FORUM CLINIC: Building realistic scenery

[jfugate]

I've used sandpaper for roofs, certainly. Works good.

Less thrilled about using it for roads or parking lots. Scenery work (at least the way I do it) tends to use a lot of water, so any sandpaper would turn to mush most likely. Plus it's just too easy to texture a road or parking lot with a more realistic variety of textures than just what sandpaper would provide.

It's the subtle variations in texture that really makes your scenery realism pop. Sandpaper would be too uniform in many cases for roads or gravel parking lots, where tire ruts and bare spots will really spice up the realism factor.

In place of sandpaper, I use fine sand or fine ballast, spread it out dry on the road or parking lot, wet it well with 70% isopropyl alcohol, then soak it with white glue diluted 3:1 with water (and a couple drops of dish detergent thrown in so it flows better). I'll come back in with a brite boy and burnish out the ruts or add bare spots. Finally I'll hit it with my plaster-tempera weathering powders as described elsewhere in this forum thread and on my layout web site. 

[ronmcc]

Joe, new to this forum. Question for you. Have you ever thought of using sandpaper for roads, roofing, or parking lots? I used it on one of my first layouts for roads and parking lots and it worked out very well. Can be painted, shaped, comes in a verity of colors, different grits for different scales and can be glued with white glue. Might be something that can be of good use to other modlers. Also it isn,t all that expensive. Send me a PM and let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Ron

[jfugate]

Bump diddy Bump..Bump Bump

Lazarus Come Forth!

Resurrecting, IMHO, one of the best Forums Ive seen!

THANK U JOE!!! 

You're welcome! There's also more on my personal layout website, where I have an entire section dedicated to scenery discusssions. 

[Anonymous]

Bump diddy Bump..Bump Bump

Lazarus Come Forth!

Resurrecting, IMHO, one of the best Forums Ive seen!

THANK U JOE!!! 

[jfugate]

I noticed alot of newbies asking scenery questions lately, so I bumped this up.  This as an awesome guide to all-around scenery construction.  Thanks again Joe!!!

Smitty 

You're welcome. There's also some more info I've posted about scenery construction on my personal web site.

[Anonymous]

I noticed alot of newbies asking scenery questions lately, so I bumped this up.  This as an awesome guide to all-around scenery construction.  Thanks again Joe!!!

Smitty 

[wm3798]

Thanks, Jeff.  I created it as a power point, then printed it to .pdf.  It was pretty easy, and yes, I wanted to maximize the image area of the typical computer screen...

Lee

[jfugate]

Lee:

Great scenery work, and that's a very fine PDF you have there showing how you did the work. I especially like the landscape orientation ... it fits a computer screen better than portrait does.

[wm3798]

I put together a brief slide show on PDF showing a section of my layout coming to life.  It's the summer of 1972, so the colors are less muted, but to my eye, you can feel the humidity rising from the river...

Scenery PDF 

The first page has some code screwed up, but the rest is there.

Here's the finished product...

It's great to have threads like this where we can compare notes on technique.  Jeff, your stuff is awesome.

Lee 

[jfugate]

Just thought I'd bring this great thread back to life

Thanks!

Every now and then, I post some more about modeling scenery on my own website (URL is in my signature).

You know, I even had a bunch of slot car modelers who have discovered my scenery clinic and who are using these techniques. So modeling realistic miniature scenery is not a task limited to just model railroaders, as I am finding out.

[wickman]

Just thought I'd bring this great thread back to life

[jfugate]

Joe:

I was going to say that most scenery is to bright or intense. Tony Koester once stated, as did Dave Frary, "there ought to be a law againsted model railroaders using pure red, white, blue, and all of the other colors. Tone it down a bit" And all of you are right. The colors are to colorful, the atmosphere creates changes in colors when we are looking out side, almost as if you are looking through a haze, therefore the colors are toned down. On a model railroad one is trying to create the same visual effect.

