A very thought provoking subject, and in my mind very well put, you are not trying to be offensive, but I am sure there will be modellers that will see your comments as such.
In the club I'm in (in Australia), we have many levels of modelling competency, some great, some good, some so-so and some poor, the later two are where this leads.
Several layouts well known to me, are really nothing short of atrocious to some, yet the owners proudly display them at many venues, and the average Joe relates to them and thinks they are fantastic, the modeller with a bit more knowledge and talent - well, they think a bit different, and herein lies the problem - lie or criticise?
My Questions for Today:How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ?? This can be seen on many layouts, even the so called best of them, it's basically reinventing the wheel, but it is possible to go overboard and hence realism and believability suffer.How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"? Many have that ability, the difficulty is in conveying the observations to the recipient without losing their confidence, friendship etc, hence for the most part, we lie!To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"? It's an unfortunate situation, that human nature seldom likes to hear the truth if their is any negativity attached, the honest person will be judged in a different manner, and in the eye of the judged recipient, they will be seen as wrong!How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally? I'm not sure if anyone is really, honestly capable of accepting criticism without rebuttal, there will always be a reason, primarily, in this hobby, its my layout, I'll do it my way!What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above? A lot of the time, the expert modellers have never actually achieved anything, it's easier to criticise than be criticised!What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts? I feel the person has to realise right from the start that there are an abundance of approaches to this hobby, everyone will visualise the world differently and model it as they believe it should be.How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion? I really believe that very few modellers can really achieve the total package, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
You will only ever achieve out of this hobby what "you" want, and that will rely on your desire to improve your modelling and how much effort you are willng to put in to learn, listen to constructive advice (note I did not say criticism) and put it into practice, this is after all, a HOBBY, and some people are content to just hover at a set level and be comfortable, view deficiencies as you see them, as a learning avenue to better your own modelling.
Yours in model railroading
Ted (Teditor) Freeman
From the Land Down Under.
Teditor
My most critical eye is my own, in many ways. My yardstick, through the 6 years or so that I've been back in the hobby, has been our own Weekend Photo Fun. What I used to think was "pretty good" has slipped to "barely acceptable," as I've gained a greater appreciation for really high-quality modeling.
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. And, so it is with becoming a better modeler. It takes study, effort and time, plus the understanding that you won't always get it right the first time, and occasionally you'll just never get it right.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
TeditorA very thought provoking subject, and in my mind very well put, you are not trying to be offensive, but I am sure there will be modellers that will see your comments as such.
Thank you!
And agreed, I have put a lot of thought into it over the course of the week, how to delve into this topic in a respectful, non-confrontational, discussion-provoking manner.
For me-- just me-- one of the things that nearly always "gets me" is when I spot the old Revell (or AHM-- whatever it is) "Lumberyard" or "Train Depot" structures. There are others as well, but those two in particular. And I have one of each on my own layout-- so there's some aspect of irony there too At some point I will remove them. But for now they're busy filling space that would otherwise be empty. And when your entire landmass is PINK, that's an important consideration!
TeditorHow can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion? I really believe that very few modellers can really achieve the total package, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
That might be true-- I don't know-- but suffice it to say at the least they have to have a desire to improve, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate them!
John
MisterBeasleyMy most critical eye is my own, in many ways. My yardstick, through the 6 years or so that I've been back in the hobby, has been our own Weekend Photo Fun. What I used to think was "pretty good" has slipped to "barely acceptable," as I've gained a greater appreciation for really high-quality modeling. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. And, so it is with becoming a better modeler. It takes study, effort and time, plus the understanding that you won't always get it right the first time, and occasionally you'll just never get it right.
A very astute observation, thanks very much for your comments!
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
PASMITHAlthough it is not necessary to enjoy the hobby, one must decide what is important to you and to have or want to have a preconceived vision of what your ideal is. This is difficult because outside influences and personnel preferences change over time. If one does not have a vision, it may be hard to directly address these questions because there is no frame of reference and a snap judgement is not of much help.
True, agreed.
PASMITHOnce you have a vision that diverges from the work you are viewing you can pretty much make a comparison to your own work and make adjustments accordingly.
This is the tricky part. How do you (A) ever discover that a divergence exists ? And (B) what can you do about it ? And (C) what can you use as a "yard-stick" to measure your performance / improvement ?
Especially since so much of it is subjective anyway.
I suppose one could always put out surveys and solicit (supposedly) unbiased opinions from others. Of one could compare his/her work to that of others. But then again, that presupposes the modeler has the ability to "step back" from their work, "step out of the picture"-- so to speak-- and look objectively upon his/her work and use their "critical eye" to assess and understand what's "right" and "wrong" about their scene and composition-- and *then* to figure out some type of remedial project plan to correct / improve the deficits-- and particularly without overly interfering with whatever positive aspects exist.
I know that I often have that problem-- the first part in particular, being able to step back and look at something I've done or created less subjectively (more objectively) and try to see the faults and weaknesses along with the strengths and positive elements. As a modeler, your scenes tend to be highly "personal" and criticism of them, even criticism originating internally, often tends to be down-played or ignored. Which is a shame, because often the "critical" aspect is directed at just a tiny portion of the overall whole and could probably be addressed without overly interfering with the positive aspects.
It is a definite conundrum.
One specific thing that I do, in my own works-- whether modeling, carpentry, home remodeling-- whatever, is to take copious pictures of the scene and the work-piece (or work-space.. object in question) from many different angles, both in and out of the scene if possible, so as to see *it* rather than my internal "image" of it. The camera doesn't lie, it faithfully (for the most part) records what it sees-- and that's what you see when you look at the final recorded images. It can be a very useful technique for studying and gaining insight into whatever it is you're working on-- and critically assessing your work, or your work-piece / work-space to determine what needs doing and how to go about resolving it.
Thank you very much for your comments, they are much appreciated!
I have avoided posting on these threads so far, but...... Always ignore anything that comes before the word "but".
As Superintendent of an NMRA Division I get the chance to visit many layouts. I always tell folks that I always learn something when I visit layouts. Sometimes I find some technique which would work great on my layout, and other times I see things that aren't anything I would want to do........... Usually, a little of both.
I can honestly say my own ability as a modeler has improved greatly in the last several years! I look at scenes I did just 2 or 3 years ago and think, "What was I thinking..."! The growth in my my own skills come from being able to see others model railroads both on line, and in person. I have also been challenged to become a better modeler through the NMRA Achievement Program which set some high standards. I know what I was doing 4 or 5 years ago would not be close to getting the Scenery Certificate which I earned a few months back.
A big part of MRRing for me is the journey, much more than the outcome.
If I see something I don't like??? All depends on my purpose for being at the persons layout, whether we are alone, and whether the person is looking for "suggestions". I can almost always find something about the layout I like. I sometimes ask how the person did the scene and why. It can then lead to a "honest" evaluation of the work and offer suggestions for improvement. I try to read the persons comfort level and interest in hearing comments from me.
I am always surprised (and pleased) when someone says they love my work on the layout and ask me how I got to the point I am at.... I don't consider myself thee expert in any area of Model Railroading. Recently two gentlemen (one a MMR) were very taken with the lighting system I use on my layout and wanted to know exactly what I did, where they can get the same bulbs, and how much they cost. I later got a great email from one of them reiterating that they liked my work and thanking me for my information. Those things tend to make one feel very good........
73
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Colorado_Mac i see model railroads as works of art, not only in looks but in operation. Like any art (painting, writing, architecture, music), most humans can master the basic tools.
I completely agree with that. And from past discussions, I think there is a fairly large contingent of folks here who likewise agree. And even among those who disagree-- many of those do so only on a technicality, a parsing of what the word "art" or "artist" means and not a specific dispute that the work itself is creative and generally "original".
Colorado_MacOften we can copy very well. But an "artist" - even a mediocre one - is the person who can use those tools to produce something that is more than a collection of parts.
I think that is well-said, and a point that should not be lost from the discussion. What makes some people more technically-oriented while others are more artistically inclined? That may be a facet of simple human nature and personality-- that which makes one person unique and different from another, and yet there are still similarities to varying degrees amongst all of us.
Colorado_MacWhat tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts? Open your eyes. Look at the world everyday, hopefully in a different way, and REMEMBER what you see. Think about it. You may drive the same route every day, twice a day on your commute. But then you ride in the passenger seat, with someone else driving, and suddenly you will see things you never noticed before, and see things you have seen before in a different way. If we, as model railroaders, use our eyes and our memories to catalog the real world, rather than watch our Blackberry screens or our feet, t will be much easier to recreate it in miniature. All that said, there are many people who will never be able to create art. This is why we admire so greatly those who can.
Very true, but its often harder to "See" than we realize. And more than that, we often don't "see" what we think we see. How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
I think its difficult, especially when we're driving along in our cars to notice stuff. Partly perhaps because we're whizzing along so fast. Maybe because we're focused on the road and other drivers. Maybe because we're preoccupied with other concerns of the day. Whatever the case, whatever the reason-- how many of us look around us to "see" what is there? Study the wonderful colors and textures and interplays between shadows and light? To "see" the shapes and how they combine and merge and interweave and overlap to give us the things around us we pass by and take for granted every day?
How many of us are *able* to "see" if we even tried?
1. Well, I too have read many modeling articles over the years, and there are indeed certain things that make me cringe. Among them are lichen "trees". My pet peeve is reading about some "name" layout and seeing way too many lichen "trees" in the photos. Could people at least shell out a little cash for some nicer "foreground" trees or other vegetation? I mean--some folks have hundreds of engines--perhaps a few nice trees wouldn't break the budget, right?
2. Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork (and that being visually "undesirable"): some of us have to be careful with our basement R/W acquisition. Some of us have to leave part of the basement open for other things. Also--when there's a derailment, one needs to be able to physically reach the derailed rolling stock without needing a specialty over-layout creeper, right?
My layout design was based upon the knowledge that I needed to accommodate some larger locomotives, and I wanted a separation between the edge of the layout and the track so that derailed equipment remains on the layout. It ended up working out that my mainline does indeed follow the edge of the benchwork--especially along the large return loops at each end of the (twice folded dogbone) layout.
So what? I had only limited space, and I had to make the most of it.
3. My layout exists for one main purpose: to be able to accommodate large, fast trains that run reliably. Everything else is secondary to that. I like scenery, and am hoping that my scenery, as items are added, will provide interest that is missing from my simple track plan. However, sometimes less trackwork is indeed more visually. I'm still trying to figure out how to add all the scenes I'd like to add to my layout--there just isn't room for everything--yet the trackwork itself is minimal but complete (3-#6 turnouts on the mainline, with 3 other #6 turnouts located on sidings).
4. Regarding the need for a layout to be "interesting". Many of the layouts I see in MR just don't do anything for me. I have a friend, an excellent photographer and award winning modeler of his particular railroad. His layout was featured in MR, and also made the front cover a few years ago. It was extremely well done--but also boring as all get-out. A true, prototypically accurate point-to-point branchline railroad set in a desolate location of the west, with no provisions for continuous running, and a train could traverse the entire mainline in less than a minute (unless doing the branchline 5 mph crawl). Excepting one or two scenes, I really didn't like my friend's layout. My son liked it for all of 5 minutes.
My layout has to please me, and will most certainly never please MR's editorial staff. They have different goals and desires of what they want to see in a layout than me, though I would avoid the "spaghetti bowl" trackplans at all cost. That's actually about the only thing I might agree with them on!
Colorado_MacWow. Obviously I have a lot to learn about the artistry of replying to these posts in a way they can be easily read! I'll work on that!
Heh, no sweat-- if they waded through all my verbiage, yours is a piece of cake.
Wow. What a subject. But a very common subject which I think you approached very well and hope it is treated the same. So far these discussions have been surprisingly civil.
I will attempt to give my views of a few of the items and emphasize they are just my opinions.
I feel the most problems we have are with the human ego and a bit of non-understanding of others. We have a tendency to look at something through our eyes and our eyes alone. We must first understand that each one of us has a different outlook, desire and view for the end result. We must first approach a persons work with the "I like squash, you don't" attitude. Just because you do or do not like it doesn't make it bad, you just prefer something different. Keeping this in mind should keep the critique un hurtful and actually much more helpful because it softens the gut reaction to defend. One must also have the same attitude when receiving comments. If one understands that everyone likes something different and it is just an opinion you can take or dismiss, then the act of defense can be calmed. This requires, however, the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude to not be involved. So many times that is conveyed to the modeler that the person who makes such comments is not only telling you what he prefers, but that it is actually the only way it should be done.
I think Picasso paints like a third grader, others think it is art. Does that mean I think these people are wrong? No. Just different opinions of what one likes. The same with Model Railroading. After all each model is just a real life version of a persons vision. Some love hills and mining or logging. Some like flatland and long intermodels. Diesel, steam, switching, roundy rounds. Each has their own idea of what they want and each of us has to understand that just because we want 100% prototypical, someone else may want just a train or something in between. Some are more into the modeling of scenery, some are more into the modeling of trains. Some are more interested in the operation and just have on the layout a fixture to represent what the train is to do. Any of it wrong? No. Any of those not what I want or like? Yes.
If we keep in mind that a person doesn't have the same vision that another necessarily does then I think things can be much more civil and therefore more productive. Do you don't walk up to a person and they introduce their wife to you, do you say, "gee, she's horrible" and then start picking her apart as to what you would pick in a wife? I'd hope not. That may not seem the best comparison, but the concept is the same. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what someone wants out of a relationship isn't always what another wants. Keep this in mind when viewing a layout.
Now, does that mean I'm saying don't say anything unless asked and then sugar coat it with fantastic, wonderful, glorious? No. Not at all. Just keep in mind when making comments that what you see as a result isn't necessarily what the modeler has in mind. And likewise when you receive a comment that suggests something different than what you did, or need to do, that the person is just offering their opinion the same as suggesting a color for you next car. You can do what you want. It is your railroad. But, always keep an open mind when someone offers a suggestion because they may just have an idea you like or don't see until they point it out. It's all in the delivery.
Someone shows a picture of a weathered boxcar. You see you don't care for it for some reason. You have several ways to approach. You can:
not make a comment at all. This doesn't really help the person at all, especially if you see something you can help them with. Again it's personal to an extent
Make a general statement such as "looks good" or "getting better". This again could give a false impression the modeler is doing well and doesn't help. Though adding a "getting better" doesn't hurt.
Make a smoothed over "I like this, but that could be better by doing this" Probably the, arguably, best approach. You are telling the modeler what he has done well, to let him know what technic works,(and pat on the back) and you are telling him what he can do to improve.
You can just make a "I think it needs this" or "try doing it this way" " or even " well it kinda looks like someone painted it on. Try this" This, IMHO, is not mean just giving someone your opinion and why you feel that way. Maybe they can see the same when someone tells them. The commenter is not rude, but the modeler must also understand that it is just his opinion and if you disagree, then you disagree. Also, not everyone wants to sit and write a 5 minute critique on a project and they shouldn't be expected to. They just point out what they see needs improvement. Nothing wrong with that.
The last and the one that causes so much grief, is the " that looks like crud. Why don't you read some books. Looks like a fifth grader had a fit with a paint brush. You using crayons?" type answer. Those comments serve no purpose other than to insult the modeler. Not assist him with his work. They are usually, but not always, made by folks who rarely show their work if they even have any, and/or generally reach out for the dictionary for the literal definition of the word "critique" and argue it's what you should expect if you post a picture.
Does all this mean the commenter needs to be wishy washy and walk on eggs? No. The modeler needs to, when posting a picture, be prepared for some to have less than positive comments on his work. That is going to happen. But the commenter need not be insulting. That serves absolutely no purpose.
As for who to turn to for honest assessments. I think most all will give honest assessments. It's how they are given and taken that is the key.
As for the layout appearance question. Like I said To each their own, but asking questions is a start. Also one of my realizations is, on my layout, I can't have everything I want, for that very reason. One must step back and say, "you know, I can't fit that in there because, well, it just doesn't work." Probably the hardest thing to do.
My opinions, yours of course will vary.
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
howmus73
I see we're dealing with a real Ham here...
howmusI have avoided posting on these threads so far, but...... Always ignore anything that comes before the word "but".
Welcome aboard!
I'm sorry that you haven't participated before-- I love reading comments, good or bad, and the more the merrier! My goal is to stir up discussion-- to get people thinking about stuff they don't normally think about. I am glad you are joining us now.
howmusAs Superintendent of an NMRA Division I get the chance to visit many layouts. I always tell folks that I always learn something when I visit layouts. Sometimes I find some technique which would work great on my layout, and other times I see things that aren't anything I would want to do........... Usually, a little of both.
That sounds like fun. For me, I do kind of the same thing, but I do it virtually, surfing the pictures people post of their layouts and projects. And I'm like you-- I learn a lot by watching and/or reading whatever documentation or commentary that people post along with their pictures. There's a lot of stuff to find out there and every week I find new stuff to think about and admire. It is amazing the wealth of diversity with respect to knowledge, skillsets and focus that's out there. It is a veritable buffet to be certain!
howmusA big part of MRRing for me is the journey, much more than the outcome.
Yes, as I become more immersed back into the hobby, I am finding that out for myself as well. I originally jumped back in with both feet and an open wallet determined to have everything set up and done by the "end of the week" (figuratively speaking). And since then I have become more tempered and thougtful / reflective of what I'm doing and hoping to accomplish-- and I've given myself permission to "get it done when it gets done", which as far as I'm concerned is probably the best gift a modeler can give himself.
howmusI later got a great email from one of them reiterating that they liked my work and thanking me for my information. Those things tend to make one feel very good........
Yes, that's a very good point, even though you weren't making it directly (I don't think)-- its always good to tell people (give them feedback) about the good stuff too. Criticism really can cover both elements-- its just feedback, the answer to "How'd I do?" If you like something, say so. At least people are more susceptible to doing that.
Just to toss in a word of encouragement here:
I *love* the comments I'm reading and the direction the discussion is taking so far. Please don't stop that direction. Let's keep on and see where that goes...
But one of the things I was hoping for, was more actual conversation about the "faulted items" (my words-- perhaps poorly chosen) that I used in my illustration.
Not only-- what else do people have "issues" with when they see / encounter it, but also the remedial aspect-- what can be done about it?
