SeeYou190Oh... and the trailer impossibly parked with the kingpin towards the elevator and the legs missing. That could hae easily been cropped out.
OK, I just looked through the issue, and this is NOT nitpcking. There is a lot wrong with the photographs of the Modern-Era Rail Hub layout.
.
That is all fine. Seeing layouts in progress is OK, and I like to see pictures that show the layout in the room.
What bothers me if the yellow circle on page 55 that says Next Level Realism. That does not belong in that article.
The Fireballs and Alpha Jets layout is much more realistic, but it does not have the yellow cirlce for Next Level Realism. In my view, this is the only mistake.
Oh... and the trailer impossibly parked with the kingpin towards the elevator and the legs missing. That could hae easily been cropped out.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
JumijoAside from that photo, the layout owner admitted in the article that scenery was not a big priority, and one photo shows tracks on a table with no scenery.
Iwas going to say the same thing, after skimming through the article. It's all about operations, and what little scenery is done, seems like it was done by other people.
I've seen huge room filling layouts, all track, and all about operations, very little, if any scenery. The operatores seem to be happy with "pretending" it's all there, and are completely involved in the ops, as far as train and car movements.
Mike.
My You Tube
mbinsewi Jumijo I found little if any "Next Level Realism" in the article starting on page 54. I think most of us share your feelings, as that picture on 54/55 is what started this thread. Then it moved on to other thngs, as usual. Mike.
Jumijo I found little if any "Next Level Realism" in the article starting on page 54.
I think most of us share your feelings, as that picture on 54/55 is what started this thread.
Then it moved on to other thngs, as usual.
Aside from that photo, the layout owner admitted in the article that scenery was not a big priority, and one photo shows tracks on a table with no scenery.
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale
mbinsewi Jumijo I found little if any "Next Level Realism" in the article starting on page 54. I think most of us share your feelings, as that picture on 54/55 is what started this thread.
Wayne - Thanks for the coffee purse analogy. It gave Mrs. Crunch a good laugh.
Kevin - Thanks for the PM. Very sad about the job but applaud your perspective.
Tim
Late to the model railroad party but playing catch-up.....
I only drink manual coffee, I hate automatics...
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
SeeYou190 mbinsewi Then it moved on to other thngs, as usual. That is because we are a Coffee Clutch! There, now Rio Grande 5761 does not need to say it. -Kevin
mbinsewi
That is because we are a Coffee Clutch!
There, now Rio Grande 5761 does not need to say it.
I believe that the proper term is "coffee klatch" or "coffee klatsch".
A coffee clutch is a small purse or handbag for carrying coffee, but could also be a beverage with a manual transmission.
Wayne
mbinsewiI"ve tried the Solveset/eraser many times on Athearn locos, doesn't seem to work, for me anyway.
I have had poor luck with that also.
Here's the link Stix had in his post:
http://cs.trains.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/13-755-00-00-02-28-95-88/NYC-9104.jpg
I"ve tried the Solveset/eraser many times on Athearn locos, doesn't seem to work, for me anyway.
mbinsewiThen it moved on to other thngs, as usual.
wjstix Doughless I'm confident that a bit of razor blade scraping of the blue and dabbing some matched paint would work close enough (maybe some strategeric weathering) to turn it into a 1527. Don't use a razorblade! The method Cody Grivno recently showed in Cody's Office - I think the January one - of using Solvaset and an eraser works MUCH better. I've used it a number of times over the past few years with good results. This engine came as a black Wabash engine. I removed the lettering and striping with Solvaset and a rubber eraser, sprayed it with gloss finish, and decaled for NYC. (Sorry, something about the MR website blocks me from making the link work....) http://cs.trains.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/telligent-evolution-components-attachments/13-755-00-00-02-28-95-88/NYC-9104.jpg BTW some railroads continued to run F-units as A-B sets with a single ID number at least into the 1960's.
Doughless I'm confident that a bit of razor blade scraping of the blue and dabbing some matched paint would work close enough (maybe some strategeric weathering) to turn it into a 1527.
Don't use a razorblade! The method Cody Grivno recently showed in Cody's Office - I think the January one - of using Solvaset and an eraser works MUCH better. I've used it a number of times over the past few years with good results.
