I too suffer from flat track but I am very much ok with it.. I dont have a lot of room to built a good hill and I am not just sticking a small hill on my layout so I have a bridge or overpass, when I do add a bridge I will just cut some out of my table and make a river. And like UP 4-12-2 post, before I laid any track was to paint my table, then added some track and got some ground cover down so I am not staring a bare table, then I got a working layout down so I can drive my trains and have gone back added more scenery and more track and now that I am happy with most of my track I am starting to go back and add some terrain. From photos I have seen there are a lot of folks who have limited their train driving time due to always being in middle of an extensive terrain build that will take years or folks who have nice track work but have no room for terrain or buildings and in both cases I jealous at the time and effort they have put into a layout and at the same time wonder what where they thinking when their layout is bare or will years down the road before it is really working. I have tried to balance it out and so far I am very happy with it no matter what people might think of my layout.
Also, based upon past issues with vertical grade breaks and the operational problems encountered with grades, that history did spur me to keep my current layout "flat". Between an inadvertant vertical benchwork issue and the pink foam sheets not always being flat and true, I ended up with a 0.4% grade--which isn't bad at all--just enough that trains do slow down a little bit.
So far as scenery is concerned--and some folks being apprehensive about starting, I offer the following comments:
Fight the war on pink (who really wants to look at all that pink on a train layout?) by buying some latex (do not use oil based anything on the insulation foam) paint in an appropriate background color for your region of the country.
Since I'm modeling the southwest, I painted the entire layout (except the white-primered mountains) a desert sand color that exactly matched the sand I'm using. This alone is an instant, large scenic improvement.
On the second coat of latex paint (one will likely not cover the pink completely), start sprinkling in ground foam (or in my case, real sand) while the paint is still wet.
These two steps alone are a good beginning at the scenery. Then you can come back and add additional vegetation once you are further inspired with more time, money, etc.
You do not need to be an artistic genius, though I do recommend downloading photos for inspiration of that favorite region you hope to capture (in my case, the Saguaro Desert near Tucson, and Union Pacific's Echo Canyon Utah).
John
My Perspective, in response to each question:
Does a true friend look at your work and say it looks great; or that it stinks and here's why? Which is ultimately the bigger (or better) gift, the lie or the truth?
I’ll start with the second question, first. A lie is rarely a good thing – even if you intend to preserve a person’s self esteem, but brutal honesty is no better and is often worse. The key is to be honest, but not brutal.
In response to the other question above, it is unwise and often unkind to offer feedback unless it is requested. So, rather than look at someone’s work and start handing out comments, look at it and offer honest complements, or ask questions requesting more information about something you do feel good about.
If the owner of the layout described by the OP asked me what I think, I’d probably reply with “It looks like you have a lot of fun with your layout.” If he were to press me for suggestions for making it better, I’d point out that there’s a lot of action going on and that a lot of the scenes are things that we see only occasionally (burning building, police stop, etc.); it seems that the most effective layouts are models of the mundane. This guides him to something that he could easily change and it really would make it better.
One of my favorite feedback stories comes from Westcott’s book about John Allen:
Cliff Grandt asked John Allen for feedback on Grandt’s scratch-built brass Heisler. Allen took a photo of it and printed it for Grandt. He reportedly said, “Look at the photo; every time you see something that tells you that this is not a real Heisler, it may be an opportunity to improve it.”
Notice that Allen never listed all the things that could be better; he facilitated a process by which Grandt could find them on his own.
I consider this both helpful and graceful.
I work in Human Resources – and I often have to deal with some pretty touchy stuff. One thing I believe very strongly is that it is critical to maintain a person’s dignity in order to keep a relationship and that it is possible to do so in every case. We owe that much to our fellow hobbyists.
Moving on…Questions for Today:
How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??
My opinion is that we are best off to understand that most of the real world is pretty mundane. We should strive to model the most ordinary of days, with routine stuff going on. Anything that might make the news or the newspaper should not be on our layouts. Keep in mind that a joke is funny the first time you hear it, after that…It can be fun to model a traffic stop, or a burning building, or a funeral, or a bank robbery, or a streaker, but in a year those things will be looking pretty tired.
How does one develop one's "critical eye" and ability to "edit"?
