An aspect of this hobby that I find appealing is figuring out how things work in the real world and then trying to make a scene that is plausible given my skill set. That can lead to spending considerable time on something that when in place on the layout isn't noticeable.
A case in point is a coke wharf that I made for a steel mill. Hours were spent in researching the coke manufacturing process and then scratchbuilding the wharf as there were no models available to purchase.
I was extremely happy with the way it turned out but after I got it in place you can't see much of the details that I spent so much time fussing over. It gives me satisfaction when I think about it but the time I spent on it probably should have been spent on something else.
My next project was the piping for the mill and then a refinery. I decided to take some shortcuts and simulate connections that were out of sight instead of going to the trouble of getting those to line up perfectly. Once done you can't tell the difference.
Going forward I will be looking at things a bit differently. Maybe that will help me pick up the pace some and get more accomplished. I see the work that some of you do and I am impressed but I am afraid that trying to make things so functionally plausible has really slowed me down over the years. I still have a lot of work to do. I don't expect to ever be "done" but I sure would like to accomplish more each year than I have been.
Rick
Gidday Rick, you raise a couple of salient points which illustrate the joy / frustration that can occur in this hobby.
Figuring things out. Like you I research a subject to find out how it works in the real world, not only to see how it fits into "My World" operationally, but also physically.
Applying details that can't be seen. Here I must admit to being a hypocrite. While I admire the work of those who "super detail the underneath of Railroad cars, I don't do it myself, purely because if I can't see it, why bother!
That said, on my first scratch build a stone viaduct, after researching the size, shape and placement of the stone blocks with the aid of a rotary burr in a Dremel type tool I carved all the stone work on all the sides, even the one that can't bee seen! Go Figure!!
Stone viaduct by Bear, on Flickr
While building my freelanced Detroit River railroad car ferry, I dithered over many details. While there a many photos of the various ferries, some of the details are unclear. (My excuse is that some of the ferries were modified, some extensively over their life.)
One thing I battled with was what type of davit for the lifeboats was fitted to the Wabash ferries. After research I built three sets of "radial davits", but then had serious doubts as to whether they were correct, so made three sets of the more complicated "quadrant type", which I fitted.
Now here's the rub! Fflokes who have seen the finished (??) ferry didn't even realize that such a thing even existed, let alone know what the correct davits were!
Quadrant davits by Bear, on Flickr
And don't ask me about the waterproof jackets hanging behind the door on the ferries bridge. Also applies to :details that can't be seen!)
Procrastination? Historical a ccuracy? A mental flaw? I don't know nor wish to find out, but if you receive satisfaction, and I did with that build, from how you approach the hobby then to my mind that's the most important thing! And who am I or anyone for that matter have the right to query your approach!
The same criteria also holds if you feel you need to pick up.the pace and take "shortcuts."
Most importantly, Have Fun!
Cheers the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
didn't Tony Koester have an article discussing getting satisfactory results in just a couple minutes which made it possible for him to do a ~hundred cars in a reasonable amount of time?
is it worth the effort to make a particular car or building well detailed if the next car/building is not?
woulldn't the layout look better is many things were done "good enough" instead of a few things done to "museum quality"?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I certainly agree that the "good enough" approach is the way to go. But then again, I don't possess the necessary skills to produce "museum quality".
Regards, Chris
Bear, that bridge is awesome... I also focus on the visible and the believable. Also, colors count just as much as details, in my humble opinion. I still have a whole lot to learn in all of these departments.
Simon
Rick,
I hear where you are coming from. I enjoy building kits and I probably spend an inordinate amount of trimming off the flash and gate "stubble" from the delicate undercarriage piping and parts. Is anyone really going to pick up a piece of rolling stock and notice that I did that? No. But it'll bother me if I don't do it - LOL.
Same goes for the interior of buildings and cabooses. Sometimes I have to stop and ask myself, "How much of this will even be viewable through the windows?" To mitigate that I sometimes make the rooves detachable so that those interior details actually can be seen, if desired.