What are positive, constructive comments that can be made to assist people who may be reading along and going... "Hey, that's me and that's my layout-- but how do I *fix* it??"
Thanks again for everybody's comments!!! You folks are terrific and I love reading every one.
"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
OK, John
Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts.
I opted for relatively simple benchwork and simple pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
Construction was much simpler (my father, a great carpenter also provided the benchwork--it was his last significantly large project for me as his age is beginning to hinder his work).
Obviously, with just the single 2" foam layer, I chose not to weaken it much by cutting into it. Instead, there are hills and rock formations that go up, and I did cut one dry wash into the foam, to give some lower than trackwork relief.
Some will look at my layout and see that it's mainly flat--yet much of it is Mojave desert or Saguaro Desert--which both have large expanses of relatively constant (smooth) grade, though they are not "flat" at all. There also is a rock formation reminiscent of Union Pacific's Castle Rock, and an area intended to evoke the Echo Canyon, Utah, vicinity...and a winter mountain scene.
If someone opts to save a little on their construction challenges, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to have a "mostly flat" layout.
My 2c.
jwhitten How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??
How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??
First I have to want something else. If I like "tricks" then a layout that is a "collection of tricks" is just what I wanted. I visited a layout on a layout tour many years ago that was a "bowl of spaghetti" design with all sorts of "cute" scenes scattered about it. It isn't the layout I would build, but many of those "cute" scenes had ties to his friends and family. Like a friend of mine from any years ago who had a layout made with Tru-scale track and Life-Like scenic paper mountains. He recieved unending ribbing from other modelers, but he had tremendous fun with the layout. The perfect layout is the one that meets your needs.
How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?
Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time.
To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?
History, the prototype and one's own mind. If you want an outside opinion you have to ask for it.
How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?
Well first you actually have to recieve it. The current philosophy on this and many other forums is that you never say anything "bad" about anybody's efforts unless they ask for feedback. As a result most efforts get a slathering of "Good Job!", "Looks great!" posts. I rarely open threads that even look like those type of "see what I've done", because I can't stand all the sugar coated feedback on something that very poorly executed. It does nothing to help them improve. See your question on the "unvarnished truth".
What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?
Don't know, didn't read it, your "questions" have gotten soooo long and wordy my eyes glaze over. I just cut to the chase. I "hate" long winded discertations, if the proposition is longer than maybe 2 paragraphs, unless its truly compelling reading, I'm skipping it. You asked about how to take criticism, there ya' go. 8-)
What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?
Study, study, study. Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time. Look at model pictures and plans with a critical eye. Look at prototype pictures witha critical eye. Skip the 3/4 wedgie roster shots and concentrate on the aerial photos and overhead facilities shots or panoramas. Spend and entire day photgraphing at your favorite spot BUT don't take a single picture of a train. Take pictures of everything else. Turn around and look away from the tracks. Stop just asking questions on a forum and do some real research.
How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?
Study the prototype. Study art. Study photo composition.
Study, study, study. Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
UP 4-12-2Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork
This one is a non-issue with me too. In my mind, it is the benchwork that needs to follow the track plan.
I agree that having tracks run at angles to the viewer does help create more depth in a scene, and I've planned for that in a couple of my scenes. But sometimes, to get a scene to deliver the functionality it needs to deliver, or to maximize aisle space, or other similar considerations, the tracks are better off running parallel to the edge. I don't think I'd compromise on things like that just to satisfy a "nothing must be parallel" notion.
IMHO, of course
First, a quote attributed to Terence: Nullum sit jam dictum quod non dictum sit prius.
He is saying, "Nothing is said which has not been said previously."
With the plethora of images and choices proferred on this and other fora, and with the intensely personal and emotional investments of all kinds of resources, sometimes at the cost of relationships or one's health, it is bound to happen that much of what each of us sees is going to fall short in our appreciation somehow.
There are so many variables in circumstance in the application of the various methods, materials, and skills needed for this hobby that it mirrors the way its practitioners look at cars or houses; some we like, some we hate.
I have always felt that there is plenty of room to accommodate all ways and means in this hobby, even to the extent of pink polka-dotted SD90MAC's running on 6% grades. If it brings a smile, it has served its purpose.
Oh, and I can't stand the lichen tree thing... Yeeesh!
-Crandell
jwhitten"I Hate Your Layout"
Just wondering. How long did it take for you type this novel? and do you have a secretary?
The only problem I've had with my layout is the saliva that drips from my mouth now and then on the track when I'm simulating the drone of that prime mover as I push my wooden brio train set around and around.
Phoebe Vet"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work.
How do you know I'm not looking at the pictures of my own layout??
Thanks for your comments.
jwhitten Very true, but its often harder to "See" than we realize. And more than that, we often don't "see" what we think we see. How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
My railroad modeling has made me better at "seeing." I do notice things I'd never looked at before, most commonly the details of roadside marshes, or the tops of buildings seen from elevated highways.
But, I don't model what I see, but rather what I remember. That's true both for that stand of cattails in the loop of the highway interchange, or the subway walls of my now-distant childhood. There are certain things about a scene which stick in my mind, while others are less important. So, when I model them, I really try to get those key elements right. I suppose, then, that the success of my modeled scenes depends as much on the viewer's memory as on mine. If their memory of subway stations is all about the hundreds of people waiting to board the train at rush hour, then my near-empty stations will not fit in as well with their vision, and they won't "get" what I'm doing with my models.
jwhittenPhoebe Vet"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work. How do you know I'm not looking at the pictures of my own layout?? Thanks for your comments. John
Well, there are too types of people. Those who are their own harshest critic, and those who can see no wrong in what they do. However, this has no correlation on how they'll respond to criticism from others.
UP 4-12-2 Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts. I opted for relatively simple benchwork and simple pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
My layout is flat too. Like you, I also built very simple benchwork and am presently using pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
As you can see, I wasn't kidding about the state of my own layout. Though mostly at the moment it is due to everything in my basement being in transition so I haven't really "begun" more than just this attempt to get the benchwork up, some pink foam on top, and some track pinned-down so my kids and I can play with the trains until the basement work gets completed.
I have posted other pictures of my "layout" on this site before-- search for "South Penn RR Updates", or "The Littlest Engineer" for additional photos. I quickly admit that what I've got to show right now isn't all that much and certainly not all that great. BUT, my sons (well, mostly son #1) and I have a lot of fun switching cars in the yard and doing pickups and setouts at the "industries".
And I know from my previous modeling efforts, that my skills are still pretty much in the "beginner" phase. Although I'm not bad at the carpentry and mechanical work, and have years of experience with electronics, computer programming and automation.
And I know what (little) amount of artistic talent I possess. I am actually scared that I won't ever be able to achieve what I see in my mind's eye. But that won't stop me from trying.
So if you or anybody else, wants to take shots at my own paltry modeling efforts and abilities-- please do, I invite you to do so. And I will do my best to take them head-on, bravely, and on-the-chin, so to speak.
As I said at the outset, I am *not* holding myself as a "Great Arbiter of Model Railroading", but rather asking questions-- including "tough" ones, in the hopes of stimulating discussion and conversation that I (if nobody else) can learn something from. And if other people can learn something too-- so much the better-- that would make me very happy indeed to know that.
I absolutely *love* talking to you all-- picking your brains and listening to your comments and opinions. You all are the ones that are filled with amazing talents that I want to know more about. But if there's ever anything anybody wants to know that I have some knowledge about, I'm always happy to chip in with what I know.
jwhittenWhat tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?
Just to address the above. I think it is important to put some time and effort into studying things that influence a scene, that may not be directly railroad related. The lay of the land and how roads and towns are laid out; the age of the buildings in the central business district, relative to the suburbs, relative to the new industrial park, etc. are important aspects of making a scene realistic. Towns in the Eastern US tend to have older CBD and follow rivers and streams, or mountain slopes. Towns in the prairie tend to have newer structures laid out 90 degrees to each other. Even older CBD's evolve, with high traffic areas like street corners, having a brand new convenience store/gas station built next to a 100 year old structure. 100 year old structures that were built before air conditioning, have had their abundant windows bricked in, perhaps with different color brick, etc. etc. Scenery items such as rock and hill formations and river banks should be studied as well.
The example you gave sounds like the modeler maybe focused too much on the trains, and placed buildings, track, people and cars, etc. on the layout without as much consideration to understanding geography or town planning or town evolution.
Studying those aspects may even be more time consuming than studying things that are directly railroad related; however, it is probably not the reason the modeler got into MRR in the first place. We we should probably all spend more time understanding how nonrailroad related events/items affect railroads.
- Douglas
UP 4-12-2 Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts.
I want to respond to you a second way also...
None of the things that I mentioned, by themselves, would seriously deter my "appreciation" of the layout-- heck, even *all* of the things wouldn't do that really. I can even (sort-of) enjoy a train running around in a simple loop of track (for a few minutes).
But the layout I saw had so many issues-- it really spoke to me, (A) personally and individually about my own skills and abilities, and the possible future of my own layout-- but also (B) pointed out a lot of things that I think other people struggle with-- whether they know it or admit it or not.
It is extremely obvious and apparent that the modeler who's layout I've been talking about is interested and engaged in building his layout and doing the best that he can. And from that perspective I have *absolutely nothing* to say on the subject-- Kudo's to him, its great and fabulous and I'd love to run trains with him on it some day.
But from an *abstract* perspective-- which is exactly what I've given out-- there is a lot that can be said about it. And discussed. And points made. Comparisons of techniques made. Tips given-- all sorts of things that the people here could HELP each other with, including me and you, in understanding our own efforts, abilities and limitations, and scene composition, figuring out how to "blend" it all together. Making something cohesive-- figuring out which techniques *really* work, and which work to drag down the others.
Its a hard topic-- because nobody wants to put down a fellow modeler's efforts-- not me, and probably not anyone.
So how can we talk about it unless someone grabs it by the horns and starts talking about it??
UP 4-12-2My pet peeve is reading about some "name" layout and seeing way too many lichen "trees" in the photos.
When I was a teenager and I had a flat layout, changes in elevation were accomplished with Life-Like trestles and Atlas graduated bridge-pier sets. The grades were too steep, both because I didn't really have enough space to get the trains up high enough to get over other trains, and because these trestles and piers had to be close enough together to support the sections of Atlas snap-track without sagging too much when trains went over them. But, I read one wise suggestion which has stuck with me ever since: Keep your track level, and have the scenery go up and down around it to simulate elevation changes.
I did that, pretty much, for my present layout. The main line is completely flat, although I have a few sidings and the whole turntable area that are slightly higher or lower, to add visual interest. On the other hand, the terrain does rise and fall somewhat, which allows the trains to cross bridges and go through cuts. By "hiding" some of the track behind mountains and buildings, the short main line seems longer.
Right now, Phase 2 of my layout is completely flat. Also, most of the track is parallel to the benchwork. It's a narrow section, only 2 1/2 feet, so the track can't really go very far in any other direction. I have one section which is so far undesigned, and it may well feature a mountain, or at least a hill, for the trains going to and from staging to slip behind.
My Perspective, in response to each question:
Does a true friend look at your work and say it looks great; or that it stinks and here's why? Which is ultimately the bigger (or better) gift, the lie or the truth?
I’ll start with the second question, first. A lie is rarely a good thing – even if you intend to preserve a person’s self esteem, but brutal honesty is no better and is often worse. The key is to be honest, but not brutal.
In response to the other question above, it is unwise and often unkind to offer feedback unless it is requested. So, rather than look at someone’s work and start handing out comments, look at it and offer honest complements, or ask questions requesting more information about something you do feel good about.
If the owner of the layout described by the OP asked me what I think, I’d probably reply with “It looks like you have a lot of fun with your layout.” If he were to press me for suggestions for making it better, I’d point out that there’s a lot of action going on and that a lot of the scenes are things that we see only occasionally (burning building, police stop, etc.); it seems that the most effective layouts are models of the mundane. This guides him to something that he could easily change and it really would make it better.
One of my favorite feedback stories comes from Westcott’s book about John Allen:
Cliff Grandt asked John Allen for feedback on Grandt’s scratch-built brass Heisler. Allen took a photo of it and printed it for Grandt. He reportedly said, “Look at the photo; every time you see something that tells you that this is not a real Heisler, it may be an opportunity to improve it.”
Notice that Allen never listed all the things that could be better; he facilitated a process by which Grandt could find them on his own.
I consider this both helpful and graceful.
I work in Human Resources – and I often have to deal with some pretty touchy stuff. One thing I believe very strongly is that it is critical to maintain a person’s dignity in order to keep a relationship and that it is possible to do so in every case. We owe that much to our fellow hobbyists.
Moving on…Questions for Today:
My opinion is that we are best off to understand that most of the real world is pretty mundane. We should strive to model the most ordinary of days, with routine stuff going on. Anything that might make the news or the newspaper should not be on our layouts. Keep in mind that a joke is funny the first time you hear it, after that…It can be fun to model a traffic stop, or a burning building, or a funeral, or a bank robbery, or a streaker, but in a year those things will be looking pretty tired.
How does one develop one's "critical eye" and ability to "edit"?
I like John Allen’s approach. With digital cameras it is cheap and easy, and I think it is fun. Take pictures and look at them. They give you a new perspective and that can help you a lot.
I think anyone can give us good feedback, after all, we all experience the world. I think the key is to ask the questions. I’ll put it this way when I want feedback: “I’m trying to make this look like a real place, can you see anything that seems not real enough?” I think it gets people thinking about details and invites them to comment. By the way, if you get defensive or argue you will probably shut off their feedback – permanently. If you ask the question, you must accept the answer.How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?It depends on the criticism. If someone comments about my model work, I accept it as their opinion and let it go. If they attack me personally, I’ll reply with something like “I’m not sure that’s really fair.”
My feeling is that this modeler is doing a lot of what he’s good at (buying stuff and putting it on his layout), and not really expanding his skill base. He may look at his work and say to himself “it’s good enough.” He is entitled to that, but I think the best modelers look at their work and think of ways to make it better. My approach to this hobby is that I’m building my skills as much as I’m building a miniature railroad. Doing the same thing over and over isn’t what I’m here for – doing it better and better is much more my focus. Building dozens of plastic model kit buildings isn’t doing anything for my skills, but assembling a wood and cardboard craftsman kit – that makes me stretch. My sense is that this modeler likes to play with trains, but building his skills is not his real interest.
What tips and scene-composition/layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?
I’d suggest that they start by measuring their layout in feet and then multiply that by 87 (for HO Scale). That’s how much of the “Real World” they are modeling. Then get out a map of the real world and layout the same area on the map (to the map’s scale). Go to that place and walk around – see how much stuff is really there: how many houses, streets, automobiles, trucks, people, buildings, how much track, etc. See how much stuff goes on in an hour (probably not much).
When I did this exercise, what I found is that my layout is about ¼ mile by 1/15 mile. A half dozen HO scale football fields would cover it. My layout is only about the size of a large city park! Given that, I have a good sense of what belongs there.
Now, as modelers we generally do some selective compression. If I put every house on my layout on a true to scale ¼ acre lot, they would take up too much space. If I made my sidings and spurs as long as the real thing, I’d run out of space in a hurry. If I tried to model one farm - true to scale – it would not fit (even if I devoted the whole layout to it). So, we reduce the sizes of things, shorten our turn radii, use much more abrupt turnouts that our prototypes, etc. My goal is not to make a “dead-on” model of the world, but to effectively represent it.
I think we all benefit from looking at the world around us and thinking in terms of what’s really there; how much space it consumes, what color is it really (most colors are faded from what they once were), we also minimize action scenes (because there really isn’t that much action). The main thing is to focus on the ordinary and leave the extraordinary to the newspapers.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
Also, based upon past issues with vertical grade breaks and the operational problems encountered with grades, that history did spur me to keep my current layout "flat". Between an inadvertant vertical benchwork issue and the pink foam sheets not always being flat and true, I ended up with a 0.4% grade--which isn't bad at all--just enough that trains do slow down a little bit.
So far as scenery is concerned--and some folks being apprehensive about starting, I offer the following comments:
Fight the war on pink (who really wants to look at all that pink on a train layout?) by buying some latex (do not use oil based anything on the insulation foam) paint in an appropriate background color for your region of the country.
Since I'm modeling the southwest, I painted the entire layout (except the white-primered mountains) a desert sand color that exactly matched the sand I'm using. This alone is an instant, large scenic improvement.
On the second coat of latex paint (one will likely not cover the pink completely), start sprinkling in ground foam (or in my case, real sand) while the paint is still wet.
These two steps alone are a good beginning at the scenery. Then you can come back and add additional vegetation once you are further inspired with more time, money, etc.
You do not need to be an artistic genius, though I do recommend downloading photos for inspiration of that favorite region you hope to capture (in my case, the Saguaro Desert near Tucson, and Union Pacific's Echo Canyon Utah).
I too suffer from flat track but I am very much ok with it.. I dont have a lot of room to built a good hill and I am not just sticking a small hill on my layout so I have a bridge or overpass, when I do add a bridge I will just cut some out of my table and make a river. And like UP 4-12-2 post, before I laid any track was to paint my table, then added some track and got some ground cover down so I am not staring a bare table, then I got a working layout down so I can drive my trains and have gone back added more scenery and more track and now that I am happy with most of my track I am starting to go back and add some terrain. From photos I have seen there are a lot of folks who have limited their train driving time due to always being in middle of an extensive terrain build that will take years or folks who have nice track work but have no room for terrain or buildings and in both cases I jealous at the time and effort they have put into a layout and at the same time wonder what where they thinking when their layout is bare or will years down the road before it is really working. I have tried to balance it out and so far I am very happy with it no matter what people might think of my layout.
UP 4-12-2Well, I too have read many modeling articles over the years, and there are indeed certain things that make me cringe. Among them are lichen "trees". My pet peeve is reading about some "name" layout and seeing way too many lichen "trees" in the photos.
I don't mind lichen trees so much, but I do agree that nowadays that there's more than can be done to dress them up a bit. Some judicious use of glue and ground foam could go a long way.
But each of us probably has something or other that makes us cringe when we see it. And it probably says more about ourselves and our own preconceptions than it does what we're looking at.
UP 4-12-2Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork ... So what? I had only limited space, and I had to make the most of it.
Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork ... So what? I had only limited space, and I had to make the most of it.