I like John Allen’s approach. With digital cameras it is cheap and easy, and I think it is fun. Take pictures and look at them. They give you a new perspective and that can help you a lot.
To whom does one turn for "the unvarnished truth"?
I think anyone can give us good feedback, after all, we all experience the world. I think the key is to ask the questions. I’ll put it this way when I want feedback: “I’m trying to make this look like a real place, can you see anything that seems not real enough?” I think it gets people thinking about details and invites them to comment. By the way, if you get defensive or argue you will probably shut off their feedback – permanently. If you ask the question, you must accept the answer.How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?It depends on the criticism. If someone comments about my model work, I accept it as their opinion and let it go. If they attack me personally, I’ll reply with something like “I’m not sure that’s really fair.”
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'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
When I was a teenager and I had a flat layout, changes in elevation were accomplished with Life-Like trestles and Atlas graduated bridge-pier sets. The grades were too steep, both because I didn't really have enough space to get the trains up high enough to get over other trains, and because these trestles and piers had to be close enough together to support the sections of Atlas snap-track without sagging too much when trains went over them. But, I read one wise suggestion which has stuck with me ever since: Keep your track level, and have the scenery go up and down around it to simulate elevation changes.
I did that, pretty much, for my present layout. The main line is completely flat, although I have a few sidings and the whole turntable area that are slightly higher or lower, to add visual interest. On the other hand, the terrain does rise and fall somewhat, which allows the trains to cross bridges and go through cuts. By "hiding" some of the track behind mountains and buildings, the short main line seems longer.
Right now, Phase 2 of my layout is completely flat. Also, most of the track is parallel to the benchwork. It's a narrow section, only 2 1/2 feet, so the track can't really go very far in any other direction. I have one section which is so far undesigned, and it may well feature a mountain, or at least a hill, for the trains going to and from staging to slip behind.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
UP 4-12-2My pet peeve is reading about some "name" layout and seeing way too many lichen "trees" in the photos.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
UP 4-12-2 Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts.
Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts.
I want to respond to you a second way also...
None of the things that I mentioned, by themselves, would seriously deter my "appreciation" of the layout-- heck, even *all* of the things wouldn't do that really. I can even (sort-of) enjoy a train running around in a simple loop of track (for a few minutes).
But the layout I saw had so many issues-- it really spoke to me, (A) personally and individually about my own skills and abilities, and the possible future of my own layout-- but also (B) pointed out a lot of things that I think other people struggle with-- whether they know it or admit it or not.
It is extremely obvious and apparent that the modeler who's layout I've been talking about is interested and engaged in building his layout and doing the best that he can. And from that perspective I have *absolutely nothing* to say on the subject-- Kudo's to him, its great and fabulous and I'd love to run trains with him on it some day.
But from an *abstract* perspective-- which is exactly what I've given out-- there is a lot that can be said about it. And discussed. And points made. Comparisons of techniques made. Tips given-- all sorts of things that the people here could HELP each other with, including me and you, in understanding our own efforts, abilities and limitations, and scene composition, figuring out how to "blend" it all together. Making something cohesive-- figuring out which techniques *really* work, and which work to drag down the others.
Its a hard topic-- because nobody wants to put down a fellow modeler's efforts-- not me, and probably not anyone.
So how can we talk about it unless someone grabs it by the horns and starts talking about it??
jwhittenWhat tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?How can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion?
Just to address the above. I think it is important to put some time and effort into studying things that influence a scene, that may not be directly railroad related. The lay of the land and how roads and towns are laid out; the age of the buildings in the central business district, relative to the suburbs, relative to the new industrial park, etc. are important aspects of making a scene realistic. Towns in the Eastern US tend to have older CBD and follow rivers and streams, or mountain slopes. Towns in the prairie tend to have newer structures laid out 90 degrees to each other. Even older CBD's evolve, with high traffic areas like street corners, having a brand new convenience store/gas station built next to a 100 year old structure. 100 year old structures that were built before air conditioning, have had their abundant windows bricked in, perhaps with different color brick, etc. etc. Scenery items such as rock and hill formations and river banks should be studied as well.
The example you gave sounds like the modeler maybe focused too much on the trains, and placed buildings, track, people and cars, etc. on the layout without as much consideration to understanding geography or town planning or town evolution.
