"Realistic" modeling

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mark300

Too realistic or not; 'Beauty is (still) in the eye of the beholder.'

Mark

Mark

I appreciate your input. I would like to reiterate my previous point when I started this post. I NEVER said that 'a-prototypical' layouts (in my eye) are NOT beautiful.

Some of layouts and designs that I've seen via the Internet are absolutely amazing! I can truly appreciate both the craftsmanship and the great attention to detail and time that the creator put into his layout. But as far as being or looking "realistic" or prototypical, it's still the exception rather than the rule. Striking a balance between "realism" and operational "interest" is a very fine and delicate line, in my opinion. (I'm still trying to figure it out.)

I would agree with (and hold to the philisophy to) a number of the respondants that have come to the conclusion that "less is truly more". Sometimes, there is "beauty in simplicity". [:D]

Tom

[Anonymous]

When I got my LIonel "O" in '49, I realized that railroad modelilng would require "the suspension of disbelief." N scale was a step forward, but with a huge basement to myself, I'm still in conpromise.

My principal peaves are giving up space to streets and parking and the necessity of running my Erie mainline next to the gothic arches of Pailsey Cathedral. When visitors view some of my buildings I'm sure thay ask themselves "How do they get there by car?"

[Anonymous]

When I got my LIonel "O" in '49, I realized that railroad modelilng would require "the suspension of disbelief." N scale was a step forward, but with a huge basement to myself, I'm still in conpromise.

My principal peaves are giving up space to streets and parking and the necessity of running my Erie mainline next to the gothic arches of Pailsey Cathedral. When visitors view some of my buildings I'm sure thay ask themselves "How do they get there by car?"

[robengland]

Rule 1: gotta be enough track there to keep me amused. Operating is my thing. For me less is less :)

[Mark300]

[tstage]

Mark,

Couldn't have said it better myself! [:D]

Tom

[AntonioFP45]

Very good discussion.

I remember reading years ago an editorial from Tony Koester in an MRR issue.

His advice on track planning: Remember; on a prototype railroad every piece of track has a purpose. They don't lay tracks for the sake of laying it as it is incredibly expensive.

I've sort of taken this to heart and now appreicate realistic looking track plans.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone has an airplane hanger to build a true-to-life trackage-to-landscape ratio.

Looking at most railroad photos in books, the scenery DOMINATES the tracks running through it. As a modeler, we have to compress operation into smaller spaces, to keep boredom from setting in while running trains.

I love scenery, and probably the main reason I haven't ever had a layout of my own (as I approach 50) is never having sufficient space to recreate what I see in real photos. Even in my beloved N Scale.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DPD1

I tend to agree... less is definitely better. That said, there are certain spots where real life imitates models. Especially in Pennsylvania. Check out this shot taken by Dave Kerr. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=60945
And there is an area in Duquesne that is even more jam-packed.

That area is leading into a steel mill (U.S. Steel Corp. - Edgar Thompson Works near Pittsburgh, to be exact) - and places like that are forced to be spaghetti bowls by their very nature because of limited real estate [sound familiar?]. That is one of the reasons I love steel mill railroad modeling.[:p]

However, there is one 12ft stretch of my layout where only a single-track main line will be visible - once I get the view block in place.

[West Coast S]

I've used actual photos and other resources to aid me, I have 40X80 of useable space available, no visible yards, no passing sidings, two four track stagging yards, one for Lodi the other for Kentucky House . Three small communties are planned, one with a through siding for setouts and three spurs, the scond two grain spurs and the third a gravel and quarry spur-lumber spur and house track as per what actually existed during my chosen time frame.


I could include a prototypical lumber connecting road to add variety. Scenery will dominate this layout, the Sierra foothills is the setting with the time frame frozen in the mid 20s, the line was an actual SP branch and great efforts are being made to replicate it as closely as possible .

Dave

[pcarrell]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Wow! [8)] I'm impressed! The "3, 4, or 5 tiers of trains on a mountain side" would definitely both fit and seem appropriate in this kind of depiction. Not surprsing (and very believable) if you were modeling a Europe RR line.

Outside of Europe though, it would still be the exception rather than the rule. Can you think of anywhere in the US one might find a similar set of lines?

Tom

How about this?

http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/mrmarvel.Html

Look at the seventh picture down the page. Thats the Eureka branch of the Rio Grand Western in Utah. I counted 4 tiers! [8D]

[Grubby]

I think you can "justify" just about anything if you really want to. For me, my trains run from somewhere to somewhere with some places in between. In order for them to do this, they can't run back over each other. I am also fanatical about being able to follow the train, so not cutting through peninsulas or running crossover loops are important to me and can't be negoiated away for any reason. The illusion of distance can only ever be an illusion but at least I can try..

[Anonymous]

Model railroading requires compromises and trade-offs. Even if I had half a basement or half a garage available, if I were in 'O' scale I would need a spaghetti bowl to do anything other than an industrial switching layout. A small point to point layout may be prototypical but if you have young kids they demand mountains, tunnels, bridges, rivers and continuous running.

