That's not prototypical!

[modelbob]

I really enjoy model railroading and first and foremost I believe it should be fun. I also think that what a person does on their layout is their choice, and as long as they're happy with it, what anyone else thinks doesn't matter.

As some of you may recall, I'm the fellow who has a PRR GG1, Sounder and SP Daylight, and is merrily planning a layout for all 3 (For those of you unfamiliar with them, one runs currently in the Pacific NW, the other 2 ran 50 years ago in Pennsylvania and California, and NEVER were in the same place...)

So, I try hard to not be a nitpicker. But there are a few things that really drive me nuts. Most of them relate to the technical and engineering aspects. For example, it's not too uncommon to see a bridge that's just plain wrong, such as having the piers in places they wouldn't be on the real thing.

This month's Model Railroader has a nice article on making scenery using that pink foam board as a support. The concept is quite good, and the technique will work well.

The one thing that really annoyed me was that if I read it correctly he said he's creating a 3 track tunnel for his yard. That raised a real red flag for me. That's just something that wasn't done, at least not on a coal line in the Appalachians!

Yes, I'm sure somebody can show me an Alpine railway in Switzerland with an entire underground yard and station, and lots of subway lines and big city terminals had multi-track tunnels. But those are special cases and not a coal hauler in the mountains. While the miners did make lots of tunnels, drilling a tunnel, especially one big enough for a railroad car, is very expensive. You don't build one 3 tracks wide unless you have a VERY compelling reason. I can overlook a lot of stuff on a model railroad, but some things just really bug me.

So, what would I have done instead? I'd have installed a highway overpass or a mine structure crossing the tracks. Then placed lots of trees behind. The track could actually go into a tunnel at that point, with the trees disguising the fact. It's quite common for railroads in coal country to go out of site, and they often disappear in "a tunnel of trees". It's not as common for it to be an actual rock tunnel.

What do the rest of you think? Am I being too nitpicky?

[leghome]

Your ideas sound logicial to Modelbob. My model railroad sems to be similar to yours in that I have several locos that I will run that are from diferent times frames and I love it that way. It is my railroad and I WILL RUN on it what I want when I want and how I want. I do not think you are nitpicking you are having fun with your RR and htat is what a hobby is FUN or it is not a hobby naymore.

[RCH]

Okay, so a three track tunnel in the Appalachians isn't realistic... if you were to build it yourself. But what if nature built it for you?

http://community.webshots.com/photo/31939839/34658957PWdXkt

Now, there's only one track there, but who's to say you couldn't fit three in there?

That's Natural Tunnel State Park in Duffield, Virginia, by the way (not my photo).

[modelbob]

> Now, there's only one track there, but who's to say you couldn't fit three in there?

Apparently Mother Nature says so. :) If you read the recent article in Railfan and Railroad magazine, you'll note that they actually had to drill a short man-made tunnel at one point inside of the natural tunnel to get the single track through there.

There's also a stream inside, which actually didn't allow for much room for more than one track.

On the other hand, should you decide to model it, and say that you could fit three tracks in there, that's fine. If a modeler makes a choie to do something like that, no matter how unusual, that's his/her choice. I do feel that modelers should realize when something they are modeling is rather unique, unusual or unlikely. That way they can at least make an informed choice.

[RCH]

I didn't know about the drilled section. I was just being cute with you anyway, Bob. ;)

But I agree with you on the spirit of your post. I wouldn't do a three track tunnel. I've done one single track tunnel and it was a royal pain, even with carefully planned and executed access to the dark side of the track. If I do tunnels again, I'll make sure they're along a backdrop and that I can easily get behind the backdrop to remove access panels.

Now about informed choice. I'm kind of split on that when it comes to some things. If somebody tells you that the Athearn U33C you've just spent 3 months detailing, custom painting and weathering is a foot too wide in the long hood, it might take the wind out of your sails. Of course, it might not bother you one bit. I'd just hate to be the messenger in the first case. However, in the instance you're talking about (scenery), I think you're right on the mark.

[modelbob]

> If somebody tells you that the Athearn U33C you've just spent 3 months
> detailing, custom painting and weathering is a foot too wide in the long
> hood, it might take the wind out of your sails.

You know, I guess that's what distinguishes what bugs me from what doesn't...