As I mentioned in another response, none of these things by themselves are that big an issue. And each of them can easily be offset and/or justified by some need or requirement or other. None of the items I pointed out were intended to be "absolutes" but only my own reaction to a particular layout I saw that had a lot of the types of issues that I've seen that collectively work to undermine a modeler's efforts. Which is what I wanted to discuss. Not the specific layout, or the modeler, or else in that case I *would* have added pictures.
The layout and the modeler are unimportant. What is important is that these types of layouts do exist and very often-- in my own opinion-- they could be benefitted by a few well-chosen tips or techniques-- a little retrofitting or remedial action-- and they could just simply blossom into incredible Wow!-inspiring presentations.
UP 4-12-2My layout exists for one main purpose: to be able to accommodate large, fast trains that run reliably. Everything else is secondary to that.
Sure, that makes sense and is sensible.
UP 4-12-2 I like scenery, and am hoping that my scenery, as items are added, will provide interest that is missing from my simple track plan. However, sometimes less trackwork is indeed more visually.
I certainly agree with that as well. That's one of the things I've been thinking about lately is the complexity of trackwork, how much the track should dominate the scene, etc. And of course the simple answer is that it varies. And it varies from scene to scene, and with different types of scenes, and with different types of layouts and layout "purposes". Also each individual modeler has a different degree of emphasis and focus that they want to bring to bear with respect to track.
UP 4-12-2Regarding the need for a layout to be "interesting". Many of the layouts I see in MR just don't do anything for me. I have a friend, an excellent photographer and award winning modeler of his particular railroad. His layout was featured in MR, and also made the front cover a few years ago. It was extremely well done--but also boring as all get-out. A true, prototypically accurate point-to-point branchline railroad set in a desolate location of the west, with no provisions for continuous running, and a train could traverse the entire mainline in less than a minute (unless doing the branchline 5 mph crawl). Excepting one or two scenes, I really didn't like my friend's layout. My son liked it for all of 5 minutes.
There we go-- now we're getting to the heart of the subject. We've been beating around the bush up to this point-- but now we've fully arrived. Perhaps your friend's layout was a "concept layout". Undertaken simply to see if something or other could be done effectively in miniature.
Whatever the case-- there was at least some aspect of it that grated on you-- the question is what was the aspect, and why were you bothered by it?
It is only by asking ourselves questions about what we see, and how we *feel* about what we see that we are able to compare and contrast what we see with what we *think* we see, or else see in our *mind's eye*, or else what we *want* to see.
It is by asking ourselves critical questions and picking apart the answers-- and comparing them to other things we believe, like, dislike, whatever-- that we learn and grow and are able to articulate in more or less precise terms what we think we need (want) to change, how to change it, and generally-speaking, how to go about it.
UP 4-12-2My layout has to please me
That is definitely the most important criteria-- and it doesn't matter a whit's end what anybody else thinks about it-- including me. Just you. But that doesn't mean that other people can't see it and have an *opinion* about it, even if they never communicate it with you. That's just human nature. We are all critical and judgemental-- its part of our essential character as human beings.
Thanks for your comments!
shayfan84325 My Perspective, in response to each question: Does a true friend look at your work and say it looks great; or that it stinks and here's why? Which is ultimately the bigger (or better) gift, the lie or the truth? I’ll start with the second question, first. A lie is rarely a good thing – even if you intend to preserve a person’s self esteem, but brutal honesty is no better and is often worse. The key is to be honest, but not brutal.
shayfan84325One thing I believe very strongly is that it is critical to maintain a person’s dignity in order to keep a relationship and that it is possible to do so in every case. We owe that much to our fellow hobbyists.
This is precisely my own orientation to dealing with people. As Kant taught us, every person is an end unto himself and each person is worth his dignity. That person's acts may be contemptible, but the person is worthy of dignity. So treat the person with dignity, and condemn the act as is its due.
The forums here and there have email and Private Message services. I use them routinely to offer some perspective to people. I always acknowledge that my message may be an intrusion, and therefore unwelcome, but I chose my words carefully and make an offer of a point of view. I have yet to receive a hostile reply to an email or PM I have initiated with a view to helping someone to see something I suspect they haven't seen. I haven't always had agreement, but have never been rebuked or told to go pound salt.
In that respect, I was being honest and providing a service at the same time. From there it is up to the recipient to determine his or her orientation to it.
It is analogous to having someone offer you medication you can take orally, or something they tell you must be inserted up your back passage. One is much more pleasant than the other, and is more likely to elicit an expression of gratitude and a smile. If your intent is to be heard and understood, never mind the thanks or acknowledgement, then it should be done in a way most likely to achieve that result. Blunt and forceful words are most often going to fail.
Thanks, Phil, for your wise words.
TMarshWow. What a subject. But a very common subject which I think you approached very well and hope it is treated the same. So far these discussions have been surprisingly civil.
Thank you for saying so. And I agree. That's been my goal and desire, to promote healthy discussion and debate, and nothing else.
TMarshI feel the most problems we have are with the human ego and a bit of non-understanding of others. We have a tendency to look at something through our eyes and our eyes alone.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise-- except perhaps at the movies.
TMarshThis requires, however, the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude to not be involved. So many times that is conveyed to the modeler that the person who makes such comments is not only telling you what he prefers, but that it is actually the only way it should be done.
And of course many times we are told something like that from a supposed "friendly critic" who then proceeds to be a "harsh critic" and/or an "unforgiving critic". Both of which are absolutely devastating to the critical process. It can indeed be difficult to know how to receive criticism well. And I know that sometimes describes me for certain. But even for someone who doesn't typically receive criticism very well, it is often useful for that person to stand there and hear it anyway-- even if there is an immediate visceral reaction to it. Because later, in a quieter time, it may be that the criticism can more easily be heard, understood, digested and imparted for what it was meant-- direct feedback and a third-party view (whether neutral or otherwise) of the situation.
TMarshI think Picasso paints like a third grader
Yeah, me too. And Jackson Pollock had 'em all fooled.
TMarshThe same with Model Railroading. After all each model is just a real life version of a persons vision.
A model is a real-life version of a person's *attempt* at recreating their vision. What they see in their and may be nothing like the reality they are able to create. But I otherwise get and agree with your point.
TMarshSome are more into the modeling of scenery, some are more into the modeling of trains. Some are more interested in the operation and just have on the layout a fixture to represent what the train is to do. Any of it wrong? No. Any of those not what I want or like? Yes.
And that also has a lot to do with how some people can look and be very tolerant-- or even not "see" the "obvious flaws" that are there (presuming there are some) while others are driven simply batty by the same scene.
I was reading some post somewhere recently in which the poster was complaining that they could overlook almost any modeling faupaux except for signaling errors-- or something along those lines. And it turned out later in the conversation that he had been a Dispatcher or something where signals and CTC operations was an integral aspect of his job and daily life. And after years and years of being exposed to it through his occupation, he had a hard time seeing simplistic attempts at performing signaling on model railroads. In his view it was better to omit them entirely than to do it poorly.
And I think that's telling-- he was expressing a very similar sentiment to what my post is about.
TMarshBeauty is in the eye of the beholder and what someone wants out of a relationship isn't always what another wants. Keep this in mind when viewing a layout.
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beer-holder.
TMarshNow, does that mean I'm saying don't say anything unless asked and then sugar coat it with fantastic, wonderful, glorious? No. Not at all. Just keep in mind when making comments that what you see as a result isn't necessarily what the modeler has in mind. And likewise when you receive a comment that suggests something different than what you did, or need to do, that the person is just offering their opinion the same as suggesting a color for you next car. You can do what you want. It is your railroad. But, always keep an open mind when someone offers a suggestion because they may just have an idea you like or don't see until they point it out. It's all in the delivery.
Precisely.
Social decorum is always a difficult issue fraught with peril-- that's why most people stick to the script and do little to introduce controversy. But at the same time, that also leads people to hold false beliefs, or to not receive the "education" they could benefit from, or be denied an opportunity to hear the truth and grow from it.
It cuts both ways.
TMarshAs for who to turn to for honest assessments. I think most all will give honest assessments. It's how they are given and taken that is the key.
I'm not 100% sure that's actually true. I think many of us would like to believe we can give out honest assessments-- but I think that when put to the test, particularly in a face-to-face / one-on-one situation-- and even more particularly with someone we have affection for, respect for, or some other aspect of esteem for-- we are as likely as not to fall back on the little white lie, or else mumble some really shallow aspect that could be trivially improved, and thus shy away from delivering the real coup de grace-- the truth.
TMarshMy opinions, yours of course will vary.
No, you *must* have the same opinions as me!!! Or else I'll hold my breath and stomp my feet!!!
Thanks for your comments-- they were very insightful and I enjoyed reading them.
John,Since this week's subject is a heady subject I shall make my reply in the morning when I am refresh for whatever its worth..I just returned from a quick trip to Marion and am little tired since I been up since 5:00AM.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
dehusmanFirst I have to want something else. If I like "tricks" then a layout that is a "collection of tricks" is just what I wanted.
Certainly, no argument from me. If you set out to build what you made-- you're right on target. And even if you didn't and you're happy with it-- bingo, hit the target again.
But just as you have the right to make and be happy (or not) with whatever you made, I (or anyone) has the right to look at it and have our own opinion about it.
dehusmanI visited a layout on a layout tour many years ago that was a "bowl of spaghetti" design with all sorts of "cute" scenes scattered about it. It isn't the layout I would build, but many of those "cute" scenes had ties to his friends and family. Like a friend of mine from any years ago who had a layout made with Tru-scale track and Life-Like scenic paper mountains. He recieved unending ribbing from other modelers, but he had tremendous fun with the layout.
Absolutely right and without question.
One thing that I don't particularly like is "animation" on a layout-- not sure quite why, but it never (or rarely) strikes me as being "done right"-- and perhaps its even impossible for it to be done right-- who knows-- but in my view, when I see it, it detracts from the overall enjoyment and visual appeal that *I* could (would) feel about seeing it. *BUT* if *other* people like it, and/or the owner likes it-- that's the only justification that's required. My opinion hardly matters.
But, I *can* still have an opinion.
dehusmanThe current philosophy on this and many other forums is that you never say anything "bad" about anybody's efforts unless they ask for feedback. As a result most efforts get a slathering of "Good Job!", "Looks great!" posts. I rarely open threads that even look like those type of "see what I've done", because I can't stand all the sugar coated feedback on something that very poorly executed. It does nothing to help them improve.
So what you're saying is that you know (or believe) that if you open the post and read it / see the images that accompany it-- something about the effort is likely to "annoy" your sensibilities...? So you skip opening the post because you don't want to pile on with the "congratulations", "way to go", "looking good" little white lie comments? And so even though you know you have a real opinion you could voice that (might) could help the other person-- you elect instead to stay silent? To not be involved?
Is that really a "friendly" thing to do? Or simply a "not rocking the boat" / "sticking to the social contract" type thing to do?
Which is better, the lie or the truth?
I'm not judging-- simply asking the questions-- attempting to draw out opinion and commentary. That's the point of my Philosophy Friday posts.
dehusmanDon't know, didn't read it, your "questions" have gotten soooo long and wordy my eyes glaze over. I just cut to the chase. I "hate" long winded discertations, if the proposition is longer than maybe 2 paragraphs, unless its truly compelling reading, I'm skipping it. You asked about how to take criticism, there ya' go. 8-)
And yet you continue to participate.
Interesting.
But your feedback is duly noted.
Seriously though, I don't purposely make my posts any particular length or other. I just start writing until I feel like I've presented the information I want to present, made the points I want to make, and asked the questions I want to ask. Whatever length that turns out to be is what I hit the 'Post' button on.
Feel free to read 'em, or not-- your choice. Feel free to respond, or not-- your choice.
But if you do, and I *hope* you do, I'll be happy to read and consider and probably respond to whatever you have to say.
And I appreciate your comments now, as I always do.
Thanks!
odaveUP 4-12-2Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork This one is a non-issue with me too. In my mind, it is the benchwork that needs to follow the track plan.
It was never my intent to establish "The Canonical List", but rather to broach the topic of layout "issues" that nobody ever really wants to talk about directly.
selectorFirst, a quote attributed to Terence: Nullum sit jam dictum quod non dictum sit prius. He is saying, "Nothing is said which has not been said previously."
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
selectorI have always felt that there is plenty of room to accommodate all ways and means in this hobby, even to the extent of pink polka-dotted SD90MAC's running on 6% grades. If it brings a smile, it has served its purpose. Oh, and I can't stand the lichen tree thing... Yeeesh! -Crandell
I can always count on you to offer up the correct point-of-view!
DrilineJust wondering. How long did it take for you type this novel?
With edits, probably about an hour. Maybe a little less. But that also included thinking time and time spent flipping back and forth looking at the pictures.
Drilineand do you have a secretary?
No why, are you volunteering???
Drilinesimulating the drone of that prime mover as I push my wooden brio train
I think you have the right attitude.
If I were the forum administrator, I would have locked or deleted this thread early on with three simple words, "It is offensive".
It doesn't really matter whether the layout remains anonymous, or whether it is fictional, or for that matter, whether it is the author's own layout.
If I were new to the hobby or contemplating joining this forum and this was the first thread that I read, I would turn and run.
It would be one thing to generally discuss things about layouts that you don't like, but it is quite another to describe in detail the layout in question and everything that is wrong with it.
This is the reason why most modelers don't join clubs or have that much interaction with other modelers, the fear of being ridiculed either to one's face or behind one's back.
The justification for participating in the criticism of this layout is that we can all learn. I don't see how or in what way except to congratulate ourselves that we have not posted photos of our own layouts.
John, nothing personal, I don't think you intended to be mean spirited. It was just a poorly chosen method of critique, in my opinion, that will offend and intimidate many readers who won't respond. It comes off very smug, whether intended or not.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrainIf I were the forum administrator, I would have locked or deleted this thread early on with three simple words, "It is offensive".
Thank you for your feedback.
richhotrainIt doesn't really matter whether the layout remains anonymous, or whether it is fictional, or for that matter, whether it is the author's own layout. If I were new to the hobby or contemplating joining this forum and this was the first thread that I read, I would turn and run.
Really ?
You don't think you might stay a bit and see how the discussion turns out? Already some folks have offered up some really, really interesting comments and suggestions for how to "see" and construct scenes.
richhotrainIt would be one thing to generally discuss things about layouts that you don't like, but it is quite another to describe in detail the layout in question and everything that is wrong with it.
Hmmm-- but isn't that exactly what they do in the beginner's forums whenever someone talks about a track plan or other-- whether its one the OP posted about, or else someone else offered up, or even one from a book someplace? In fact, I have read quite a few posts where the layouts have been described in exquisite detail-- often by the actual modeler themselves-- and then opened up for opinions... and criticisms
If you never ask questions, if you never look to see what can be improved upon-- how can you ever learn to discern what is good or not good. If you never critique, or accept criticism, how can you learn to use your "critical eye" ??
I'm not rebuking you or trying to talk down your comments-- I take them at face value and assume you mean what you say-- but I ask you-- how else does one learn than by asking questions and considering critically?
In fact, you only have my word for it that the layout in question actually exists at all. So from your perspective, aside from the fact that you *believe* it to exist-- it *is* discussing things about layouts in general.
richhotrainJohn, nothing personal, I don't think you intended to be mean spirited. It was just a poorly chosen method of critique, in my opinion, that will offend and intimidate many readers who won't respond. It comes off very smug, whether intended or not.
And I accept your comments and criticism in the spirit in which it is intended, but ask you to reconsider, meaning to re-consider you stance and see if you don't come to a new conclusion. If you don't, that's okay, I understand. Not everybody is going to agree with me-- or with you. That's just a factor in life. And I can agree to disagree if you can. But if you don't mind, at least for a minute, give it another thought and re-consider your opinion.
And... if I were *really* smug, I'd point out that the moderator has already joined in the discussion...
(But I say that in jest, and nothing else)
richhotrain If I were the forum administrator, I would have locked or deleted this thread early on with three simple words, "It is offensive"...
Rich, I think that is taking it too far and too seriously. This is a hobby, not life-or-death. Though I have to admit, I don't necessarily like the title of the topic.
richhotrain...This is the reason why most modelers don't join clubs or have that much interaction with other modelers, the fear of being ridiculed either to one's face or behind one's back....
I really can't say whether this is true or not - never really thought about it - but I will say that I HOPE not. I hope everyone in any hobby is doing it for their personal enjoyment and doing it exactly the way they want to, other opinions be d****ed. Perhaps some younger (as in teenage) modelers might be so inclined, but adults?
richhotrainThe justification for participating in the criticism of this layout is that we can all learn...
The thing I noticed about this thread is that there has been very little actual criticism of the layout itself. In my case, that's because I don't really like commenting on things I only know second-hand, and I haven't seen the layout. Whatever the reason, a great many of the comments seem to be about criticism, and our general treatment of each other, than about the layout described at the beginning. I like a discussion of 2-8-0s and kitbashing as much as anyone - it's why I signed on here - but i also like discussions about human nature, because unlike scale, era, setting of our layouts, that's the one thing we all have in common. That said, your mileage may vary.
Let me preface this by saying that we can probably all agree that some layouts have "it" and others simply don't. I'm very visually oriented, and I really like a layout that's well thought out and well rendered. All of the features that you described in the original post are things that absolutely drive me up the wall, too.
That being said, there are probably a lot of layouts that look great in photos, but run like crap, and many that look simple and beginner-ish that run like a Swiss watch.
For me, it's not enough to have bullet-proof operating track. If that were the case, I'd have Kato Unitrak. But I want it to look as realistic as possible, so I use Atlas code 55. As such, my challenge is to lay it carefully, and make it work smoothly, so I take the time to do that.
Anyhow, let me answer your questions...Rather than re-hash your original list of peeves, I'm going to show some images that I think represent the best of the best, and we'll just let the worst be what it is.
How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??Every layout is a collection of tricks. But as you say, it has to be more than that to really work. There has to be at least an attempt to represent something that is recognizable to the viewer. The biggest (and best) trick to pull is to create an eye-popping and immediately recognizable scene that greets the visitor as he or she enters the room. I've enjoyed visiting several layouts that do this extremely well.
