markpierceThat's right. You'll won't ever see a prototype railroad that goes directly from a tunnel and then onto a bridge, and not along the side of a cliff either.
That's right. You'll won't ever see a prototype railroad that goes directly from a tunnel and then onto a bridge, and not along the side of a cliff either.
Wow, nice modeling Mark! But the rock walls are way too steep as, well, that never happens in nature you know.......... What, oh that's the real thing??? Gee and I was just going to compliment you on those non shiny little people!
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
MisterBeasley Glad to see you're still with us, Mark.
Glad to see you're still with us, Mark.
I admit being melodramatic, but I was disgusted enough to cut down a tree just to vent.
Mark
howmus markpierce That's right. You'll won't ever see a prototype railroad that goes directly from a tunnel and then onto a bridge, and not along the side of a cliff either. Wow, nice modeling Mark! The rock walls are way too steep as well that never happens in nature you know.......... What, oh that's the real thing??? Gee and I was just going to compliment you on those non shiny little people!
markpierce That's right. You'll won't ever see a prototype railroad that goes directly from a tunnel and then onto a bridge, and not along the side of a cliff either.
Wow, nice modeling Mark! The rock walls are way too steep as well that never happens in nature you know.......... What, oh that's the real thing??? Gee and I was just going to compliment you on those non shiny little people!
Ray--you beat me to the punch line-----I was going to ask Mark whether he was taking up superrealism as a reaction to abstractionism!!!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinder My N scale people are now bought unpainted and I just paint them with flat acrylic craft paints---don't have dulcoat issues------and my insulators are the usual black/dk brown(which I have somewhere in the basement---
My N scale people are now bought unpainted and I just paint them with flat acrylic craft paints---don't have dulcoat issues------and my insulators are the usual black/dk brown(which I have somewhere in the basement---
Yeah, cause hand painting N scale figures is much easier than hitting them with some dull coat.
John
onequiknova Yeah, cause hand painting N scale figures is much easier than hitting them with some dull coat.
I also have little fur bearing fellow who loves to go 'round investigating ev'rytime I use the ding thing---
blownout cylinderGarages plopped in middle of field---with NO way to get to it
selectora person pointed out that my white utility pole insulators never existed.
CNJ831 twhite Autobus Prime CNJ831 One of my pet gripes are the over used Sedum "trees". I'm never quite sure whether they look Art Deco-ish, or just surrealistic. Either way, they don't look anything like real-world trees to me. CNJ831 CNJ: They do look like elm trees, which are unfortunately not as common as they once were. Elms have that vase-like shape. They also resemble a type of oak that grows at certain elevations here in the foothills of the northern Sierra Nevada. And believe it or not, they resemble some of the maple trees out here that were brought out by New Englanders during the Gold Rush and have adapted to the mountain weather and elevations at about 3,000 feet above sea level. Tom I'm sorry guys, but Sedum doesn't even vaguely resemble any elm tree I've ever encountered in the eastern U.S. and there were plenty around when I was growing up. Below is an image of a typical American Elm. It bears no resemblance to Sedum's opened umbrella, essentially broad, flat-topped profile/appearance. The same goes for any of the various New England species of maples. I can't speak to westcoast tree species but I can't ever recall seeing any common North American tree that closely resembles Sedum. If you are familiar with any, please post an image. CNJ831
twhite Autobus Prime CNJ831 One of my pet gripes are the over used Sedum "trees". I'm never quite sure whether they look Art Deco-ish, or just surrealistic. Either way, they don't look anything like real-world trees to me. CNJ831 CNJ: They do look like elm trees, which are unfortunately not as common as they once were. Elms have that vase-like shape. They also resemble a type of oak that grows at certain elevations here in the foothills of the northern Sierra Nevada. And believe it or not, they resemble some of the maple trees out here that were brought out by New Englanders during the Gold Rush and have adapted to the mountain weather and elevations at about 3,000 feet above sea level. Tom
Autobus Prime CNJ831 One of my pet gripes are the over used Sedum "trees". I'm never quite sure whether they look Art Deco-ish, or just surrealistic. Either way, they don't look anything like real-world trees to me. CNJ831 CNJ: They do look like elm trees, which are unfortunately not as common as they once were. Elms have that vase-like shape.