Things like 3 track tunnels in the middle of nowhwere bother me. Bridges that are obviously wrong (such as a truss bridge, designed to be end supported, with piers at the middle, or a suspension bridge, which railroads rarely used). Both of these are areas I'm familiar with, but also they're things that are obvious at a glance, without a scale rule or magnifying glass.

Small error and ommisions, or things that are close, but not quite exact, don't bother me. Close enough works well for me.

However, when a glaring error shows up, (What constitutes "glaring" will depend on the viewer, and their areas of expertise) then you tend to shatter the illusion. It's a lot like watching a movie that's supposed to be in the late 1800's and suddenly you see a freeway in the background or a jet plane etc.

When you model something that was very rare, you're asking folks to believe your railroad did something most didn't. That may be intentional, such as when you model a unique prototype. You may also have a good story as to why your line did that or has this etc. But again, I'd suggest you at least be aware of such things.

[Roger Hensley]

>When you model something that was very rare, you're asking folks to believe your railroad did something most didn't. That may be intentional, such as when you model a unique prototype. You may also have a good story as to why your line did that or has this etc. But again, I'd suggest you at least be aware of such things.

That's no different from your running equipment from different railroads and eras on your railroad. It's called Modeler's License. :-)

[modelbob]

> It's called Modeler's License. :-)

Yes, you're correct, and I think that's just fine.

I guess what bothered me about this article is that it was presented in Model Railroader, so a lot of modelers would see. I don't recall (though maybe I missed it) the article saying "this would have been unusual" or some such.

So a lot of folks who are new to the hobby read the article and say "Hey, I'll do that", not knowing enough about railroads to know it's a case of using modeler's license.

I have the same issue with manufacturers offering rolling stock in roads it never ran on without noting it's fictional. If they note it's their interpretation, then fine, they can paint it whatever colors they want. If you want to run a "Milwaukee" GG1 on your layout by all means, go for it. But I think the manufacturer should at least tell you that they didn't actually have one. Again, that gives you an informed choice.

As an example, I've got an SP dome car I run in my daylight consist since I like domes. An SP modeler told me "they didn't use dome cars". I'm not really sure if he's right or not, and haven't had time research it to find out. Had the manufacturer noted which cars were accurate and which were freelance, I might have opted for another coach instead. Or maybe I'd still have bought the dome car, knowing it wasn't accurate. But at least I'd know for certain.

On the other side of things, I saw a repaint of an Amtrak Genesis into PRR colors on a trainsim sight, and I thought it was really neat. In fact I plan on downloading it. But the fellow who did the re-paint was also careful to note it was hypothetical, and I feel that was a good choice. I don't mind freelancing, I just like to know what's historical and what's hypothetical.

As long as you realize when you're making a chance to vary from the prototype, I'm all for it. But I guess I felt MR should have told folks a bit more detail in this case. That would at least allow folks who want to be as accurate as possible the information they need to try and do that.

[jeffjan2001]

i thnk the term that you are looking for is: HOBBY-thetical :D :rolleyes: :D
it may not be accurate, but by golly i'm modelling it that way! :) :p :)

[leghome]

We have a guy here in Central who is a NYC fan. He has taken the lightening bolt scheme and adapted it to a modern day loco. I can not remember if he did the actual loco or just designed it. Looks real good to me even though it never existed.

[JeffShultz]

Modelbob - sounds like you need to include something like Brooklyn Roundhouse (in Portland, OR of all places), and have the local branch of the Railroad Historical Society running some of your trains.

[lemscate]

The vibe I'm getting here is that a realistic model railroad is created through suspension of disbelief and not so much strict adherance to prototypical detail. This has long been one of my core modeling principles, and is worthy of an essay that someday I may get around to writing.

For those who aren't familiar, suspension of disbelief is used by theatre and novels to create reality. Basically, if there is no egregious plot device or character, then the audience will suspend their disbelief that it is a story and not reality. This applies to model railroads in that if the creator does not have some blatantly unprototypical or realistic facet, then visitors will 'forget' that it is a model, or that what it models is not actually extant.