This engine came as a black Wabash engine. I removed the lettering and striping with Solvaset and a rubber eraser, sprayed it with gloss finish, and decaled for NYC. (Sorry, something about the MR website blocks me from making the link work....)
BTW some railroads continued to run F-units as A-B sets with a single ID number at least into the 1960's.
I've been using a blade for about 15 years. Make sure its straight up and down and its a wonderful way to scrape off the top layer of paint, especially just the corners of a number like I would do if I changed a 2 into a 7.
If always found that using a liquid of any kind to melt the paint, usually results in a combination of colors. I'd have a swatch of green if I tried to melt the blue off of a yellow.
I only use liquids on black locos, so I can touch up with black.
- Douglas
double post deleted
JumijoI found little if any "Next Level Realism" in the article starting on page 54.
I found little if any "Next Level Realism" in the article starting on page 54.
angelob6660Some modelers don't want to paint or weather freight cars because it will devalue the product. Majority of people won't purchase weather cars because it's used and out of place.
I disagree...if the weathering is reasonably well done, it can actually increase the value. When I decided to backdate my layout to the late '30s, I sold-off most of my diesels, and a couple hundred freight and passenger cars. None were originally expensive models when I bought them - mostly Athearn, Model Die Casting, Front Range, etc.Much of it had been re-detailed, re-painted, and re-lettered. Some was lettered for real railroads, but quite a bit of it was lettered for my freelanced roads. All of it was weathered, although not to extremes.
I was pleasantly surprised to get two to five dollars for them, for every dollar they had originally cost, which allowed me to re-equip with locomotives and rolling stock more appropriate to my current layout.
DoughlessI'm confident that a bit of razor blade scraping of the blue and dabbing some matched paint would work close enough (maybe some strategeric weathering) to turn it into a 1527.
angelob6660 ATLANTIC CENTRAL angelob6660 chutton01 Some modelers don't want to paint or weather freight cars because it will devalue the product. Majority of people won't purchase weather cars because it's used and out of place. I have never bought anything in this life worrying about what it will be worth if I resell it..........not cars, not even houses, and surely not model trains........ Sheldon I think that's the difference between you and I. That everything has a resell value.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL angelob6660 chutton01 Some modelers don't want to paint or weather freight cars because it will devalue the product. Majority of people won't purchase weather cars because it's used and out of place. I have never bought anything in this life worrying about what it will be worth if I resell it..........not cars, not even houses, and surely not model trains........ Sheldon
angelob6660 chutton01 Some modelers don't want to paint or weather freight cars because it will devalue the product. Majority of people won't purchase weather cars because it's used and out of place.
chutton01
Some modelers don't want to paint or weather freight cars because it will devalue the product. Majority of people won't purchase weather cars because it's used and out of place.
I have never bought anything in this life worrying about what it will be worth if I resell it..........not cars, not even houses, and surely not model trains........
Sheldon
I think that's the difference between you and I. That everything has a resell value.
I've been at this hobby since 1968, I have 130 locos and over 1500 pieces of rolling stock, and in those 50 years I can count on my fingers the pieces I have sold off.........
I buy them to play with, but I am a very deliberate shopper, I have not changed the theme of my modeling in 35 years, I don't get bored once I set my mind to something.
When I die, they can sell it off or put it in a dumpster.
Some people eat out for fun, some go on expensive vacations, I play with trains.
Those people don't worry about getting that money back.......
I don't like heavy weathering on my trains, but I weather them to my taste, I cut them up and kit bash them, I paint and letter them to my fictional railroad. All of which is bad for their "value" to everyone else, but it increases their value to me......
And I'm not a collector, I only buy what fits the theme of the layout.
I have 9 USRA heavy 4-8-2's, and NO Union Pacific Big Boys..........
Amtrak America, 1971-Present.
chutton01*The JawTooth YouTube channel, in spite of it's rather overenthusiastic host
Russell
carl425 The classic movie screwup is filtered cigarettes in WW2 movies. My favorite model railroad screwup was a layout set in 1927 with a rail-served brewery.
The classic movie screwup is filtered cigarettes in WW2 movies.
