‘Rivet Counter.’ 
I don’t know if they have that exact model but one thing I am sure of: the price point will be considerably higher than Bachmann.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

tbarber1027 said:


> How accurate to the prototype should I expect model trains to be?


How much money do you have? If you spend thousands on a brass model, you can get pretty close.


----------



## D&J Railroad (Oct 4, 2013)

I would think Bachmann is hardly the model to expect any simalance to any prototype. Heck, I think that just putting the 4 wheel trucks on a GP unit is considered prototypically accurate for them.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

the more you pay, the more accurate to the prototype you can expect it to be ... in plastic not so much, in expensive brass more accurate


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Most locomotives and rolling stock offered by European companies is extremely detailed and very correct to the prototype. They are a bit fanatical about that sort of thing across the Pond. Right down to how my vents are on a grill plate, position of hoses, horns, and even the window trim and door latch hardware.

If you compare photos of the prototypes to the models they represent you won't find any discrepancies.

You can expect to pay a premium for that fanaticism too, but they are true to the prototype. They wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

You want accurate prototype (HO) models? 

One word.....Rapido.....


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

wvgca said:


> the more you pay, the more accurate to the prototype you can expect it to be ... in plastic not so much, in expensive brass more accurate


This is my experience as well. For a base-level plastic model by Bachman, you'll usually find that the roads are correct and the numbers and liveries are near-correct. However, you won't find unique prototype details (Filters, dynamic brakes, etc) for a certain model. I'm not surprised that the basic level Bachman line equated a GP40 and GP40X (which I think has different trucks), though it would have made more sense to simply number it for a proper GP40. 

I have a personal suspicion that companies sometimes deliberately make small mistakes like these on their lower-end locos to "encourage" folks to pay more for more prototypical models.

The good news for you is that GP40's in that livery are fairly common so it wouldn't be difficult to renumber it for a prototype that would be a near-perfect match.

These sort of discrepancies bother me not a whit, but for 5-7 times as much one can certainly acquire locomotives that are near-photographic in prototypical accuracy.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

One minor point in Bachman's favor. Despite my skepticism above, I do think that much of the time they do try their best to get things as right as possible within the range of what they have on hand. I have a GP35 Frisco 726. It's still a basic-level model but they did get the paint and model right and they put on the correct ALCO trucks that that particular numbered loco had. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know whether the finer details are correct but they seemed to do a pretty good job on that one. 

Interestingly I have two "train set" UP Bachman GP40s. They are surprisingly nice runners and on those they were nice enough to leave them un-numbered so there's a pretty good chance I can find a near-exact match and number them accurately myself.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Doesn't the term Prototype, indicate it was a proposed design of a PRE-PRODUCTION model.
The finished product may not appear the same as the prototype. Kind of a design variation as of yet not finalized ?

Dan


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Panther said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here.
> Doesn't the term Prototype, indicate it was a proposed design of a PRE-PRODUCTION model.
> The finished product may not appear the same as the prototype. Kind of a design variation as of yet not finalized ?
> 
> Dan


I could be misusing the term, but in model railroading I usually use prototype to designate a specific subject that a model is based on. 

So, someone might look at a model and ask if it represents a "Specific prototype". They aren't referring to pre-production source, rather, they are asking if it accurately reflects a specific real-world example.


----------



## GNfan (Jun 3, 2016)

Look at it this way: this is also a Bachmann product - a high short hood ATSF GP50 in a sort-of Warbonnet paint scheme numbered 8759. The real ATSF 8759 is a U36C! 

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/275460/


----------



## D&J Railroad (Oct 4, 2013)

I think the real point here is: Bachman makes truely toy trains for the kiddies to play with, running them into stuff on the track, sliding them on the hard floors, out in the sand box and thrown in the toy box with the other toy cars and airplanes. No sense in putting a lot of delicate detail on them that would be easy to break off when operated as a race train. 
On the other hand, they are someone's first step into the hobby where their minds eye fills in the details of the long heavy freight trains laboring through the long sweeping curves of the great mid west.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

D&J Railroad said:


> I think the real point here is: Bachman makes truely toy trains for the kiddies to play with, running them into stuff on the track, sliding them on the hard floors, out in the sand box and thrown in the toy box with the other toy cars and airplanes. No sense in putting a lot of delicate detail on them that would be easy to break off when operated as a race train.
> On the other hand, they are someone's first step into the hobby where their minds eye fills in the details of the long heavy freight trains laboring through the long sweeping curves of the great mid west.