I know many vaccum their layouts to keep the cobwebs off, but on my layout I not only try and subdue the colors when painting, I leave the dust and it works great. I even have spider webs, most of those I clean off, but sometimes where they place their webs is perfect. Like wires from poles or a telephone line to a building, (I am serious), they have actually strung their webs between phone poles, I kid you not. But I leave most of the dust because it take the colors down a few notches and looks more realistic.

Yep, very astute observation. I discuss this and other expert tips to getting more realistic looking scenery in MR's Information Station Video PDF, "Realistic Scenery Secrets". There are some simple ways you can test if your layout colors are too intense, and I provide a demonstration example in the video clips with this PDF.

[C&O Fan]

I guess, then, that the "compleat" modeller takes a more "wholistic" approach to his layout if he wants to impress guests of both natures, the non-modelling ones and the ones who like realistic operations.  As Yogi Berra would have said, "Ya gotta cover your bases."

Selector:

Very astute observation. I once visited a layout with imaculate scenery, the layout was totally scenicked to completion, everything was weathered, all the buildings were done -- everything!

Seeing a completely finished layout like that was almost sensory overload -- it looked absolutely stunning. However, it was a still life. Talking to some local modelers, they related to me the layout ran like crap. Things derailed all over the place, the trackwork was so bad you couldn't have a decent op session. The owner of the layout was beside himself with disappointment at how the layout had turned out operationally.

So for the best all-around satisfying layout, you need both good looks and good performance.

But this begs the question -- if you have to make a choice, if you have to make a compromise, which is best? Good looks or good performance?

It depends. If you fancy yourself a modeler first and don't run trains too much, then good looks comes first. But if, like me, all this other modeling stuff is simply a means to the end of operation, then good performance comes first, then good looks.  

On the flip side of the coin I visited David Barrow's Cat Mountain Layout 2 years ago during
the Austin Layout Tour
The theme was switching operations and minimal scenery
The layout ran flawlessly for 4 hours With 6 operators But when I went outside to get my camera
I over heard several people complaining about the lack of scenery
It was code 100 on plywood not even cork roadbed and the buildings were white poster board mock ups
Unless you were one of the operators their wasn't much to look at

I'll trade a derailment for the scenery because in real life derailments happen

TerryinTexas
Album: Thurmond HO Scale

[jfugate]

It depends. If you fancy yourself a modeler first and don't run trains too much, then good looks comes first. But if, like me, all this other modeling stuff is simply a means to the end of operation, then good performance comes first, then good looks.  

I would contend that if you want to run the layout at all, even if it is just a train running in a loop, if it does not run flawlessly then any modeller would be doomed to disappointment.

Simon: 

You would think this is true (you really want both good looks and good performance) and for most people it is.

However, when I was in High School I became good friends with the custodian because he was a passionate model railroader. He related to me how he could spend hours on end building and detailing models and he didn't care one whit to have a layout of any substance. He was a model builder ... running the trains just didn't really matter to him and any layout he had was to display his model building efforts ... he had no interest in switching, doing meets between trains, or any of that. His layout was a glorified test track with a bit of scenery to show off his models to their best advantage.

So they are out there ... but I expect they are very much in the minority. 

[robert sylvester]

Joe:

I was going to say that most scenery is to bright or intense. Tony Koester once stated, as did Dave Frary, "there ought to be a law againsted model railroaders using pure red, white, blue, and all of the other colors. Tone it down a bit" And all of you are right. The colors are to colorful, the atmosphere creates changes in colors when we are looking out side, almost as if you are looking through a haze, therefore the colors are toned down. On a model railroad one is trying to create the same visual effect.

I know many vaccum their layouts to keep the cobwebs off, but on my layout I not only try and subdue the colors when painting, I leave the dust and it works great. I even have spider webs, most of those I clean off, but sometimes where they place their webs is perfect. Like wires from poles or a telephone line to a building, (I am serious), they have actually strung their webs between phone poles, I kid you not. But I leave most of the dust because it take the colors down a few notches and looks more realistic.

