Where's the real world?

[Anonymous]

One thing I know that has put me off on subscribing to model RR magazines
and what bothers me when I do see them at the hobby shop is the lack of what
I call "real world" modeling.

What I mean by that is, I see beautiful representations of mountains, babbling
brooks with fly fisherman beneath an overpass with a Western Pacific dome
liner passing above, quaint little Hometown, USA town scenes with a busy
platform at the depot, packed with waiting commuters, etc., etc., and don't get
me wrong - the scenes are tremendous in their visual impact and detail!

But let's face it - when you go out train-chasing to do some photography or to
just watch some RR action, those are not the kinds of scenes available most
often. Instead, you see weeds growing between the ties on branch lines,
spent 55-gal drums of oil or kreosote laying around the yard, piles of rusted
tie plates and scrapped rail. You see mounds of ballast stone shoved-over to
the side of the ROW where the work crew may have dumped too much or they
left some behind for later use. You see oil-soaked ground around the engine
shed and rails almost invisible in the dirt at grade-crossings, and graffiti
sprayed on rail cars and bridges, vegetation along the ROW turned yellow
by herbicides and even trees cut-down by brush-cutters where they've
encroached too close to the tracks.

Yet, in many of the model RR pictures I see in the publications, little attention
is given to such "real world" detail and instead the focus is on the pristine. On
my layout I have no babbling brooks or mountain tunnels, but I have plenty of
scrapped ties, kreosote barrels and replacement rail to the side of the ROW
(a recent addition thanks to the forum!) and I've intentionally made the ballast a
bit uneven in places to show spot-repairs having been done.

Am I the only one who notices this?

[Anonymous]

Sometimes the focus is skewed the other way - a lot of George Sellios' work (and others) goes that way. His is the "worst, seediest, most run down, hard on its luck, never been washed, wrong side of the tracks" type layout. It is also great, but doesn't capture the full spectrum of city living either.

The advantage of the model world is you can ignore the backbreaking labour required to hand-fire steamers, or that the soil under a yard is contaminated, or whatever...

Sure you can strike a balance, but in the end it is your own world, and how close you want it to match the real thing (present or past) is entirely up to you.

Andrew

[IRONROOSTER]

It's kind of like memories. I remember the stream but not the can someone threw away. I think a lot of us are modeling what we remember or something we have imagined. In both cases the trash isn't there. Personally, I have no trash or weathering because I prefer it that way. For me the layout is a painting not a photograph.
Enjoy
Paul

[scotttmason]

Here too, figure the time involved to assemble, paint, weather a model and then double that to add all the little details and variations reality holds. I find it interesting to look at old structures and see how they evolved from the original construction. Weird things happen over time and can often make for really interesting modeling if you have the time. I too think uneven brickwork and random asphalt patches in roads add interest but require more effort.

[Anonymous]

As a photograhper I often have to wait in one spot until that perfect moment comes to town... perhaps that's the way with modeling? Trying to capture those true moments that may come once in a lifetime? Or perhaps capturing the essence of it all in miniature? The one photo that changed my life forever and made me a MR fan was the picture of a wharf in the "Industry Comes to the Jerome & Southwestern"... I was only in junior high at the time, but the lighting, detail, and essence of that scene made me look twice--i didn't know such things were possible with modeling...

johnny

[FJ and G]

ghighland,

I think you brought up a very good point. I'm planning my next railroad layout (next year) to be rather normal and mundane.

MR ran an excellent article within the last 6 or so months of a fellow with a poiint-to-point HO layout of the Santa Fe in Oklahoma and Texas in the 50s. No humongous bridges and the streams were dry. No tunnels. Just "miles and miles" of dusty, dirty hills.

Does anyone else recall? Ghighland, i think that illustrates at least one example.

OTHO Babbling brooks with nude swimmers, an ammusement park and massive peaks and tunnels are always tempting.

[Anonymous]

I think many of us share your desire for the real world, but at what price and I'm thinking more of time here, rather than money. So far I have benchwork up, the backdrop in and 1/3 of my track down. It will take me years to get the layout to the level you are critical of, and years more to take it to that "higher" level.

So priorities enter the picture. First the track in, then scenery and structures, and people, cars, trucks and buses - then litter, weeds, etc. For me, I see the detailing as something that will keep me into my current layout for a long time to come rather than feeling my layout is "done" and time to tear it out and build a new one. Yes I plan on ops, but when I am alone it is the modelling that keeps my interest up.