new light on a 4'x8'

[SpaceMouse]

cahrn,

I have found it is pointless to argue with a person whose mind is made up. That said, I am not directing my comments toward you rather I am replying to the thread hijack.  

The actual plans you have been looking at to this point have been invisible so I have not had a lot of comments. And quite frankly, the suggestions I have made, as early as the first post to this thread, have seemed to have gone ignored.

So pick and choose who you listen to. There may be diamonds, but typically, you have to sort a lot of coal.

[cuyama]

Cahrn,

It's understandable that one might feel a little cranky with the direction the thread has gone, however it's not correct that nobody's offered any suggestions for what you could do with your existing 4X8 table. You've heard suggestions to use a center divider. You mentioned the specific trackplan in which you were interested and I suggested that you might want to rework the switchback industry spurs on the one side and look at curving the backdrop, even if you stay with a 4X8. I also showed how one might alleviate some of the limitations of the plan you were looking at if one could add a foot of width and you mentioned you were looking at it. Guess you decided against that.

That specific Toronto Central plan in which you were interested has the additional limitation I mentioned that the "main" oval takes an unusual path through the yard ladder and there are some slightly tight S-curves in the 4X8 version.

A lot of the comments have been directed at those who jumped onto your thread. Some posters proclaimed that the 4X8 was a superior form factor for an HO railroad, even compared to 5X9, 5X10, etc. Some of these folks approach the HO 4X8 sacred sheet with a fervor and reverence normally reserved for national treasures, when it's really mostly the by-product of the building industry's preference for sheet goods size.

However, nobody's arguing that the 4X8 might not be good for you since you already have a table -- just suggesting alternatives. If you want to post an image of what you are considering, I'm sure a number of folks will have comments and suggestions. But without that, we're left to argue among ourselves, which seems to be what this forum does best.

Byron
Model RR Blog

[HarryHotspur]

Lifting the 4' x 8' up is a much better system for the original poster than an around the walls layout which would block access to his cabinets and prevent him from getting his car outof the garage.

Amazing how you want everyone to be a lemming. 

 Yo, Harry - by "you", I assume you probably mean me ?  If so, you happen to be are wrong - I am not saying that everybody should do things this way or everybody should do things that way.  

 I am a pragmatist - if it works, it works. I believe I have acknowledged several times in this thread that a 4x8 certainly can be done pretty well, and that it may indeed be a good solution for the original poster in this thread, given his circumstances.

 I am not the person in this thread who keep making absolute statments like "never use a divider" or "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout" and express similar seemingly dogmatic beliefs.

You are misquoting me. I said center board, not divider. If I said "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout", it was poorly phrased. I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible.

 It is not quite clear to me why you apparently are walking around with a stick on your shoulder, looking for something you can construe as a personal insult. But I very respectfully suggest that maybe you should try to take that stick down from your shoulder and relax a little.

 You certainly can make a good looking layout in 4x8. And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned.

It's similar to this one, but without the lower portion where the engine house, etc. is located.

 

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[HarryHotspur]

And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned.

 

So would I.

I find it funny that you argue against following what the modeling magazines advocate, yet, when it comes to the 4x8 form-factor, you're wiiling to do exactly that.

Haven't you noticed? The current trend in the mags is point to point shelf layouts. It's just on the edge, but it's building steam rapidly. It will be mainstream in a few years. 

[Midnight Railroader]

 

 

 This layout's much closer to 3x7 than 4x8. So I guess 4x8's not all that great, eh?

[rolleiman]

 

 

 This layout's much closer to 3x7 than 4x8. So I guess 4x8's not all that great, eh?

You REALLY should start your Own bash the 4x8 thread if you want to discuss it. But since you insist on arguing with everybody here in This thread,  

#1. The original G&D as planned, with the engine terminal inside the loops was 3'7" x 6'8". Considerably wider than 3 feet. As drawn in Harry's post, with the engine terminal outside the loops, the layout was  4'8 x 6'8.

#2. The layout was not built with a stock lumberyard sheet of 4x8 plywood but was open framed cookie cutter benchwork so the 4x8 argument doesn't even apply with ONE exception. IT WAS A RECTANGULAR LAYOUT. NOT AN AROUND THE WALLS affair. A layout that incedentally was later incorporated into a much larger one. TWICE. 

