dehusman jwhittenWould you agree that *within* an alloted space, say a town, you would like to create the illusion or appearance of being a normal space? Define "normal space". That's part of the modeling aesthetic that most people strive to recreate. It doesn't require placing every road, foot by foot mile by mile verbatim, but it does require some suggestion that those facilities exist and that someone living in that space is able to inhabit that space in a normal manner rather than being trapped in the scene with no escape. The former sets up a convincing illusion or depiction of reality/ You haven't spent much time riding trains have you? Most of my modeling is fairly narrow shelves18 to 30 inches. So I model mostly the backs of buildings. It is very rare that I model all 4 sides of a building . So I don't model the fronts of buildings that much. As a result in the majority of my scenes there is no "continuity" as you are suggesting. You can't see the fronts of the buildings, so you can't see how people get to or from the buildings. Don't think it really matters. When you are riding a train all you see is the side of the buildings that face the tracks. You can't see how people get to the buildings.
jwhittenWould you agree that *within* an alloted space, say a town, you would like to create the illusion or appearance of being a normal space?
That's part of the modeling aesthetic that most people strive to recreate. It doesn't require placing every road, foot by foot mile by mile verbatim, but it does require some suggestion that those facilities exist and that someone living in that space is able to inhabit that space in a normal manner rather than being trapped in the scene with no escape. The former sets up a convincing illusion or depiction of reality/
You haven't spent much time riding trains have you?
Most of my modeling is fairly narrow shelves18 to 30 inches. So I model mostly the backs of buildings. It is very rare that I model all 4 sides of a building . So I don't model the fronts of buildings that much. As a result in the majority of my scenes there is no "continuity" as you are suggesting. You can't see the fronts of the buildings, so you can't see how people get to or from the buildings. Don't think it really matters. When you are riding a train all you see is the side of the buildings that face the tracks. You can't see how people get to the buildings.
Dave, I suspect that your take on highways and their linking, or inferred linking and lack thereof, for various layout scenes is probably influenced significantly by your geographic location and your particular approach to modeling.
I would venture that for most folks east of Chicago, or out on the left coast, their modeling is flavored the real-world situation of having far more intense roadway infrastructure around and would be far more likely to model such. When you get into the Northeast, where communities have been growing steadily for better than two centuries, roads form a spider web maze across the countryside and not showing distinct evidence of this would indeed make an eastern layout look strange.
Likewise, your approach of simply modeling backs-only (track facing portions) of buildings, without indication of anything existing on their street-facing sides, isn't all that common, unless its an isolated building. I'm currently working on an extension of my layout depicting a sort of "rear view" of a large town where only the rears of buildings facing the tracks will actually be detailed to any degree. Nevertheless, while their fronts will be just plain cardstock, the street itself in front of these will be "inferred" by a gap separating them from building flats set against the backdrop representing structures across the street. In addition, I will have photos of buildings even further beyond on the backdrop to indicate more streets. Incidentally, the inferred street here does become visible just before it turns to come forward and exit the layout at the fascia. This sort of approach is very common among many of the well known/often published hobbyists from my part of the country.
My overall take on all of this would be that our OP, John, needs to be a bit more specific, or perhaps region-centric, in some of his weekly philosophy questions, as folks from different parts of the country not only have different modeling styles, but quite often ones distinctly flavored by their locale, or era modeled.
CNJ831
I have fell in the trap where I have buildings / towns just spring up for no reason other than I have the buildings.One of the reason I pulled all the buildings from my town. Working on making ever thing fit and hooked to each other in a realistic manner.
I even fell into this trap with by newer section that has a mine and grain elevator.
I like the way the mine looks and the view I get of it. But, how do the miners get to work? OK, they come by rail, so I got a bud car for them. But at the time all I was looking at was the rail, will the train make it up the grade, is the radius to tight.
Then the grain elevator, yeah I have a spur and can do some switching. But still gave no thought to getting the trucks in. I still have room to fix that problem but was not a concentration while laying the spur.
I am hoping I come up with a better plan for my town of Kingsdown. Here is a photo of a town from my LHS / Club layout.
Not bad, but after reading your thoughts I now find some fault with it.
Ken
I hate Rust
When I've ridden trains around Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois, I've seen plenty of streets, driveways, and parking lots, along with stretches of nothing but the backs of buildings, along with stretches of countryside with nothing but the occasional muddy two-track.