Studying those aspects may even be more time consuming than studying things that are directly railroad related; however, it is probably not the reason the modeler got into MRR in the first place. We we should probably all spend more time understanding how nonrailroad related events/items affect railroads.
- Douglas
UP 4-12-2 Another item I'll take a little issue with: Flat layouts. I opted for relatively simple benchwork and simple pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
I opted for relatively simple benchwork and simple pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
My layout is flat too. Like you, I also built very simple benchwork and am presently using pink insulation foam in lieu of a plywood table top.
As you can see, I wasn't kidding about the state of my own layout. Though mostly at the moment it is due to everything in my basement being in transition so I haven't really "begun" more than just this attempt to get the benchwork up, some pink foam on top, and some track pinned-down so my kids and I can play with the trains until the basement work gets completed.
I have posted other pictures of my "layout" on this site before-- search for "South Penn RR Updates", or "The Littlest Engineer" for additional photos. I quickly admit that what I've got to show right now isn't all that much and certainly not all that great. BUT, my sons (well, mostly son #1) and I have a lot of fun switching cars in the yard and doing pickups and setouts at the "industries".
And I know from my previous modeling efforts, that my skills are still pretty much in the "beginner" phase. Although I'm not bad at the carpentry and mechanical work, and have years of experience with electronics, computer programming and automation.
And I know what (little) amount of artistic talent I possess. I am actually scared that I won't ever be able to achieve what I see in my mind's eye. But that won't stop me from trying.
So if you or anybody else, wants to take shots at my own paltry modeling efforts and abilities-- please do, I invite you to do so. And I will do my best to take them head-on, bravely, and on-the-chin, so to speak.
As I said at the outset, I am *not* holding myself as a "Great Arbiter of Model Railroading", but rather asking questions-- including "tough" ones, in the hopes of stimulating discussion and conversation that I (if nobody else) can learn something from. And if other people can learn something too-- so much the better-- that would make me very happy indeed to know that.
I absolutely *love* talking to you all-- picking your brains and listening to your comments and opinions. You all are the ones that are filled with amazing talents that I want to know more about. But if there's ever anything anybody wants to know that I have some knowledge about, I'm always happy to chip in with what I know.
jwhittenPhoebe Vet"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work. How do you know I'm not looking at the pictures of my own layout?? Thanks for your comments. John
Phoebe Vet"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work.
"my goal isn't to "out" someone or belittle their efforts," but it is rude to publish a sanctimonious uninvited derogatory critique of someone's work.
How do you know I'm not looking at the pictures of my own layout??
Thanks for your comments.
Well, there are too types of people. Those who are their own harshest critic, and those who can see no wrong in what they do. However, this has no correlation on how they'll respond to criticism from others.
jwhitten Very true, but its often harder to "See" than we realize. And more than that, we often don't "see" what we think we see. How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
Very true, but its often harder to "See" than we realize. And more than that, we often don't "see" what we think we see. How many of us actually take time out of our busy days to stop and *look* at something? Not just glance at it and think "I should go back sometime and look at that more closely"-- but to actually, literally *stop* and SEE what is there?
My railroad modeling has made me better at "seeing." I do notice things I'd never looked at before, most commonly the details of roadside marshes, or the tops of buildings seen from elevated highways.
But, I don't model what I see, but rather what I remember. That's true both for that stand of cattails in the loop of the highway interchange, or the subway walls of my now-distant childhood. There are certain things about a scene which stick in my mind, while others are less important. So, when I model them, I really try to get those key elements right. I suppose, then, that the success of my modeled scenes depends as much on the viewer's memory as on mine. If their memory of subway stations is all about the hundreds of people waiting to board the train at rush hour, then my near-empty stations will not fit in as well with their vision, and they won't "get" what I'm doing with my models.
jwhitten"I Hate Your Layout"
Just wondering. How long did it take for you type this novel? and do you have a secretary?
The only problem I've had with my layout is the saliva that drips from my mouth now and then on the track when I'm simulating the drone of that prime mover as I push my wooden brio train set around and around.
First, a quote attributed to Terence: Nullum sit jam dictum quod non dictum sit prius.
He is saying, "Nothing is said which has not been said previously."