Rob Carey's Tennessee Pass layout does this extremely well, as does Rick Ernest's Columbia Gorge:
This can be achieved only one way. To learn by DOING. You can't sit in an armchair and read about weathering, or track planning, or scratch building. You have to do it. You have to do it badly, then learn from your mistakes. That process hones your skills, so you get better at each step of the process. You also have to pay attention to the world that's around you. If you do, then you won't accept a bridge without proper abutments. You won't accept a road that curves that has no guard rail. You won't accept a Conrail diesel with no cab signal box on the engineer's side.To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?
I get my truth in economy size bags on the various forums I participate in. There's one in particular that has adopted the phrase "Better Modeling Through Peer Pressure". This doesn't mean that we rip each other to shreds, but it does mean that if there's a badly puttied joint under the paint on your kitbashed locomotive, it will be pointed out as a flaw. It means that if you have a 60' auto parts car in a consist of outside braced wood boxcars, there will be a flag thrown. I like hearing the truth, because it helps me do a better job of sticking to MY mission, which is to build a model representing a particular railroad in a particular time and space. Knowing that my work will be constructively critiqued, and even scrutinized on some points, makes me pay more attention to the details that cement that time and place issue in the viewer's mind. This is not a bad thing.How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?Everyone takes criticism personally. If you don't, then you are not a human being. The difference comes in how you accept that criticism. When I take a remark personally, that means I'm going to internalize it, and it's going to be rolling around in the back of my mind as I either fix the problem, or face a similar project down the road. It also helps me challenge myself to move my modeling to the next level, and to reject the idea that I can't improve my skills beyond where they are today. This flies in the face of the guys that hide behind "Rule #1" and who deny themselves the pleasure of reaching a little deeper into themselves to try something new. (That being said, it's important to note that there are probably more Rule 1 guys who have actually built something than there are guys with lofty goals who have actually attaineed them...)
What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?The main thing would be that there are guys out there who just don't see beyond the basics of composing a model train layout. There are also guys that really want to do better work, but who feel intimidated by the "stars" of the hobby, who make it look so easy. I've found that the best policy is to find something positive to say, even if it's just "Boy, that's a nice piece of plywood you started with there", then offer suggestions that might help them turn the corner to get to the next step in their modeling experience. I try, not always successfully, to avoid sounding condescending or overbearing. I also try ALWAYS to back up my suggestion with a photo of MY work, to demonstrate to the poster that I've "been there, done that" and my experience and suggestions are legitimate and have merit. Way too frequently we get lofty answers about things that clearly display that the adviser has no idea what he's talking about.What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?
First, he has to decide that it's important to him to do so. Just look at any Ntrak collaboration. Often there are blocks of modules that are designed to create a continuous and coherent theme, but just as often there's an animated carnival right next to a chemical dump. But to answer your question, if the modeler wants to "put it all together" there has to be some level of consistency in the execution. The level of detail should be appropriate to the scene, yes, but it should also share some of the values of the entire layout.
In the end everything is a choice, and some people choose to lock themselves in, and others choose to try for something more than what they can do today.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Yep, you publish photos of your layout, or open it up to visitors (or post opinions on these and other forums) at the risk of rejection and criticism, just like artists and performers do every day. If the criticism is fair and honest the discussion should not be locked in my opinion. And yet .. there are a host of unknowns here. The flat layout with the cliche backdrops and structures might have an astounding signal system with computer interface that is not evident in a photo. It might have CTC or a working ATS system. The wiring may be a wonder of organization and clarity. It might be someone's first layout, or was set up in a hurry for Christmas, or ....
Given the layouts I have visited where the backdrop consists of unpainted cinder block I'd go a little easy on using the Walthers backdrops. As to flatness, well -- sometimes that's the prototype! Me, I tend to cringe more at mountains and hills that look wildly improbable. I always fixate on the water problems in the basements of the scale houses snuggled up to hills ....
I guess my final observation is that after going on lots of layout tours over the years, it is a pretty awful layout where I don't see something of interest or value. There have been some.
Dave Nelson
First of all, although the title may be a bit strong (for effect, no doubt), I see nothing wrong with these kinds of discussions, and certainly nothing to lock the thread about.
That said, I would be willing to bet that some of us may have come upon layouts that didn't live up to our own personal standards. Likewise, we have seen layouts that were much better than ours. If I am invited to comment on the former, I do so in a way that is constructive, perhaps offering to provide some tips or even my own labors. In the case of the latter, I look at them for inspiration in hopes of moving my own talents up a notch.
We always need to bear in mind that everyone brings different skill sets and interests to the table in this--and every other--hobby. Money and available time are big considerations, as well. I try hard to recreate a certain reality in a specific time setting, based on my travels and experiences. Others may have a picture in their mind that every layout needs to have a tunnel in one corner, a 90-degree crossing, the man in the outhouse or whatever.
I see no conflict between my vision of what I want in a layout and theirs. Neither is better or worse. But again, if the guy (or gal) who has what might be judged as somehow "inferior" asks for help, I am always there to assist with whatever advice I can offer.
John Timm
dknelsonI guess my final observation is that after going on lots of layout tours over the years, it is a pretty awful layout where I don't see something of interest or value.
Nicely put, Dave. I share your view here. People hope for affirmation, and some can always be given. The respectful and honest critic also offers suggestions for change. It is up to the recipient to do what he/she will with it, including how they react to it emotionally.
Nobody would post an image with the request, "Please tell me this is awful." Anyone with half a brain will know that there is a need for improvement...the key is to say it respectfully and to offer encouragement by pointing out what you think the person has done well...even if it is just a good start.
desertdogI would be willing to bet that some of us may have come upon layouts that didn't live up to our own personal standards. Likewise, we have seen layouts that were much better than ours
True dat. And, thinking back, I can't recall any layout I have ever seen - whether I "liked" it overall, or not - that didn't have at least one thing done better than I have done it, or inspired me in one way or another.
I'm surprised with the length of some of the posts on the subject. Some very good stuff but what I see is the original post was a shotgun insult to probably 90 percent of those here even if they don't realize it. I think I can say that the vast majority of those here have one or more items covered. A person with a flat layout on pink unfinished foam is probably as close to being accurate as many of the perfect looking layouts. Take a walk down some tracks any time. In most areas it's flat, boring, trashed and has various items strewed about. I remember as a kid having a 4x8 with a"Flat" oval and having just as much fun with it as I do today. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism of a particular picture or idea posted, Hell that's how I wound up correcting a recent backdrop I made. What I don't agree with is the I hate someone's screwed up layout followed by list that has at least one thing on most readers layouts. I believe that all it does is discourage people from posting pics of their work.
Springfield PA
jwhitten But, I *can* still have an opinion.
dehusman So what you're saying is that you know (or believe) that if you open the post and read it / see the images that accompany it-- something about the effort is likely to "annoy" your sensibilities...? So you skip opening the post because you don't want to pile on with the "congratulations", "way to go", "looking good" little white lie comments? And so even though you know you have a real opinion you could voice that (might) could help the other person-- you elect instead to stay silent? To not be involved?
dehusmanDon't know, didn't read it, your "questions" have gotten soooo long and wordy my eyes glaze over. I just cut to the chase. I "hate" long winded dissertations, if the proposition is longer than maybe 2 paragraphs, unless its truly compelling reading, I'm skipping it. You asked about how to take criticism, there ya' go. 8-) And yet you continue to participate.
dehusmanDon't know, didn't read it, your "questions" have gotten soooo long and wordy my eyes glaze over. I just cut to the chase. I "hate" long winded dissertations, if the proposition is longer than maybe 2 paragraphs, unless its truly compelling reading, I'm skipping it. You asked about how to take criticism, there ya' go. 8-)
jwhittenodaveThis one is a non-issue with me too. In my mind, it is the benchwork that needs to follow the track plan. It was never my intent to establish "The Canonical List", but rather to broach the topic of layout "issues" that nobody ever really wants to talk about directly.
odaveThis one is a non-issue with me too. In my mind, it is the benchwork that needs to follow the track plan.
Well, you did say this:
jwhittenBut one of the things I was hoping for, was more actual conversation about the "faulted items" (my words-- perhaps poorly chosen) that I used in my illustration.
The point dknelson made above about anyone putting their layout "out there" should be ready for critiques is a good one. I was pretty nervous about putting my track plan up here, but I got some great advice on what worked and what didn't, and my plan became better because of it. I am grateful that some folks talked about my issues directly.
shayfan84325One of my favorite feedback stories comes from Westcott’s book about John Allen: Cliff Grandt asked John Allen for feedback on Grandt’s scratch-built brass Heisler. Allen took a photo of it and printed it for Grandt. He reportedly said, “Look at the photo; every time you see something that tells you that this is not a real Heisler, it may be an opportunity to improve it.” Notice that Allen never listed all the things that could be better; he facilitated a process by which Grandt could find them on his own. I consider this both helpful and graceful.
Phil-- your name must be short for "Philosopher".
I really loved your response, you offer sage advice!
Wow, what a discussion. And alot of it pertains to me, but I was never scared to post pics of my layout plan. I received all the constructive criticism and applied that to improvements on my plan.
I am always very appreciative at all the help I have received, and I always let everyone know that too. And I think it encourages more people to join in my help discussions.
Without all this, my layout would be... well...horrible.
And as a newbie, I agree that along with the critisism should come encouragement also. For example, I don't know if anyone remembers my "Rail Yard issue", it was a pretty big discussion. But in the end, I now have a great working yard that is easily accessible. That's just one example of many that I have come here asking for help and suggestions, and I'm sure it's not the last.
In any case, it's all about model trains and having fun!!!!!
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
UP 4-12-2Fight the war on pink (who really wants to look at all that pink on a train layout?) by buying some latex (do not use oil based anything on the insulation foam) paint in an appropriate background color for your region of the country. Since I'm modeling the southwest, I painted the entire layout (except the white-primered mountains) a desert sand color that exactly matched the sand I'm using. This alone is an instant, large scenic improvement. On the second coat of latex paint (one will likely not cover the pink completely), start sprinkling in ground foam (or in my case, real sand) while the paint is still wet.
In my case I plan on using spline roadbed construction and plywood forms for the yards and town locations. I haven't yet decided whether I will use hardshell construction or foam-based construction-- perhaps a bit of both.
Eric97123 I have tried to balance it out and so far I am very happy with it no matter what people might think of my layout.
That is precisely the goal!
shayfan84325Cliff Grandt asked John Allen for feedback on Grandt’s scratch-built brass Heisler. Allen took a photo of it and printed it for Grandt. He reportedly said, “Look at the photo; every time you see something that tells you that this is not a real Heisler, it may be an opportunity to improve it.”
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
BRAKIEJohn,Since this week's subject is a heady subject I shall make my reply in the morning when I am refresh for whatever its worth..I just returned from a quick trip to Marion and am little tired since I been up since 5:00AM.
Brakie,
Thanks for stopping in! I look forward to your comments when you're ready.
HamltnblueWhat I don't agree with is the I hate someone's screwed up layout followed by list that has at least one thing on most readers layouts. I believe that all it does is discourage people from posting pics of their work.
Perhaps while you were still reeling over the title, you missed this part:
Preface:Just to be clear, I don't really "hate" anybody's layout. But I recently stumbled across one that just made me cringe. And I knew instantly that I'd be writing about it today. Before I do though, I'd like to remind people that the whole point and purpose of my weekly "Philosophy Friday" postings is not to be critical, condescending, crass or unkind, but to merely provoke thought and discussion about various points or issues related to Model Railroading and/or Railroading in-general. But though I have an enormous interest and a constant desire to learn and know more, I am certainly not an expert in either of these subjects and thus my role in these discussions is primarily that of the interlocutor-- though perhaps occasionally the gadfly instead-- and secondarily that of the student, as I learn a great deal from reading your comments and ideas, interjecting a few of my own, whilst shepherding the conversation.I'm saying this upfront today so I can be clear that my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts, but rather to bring up some points that I think are interesting, merit lots of discussion, and may possibly assist someone-- certainly myself if no other-- in developing their skills and their "critical eye", and generally improving their overall ability to construct and present pleasing and satisfying scenes and model-works. In the interest of full disclosure, my own skills are likely to be approximately on-par with those I'll be discussing. Perhaps not as much in some areas, or more in others. But I feel, as I am moving forward in my own layout, that I am as much "criticizing" what I believe to be about my own approximate abilities. And indeed, that was the impetus for this posting today-- when I saw the photos of this layout, I saw a ghost image of what my own layout might turn out to be. It was a bit like that scene in "Star Wars" where Yoda sends Luke into the cave to confront his fears. Inside he meets up with Darth Vader who, when defeated, turns out to be himself. Like enters the cave and says "I'm not afraid", and Yoda, in his inimitable way, says "You Will be.... You will be!"
Preface:Just to be clear, I don't really "hate" anybody's layout.
But I recently stumbled across one that just made me cringe. And I knew instantly that I'd be writing about it today. Before I do though, I'd like to remind people that the whole point and purpose of my weekly "Philosophy Friday" postings is not to be critical, condescending, crass or unkind, but to merely provoke thought and discussion about various points or issues related to Model Railroading and/or Railroading in-general. But though I have an enormous interest and a constant desire to learn and know more, I am certainly not an expert in either of these subjects and thus my role in these discussions is primarily that of the interlocutor-- though perhaps occasionally the gadfly instead-- and secondarily that of the student, as I learn a great deal from reading your comments and ideas, interjecting a few of my own, whilst shepherding the conversation.I'm saying this upfront today so I can be clear that my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts, but rather to bring up some points that I think are interesting, merit lots of discussion, and may possibly assist someone-- certainly myself if no other-- in developing their skills and their "critical eye", and generally improving their overall ability to construct and present pleasing and satisfying scenes and model-works. In the interest of full disclosure, my own skills are likely to be approximately on-par with those I'll be discussing. Perhaps not as much in some areas, or more in others. But I feel, as I am moving forward in my own layout, that I am as much "criticizing" what I believe to be about my own approximate abilities. And indeed, that was the impetus for this posting today-- when I saw the photos of this layout, I saw a ghost image of what my own layout might turn out to be. It was a bit like that scene in "Star Wars" where Yoda sends Luke into the cave to confront his fears. Inside he meets up with Darth Vader who, when defeated, turns out to be himself. Like enters the cave and says "I'm not afraid", and Yoda, in his inimitable way, says "You Will be.... You will be!"
Beyond that, if you still feel the same, I accept your criticism, and will add it is not and was not my intent to disparage anybody's layout, but to point out items / issues that can work to undermine an otherwise valiant effort.
I also said this, which you also seem to have overlooked:
And to be fair-- really fair-- the owner has done nothing wrong probably, a matter of a difference of opinion at the most really. And besides, its *his* railroad, and if he likes it that way, who am I to be critical of it?** And you should bear that in mind throughout this whole post please. **
And this:
I'll bet that despite all the aforementioned stuff, his layout is actually probably a lot of fun to operate and that he (the modeler) himself is probably an enjoyable guy too. His works looks like that of someone who cares and wants to try new stuff, and probably considers himself an "experienced model railroader"-- and in that, I would quickly agree. He's spent a lot of time, money and considerable effort in achieving his result-- the layout I'm discussing it. And that, if nothing else, should place him squarely in the league of "Hallowed Model Railroaders". His skills probably easily outpace my own. I've got a lot of learning and trial-and-error of my own to do before I could ever seriously "look down" on his efforts, even assuming I'd ever want to.
You seem to have skipped past all of that to only concentrate on "the list", which I specifically included to get all of us thinking about developing our "critical eye" with the purpose of *improving* our modeling. The idea being to put some stuff out there to stimulate the conversation and *not* to denigrate anybody specifically-- that is why I have gone to great lengths not to identify the layout or the modeler. So what difference does it make if I am describing a real or fictional, or perhaps even my own layout in my description?
However, if you want to blow past all that and ignore 2/3's of my post so you can take one small part way out of context-- then okay, that's fine. I'll accept your criticism. I knew as I was writing this post that there were going to be some people who wouldn't see this as a positive and constructive effort.
Thank you for your comments though. I appreciate them. And if you come back and post more, I'll happily address those as well. My goal is to get you-- and anybody else who reads my posts-- thinking. And if that's what you want to think about and discuss, that's your prerogative, and I respect that.
odaveThe point dknelson made above about anyone putting their layout "out there" should be ready for critiques is a good one. I was pretty nervous about putting my track plan up here, but I got some great advice on what worked and what didn't, and my plan became better because of it. I am grateful that some folks talked about my issues directly.
I completely agree.
And I know I'll be a little nervous when I put my stuff out there for critique as well. But I'll definitely do it when the time comes. And I will invite people to tell me what I really need to know. And I will do my best to take my lumps as graciously as I can and then do my darndest to take what's real to heart to learn and grow from.
MotleyWow, what a discussion. And alot of it pertains to me, but I was never scared to post pics of my layout plan. I received all the constructive criticism and applied that to improvements on my plan.I am always very appreciative at all the help I have received, and I always let everyone know that too. And I think it encourages more people to join in my help discussions.Without all this, my layout would be... well...horrible.And as a newbie, I agree that along with the critisism should come encouragement also. For example, I don't know if anyone remembers my "Rail Yard issue", it was a pretty big discussion. But in the end, I now have a great working yard that is easily accessible. That's just one example of many that I have come here asking for help and suggestions, and I'm sure it's not the last.In any case, it's all about model trains and having fun!!!!!
So you're a perfect test subject then-- do you think this is a good and valuable discussion? Do you think I have treated the subject as gently as it could be? Do you think that I should not have put up this post? What do you think-- be honest, I'm asking for your unvarnished opinion-- several others have already offered their versions, I'd like to hear yours.
And I very much agree its about model trains and having fun.
And I'm also glad to hear you got good help with your rail yard. I recall reading along with the responses in that thread as well.
gregcshayfan84325Cliff Grandt asked John Allen for feedback on Grandt’s scratch-built brass Heisler. Allen took a photo of it and printed it for Grandt. He reportedly said, “Look at the photo; every time you see something that tells you that this is not a real Heisler, it may be an opportunity to improve it.” I am very interested in the responses to the questions in the original post. I wish there were more responses such as the one above. But if the answers were easy, there would already be a very popular book.