Therefore both approaches are valid, IMHO, which is why in my own lists, this particular design factor is under "druthers" as opposed to "givens".
It all goes back to the specific scenes you're modeling and what you're trying to capture. In my case, I wanted to be able to have fronts of buildings visible from some angles, so I decided to run the streets in my town perpendicular to the tracks. Modeling only the backs would have been a valid look too, but it's not what I wanted to do. Likewise there are no streets visible in my yard, but there are parking lots and gravel/dirt lanes where employee vehicles frequently go.
Being a freelancer, I have wiggle room with the infrastructure. If I were a prototyper, photos and maps would be the guide.
CNJ831 Dave, I suspect that your take on highways and their linking, or inferred linking and lack thereof, for various layout scenes is probably influenced significantly by your geographic location and your particular approach to modeling.
I grew up in the NYC and Phillie area, I've lived in St. Louis, Houston, Little Rock, Salt Lake City and Omaha and traveled to about half the states, I model the east coast area. I don't think my location affects my views.
Actually my views ARE flavored by the "real world situation". I have modeled SE Penna or urban areas for the last 30 years. You don't get more of a spider web of that. Doesn't matter where you are, from the tracks, you can't see the road network, all you can see is where the roads cross the tracks or where a road immediately parallels the tracks. Other than that the fact that the roads connect is not visible. I would even make the case that in the eastern half of the country, it is even less visible.
There are more tall buildings, more big trees and more "topography" (low hills) that hide the road network from view.
Likewise, your approach of simply modeling backs-only (track facing portions) of buildings, without indication of anything existing on their street-facing sides, isn't all that common, unless its an isolated building.
That would be a good question as to why it isn't that common. Most model railroad benchwork is only 24" deep on an around the walls. That's only 180 feet of land. If you are paying any attention to the "real world' situation, you will have most of your buildings butting up to the backdrop or to the front edge of the layout.
Riding commuter trains, riding freight trains, hirailing over the last 30 years and observing the "real world" has convinced me of that.
Actually what I see on a layout first is that there are coal mines next to ports or grain elevators or steel mills, that there are tunnels through "mountains" to single industries, that the track arrangements at industries are so short or so unreasonably arranged, that I really never get to the fact that there isn't a road to the industry or town. By the time I suspend my disbelief to accomodate all the era, location and other discontinuities the roads are easy to overlook.
If you either ignore, are unaware or just get used to all the other discontinuities, then whether or not the factory has a parking lot becomes may become important.
Another good question would be how the benchwork design, scene depth figures in all this. I would think the people worried about this are more the "tabletop", free standing layout or town in a loop/sweeping curve folks who have really deep secenes. I would think the around the walls layout people would be the ones who would do more of the shallow scene with only the tracksides of buildings showing. So I don't think is a matter of geography or location, I think its more how you cave the chunk out of the landscape, how you have designed your benchwork and scene depth that controls it.
One could also make the case that the more "real world" you model the more likely you are to model just what butts against the right of way fences and have a narrower scene depth.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusman Likewise, your approach of simply modeling backs-only (track facing portions) of buildings, without indication of anything existing on their street-facing sides, isn't all that common, unless its an isolated building. That would be a good question as to why it isn't that common. Most model railroad benchwork is only 24" deep on an around the walls. That's only 180 feet of land. If you are paying any attention to the "real world' situation, you will have most of your buildings butting up to the backdrop or to the front edge of the layout. Riding commuter trains, riding freight trains, hirailing over the last 30 years and observing the "real world" has convinced me of that.
I suppose, at least in some cases, it comes down to how the individual hobbyist views the real world itself (for instance, on train trips I "see" plenty of street and highway infrastructure), but honestly I have no difficulty in arranging structures in a realistic fashion along the right-of-way without butting them against the backdrop or having them loom over the tracks. In fact, only in the case of my large, densely packed, urban scene do buildings closely approach my backdrops and my layout's scenes are all less than 30" deep. This has also been my experience in viewing layouts of other advanced modelers of my acquaintance.
Below are some examples of structure and roadway placement between tracks and backdrop on my layout.
Here's the only example I have of structures going right against the backdrop.