The original one most certainly could have, can, probably has, and will likely continue to be, built using the 4x8 sheet. Like it or not, people use it. Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic. 

[Midnight Railroader]

Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic. 

Childish and moronic? Explain what you mean. All I have done is suggest that the 4x8 form-factor does not make for the best model railroad. How is that childish? How is it moronic? 

It looks to me that supporters of the 4x8, most likely people who have a layout of that size and shape, are taking this discussion far too personally.

[Ulrich]

The 4X8 is a good size but somewhat limiting if you're modelling present day Class 1 operations. My own layout is a tad larger..5X9..and even that size presents challenges. But I don't want a humongous layout that will suck up all of my spare time...the smaller 4X8 or 5X9 is good for people who like the hobby but don't have the space or the time for a big layout.

[loathar]

The 4X8 is a good size but somewhat limiting if you're modelling present day Class 1 operations. My own layout is a tad larger..5X9..and even that size presents challenges. But I don't want a humongous layout that will suck up all of my spare time...the smaller 4X8 or 5X9 is good for people who like the hobby but don't have the space or the time for a big layout.

Yep...
(P.S.-Water is clear.)

[steinjr]

 I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible.

 

 I guess it depends on your criteria for "better scenery". I have no doubt that John Armstrong Allen was a master model builder, and that any scenery (mountains, tunnel portals, bridges, buildings etc) he produced would be far superior to anything I could build - no matter whether the scene he worked on had been 1 foot deep, 2 feet deep or 4 feet deep.

 

 Here is, to the best of my ability, a schematic representation of the track plan of Gorre and Daphetid, unless I have misread the plan you posted: 

 The three main scenes are :
 - The town of Gorre
 - the aquaduct/bridge scene
 - The mine at Daphetid

 For me it is feels more like a drawback than an advantage that in the 4x8 (or 3.7" x7" or whatever) format John Allen had to fold these three scenes on top of each other so they were all visible above each other in the same view at the same time.

  A train going from Gorre to Daphetid would have to pass through the same 4 foot deep scene three times - first at ground level in Gorre in the foreground, the the same train would come back through the same scene a little higher in elevation but also in the foreground passing over the aquaduct/bridge, and finally it would end its journey at Daphetid at the highest elevation in the background.

 Allen  very skillfully used the two tunnels to increase the length of the run and to help partially compensate for the fact that the scenes was folded on top of each other view. I am sure that he also did things operationally to help compensate for the through the same scene multiple times feeling that the 4x8 format impose on the track plan - like maybe stopping a train in one of the tunnels and running some switching in Gorre before letting the first train continue and stuff like that.

 I am also sure that he carefully picked a location and an era where one would run small engines, small cars and short trains, so that the very sharp curves needed for this track plan wouldn't look too bad.. 

  I am not saying that you cannot do stuff to partially compensate for the inherent limitations in running a loop (or figure 8) on a 4 foot wide rectangular island layout.

 But it does take a master model builder to make multiple passes through the same scene in 4 feet of depth look good.

 Getting scenery depth is all about creating the illusion of depth for the viewer. The same scenes (Gorre, the Aquaduct and Daphetid) would still have looked just as (or possibly even more) impressive on an around the wall shelf layout, if a master model builder had made the mountains, trestles etc.

 The tunnels could probably have been modelled just fine  on 6-8" deep shelves without much in the way of loss of look and feel - just enough shelf depth to make the mountain/cliff wall slope in a sensible manner over the tunel, while the town of Gorre with the dam and impressive trestle in the background could probably have been modelled very well in 24"-36" of depth.

  Just have a look at this very impressive scenery shot from poster Grampys Trains:

   Looks pretty good, eh ? Physcial layout depth is not all that much in this shot. But the illustion of depth is superb.

 Have a look at this WPF thread for some more pics from Grampys Trains. 