I also took Tony's suggestion to heart, by not using bright colors, and if I do, then weathering becomes trick. You yourself have a wonderful layout, the WTRR is on the way but I have no way to put pictures on the net, but I'll find a way. Thanks for your work in the hobby.

The Yardmaster

WTRR Railroad 

[simon1966]

It depends. If you fancy yourself a modeler first and don't run trains too much, then good looks comes first. But if, like me, all this other modeling stuff is simply a means to the end of operation, then good performance comes first, then good looks.  

I would contend that if you want to run the layout at all, even if it is just a train running in a loop, if it does not run flawlessly then any modeller would be doomed to disappointment.  I don't have nearly the skill or the experience of you Joe, but I learned very early on to test the heck out of my track-work before getting going on the scenery.  Even if I considered myself first and foremost a modeller with limited interest in operation, when visitors come to see the layout they want to  see a train run.  A poorly running train, derailments etc will quickly take attention away from excellent scenery.

[zgardner18]

Thanks Joe, you've brought our some great points. 

[jfugate]

Joe,

I'm not sure if this question has come up or not but what would you guess it would cost per sq ft. to do your layout with your techniques.  Reason I ask is when it comes time to build my scenery for my layout, mine will be much like yours with the landscape being mostly pine trees and tall grass and scrubs.  What cost can I estimate?

Zak:

What I spent and what you need to spend will be different since my layout is 16 years old now and costs have gone up.  So you will need to reprice things at todays prices to get a modern figure.

Layout costs are interesting ... they won't be what people expect. There's the obvious cost of the space, but I won't cover that here, since the cost of housing is pretty well understood.

But let's discuss hobby costs for a moment.

The cheapest part of a layout is the benchwork and plain plaster scenery. Next comes wiring and electrical. The most expensive part of a basic layout is the trackwork, and turnouts are the most expensive part of trackwork.

For me, my basic layout cost me (1991-1997) about $7 per square foot. This is with all the benchwork and trackwork, and DCC system in place and bare brown plaster. No trees or finished scenery.

The two most expensive layout items are equipment and scenery details. As to equipment, locos cost the most (that's obvious to most people), and scenery detail cost can just go on and on and on, until you want to quit detailing. If you are into superdetailing your scenery alla George Sellios style, then be prepared for your scenery detailing costs to be more than the cost of your equipment.

I'm not a superdetailing guy, I'm more in Allen McClelland's camp of "good enough" detailing. I prefer for the overall scene to look complete and detailed, but not to go crazy with details. This approach is certainly cheaper.

My scenery details double the square foot price of the layout to $14 per sq ft. The cost of my equipment has been about equal to the cost of the layout, with details. So if you wanted to turn that into a square foot figure (kind of hard with equipment, obviously, but we can try it just for interest's sake), then we've got about $28 per square foot for a completely finished layout. Now that's in 1990 dollars, and some 2000 dollars. If you are just starting today, it's going to be more ... my guess is at least 25% more.

Using these figures a basic 4x8 would cost you about $900, which sounds about right. A 500 sq ft layout, finished, would cost you about $14,000, which sounds like a lot, but if you build the layout over 10 years time, that's just a little over $100 a month. A nice dinner and a movie for two can run you $50, so $100 per month on the hobby isn't all that much.

So the basic layout is pretty cheap ($7 per sq ft). It's what you put on the layout (scenery details and equipment) that costs the real money ($21 per sq ft). Of course, it's probably more today ... my guess would be something like $9 per sq ft for the basic layout and $26 per sq ft for all the details and equipment.

So here's an idea ... tell all your buddies you will provide the layout if they will provide all the equipment ... and you have just cut the cost of the hobby in half, if you do that.

[grayfox1119]

I am definetely in the camp of "working layout" first, scene design secondary. Afterall, our love is trains and railroad operations, the rest is to give us a feel of reality for surroundings.

[jfugate]

I guess, then, that the "compleat" modeller takes a more "wholistic" approach to his layout if he wants to impress guests of both natures, the non-modelling ones and the ones who like realistic operations.  As Yogi Berra would have said, "Ya gotta cover your bases."

