Selecting
an era is a complex process made of conflicting interests. Most of the time, we
want to find an era that suits our tastes which is often an intricate blend of
operations, rolling stock, motive power, location, scenery and nostalgia.
The big
problem is that most of the time, these interests doesn’t converge in a single
point in history. Maybe the motive power you like didn’t run when that beautiful
station was still standing. Maybe the rolling stock available isn’t suitable
for the era you want to model. Add to that the fact documentation, particularly
on less mainstream roads, is often about a specific time and doesn’t cover the
entire history of the prototype. No wonder many modellers decide to focus their
energy on a decade rather than a specific year. I know it, I do it myself;
modeller’s license oblige.
In the case
of Temiscouata, documentation about the road dates mainly from the late 1940s
when the line was considered an artefact of the past and draw attention of
railfans and magazines. Some information can also be deducted from the National
Transcontinental and Canadian Pacific back in the late 1910s when Edmunston was
a burgeoning railway hub. Finally, a panoramic picture of Connors taken few
years after the line was built in the mid-1890s gives us the best view of the
area and the only reliable primary source about the track plan and structures.
There’s enough to have a decent portrait of the line, but some zones stay in
shadows.
To be
honest, a driving to most modellers are locomotives and this passion often dictate
the era they prefer. It is quite a “superficial” criterion among many others,
but it fuels our interest. In that respect, when you decide to model an obscure
prototype, you first question is to find suitable motive power. Sure, you will
have to kitbash a lot and you need to make sure there are good models available.
Some bashes are so complex they can make a layout not viable.
In the case
of Temiscouata, the roster was composed of 14 locomotives over 60 years of
existence. It was mainly 4-4-0 for passenger and mixed trains and 4-6-0 for
freight trains. A 2-6-0 oddball was tried for less than a year but was quickly
traded for a 4-6-0. While this particular locomotive has an interesting
backstory, I’m still questioning if it should drive the era choice. That’s a
little bit far-fetched.
The good
news about Temiscouata roster is that quality plastic models are available at
decent price on the market. Among them are Bachmann Modern 4-4-0, Mogul 2-6-0
and Ten Wheeler 4-6-0. You can also add the AMH/IHC/Rivarossi Old Time 4-4-0 if
you improve the drive.
Knowing
that, how do we select an era? That’s a good question and I decided to
translate the roster into a timeline using the years each locomotive was in
service. The result is interesting and fits the financial situation of the
company I know of. I think I should have done this graphic before when tackling
other projects. It could also be adapted to passenger and freights cars.
The first
locomotives were a mix of used and brand new 4-4-0. Except an antiquated 1872
4-4-0 bought to build the road, Temiscouata was largely operated with
state-of-the-art locomotives from the start. Most acquisition occurred in 1888 before regular service started in 1889.
In 1903,
Temiscouata’s business seems to have started to pick up and two used 4-4-0 were
added to the roster. They were quite old locomotives and their service lives
didn’t last long since they were retired in 1909.
In 1909,
Temiscouata was quite prosperous. In fact, the 1900s and 1910s were excellent and
a project to connect the line with Quebec Central was still discussed in
London. Under such conditions, Temiscouata ordered three brand new 4-6-0 from
1909 to 1911. During that period, they also tried the new 2-6-0 I talked before
which was unsatisfactory and quickly traded for an almost new 4-6-0 from the
connecting National Transcontinental Railway. At the same time, a used but
still recent 4-6-0 was also added to the roster.
Up until
1920, the roster had about 9 locomotives available, making an interesting mix
of 1880s and 1910s engine. However, in 1920, Temiscouata scrapped or sold to
industrial railway many of its original fleet of 4-4-0. Of interest is the fact
they were only replaced by two 1888-vintage 4-4-0 acquired from Quebec Central.
I’m still wondering why 1888 locomotives were traded for 1888 locomotives.
Looking at #11 and #12, it appears these locomotives were somewhat more
powerful and probably modernized by Quebec Central. On the other hand, the
original ones were less powerful and probably of a more obsolete design. Maybe
they had mechanical failure too. Hard to tell since this is pure speculation on
my part. That said, from 1921, the roster didn’t change until the line was
closed. According to available information, about half the fleet was not in
service by 1948, showing the decline in activity.
Now, from a
layout standpoint, what’s the most interesting era knowing kitbashing the
locomotive won’t be a problem?
For the
sake of variety in term of locomotive types and traffic, the 1910s can be
considered the heyday. You have a mix of old locomotives still in service and
brand new ones. Special business cars were common occurrence on passenger
trains to bring wealthy patrons to hunting and fishing camps. Freight traffic
was high and old photographs show a variety of long gone Canadian historic
railways such as Grand Trunk Pacific, Intercolonial, National Transcontinental,
Canadian Pacific and many others. This era is seldom modelled in Canada, which
is a shame (more on that later). Most freight cars will be craftman kits,
kitbashed or scratchbuilt. This is a big but rewarding challenge.
The next
interesting era is the 1920s. No particular year. Only the modern locomotives
were in service except for an old 4-4-0 which I have of picture of. The
locomotive paint scheme of that era is also well documented. Traffic was still
decent and suitable freight cars are readily available. I already own many of
them. Definitely, a very nice era to model.
Finally,
the late 40s are the easiest to model. The roster is reduced to easily
kitbashed locomotives and cars are not a problem at all. Pictures of the
structure at that time are available and I also have a good description of
consists. At that time, passenger trains were replaced by mixed trains, which
is extremely interesting from an operation standpoint.
Personally,
I’m not eager to say an era is better than another. They all have strong
points. However, to be truly pragmatic, I’d say it is more realistic to stick
with the 30s and 40s first since I have a good deal of suitable rolling stock and
locomotives. The physical plant didn’t really change since the last big
investments in the early 1910s and it could be easy to backdate the layout
later or to simply run older material from time to time.
Salut, Matthieu:
ReplyDeleteOne of the advantages of concentrating on a small, out of the way place such as Connors is the fact that very little changed over time. As you've noted, this would allow you to enjoy building equipment for, and operating, more than one era. It would be relatively simple to swap out vehicles and other details to convert the Connors of the 1940s to the Connors of the 1910s - perhaps changing eras every six months or so.
At the extreme, you might want to build two models of each railroad structure (the station, the freight house) and detail them differently. The 1910s models could be relatively well-cared-for, while the 1940s models might show more signs of aging and neglect.
Each structure could be mounted on a base that could be easily swapped in and out of the layout so you can enjoy the different eras. With so few structures to model, that's not an overwhelming prospect.
Cheers!
- Trevor (Port Rowan in 1:64)
Hi Trevor,
DeleteThis is exactly the scenario I've envisionned over the last few weeks. Building twice each structure wouldn't be that demanding and there's certainly a lot of interest in experimenting two different weathering approach.
As for locomotives, they were extensively reshopped in their later life. By example, the brand new and later life of Temiscouata #8 is well documented. It would be fun to have both models. For other motive power, selecting different locomotives for different eras would also be an excellent way to differenciate both eras easily.
I agree: no one era is "better" than another. It is a question of which suits your needs an circumstances at the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is also true or virtually any choice with modelling: scale, location, railroad, level of detail, form of control, etc.
Ironically, because an option if the "best" choice for you, that doesn't make it a better choice than the other options overall.
Simon
I agree: no one era is "better" than another. It is a question of which suits your needs an circumstances at the time.
ReplyDeleteThis is also true or virtually any choice with modelling: scale, location, railroad, level of detail, form of control, etc.
Ironically, because an option if the "best" choice for you, that doesn't make it a better choice than the other options overall.
Simon