You’re describing the old Bachmann. The new Bachmann is very much different. Much higher quality, good running and decently detailed. ( Ok, maybe not to the level the OP desires.). 
Difference between old and new- night and day. New meaning last 10 or so years ?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The general trend among locomotive manufacturers is that they will offer several lines, each progressively more detailed and accurate. You'll want to stick to the higher end models. Bachmann stuff is fair to middlin' in it's detail. Rapido, Walthers Proto, BLI Paragon, Athearn Genesis, Atlas Master, and Scale Trains Rivet Counter are the higher end models in injection molded plastic. Expect to pay about $350 to $500 w/ DCC and Sound. Or yes, there's always brass, if you can afford locos that cost $1000 each or more.

You can also buy lower end locos and make small modifications and detail parts yourself to make it just right.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Panther said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here.
> Doesn't the term Prototype, indicate it was a proposed design of a PRE-PRODUCTION model.
> The finished product may not appear the same as the prototype. Kind of a design variation as of yet not finalized ?
> 
> Dan


It's a fair question, but the term can mean both the first of a kind, including experimental designs, AND the _typical example_ of something. In our hobby, we use it to denote the latter, except of the real world rail equipment.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

tbarber1027 said:


> How accurate to the prototype should I expect model trains to be?
> ...


As a general rule, not much. First, they're toys, no matter how much we spend on them. True, the more costly they retail for, the more generally true-to-type you should expect them to be. 

Until perhaps eight years ago, a bit more, the train model lines were: 'toy set for under the Christmas tree', 'a good first set', and 'better models for enthusiasts and so-called 'serious' modellers.

That last group was broken down into premier plastic or zamac (called 'diecast metal'), hybrids, and all-brass, with the prices rising almost at an exponential rate.

Brass models and BLI's hybrids are advertised and sold as a specific type of locomotive, usually with some minor alternatives for 'as delivered', and 'post-war', and other caveats. They can be expected to be very close to the original prototypes. The other plastic offerings, Bachmann, BLI, MTH, Athearn, and others, all have lesser degrees of realism in added details and moldings, but their costs rise as the realism rises, and there's a lot of variability.

It helps a bit as the scales change as well. People expect more, and to see it, in O scale, whereas the affordable stuff in G tends to be almost toy-like and lacking in details.

Luckily, the healthy trend over the past 12 years has been to improve them, so that's a good thing. Mind you, the prices are rising as well.


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

GNfan said:


> ATSF 3808 wasn't a GP39-2 but a GP40X. Maybe he's annoyed that the model is of a "stock" GP40 but the number Bachmann gave it was of a pre-production model - there were only 23 of the things.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMD_GP40X


-------
When you say "23 of these things" do you mean the prototype loco or the model?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

He meant the prototype....the real ones.....

No toy manufacturer would only make 23 of something......they would never recoup their costs with so few sales.....


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

prrfan said:


> Could be. If that level of prototypical accuracy is required, then Bachmann is probably not the brand for that.
> 
> There is a company called Scaletrains which has a line called ‘Rivet Counter.’
> I don’t know if they have that exact model but one thing I am sure of: the price point will be considerably higher than Bachmann.


-------------
I just checked out the scaletrains.com website. VERY IMPRESSIVE! They are a new company (since 2015). Very high-quality operation. The prices are not that high. They sell a "RivetCounter" loco for only about $140.


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

D&J Railroad said:


> I would think Bachmann is hardly the model to expect any simalance to any prototype. Heck, I think that just putting the 4 wheel trucks on a GP unit is considered prototypically accurate for them.


-----
Which mainstream MFG would be better for prototype accuracy in N scale?