As you can see, I find plenty of room for roads and structures to fit in a logical manner without butting them into the backdrop, but I agree that it is not at matter of right, or wrong. Rather, it's more a matter of personal choice.
I was somewhat guilty of that concept too, John. I realized everything seems so much more realistic with roads and highways. That said, I will be modeling a real place in Indiana and south Chicago. After drawing plan after plan, it wasn't until I made roads close to scale width, that I was happy with the result. Even a small shelf layout looks better with a road or two that doesn't appear to be an oversized alley. A very narrow city street or highway doesn't do it for me any more.
Mike
Really I think this boils down to that nasty "P" word (at least on this list) :
Prototype
If you watch the prototype you either include or not include a proportional amount of roads and access.
If you do not watch the prototype you do not include a proportional amount of roads and access.
jwhittenAnd on this plan, which by the way was *not* a shelf layout, there were "towns" designated here and there, but aside from a parking lot here and there or a hint of a road now and then, there was no ability for the people who supposedly live there to get from one place to another.
And on this plan, which by the way was *not* a shelf layout, there were "towns" designated here and there, but aside from a parking lot here and there or a hint of a road now and then, there was no ability for the people who supposedly live there to get from one place to another.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "hint of road now and then". If you look at the pictures of CNJs excellent modeling, giving a "hint of road" seems to be exactly what he is doing.
One of the tricks he is using is ensuring that houses are oriented at an angle relative to each other that indicate to the viewer that they are located along a road you can't see. Or making sure there is a little gap between the front row of houses and the row behind it in a deeper scene, to suggest that there is a road on the opposite side of the houses.
He is not taking the play mat approach, where there are continuous roads of correct width connecting all the houses, so you can drive a toy car from any house to any house on the roads.
The "hint of road" approach is easier to carry off if you can control the viewer angle, so scenes can only be viewed from one direction and from the side.
Instead of the scene being viewable from all around (by walking around an open table without viewblocks and viewing it from the opposite direction). It also normally helps to create a scene by ensuring that the scene cannot be viewed from above (in the helicopter pilot perspective we see in track plans).
Another approach that also works is doing as Dave suggested - representing buildings mainly by flats or semi-flats up against the backdrop, and representing roads mainly as roads that cross the railroad - as level crossings, bridges or underpasses (the latter could probably be modeled more).
The approach that is harder to make look very convincing is is where you just put an industry in the middle of an open area next to the track with no hint of where road traffic can come from.
Like the example Ken showed of his elevator to illustrate this discussion - excellent terrain, nice looking buildings - but nowhere anyone could have come to the elevator from anywhere (the mine isn't bad - the access roads could have been "behind" it. I see Ken has a piece of land not yet fully developed at the far end of the picture - could be a good spot for an approach road to the elevator.
It all comes down to deciding what you want to model, and controlling viewing angle. If you build a layout in such a way that you look down on the scene and can look at the scene from all around, you probably should set aside more space for road infrastructure than you need to do with a layout that is placed higher and which only can be viewed from one direction.
Smile, Stein
I grew up with trains all around me,
but one of my first experiences of a STRETCH of railroad was when I was about 10 years old, a ride from Houston to Galveston 50 miles along old Highway 3 alongside the GH&H tracks. I got a 15 foot long piece of rolled paper and drew a scene of what it was like along that length.
And so often, I have ridden or driven down long straight stretches of road with railroad alongside. A frequent drive in Texas. Usually when I am driving and have my camera see a train, I get where the road won't show. But I found one picture of that plain vanilla scene- alongside the UP, ex MoPac, ex St Louis Brownsville & Mexico, 5 miles north of Refugio Texas, 1997.
Occasionally, I have thought, there are a lot of exciting and interesting and unusual scenes but I ought to dedicate at least one scene on a layout of that plain ordinary everyday sight-- straight track, straight road, ditch, a little brush, fence line. Maybe a train length and a half or so. I have drawn it several times into the big dream layouts I have schemed, but everything was always too tight to fit in that plain scene.
Oh well, here is the example of NO road, or at least not a public highway.
Well, even with no "road", there is a set of wheel ruts along the r-o-w. This is from the last car of the Texas Mexican Express crossing the Wild Horse Desert about 50 miles east of Laredo, Texas.