 I would almost have entertained the thought of selling my first born son into slavery to be able to aquire the landscaping and modelling skills of someone like John Allen  or Grampys Trains

 But my point remains this : yes, you certainly can make an excellent looking layout in 4x8 feet. And as we both have noted - if you cannot go along the walls, then you have to do something free standing (and possibly removeable) in the middle of the floor.

 You do what you need to do. If that means the extra hassle of clearing away furniture or getting the car out of the garage and setting up sawhorses or some other form of temporary benchwork to prop a 4x8 on, then so be it. 

  But the way I look at it, the fact that you have find a way to distract attention away from the fact that your trains have to turn or loop back (possibly more than once) within a given 4 foot deep scene is an extra design challenge the 4 foot wide island format imposes, not a special strength of that format. 

 You may not agree with that assessment. That's perfectly okay - we don't have to agree on this. And I would love to see how your layout turns out when you get to build it. 

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[markpierce]

Stein, you are confusing John Allen with John Armstrong.  Allen is known for his model/scenery building, while Armstrong is known for his layout planning.  Your post deals with John Allen.  Armstrong has nothing to do with it.

Mark

[HarryHotspur]

The Gorre and Daphetid was built by John Allen.

[steinjr]

The Gorre and Daphetid was built by John Allen.

 Ah - I knew that there was a little voice in the back of my head that was saying that there was something wrong there, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Of course - the builder of the G&D was John Allen, not John Armstrong. 

 But the builder's name makes no difference to the core of my argument. Having to make a H0 scale train loop back in 4 feet of layout width without a scenic divider of some kind is not a strength of the 4x8 type format - it is an extra design challenge.

 Grin,
 Stein

 

[Randall_Roberts]

Here's some links:

John Allen's Goree and Daphetid 

Eulogy for John Armstrong

Forgive me if I posted this one earlier in this thread... I recommend it often:

Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong

Best!

[HarryHotspur]

Stein -

In the final analysis I suppose it depends on whether your ultimate goal is accuracy or artistry.

For example, I could take a photo of a person which would be more accurate than anything Rembrandt could paint. But it wouldn't likely be an especially appealing photograph, and the overwhelming majority of people would greatly prefer Rembrandt's portrait because of the it captures and expresses not only the physical characteristics of the subject but also the personality and the essense of the subject. Still, my photograph would be more accurate due entirely to the modern photgraphic technology incorporated in my camera.

In modern lingo, Rembrandt's work has "It" or the "Wow Factor" and mine doesn't. In model railroading, John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and others have "It". Perhaps some who have "it" works in shelf format, but I just haven't seen it. While close ups of Grampys Trains and others can look terrific, the overall effect of a picture of the whole layout or when seen in person is much less so. This is one of those format limitations you refer to.

Finally, I don't think I understand this paragraph:

But the way I look at it, the fact that you have find a way to distract attention away from the fact that your trains have to turn or loop back (possibly more than once) within a given 4 foot deep scene is an extra design challenge the 4 foot wide island format imposes, not a special strength of that format.

I would agree that, all things being equal, more available space is better than less up to a point. But I'm curious, if you had say a 20' x 54' rectangularly shaped room to use solely as a train room, how would you use the space?

[Midnight Railroader]

In modern lingo, Rembrandt's work has "It" or the "Wow Factor" and mine doesn't. In model railroading, John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and others have "It".

To YOU. But that's by no means universal.

I prefer the impression made by Chuck Hitchcock's work or David Barrow's CM&SF of the 70s and 80s.

Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles

[rolleiman]

Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic. 

Childish and moronic? Explain what you mean. All I have done is suggest that the 4x8 form-factor does not make for the best model railroad. How is that childish? How is it moronic?

It has been moronic because instead of starting your own thread where all the bashers of the 4x8 can congregate and slap each other on the back, you've chosen to hijack this one. The OP said from the Start, that he currently has a 4x8 table he'd like to RE-USE. You lost sight of that before your first post.  I doubt you even saw it. Only the thread title and you were off. It has been childish because you seem to have taken the issue of the '4x8 form factor' WAY too personally, that anyone would even Dare to consider building one. That's the way I've read your posts anyway. If you haven't taken it personally, you've certainly spent a lot of time on an impersonal subject. We heard you the first 9000 times. It doesn't make a rat's butt worth of difference to me how anyone builds their layout, or even IF they build one. 