Yes, I feel the same way. I would have love to hear more about what could be done to *change*, *fix*, *improve* the issues I presented in the OP-- forget whether they are someone's layout or not-- that's not really the point. The thing was I saw them all in one place-- but so what? What difference does it make if I saw them in one place, or synthesized it from 10 places, or just made them all up? Does that make the issues any less relevant or interesting to talk about?
YES there are probably a LOT of modelers who have one or MORE of these issues on their layouts. Some of them may not care-- or get offended and stick their fingers in their ears and start going "LA LA LA"-- but *some* of them *might* just be interested in what they could do to FIX and/or RESOLVE these issues. Even if they *are* afraid to ask.
Nobody wants to be told their stuff sucks-- not even me. But if that's the real truth, and deep down we all already know it-- then maybe we're being dealt the kindest blow to hear it straight out and up front so we can know it out loud-- and maybe address it.
Perhaps there are other modelers who don't want to know-- but *I* want to know. So pretend that stuff is about *MY* layout and tell me how I can improve *MY* layout.
As I mentioned several times previously-- NONE of the issues are severe enough to ruin the layout individually-- and even all of them combined aren't enough to really ruin it-- the title was for dramatic effect, I already said as much in my opening post-- several long paragraphs worth.
But there are very few people who are addressing the issues-- most are focused on either the delicacy of pointing out issues-- or else aghast at my brashness for even considering such a post.
Many of the people responding say "its about the trains"-- but few people here are actually talking about the trains, rather they're talking about the talking.
PASMITHGee, where is Space Mouse when you need him. Peter Smith, Memphis
Good point, I bet he'd sure liven up the party.
jwhittenMotleyWow, what a discussion. And alot of it pertains to me, but I was never scared to post pics of my layout plan. I received all the constructive criticism and applied that to improvements on my plan.I am always very appreciative at all the help I have received, and I always let everyone know that too. And I think it encourages more people to join in my help discussions.Without all this, my layout would be... well...horrible.And as a newbie, I agree that along with the critisism should come encouragement also. For example, I don't know if anyone remembers my "Rail Yard issue", it was a pretty big discussion. But in the end, I now have a great working yard that is easily accessible. That's just one example of many that I have come here asking for help and suggestions, and I'm sure it's not the last.In any case, it's all about model trains and having fun!!!!! So you're a perfect test subject then-- do you think this is a good and valuable discussion? Do you think I have treated the subject as gently as it could be? Do you think that I should not have put up this post? What do you think-- be honest, I'm asking for your unvarnished opinion-- several others have already offered their versions, I'd like to hear yours.And I very much agree its about model trains and having fun.And I'm also glad to hear you got good help with your rail yard. I recall reading along with the responses in that thread as well. John
John, I see no problem at all with this discussion, I think it's great to see what people are thinking about when critiquing someone's layout. As you have stated as well as a few others, the wording in someone's opinion or criticism can make all the difference in the world.
Again, that is why this forum exists, to help people in the hobby weather it be newbies or experienced modelers. If someone takes offense while asking for help, then they will never get help. Simple as that.
Thanks,
MotleyjwhittenMotleyWow, what a discussion. And alot of it pertains to me, but I was never scared to post pics of my layout plan. I received all the constructive criticism and applied that to improvements on my plan.I am always very appreciative at all the help I have received, and I always let everyone know that too. And I think it encourages more people to join in my help discussions.Without all this, my layout would be... well...horrible.And as a newbie, I agree that along with the critisism should come encouragement also. For example, I don't know if anyone remembers my "Rail Yard issue", it was a pretty big discussion. But in the end, I now have a great working yard that is easily accessible. That's just one example of many that I have come here asking for help and suggestions, and I'm sure it's not the last.In any case, it's all about model trains and having fun!!!!! So you're a perfect test subject then-- do you think this is a good and valuable discussion? Do you think I have treated the subject as gently as it could be? Do you think that I should not have put up this post? What do you think-- be honest, I'm asking for your unvarnished opinion-- several others have already offered their versions, I'd like to hear yours.And I very much agree its about model trains and having fun.And I'm also glad to hear you got good help with your rail yard. I recall reading along with the responses in that thread as well. John John, I see no problem at all with this discussion, I think it's great to see what people are thinking about when critiquing someone's layout. As you have stated as well as a few others, the wording in someone's opinion or criticism can make all the difference in the world.Again, that is why this forum exists, to help people in the hobby weather it be newbies or experienced modelers. If someone takes offense while asking for help, then they will never get help. Simple as that.Thanks,Michael
Thank you for your assessment. I think being able to talk frankly about layouts and modeling is a good thing too. But I agree that there is a definite difference between talking frankly, and being hurtful.
BTW, I'm looking forward to your next layout update.
Thanks John!
I finally picked up some trees for my mountain, so right now I'm working on the underbrush.
John,
when you started this thread I would have bet, that it will get locked in no time. I am glad that it is not!
We all have seen numerous layouts, some of which made us think "Wow- wish I could do this" and some "OMG". Have we had the guts to tell the owner/builder what we thought of his layout? I leave the question unanswered
Here is my attempt to answer your questions:
Well, most of them are, even the successful Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg is nothing else! If the tricks are smartly arranged, we are impressed, if not, we´ll find many a flaw, because we will look for it. That´s human nature.
I have seen a few well built layouts, which were not a collection of tricks, but close to real copies of a specific prototype. In these cases, reality provided the master plan, not only for the track plan, but for all parts of the layout. The builders followed an integrated concept, maybe that´s, what made the difference.
Observation and practice. Not only need you to study and observe the "real" world, but you need to understand and know, how to re-enact what you have seen. This is the part, where I have my doubts about some of the criticism posted here in this forum. We have a number of people here, who eagerly criticize work presented here, but we have yet to see examples of their work...
Only to those, who are asking for it! But what is the "unvarnished truth? His/her truth may be a different one than my truth. What do we know about the circumstances under which a layout was built? Which abilities and skills the builders has, and which handicaps? Let us better not talk about unvarnished truth, but of respect!
We are all proud of our work, and it will always hurt, to a degree, if our work does not receive the recognition we would like to have for it. If criticism is voiced in form of builds and comments on our work, it will hurt less and we will be better prepared to adopt it. If it is just meant to put the work down, it will hurt a lot more and we will take it personally.
First of all - beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. What may appear boring (your truth) to you may be thrilling (his truth) to him. Are you sure that you have fully understood his goals and objectives?
Lesson No. 1: Try to create a picture of your layout, not only a track plan. Scenery and scenes make the difference, so take good care to have a view, a vision of what you want. Dream it! Plan it!!! Build it!
Lesson No. 2: Less is more! A layout is not an amusement park, plastered with attractions....
Develop a master plan - for your tracks, scenery, wiring, operation. Check one plan against the other. And build a mock-up of your layout...
Sir Madog when you started this thread I would have bet, that it will get locked in no time. I am glad that it is not!
Yes, me too. I think man of the replies have been thought-provoking-- which is good, because that was the point.
Sir MadogHow does one develop one's "critical eye" and ability to "edit"? Observation and practice. Not only need you to study and observe the "real" world, but you need to understand and know, how to re-enact what you have seen.
Observation and practice. Not only need you to study and observe the "real" world, but you need to understand and know, how to re-enact what you have seen.
Thank you Ulrich-- This is the direction I had hoped this thread would go-- how to do more of that. How to get our layouts out of the doldrums and looking really good-- at least to the degree that we are able.
How does one re-enact (re-create) what one has seen? What are the techniques? How does one build a cohesive scene that adds to a believable whole, as opposed to being a "collection of tricks and techniques" that undermine each other.
I liked your answers:
-- "Try to create a picture of your layout, not only a track plan."
-- "Scenery and scenes make the difference, so take good care to have a view, a vision of what you want."
-- "Less is more! A layout is not an amusement park, plastered with attractions."
-- "Develop a master plan - for your tracks, scenery, wiring, operation. Check one plan against the other."
-- "build a mock-up of your layout"
Those are great specific, concrete directives that will help people begin the process of seeing critically. But I know there is much more to add-- not just from you, but from everyone. In large part, the folks responding have focused on the social protocol aspects and not so much on helping someone:
(a) see the issues that might be present on his/her layouts,
(b) understand what it is specifically about those issues that might be "dragging down" the otherwise well-done whole
(c) how to develop a remediation plan to address the issues.
(d) general "scenic composition" and design concepts that can be utilized to help avoid those situations i the first place.
I observe that if folks who have these issues understood that they have these issues, then they would likely already be at work addressing them.
I am not suggesting we all start openly criticizing everybody's layout or work uninvited-- but my point in posting this thread was to highlight common issues that can occur and then discuss ways to mitigate them-- to address them-- make them better. Specific steps that could assist someone in realizing they have issues to address and what to do about them.
And it doesn't have to be my list-- or if folks agree with my items, it doesn't have to be *just* my items. As I tried very hard to get across in the OP, its *not* about the layout I was recounting, but rather it just happened to illustrate a number of the issues that *I* perceive-- and that I think many, not necessarily all-- people likewise agree can plague layouts. And I'm basing that assertion on what I've read other people say in other posts, or even other forums as well.
One of the common exhorts, for example, is not to lay your track parallel to the edge of the layout. That doesn't mean that if you do it your layout automatically sucks. Its just one item in a laundry list of items that *can*, not necessarily *do*, work to drag down the overall effect-- the combined effect-- of the modeling.
So the basis for this post is I stumbled upon a layout wherein the modeler *obviously* cares and has obviously done his best to listen to the "experts" and follow their "wisdom" and presumed "best practices" to the best of his abilities-- and many of the things he's done, while interesting individually, combine to work against him collectively... HOW can it be repaired?
I also understand that I'm not showing pictures or giving out anything other than a generic description of the issue-- that's on-purpose. It doesn't matter who the owner is, or which layout I'm referring to-- it could be anybody's layout-- even one of the "big boys" you see published everywhere-- it doesn't matter. The question is, if its *your* layout and you care, what can you do to make it better?
THAT is what the whole bulk of this conversation has been avoiding, and not addressing.
Its been very wrapped-up and focused on the poor modeler who's layout I happened to pick-- and not on the issues I raised and what can be done about them. The specific layout is an abstract-- let's all agree to pretend it doesn't really exist so we can get past that part.
Please.
So many of you (all of you) have really great talent and ideas for putting together layouts and designing layouts-- what if you were specifically asked how to remediate a layout-- one that's already built-- that got off into the weeds, the owner knows it-- but not sure how, where, why-- what the issues are, etc-- how to you help show that, demonstrate that, guide the owner to understanding the issues-- and then what-- specifically-- can be done about it-- to address and resolve the problems. ???
Also my list focused primarily on the visual elements, but other people have pointed out that proper mechanical operation is just as important. I'm not sure I was really focused on that in my post, but I don't mind including it if people want to speak to those points as well.
Ulrich-- you are a good guy, I liked your answers very much. Thank you for your comments! Please feel free to comment more if you like!
shayfan84325How does one develop one's "critical eye" and ability to "edit"? I like John Allen’s approach. With digital cameras it is cheap and easy, and I think it is fun. Take pictures and look at them. They give you a new perspective and that can help you a lot. What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above? My feeling is that this modeler is doing a lot of what he’s good at (buying stuff and putting it on his layout), and not really expanding his skill base. He may look at his work and say to himself “it’s good enough.” He is entitled to that, but I think the best modelers look at their work and think of ways to make it better. My approach to this hobby is that I’m building my skills as much as I’m building a miniature railroad. Doing the same thing over and over isn’t what I’m here for – doing it better and better is much more my focus. Building dozens of plastic model kit buildings isn’t doing anything for my skills, but assembling a wood and cardboard craftsman kit – that makes me stretch. My sense is that this modeler likes to play with trains, but building his skills is not his real interest. What tips and scene-composition/layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts? I’d suggest that they start by measuring their layout in feet and then multiply that by 87 (for HO Scale). That’s how much of the “Real World” they are modeling. Then get out a map of the real world and layout the same area on the map (to the map’s scale). Go to that place and walk around – see how much stuff is really there: how many houses, streets, automobiles, trucks, people, buildings, how much track, etc. See how much stuff goes on in an hour (probably not much). When I did this exercise, what I found is that my layout is about ¼ mile by 1/15 mile. A half dozen HO scale football fields would cover it. My layout is only about the size of a large city park! Given that, I have a good sense of what belongs there. Now, as modelers we generally do some selective compression. If I put every house on my layout on a true to scale ¼ acre lot, they would take up too much space. If I made my sidings and spurs as long as the real thing, I’d run out of space in a hurry. If I tried to model one farm - true to scale – it would not fit (even if I devoted the whole layout to it). So, we reduce the sizes of things, shorten our turn radii, use much more abrupt turnouts that our prototypes, etc. My goal is not to make a “dead-on” model of the world, but to effectively represent it. How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion? I think we all benefit from looking at the world around us and thinking in terms of what’s really there; how much space it consumes, what color is it really (most colors are faded from what they once were), we also minimize action scenes (because there really isn’t that much action). The main thing is to focus on the ordinary and leave the extraordinary to the newspapers.
Phil, I forgot to thank you for these answers-- really, your whole response was so thoughtful and very well done. There is much to be gained from reading and re-reading it. Thank you very much for your specific and concrete suggestions for understanding and developing visual acuity skills-- the art of "seeing", as well as the general compositional suggestions you offer as well. These are fabulous!
wm3798Let me preface this by saying that we can probably all agree that some layouts have "it" and others simply don't.
Heh, judging from a couple of the responses I've seen-- that kind of "crazy talk", to some, is bordering on heresy...
wm3798 I'm very visually oriented, and I really like a layout that's well thought out and well rendered. All of the features that you described in the original post are things that absolutely drive me up the wall, too.
Its nice to know that at least *somebody* agrees with me!
wm3798I'm going to show some images that I think represent the best of the best, and we'll just let the worst be what it is.
I always love your photos-- thanks for sharing them. My favorite so far though was the one you showed I think it was last week, or maybe the week before-- of the small mountain town. That was one of the best composed scenes I think I've seen in a very long time. And illustrates so many of the ideas and concepts I've been speaking to for the last several weeks, including today's post. There are of course many great scenes on lots of other model railroads, but I just happen to like that one quite a bit.
Unfortunately though-- its the worst that many people need to see. Even though I completely understand your reluctance to contribute any examples-- or anybody's reluctance. Its only natural, (nearly) nobody wants to go out of their way to expose themselves to (perceived) negative criticism, even if in the end it might prove useful and beneficial. There is just a natural reluctance to do that-- at least until your skills improve to the point that you have some inherent confidence in your abilities and the criticisms, no matter how "negative", aren't likely to be calling your competence into question.
Learning though comes about by understanding the good and the bad about things. We are all exposed to the "best" of Model Railroading-- and more than that-- standing in a group of people who are all busy saying so. And so very rarely exposed to the "bad"-- or worse, the "mundane" elements of Model Railroading. And almost nobody will put themselves on the line and call it for what it is. And yet I would easily argue that it is that second group that needs to be informed more than the first group. The really good modelers know who they are and what they can do-- they've been told that over and over, so they know.
wm3798How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?This can be achieved only one way. To learn by DOING. You can't sit in an armchair and read about weathering, or track planning, or scratch building. You have to do it. You have to do it badly, then learn from your mistakes. That process hones your skills, so you get better at each step of the process. You also have to pay attention to the world that's around you. If you do, then you won't accept a bridge without proper abutments. You won't accept a road that curves that has no guard rail. You won't accept a Conrail diesel with no cab signal box on the engineer's side.
This can be achieved only one way. To learn by DOING. You can't sit in an armchair and read about weathering, or track planning, or scratch building. You have to do it. You have to do it badly, then learn from your mistakes. That process hones your skills, so you get better at each step of the process. You also have to pay attention to the world that's around you. If you do, then you won't accept a bridge without proper abutments. You won't accept a road that curves that has no guard rail. You won't accept a Conrail diesel with no cab signal box on the engineer's side.
That is an excellent answer and observation! Thank you.
wm3798What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?The main thing would be that there are guys out there who just don't see beyond the basics of composing a model train layout. There are also guys that really want to do better work, but who feel intimidated by the "stars" of the hobby, who make it look so easy. I've found that the best policy is to find something positive to say, even if it's just "Boy, that's a nice piece of plywood you started with there", then offer suggestions that might help them turn the corner to get to the next step in their modeling experience. I try, not always successfully, to avoid sounding condescending or overbearing. I also try ALWAYS to back up my suggestion with a photo of MY work, to demonstrate to the poster that I've "been there, done that" and my experience and suggestions are legitimate and have merit. Way too frequently we get lofty answers about things that clearly display that the adviser has no idea what he's talking about.What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?First, he has to decide that it's important to him to do so. Just look at any Ntrak collaboration. Often there are blocks of modules that are designed to create a continuous and coherent theme, but just as often there's an animated carnival right next to a chemical dump. But to answer your question, if the modeler wants to "put it all together" there has to be some level of consistency in the execution. The level of detail should be appropriate to the scene, yes, but it should also share some of the values of the entire layout.In the end everything is a choice, and some people choose to lock themselves in, and others choose to try for something more than what they can do today.
Further terrific observations and tips.
Thank you very much Lee, you are a good guy!!
I am in the process of starting my 7th layout within 46 years of model railroading. In my previous layout, I must have made about every mistake there is and I will most likely continue to do so. Not the "old ones", but new ones.
I started my layout planning with a vision of what I would like to have. I want to capture the flavor of a small, urban terminus, set somewhere in the north of Great Britain. Long before I had a track plan, I had a clear picture of the scenery that I want to have. I drew a side view of it, enabling me to visualize my dream. I then added the tracks to it, only to find out, that the looks are OK, but operation is too limited. I redrew my track plan a number of times, until I thought it to be fit - only to find out, that it was not, as I started to jot down a plan, or schedule, of my train moves. So it meant "back to the drawing board".
Now, my layout is a very small one, actually, close to being a micro layout. This makes careful planning even more important, as there is little room to correct any mistake - in terms of actual space and money, as I will have to build this layout at close to no cost. I am right now sourcing the materials I need to build the layout, and I am surprised to see, how much is actually available for free. A lot of the textures I need to scratch build all the buildings on my layout are available in the web for free or a marginal fee! A visit to a local carpenter´s resulted in a used hollow core door, which will act as my benchwork. Cuttings from plywood - for free! It is actually little more than the track I will have to buy.