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

Old_Hobo said:


> You want accurate prototype (HO) models?
> 
> One word.....Rapido.....


---
I prefer N-scale myself.
I am SO GLAD that N-scale is surging in popularity!


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

Panther said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong here.
> Doesn't the term Prototype, indicate it was a proposed design of a PRE-PRODUCTION model.
> The finished product may not appear the same as the prototype. Kind of a design variation as of yet not finalized ?
> 
> Dan


----
I think in the context of model trains "prototype" means the real thing as opposed to the model.


----------



## wvgca (Jan 21, 2013)

tbarber1027 said:


> -----
> Which mainstream MFG would be better for prototype accuracy in N scale?





you have an obvious contradiction of terms ... mainstream is not prototypyically very accurate ...
it can't be due to the volume of parties it caters to ... rapido is plastic that is somewhat prototypically accurate, but has not reached mainstream quantities, or pricing , as an example


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> The general trend among locomotive manufacturers is that they will offer several lines, each progressively more detailed and accurate. You'll want to stick to the higher end models. Bachmann stuff is fair to middlin' in it's detail. Rapido, Walthers Proto, BLI Paragon, Athearn Genesis, Atlas Master, and Scale Trains Rivet Counter are the higher end models in injection molded plastic. Expect to pay about $350 to $500 w/ DCC and Sound. Or yes, there's always brass, if you can afford locos that cost $1000 each or more.
> 
> You can also buy lower end locos and make small modifications and detail parts yourself to make it just right.


------
I would NEVER pay $1000 for a model train. That's for people like Rod Stuart. I don't have that kind of budget. I am happy with the level of detal of Bachmann N-scale.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Well, you'll have to be happy with that level of prototypical then, which in Bachmann's case in N scale, is very limited......


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

mesenteria said:


> It's a fair question, but the term can mean both the first of a kind, including experimental designs, AND the _typical example_ of something. In our hobby, we use it to denote the latter, except of the real world rail equipment.


Even in the hobby of model railroading, the term Prototype can have different meanings.
While seaching for tinplate cars for example for my collection, periodically I will run across a sale of a prototype tinplate made by Marx. They usually are very different than are the production models.

Maybe the difference is in terminology as to what the model is of. 

If it's a Scale model , of an actual train in real world service. I feel the term should be "Scale Model". 

On the other hand, if it's a TOY rendition a proposed model, that is where in my mind the term Prototype fits best.



A prototype is something that serves as a model or inspiration for those that come later. Not necessarily based on an actual item in use in the real world. A proposed idea.


A scale model is a smaller version of an exact copy of the real world item being copied. This item should be as close as possible to the exact design of the original being copied.

So in the world of SCALE models, the word prototype really doesn't apply. Because the model is fixed and should not vary.


Dan
JMHO

For example:
Photo 1 is the real world locomotive.
Photo 2 is the Scale model Locomotive.

Next Page:
Photo 3 is the Toy prototype version one.
Photo 4 is the Toy prototype version two.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

prototype One.
Prototype Two.

Dan


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Panther said:


> Even in the hobby of model railroading, the term Prototype can have different meanings.
> While seaching for tinplate cars for example for my collection, periodically I will run across a sale of a prototype tinplate made by Marx. They usually are very different than are the production models.
> 
> Maybe the difference is in terminology as to what the model is of.
> ...


I can see why you feel that way, but the simple fact is that in the hobby of Model Railroading, an item's "prototype" generally simply refers to the real-world item a model is based on. That is the usage that most Model Railroaders are going to know and understand.

However, if you are referring to the hobby of collecting toy trains, then I can see where "Prototype" might be used differently in referring to pre-production models (often more collectible/valuable I presume), but that doesn't change it's accepted usage in model railroading.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

prrfan said:


> You’re describing the old Bachmann. The new Bachmann is very much different. Much higher quality, good running and decently detailed. ( Ok, maybe not to the level the OP desires.).
> Difference between old and new- night and day. New meaning last 10 or so years ?