The problem with this three track tunnel is that is just would not happen. Anyone who has any background in railroading, or any economics or business for that matter, would immediately realize that carving a three track wide hole through rock is not cheap. Railroads, of course, exist to make money: a key component of which is not spending excessive amounts to make some. This is why double tracks converge to single immediately before bridges or tunnels. In this particular case, which is American coal roads, this fact would be quite apparent; an important characteristic of American freight railroads is that there are few trains that haul low priority cargo over vast distances. This minimizes the amount of capital available and need to invest in multiple high speed/high maintenance tracks to move the trains. Thus, anyone who has studied American railroads for any significant period of time would immediately notice a problem with a triple track tunnel, especially if those are yard tracks and not mainline. There is just no way that it would ever have been created, and therefore sticks out like a sore thumb. A blatant design flaw such as this destroys the suspension of belief enough to make the viewer cringe.

It is interesting to note how something like this that seems innocent when being described can be detrimental, whereas other facets that would at first thought seem horribly unrealistic can go unnoticed. This is in reference to many compromises that modelers make in good faith. The wide hood Athearn units previously cited are a good example. The excess width is obvious upon close inspection, and one would think that such an error on a highly scrutinized object (hey, it does lead the trains) would hurt the realistic feel of the model railroad. However, it does not actively impair the mood, because there is no compelling reason that the real thing wouldn't have a wide hood, and the viewer ignores it, because it is (or was at one time) needed to house the motor that moved the train. This problem takes advantage of the suspension of disbelief, as the viewer 'writes it off' as a necessary evil. Those three tracks running under the mountain, however, just weren't necessary or realistic.

Hope I didn't put anyone to sleep. :]

[modelbob]

> The vibe I'm getting here is that a realistic model railroad is created
> through suspension of disbelief and not so much strict adherance to
> prototypical detail. This has long been one of my core modeling principles,
> and is worthy of an essay that someday I may get around to writing.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. (Unfortunately I'm apparently better at writing computer code than literature.)

"Suspension of belief" is the main reason that I would object to a 3 track tunnel in a yard, but not to the brand new New York Central locomotives mentioned earlier.

The tunnel would look like a mistake to me. There's no logical reason for it, even in an "alternative universe". Granted, some model railroader might come up with a plausible story for why it exists ("the mine needed service so bad they used their mining equipment to drill it for us!"). But without such a "back story" it just looks like an error.

On the other hand, the NYC loco is obviously done intentionally, and the modeler is asking you to believe that in his version of things, the NYC is still running. That's perfectly acceptable in my opinion. He has a "back story" stating that for whatever reason NYC is still around and this is what it would look like today. It's reasonably plausible, even though it's different than what actually occured, and so we can still easily believe it to be possible.

You know, I think that "plausibility" may be the key here. Can you reasonably, and easily, accept what you're viewing as plausible? It doesn't have to be "correct", as in corresponding to the prototype, only technically possible. The easier it is to believe, the more plausible it would seem, and the easier it is to become immersed in the model world.

[CBCNSfan]

The vibe I'm getting here is that a realistic model railroad is created through suspension of disbelief and not so much strict adherance to prototypical detail.HuH! Whuts dat yuh sez?
Well along the same lines, the viewer sees what he wants to see. It would be difficult to model a village let alone a town or city, yet if the modeler incorporates a few models with recognisable features suggestive of prominant structures the viewer sees the the town in his mind. In fact they believe what they want to believe. I have seen this at various model RR shows, in fact a friend of mine purchased a locomotive in CB&CNS livery, He was proudly describing it to me, emphasizing that it even had the name "John Galt" just like the loco that delivered the coal hoppers to the power plant where he worked. In this case I just kept my mouth shut as the loco he had purchased was a SD40-2. The prototype John Galt was a MLW Century 630M (Alco). Here in NS I'm positive you'll not find a RR tunnel, however it became necessary for me to have one. In keeping with operations of a shortline, my tunnel is single track. So far, whether through politeness or ignorance, no one has mentioned this discrepancy. I believe when a model builder is freelancing, (departing from the prototypical) or doing his own thing, that he has a right to do so called a "modelers license", however it is also his duty to make the scene believable to the viewer, and in the case of a three track tunnel, I'm glad it's not me that has to make that convincing.
Cheers Willis

Hmm! I see Bob finished his post before me :D

[modelbob]

I believe when a model builder is freelancing, (departing from the prototypical) or doing his own thing, that he has a right to do so called a "modelers license", however it is also his duty to make the scene believable to the viewer...