There is a lot to learn from other model railroading practices. The British show us, that small, but focused layouts are as much fun as those basement filling empires. They show us, how to develop "real" scenes and how to take care of that so important detail, without overdoing it. Carl Arendt´s famous web site is also a fountain of information, when it comes to detail!
It all boils down to creating a vision for your layout, not only a track plan.
Here is my plan:
As you can see, all my tracks are parallel to the edge of the layout - Does not hurt at all, as it ties in with the overall concept.
John --
I am trying to figure out what your core question of the week is. I have to agree with Dave - your posts are getting too long to be very readable, even for me, and I am a pretty verbose person myself.
In the current thread you seem to be trying to touch upon quite a few more or less unrelated subjects:
And then you choose a lead-in that creates an emotional reaction (the fear of being made an object of public ridicule) in quite a few people - by holding out some anonymous but specific amusement park style layout (to coin a descriptive name) you hated as an example of a Bad Layout(tm). So you also get a sub-thread about whether it was right of you to use that as a lead-in to this thread.
Some recommendations for your next one, John: One subject. Short lead in. And make your question "how do you do this?" or "how would you do this?" about some modeling challenge, rather than first posting 5-10-15 pages of your own musings and then asking "what do you think?".
Most of us (including myself) probably think a lot more than we do. Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this right now - we would be playing with our layouts :-)
Grin, Stein
dehusman What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts? Study, study, study. Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time. Look at model pictures and plans with a critical eye. Look at prototype pictures witha critical eye. Skip the 3/4 wedgie roster shots and concentrate on the aerial photos and overhead facilities shots or panoramas. Spend and entire day photgraphing at your favorite spot BUT don't take a single picture of a train. Take pictures of everything else. Turn around and look away from the tracks. Stop just asking questions on a forum and do some real research.
Dave, I forgot to thank you for this part of your answer... so, er, thanks!
Before going into the specifics, a couple of observations:
And a caveat: My own layout is very much a work in (extremely slow) progress. I don't doubt that seeing it would be a great disappointment to most viewers. I am not building it to be pleasing to anyone who isn't actively working on it - and I am very much a lone wolf.
jwhitten And I have a philosophical question already, right now before we go any further:Does a true friend look at your work and say it looks great? Or that it stinks and here's why? Which is ultimately the bigger (or better) gift, the lie or the truth?
And I have a philosophical question already, right now before we go any further:Does a true friend look at your work and say it looks great? Or that it stinks and here's why? Which is ultimately the bigger (or better) gift, the lie or the truth?
The truth can be carefully coated with sugar, and divorced from any sense of judging the person. It takes a careful use of language - mostly by discarding the first and second person pronouns in the statement. Also, praise FIRST. There is always something to praise, even if it's something so insignificant that it has to be searched for.
Every layout is a collection of tricks, some more subtle than others. And sometimes the un-subtle has a valid reason. (My prototype was doing some major rebuilding during the time I'm modeling. Should I ignore that, so as not to offer a cliche?)
Of course, there is realism, there is caricature and there is fantasy. Sometimes, the observer sees one, while the modeler intended another.
Through experience - if the experience is broad enough. Or through deliberate study and training in the visual arts. But mostly through experience.
To the camera. It is the only thing that can provide an image that isn't distorted by personal assumptions, opinions or preconceptions.
Mentally separate the thing being criticised from the person who created it - good workers sometimes produce poor work. This is easier if the critic has the good sense to leave the personal pronouns out of the criticism. Consider these two statements:
The first, if aimed at the upper end of control block NN01 on my layout, might elicit agreement. The second will raise hackles. One attacks the thing, the other attacks the builder.
That beginner-type mistakes can be carried out on a large scale by someone who should have advanced beyond beginner status. That someone who has become used to the features of full-scale topography and engineering will see many things that are total mysteries to the average city dweller.
First and foremost, get out and LOOK at the real world (followed by a list of specific things to look for - water courses, variations in texture and color, where plants grow and where they don't...)
Then, look at some well-composed photos, both of models and of the real world. See what jumps out and says, "Model!" What change in modeling technique would remove the giveaway?
IMHO, the best way to achieve scenic cohesion is to concentrate on the features of a single scenic entity. No matter how well meant, attempting to get Horseshoe Curve, the Gateway Arch and Donner Pass on a single layout that ISN'T built in a B-52 hangar won't be convincing.
My own layout design is concentrated on a very limited geographic area. A lot of things that say "Japan" to other people won't be found on the finished product. Japan is a big country, while my target is only a few kilometers in extent.
And pictures-- POST 'EM if you got 'em!!!John
I don't post photos of my work, because I don't have the knowledge required - or much of anything fit to display. I prefer to keep my disasters (like that lousy trackwork in Nonomura) private.
That said, there is one large commercial display layout that strikes me in a similar manner. Railroad engineering (the Civil Engineering variety) is one of my interests, so vaulting viaducts built of baling wire and uncooked spaghetti turn me off like a lightswitch. Name of same withheld, to protect the guilty.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - to the best of my limited ability)
MisterBeasleyjwhitten How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there? My railroad modeling has made me better at "seeing." I do notice things I'd never looked at before, most commonly the details of roadside marshes, or the tops of buildings seen from elevated highways. But, I don't model what I see, but rather what I remember. That's true both for that stand of cattails in the loop of the highway interchange, or the subway walls of my now-distant childhood. There are certain things about a scene which stick in my mind, while others are less important. So, when I model them, I really try to get those key elements right. I suppose, then, that the success of my modeled scenes depends as much on the viewer's memory as on mine. If their memory of subway stations is all about the hundreds of people waiting to board the train at rush hour, then my near-empty stations will not fit in as well with their vision, and they won't "get" what I'm doing with my models.
jwhitten How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
You make an excellent observation about "seeing"-- I will have to remember that. Its not what you "see" but what you "remember that you saw". And that particular gem might in fact be the lodestone that underlies the whole concept of scene reconstruction. The better you get at "remembering what you saw", the better at "seeing things to remember" you become.
One of the things that nobody has brought up in any of the last several weeks worth of PF posts, in which I've focused a lot on scenic construction, seeing, visual elements, etc-- and that is the "Rule of Thirds" concept, which is used a lot in photography.
The "Rule of Thirds"The rule of thirds is a compositional rule of thumb in visual arts such as painting, photography and design.[1] The rule states that an image should be imagined as divided into nine equal parts by two equally-spaced horizontal lines and two equally-spaced vertical lines, and that important compositional elements should be placed along these lines or their intersections.[2] Proponents of the technique claim that aligning a subject with these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the composition than simply centering the subject would. from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The "Rule of Thirds"
The rule of thirds is a compositional rule of thumb in visual arts such as painting, photography and design.[1] The rule states that an image should be imagined as divided into nine equal parts by two equally-spaced horizontal lines and two equally-spaced vertical lines, and that important compositional elements should be placed along these lines or their intersections.[2] Proponents of the technique claim that aligning a subject with these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the composition than simply centering the subject would.
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds
The rule of thirds concept can also be applied to scene composition with respect to modeling and Model Railroading. Just form a little pair of brackets with your thumbs and forefingers-- 'L'-shapes-- and hold them up in front of you like you're peering through a camera. And you can move them out or in to visually "frame" the scene you're viewing. And while you are viewing, you can use the "frame" you've created to visually assist you in composing your scene and/or determining how well it conforms to the rule of thirds-- or any of the other "rules" that are often used in the art world.
And its important for people to understand that when we say "rules" that we are not referring to laws that absolutely must be followed without question, but rather "suggestions" and "guidelines" that have worked well for other people in the past, should you *choose* to employ them.
The whole point of using the "rule of thirds", or other compositional techniques, on the model railroad, is to assist in composing your scenes along the natural sight lines that exist on the layout. And *unlike* a typical painting or photograph, in "real life" (i.e., on your layout) there may be more than one vantage point-- viewpoint-- available. Sometimes its possible to compose the scene for all the available vantage points so that each is well-designed for viewing. But sometimes that's not possible and the modeler must select a few, or the "one" view that he/she thinks represents the "best" possible view and then optimize the scene for viewing from that vantage point.
Those are real compositional techniques that involve and assist in the development of the "critical eye", as well as the ability to "see" and "edit" a scene.
Thank you very much for all your great comments and suggestions. I always look forward to your inputs.
DoughlessjwhittenWhat tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion? Just to address the above. I think it is important to put some time and effort into studying things that influence a scene, that may not be directly railroad related. The lay of the land and how roads and towns are laid out; the age of the buildings in the central business district, relative to the suburbs, relative to the new industrial park, etc. are important aspects of making a scene realistic. Towns in the Eastern US tend to have older CBD and follow rivers and streams, or mountain slopes. Towns in the prairie tend to have newer structures laid out 90 degrees to each other. Even older CBD's evolve, with high traffic areas like street corners, having a brand new convenience store/gas station built next to a 100 year old structure. 100 year old structures that were built before air conditioning, have had their abundant windows bricked in, perhaps with different color brick, etc. etc. Scenery items such as rock and hill formations and river banks should be studied as well. The example you gave sounds like the modeler maybe focused too much on the trains, and placed buildings, track, people and cars, etc. on the layout without as much consideration to understanding geography or town planning or town evolution. Studying those aspects may even be more time consuming than studying things that are directly railroad related; however, it is probably not the reason the modeler got into MRR in the first place. We we should probably all spend more time understanding how nonrailroad related events/items affect railroads.
That is very good information and useful to know!
I have two questions:
#1. What is "CBD"
#2. Where did you learn all that? That's really cool info.
MisterBeasleyBut, I read one wise suggestion which has stuck with me ever since: Keep your track level, and have the scenery go up and down around it to simulate elevation changes. I did that, pretty much, for my present layout. The main line is completely flat, although I have a few sidings and the whole turntable area that are slightly higher or lower, to add visual interest. On the other hand, the terrain does rise and fall somewhat, which allows the trains to cross bridges and go through cuts. By "hiding" some of the track behind mountains and buildings, the short main line seems longer.
But, I read one wise suggestion which has stuck with me ever since: Keep your track level, and have the scenery go up and down around it to simulate elevation changes.
I agree, that's a terrific tip. I will keep that in-mind for my own layout as well. That may very well prove to be the key for helping me to solve some of my "altitude" and "climbing" problems. Some of it I will have to do for real since I'm going with a double-decked design, but I have been pondering and scratching my head over how to represent the change in altitude and the climb without having to literally model so much of it, and more to the point, the "headroom" concerns that are introduced by the double-decked aspect. I will have to chew on that thought for awhile-- I think it may lead to some new insights for me.
CBD means Central Business District - I gather that from Doughless´ post.
I´d also like to express my appreciation for your philosophical threads and for the "civilized" replies posted to them. They are the type of exchange of views that make this forum so lively and interesting, and there is a lot to learn in them. Very refreshing
Sir Madog John,I am in the process of starting my 7th layout within 46 years of model railroading. In my previous layout, I must have made about every mistake there is and I will most likely continue to do so. Not the "old ones", but new ones.I started my layout planning with a vision of what I would like to have. I want to capture the flavor of a small, urban terminus, set somewhere in the north of Great Britain. ...It all boils down to creating a vision for your layout, not only a track plan.Here is my plan: As you can see, all my tracks are parallel to the edge of the layout - Does not hurt at all, as it ties in with the overall concept.
I started my layout planning with a vision of what I would like to have. I want to capture the flavor of a small, urban terminus, set somewhere in the north of Great Britain. ...
That's really nice. I agree-- I have looked over a lot of the small British designed "micro-layouts" and there's an awful lot of modeling packed into a small space. And I suppose when you consider it, the whole experience is practically nothing but a real exercise in scene planning and construction. As you point out there's not much real estate available for mistakes, so you have to get good at doing it right the first time.
Sir Madog John,CBD means Central Business District - I gather that from Doughless´ post.I´d also like to express my appreciation for your philosophical threads and for the "civilized" replies posted to them. They are the type of exchange of views that make this forum so lively and interesting, and there is a lot to learn in them. Very refreshing
I should have figured that one out-- I kept banging my head thinking "I oughta get this one"-- so, thanks for clearing that up!
Interesting topic, interesting replies - at least the ones I read (I did read most).
I don't generally spend much time searching the internet for peoples photos, so I do't really share your perspective on this. I have visted a lot of layouts, of all sizes and types, most of which I enjoyed in some way - regardless of the "skills" or goals of the modeler.
And, I keep my negative opinions to myself unless specifficly asked. Even then I would follow Chuck's views regarding how to discuss such matters.
I almost did not post a reply to this, until it dawned on me, that there are many well published, excellently crafted, world famous layouts that do not inspire me, impress me, or meet MY critera that I place on my own layout building.
I am more likely to (and have in the past) comment about these well known layouts, then to make any comment, public or private, about the layout of someone who has simply published their own pictures on the net, or who has invited me to their home.
Without naming names (allthough I'm sure some of you will figure out what layouts/modelers) here are some "features" I don't like:
Excessive weathering of EVERYTHING, no mater the era or theme, my studies of history and observation of life says that is not realistic.
Impossible terrain, or impossible structures, especially if it is in a "caricature" style.
Large equipment on tight curves, Large locomotives pulling 8 car freight trains, the engine in one town before the caboose has left the last one.
Now some things considered "no - no's" by some that don't bother me at all:
Trackage paralel to the benchwork edge, especially on walk around, relatively narrow shelf layouts. You are observing the track, and if you walked up to it naturally, you would likely stand facing it, only by looking down the tracks or observing trackage off into the distance would its irregular relation ship to the rest of its surroundings become apparent. So the narrower the shelf, and the closer your to the track the more acceptable it is for the track to paralel the edge of the benchwork.
Continuous loops for display running or through staging.
Freelanced roadnames, stand in models, even for prototype equipment/roadnames, and selectively compressed passenger cars (especially if you insist on curves less than 36").
I could go on a long time about this topic, as some posted did, but lets just leave it at this, even some of the "best" layouts, well crafted by people who's skills I respect, do not always meet my aesthetic tastes or standards. Those people, published in the modeling press, put themselves squarely in the public eye for such comment, those who simply build a layout for their own personal enjoyment and maybe share it on the net, do not solicit the same type of critque and therefore I view/judge them differently - or not at all.
Sheldon
steinjr John -- I am trying to figure out what your core question of the week is. I have to agree with Dave - your posts are getting too long to be very readable, even for me, and I am a pretty verbose person myself. In the current thread you seem to be trying to touch upon quite a few more or less unrelated subjects: Whether/when/how to offer constructive criticism to others (face to face or on forums) ?How do you critique/evaluate your own layout to keep improving it (if you choose to do so) ?How do you develop the artistic sense of composition when creating scenes and views ?"Here is a list of modeling subjects and techniques I don't like, what things do you 'hate' "? And then you choose a lead-in that creates an emotional reaction (the fear of being made an object of public ridicule) in quite a few people - by holding out some anonymous but specific amusement park style layout (to coin a descriptive name) you hated as an example of a Bad Layout(tm). So you also get a sub-thread about whether it was right of you to use that as a lead-in to this thread. Some recommendations for your next one, John: One subject. Short lead in. And make your question "how do you do this?" or "how would you do this?" about some modeling challenge, rather than first posting 5-10-15 pages of your own musings and then asking "what do you think?". Most of us (including myself) probably think a lot more than we do. Otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing this right now - we would be playing with our layouts :-) Up to you whether you will make use of this more or less constructive criticism in some way. No need for you to post a post saying "thank you for your contribution" :-) Grin, Stein
I gotta agree wholeheartedly with what Stein said above, John. Even Socrates probably kept topics "short and sweet" but left room for his students and fellow musers to expound upon them, if the conversation lead there. Einstein is even quoted to have said, "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler".
I also agree about the number of your responses and "thank yous". Of the 80 posts in this thread so far, nearly half of them (37, to be exact) are yours. You might try combining some of your shorter responses into one longer (but not too long) response.
Lastly: Get some sleep, John! It looks like you were madly typing non-stop from ~2:00 - 5:30 AM EST. Can't be good for your health.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
John,This is a good discussion with many views...
Ok..Here we go.
------------------------
How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ?
-----------------------
Let's change that from "tricks" to "tracks"...I suppose most modelers falls into the "to much track" mentality because of the various layout books containing spaghetti bowl track plans so more must be better..One constructs a good layout based on his/her druthers using less track in their given space.
----------------------
First one must learn to become more observant of their surroundings and learn to look beyond the subject of a picture.In other words one needs to look at the way railroads go about laying track in tight industrial areas and while looking at railroad photos look beyond the locomotive..At ton of detail can usually be seen by doing this.Learn that and there will be very little "editing" of your layout plan.---------------------
To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?-------------------
I perfer to talk to the ones that does the work and I found 90% of railroaders still like to talk shop and answer questions..Beyond that one's keen observation and computer research-especially historical societies is a clear cut means to find the needed answers without several opinions.
I have a tenancy to avoid any and all "experts" since they love to complicate the simple and overstate the obvious.
How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?--------------------
A thick skin would help..However,I perfer my standard answer.."That's nice to know but,I don't worry about such things..
One has to model for his/her self and shouldn't be overly concern with criticism since most criticism is based on personal opinions and modeling styles and has nothing to do with your personal modeling style...
What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?-----------------------
Actually none that I know of..The modeler may be perfectly happy with his layout and who are we to judge after all we all have different goals in mind and those goals vary from modeler to modeler based on his/her modeling skills,hobby budget and goals..
---------------------
What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?------------------
Good question..I would start with advising the new modeling to study the prototype and start easy.I would avoid cutesy pie scenes and look to their surroundings for guidance.
Less is better and use the KISS method.
-------------------
How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?------------------------
We have one of the best teachers that won't be found in books..Mother Nature's great outdoors..
Of course we must separate natural from man's intrusion on the natural order of the surrounding scenery...
This is what makes a so/so layout into a "super" layout:One must know the lay of the land one is modeling to include artificial and natural.
I myself have sometimes commented on someones layout about things that cranked my eyeballs. That having been said I'm not that outspoken about someone else's layout that I'll stomp all over the blame thing either. But Sheldon has pointed to some aspects that get me as well.
ATLANTIC CENTRALExcessive weathering of EVERYTHING, no mater the era or theme, my studies of history and observation of life says that is not realistic.