I'd just like to register my agreement with this. Bachmann has grown by leaps over the years. That is not to say they don't have some lower end offerings that are more inaccurate, but they have come a long way and fill a very important niche for those of us who can't spend the amounts required by the cutting-edge producers.

It's not even that new of a thing. nearly 30 years ago Bachman was already producing the "Spectrum" products that -while not quite state-of-the-art today- were quite realistic and far ahead of the pancake-drive toy products that many folks still associate with Bachmann. 20 years ago Spectrum was folded into Bachmann proper and those Spectrum products have -with some changes- become the base-level(doesn't have it's own designation) of Bachman's Standard line which tend to be solid runners that are accurate reflections of a given model of locomotive if not necessarily of a specific prototype.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Potato potahto.....


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Old_Hobo said:


> Potato potahto.....


Prototo
Protato?


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

I speak only for myself.

I like the models to contain a relatively decent amount of details. They don't have to be 100% accurate (i.e., "rivet counter"), but I prefer "better than plain". For an example, a diesel should have the MU hoses on the ends, separately-applied grab irons, etc. I'll make exceptions and "let things pass" now and then (for example, an Atlas Trainman RS32, which is a fine runner despite its lack of MU hoses, which are hard to see anyway).

Having said that, I don't care if a particular engine number of a particular road doesn't exactly "match" the actual prototype engine detail-for-detail.

My Conrail GP38 #7993 (from Walthers Proto) may not have every detail the real one had, but still completely satisfies me, even if it's only 95% "correct".

Then again, I can "stretch reality" where needed.
I ran Amtrak trains for much of my career from 1979 until early 2012, and the engine I ran more than any other was the AEM-7. One of the all-time "great locomotives", it was the engine that saved Amtrak in the 1980's, and built the service on the Northeast Corridor.

So... I wanted one for my layout downstairs.
BUT... my line is a freight line, reminiscent of the days I worked local freight in my Conrail days. No room for passenger, the curves are too tight, wouldn't look right. And an engine painted for Amtrak wouldn't look right hauling a freight train.
So... how to fit an AEM-7 into this?
Fortunately, Atlas gave me the answer. How "real" _is this....?_
(But it _works for me...!_)


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Now you need some catenary.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

Eilif said:


> I can see why you feel that way, but the simple fact is that in the hobby of Model Railroading, an item's "prototype" generally simply refers to the real-world item a model is based on. That is the usage that most Model Railroaders are going to know and understand.
> 
> However, if you are referring to the hobby of collecting toy trains, then I can see where "Prototype" might be used differently in referring to pre-production models (often more collectible/valuable I presume), but that doesn't change it's accepted usage in model railroading.


I have been collecting Marx trains for 35 years. So this is not something I just brought to the table yesterday. I have also been model railroading since 1954. 
So to be contrary to your stance, the term Prototype has been used to describe working models of proposed of Marx trains not necessarily ,eant to represent duplications of real world trains. In O gauge Marx trains, it is and always has been a term used to describe a working model of a proposed production train. Used to show the design progression from drawing board to final for sale toy train. The term used to describe the duplication of a real world train into a working model of that train as a model, has in my experience always been a SCALE model.

So I propose that just because not everyone is familiar with all the terminology used, in all facets of model train production, does not mean it is the exclusive definition of the terminology. A prototype is the generational development of an idea from concept to reality, and the variations on the way. I fully understand your interpretation of the term, and accept it, but to say it is the definitive to model railroading is to discount portions of the hobby that do not follow that line of interpretation.
Once again, in the world of collecting MARX, your universal model railroad interpretation of the terminology, would not be understood well in the MARX community.

I might also add that if not for MARX, the train community might very well be much smaller than it is now.

The problem is, in your interpretation, you are calling the finished version a prototype. It's not. It is the FINAL rendition of all PROTOTYPICAL designs that proceeded the actual real world working model, the final design if you will. There were probably many prototypes, BEFORE the final design was agreed, on and produced. Whether in models or drawings.