Yes, that's it exactly! We both agree on that point. "Believable", "Plausible", "Suspension of Belief". They all say about the same thing, make the view feel like it really could exist.

Do that, and you'll have a good model railroad.

[SSW]

agreed on the modelers license! How in the heck do you think I get away with runnining first, second and third generation diesels of just about every road? I'm afflicted with the "I can't settle on a road/location/era so I'll do it all" problem. Although most of my stuff is MILW/SSW/SP/MKT :)

[CBCNSfan]

How in the heck do you think I get away with runnining first, second and third generation diesels of just about every road? Well really it isn't a problem if you are running a shortline in the present scenario, for example in the attachment not even one named or painted for the home road :D too bad it wasnt a bit clearer photo
Cheers Willis

[Carl Lindon]

Bob, all,

The way I see this is that it all comes down to being a matter of degree. To Bob the mixing of differing eras and geographically disparate prototypes is an acceptable degree of modellers license, whereas highly unlikely man-made track structures are not. Even with a "background story" many structures or track arrangements may be beyond one's willingness to accept modellers license.

I once had a disparate collection of locomotives and while it was fun in my teenage years and early twenties, one day I literally stood back from my layout and thought to myself "... this just doesn't make sence anymore ... ". I fundamentally reviewed what I was doing, what I liked and from that developed a "way ahead" that would give me a coherent fleet from which I could develop a plausible railroad. (In the end I revamped that plan and ended up moving era's because of the cost of brass locomotives necessary to represent the steam to diesel transition era. In 1985 even brass locomoitves didn't run very well and there were no hints that the current crop of high quality plastic models were even on the radar horizon. I still have all those disparate models and would never let them go. Indeed I have added to and improved them as they and their prototypes remain of interest but they are basically relegated to display shelves or running on "appropriate" foreign model railroads and represent what are now lesser priority interests.) There are some "serious modellers" who would say this self evaluation and re-alignment was the "beginning of my real model railroading." As time goes by I find myself wanting greater fidelity to prototype equipment use regarding era. I would also prefere to limit the geographical variance of equipment keeping to equipment that ran in a single area only. As I model CP that would mean I should run EMD products for an eastern division or FM products for a western division. However, while I hate the "museum" aspect of many model railroad fleets I don't want to limit myself to only a few prototypes. As such I have "contrived" a "prototypical freelanced" location which represents a division point that is not only a crew change location but also a power and caboose division point so run through trains will change power and cabooses as well.

Personally I'd be much more worried about mixing eras and distinct railroads companies from widely varing regions than I would unlikely man-mades structures. But that is my personal take on things and as this is such a wide ranging and personal hobby I hope Bob and others who choose such mixes enjoy it as much as I enjoy my choices.

The other thing to remember here is who wrote the article. In my opinion he is by far the weakest regular columnist featured in MR. (In this case a 3 track staging yard behind a single track tunnel portal could have been far more convincing of Appalachia than the final arrangement chosen.) I pretty much "gave up" on Lionel after his columns on scale rulers and calipers. In both articles he demonstrated a poor understanding of how to use these fundamental tools by advocating "masking" over the left inch-divided foot segment before the 0 mark on a scale ruler and by stating he couldn't keep track of how many times the dial went around on the HO scale caliper when measuring longer dimensions. Am I overly critical? Perhaps but my train of thought is that if a man can't understand and properly instruct the use of such simple tools how can I place any confidence in his opinions and layout development ideas? Indeed how can MR publish him? (I did write to MR about this but of course critical commentary is rarely acknowledged by them, let alone published!)

Cheers

Carl

[CBCNSfan]