 

It looks to me that supporters of the 4x8, most likely people who have a layout of that size and shape, are taking this discussion far too personally.

As for That idiotic statement,

Here's my current one.

 

Here's the next one.

Where's yours? 

[HarryHotspur]

In modern lingo, Rembrandt's work has "It" or the "Wow Factor" and mine doesn't. In model railroading, John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and others have "It".

To YOU. But that's by no means universal.

I prefer the impression made by Chuck Hitchcock's work or David Barrow's CM&SF of the 70s and 80s.

Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles

I'm afraid you missed the point entirely - would you prefer one of my photographs over portraits painted by David Barrow or Chuck Hitchcock?  I promise you that you would not, even though my photos are more realistic.

Another question : If you had a 20' x 54' rectangularly shaped room to use solely as a train room, how would you use the space?

[HarryHotspur]

Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles

All model railroads are a fantasy - the trains are very small, the people don't move, winds don't blow, and on and on. 

[steinjr]

Stein -

In the final analysis I suppose it depends on whether your ultimate goal is accuracy or artistry.

 I maybe would be evil enough to use the phrases "realistic scenes" vs "busy scenes", rather than "accuracy vs artistry", since both types of scenes can be done with equal levels of craftmanship (or "artistry", if you prefer).

 In the final analysis our debate has been a rerun of ye olde "prototyping/protolancing vs freelance" debate.

 To rephrase what I think you are saying - to me, a model railroad looks better if the illusion created is more like looking at a real railroad, to you it is irrelevant if the scene looks realistic, as long as the the scene looks good to you. Would that be a somewhat fair summary ? 

 Most people would probably prefer the look of a layout (or a painting) made by a great master to a layout (or painting) made by an amateur, no matter what style the layout (or painting) was made in.

 The finish, details and impression you get left with from a layout is mainly a function of the craftsmanship (or even artistry) exhibited by the designer and builder, not a function of the format in itself.

 Great artists have expressed themselves in many different formats, from ceilings filled with huge paintings in vivid colors to tiny watercolors in very subdued colors. Art is way too big to be thought of merely as the opposite of realistic.

 In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g  Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent". 

 Even though "Carnival and Lent" painting has far more going on within the scene than just having six gentlemen dressed in black by a plain looking table. 

 But I totally acknowledge that this is matter of taste. And different people just have different tastes. It is not only a fact of life, but a great thing - variation is the spice of life.

 

Finally, I don't think I understand this paragraph:

But the way I look at it, the fact that you have find a way to distract attention away from the fact that your trains have to turn or loop back (possibly more than once) within a given 4 foot deep scene is an extra design challenge the 4 foot wide island format imposes, not a special strength of that format.

 To me, it is distracting to have a train pass through the same view/scene many times on different levels - it does mar the illusion of realism.To you that sense of realism apparently is not an important factor. Which is perfectly fine.

 

 I would agree that, all things being equal, more available space is better than less up to a point. But I'm curious, if you had say a 20' x 54' rectangularly shaped room to use solely as a train room, how would you use the space?

 Tough question. I have never had that much space available, and very likely never will. To me, it is more a question of what you do with what you have than a question of dreaming for stuff I cannot have. 

 But assuming I had the level of craftmanship and other resources to actually carry it out - I think I would by far have preferred to do something like Chuch Hitchcock's around the wall Argentine Industrial District Railway or David Barrow Cat Mountain style layout with room for quite a few people to run trains at the same time through a busy industrial landscape to doing a George Selios' or Malcom Furlow more elaborate style layout.

 Or maybe made a longish and winding mushroom style railroad using Belina drop dividers to hide the turnover curves, where you could intersperse busier scenes with transition or rest scenes of maybe 6-8 foot in length (roughly 20-25 N-scale 40' cars).

 Obviously - it would depend a lot on what vision I decided to try to recreate - I love both innercity/industrial switching in tight corners and longish trains passing through landscapes that dwarf the trains.

 I don't know if that answers your question ?

