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...
-Crandell
[locked]
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
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
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
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 :-)
I completely agree.
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..
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..
Have fun with your trains
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.
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
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
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
What about it, do you have a point?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
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.
Why are you being insulting?
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.
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"?
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
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
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-
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--
John
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
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.
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.
What 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Alton Junction
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...
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!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
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.
Sheldon
PS What exactly is your avatar a photo of?
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?
IRONROOSTER If it looks good to you, then you're good to go. Paul
If it looks good to you, then you're good to go.
Paul
And by whose "standards"?
============================================================================
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
-------------------------------------------------
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?