With the plethora of images and choices proferred on this and other fora, and with the intensely personal and emotional investments of all kinds of resources, sometimes at the cost of relationships or one's health, it is bound to happen that much of what each of us sees is going to fall short in our appreciation somehow.
There are so many variables in circumstance in the application of the various methods, materials, and skills needed for this hobby that it mirrors the way its practitioners look at cars or houses; some we like, some we hate.
I have always felt that there is plenty of room to accommodate all ways and means in this hobby, even to the extent of pink polka-dotted SD90MAC's running on 6% grades. If it brings a smile, it has served its purpose.
Oh, and I can't stand the lichen tree thing... Yeeesh!
-Crandell
UP 4-12-2Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork
This one is a non-issue with me too. In my mind, it is the benchwork that needs to follow the track plan.
I agree that having tracks run at angles to the viewer does help create more depth in a scene, and I've planned for that in a couple of my scenes. But sometimes, to get a scene to deliver the functionality it needs to deliver, or to maximize aisle space, or other similar considerations, the tracks are better off running parallel to the edge. I don't think I'd compromise on things like that just to satisfy a "nothing must be parallel" notion.
IMHO, of course
jwhitten How does one construct a layout that isn't just a "collection of tricks" ??
First I have to want something else. If I like "tricks" then a layout that is a "collection of tricks" is just what I wanted. I visited a layout on a layout tour many years ago that was a "bowl of spaghetti" design with all sorts of "cute" scenes scattered about it. It isn't the layout I would build, but many of those "cute" scenes had ties to his friends and family. Like a friend of mine from any years ago who had a layout made with Tru-scale track and Life-Like scenic paper mountains. He recieved unending ribbing from other modelers, but he had tremendous fun with the layout. The perfect layout is the one that meets your needs.
How does one develop one's "critical eye" and abilty to "edit"?
Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time.
History, the prototype and one's own mind. If you want an outside opinion you have to ask for it.
How does one learn to accept criticism without taking it personally?
Well first you actually have to recieve it. The current philosophy on this and many other forums is that you never say anything "bad" about anybody's efforts unless they ask for feedback. As a result most efforts get a slathering of "Good Job!", "Looks great!" posts. I rarely open threads that even look like those type of "see what I've done", because I can't stand all the sugar coated feedback on something that very poorly executed. It does nothing to help them improve. See your question on the "unvarnished truth".
Don't know, didn't read it, your "questions" have gotten soooo long and wordy my eyes glaze over. I just cut to the chase. I "hate" long winded discertations, if the proposition is longer than maybe 2 paragraphs, unless its truly compelling reading, I'm skipping it. You asked about how to take criticism, there ya' go. 8-)
What tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts?
Study, study, study. Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time. Look at model pictures and plans with a critical eye. Look at prototype pictures witha critical eye. Skip the 3/4 wedgie roster shots and concentrate on the aerial photos and overhead facilities shots or panoramas. Spend and entire day photgraphing at your favorite spot BUT don't take a single picture of a train. Take pictures of everything else. Turn around and look away from the tracks. Stop just asking questions on a forum and do some real research.
Study the prototype. Study art. Study photo composition.
Study, study, study. Practice, practice, practice. Research, research, research. Time, time, time.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
OK, John
Construction was much simpler (my father, a great carpenter also provided the benchwork--it was his last significantly large project for me as his age is beginning to hinder his work).
Obviously, with just the single 2" foam layer, I chose not to weaken it much by cutting into it. Instead, there are hills and rock formations that go up, and I did cut one dry wash into the foam, to give some lower than trackwork relief.
Some will look at my layout and see that it's mainly flat--yet much of it is Mojave desert or Saguaro Desert--which both have large expanses of relatively constant (smooth) grade, though they are not "flat" at all. There also is a rock formation reminiscent of Union Pacific's Castle Rock, and an area intended to evoke the Echo Canyon, Utah, vicinity...and a winter mountain scene.
If someone opts to save a little on their construction challenges, I don't necessarily think it's wrong to have a "mostly flat" layout.
My 2c.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Just to toss in a word of encouragement here:
I *love* the comments I'm reading and the direction the discussion is taking so far. Please don't stop that direction. Let's keep on and see where that goes...
But one of the things I was hoping for, was more actual conversation about the "faulted items" (my words-- perhaps poorly chosen) that I used in my illustration.