CNJ831 One of my pet gripes are the over used Sedum "trees". I'm never quite sure whether they look Art Deco-ish, or just surrealistic. Either way, they don't look anything like real-world trees to me. CNJ831
One of my pet gripes are the over used Sedum "trees". I'm never quite sure whether they look Art Deco-ish, or just surrealistic. Either way, they don't look anything like real-world trees to me.
CNJ831
CNJ:
They do look like elm trees, which are unfortunately not as common as they once were. Elms have that vase-like shape.
They also resemble a type of oak that grows at certain elevations here in the foothills of the northern Sierra Nevada. And believe it or not, they resemble some of the maple trees out here that were brought out by New Englanders during the Gold Rush and have adapted to the mountain weather and elevations at about 3,000 feet above sea level.
Tom
I'm sorry guys, but Sedum doesn't even vaguely resemble any elm tree I've ever encountered in the eastern U.S. and there were plenty around when I was growing up. Below is an image of a typical American Elm. It bears no resemblance to Sedum's opened umbrella, essentially broad, flat-topped profile/appearance. The same goes for any of the various New England species of maples.
I can't speak to westcoast tree species but I can't ever recall seeing any common North American tree that closely resembles Sedum. If you are familiar with any, please post an image.
Well, that's definitely an elm, and at the same time, I've definitely seen elms that had the vase shape. Here's a younger one:
http://biology.missouristate.edu/Herbarium/TreesonCampus/images/Ulmusamericana.jpg
D. C. Peattie writes about variations in form, the "oak" form (which is probably what your photo is) as well as the weeping, feathered, or vase forms. Of course, environment is everything with trees. I was looking at them the other day, after posting my remark up there, and realized that most of the city's street trees would probably be somewhat unbelievable as models.
You're right that maples don't normally resemble sedum in the slightest. Grown free, they have a very elegant egg-shape. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if wind-blasted, stunted mountain trees had taken on very untypical forms.
Perhaps it would be best to say that sedum can be made to look like an elm...I do agree that plopped-down sedum tends to look "off". Trees are something we still haven't nailed down in this hobby. I guess Joyce Kilmer was right. :)
Texas Zepher blownout cylinderGarages plopped in middle of field---with NO way to get to it I've got one of those in my "back yard".
My garage reference was about those with service bays and gas pumps---oh and new---not standing by some overgrown roadway----heeheehee
Autobus Prime (CNJ831 says) I'm sorry guys, but Sedum doesn't even vaguely resemble any elm tree I've ever encountered in the eastern U.S. and there were plenty around when I was growing up. Below is an image of a typical American Elm. It bears no resemblance to Sedum's opened umbrella, essentially broad, flat-topped profile/appearance. The same goes for any of the various New England species of maples. CNJ: Well, that's definitely an elm, and at the same time, I've definitely seen elms that had the vase shape. Here's a younger one: http://biology.missouristate.edu/Herbarium/TreesonCampus/images/Ulmusamericana.jpg D. C. Peattie writes about variations in form, the "oak" form (which is probably what your photo is) as well as the weeping, feathered, or vase forms. Of course, environment is everything with trees. I was looking at them the other day, after posting my remark up there, and realized that most of the city's street trees would probably be somewhat unbelievable as models. Perhaps it would be best to say that sedum can be made to look like an elm...I do agree that plopped-down sedum tends to look "off". Trees are something we still haven't nailed down in this hobby. I guess Joyce Kilmer was right. :)
(CNJ831 says) I'm sorry guys, but Sedum doesn't even vaguely resemble any elm tree I've ever encountered in the eastern U.S. and there were plenty around when I was growing up. Below is an image of a typical American Elm. It bears no resemblance to Sedum's opened umbrella, essentially broad, flat-topped profile/appearance. The same goes for any of the various New England species of maples.