Having weathered some stuff in my time I can say that one does not see them so heavily weathered that they end up looking like this:
Now of course we don't see houses looking like this all over the place either
or a whole slew of these?
I've got an abandoned ROW that has a few of those going on but that is only in one area----not peppering the whole layout....
ATLANTIC CENTRALLarge equipment on tight curves, Large locomotives pulling 8 car freight trains, the engine in one town before the caboose has left the last one.
This one---WEEELLLLLLLL---I've seen a few of these large locomotives with small numbers of cars behind----there was one this morning that I fell over on the CP main up here that made me go ***?? 7 locomotives --all running---with 5 cars behind. So I'm not going to second guess that one
But one not so favourite of mine-----how about 14 different "cutsey" scenes in a town that may have about 2 clusters of people at a restaurant and a granery?
And so here I stand, sort of, with a bunch of crabs about things and really seeking to find things that I like about some other person's layout----there can be things like the way s/he put the wiring together, or, the lay of the land is pretty well placed ---- or lighting works well----
You get the picture from my end---
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/
John:
Your statement was flattering, but whatever I know about those topics probably comes from the desire to create interesting MRR scenes, and keeping my eyes open whenever I travel to new places. Studying photos from different time periods would help. Also, many more experienced members offer comments that I remember and file away.
Just keep in mind that when humans build things, they tend to take the path of least resistence; always looking for the flattest spot to build a road, a rr track, or a building. Our layouts should reflect that tendency.
Another member here, Cuyama, mentions how the problem with MRRoads is that our scenes tend to lack length relative to depth, especially with the 4x8 type of set up. Many smaller layouts tend to curve spurs into the center of the space, often at odd angles to each other, then have buildings and roads crammed in to populate the spurs. The result is often a hap-hazard looking arrangement.
Railroads are linear. When we build our scenes, maybe we should always try to imagine our relatively deep scene being a small slice of a much larger linear place; a place that extends beyond our view in all directions. The slice that we are generally trying to model is the part that tends to follow the mainline track.
I wish I could successfully translate what I'm saying into actual practice on my own layout.
Hi John: This is an interesting and thought provoking thread. When I look at anyone's layout, including my own, my overall thought, is it believable? I didn't know very much about railroads or modeling one, so, I tried to find out as much as I could from various books on the subject. Three Kalmbach books that I relied on were: "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstong, "Building the Pennsy Middle Division", by Dave Frary, and "The Model Railroader's Guide to Freight Yards" by Andy Sperandeo. These guides, and 60 some years of observation and experience, resulted in my first and present layout. I've used tried and true techniques and "tricks" of the "old hands" of the hobby, as well as some of the "new" ones, whatever worked for my "vision". I never had a problem with tearing down something that didn't "look or work right", and trying to make it better. I built my layout to my own set of standards. I use digital photos as an analytical tool. I, also, like to use my photos when giving asked for advice.
This scene is probably my favorite, two single tracks at different levels, two different bridges, a mountain stream, well below normal layout height, mountains, well above normal layout height, believable, I think, trees and terrain, and moderate weathering of trains and buildings. DJ.
This is my freight yard, based on Andy's book.
Grampys Trains Hi John: This is an interesting and thought provoking thread. When I look at anyone's layout, including my own, my overall thought, is it believable? I didn't know very much about railroads or modeling one, so, I tried to find out as much as I could from various books on the subject. Three Kalmbach books that I relied on were: "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstong, "Building the Pennsy Middle Division", by Dave Frary, and "The Model Railroader's Guide to Freight Yards" by Andy Sperandeo. These guides, and 60 some years of observation and experience, resulted in my first and present layout. I've used tried and true techniques and "tricks" of the "old hands" of the hobby, as well as some of the "new" ones, whatever worked for my "vision". I never had a problem with tearing down something that didn't "look or work right", and trying to make it better. I built my layout to my own set of standards. I use digital photos as an analytical tool. I, also, like to use my photos when giving asked for advice.This scene is probably my favorite, two single tracks at different levels, two different bridges, a mountain stream, well below normal layout height, mountains, well above normal layout height, believable, I think, trees and terrain, and moderate weathering of trains and buildings. DJ. This is my freight yard, based on Andy's book.
I think Walthers backdrops are very nice, they are just difficult to install properly. Probably some of us are into more "display layouts", where we focus less on prototypical operation, and more on running the trains in a few loops or a figure 8. Many of us don't have room for a substantial yard or engine servicing facility, nor do we have room for many industries and sidings. Personally I just like to watch my trains run around and around, perhaps through a double crossover and then a few other switches, but all within a limited space, on plywood. I like signal systems, and I am trying to learn the electronics behind them which can get complicated. Ballasting is secondary, I've learned to put off this step for the time being and focus more on running the trains flawlessly. I generally dislike grades, because they are hard on the engines, and I don't want to have to use traction tires which are difficult to install. So yes, I prefer a flat plywood layout. Just give me a town, a tunnel, and a few signal bridges, and I'm happy.
I'm a big fan of this layout, and I think it sums up everything I have in mind:
Simple yet detailed, and it looks like loads of fun to play with. It packs a lot of action into a small amount of space 8 x 13.
Well, you pretty well described my first layout. Sorry you didn't like it, but I had a ball with it. In many ways I had as much fun with that layout as any of the others since then.
In fact every layout since then has violated many (all?) of the "rules". I'm not sure because I don't really understand the rules - I just do what seems fun and interesting to me.
Anyway, on to the questions...
How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??I have no idea, I do what appeals to me.
I just stand back and look at it. If it looks right, then it is.
To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?I would suggest the NMRA Achievement program. You can enter the contests and be judged to your hearts content.
Criticism is personal. No matter how it's sugar coated it still says "You screwed up".
What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?There are many ways to have fun in this hobby.
What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?Read Kalmbach's books. Subscribe to MR and other magazines. They are a great way to start. If you have questions or need help, ask - I'll try to help.
If it looks good to you, then you're good to go.
I guess my bottom line here is: I like all layouts.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER If it looks good to you, then you're good to go. Paul
IRONROOSTER <snip>How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?Criticism is personal. No matter how it's sugar coated it still says "You screwed up". <snip>Paul
<snip>
Paul,
I agree entirely with your other points but I guess I will have to take mild exception to your statement that criticism = "You screwed up." It does not not have to--ever. A good teacher (or mentor) knows how to coach a beginner and grow them to a higher level of performance. The best of classroom instructors do it every day.
I read page 1 and skipped here to the last page. I'll go back over the other pages later.
Very thought provoking but at the same time I can admit to being guilty of a few of the "faults" pointed out. Being based on "Florida", my own layout is basically flat and will have some trackage close to the edge. To compensate I will cut out a few notches out of the 2" foam where the mainline will be running over culverts. I might have at least one "goofy" scene, such as the "General Lee" and "The Bandit" cruising on a street. Or a medical office with "Dr. Quack" on the window.
I must admit though after reading some of the input here, I might wait til most of my layout's scenery is finished before posting photos here. I'm not being negative, but I'm suddenly finding quite a bit of fault in my work and I'd like to make a positive impact when I present it (hopefully sometime this century )
High Greens
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
secondhandmodeler IRONROOSTER If it looks good to you, then you're good to go. Paul Oh, I like this one a lot! Not that a person shouldn't strive for something better, but better than what?
And by whose "standards"?
============================================================================
<snip>Paul
-------------------------------------------------
Perhaps but,again the real question is by whose "standards" did we screw up by?
If it meets our standards based on our modeling skills then who's to judge?
ccarannaAm I the only one that finds these "Philosophy Friday" threads extremely patronizing, especially when the OP replies after nearly every response? Ugh. Yeah I know, I don't need to read it. What this forum needs is an area for blogs.
What this forum needs is an area for blogs.
I don't know, but apparently lots of people like these topics. If at all, they are not nearly as patronizing as a lot of stuff posted on here.
Why would we need a separate area for "blogs', this all seems to work just fine.
And, yes Jeff Kraker's layout is a small layout, at least as HO layouts go.
And yes you are welcome to read, not read, respond or not respond as you see fit.
PS What exactly is your avatar a photo of?
I'm going to agree with the poster that suggests that you get a little more concise with your topics. Granted, this one is pretty broad, but in the essence of time, I think it would be better to attack one question at a time.
That being said, I think I forgot to address this one in my first post...
1. Observe nature (and pictures of nature). All of your questions about color, texture, juxtaposition, road numbers, locomotive details, weathering patterns and other modeling content can pretty much be answered with a short trip to the local rail line, or a quick google image search of your topic.
2. Don't hide behind "There's a Prototype for Everything" Yes, there probably is. However, it is in modeling the mundane, day to day reality that makes our modeling look more realistic.
While this bridge is certainly spectacular, this next one might look a little more appropriate on your 4x8...
3. Try to visualize your scenery WHILE you're designing your track plan. Too often we get the tracks to do what we want them to do, but we leave too little room to create a realistic scene. This leads to multiple passes through the same scene, turns that are too tight, industries that look too small to warrant rail service, and a whole other myriad of sins. I'm certainly guilty of this one myself.
While I'm generally able to disguise these things in my photography, actually operating in these situations can be a challenge...
FYI, the peninsula in the foreground is currently undergoing a significant reconstruction to solve the problems created by the original track plan.
4. Don't be afraid of a little "Theater". In the end, you're building a model railroad. As such, the logical stars of the show are your trains. The supporting cast would be the scenery elements that are served by those trains. This is where your focus should be. I frequently read questions such as "What is the appropriate radius of a highway exit ramp?" or "How many parking spaces per square foot of retail space in Tuscaloosa, Alabama?" or some other such minutae that is totally irrelevant to the model railroad. To dwell on these ancillary details will leave you with a layout that might be technically perfect, but in the end is stark and odd looking. The more important questions would be, "How much of that exit ramp will be seen from the viewing angle that highlights the railroad?" and therefore, how much of that exit ramp do you really need to model? Or, "I've got a 6" x 12" area where I'd like to include a parking lot, how can I lay it out so it looks like a busy parking lot from the railroad? Or, what view blocks and details can I include to suggest a larger lot than I actually have room for?"
This scene was about 12" deep, but using the 3-D flats and 2D images on the back drop, some changes in elevation, and the highway bridge, which tapers from wide to narrow as it approaches the wall, create the illusion of a much larger scene. All of those background elements merely provide a stage for the trains to run through, so whether or not everything is perfectly in scale is immaterial.
Viewing angle is the key to what is and isn't important. It's okay to pinch a roadway down to nothing behind a clump of trees if you're never going to see that from a typical viewing angle.
5. Sweat the Details that Matter. This is the corollary to No. 4. While there are some things that just fade to the back ground (and should), there are others that demand, and when done properly, command your attention. Elements that contribute to the realism of the railroad itself. The track infrastructure is one element that I believe makes or breaks a layout's appearance. Unballasted snap track ain't going to cut it in my world. Nor will any of the pre-fab track systems with the big plastic roadbed already attached. I know there's a lot of folks that swear by the stuff, but as I stated previously, I'm very visually oriented, and there's just too many compromises for me to use that stuff.
Same with bridges. It doesn't take much effort to look closely at a prototype to figure out what proper support looks like, or to determine what type of bridge is appropriate for a particular location. I covered this in a previous post.
Railroad-oriented structures should also carry their own weight. Again, this doesn't mean you need to model brick for brick or inch for inch to scale. But you should strive for a level of detail that exceeds the general level of the layout. After all, this is where the drama of your railroad is played out.
It doesn't require an "over the top" approach, either. Of course, an urban setting will require more attention than the more rural scenes above, bet even there, it's important leave some room for "nothing" between the focal points.
Finally,
6. Find a Theme and Follow it with Gusto! Building a layout is not a project that provides instant gratification. In fact, it can take years and years of work, usually being woven in and out of the other activities of life. Our interest can vary from fleeting moments dedicated to quick projects like weathering a few freight cars, to intense periods of major construction of benchwork, or installation of a new wiring system or signals. Given this long term commitment, we often find our interests drifting in and out of focus.
There are a lot of guys out there for whom this isn't an issue. Their main interest is in modeling passenger trains, so they are perfectly content to have the Broadway Limited pulled by a GG-1 running around the same track plan as the Empire Builder. That's fine, and serves the modeler's purpose. But unless the layout is based around a major terminal hub, it's hard for the casual viewer to fully appreciate the collection. Rod Stewart's urban terminal layout comes to mind. In the article, Rod confesses to being a passenger train fan, and makes no apologies for the eclectic collection he runs. But the setting in the big, busy city quickly conveys to a visitor the joy he finds in running the trains.
For others, a theme might be established following a particular prototypical line, or maybe a fictional route of an actual railroad. Others may dream up a free-lanced railroad that combines favorite elements of a few railroads, or just expresses an interest in a particular type of traffic in a particular region, like an Appalachian coal road, or a Midwestern grainger.
So there aren't any hard and fast rules about HOW to follow a theme, or even what theme to follow. But as a general principal, it's a good idea to have something in mind to guide your track planning, scenery choices, and rolling stock purchases.
You'll also find that as you drill deeper into your chosen theme, there's all kinds of subtle details you can add that enhance the realism of your layout. On my Western Maryland themed layout, I started with an idea of what parts of the operation I wanted to emulate, what types of rolling stock I would need, and the kinds of engines I would want to run.
From there, I started learning more about the railroad's architecture, traffic patterns, interchanges, and other details I never imagined. I was able to take this newly gained knowledge and come up with projects that would help really cement the time and place of my layout.
To sum up, don't be afraid to push the boundaries of your comfort zone. If what you built was really good, look at it again, and see what it would take to make it really great! There's a tremendous amount of pleasure to be gained from learning a new skill, or trying something different. If you're content where you are, well, that's fine. But if you see other layouts that really strike a chord with you, get busy! Start small, work on a small corner of your layout and finish it. Move on to the next section, and see if you can do better than you did on the first section.
You can create a scene that has a powerful visual impact, defines your locale and era, and impresses the operator, casual visitor, and photographer...
Now get to work!
PASMITHccarannaAm I the only one that finds these "Philosophy Friday" threads extremely patronizing, especially when the OP replies after nearly every response? Ugh. Yeah I know, I don't need to read it. What this forum needs is an area for blogs. On the other hand, the last time I looked there were 2,270 views in three days. Quite impressive. As an amateur philosopher, It's hard to imagine how John keeps these topics coming. I hope he does not run out of ideas. Keep up the good work John. Peter Smith, Memphis
No, ccaranna, you are not the only one who feels that way. I share your view on the issue of blogs as well.
PASMITH, did it ever cross your mind that if you title your thread, "I Hate Your Layout", you are going to get 2,270 views out of morbid curiosity? If I titled my thread, "The Forum Administrator Just Tried to Kill Me", I would probably get 3,000 hits or more for the same reason.
I have had the pleasure of visiting several world class model railroads that have been featured in the Allen Keller series "Great Model Railroads" Howard Zane, Harold Wurthwein, Ken McCrory, Jim Hertzog,and Tony Keoster are just some of the highlights or more well known modelers. I can say without hesitation that all of the a fore mentioned modelers all share one common personality trait. that being humility. All speak to you as an equal when I've visited their layout and have the curiosity to listen to your ideas and thought on how you do things and have no problem answering your how did you do this or do that questions.
I met a guy a while back at an LHS who used to bring in some of the most highly detailed diesel locomotives I have ever seen, after getting to know this guy I found out he had given p on building his layout because he couldn't get the hang of doing good track work and ballasting etc. So who would have ever figured that a guy so talented could have learned something from me, but he did and I was glad to help him out
Heck Howard Zane just posted a reply to a posting the other day about how to make waterfalls tutorial and his reply was"
"Being a builder of several water falls, I am extremely impressed with your technique. I do mine a bit differenty, but I ain't to old to learn somethng new."
This comment coming from arguably one of the greatest model builders of our time so if someone of his caliber can be wise enough to learn new ways of doing things what does that say for someone who visits a layout and comes away with the opinions of the O/P?
I don't care if your looking at some guys layout nailed to a piece of green painted plywood there maybe something that you can learn from him. If not then I truly feel sorry for you, because you are doomed to a life of mediocrity and self absorbency. Life is too short to see the flaws but time is much better spent on concentrating on the more positive aspects of what you see.
Allegheny2-6-6-6I don't care if your looking at some guys layout nailed to a piece of green painted plywood there maybe something that you can learn from him. If not then I truly feel sorry for you, because you are doomed to a life of mediocrity and self absorbency. Life is too short to see the flaws but time is much better spent on concentrating on the more positive aspects of what you see.
Indeed, I learned quite a bit from his layout-- and I said so right in my opening preface. What perhaps you and others have overlooked, is that I said-- right at the outset-- that I was writing about my own fears.
You can say whatever else about it that you wish, but nearly 2/3's of my original post was spent _explaining_ *my* own point of view.
wm3798What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?1. Observe nature (and pictures of nature). All of your questions about color, texture, juxtaposition, road numbers, locomotive details, weathering patterns and other modeling content can pretty much be answered with a short trip to the local rail line, or a quick google image search of your topic.
Lee,
Thank you for your post-- that is the kind of responses I was hoping for in this thread.
In general-- to whomever it is that's keeping score-- I noticed that a number of respondants who, just as soon as they were through expressing their obligatory indignation, then proceeded right along with adding their own list of "pet peeves", or "things that make them cringe". You know, I'm just sayin-- for the record and all.
And my original post wasn't to slam somebody's railroad-- I went to great lengths to point that out-- but rather to concentrate the issues all in one place and then see what could be *learned* from it-- what tips & techniques could be used (a) to remediate something like that, and (b) how it could be avoided in the first place.
Also, I agree- and have said so previously in this thread several times that *none* of those items individually mean your layout sucks. Frankly, not even all of them really do-- and that was my *very first line* in my post-- that people keep blowing past and not bothering to acknowledge.
I don't know what motivates anybody else, but I am interested in *learning* and hearing how other people do things. And not everybody is as good as anybody else at doing them-- and if all you ever get is "good going", "great job", "excellent work"-- when in fact it's not really warranted-- then at best you've kept someone from being informed and having the *personal choice* to decide whether they want to tackle it again and see if they can improve-- or not, their choice. AND at *worst* you may end up with someone who *believes* people when they say "great job", "excellent work", and never attempts to do anything any better because they already believe they have done well.