In my photos above, based on MY experience in the world of MARX, I have taken a real world locomotive, The Daylight Special and have designed two working prototype models of that real world Daylight Special. I am currently working on what I hope to call the final variation, and that version will no longer be a prototype, it will be the model for all future Daylight Specials I build. So far I have built 5 of them based on two prototypes, modeled after real world locomotives. They are not scale models, as they are not exact duplicates of the original.

Dan


----------



## tr1 (Mar 9, 2013)

*Automatic transmission fluid*

What technique is employed when using ATF for lubrication?
:smilie_daumenpos: Thank you in advance,
Regards,tr1
tr1


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bachmann makes decent (not spectacular, but decent) running locomotives. Having said that, they are not well known for prototypical accuracy. And I use the word 'prototype' to denote the 1:1 scale locomotive upon which the model is based. 
2 examples, both of which are Bachmann locomotives I own.
1: The Union Pacific 4-8-4 #806. This locomotive came from a train set, _The Overland Limited_. Bachmann got a number of things correct with this locomotive. It is in a greyhound paint scheme. The 806 did spend time in a greyhound paint scheme. The accent striping on the model is yellow. While some UP locomotives had yellow accent striping, some had white. The 806 had yellow accent striping. However, there is one glaring boo-boo that Bachmann made here: The UP #806 is a 4-8-4 _Northern_, the model is a 4-8-4 _Niagara_! The easy way to tell is the smokestack. On a Northern, the top of the stack sits well above the top of the smokebox. On a Niagara, it's nearly flush, not very high at all. I guess since it was train set locomotive, they just used whatever they had on hand.
2: The Union Pacific 0-6-0 #4439. This locomotive has some historical significance in that it was the last steam locomotive used by a railroad on a regular basis in the Los Angeles area. The prototype was built by Baldwin in 1918. It was an oil burner from day one with a short Vanderbilt tender. The Bachmann 'model' is based on a USRA 0-6-0 with a short slope backed COAL tender. Why Bachmann couldn't have given it a Vanderbilt tender is beyond me, because in the same series they sell another UP 0-6-0 that does have a Vanderbilt tender! So Bachmann totally missed it with this one. (To see what I did to 'correct' this model, look here: http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/index.php?threads/bachmann-0-6-0-switcher-4439.30741/ )
So, to sum it up, I wouldn't expect a lot of prototypical accuracy from the lower priced manufacturers.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

tr1 said:


> What technique is employed when using ATF for lubrication?
> :smilie_daumenpos: Thank you in advance,
> Regards,tr1
> tr1


Insert the pointed end of a fairly hefty steel sewing needle into the end of about 3" of 1.4" wooden dowel. If it helps, pre-drill the hole with a pin vise and suitable sized bit. Use contact cement to fix the pin's sharp end in the hole.

Take an older pair of rail nippers or flush cutters and clip the top half of the eye, on the free end, to remove it and to leave two short tines.

Insert the tines into a thimble of ATF and then apply the tines and the lube to whichever part on the model needs that kind of treatment.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Panther said:


> I have been collecting Marx trains for 35 years. So this is not something I just brought to the table yesterday. I have also been model railroading since 1954.
> So to be contrary to your stance, the term Prototype has been used to describe working models of proposed of Marx trains not necessarily ,eant to represent duplications of real world trains. In O gauge Marx trains, it is and always has been a term used to describe a working model of a proposed production train. Used to show the design progression from drawing board to final for sale toy train. The term used to describe the duplication of a real world train into a working model of that train as a model, has in my experience always been a SCALE model.
> 
> So I propose that just because not everyone is familiar with all the terminology used, in all facets of model train production, does not mean it is the exclusive definition of the terminology. A prototype is the generational development of an idea from concept to reality, and the variations on the way. I fully understand your interpretation of the term, and accept it, but to say it is the definitive to model railroading is to discount portions of the hobby that do not follow that line of interpretation.
> ...


I hear you, but Eilif is correct as far as usage in the hobby, among hobby practitioners goes. Prototype is conventionally used to designate the real world item designated by a model.