 I do not have the time (or desire) to come up with a full track plan for a room that big. And of course - I do not have the resources (money, time, manpower or level of craftmanship) to pull off a grand layout in 20x54 feet. Or the exclusive use of a 20x54 foot room

 What I have available is non-exclusive use of a smallish room that is 6 1/2 feet wide by 11 1/2 feet long, where I have to share the use of the room with other things - like small home workshop and storage. So I'll do as best I can within those parameters. 

 As we all must with the space we have available - whether it be a temporary 8x10 space in the center of the garage when the car is moved out, or the walls between the workbench and storage shelves in a smallish room. 

 No matter where you build and in what style you build - I wish you good luck with your layout.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[cordon]

About five years ago I restarted the hobby pretty much from where I had left it in 1955.  Due to space limitations I chose 4' x 7'.  I personally prefer right-hand running on two-track mains, and I wanted a reversing loop.  It worked, but it challenged all my limited track laying skills to get the reversing loop to work in that space.  It has to be very close to perfect to work well, and I was spending too much time getting it good enough.  Plus, it really did look funny, even though the 6-axle loco ran well.  I have one huge boxcar that wouldn't run at all, but everything else was OK, sort of.  Fortunately, I moved to a different house and immediately expanded the model RR to 7' x 12'.  Someday, maybe I will move beyond tables.  Everything works much better now, and I have room for a small yard and some industry.

What a coincidence!  Those are my suggestions - two-track main line and a reversing loop, with at least two crossovers and a few sidings here and there.  It supports both loopy-loop and point-to-point, and you won't have many head-on crashes if you follow the right-hand running rules.  Please note that it's hard to get a head-on crash with DC, very easy to do with DCC.

Plus, I have this plan in my head to transition to a round-the-wall with three different elevations.  The table will be the desert floor and the walls of the room will be the mountains.  If all goes well, the longer trains will actually need the helpers.  Easy.

 

 

[markpierce]

Stein said: "In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g  Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent". "

I'd definitely go with the guild painting rather than the carnival.  No probability about it.

Mark

[HarryHotspur]

Stein -

In the final analysis I suppose it depends on whether your ultimate goal is accuracy or artistry.

 I maybe would be evil enough to use the phrases "realistic scenes" vs "busy scenes", rather than "accuracy vs artistry", since both types of scenes can be done with equal levels of craftmanship (or "artistry", if you prefer).

 In the final analysis our debate has been a rerun of ye olde "prototyping/protolancing vs freelance" debate.

 To rephrase what I think you are saying - to me, a model railroad looks better if the illusion created is more like looking at a real railroad, to you it is irrelevant if the scene looks realistic, as long as the the scene looks good to you. Would that be a somewhat fair summary ? 

 Most people would probably prefer the look of a layout (or a painting) made by a great master to a layout (or painting) made by an amateur, no matter what style the layout (or painting) was made in.

 The finish, details and impression you get left with from a layout is mainly a function of the craftsmanship (or even artistry) exhibited by the designer and builder, not a function of the format in itself.

 Great artists have expressed themselves in many different formats, from ceilings filled with huge paintings in vivid colors to tiny watercolors in very subdued colors. Art is way too big to be thought of merely as the opposite of realistic.

 In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g  Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent". 

 Even though "Carnival and Lent" painting has far more going on within the scene than just having six gentlemen dressed in black by a plain looking table. 

 But I totally acknowledge that this is matter of taste. And different people just have different tastes. It is not only a fact of life, but a great thing - variation is the spice of life.

Darn it, Stein, you have missed my point as badly as Midnight did. Since you're obviously an intelligent guy, I must be wording it badly, so let me try again.

Suppose I'm standing beside Rembrandt or Brueghel (one of my favorites) or any artist whose work YOU like. And I take a picture of the scene the artist is painting, be it a portrait, landscape or whatever. If I have a resonably good camera and I am a reasonably good amateur photographer, my photograph will be a more accurate and realistic rendition of the scene that that painted by the artist.

But which would 99% of the people rather have? Which you rather have to hang on your wall if I offered to give you one of them? The point is that virtually everybody would choose the painting - remember it's a painting by YOUR favorite artist. However, my photograph is almost guaranteed to be more accurate and realistic than the painting, simply by virtue of the medium.