John for me you hit the nail right on the head, in short it all just has to make sense. People don't get to building without vehicles, vehicles don't get to places without roads, building that are lit up at night don't pull power out of thin air they requite utility poles. Nothing smacks you square in the face and says NOT!!! Believable then a building in the middle of no place on a layout with no road leaning up to it or any other sign of that just ain't right. Yes model railroads do tend to be overly busy concerning all things trains some times to the point of ridiculous in the prototype world with the exception of yards one never typically sees that much train activity in such close proximity. This is usually acceptable as scenery compression and enough action to make things interesting and believable but not tread on the ridiculous. Look at is as jewlery on a women a few nice select nice pieces enhances a woman's beauty and succeed in making her look complete of you will but throw in a bunch of gaudy crap from the dollar store and you have a cheap looking floozy. Hate to make such a crazy comparison but think about how things look when you have way too many trains for the space your modeling. Not trying to bash the three rail crowd but they seem to live by the mantra of no scenery and not detailing but cram as many trains and operating accessories into the space you have available and run them all at scale speeds exceeding 150mph. It just scream fake.
I think part of what you are experiencing is that the track plans and layouts you were viewing all as nice as they were non of which were your own. Lets face it it doesn't take much imagination to copy someone else's work to the T. but requires a lot more of the creative process to take said track plan and bend it and twist it and take this out and replace it that etc. There are very few among is who have that creative gene where we can be given an empty space and stand there and envision and entire model railroad down to the last detail. and empty canvas just waiting for the layout to leave or mind and fill the room exactly like we see it and it all work and make sense.They say the great one's always make it look easy so we tend to fall into the trap of hey I can do that when we really can' as it far exceeds are ability. I'm not strictly referring to our track laying or structure or weathering ability but our ability to make it all come together and make perfect sense. One of or greatest assets in this hobby is plagiarism, we are encouraged to copy and emulate things exactly as other have done, that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but we need to take a good thing and make it our own in some way or another.
steinjr ... It also normally helps to create a scene by ensuring that the scene cannot be viewed from above (in the helicopter pilot perspective we see in track plans).
... It also normally helps to create a scene by ensuring that the scene cannot be viewed from above (in the helicopter pilot perspective we see in track plans).
That ... is ... so ... true. The smaller the scale of our trains, the more so. That's why N-scale layouts should be higher than HO scale, and so on. A layout is most effective if one can't see the whole thing at once. For example, a "donut-shaped" layout has the advantage having four different perspectives/views. It is impossible to see the whole thing without shifting one's view.
Mark
First, I'll emphasize that everyone approaches the hobby from their own angle. That said, let me just say that you're completely wrong!
I model in N scale. I model a busy mid-Atlantic bridge route and coal hauler. I have one modestly urban scene, and will soon be working on building another. I have no intention of worrying one bit about whether or not planning and zoning provides for adequate parking, turn lanes, or streets that are wide enough or connected. It just doesn't matter to me.
What does matter is capturing the essence of the scene I'm trying to portray. It also matters that each vignette can stand on it's own as a complete picture, particularly when viewed from a particular angle. Here are a few examples:
The road in this shot is about 6" long, and disappears over a ridge behind the railroad overpass. It doesn't connect to anything, and ends at the loading dock of a warehouse.
This shot reveals that there isn't even adequate space for the trailer to be turned and backed into the loading bay. I guess I'll get points off for that, too.
Yeah, I should just tear that out and start over...
The simple fact is that on my layout, the scenery is a theater set. A 24' wide scale roadway doesn't have to be there, it just has to look like it might be there... It doesn't matter to me that this parking lot has no visible entry or exit, or that it can't hold enough cars to indicate thousands of employees are at work... It just needs to suggest that there's a parking lot to clutter up the scene a little.
I've got other "vehicle/railroad" interfaces as well, there's no question about what the purpose of the road is, or what it's relationship is to the scene, but I don't even attempt to artificially connect it to anything, because that's not the point of the scene!
A MOW truck at a remote train order station. A small parking area, and about 3" of road and a stone grade crossing is all there is.
8" of highway bridge and a "T" intersection is about the most complete road network anywhere on the layout. There's no ramp to the station parking lot below, and the road on the retaining wall simply disappears into the back drop.
Another view...
You'll also notice on closer inspection the roadway on the bridge is wider at the foreground than it is at the intersection. This is an example of forced perspective to give the scene a bit more depth (it's only 11" deep) From track level in the second shot, you don't see that at all.
