Philosophy Friday -- I Hate Your Layout...

[AntonioFP45]

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  

[desertdog]

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

 

 

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.

 

John Timm

 

 

[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]

 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.

How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?

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.

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".

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.

How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?

 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

[rjake4454]

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.

 

 

[PASMITH]

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.

 

 

 

 

Nice! Peter Smith, Memphis

[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.

 

 

 

 

[Doughless]

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.    

[blownout cylinder]

 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 CENTRAL

Excessive 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 CENTRAL

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.

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---

[BRAKIE]

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.

------------------------

How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?

----------------------

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.

 

[tstage]

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:

1. Whether/when/how to offer constructive criticism to others (face to face or on forums) ?
2. How do you critique/evaluate your own layout to keep improving it (if you choose to do so) ?
3. How do you develop the artistic sense of composition when creating scenes and views ?
4. "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

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

John,

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

[jwhitten]

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!  

 

John

[jwhitten]

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.

 

 

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.

 

John

[Anonymous]

 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

[jwhitten]

MisterBeasley

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.

 

 

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.

Thanks!

John

[jwhitten]

Doughless

jwhitten

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?

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.

 

John

[jwhitten]

MisterBeasley

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?

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.

 

 

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 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.

 

John

[tomikawaTT]

Before going into the specifics, a couple of observations:

• "There are eight and forty ways of creating tribal lays, and every single one of them is RIGHT!"  Kipling, emphasis added.
• An insult, like medication, only effects the person who takes it.
• A confident person looks for ways to improve.  A less confident person is more concerned with looking good in other people's eyes.

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?

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.

How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??

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.

How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?

Through experience - if the experience is broad enough.  Or through deliberate study and training in the visual arts.  But mostly through experience.

To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?

To the camera.  It is the only thing that can provide an image that isn't distorted by personal assumptions, opinions or preconceptions.

How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?

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:

1. That trackwork sucks.
2. Your trackwork sucks.

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.

What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?

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.

What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?

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?

How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?

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)

[jwhitten]

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!

John

[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:

1. Whether/when/how to offer constructive criticism to others (face to face or on forums) ?
2. How do you critique/evaluate your own layout to keep improving it (if you choose to do so) ?
3. How do you develop the artistic sense of composition when creating scenes and views ?
4. "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

 

[Anonymous]

 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. 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.

[jwhitten]

 

wm3798

Let 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! 

 

 

wm3798

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.

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.

 

 

wm3798

How 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.

 That is an excellent answer and observation! Thank you.

 

 

wm3798

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.

Further terrific observations and tips.

Thank you very much Lee, you are a good guy!!

 

John

[jwhitten]

shayfan84325

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.

 

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!

John

[jwhitten]

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 Madog

How 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.

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!

 

John

[Anonymous]

 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:

How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??

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.

How 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. 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...

To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?

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!

How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?

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. 

What lessons are there to be learned in the layout scenario I've outlined above?

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? 

What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?

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....

How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?

Develop a master plan - for your tracks, scenery, wiring, operation. Check one plan against the other. And build a mock-up of your layout...

[Motley]

Thanks John!

I finally picked up some trees for my mountain, so right now I'm working on the underbrush.

[jwhitten]

Motley

jwhitten

Motley

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!!!!!

 

 

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.

 

John

[Motley]

jwhitten

Motley

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!!!!!

 

 

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 

[jwhitten]

PASMITH

Gee, where is Space Mouse when you need him. Peter Smith, Memphis

 

 

Good point, I bet he'd sure liven up the party.

 

John