How many of you guys follow the three foot rule?

[csmith9474]

I need to start following the three foot rule or else I am not going to complete half of the projects I have going now. I still insist on detailing the underbody of passenger cars that have skirting, and I guess that is not completely neccessary. It is little things like that holding me up (especially when you have to make your own ACs out of styrene).

[davekelly]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WVHagan

While I have people and chain link fences on my layout, I'm not going to have telephone poles with simulated wires.

Betcha ya do someday! [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

I found this interesting. I periodically get Fine Scale Modeler - has some interesting articles every now and then that is applicable to model railroading. I read a few kit reviews of some jet fighters. The reviewer noted that the jet engine was fantastically detailed, but when the model is completed it is completly covered. Three foot rule? Man, that sounded like following the x-ray vision rule!

[randyaj]

This like many other things in our hobby are a matter of prefence. For me I detail structures and rolling stock that likely will catch your eye. Engines, roundhouse, structures close to the front edge of the layout, structures that are lit, all get more detailing than background dark buildings. Most of my frieght cars are MDC or Athearn and I do the detailing for operation not for museum looking. New axles and couplers on the cars rather than counting rivets and adding coupler arms. Each to his own. I am building a rather large layout in my basement and with working 60 to 80 hours a week in the pastorate, I really don't have time to be a detail nut.
Anyway it's your world so have fun in it!
Randy Johnson

[TrainFreak409]

I figure, that once I have an N scale layout up and running, I'll use the Atlas stuff, not the lowest, but not the highest, and if I am unsatisfied with the detail, I'll detail it myself, for cheaper than what it would cost to buy the equivilant in a model.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by yardgoat46

I'm a newbie, but I find myself worrying about the details of the structures and the areas around them. I have only a small 2' X 15' switching layout.... all industry and engine service area, and I really enjoy detailing these areas to the point I'm thinking about photography.

I made a huge (for me) initial purchase for a DCC system, a few sound equiped quality engines, and quality track equipment. Now, I'm just going to get really cheap rolling stock kits, and bring them up to fine operating standards. Fine detail on them would only get broken, I think.

I hope I'm going about this in a good way.

Jim

And, Chip, if you feel "totally overwhelmed by it all," then it is no longer a hobby for you. It is the opposite of a hobby, seems to me. Are there other issues, or forces, at work?

Sit down with a beer, or a root beer if you prefer, and look at it. Maybe it is time for a major change.

A long time ago, I started going crazy with an O scale layout. I started pressuring myself to finish certain things, etc. I actually started to lose sleep over it. I then realized that I was doing it for other people, not my own enjoyment and relaxation. That's not a hobby, its a job (however enjoyable it may be).

i know that crazy fealling i am woorking on my yard trying to space tracks so i can run cars and not hit ones on other tracks .and try not to make my cornners to tight . that i got so upset because i coudent get it right i just walked away and told my self to look at it later with a clear mind. the next time i work on my layout will be this weekend i will have a clear head and hopefully beable to bang out the yard in a few hours .


i try to buy middle of the road rolling stock something that looks goog but not super detaled

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by WVHagan

Yesterday, while at my LHS , I almost had a cow when I saw an N scale box car at $26. I thought it was an Atlas. Thank goodness it wasn't. It was a Microtrains car. Further down the shelf was an Atlas version of the same car, paint scheme etc., for about $11. When I asked Frank why the Microtrain's car was so expensive, he said it had added detail. Great! The thing is so small, I can't notice the difference without picking it up and maybe using a magnifying glass. Usually when I am looking at a car, it is on a train rolling along my layout. So basically, if I can't see the detail from three feet away, its not worth the extra money. Three feet might not be literal, but you get the idea. So how many of you are pragmatists and how many of you feel the extra detail is worth more than twice as much money? I'm just as happy with the Atlas product. I'm not a total cheapy. I buy mostly Atlas and Kato locomotives. To me, they are worth the extra money.

It is not necesairly because of added detail . I choose cars is based on the prototypes they represent and the railtoad they are painted for.

The tooling for most of the Atlas car types as well as MicroTrainesLine car types has been around since the 1970/80's. Atlas cars are mass produced overseas with a multiple road names offered at any given time. MTL has a much smaller production capacity. They are produced in smaller quantities, in the USA, with typically only one road name offered at any given time. Also while MTL offers many more body types, only a few are in production at any given time.

In the old days when MTL came with MTL couplers and Atlas with Rapidos. You could figure that the cost of the Atlas car plus the MTL coupler conversion would be about the same as a similar MTL car.

Today the Atlas come with MTL clone couplers which are generally considered useable but inferior to the MTL couplers.

The older MTL cars have finer detail than the Atlas, but not significently finer (in my opinion) except for the roof walks and brake wheels. The most recently released body types from both companies are similar in detail.

Some recent Atlas releases approach the cost of MTL

While not direct comparisons here are some retail prices.

Atlas Articulated Auto Carrier $39.95, MTL UP Trilevel Auto Rack $39.40
Atlas Extended Vision Caboose $12.95-31.95, MTL 36' Steel Caboose $19.75
Atlas 50' Evans Box Car $10.95, MTL 50' Plug Door Box Car $13.70-16.20

For years MTL has had higher prices for more complicated paint schemes. I believe Atlas is now doing the same.


Your "3 foot rule" is a good guideline to follow, but if you follow it too rigidly you will miss out on some some car types.

Don't overlook Red Caboose, Intermountain, Athearn, Bachmann and the many other brands that offer useful car types.