See the dump truck up on the loader? About an inch and a half in front of it is a 5,000 fall to the floor.
A scene doesn't have to have all the nuts and bolts of reality to be a good scene.
I took this shot on Howard Zane's layout a few months ago. The roads meander in and out of a variety of scenes, but it's the railroad that ties it all together.
It's really easy to get hung up on too much prototype information. Instead of creating something that looks real, though, you often end up with very sterile view that may have the correct dimensions of the scene you're modeling, but it lacks the "feel" of it...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
leighantDowntown Streets for the Island Seaport layout Galveston’s history created an unusual downtown district- “the Strand”, a commercial big city street of Victorian era commercial buildings terminating in a 1930s Moderne multistory railroad station and office building. I showed the gray line of Harbor Drive ending near the export grain elevator but I think I can squeeze it in almost to the sulphur dock. None of this is exactly to prototype, but I think it helps give a sense of place.
Its obvious you've put a lot of thought into your layout concept and design. I really like your street-running section. I'm looking forward to seeing more of that when you get it further along!
John
fwright Not a whole lot of need if you model 1900 or earlier. Before the arrival of the automobile, railroads were sought after (and many a bribe paid) to come to a given town because going between towns was so painful otherwise. However, the coming of the railroad quickly put the long distance stagecoach lines out of business where the routes competed. Many of the dirt roads that weren't needed for nearby farm access outside of town quickly reverted to their natural state.
Yes, but towns and such were structured differently then too. Generally speaking structures were grouped more closely within walking / horseback / horse & buggy / whatever distance, and also there would still have been paths and primitive roads to connect things together. Which, I think, would tend to convey the same sort of "sense of place" as I outlined in my original post. Again, its not about whether or not the roads or paths are actually completely modeled or literally connect to each other as long as there is enough "suggested" that the viewer can grasp how things likely connect and can fill in the rest with his/her imagination.
MisterBeasleyI carefully did my track plan in Atlas RTS, lo these many years ago, and when I was ready to really "visualize" it, I took a bunch of old brass track and laid out most of the plan on the floor. At that point, I started laying out roads. They had to be a reasonable width, and I didn't want them crossing the tracks on turnouts or at highly oblique angles. This caused a few changes to the track plan itself, but overall I am still quite happy with it. One thing I did not do was insist that all the roads connect. I have an "island" layout, but I'm quite happy to have roads come up to the edge and end. I think it adds to the illusion of a "greater world" out there.
I carefully did my track plan in Atlas RTS, lo these many years ago, and when I was ready to really "visualize" it, I took a bunch of old brass track and laid out most of the plan on the floor. At that point, I started laying out roads. They had to be a reasonable width, and I didn't want them crossing the tracks on turnouts or at highly oblique angles. This caused a few changes to the track plan itself, but overall I am still quite happy with it.
One thing I did not do was insist that all the roads connect. I have an "island" layout, but I'm quite happy to have roads come up to the edge and end. I think it adds to the illusion of a "greater world" out there.
And in the doing you established your "sense of place", and gave viewers an understanding of how it all fits together.
dehusmanWhen you are riding a train all you see is the side of the buildings that face the tracks. You can't see how people get to the buildings.
Agreed, but this was *not* a shelf layout, it was mostly an island layout with deep scenes. And the plan looked okay until it dawned on me that there were no provisions for the people working at the factory to get there. Or the people working at the coal mine. Or the people working anywhere. The buildings were (seemingly) just sprinkled out around the layout such that there was some distance between them and the train would have to go a little ways to get to the next one. There was no hint of a road system or any kind of people-moving network that could have tied it all together. The layout didn't lack for *any* roads though, there was just no obvious clues to the viewer how it all went together. And instead, everything had the sense of being *DIS*-connected as a result.
CSX_road_slugGreat topic, but I'm wondering if 'continuity of space' is the correct description. I'm guessing what you really want to know is "How are our mrr scenes connected to the world beyond the layout, other than by rail?" That has always been a concern with me as well, so I've tried to incorporate roads/streets into all of my scenes.