I do not believe you should go up to someone and say their layout sucks. That's bad form, its tacky, and may come across as just downright mean. You probably don't even need to say anything at all unless you're specifically asked.
To whomever thinks I slighted anybody-- I most emphatically did not. I went to great lengths *not* to name anybody, "out" anybody, or even identify the layout-- even if the owner himself was reading my post, he would not be able to recognize his own layout from my description. He *might* be able to recognize the general things I said as they *apply* to his layout, but that is a different thing.
And it doesn't really even matter if the layout was real or imagined-- the whole concept of the layout was presented as an abstract so that we could talk and discuss a number of elements that likely plague many layouts-- and soon, probably even my own. THAT is what I am afraid of. THAT is what I *very clearly said* at the outset. I spent a number of WORDY long-winded paragraphs irking SteinJR, TStage-- and whomever else-- because they had to wade through it-- I tried my best to make it clear I wanted to only talk about the issues-- or whatever other additional / alternate issues people wanted to bring up in a similar manner-- and to leave the modeler / owner *OUT* of it.
And my thanks goes out to Lee, Grampy, Brakie, Mister Beasley, Sir Maddog-- and all the others I'm not thinking of right off-- who *did* contribute very well considered and thought out responses, and additionally included a lot of very interesting and useful tips and techniques for scene construction, composition, etc.
I hope more people will go back and re-consider my original post and then perhaps contribute additional tips and techniques of their own.
When I get my own layout to the point its worth posting pictures-- you folks are welcome to rip them to shreds. And as long as you're giving me your honest opinions-- and hopefully tips and suggestions for improvement-- I'll listen and consider every single one. If it sucks, I want you to tell me "it sucks, and here's why..." Feedback and criticism is the only way *I* know how to improve. Maybe you all know some other ways-- I'll sit back and will be delighted to be enlightened! Seriously.
John,Here's two things I do chuckle at -after leaving of course.
1.A guy has a beautiful water fall that ends up in a iddy biddy pond with no outlet.Where does all that water go that comes cascading down the falls?
2..I also chuckle over things that defies nature or man made things that lacks rhyme and reason for being.
Everything in the world we live in has rhyme and reason for being..We just need to look closer to understand that.
jwhittenI spent a number of WORDY long-winded paragraphs irking SteinJR, TStage-- and whomever else-- because they had to wade through it-- I tried my best to make it clear I wanted to only talk about the issues-- or whatever other additional / alternate issues people wanted to bring up in a similar manner-- and to leave the modeler / owner *OUT* of it.
It was merely a suggestion to pare the number of musing inquiries down so that folks could digest and ruminate on them more effectively.
I've written long winded posts in the past too, but will try to be more concise here:
In my opinion, the original post was just fine. Although it seemed perhaps a little offensive at first read, as I read the entire post, I noticed the disclaimers and he was quick to say his skills may not be as good as the modeler whose layout he was discussing. So he admitted he was not perfect and not on some high horse--at least that's what I got out of it.
Sheldon made some very good points--at least one of which I want to reiterate:
Most modelers dramatically overweather their equipment. Real weathering must be subtle. In real life, the freight cars are not all dead flat, but actually evidence some glossy paint shining through all the dust. Likewise, engines may certainly evidence dirty, greasy, sloppy areas, but still have some "factory shine" to the paint elsewhere. In my personal opinion satin or semi-gloss finishes are better than the dead flat used by some.
Also--some modelers have vegetation that is impossible, on slopes that are just too steep. I'm working with a Pastor and a bunch of guys on a layout that will be a community outreach to the children. They are great folks with a noble purpose--however, in their quest to cram as much trackwork onto the layout as possible, they have some slopes that in my opinion appear to be a bit unprototypically steep (though they have tried to make many of them appear like rock cuts). Additionally, on those steep slopes are trees that in real life I do not believe would be able to stand--but would quickly topple over.
It's not my layout, so I shut up and help when I'm able to make it there, also with the hopes that someday I'll get to run it.
In real life, natural ground slopes vary throughout the country, of course depending on soil conditions and how good/deep the underlying rock quality is, but steeper than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical would likely be unstable along an active rail line--and subject to slides (unless it was a rock cut). Most modelers do not seem to adequately appreciate the need to layback cut slopes (when not in rock).
In new construction today, slopes of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical or steeper might receive rip rap (large rock--typically limestone) armor protection.
Respectfully submitted--
tstage jwhittenI spent a number of WORDY long-winded paragraphs irking SteinJR, TStage-- and whomever else-- because they had to wade through it-- I tried my best to make it clear I wanted to only talk about the issues-- or whatever other additional / alternate issues people wanted to bring up in a similar manner-- and to leave the modeler / owner *OUT* of it. John, It was merely a suggestion to pare the number of musing inquiries down so that folks could digest and ruminate on them more effectively. Tom
I understand, and it was duly-noted and I'll keep that in mind when I write my next post.
John-
One last comment I'd like to make prior to the close of this discussion:
Sometimes odd and "over-the-top" portions of our layouts are not entirely our own doing. Many of us receive model railroad items as gifts and the givers often don't really understand about things like era, etc. I visited a model railroader who had a really well-done late-40s era layout, but there were little things on it that didn't quite go with it: a '67 Mustang in a parking lot, a mid-'60s police car on main street, and this crowning jewel: a chrome-plated diesel. He explained that those, and some other ill-fitting accessories were gifts from his grand-children. They look for them on his layout, so he keeps them there. It's a matter of preserving their feelings.
Sometimes we choose to do things on our layouts, not because it's best for the layout, but because it's best for other important reasons.
I had a long and lenthy reply about my tiny out-in-left-field layout, those who think they know what a proper model railroad layout should be, and why I chose to not post pictures of my layout and work anymore over here as not to offend the those who think they know what a proper model rairoading should be, but my %^$^& comfuser dropped the whole message when I went to post it...
Have fun with your trains
My main comment on the initial post and it has been said before is that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What you found to be a buck of tricks and poor design choices, the modeler may have found to be "exactly what they were going for."
In which case, there is no criticism you can make that is valid....except that you personally don't like it.
And while I certainly don't know all of your modeling predilections, I suspect much of what you personally define as "correct" is based on modern Model Railroad thought.
someone mentioned Tony Koester. There was a time when his ideas about operations and model railroad simply didn't exist. What constitutes modern thought on what a model railroad should be changes constantly and it would be incorrect to look at another's work and assume any of that applies to their goals. Nor would it be right to criticize someone's work simply because they didn't follow modern conventions.
I loved David Barrow's Cat Mountain and Santa Fe from the 1980s. Great feel, great scenery. The new incarnation that was featured in Model Railroader had absolutely no scenery. The idea being that it was for operations only. I felt personally that that made it not a model railroad any more, but that was what he wanted and I can't really be critical of it.
Someone mentioned the don't like Picasso. That's a good example. There are schools of painting. impressionism, Cubism, Realism. Similarly, there are schools of model railroading. And what constitutes realism might change. If someone wants to build a railroad that amounts to a Department 56 Christmas Village look, then good for them.
what I do see as useful criticism is discussion of the Physical realities of construction.
When someone presents an HO plan with 15" radius curves. That's worthy of some constructive criticism. Or grades that are too steep.
In short, present the practical reasons to do one thing or the other. Not the artistic reasons.
And there shouldn't be anything wrong with discussing preferences, but they are just that, preferences.
I mean, I personally model modern Class 1 mainline and I think Code 100 is actually pretty close to in scale for modern welded rail and has the advantage of being cheaper and more forgiving, but to hear some people talk , I've committed a grave sin.
I've done no such thing. I just am not following modern Model Railroading convention.
Or in short, Don't judge artistry unless you're an art critic.
YoHo1975In short, present the practical reasons to do one thing or the other. Not the artistic reasons. And there shouldn't be anything wrong with discussing preferences, but they are just that, preferences. I mean, I personally model modern Class 1 mainline and I think Code 100 is actually pretty close to in scale for modern welded rail and has the advantage of being cheaper and more forgiving, but to hear some people talk , I've committed a grave sin. I've done no such thing. I just am not following modern Model Railroading convention. Or in short, Don't judge artistry unless you're an art critic.
Everybody is an art critic. You see examples of "art" around you every day. Some you like, some you don't. Every day, every single one of us walks around and examines things critically. What you seem to be saying is that its somehow wrong to use your own eyeballs and intellect to interpret what you see. Unless of course you're focused on the discussion aspect-- in which case you would seem to be saying that its a bad thing to talk about what we see...? And if we happen to be engaged in artistic endeavors, which many folks here and other places have indicated they believe Model Railroading to be, are you saying its wrong to talk about the "art"?
I'm trying to think of any article that I've ever read regarding improvement of techniques, or the promotion of a new technique, that didn't have some critical element at its outset.
vsmith wrote: those who think they know what a proper model railroad layout should be, and why I chose to not post pictures of my layout and work anymore over here as not to offend the those who think they know what a proper model rairoading should be,..
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what is a proper layout and by whose standards?
Gee whiz,I been in this hobby over 55 years and still looking for that elusive "proper layout".. Come to think of it I suppose my layouts have been "proper" for me and that's the main thing..
jwhittenI understand, and it was duly-noted and I'll keep that in mind when I write my next post.
Since, based on previous history, you are probably going to contribute about 30-50% of the verbiage in the entire thread, you probably don't need to provide very much right up front.
jwhittenEverybody is an art critic. You see examples of "art" around you every day. Some you like, some you don't. Every day, every single one of us walks around and examines things critically. What you seem to be saying is that its somehow wrong to use your own eyeballs and intellect to interpret what you see. Unless of course you're focused on the discussion aspect-- in which case you would seem to be saying that its a bad thing to talk about what we see...? And if we happen to be engaged in artistic endeavors, which many folks here and other places have indicated they believe Model Railroading to be, are you saying its wrong to talk about the "art"?I'm trying to think of any article that I've ever read regarding improvement of techniques, or the promotion of a new technique, that didn't have some critical element at its outset.
Again, with the painting example. How does one compare and contrast El Greco versus Renoir? They painted very very different styles. If you don't like impressionism, you're likely to judge Renoir pretty harshly yes? But someone who does like impressionism is going to judge it very differently.
So I'd say, you can't judge someone without knowing what the author/modeler is trying to convey.
But it comes down to, what are the rules under which you're judging the work? And why do you think those rules are "right" while others are wrong? Roger Ebert critiques Movies based on a wide range of "rules" about movie making that are universal for American film. But what he doesn't do is complain that The Terminator isn't Schindler's List. He knows how to judge a movie for what its intentions were. He judges how effective the movie makers were at creating their "story."
From your initial post, it sounds like you're judging another model railroad according to your Story, not the modelers.
dehusmanjwhittenI understand, and it was duly-noted and I'll keep that in mind when I write my next post. Since, based on previous history, you are probably going to contribute about 30-50% of the verbiage in the entire thread, you probably don't need to provide very much right up front.
Why are you being insulting?
By the way, going back to one of your earlier Philosophy Friday's where you were discussing how unprototypical it was to just plop down buildings with no apparent road connections.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/8151?size=_original
dehusmanBy the way, going back to one of your earlier Philosophy Friday's where you were discussing how unprototypical it was to just plop down buildings with no apparent road connections. http://www.shorpy.com/node/8151?size=_original
What about it, do you have a point?
jwhitten I'm trying to think of any article that I've ever read regarding improvement of techniques, or the promotion of a new technique, that didn't have some critical element at its outset.
A couple of different types of posts:
1) A critique (a critical review) of some specific layout or specific scene. Will by necessity point out both things you like and things you don't like about that specific layout, explain why you like what you like and don't like what you don't like, and perhaps even suggest a few changes or alternatives.
A critique emphasizing only the things you do not like about a layout should probably not posted unless the poster has actually asked for comments or suggestions.
As you probably can attest to yourself by now, it is hard not to get pretty defensive when someone suddenly and very publicly starts criticizing some aspect of your work, of which you are proud.
2) A discussion of a new technique or a general approach to handle some modeling challenge. Will typically mention what you think are the strong points (and hopefully also what you think are the weak points) of the new technique or approach, sometimes by comparing and contrasting strong and weak points of the new approach to the already existing approach(es).
A discussion of strengths and weaknesses of various approaches will (hopefully) not try to denounce people who use the other technique(s) or approach(es) as being poor modelers.
Edit: as I expect you have realized all along, some people will likely react in a strongly negative way if they feel that their type or style of model railroading is being labelled as being an inferior approach, no matter if such labeling was not your intent. Better to stay away from "what do you hate" as a subject, and instead emphasizing "what has worked well for you".
Lee, as he very often do, again posted a thoughtful and well illustrated post. Do note that while Lee did mention in passing that for him sectional tracks with moulded on plastic ballast didn't work, the core of his contribution was explaining how he do things - ie offering suggestions of alternative ways of doing things and pointing out strengths of that approach, rather than focusing on pointing out how poor some other technique was.
His core points are well made: look at the prototype, model the common rather than the uncommon, plan the scene, not just the track plan, don't be afraid of compressing and playing with viewing angles - we are creating a theatre scene, upon which the trains will be the main actors, and the background is supporting cast, we are not making an architectural model where everything must be to scale.
The only challenge is actually doing the things Lee do so well :-)
Grin,Stein
BRAKIE vsmith wrote: those who think they know what a proper model railroad layout should be, and why I chose to not post pictures of my layout and work anymore over here as not to offend the those who think they know what a proper model rairoading should be,.. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly what is a proper layout and by whose standards? Gee whiz,I been in this hobby over 55 years and still looking for that elusive "proper layout".. Come to think of it I suppose my layouts have been "proper" for me and that's the main thing..
Heck I have no idea what the hork a "proper" layout is "supposed" to be either, but over the years I've sure seen an awfull lot of people who will go out of there way to tell me what they think it is and point out exactly what I am doing wrong despite the fact that I didnt ask them to "enlighten" me in the first place
I say there is NO wrong way to build a model railroad if the builder is happy with the results.
If anyone else has a problem with those results then thats there hangup , not mine
steinjrAs you probably can attest to yourself by now, it is hard not to get pretty defensive when someone suddenly and very publicly starts criticizing some aspect of your work, of which you are proud.
There is a difference-- I put my work out there to be criticized-- and you are publically doing it. Regardless of how it feels, its my post and I'll stand behind it and take my lumps.
And it should be obvious to *anybody* with two brain cells that I did not intend to identify the layout, or its owner, in any way shape or form, but only to pull out some points to discuss. Apparently you and a couple of other people would rather use it as an attempt to make some sort of hay out of it. To attack me and my post-- go ahead, I put it out there. I'll take whatever you want to say about it.
A few people said it was too long. Okay, I got that. I'll keep that in mind for the next one. Maybe it will be shorter (maybe not), but I'll keep it in mind as I make it.
Several people seemed to think it was a problem for me to post replies in my own thread-- people, who I note are busy upping their own percentages as well-- but... SO WHAT? Its my thread. I encourage people to respond to what I post. Many do and when they do, I generally reply. That's my format-- if you disagree, put up your own posts.
Moreover, I *like* talking to people, which is why I post them in the first place.
I was not critical of the original modeler's work-- but I *did* pull out elements that I personally have an issue with. I said that right up front. So what's your beef? I didn't identify the modeler or his layout.
And I've been asking the entire time for people to comment on what could be done to rectify or remediate such issues-- but note that many folks have instead chosen to ignore all that, plus the long-winded disclaimers and personal musings-- to decide that I have somehow caused an offense. When in fact, all I really did was collect a list of things that I have seen *MANY* people indicate are issues-- as well as myself-- and put them out there for discussion.
I can handle criticism just fine-- justified or not.
>> The only challenge is actually doing the things Lee do so well :-)
vsmith Heck I have no idea what the hork a "proper" layout is "supposed" to be either, but over the years I've sure seen an awfull lot of people who will go out of there way to tell me what they think it is and point out exactly what I am doing wrong despite the fact that I didnt ask them to "enlighten" me in the first place I say there is NO wrong way to build a model railroad if the builder is happy with the results. If anyone else has a problem with those results then thats there hangup , not mine
Hmmm, that's a rather naive/rash statement, or perhaps just a modern politically correct outlook, in light of the fact that only one sort of layout consistently appears in any of the scale model railroading publications that I'm familiar with. These layouts are all modeled as highly realistic miniatures of the real world. On the one or two occasions that I've seen layouts of substantially lesser quality exhibited, the letters-to-the-editor columns and associated forums overflowed with criticisms of the editors from including such a pike.
In today's hobby press I see no track-on-plywood renditions (with the exception of by Dave Barrow); no tinplate & plasticville offerings; nor any HO/N layouts resembling tinplate layouts of kids from the 1950's in their crude scenicking. Except when offered as construction ideas, there are no raw pink foam scenicked efforts exhibited as finished pikes and certainly no collections of RTRs doing little endless loops. Even the occasional tongue-in-cheek layouts of the past have been all but banished from the literature...and you claim not to know what a layout is supposed to be like? It certainly seems those providing the instruction, guidance and illustrating what layouts are supposed to be today definitely do...and in spades!
CNJ831
jwhitten I can handle criticism just fine-- justified or not.
Good. I am glad you don't get defensive at all.
However, if what you wanted to discuss was how to create realistic looking scenes, you have not done an awful lot of that yet.
Feel free to post more about that subject, and less about the subject of the "unjustified criticism" of your original post in this thread. You have gotten the point about focus and brevity. Maybe time for you to stop responding blow-by-blow to everyone who reiterates criticism already made?
That people sometimes get hurt feelings when others misunderstand their good intensions I already know, and it is of little use to me as a model railroading technique.
Tips on how to create realistic looking MR scenes, on the other hand ....
Smile, Stein
I am going to exercise some discretion at this point and lock this thread. I feel that several good points have been made, perhaps taken, and that we can look forward to a modified approach to a topic with less breadth? In John's defense, he can't be faulted for remaining active and helping to further the discussion. I will agree that the first post was considerably too long, clearly, judging by feedback, and to broad. I think John probably regrets the choice of title, but he wouldn't be the first to find that he could have done better...been there. Several times.
You have to admit...it generated a lot of discussion, some of it topical in the way he had hoped, some more directed to the responder's irritation with the execution at the outset.
There's always next Friday...
[locked]