Your usage is correct in terms of manufacturing, but since most hobbyists don't manufacture (one could even argue that you aren't manufacturing, either, but simply perfecting a modification to a model), we don't follow that usage of the term in hobby discussions.

This is the same concept as the word "switch". While on the prototype (the hobby definition), it refers to a track assembly which includes throwbar, points, switch stands, frogs, and stock rails, we call those "turnouts" to avoid confusion with the item that controls the flow of electricity.

In both cases, it's not WRONG to use either definition of the word, but most hobbyists won't immediately understand what you mean if you use the words in a way that doesn't conform to the typical hobby usage.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

Panther said:


> The problem is, in your interpretation, you are calling the finished version a prototype. It's not. It is the FINAL rendition of all PROTOTYPICAL designs that proceeded the actual real world working model, the final design if you will. There were probably many prototypes, BEFORE the final design was agreed, on and produced. Whether in models or drawings.


We're going round in circles brother. You are of course correct if speaking with those involved in the manufacturing of goods and products. 

It just happens to not be how model railroaders use the term. 

Perhaps we should consult Webster?

Definition of prototype:
1 : an original model on which something is patterned : ARCHETYPE
2 : an individual that exhibits the essential features of a later type
3 : a standard or typical example
4 : a first full-scale and usually functional form of a new type or design of a construction (such as an airplane)

Yep, we're both right, but context is everything and in the context of model railroading definition 1 is the common usage.


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

The fact is, in modeling circles, the word "prototype" is absolutely and commonly used to refer to the real-world thing being copied in model form, regardless of any other dictionary definition used in most other contexts. While this is a narrow usage in a specific field so it might not appear in most standard dictionaries, it is absolutely how the term is used in this context and it is pointless to argue about this. 

You could in fact apply a rather liberal interpretation of definition #1 from Eilif's post above to our common model-railroad usage of the term: "an original model on which something is patterned". The "original model" in this case being whatever the real world thing is (locomotive, car, building, tree, rock, etc.), and the "something ... patterned" is our model.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

Well It's nice to know that Marx is not included in the mainstream modeling process.

What the model railroad community calls a Prototype, is the FINAL version of previous Prototypes.
Can you name any product that went through research and development, where the first example of the item was the final version that went into production.

For the purpose of model railroading EXCEPT Marx, the final version of a locomotive in real world use, is not the prototype of that locomotive, it is the final design that followed previous PROTOTYPES. That is a universal process.

1-You have a concept.
2-You draw examples of your idea.
3-You build examples of your design. Prototypes.
4-Once the design has been developed into the final finished working real world version, that becomes your PRODUCTION Model. Of course you will make subtle design changes to improve the product throughout it's useful lifetime.
It's the final design put into practical every day use.
Now a Model railroad enthusiast will attempt to copy that real world object, ( Say for example Marx ) Your first attempt, UNLESS by some miracle it is your final attempt to reproduce the real world item would be considered YOUR FIRST PROTOTYPE.
That is how Marx developed it's line of toy trains.

That is also how every manufacturer I know of also develops a new product of a model copy of the real world item.

Here is an example of the real world design process. 


Using a prototype model enables you to demonstrate the concept of your product and discover any flaws. 
You have the opportunity to correct these flaws, or come up with solutions for improving the product. This reduces the risk of your product failing.

So in the world of model railroading, the prototype you used to copy your model, may very well not be what is the final design used.

You have left out a MAJOR step of the process. It's called The FINAL VERSION, THE PRODUCTION MODEL.

I fully understand, in model railroading that is NOT how it's done. That is fine, I just thought maybe you would like the proper chronology, from concept to Final product, in the real world.

Don't get so offended, IT"S JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION.
Do it however you like.
I love MARX trains. So I choose to do it as I like.


Dan


----------



## cv_acr (Oct 28, 2011)

You know what? Never mind...


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

The other day. My Mom and I were passing our local casino they are remodeling. As we passed we both looked. After we passed my Mom asked what the large dirt area was going to be used for. I asked Her What dirt area. All I saw was a new parting lot with Concrete block planters placed throughout the lot. She asked me what planters.
I turned around and went back to the casino.