Not only-- what else do people have "issues" with when they see / encounter it, but also the remedial aspect-- what can be done about it?
What are positive, constructive comments that can be made to assist people who may be reading along and going... "Hey, that's me and that's my layout-- but how do I *fix* it??"
Thanks again for everybody's comments!!! You folks are terrific and I love reading every one.
howmus73
I see we're dealing with a real Ham here...
howmusI have avoided posting on these threads so far, but...... Always ignore anything that comes before the word "but".
Welcome aboard!
I'm sorry that you haven't participated before-- I love reading comments, good or bad, and the more the merrier! My goal is to stir up discussion-- to get people thinking about stuff they don't normally think about. I am glad you are joining us now.
howmusAs Superintendent of an NMRA Division I get the chance to visit many layouts. I always tell folks that I always learn something when I visit layouts. Sometimes I find some technique which would work great on my layout, and other times I see things that aren't anything I would want to do........... Usually, a little of both.
That sounds like fun. For me, I do kind of the same thing, but I do it virtually, surfing the pictures people post of their layouts and projects. And I'm like you-- I learn a lot by watching and/or reading whatever documentation or commentary that people post along with their pictures. There's a lot of stuff to find out there and every week I find new stuff to think about and admire. It is amazing the wealth of diversity with respect to knowledge, skillsets and focus that's out there. It is a veritable buffet to be certain!
howmusA big part of MRRing for me is the journey, much more than the outcome.
Yes, as I become more immersed back into the hobby, I am finding that out for myself as well. I originally jumped back in with both feet and an open wallet determined to have everything set up and done by the "end of the week" (figuratively speaking). And since then I have become more tempered and thougtful / reflective of what I'm doing and hoping to accomplish-- and I've given myself permission to "get it done when it gets done", which as far as I'm concerned is probably the best gift a modeler can give himself.
howmusI later got a great email from one of them reiterating that they liked my work and thanking me for my information. Those things tend to make one feel very good........
Yes, that's a very good point, even though you weren't making it directly (I don't think)-- its always good to tell people (give them feedback) about the good stuff too. Criticism really can cover both elements-- its just feedback, the answer to "How'd I do?" If you like something, say so. At least people are more susceptible to doing that.
Wow. What a subject. But a very common subject which I think you approached very well and hope it is treated the same. So far these discussions have been surprisingly civil.
I will attempt to give my views of a few of the items and emphasize they are just my opinions.
I feel the most problems we have are with the human ego and a bit of non-understanding of others. We have a tendency to look at something through our eyes and our eyes alone. We must first understand that each one of us has a different outlook, desire and view for the end result. We must first approach a persons work with the "I like squash, you don't" attitude. Just because you do or do not like it doesn't make it bad, you just prefer something different. Keeping this in mind should keep the critique un hurtful and actually much more helpful because it softens the gut reaction to defend. One must also have the same attitude when receiving comments. If one understands that everyone likes something different and it is just an opinion you can take or dismiss, then the act of defense can be calmed. This requires, however, the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude to not be involved. So many times that is conveyed to the modeler that the person who makes such comments is not only telling you what he prefers, but that it is actually the only way it should be done.
I think Picasso paints like a third grader, others think it is art. Does that mean I think these people are wrong? No. Just different opinions of what one likes. The same with Model Railroading. After all each model is just a real life version of a persons vision. Some love hills and mining or logging. Some like flatland and long intermodels. Diesel, steam, switching, roundy rounds. Each has their own idea of what they want and each of us has to understand that just because we want 100% prototypical, someone else may want just a train or something in between. Some are more into the modeling of scenery, some are more into the modeling of trains. Some are more interested in the operation and just have on the layout a fixture to represent what the train is to do. Any of it wrong? No. Any of those not what I want or like? Yes.
If we keep in mind that a person doesn't have the same vision that another necessarily does then I think things can be much more civil and therefore more productive. Do you don't walk up to a person and they introduce their wife to you, do you say, "gee, she's horrible" and then start picking her apart as to what you would pick in a wife? I'd hope not. That may not seem the best comparison, but the concept is the same. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what someone wants out of a relationship isn't always what another wants. Keep this in mind when viewing a layout.