Yes, but also within the layout space-- as I've mentioned in several posts previously (and have others also), it doesn't matter if there are literally connected roads or whatnot as long as there is enough hinted / modeled that the user can picture in his/her mind the rest-- that the modeler establishes enough of the modeled environment to "root" it somewhere-- even imaginary, as in a completely free-lanced layout. You want to see how the people who live / inhabit the space can negotiate the space and do what they do in their daily lives. If you do that well-- hint at it, literally connect it, do some, suggest others-- whatever-- if the clues are there, the viewer can fill-in the rest.
And your point about how it all fits in with the rest of the world is good too-- an adjunct point, not the one I specifically set out to make, but a good follow-on. And yes, that's exactly the sort of consideration I'm talking about.
CSX_road_slugOf course, I wanted my layout to be more than just a steel mill. So I threw up a view blocker to create an isolated section of "country" main line. Here's one of the small towns, as it would first appear to someone driving into it:A more overall view: I do whatever I can to make it look like people can drive to/from each scene, even if the road itself is hidden due to lack of space.
Of course, I wanted my layout to be more than just a steel mill. So I threw up a view blocker to create an isolated section of "country" main line. Here's one of the small towns, as it would first appear to someone driving into it:
A more overall view:
I do whatever I can to make it look like people can drive to/from each scene, even if the road itself is hidden due to lack of space.
I forgot to say I like your layout! Great pictures, feel free to post more!!
cudaken I have fell in the trap where I have buildings / towns just spring up for no reason other than I have the buildings.One of the reason I pulled all the buildings from my town. Working on making ever thing fit and hooked to each other in a realistic manner. I even fell into this trap with by newer section that has a mine and grain elevator.
cudaken Not bad, but after reading your thoughts I now find some fault with it. Ken
Do you ever sometimes wonder if your purpose in life is to serve as an example to others !?!?!
I didn't set out to "call anybody out" specifically with my post-- but you have made some *excellent* points by way of examples with your own layout. You have done a really good job of modeling the trains and setting up the industries and scenicking and such-- but as you pointed out, there aren't many ways to get around if you're an inhabitant of that space.
Thank you very much for posting pictures of your layout and making my point come alive. That was a very nice thing to do and I appreciate it. I also know you work really hard to revise and improve your layout and it shows!
dehusmanDoesn't matter where you are, from the tracks, you can't see the road network, all you can see is where the roads cross the tracks or where a road immediately parallels the tracks.
But you CAN see that and that suggests a "sense of place"-- how it is rooted to the larger area around it.
dehusman Most model railroad benchwork is only 24" deep on an around the walls. That's only 180 feet of land
I am not sure how many times I need to say it, but this was *not* a shelf layout. It was more of an island layout with very deep scenes. There *was* more to look at than just 180 feet of space along the tracks.
Also you might want to check out CudaKen's post a few replies back-- he has offered up pictures of his layout which illustrate very well the issue that I'm describing. (Thanks again Ken!)
dehusmanActually what I see on a layout first is that there are coal mines next to ports or grain elevators or steel mills, that there are tunnels through "mountains" to single industries, that the track arrangements at industries are so short or so unreasonably arranged, that I really never get to the fact that there isn't a road to the industry or town. By the time I suspend my disbelief to accomodate all the era, location and other discontinuities the roads are easy to overlook.
That's a good point also. And while it wasn't what I was specifically talking about, it is right there along side of it. What you're pointing out and what I'm pointing out, and what several other folks who have replied are all pointing out-- is that when the modeler gives some thought to *understanding* the place he/she's modeling and then works to convey that understanding to the viewer, whether by literally depicting every detail or else providing clues and/or hinting how things fit together, it goes a long way toward rooting the scene to a location and creating a "sense of space".
m sharpI was somewhat guilty of that concept too, John. I realized everything seems so much more realistic with roads and highways. That said, I will be modeling a real place in Indiana and south Chicago. After drawing plan after plan, it wasn't until I made roads close to scale width, that I was happy with the result. Even a small shelf layout looks better with a road or two that doesn't appear to be an oversized alley. A very narrow city street or highway doesn't do it for me any more. Mike
I don't know if I have also been guilty of it-- but I do know that when I work with the cad program to design possible layouts I have rarely given much consideration to the roads-- perhaps thinking I'll work those in as scenic elements. And partly also because there's not a lot of provision for doing roads in my cad program. But I do know that I'm more attuned to it now and all of my recent drawings have begun suggesting roads and connection with the rest of the community / town / world.