My favorite model railroad screwup was a layout set in 1927 with a rail-served brewery.
EnzoampsOh I saw the trailer right away, but generally don't want to point out stuff like that. One thing my eye cannot ignore is structures sitting atop the ground. You know, that gap underneath. I appreciate the replies.
To get back to anachronisms and other realism errors on layouts, including great layouts, it is a reasonably recent phenomenon that manufacturers release rolling stock, locos or cars, with multiple numbers, or that subsequent runs of a model have different numbers. In fact it is a reasonably recent phenomenon that the numbers were accurate ones! Even back in the 1950s Model Railroader's Trade Topics reviews would often point out that the number slapped on the car was for a 50' car and the model was a 40' boxcar, that kind of thing. Or a totally made up number. MR's library obviously had equipment registers. Back then relatively few modelers did; railroadiana of that sort was hard to come by if you were not a railroad insider. Evidently the manufacturers didn't have them either. For a long time, models that came painted and lettered whether metal or plastic often featured the very numbers that were pictured in the Car Builder's Cyclopedias, which back then were just about your only reliable source of prototype photos and data. Sometimes two rival manufacturers would use the same number on their stuff because it was in the "Cyc."
Maybe one reason relatively few of us cared much back then is that the car card and other forms of realistic operation had not taken full hold. Nothing turned on the fact that all of your identical cars had the identical numbers. And the photo reproduction in MR and RMC (and the quality of the original photos) was such that the numbers were a bit of a blurr anyway. That might also explain the structures that just sat on the scenery -- now the photos are so clear you notice things like that more than you did.
As for vehicles, there was such a limited choice at one time that any vehicle you had on the layout was more or less a stand-in for what you really wanted but couldn't get. Often they weren't really to scale anyway, such as most Matchbox cars. Just as every layout in America seemed to have the Atlas lumberyard and interlocking tower and the Atlas or Revell suburban passenger station, those who wanted trucks on their layouts basically were looking at Ulrich metal, or the Revell Ford, or Jordan's early Mack or Model T. Nice models, all, but era be hanged for most uses of them.
I don't necessarily agree with the "we've never had it so good" mantra that some hobby leadership claims, but when it comes to access to prototype information, and the accuracy of the models we pay so dearly for, we certainly used to have it worse. And often we had no clue.
Dave Nelson
One movie mistake that jumped out at me was in the baseball movie The Natural. I believe it is set in the 1930s. There is a canned shot of the Santa Fe Chief taking the team to their next stop. At that time, there were no major league baseball teams west of either Chicago or St. Louis so there is no way any team would have been riding on The Chief.
Doughless Sheldon is correct. The modeler has two copies of the same Atlas loco, which was the only road number offered. I own one and its an excellent loco. I have toyed with the idea of getting a second and making one of the 2's into a 7....for my home road shortline. I'm confident that a bit of razor blade scraping of the blue and dabbing some matched paint would work close enough (maybe some strategeric weathering) to turn it into a 1527. A little work on the number boards too. http://archive.atlasrr.com/Images/HOLocomotives/mp15/0409/9980_TQ.jpg
Sheldon is correct. The modeler has two copies of the same Atlas loco, which was the only road number offered. I own one and its an excellent loco. I have toyed with the idea of getting a second and making one of the 2's into a 7....for my home road shortline. I'm confident that a bit of razor blade scraping of the blue and dabbing some matched paint would work close enough (maybe some strategeric weathering) to turn it into a 1527. A little work on the number boards too.
http://archive.atlasrr.com/Images/HOLocomotives/mp15/0409/9980_TQ.jpg
News to me that locos got numbered. I thought it was only freight cars. You learn something new.
Mistakes in movies happen far more than we know (or care to know). Anyone interested can check out webpages that track various types of errors made in movies. Plenty of movies are quite liberal with facts; this includes those based on books.
[/quote]
The reason early F units had the same number with a small letter suffix is that the railroads had a concern if numbered differently the unions would demand a crew in each engine. Ultimately they did not and the practice was eliminated.
In the movie, Back To The Future III, which takes place in 1885, I am constantly bothered by the Janney Knuckle Couplers.