Now, does that mean I'm saying don't say anything unless asked and then sugar coat it with fantastic, wonderful, glorious? No. Not at all. Just keep in mind when making comments that what you see as a result isn't necessarily what the modeler has in mind. And likewise when you receive a comment that suggests something different than what you did, or need to do, that the person is just offering their opinion the same as suggesting a color for you next car. You can do what you want. It is your railroad. But, always keep an open mind when someone offers a suggestion because they may just have an idea you like or don't see until they point it out. It's all in the delivery.
Someone shows a picture of a weathered boxcar. You see you don't care for it for some reason. You have several ways to approach. You can:
not make a comment at all. This doesn't really help the person at all, especially if you see something you can help them with. Again it's personal to an extent
Make a general statement such as "looks good" or "getting better". This again could give a false impression the modeler is doing well and doesn't help. Though adding a "getting better" doesn't hurt.
Make a smoothed over "I like this, but that could be better by doing this" Probably the, arguably, best approach. You are telling the modeler what he has done well, to let him know what technic works,(and pat on the back) and you are telling him what he can do to improve.
You can just make a "I think it needs this" or "try doing it this way" " or even " well it kinda looks like someone painted it on. Try this" This, IMHO, is not mean just giving someone your opinion and why you feel that way. Maybe they can see the same when someone tells them. The commenter is not rude, but the modeler must also understand that it is just his opinion and if you disagree, then you disagree. Also, not everyone wants to sit and write a 5 minute critique on a project and they shouldn't be expected to. They just point out what they see needs improvement. Nothing wrong with that.
The last and the one that causes so much grief, is the " that looks like crud. Why don't you read some books. Looks like a fifth grader had a fit with a paint brush. You using crayons?" type answer. Those comments serve no purpose other than to insult the modeler. Not assist him with his work. They are usually, but not always, made by folks who rarely show their work if they even have any, and/or generally reach out for the dictionary for the literal definition of the word "critique" and argue it's what you should expect if you post a picture.
Does all this mean the commenter needs to be wishy washy and walk on eggs? No. The modeler needs to, when posting a picture, be prepared for some to have less than positive comments on his work. That is going to happen. But the commenter need not be insulting. That serves absolutely no purpose.
As for who to turn to for honest assessments. I think most all will give honest assessments. It's how they are given and taken that is the key.
As for the layout appearance question. Like I said To each their own, but asking questions is a start. Also one of my realizations is, on my layout, I can't have everything I want, for that very reason. One must step back and say, "you know, I can't fit that in there because, well, it just doesn't work." Probably the hardest thing to do.
My opinions, yours of course will vary.
Todd
Central Illinoyz
In order to keep my position as Master and Supreme Ruler of the House, I don't argue with my wife.
I'm a small town boy. A product of two people from even smaller towns. I don’t talk on topic….. I just talk.
Colorado_MacWow. Obviously I have a lot to learn about the artistry of replying to these posts in a way they can be easily read! I'll work on that!
Heh, no sweat-- if they waded through all my verbiage, yours is a piece of cake.
1. Well, I too have read many modeling articles over the years, and there are indeed certain things that make me cringe. Among them are lichen "trees". My pet peeve is reading about some "name" layout and seeing way too many lichen "trees" in the photos. Could people at least shell out a little cash for some nicer "foreground" trees or other vegetation? I mean--some folks have hundreds of engines--perhaps a few nice trees wouldn't break the budget, right?
2. Regarding the mainline trackwork generally following the benchwork (and that being visually "undesirable"): some of us have to be careful with our basement R/W acquisition. Some of us have to leave part of the basement open for other things. Also--when there's a derailment, one needs to be able to physically reach the derailed rolling stock without needing a specialty over-layout creeper, right?
My layout design was based upon the knowledge that I needed to accommodate some larger locomotives, and I wanted a separation between the edge of the layout and the track so that derailed equipment remains on the layout. It ended up working out that my mainline does indeed follow the edge of the benchwork--especially along the large return loops at each end of the (twice folded dogbone) layout.
So what? I had only limited space, and I had to make the most of it.
3. My layout exists for one main purpose: to be able to accommodate large, fast trains that run reliably. Everything else is secondary to that. I like scenery, and am hoping that my scenery, as items are added, will provide interest that is missing from my simple track plan. However, sometimes less trackwork is indeed more visually. I'm still trying to figure out how to add all the scenes I'd like to add to my layout--there just isn't room for everything--yet the trackwork itself is minimal but complete (3-#6 turnouts on the mainline, with 3 other #6 turnouts located on sidings).