Selector:

Very astute observation. I once visited a layout with imaculate scenery, the layout was totally scenicked to completion, everything was weathered, all the buildings were done -- everything!

Seeing a completely finished layout like that was almost sensory overload -- it looked absolutely stunning. However, it was a still life. Talking to some local modelers, they related to me the layout ran like crap. Things derailed all over the place, the trackwork was so bad you couldn't have a decent op session. The owner of the layout was beside himself with disappointment at how the layout had turned out operationally.

So for the best all-around satisfying layout, you need both good looks and good performance.

But this begs the question -- if you have to make a choice, if you have to make a compromise, which is best? Good looks or good performance?

It depends. If you fancy yourself a modeler first and don't run trains too much, then good looks comes first. But if, like me, all this other modeling stuff is simply a means to the end of operation, then good performance comes first, then good looks.  

[zgardner18]

Joe,

I'm not sure if this question has come up or not but what would you guess it would cost per sq ft. to do your layout with your techniques.  Reason I ask is when it comes time to build my scenery for my layout, mine will be much like yours with the landscape being mostly pine trees and tall grass and scrubs.  What cost can I estimate?

[selector]

I guess, then, that the "compleat" modeller takes a more "wholistic" approach to his layout if he wants to impress guests of both natures, the non-modelling ones and the ones who like realistic operations.  As Yogi Berra would have said, "Ya gotta cover your bases."

[jfugate]

SB:

For presentation purposes (first impression, for example), scenery makes a huge difference. And if you want to put your layout in the magazines or post photos online, it's the scenery photos that will carry you.

So yes, SB, great observation.

However ... when operating your layout, scenery matters less than you might think in the mix. I discuss the various layout items that influence "quality of run" in my operations forum clinic here.

In the operations mix, whether or not the layout has scenery is pretty far down the list.

So if you are just looking at the layout, yes, scenery makes a huge difference. But once you start running trains, how statisfying that experience is depends more on the train and its performance than it does on the presence or lack of scenery. In other words, the greatest looking scenery in the world isn't going to increase your train-running enjoyment one whit if the train looks and runs like crap!  

[SBCA]

I'm becoming convinced that scenery is just about the most important aspect of making a model railroad apear to be high quality.

It may be sort of superficial, but it's sort of like how a nicely groomed person will always leave you with a better impression than someone who does not care at all about thier appearance.

Nothing draws me to the look of a layout more than the scenery

(this is my opinion only, of course)

[jfugate]

For those interested in more on my scenery techniques, I'm doing a series of downloadable video PDFs for Model Railroader called the "Tenmile Creek" series. Please email or pm me directly if you want to know more ... or visit my website (link in my signature).

[jfugate]

I think I got it - follow the link to the video.  I thought there was something on the exact page you were linking to.

Actually, there's some news of interest to people who may be looking for more info about my scenery techniques on the page itself and if you want to know more, yes, there's a link to some video previews.

All of the chapters in the DVD will also eventually be turned into video PDFs for MR as part of the new Tenmile Creek series -- so you can get the video info either way -- your choice. The MR video PDF versions, since they're a chapter at a time, will probably come out sooner than the model-trains-video.com DVD since the DVD can't be produced until all the chapters are done. 

If you want to know more about the specifics, you can email me directly or can go post questions in the forum on my web site. 

[SBCA]

I think I got it - follow the link to the video.  I thought there was something on the exact page you were linking to.

 

[jfugate]

Joe, I enjoy reading your material.  Am I not following the link correctly?

Where's the new info?

Edit: It's cool to see a person in the same shot as those trees.  Wow, I would not have guessed they were that big.

Often times HO stuff looks like O stuff when you really start to model larger items.

SBCA:

Did you finally get the link to work? If not, send me a private message (pm - below) and I'll help you figure out the problem so the link will work.

Yes, I like to put a person in the picture to remind you how big (or small) those models really are. 

[jfugate]

Bob:

DAP Vinyl Spackling, of course (seriously) ...