I know you will say that you can't compare two media, but MRers do that all the time. They compare the visual results regardless of whether the builder used plaster or cement because the goal is the same. A realistic 3D visual presentation of a real life scene.

So why do they like Rembrandt's better than my pic? Because it has elegance, elan, composition, and many other factors lacking in my photo. It also fools the eye - it tricks the viewer into seeing what the viewer thought he saw in the real life scene. For example, the viewer might well say, "I don't remember seeing that trash can in the meadow that shows up in your photo and it's not in the painting either." Of course he saw the trash can, but his visual memory doesn't retain that detail. The artist knows the painting will be better without it, so he leaves it out. But the photo has the trash can and the photo is indisputably more realistic.

In looking at model railroad, I want to see something which appears to be totally accurate* to anyone except someone who it holding a photo to compare it to, but I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it.

* I think we all realize that no MR can literally be totally accurate to the point of curves so broad you can barely tell they're curved, hundred of yards or more separating small towns, etc. As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth. Some just have more than others.

 A final note: If a MR were perfectly accurate insofar as length between scenes, I think it would be very boring to operate or watch.

Cheers,

- Harry 

BTW, I'm not familiar with Chuch Hitchcock or David Barrow. If you could link some photos (or paint us a picture of his work, I would appreciate it.

 

[steinjr]

Suppose I'm standing beside Rembrandt or Brueghel (one of my favorites) or any artist whose work YOU like. And I take a picture of the scene the artist is painting, be it a portrait, landscape or whatever. If I have a resonably good camera and I am a reasonably good amateur photographer, my photograph will be a more accurate and realistic rendition of the scene that that painted by the artist.

But which would 99% of the people rather have? Which you rather have to hang on your wall if I offered to give you one of them? The point is that virtually everybody would choose the painting - remember it's a painting by YOUR favorite artist. However, my photograph is almost guaranteed to be more accurate and realistic than the painting, simply by virtue of the medium.

 Umm - I think the analogy is getting in the way of communication here. A layout is a layout - 3D physical model of trains, tracks and scenery of various kinds.  Using your analogy - when we compare two layouts made in different styles, we are not comparing a photo and a painting - we are comparing a painting and a painting. Or a photo and a photo, if you will.

 

I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it.

<snip> 

 As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth.

 I actually agree with your goal. I just question whether your proposed solution is the most optimal way of achieving that goal. What do you think would best convey a sense of completeness :

 - looking over a table layout to see the rest of the room beyond the layout?, or

 - looking into an 18" high and 24" deep "shadow box" that stretches as far as your peripherial  vision can see both left and right from your viewpoint and has a background which tricks the eye into believing that the scenery continues further into the background ? 

 

 

BTW, I'm not familiar with Chuch Hitchcock or David Barrow. If you could link some photos (or paint us a picture of his work, I would appreciate it.

 Hitchcock:
    Model Railroad Planning 2002 - can be purchased here

 Barrow:
    Model Railroader September 1999 - can be purchased here

 Anyways - I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what is the best way of creating an illusion of a large world compressed into small model.

 Smile,
 Stein

 

[HarryHotspur]

 I actually agree with your goal. I just question whether your proposed solution is the most optimal way of achieving that goal. What do you think would best convey a sense of completeness :

 - looking over a table layout to see the rest of the room beyond the layout?, or

 - looking into an 18" high and 24" deep "shadow box" that stretches as far as your peripherial  vision can see both left and right from your viewpoint and has a background which tricks the eye into believing that the scenery continues further into the background ? 

 Looking into an 18 feet by 24 feet shadow box is best.

Anyways - I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what is the best way of creating an illusion of a large world compressed into small model.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. 

[markpierce]

The strength of this thread is amazing.  What gives?

[markpierce]

Yes, this has got to be the Battery Bunny of all single topic threads.

[Geared Steam]

The strength of this thread is amazing.  What gives?

I disagree on the strength you propose, I don't feel that it is amazing, but merely unbelievable. 

[Tjsingle]

The strength of this thread is amazing.  What gives?

I disagree on the strength you propose, I don't feel that it is amazing, but merely unbelievable. 

exactly