Thanks for your comments!!
steinjr I guess it depends on what you mean by "hint of road now and then". If you look at the pictures of CNJs excellent modeling, giving a "hint of road" seems to be exactly what he is doing.
CNJ's layout is an excellent example of establishing a "sense of place". For me, as the viewer, I can easily picture myself "being there" and wandering / traveling around in that space and interacting with it.
steinjr Like the example Ken showed of his elevator to illustrate this discussion - excellent terrain, nice looking buildings - but nowhere anyone could have come to the elevator from anywhere (the mine isn't bad - the access roads could have been "behind" it. I see Ken has a piece of land not yet fully developed at the far end of the picture - could be a good spot for an approach road to the elevator.
And Ken provided an excellent example of what I'm talking about and you picked-up on in your example.
Those two layouts are indeed exactly what I was referring to in my original post.
leighantOh well, here is the example of NO road, or at least not a public highway. Well, even with no "road", there is a set of wheel ruts along the r-o-w. This is from the last car of the Texas Mexican Express crossing the Wild Horse Desert about 50 miles east of Laredo, Texas.
Actually there *is* a road there (as you already knew). And there is evidence of human structures off in the distance as well. And of course without understanding any more of the scene, the track itself could be the transportation element. I wasn't ever saying that the railroad *couldn't* be the only transit mechanism, but rather that in the layout plan I was looking at, there was no apparent thought to how everything "connected together" and worked together so that people could inhabit the space. There were no provisions for people to live / work / interact with the space. And certainly its possible to come up with examples of spaces where there wouldn't be any of that type of infrastructure present, such as the great north woods or something where humans don't go. And I'm sure there are probably situations where structures are located out in the middle of nowhere and people are trucked in somehow-- but those are the exceptions and not the rule.
jwhittenAgreed, but this was *not* a shelf layout, it was mostly an island layout with deep scenes. And the plan looked okay until it dawned on me that there were no provisions for the people working at the factory to get there. Or the people working at the coal mine. Or the people working anywhere. The buildings were (seemingly) just sprinkled out around the layout such that there was some distance between them and the train would have to go a little ways to get to the next one. There was no hint of a road system or any kind of people-moving network that could have tied it all together. The layout didn't lack for *any* roads though, there was just no obvious clues to the viewer how it all went together. And instead, everything had the sense of being *DIS*-connected as a result.
And the root cause of that is not paying attention to the prototype. If you had paid attention to the prototype, how it was situated, where it was situated, how it fit into the area around that, it wouldn't have been a problem. Regardless of whether you take CNJ's or my point of view (and I was taking a hard tack to one side for the discussion), note we both were drawing from the PROTOTYPE in our decisions. We emphasized different things, but regardless of whether the roads were included or excluded, shown or not shown, it was because we took the prototype into account we are achieving whatever sense of place we are trying to accomplish. Many of the deep scene layouts are not very prototypically oriented and so (suprise) things get lost in the translation.
Another aspect is planning and research. I would say from looking at CNJ's layout he has a look of research and planning time invested in the layout. I know I do. And its not just the "ask a question on the forum" research, its actually doing the searching myself, actually reading the source material. As a result, the way my tracks are laid out, where some road crossings are located, what the name of the road is, what industry is at that location is driven by the research and the planning that results from the research.
It even gets to the question of what industries are on the layout. Why in heavens name does everybody want a coal mine? That is so silly. If people would do a little research they would find that there are 100 users of coal for every coal mine there was. Having a grain elevator next to a coal mine SCREAMS this isn't real, this is a toy, this is an exception. Why not have a power plant instead? It uses the same cars and the same commodity and has essentially the same operation as a coal mine and amazingly enough you can find coal fired power plants sitting right next to grain elevators. All over the place. There are 3 or 4 coal fired plants sitting within sight of multiple grain elevators in the Omaha and Fremont, NE area and I'm sure our area is not an exception.
Allegheny2-6-6-6John for me you hit the nail right on the head, in short it all just has to make sense.
Yes, I agree.
You and others have suggested "suspension of disbelief" with regard to looking at people's layouts and what we, the viewers (audience) can or will accept. I submit there are some details few of us will miss if they are not present. Power lines, for instance, most of us can easily overlook the fact that there is no power line stretching between the poles if the poles are present. Likewise, there are probably quite a few folks who will happily overlook missing poles as well. But try painting the grass blue, or the sky pink and suddenly it will be much harder to suspend disbelief. Some people won't mind if you pull an Amtrak Superliner with a bright red 4-4-0 American wood-burner. But I think most people would have trouble going along with that anachronism.