4. Regarding the need for a layout to be "interesting". Many of the layouts I see in MR just don't do anything for me. I have a friend, an excellent photographer and award winning modeler of his particular railroad. His layout was featured in MR, and also made the front cover a few years ago. It was extremely well done--but also boring as all get-out. A true, prototypically accurate point-to-point branchline railroad set in a desolate location of the west, with no provisions for continuous running, and a train could traverse the entire mainline in less than a minute (unless doing the branchline 5 mph crawl). Excepting one or two scenes, I really didn't like my friend's layout. My son liked it for all of 5 minutes.
My layout has to please me, and will most certainly never please MR's editorial staff. They have different goals and desires of what they want to see in a layout than me, though I would avoid the "spaghetti bowl" trackplans at all cost. That's actually about the only thing I might agree with them on!
Colorado_Mac i see model railroads as works of art, not only in looks but in operation. Like any art (painting, writing, architecture, music), most humans can master the basic tools.
I completely agree with that. And from past discussions, I think there is a fairly large contingent of folks here who likewise agree. And even among those who disagree-- many of those do so only on a technicality, a parsing of what the word "art" or "artist" means and not a specific dispute that the work itself is creative and generally "original".
Colorado_MacOften we can copy very well. But an "artist" - even a mediocre one - is the person who can use those tools to produce something that is more than a collection of parts.
I think that is well-said, and a point that should not be lost from the discussion. What makes some people more technically-oriented while others are more artistically inclined? That may be a facet of simple human nature and personality-- that which makes one person unique and different from another, and yet there are still similarities to varying degrees amongst all of us.
Colorado_MacWhat tips and scene-composition / layout-composition techniques could you contribute to someone who is just beginning to learn about the concepts? Open your eyes. Look at the world everyday, hopefully in a different way, and REMEMBER what you see. Think about it. You may drive the same route every day, twice a day on your commute. But then you ride in the passenger seat, with someone else driving, and suddenly you will see things you never noticed before, and see things you have seen before in a different way. If we, as model railroaders, use our eyes and our memories to catalog the real world, rather than watch our Blackberry screens or our feet, t will be much easier to recreate it in miniature. All that said, there are many people who will never be able to create art. This is why we admire so greatly those who can.
I think its difficult, especially when we're driving along in our cars to notice stuff. Partly perhaps because we're whizzing along so fast. Maybe because we're focused on the road and other drivers. Maybe because we're preoccupied with other concerns of the day. Whatever the case, whatever the reason-- how many of us look around us to "see" what is there? Study the wonderful colors and textures and interplays between shadows and light? To "see" the shapes and how they combine and merge and interweave and overlap to give us the things around us we pass by and take for granted every day?
How many of us are *able* to "see" if we even tried?
I have avoided posting on these threads so far, but...... Always ignore anything that comes before the word "but".
As Superintendent of an NMRA Division I get the chance to visit many layouts. I always tell folks that I always learn something when I visit layouts. Sometimes I find some technique which would work great on my layout, and other times I see things that aren't anything I would want to do........... Usually, a little of both.
I can honestly say my own ability as a modeler has improved greatly in the last several years! I look at scenes I did just 2 or 3 years ago and think, "What was I thinking..."! The growth in my my own skills come from being able to see others model railroads both on line, and in person. I have also been challenged to become a better modeler through the NMRA Achievement Program which set some high standards. I know what I was doing 4 or 5 years ago would not be close to getting the Scenery Certificate which I earned a few months back.
A big part of MRRing for me is the journey, much more than the outcome.
If I see something I don't like??? All depends on my purpose for being at the persons layout, whether we are alone, and whether the person is looking for "suggestions". I can almost always find something about the layout I like. I sometimes ask how the person did the scene and why. It can then lead to a "honest" evaluation of the work and offer suggestions for improvement. I try to read the persons comfort level and interest in hearing comments from me.
