Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="Dave Vollmer"][quote user="CNJ831"] Let me offer what I ascribe to as being a major source for the decidedly over detailed, over weathered, unrealistic, sometimes even downright caricaturish layouts that one often sees presented in the magazines and on-line. It is, quite simply, that 80%-90% of all hobbyists today get their modeling styles and concepts of reality from other layouts they've seen, not from real-world observation. The magazines are concerned with selling their product and the more complex, ultra-detailed, perhaps even fantastic, a layout looks, the greater the probability it will draw in readers...just look at some of Furlow's bizarre efforts! This situation is exacerbated by the unwillingness of a high percentage of today's hobbyists to take the time to research the actual situation that exists or existed in the real world during the period they are modeling (which is far easier to do today than ever before).So many hobbyists are in such awe of the work of Allen, Sellios and a few others, that they honestly believe pre-1950's America, especially the Depression Era cities, was a time when everything was totally run down and verging on dilapidated ruins. Believe me, it was never universally that way. But this concept has become so ingrained in hobbyists today that I'm increasingly seeing otherwise well done layouts set as late as the 1960's with the same rundown caricaturish appearance found on the F&SM. The idea seems to be that if you model in a reflection of the "masters" style, you must be doing it right. Depending on your choice of gurus...not necessarily.We all have, or should, develop our own personal and independent modeling style. However, whatever your style, it should have some basis in reality since this is a hobby based on creating a representation of some small slice of the actual world in miniature, not a Disneyesque version of it. CNJ831 [/quote]Excellent point!!!  When I was a Civil War reenactor, our First Sergreant used to admonish us to study photographs of real soldiers from the war, and not try simply to emulate other reenactors.This is the same thing.  Studying other layouts as a prototype instead of real trains leads to an incestuous process that stifles ones own creativity (and substitutes someones else's) and generally moves one farther from plausibility.How many layouts were inspired by John Allen's G&D, and have that canyon with the stacked bridges?  Spectacular?  You bet!  Realistic?  Not really.  Yes, there were exceptions to every rule.  But I argue that modeling the rule, and not the exception, is the route to plausibility.Drawing inspiration from a layout is good (and should be done, I think), but the prototype should provide the majority of the inspiration (even for freelanceers) in my opinion.[/quote]You can have all the authenticay or homespun under the sun, but to the public who hears the hoarse shouts of the Captain and sees the glinting silver leveling downrange... none of that matters.Now if you are doing a camp or exhibit and replicating the era, the rule I went by was "Nothing modern" anywhere in sight. Woe onto the pvt who has a fist wrapped around a can of soda, "CALL out the PROVOST! Corporal!"
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community