The way I see this is that it all comes down to being a matter of degree.
Right, the degree to which one can accept a model as a reasonable representation of the scene he /she is trying to portray. Not every person is a gifted craftsman, but everyone certainly has a right to be proud of what they have achieved. At the last train show I attended a young man had a display, about 4 X 5', one circle of track, an engine, two freight cars plus a caboose. This had to be the saddest looking display I've ever had the misfortune to look at. Plastic buildings (mostly broken parts) bringing a new meaning to the term "Kitbashing". Representations of hills made from newspapers and painted ( print showing through), holes poked through the paper ect. I would doubt that many of the visitors to that show took time to do more than glance at it. Maybe there was a reason I am not aware of, but the owner must have believed it was an acceptable display, as he sat there and run his train around while no one gave much more than a cursory look his modeling efforts.
The rollingstock I'm kitbashing in my opinion is an acceptable representation of the locos used. The truck side frames are not exact, there could be more details added, but where does one draw the line. I am quite capable of doing the changes, however I'm satisfied with what I have done, since the few who will see any of my models will be in awe of them and not notice any of the discrepancies.
As for the layout operation, it has to be somewhat fictitous, be it a shortline or major road like CN, SP, UP ect. The actual Stellarton yard for the CB&CNS is miles long, and it is only a local shortline road. To model the local area and its industry in it's entirety would require a very large space indeed. much more than than the average person has available, so varying degrees of selected compression is required and this practice is accepted by most model railroaders. Not having enough room to do even this, I chose to model a fictitous yard, with a credible history to make it almost believable ;)
Cheers Willis

[modelbob]

> The way I see this is that it all comes down to being a matter of degree.

Yes, that's definitely true...

> To Bob the mixing of differing eras and geographically disparate
> prototypes is an acceptable degree of modellers license,

No, it really isn't... Yes, I did say I'm designing my layout for a variety of eras and locations. However, I'm going to try to do it so that the scenery is generic and the structures compatible with both eras. (i.e. a respectable looking Union Station in the 1940's can also be a newly refurbished Union Station in the 2000's.) I may well, if I ever get to that point, design a few key building to swap out, i.e. change the corner diner for a Mickey D's.

A big part of my layout (some folks say "too big" is the staging yard.) I plan on acquiring enough rolling stock to run a few trains from each era. So one evening I'll run the PRR, the next time it may be current era, with Sounder, Amtrak and BNSF. But I plan on trying to keep things somewhat consistent.

> Even with a "background story" many structures or track arrangements
> may be beyond one's willingness to accept modellers license.

That's true too. I can say "Hey's it's Railfair 2005 and all this steam is visiting town for the railfans. Oh, and the GGI is hauling a boxcar full of batteries..." Some folks will buy it, some won't.

However, as you said, there are some things that just plain can't logically be explained, such as a 3 track tunnel.


> There are some "serious modellers" who would say this self
> evaluation and re-alignment was the "beginning of my real
> model railroading." As time goes by I find myself wanting
> greater fidelity to prototype equipment use regarding era.

That's often the case, but there's no right or wrong way to do this hobby. I wouldn't call it "real" model railroading, more like "prototypical" or "serious" or maybe "fine scale".

> Personally I'd be much more worried about mixing eras
> and distinct railroads companies from widely varing regions
> than I would unlikely man-mades structures. But that is
> my personal take on things and as this is such a wide
> ranging and personal hobby I hope Bob and others who
> choose such mixes enjoy it as much as I enjoy my choices.

I can certainly understand that. I guess a lot of it has to do with your background. After talking about this and thinking it over for a while, I realize it's the things that are the most obvious to you that stand out the most and break the spell of reality that you hope to get from a model railroad.

> The other thing to remember here is who wrote the article.
> In my opinion he is by far the weakest regular columnist
> featured in MR. (In this case a 3 track staging yard behind
> a single track tunnel portal could have been far more convincing
> of Appalachia than the final arrangement chosen.)

Or use my suggestion and put them behind an ovepass and a "tunnel of trees" behind the bridge.

Also, I guess that gets me back to my original point of this discussion. I hold the folks at Model Railroader to a much higher standard than I do a regular hobbyist. If you want to have a three track layout on your tunnel, that's one thing. If you print an article in a national magazine and tell how ever many thousand readers they have "Hey, here's the best way to do this..." to me you should try and show the best possible approach. To me something that's blatantly unrealistic, whether it's running 4449 and the Sounder next to a GG1, or having a 3 track tunnel in a yard, isn't the best approach.

I guess I feel folks should make an informed choice. I recall being a beginning modeler and taking pretty much everything MR as "the right way". So I feel they owe it to the hobby to explain stuff like this.

[duckdogger]

The original thrust of the thread reminds me of a conversation I heard at an S-guage club in St. Louis a while back. One of the trains being run was an incredible custom, all-brass replica of the 20th Century Limited. It was incredible and the investment huge in both the raw equipment and then the painting, detailing, etc. You know what I mean.