I am always surprised (and pleased) when someone says they love my work on the layout and ask me how I got to the point I am at.... I don't consider myself thee expert in any area of Model Railroading. Recently two gentlemen (one a MMR) were very taken with the lighting system I use on my layout and wanted to know exactly what I did, where they can get the same bulbs, and how much they cost. I later got a great email from one of them reiterating that they liked my work and thanking me for my information. Those things tend to make one feel very good........
73
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
PASMITHAlthough it is not necessary to enjoy the hobby, one must decide what is important to you and to have or want to have a preconceived vision of what your ideal is. This is difficult because outside influences and personnel preferences change over time. If one does not have a vision, it may be hard to directly address these questions because there is no frame of reference and a snap judgement is not of much help.
True, agreed.
PASMITHOnce you have a vision that diverges from the work you are viewing you can pretty much make a comparison to your own work and make adjustments accordingly.
This is the tricky part. How do you (A) ever discover that a divergence exists ? And (B) what can you do about it ? And (C) what can you use as a "yard-stick" to measure your performance / improvement ?
Especially since so much of it is subjective anyway.
I suppose one could always put out surveys and solicit (supposedly) unbiased opinions from others. Of one could compare his/her work to that of others. But then again, that presupposes the modeler has the ability to "step back" from their work, "step out of the picture"-- so to speak-- and look objectively upon his/her work and use their "critical eye" to assess and understand what's "right" and "wrong" about their scene and composition-- and *then* to figure out some type of remedial project plan to correct / improve the deficits-- and particularly without overly interfering with whatever positive aspects exist.
I know that I often have that problem-- the first part in particular, being able to step back and look at something I've done or created less subjectively (more objectively) and try to see the faults and weaknesses along with the strengths and positive elements. As a modeler, your scenes tend to be highly "personal" and criticism of them, even criticism originating internally, often tends to be down-played or ignored. Which is a shame, because often the "critical" aspect is directed at just a tiny portion of the overall whole and could probably be addressed without overly interfering with the positive aspects.
It is a definite conundrum.
One specific thing that I do, in my own works-- whether modeling, carpentry, home remodeling-- whatever, is to take copious pictures of the scene and the work-piece (or work-space.. object in question) from many different angles, both in and out of the scene if possible, so as to see *it* rather than my internal "image" of it. The camera doesn't lie, it faithfully (for the most part) records what it sees-- and that's what you see when you look at the final recorded images. It can be a very useful technique for studying and gaining insight into whatever it is you're working on-- and critically assessing your work, or your work-piece / work-space to determine what needs doing and how to go about resolving it.
Thank you very much for your comments, they are much appreciated!
MisterBeasleyMy most critical eye is my own, in many ways. My yardstick, through the 6 years or so that I've been back in the hobby, has been our own Weekend Photo Fun. What I used to think was "pretty good" has slipped to "barely acceptable," as I've gained a greater appreciation for really high-quality modeling. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. And, so it is with becoming a better modeler. It takes study, effort and time, plus the understanding that you won't always get it right the first time, and occasionally you'll just never get it right.
My most critical eye is my own, in many ways. My yardstick, through the 6 years or so that I've been back in the hobby, has been our own Weekend Photo Fun. What I used to think was "pretty good" has slipped to "barely acceptable," as I've gained a greater appreciation for really high-quality modeling.
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the light bulb has to want to change. And, so it is with becoming a better modeler. It takes study, effort and time, plus the understanding that you won't always get it right the first time, and occasionally you'll just never get it right.
A very astute observation, thanks very much for your comments!
TeditorA very thought provoking subject, and in my mind very well put, you are not trying to be offensive, but I am sure there will be modellers that will see your comments as such.
Thank you!
And agreed, I have put a lot of thought into it over the course of the week, how to delve into this topic in a respectful, non-confrontational, discussion-provoking manner.
For me-- just me-- one of the things that nearly always "gets me" is when I spot the old Revell (or AHM-- whatever it is) "Lumberyard" or "Train Depot" structures. There are others as well, but those two in particular. And I have one of each on my own layout-- so there's some aspect of irony there too At some point I will remove them. But for now they're busy filling space that would otherwise be empty. And when your entire landmass is PINK, that's an important consideration!
TeditorHow can someone "put it all together" and achieve scenic cohesion? I really believe that very few modellers can really achieve the total package, otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
That might be true-- I don't know-- but suffice it to say at the least they have to have a desire to improve, or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate them!