The picture I previously posted and as seen again above, is of the American Elm, with the typical form that I've always been familiar with and was commonly seen in these parts even into the ealy 1970's. Certainly there are variations in this species' form but I can't honestly say I recall seeing one with exactly the shape seen in your linked illustration (a west coast or other regional example?).
I appreciate that many plants/weeds, if significantly modified, can be used to create at least somewhat passable layout trees. However, models of trees that have a realistic appearance without need for work are easily available these days. I can't see the logic in spending time dramatically modifying hundreds of Sedum heads when realistic-right-out-of-the-box products, like SuperTrees, are out there. Folks on these forums seem to want the ultimate in accuracy in their locos and rolling stock and will spend hundreds of bucks to get it, then turn around and use highly unrealistic-looking Sedum for their layout's trees. What kinda sense does that make? Sedum may have been commonly used as "trees" on layouts 30 years ago but serious model railroaders have long since moved on to much better products for their trees.
The real problem and I'd say the basis for many of this thread's list of complaints, is the odd fact of the painfully slow broad acceptance of newer, better techniques and modeling practices among model railroaders. This has been particularly true with regard to the construction of realistic scenery. Techniques very long in the tooth, often with unrealistic results, tend to stay in use way beyond when they could have been supplanted by far better approaches.
A prime example of this was the use of foam insulation board as a scenery base, introduced by Westcott in 1957. Its use took decades to become mainstream, even though it was far superior to the old wire and plaster approach some are still employing. Likewise, layout trees generally retained the pre-WWII, art deco (Sedum) look, in some cases right up until today. And how about the angle of repose problem I brought up previously? The list of such follies seems endless and this thread indicates that most modelers even acknowledge that these are obvious shortcoming, yet a large percentage of hobbyists keep right on following these long outdated practices. Why? Is it perhaps some sort of unconsious throwback to the era of Lionel toy train layouts, or maybe even scale ones, seen by many in their youth that keeps this happening?
CNJ, Autobus:--Interesting debate regarding those trees. My take on the issue of using newer methods vs the older methods also has to do with cost---by the time one buys all the RTR superdetailed lokes and rolling stock I find a lot of guys simply go out to the field for their 'trees'. Cost usually ends up determining the details that do get placed, or not, on the layout---I bought some WS Trees in kit form---2 packs carrying over 230 tree forms in total. And the area that I'm modelling is not exactly a tree haven!!
But also, consider this---anyone see what trees reside in their communities? We have Gingko, Magnolia, Birch, Aspen, all kinds of Firs and Pines et cetera----and then the shapes, while following close to the principal form have variations on their themes.
Then we throw in what we, or the weather, have done to them----along some older concession roads up here---entire stretches of trees can be seen with one side cleanly lopped off of branches simply to avoid branches lopping hydro lines down---any powerlines nearby will invariably have lop sided trees. Trees growing out of hillsides at a cocked angle because of slow creep of not very stable soil structure. All manner of odd stuff-----but then again---be careful with just how much you do then----a country road with a row of trees parallelling powerlines with one side trimmed off closest to the lines may be a good scenic trick but don't do it with ALL the trees you have---
collectthem What are some things done in modeling in scenery that you would never see in real World? I see some layouts and it’s amazing but can’t imagine in real World situations. For example, a clump of bushes that looks neat on a layout but in real life, it just would not happen.
Dang it!!! MarkPierce,Now I gotta change the color of my trestle,but do I make it gray or Black?
tomikawaTT Tall, spindly wood trestles under later generation diesels. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with scenery when i get a round tuit)
Tall, spindly wood trestles under later generation diesels.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with scenery when i get a round tuit)
Just saw a pic posted on railpictures.net of a modern diesel going across a wood trestle. I think it was taken in the early part of 2000 or late 90's. It was one of the main pics as you log into the website.
alco's forever!!!!! Majoring in HO scale Minorig in O scale:)
My favorite faux pas is the smiles (using Ellison's term for a shortened scale mile) of retaining walls between parallel tracks at different elevations. Another poster referred to this phenomena with rock walls as the wedding cake look.
Back to the question of "outdated methods" persisting.