This guy standing beside me shakes his head as the train passes and has also modeled this train but that his is better. When asked the reason for his statement, he proudly boasts the key defining difference is his has the correct carpet pattern in the sleepercompartments. Wow. Empires have turned on lesser issues.

We must take care not to become too emersed in mere life that we transplant its reality too deeply into our hobby. So what if you want a triple track tunnel? Or GS-4's trading off the Broadway to a GG1? It's your layout so do it the way you like.

On the other hand, if that sort of librality drives you nuts, then don't.

[modelbob]

> So what if you want a triple track tunnel? It's your layout so do it the way you like.

Yes, you're absolutely right, modeler's license is like a membership in the roofer's union: "It covers everything".

I will clarify one point in my original post, which I may not have made clear. The main reason this bothered me was that it was posted in the biggest model railroad magazine out there, and as a how-to article. That's the part that bugged me most. Had the exact same thing been shown as a part of a regular article ("here's Joe's layout") I'd probably never have given it a second thought.

You're right, folks can do whatever they want, it's their layout and their hobby. I have to admit some of the most enjoyable layouts I've seen would drive nitpicker's nuts. One of the all time most famous layouts, John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid, had lots of prototypical elements, but also lots of exaggeration and caricature (however you sepl that. :))

One of the more popular layouts at a recent train show here in Tacoma was a G scale with a circus theme, and it included lots of Playmobile type stuff. Now they're not exactly noted for prototypical fidelity, but young and old alike loved the layout, so that's all that matters.

So, generally speaking, I don't have any problem with modeler's choosing to do whatever they like. However, when you're essentially teaching other modelers, I feel you owe them the courtesy of at least explaining the choices you've made. In this case, a simple statement like "I used a tunnel because I felt it fit the scene best, but admittedly 3 track tunnels are rare as are tunnels in yards. You may also want to consider using a mine tipple or highway bridge as a scenic divider instead" would have been a nice touch.

[HaggisKennedy]

Some folks have broken it out as ProtoLancer and Whimsey. Whiimsey would be the Dinosaur pulling some freight cars. ProtoLancer would be somebody who designed their RR as if they were doing it for real. Somebody on the LDSIG group pointed out that every Prototype RR started out as a ProtoLance....

:D

Kennedy

[modelbob]

By the way, I read another segment (it was apparently published over a couple of months) of the "3 track tunnel" project and the author did say something to the effect that he hesitated because such a thing was extremely unlikely or something like that.

However his wife talked him into it, saying that all kinds of unusual stuff happened on Appalachian railroads, and maybe a short 3 track tunnel was plausible.

That works fine for me... As long as he mentioned it was an unlikely situation, then he's given beginning model railroaders the information I was hoping he'd pass along. Once he acknowledged that, and then said "but it's my railroad, so I did it anyway" I was fine with it.

[Chris UK]

My new layout has got a GP38-2, a B23-7, an SW1500, an SD40-2 ( United way ), 2 X F7A's, an F7B and 2 X SD45's. All of them are Union Pacific and I have got no idea whether they ran at the same time or not.

I have got 40' reefers, 60' flat cars, Double plug door cars, Gondolas, Centreflow hoppers etc. Again I do not know if they ran together let alone road names which are all varied but with a leaning to the UP.

I don't care

They look great and it gives me FUN.

Who built my railroad anyway......Yes you guessed it...I DID, ...For ME and my son.

Chris :p :p

[modelbob]

> My new layout has....

I agree that's fine and as I mentioned earlier, I'm totally OK with the concept. Like most model railroaders, I have an oddball collection of stuff, with everything from mid 1800's steam to a current day commuter locomotive.

My original (and only) point was, that if you're going to present something that isn't prototypical as a HOW-TO article in Model Railroader, you should at least mention that you've made a choice that's not prototypical or common.

If it's simply a layout pictorial, that's fine, it's your layout and you can do whatever you'd like. I read Classic Toy Trains, and most of the layouts are 3 rail, and quite a few run more than one scale. That doesn't bother me a bit. Of course the whole scope of the magazine is about tinplate and toy trains and train collecting, so you don't expect it to all be totally prototypical.

However, the article I mentioned was in MR, and written to show beginning model railroaders how to do what the author mentioned. In that kind of situation, I feel it's best to at least say "This isn't very common on the prototype, but I chose to do it anyway". Just a helpful bit of information for those new to the hobby.