That said, whether it will ever be noticed or admired by another person or persons, sometimes it's enjoyable just to challenge myself to see if I can replicate something - if only to hone my modeling skills. I consider that time not wasted.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I will admit I tend to get somewhat detailed when I'm building freight cars. If the lettering on the car isn't right for one reason or another, I will redo it. (even on RTR cars) Somewhere around 80%-85% of my freight cars have had the reletter treatment anywhere from partial (renumbering due to duplicate cars or incorrect numbers, updating weight information, sublettering as I have a lot of merger roads for BN rainbow era, etc.) all the way to full redos (lettering in the wrong spots, wrong fonts used, full custom repaints, etc.) Even the ones I don't have to do any relettering sometimes get ladders lowered and removed as needed. One custom RTR car actually needed additional ladders to match the prototype. Many of my open cars do have loads of so sort with a lot of them being custom as well. For a fleet of around 230 freight cars, this may be a bit much but that's my thing.
I don't get to the point of uncoupling levers, etc because for my big hands they get a bit small and nobody would notice them.
Gidday Rick, you raise a couple of salient points which illustrate the joy / frustration that can occur in this hobby. Figuring things out. Like you I research a subject to find out how it works in the real world, not only to see how it fits into "My World" operationally, but also physically. Applying details that can't be seen. Here I must admit to being a hypocrite. While I admire the work of those who "super detail the underneath of Railroad cars, I don't do it myself, purely because if I can't see it, why bother! That said, on my first scratch build a stone viaduct, after researching the size, shape and placement of the stone blocks with the aid of a rotary burr in a Dremel type tool I carved all the stone work on all the sides, even the one that can't bee seen! Go Figure!! Stone viaduct by Bear, on Flickr While building my freelanced Detroit River railroad car ferry, I dithered over many details. While there a many photos of the various ferries, some of the details are unclear. (My excuse is that some of the ferries were modified, some extensively over their life.) One thing I battled with was what type of davit for the lifeboats was fitted to the Wabash ferries. After research I built three sets of "radial davits", but then had serious doubts as to whether they were correct, so made three sets of the more complicated "quadrant type", which I fitted. Now here's the rub! Fflokes who have seen the finished (??) ferry didn't even realize that such a thing even existed, let alone know what the correct davits were! Quadrant davits by Bear, on Flickr And don't ask me about the waterproof jackets hanging behind the door on the ferries bridge. Also applies to :details that can't be seen!) Procrastination? Historical a ccuracy? A mental flaw? I don't know nor wish to find out, but if you receive satisfaction, and I did with that build, from how you approach the hobby then to my mind that's the most important thing! And who am I or anyone for that matter have the right to query your approach! The same criteria also holds if you feel you need to pick up.the pace and take "shortcuts." Most importantly, Have Fun! Cheers the Bear.
Nice viaduct. Mine was one of the first things I did on the layout. It took many hours (and didn't come out as good as your) but I certainly can live with it.
" target="">
snjroy Bear, that bridge is awesome... I also focus on the visible and the believable. Also, colors count just as much as details, in my humble opinion. I still have a whole lot to learn in all of these departments. Simon
ditto that to the nth power snjroy--that bridge is magnificent, mr. bear!
Thanks, Guys for your kind remarks about the viaduct. I was going to say, Rick, that yours looks perfectly adequate, but on reflection, that could sound rather condescending which is definitely not my intent
An explanation on how my viaduct came to be. At the time the Clubs old Thomas the Tank Engine layout was getting rather tired, it was a very basic 8' x 4' loop with minimal scenery.
We wanted something larger, yet portable, capable of being set up by two, at a push, with the intention that at shows, children could get to "drive " the trains. (This was pre DCC.)
The bottom track height was to be level and at 32 inches, and we felt that the kids deserved far more sophisticated visuals than previous, so to create the illusion of height, at one end was to be a valley going to the floor, and at the other end was to be a mountain going up from the 32 inch track height.
The viaduct is 28 inches high and 28 inches in length. Even though it was for the Thomas layout, I did research as to how feasible a viaduct would be in that space, 1:1, and would Isambard Kingdom Brunel have built such a structure. I came to the conclusion, yes, and the rest is history, down to carving the stonework that can't be seen.
While I painted the stonework grey and accented the mortar, I'm not good at colours, but a club member was, and with an apparent casual application of random colours and washes, he made it"pop", so the credit for the finished viaduct goes to him.
Cheers, the Bear.