1) Many of us choose (consciously or not) to model other people's layouts instead of the prototype. First, that's what those of us who didn't grow up with an interest in the prototype were exposed to. And Model Railroader today certainly publishes even less prototype info - especially of earlier eras - than it used to. Once I became conscious of the fact that my underlying goal had been to replicate scenes I admired from other model railroads, I started to question what I was doing. Today, I'll still sometimes choose to model other layouts rather than a prototype, but it's a conscious decision on my part.
2) The choice of foam as an example of superior materials for scenery is a poor one. I don't see any great advantage of a Pink or Blue Pacific over the traditional Plywood Pacific. Both plaster scenery and foam based scenery can be done very well, or not done at all, or anything in between, as the case may be. Stacked flat foam has to have nearly every square inch carved to achieve respectable realism. And plywood has to be mostly cut out where it's not supporting track.
A better example of superior modern practice might be the replacement of lichen with ground foam and other newer materials, or sawdust (or grass mat!) with newer ground cover materials.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
A few more comments from an amateur civil engineer:
As for my earlier comment about tall, spindly trestles under modern diesels, I am fully aware that there are still wood trestles in use (including one that collapsed under a trainload of Space Shuttle booster sections!) My comment referred to the kind of trestle that appears in 19th century glass-plate photos - with four post bents 100 feet tall and a deck stucture barely adequate for the weight of the narrow-boilered consolidation and wood cars that had stopped on it to have their, "Pitcher took." If any six-axle road power - or even a GP7 - crawled out on that thing, the bents would go down like uncooked spaghetti.
Another minor peeve is the use of a model of a readily-recognizable landmark structure to represent something else in an entirely different part of the country (or world.) There's only one Hell Gate Bridge - and it's not located in the middle of Colorado! Ditto for the castles that show up on mountaintops overlooking American-prototype rail facilities instead of the Rhine...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Found the pic here is the link showing diesels on the wood trestle. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=277599 Kinda cool to see that being done. And yes it is well braced and not the spindley thing you speak of chuck.
Hey I would love to see your asian inspired layout. Do you have any links to it. I see some awesome ones on youtube.
Mike
tomikawaTT A few more comments from an amateur civil engineer: Tunnel portals that allow a view of the understructure of the mountain and the hidden track on a lower level. (Amazing what a few square inches of black construction paper can do for this sort of thing.) Big expensive bridges that span an entire yard and the parallel highway in a single bound. The prototype would put up piers and use short, inexpensive, spans. Bridges of any kind without proper abutments. As for my earlier comment about tall, spindly trestles under modern diesels, I am fully aware that there are still wood trestles in use (including one that collapsed under a trainload of Space Shuttle booster sections!) My comment referred to the kind of trestle that appears in 19th century glass-plate photos - with four post bents 100 feet tall and a deck stucture barely adequate for the weight of the narrow-boilered consolidation and wood cars that had stopped on it to have their, "Pitcher took." If any six-axle road power - or even a GP7 - crawled out on that thing, the bents would go down like uncooked spaghetti. Another minor peeve is the use of a model of a readily-recognizable landmark structure to represent something else in an entirely different part of the country (or world.) There's only one Hell Gate Bridge - and it's not located in the middle of Colorado! Ditto for the castles that show up on mountaintops overlooking American-prototype rail facilities instead of the Rhine... Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
One abnormality that gets to me is a building or tree shadow falling on a backdrop of clear blue sky!
Geohan
See-through warehouse buildings with no interior floors.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
CNJ831 Certainly there are variations in {American elm} form but I can't honestly say I recall seeing one with exactly the shape seen in your linked illustration (a west coast or other regional example?).
Certainly there are variations in {American elm} form but I can't honestly say I recall seeing one with exactly the shape seen in your linked illustration (a west coast or other regional example?).
It might be a regional variation. The relatively young age of the tree might be part of it, too. Sadly, a good many of the mature elms I've seen have been best described as "dying and falling apart", with no particular form.
I can't see the logic in spending time dramatically modifying hundreds of Sedum heads when realistic-right-out-of-the-box products, like SuperTrees, are out there. Folks on these forums seem to want the ultimate in accuracy in their locos and rolling stock and will spend hundreds of bucks to get it, then turn around and use highly unrealistic-looking Sedum for their layout's trees. What kinda sense does that make?