[aloco]

I've followed it for years. I model CN and CP, and my locomotives have just enough detail parts to look Canadian. I am not a nit picker and therefore am not interested in producing contest-quality models. That is best left to modelers who have the dexterity and patience to do such painstaking work.

[twhite]

I do and I don't. Especially when it comes to locos and rolling stock. Since I model steam on a railroad where just about anything you buy to match the prototype has to be brass, I'd say that most of my locos are pretty detailed already. As to rolling stock, I usually buy what attracts me. Sometimes it's a $10 Accurail or an $8 Athearn BB, other times it's a $30 Intermountian or Red Caboose. I don't usually spend time super-detailing rolling stock--maybe I'll get around to weathering some of it someday, but I'm not holding my breath (so don't hold yours, LOL!). What I'm after on my model railroad is a 'feeling' of a certain era and setting. I guess you could say it's somewhat like an Impressionist painting, which as I understand, is a slice of life as seen through a keyhole. It's 'of the moment', so to speak. It's meant to be enjoyed at the moment, not necessarily lingered over. I enjoy it for what it is, a re-capturing of the essence of a certain Era, not the nuts and bolts of it. Which certainly doesn't mean that I don't admire beautifully detailed layouts--I do. They're works of Art in themselves. It 's just that my own modeling aspirations are of a slightly different nature.
Tom [^]

[peterjenkinson1956]

elephant.........not only is there a 3 ft rule there is a 50 mph rule then if your models are rearly cheap there is the midnight rule.......there are a couple of points i would like to make.. i have allmost 300 coalwagons.. i dont detail them however i do make sure the loads look prototypical.ie loaded by flood loader and real coal is used ( i am a coalminer )..when long coal trains are run people only tend to look at a train and not individual cars which brings me to my next point... human nature has people looking at a model train and seeing the locos (detailed ) the first 3 / 4 wagons and then they skip to the last 3 / 4 wagons... this happens ineverything we do in life ( try to remember this message and you will only remember the beginning and end..that is why fine print is in the middle of contracts..................... so next time you have some one looking at your trains ask them to list the consist...and put your best models at the front and rear and old tyco in the middle ... they they will think all your modells are $40 wagons.........elephant

[Anonymous]

I follow the THREE INCH RULE !!!

(I like models with detail !!!!!!!)

[ukguy]

I try to follow the "three foot rule", however, even though my modelling isnt that good yet I find my self working to the "SCALE three foot rule", if I can see it from a scale three foot away I want to do it.

I also think that even though the eye/mind doesnt conciously see the minutest details, subconciously the brain recognises that they are there and it helps to create the reality illusion.

I also love challenging myself to do this, and hey if it doesnt look too good then the probability is that no one will even notice the detail, nevermind the quality of it [:D]

Heres some of the details I added to my first scene, they arent usually noticed at first glance but subconciously they are recognised, and when pointed out they are obvious.



The new boards in the boat repair have nails. At least one of them does.

The tools on the bench are detailed, the screwdriver in the box has a blue handle and there is a tub of galvanised nails below.

The trash in the trashcan is different colours

Assortment of junk pretty much hidden, unless you look for it.


I like to detail, even on a backgroung model, you never know if it will be a foreground model on the next layout[:D] besides, it keeps me occupied.

Have fun & be safe,
Karl.

[davekelly]

Ukguy

Love the pics. I especially like the paint job you did on the boat. EXCELLENT!

[Anonymous]

I think the three foot rule is certainly valid for alot of cases. If I were to put together an N-track module where people are standing behind a rope, then it would definitely apply for me. But for my small 2 1/2' x 5' layout, the viewing distances range from three feet to six inches, so I don't follow the rule for either my rolling stock or scenery. Such a small layout tends to invite closer scrutiny, especially when you start putting details into scenes, which draw the viewer in.

---jps

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gbailey

I follow the THREE INCH RULE !!!

(I like models with detail !!!!!!!)

Gee George,I always thought the three inch rule was for Z scalers..Ya need the engines and cars 3" from your eyes to see 'em..[:0][:D]

[AggroJones]

I favor more detail rather than less. But there is a limit. My locos need to be able to run and be handled, so usually no extra detail is added.

I try to make most things look presentable for close up shots.

[Anonymous]

Guys, here is the problem as I see it. All of you that are hung up on details...well you need a hobby! (just kidding). I think the amount of detail and the amount we are willing to pay for it or work for it, depends mostly on or individual perspective of the hobby. the one rule I try to keep in mind is that I am doing this hobby for me. Just for me. So I will do it the way I enjoy it most. Maximum enjoyment is the goal.

Ken

[Anonymous]

Another interpretation of the 3 foot rule. Looking at a model from 3 feet away is like looking at the real thing from 3x87=261 feet. How much of the real stuff can you see from 261 feet.

Bob DeWoody

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by modlerbob

Another interpretation of the 3 foot rule. Looking at a model from 3 feet away is like looking at the real thing from 3x87=261 feet. How much of the real stuff can you see from 261 feet.

Bob DeWoody

A surprisingly large amount. That's why I add all the 3/4" piping onto my steam: if you can see it, you can model it!

[vsmith]

I find it funny but..

N to me alway looks best at about 5 feet to appreciate scope
HO at about 3 feet to appreciate detail,
O at 5 feet for detail
G garden at 10 feet for scope
G indoors (my layout, at 1 foot) for details.

I really like detailing my stuff in LS, I can do things N guys would need an Electron Microscope to detail...

[wjstix]

Well of course three feet is 160 ' in N scale, guess in HO it would have to be the "5'-6 rule"?? [:o)]

[wjstix]

Well of course three feet is 160 ' in N scale, guess in HO it would have to be the "5'-6" rule"?? [:o)]