I had a space of about 10 by 10 feet available for a layout. My son wanted tunnels, bridges, rivers and continuous run.. I wanted industrial switching, Jersey Central, and 1950's. I based my layout on the Turtle Creek Central with some modifications. The basic 4 by 8 has the continuous run options. It also has switching. The coal mine extension I came up with is completely different from what was published in Model Railroader. It is kind of like a time saver and includes a three way switch. Maybe it isn't completely prototypical, but both my son and I can do what we want with the layout. If I had my way, I'd do a point to point shelf around a room.

[SpaceMouse]

I just read through all the posts up to this point and I figure I'm in the less category. In my mind I divided up the the layout into sections and in each section the track, with the exceptions of industrial sidings, passes once through a section of layout.

There are two exceptions to this. In one section, I could not avoid having the grade between the two levels pass through the layout. In the other section a logging spur branched off and circled around above the mainline.

However, as a point of interest. The California Western laid over 40 milers of track to achieve 22 miles of separation between Willits and Fort Bragg. There were several horseshoe curves and many places where passengers in one train could see another train above them. However, I did not model this feature.

[Anonymous]

What are you modelling?
trains? ...you don't need track...you can put them on a shelf on the wall
track? ... who models track? you could put that on a shelf...
railroads?... now that could be different...
what do you want?
endless switching?
trains going by?
an escape from the life partner?
to impress visitors?
the pleasure of planning?
the pleasure of building?
the pleasure of sitting back and doing whatever you really want with it...

Now that is the real question.... the one we should ask first.... so many people put so much into the thing and end up disatisfied... so we need (I needed) to ask "What do i want to have at the end"?

Part of the whole hobby is hunting down the information and bits
part is the whole social side
part is the construction... benchwork, wiring, planning...oops, got the order wrong...

Those of us old enough started with tinplate and clockwork in a circle on the lawn.

You aint never going to model Techapi in 0 scale...

Ever tried to put together a photo fit or video fit?

After 40 years (at least) of toy trains I have realised that the crucial question is "What do I want from my HOBBY"?

My dog does what I tell him...so should my hobby. It's there for me. If I want scale length... then I have to accept the restrictions that imposes. if I want to run a service and switch cars in and out of industries... I adjust accordingly...

if I visit with another modeller I don't impose what I want for my layout.

If I go to an Indian restaurant I don't ask for egg fried rice.

I was a signalman, I have published information on UK signalling and operating practice...so people write and ask me "Where do I put the signals"? I write back and ask "What service do you want to run, what are your line speeds..."? and other boring stuff. Most say "I don't want to bother with that, just tell me where to put them"...answer, "Where you think they look pretty". A few get into a dscussion. the best go further and work things out for themselves from the discussion... the issue is...do you want an image or do you want to comprehend what you are trying to represent.

One is not better than the other.

BUT... if you want to portray a diorama type ""historical"" image...like a battle scene,
out -of-scale parts and signalling for Central Station on a logging line (If they don't do it there they do do it here) isn't going to fill the bill.

Then again... if you want to do you own thing... design trains for the Goblin King if you want...then why not?

We're supposed to enjoy it!

Something I enjoyed... in a RR modeler's mag... description of a club meet forum in which an "expert" advocated total realism... use metal for metal, wood for wood... as he got on to describing scenery modelling and started shovelling mud his fellow club members started edging to the back. then he got to making rock cuts...authentically... with dynamite...

[tstage]

Wow! This sure is a blast from the past! Did someone just stir up the coals, or dust this topic off because it came up on it's 1-year anniversary? Since I have only started one other topic in the last few weeks, I was somewhat surprised to find something else near the top written by me. Oh, well - still a good, thought-provoking thread.

Tom

[lesterperry]

I didn't try to squeeze anything. I looked at what others did. Descided i wanted it to look real. I also wanted to have a continuous loop so I could just watch them run. I wanted an operating railroad with switching and a sizable yard. I ended up with double main line. one short line. one fairly large yard and 2 hidden yards. I can run trains or I can operate a railroad.

Here you can see my yard

If you look to the bottom of the pic you will see a track to a buiseness and just in front of Locomotives going to right another spur to a business

Look to the right of locomotives and you will see a spur that goes to 2 businesses

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Okay, given all that: Where do you draw the line? How do you decide what is too much and what is not enough?

Whatever looks good to me. When I build a model layout, it will appeal to my interests, and if I think it looks good crammed with stuff, CRAM IT WITH STUFF I SHALL![:D] BUT...I don't particularly care for a crowded scene, unless it is supposed to be like that, like maybe a railyard in some cases.

Realism? What is this "realism" in which you speak? [:p]

[skiloff]

I'm glad this got bumped. This discussion has got me thinking in a completely different manor for my new N scale layout. Thanks to all who have posted.

[Anonymous]

I've crammed way too much trackage onto my 4x8, but I think it still represents a busy interchange area and it does provide lots of operations in a small space. There are many times when I have 5 or more consists running at the same time.

Hopefully, my next layout will be less a "spaghetti bowl" yet still retain the operational variety of the current one. I am planning more tunnels to provide view blocks and soften the round and round effect.

I love running as many locos as my power supply will allow, and its hard to do realistically in the small space I have available. (Next layout will be 5x8.)