Hm, well, I don't think I'm all that typical a model railroader, and I don't actually use Sedum, but usually when I do things like this, it's because I can get one material locally and I can't get the other one without mail-ordering it, or because the one I'm using is cheaper. :D I have no idea if this goes for the Supertrees, because I haven't tried them, or tried to find Seafoam plant. They do look nice, from what I've seen, although I'm not sure they're the last word in trees - they look a lot like some, not so much like others. Trees really are a tough thing...there were some fantastic ones in a recent RMC, painstakingly scratchbuilt from florist wire and various materials, which looked stunning, but the time it would take to make a layout full of 'em...yikes.
A prime example of this was the use of foam insulation board as a scenery base, introduced by Westcott in 1957. Its use took decades to become mainstream, even though it was far superior to the old wire and plaster approach some are still employing. Likewise, layout trees generally retained the pre-WWII, art deco (Sedum) look, in some cases right up until today. And how about the angle of repose problem I brought up previously?
He used foam way back then? Wow. Was that on his own railroad or some MR project?
I don't prefer foam, myself. I think there are sculptors and there are fabricators, and the preferred route to generate a shape is often a matter of temperament. I've tried foam; it's a good material, but I didn't like it much.
The angle-of-repose problem, where forested hills are concerned, might actually date back to an MR in 1990 - June, I think - featuring the Don Cassler's M&K, and an article on its forested hills, where the remark was made that the Appalachians were worn-down mountains, with quite gentle slopes, but when viewed, often looked deceptively steep (which was taken advantage of in the article, to make compact but impressive hillsides). After reading this, I looked at hills along the PA Turnpike, and near Pittsburgh, I can vouch for this illusion - perhaps the eye has a hard time measuring depths at a distance, and maybe the trees make it harder by breaking up the shape - so I think this illusion can definitely find use, but of course it can also be taken too far.
steemtrayn See-through warehouse buildings with no interior floors.
Hey--I resemble that remark!!
Actually--it depends on context. In my layout, one such warehouse is a picture of desolation---on an abandoned spur, trees/bushes surrounding, or growing out of, it and kinda burnt out. ---any floor it had has been reclaimed-----
Actually, it is a good excuse to hold on to older, more primatively built, structures.
tomikawaTTAnother minor peeve is the use of a model of a readily-recognizable landmark structure to represent something else in an entirely different part of the country (or world.) There's only one Hell Gate Bridge - and it's not located in the middle of Colorado! Ditto for the castles that show up on mountaintops overlooking American-prototype rail facilities instead of the Rhine...
The readily recognizable landmark, yeah I agree - I model (well, in a year or two, when I actually lay down some track on foam board) North Philadelphia (a very different Philadelphia, in which Conrail did NOT chase away all rail business), and so while in theory I could use the (in)famous Bachmann Independance Hall kit that's been knocking around for decades, in practice that's still over 4 miles or so from my intended area, and so it won't be showing up.
OTOH, sometime after the US Civil War to about the 1920s, really wealthy American had a fondness for big mansions, and quite a number were patterned on European Castles: e.g. Boldt Castle in NY - and there were a number of such castles overlooking raillines...
Autobus Prime Trees really are a tough thing...there were some fantastic ones in a recent RMC, painstakingly scratchbuilt from florist wire and various materials, which looked stunning, but the time it would take to make a layout full of 'em...yikes.
I built a few of those--note--a few. I think that the idea of building all of them is a bit of overkill but then--- I think that the original purpose was for specific scenes--
Autobus PrimeIt might be a regional variation. The relatively young age of the tree might be part of it, too. Sadly, a good many of the mature elms I've seen have been best described as "dying and falling apart", with no particular form.
All kinds of things influence the growth and shaping---one of these are the ph levels in/of the soil as well as specific soil chemistry----There are two elms near where we live that have 2 heights--and 2 completely different drip lines---circumferences of the tops--even the overall shapes are different. And both are in different soil zones---Pines tend to react that way too----