And there's another factor at work also-- people in other threads have mentioned it-- when someone views a layout or a model or any sort of creative / artistic type of work, their first impulse is often to be nice and not say anything negative, but instead find something to compliment the modeler on, or else the modeler him/herself-- "good work", "looks good", "keep up the good work". People rarely just say what's on their minds, even if that would ultimately be the better, kinder thing to do.
markpiercesteinjr ... It also normally helps to create a scene by ensuring that the scene cannot be viewed from above (in the helicopter pilot perspective we see in track plans). That ... is ... so ... true. The smaller the scale of our trains, the more so. That's why N-scale layouts should be higher than HO scale, and so on. A layout is most effective if one can't see the whole thing at once. For example, a "donut-shaped" layout has the advantage having four different perspectives/views. It is impossible to see the whole thing without shifting one's view. Mark
I missed that in SteinJr's reply, but I agree.
wm3798What does matter is capturing the essence of the scene I'm trying to portray. It also matters that each vignette can stand on it's own as a complete picture, particularly when viewed from a particular angle. Here are a few examples:
Most definitely and you have done so brilliantly in your layout. Each of the scenes you have included *does* suggest a "sense of place" and you have included all of the hints and suggestions necessary for the viewer to see it and understand it as a working space that connects to somewhere else.
CudaKen has kindly provided some pictures of his layout which illustrate my point very well. Look at his layout and yours and you will see what I mean. And I'm not trying to pick on his layout in saying that, nor even trying to compare the relative "levels" of modeling that either of you are capable of-- but simply to point out that his scenes don't include any apparent connection to any other location, and thus its hard for the viewer to look at it and get a sense for how it fits into a larger whole.
dehusmanAs a result, the way my tracks are laid out, where some road crossings are located, what the name of the road is, what industry is at that location is driven by the research and the planning that results from the research.
Yes, I agree with that. Another thing is looking around at the kinds of communities that people tend to build-- taking into account the general region that one is modeling, to take both yours and CNJ's earlier points-- and look for the essential details that convey the essence of those communities-- roads, structures, infrastructure, power distribution-- to name a few. Where do people eat? Where do they work? Where do they worship? Whatever-- while none of those things has to necessarily specifically be modeled in order to set a "real" scene, it is very useful-- darned near critical I'd say-- to understand how the "space" goes together and works so you can reach into and pull out a believable set of details to model and portray, and that other people can view and "fit together" in their heads and thus "understand" the scene the modeler is putting on display.
dehusmanIt even gets to the question of what industries are on the layout. Why in heavens name does everybody want a coal mine? That is so silly. If people would do a little research they would find that there are 100 users of coal for every coal mine there was. Having a grain elevator next to a coal mine SCREAMS this isn't real, this is a toy, this is an exception. Why not have a power plant instead? It uses the same cars and the same commodity and has essentially the same operation as a coal mine and amazingly enough you can find coal fired power plants sitting right next to grain elevators. All over the place. There are 3 or 4 coal fired plants sitting within sight of multiple grain elevators in the Omaha and Fremont, NE area and I'm sure our area is not an exception.
Indeed!
jwhitten Where do they worship?
One thing I have done is on the handpainted backdrops, is where there is a group of trees, have a steeple sticking out of the top of the trees. Very subtle but if you are modeling the eastern half of the US, very common.
dehusmanjwhitten Where do they worship? One thing I have done is on the handpainted backdrops, is where there is a group of trees, have a steeple sticking out of the top of the trees. Very subtle but if you are modeling the eastern half of the US, very common.
Yes, in many communities, even today, the church steeple is often the tallest thing around for miles. Near where I live there is a church that is fairly new-- well, 5-8 years at this point I guess, but when they were really new, they put up the *cap* to their steeple which you could see over the tops of the trees for quite a distance, but when you saw the church close up, it was supported by spindly-looking metal poles. I don't know exactly what the story with it was, but I suspect they were waiting to get their bell(s) in-place before they built the rest of the thing. They did eventually finish it up, but it was like that for several years at least.