There in plain site was a very large large open dirt area, that I had not seen. 
She also said She had not seen the new planters and repaved parting lot. 
Was SHE wrong, or Was I wrong. Neither, we both witnessed the exact same area, but had very different interpretation. I am certainly glad I did not say You know what,but instead went back and reviewed the evidence. It was all a matter of perspective, BOTH based on EYE WITNESS accounts, that were VERY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. 
I will make sure to use your advice and tell my Mom she was wrong. 

It's an opinion. 
Interpretation based on my understanding of the facts, as I see and apply them.

Your Mileage may vary.



Dan


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

CTValleyRR said:


> I hear you, but Eilif is correct as far as usage in the hobby, among hobby practitioners goes. Prototype is conventionally used to designate the real world item designated by a model.
> 
> Your usage is correct in terms of manufacturing, but since most hobbyists don't manufacture (one could even argue that you aren't manufacturing, either, but simply perfecting a modification to a model), we don't follow that usage of the term in hobby discussions.
> 
> ...


---------------
Thanks for the clarification on terminology.
Somebody should write up a glossary of model RR terms.


----------



## prrfan (Dec 19, 2014)

tbarber1027 said:


> CTValleyRR said:
> 
> 
> > I hear you, but Eilif is correct as far as usage in the hobby, among hobby practitioners goes. Prototype is conventionally used to designate the real world item designated by a model.
> ...


You mean like this? 
https://www.nmra.org/beginners-glossary


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Would you look at that....the NMRA glossary list of model railroading terminology has the same definition of prototype than the huge majority (all but one) of us here have:



> prototype — the real thing. That from which we are making our model


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Panther said:


> Well It's nice to know that Marx is not included in the mainstream modeling process.
> 
> What the model railroad community calls a Prototype, is the FINAL version of previous Prototypes.
> Can you name any product that went through research and development, where the first example of the item was the final version that went into production.
> ...


Marx is a manufacturer, not a hobbyist. QED. 'Nuff said.

No one is offended. As I said before, you're free to March to your own drummer. Just don't expect others to immediately understand what you are talking about.


----------



## tbarber1027 (Nov 18, 2019)

Old_Hobo said:


> Would you look at that....the NMRA glossary list of model railroading terminology has the same definition of prototype than the huge majority (all but one) of us here have:


----
I've worked for many years in engineering so I LOVE standards! 
There are many industry-specific examples for the usage of words and terms. The NMRA is great for the entire industry. 
I had never heard of the MFG Marx before. They seem to be focused more on toys for kids than intricately detailed scale models for adult collectors.


----------



## Eilif (Nov 6, 2017)

tbarber1027 said:


> ----
> I had never heard of the MFG Marx before. They seem to be focused more on toys for kids than intricately detailed scale models for adult collectors.


If I may be permitted to tilt us even more off-topic.. 
That's mostly true. However, there was a time in the distant past when Marx had some model railroad products that were as good as most. By today's standards though they are pretty toylike. I don't know for sure but I think there might even be some Marx tooling in the Ex-Mantua/ModelPower HO line that Lionel is currently producing.


----------



## Panther (Oct 5, 2015)

Old_Hobo said:


> Would you look at that....the NMRA glossary list of model railroading terminology has the same definition of prototype than the huge majority (all but one) of us here have:


Just curious, which is it ?

Dan


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Almost always, even the lowest-cost, "inexact" models will have the same number of wheels as the prototype, and look something like it. Occasionally that is about all you can say. 

Like GRJ said, if you spend A LOT you can get very close - almost exact. But if you avoid the custom, limited run locos, and pay less, (say a couple of grand for a high end Lionel or MTH O-Gauge loco) you get scale size and proportions and most detials right, although occasionally there are "approximations" where the it isn't _exactly _right. One other problem the manufacturer has is that most locos in a class (e.g., GP40) varied in their looks from one to the other, sometimes by quite noticeable, obvious differences such as later units having a different cab shape or windshield shape/angle. Which one does the manufacturer decide to make?


----------

