Even a guard rail beside a building and one car positioned as if parked could give the impression of that space and function. It needn't be most of, or all of, a parking lot. Seems to me we just need some triggers here and there, something where the viewer remarks on it and exclaims that it's a nice and realistic feature. I notice Lance is good with loading docks and things that make his layouts look like we're walking along the adjacent tracks on a Sunday morning, something I would probably do.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBeing an architectural designer, I too an bothered by stuff like that just could not work. Sometimes it is plausable that such things are on the unseen side of the building - but sometimes they need to be modeled. Sheldon
IMHO even a hint of a employee parking lot is better then nothing..Why not add a trailer drop lot to your biggest industry? Again all that is need is a hint not the complete lot since that may require 10 or more trailers instead of (say) six which works out to three in each row which suggests a larger lot...
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
IRONROOSTERI'll admit that I hadn't thought of a haunted house. But now that Neil brings it up, I think I'll include one.
Model Power makes a haunted house complete with a ghost in the window..
https://www.walthers.com/haunted-house-kit
ROBERT PETRICK BMMECNYC I think we are missing the point . . . As to the candy and pickle factory, where do the employees park? Where is the loading dock for trucks to take the finished products to the local 5 and 10? This touches one of my partucular observations. Many layouts don't seem to provide accommodations for the tiny humans that inhabit our miniature worlds. The biggest and most noticeable feature of any given large factory or industry is the employee parking lot for the hundreds of shift workers inside and the network of streets and highways connecting to the rest of the world. Nobody (well, almost nobody) includes such stuff. My new layout will feature these things, up to and including the drive thru lane at the local prompt service restaurant. Wasted space, I know. But important to me. Robert
BMMECNYC I think we are missing the point . . . As to the candy and pickle factory, where do the employees park? Where is the loading dock for trucks to take the finished products to the local 5 and 10?
I think we are missing the point . . .
As to the candy and pickle factory, where do the employees park? Where is the loading dock for trucks to take the finished products to the local 5 and 10?
This touches one of my partucular observations. Many layouts don't seem to provide accommodations for the tiny humans that inhabit our miniature worlds. The biggest and most noticeable feature of any given large factory or industry is the employee parking lot for the hundreds of shift workers inside and the network of streets and highways connecting to the rest of the world. Nobody (well, almost nobody) includes such stuff. My new layout will feature these things, up to and including the drive thru lane at the local prompt service restaurant. Wasted space, I know. But important to me.
Robert
Being an architectural designer, I too an bothered by stuff like that just could not work. Sometimes it is plausable that such things are on the unseen side of the building - but sometimes they need to be modeled.
Sheldon
Then you also have where I used to live, all Victorian row homes. So all side by side as you expect with row homes, but with Victorian styling like turrent windows and all sorts of gingerbread trim. Most of them have been converted to apartments, but originaly they were single family homes, mostly inhabited by middle and low level managers from the railroad. A slight distance away are the large single Victorians that were the homes to the executives, many of those these days have been converted to professional office such as lawyers. Most of that section of town falls under the control of a historic preservation district, my landlord when I lived there is the chairman of the historic commission and always fixes up any property he aquires there with authentic details, and paints them in authentic colors. What stinks is when there's one in the middle owned by some absentee landlord who could care less what his property looks like.
Do check out Cape May NJ. Also Franklin PA, although it suffers from much the same problem as here, in that there will be one incredibly beautiful home like Sheldon's, and then the next one will be in clear disrepair. The historic district in town is listed on the national Register of Historic Places, but is not only Victorian but also Queen Anne, Greek Revival, and Federal.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
If I want ordinary, I can walk out the front door and drive around the town for that.
While I'm loosely following the Ma&Pa, I'm also including what interests me. And pickle factories interest me. So I'll include one even if it's not correct or ordinary.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought of a haunted house. But now that Neil brings it up, I think I'll include one.
I'm in this hobby to have fun.
Paul
After seeing this thread, I came home and re-read the column. I don't see that anyone is wrong in this. The column was written in the context of the issue: realism. If you care for realism and your prototype has a haunted pickled-candy factory surrounded by victorian homes then you're golden. :)
Otherwise, a significant amount of track is surrounded by factories, warehouses, and more-or-less bland buildings. But that doesn't mean all of it is.
A few more observations:
"Victorian Mansion", how many sq ft make a mansion? My house, the blue one in my earlier post, is only 3850 sq ft, plus about 950 sq ft of front porch, 5 bedrooms and 2.5 baths. Not a mansion by my standards. It was "typical" of middle class or upper middle class housing of the time. It was built in 1901. Not as big as most of 10-30 year old vinyl McMansions elsewhere in my area.........
Old houses just look bigger because of the deep porches and different proportions.
I can only speak with great authority about this region, I have lived here all my life, and I work in residential architecture and historic restoration.
But big houses on small lots were common in 1900. As was the close proximity of different classes of housing, industries and retail districts in the small towns of the east.
Any of you been to Cape May NJ? Do the google street view thing........
More later, I'm in beautiful Havre de Grace, a block from the tracks, waiting for the grandchildren to get off the school bus, as the AMTRAK horns blow in the background.
LINK to SNSR Blog
ATLANTIC CENTRALNot the case with the layout I'm refering to. Readers from this area likely know the layout. It is actually an example of my thinking, large but simple in terms of track, lots of scenery, deep, well detailed scenes.
Such layouts seem to be the minority when they should be the majority.
Even a 2' shelf layouts can offer up a wealth of detail.
Now,as what was that term that ISL scenery clinic speaker use? Oh! You "switchers" see the scenes that most modelers never notice along the back side of industry and therefore our scenery is far from your every day type layout scenery and as such calls for more attention to detail to include dock door details like dock plates and bellows. Then how about a car puller? Covered hopper loading/unloading details? Then there is a security fence with rail gate.How about security lights every 20' feet along the back wall with a security camera?
My house sits in one acre, but I can take you to 1900's neighborhoods in Baltimore and show you houses just as big as mine one after the other in rows on 1/3 acre lots. Same in Havre de Grace as well.
I think an important point here might be that Lance and Neil tried too hard to "simplify" their points. Not everything can effectively be reduced to a sound bite.
But that seems to be the way of the world today......
I think we are missing the point, its not that you shouldnt put a victorian mansion or any of those other structures on the layout, its about what fits.
Looking at the LDEs on page 30, I would say that the point that was being conveyed is those 3 victorian mansions are awfully close together (10 scale feet or less) on the plan on top. For the space allowed the 3 clapboard houses look more realisitic because there is space around them.
How big of a lot is your Victorian on Sheldon?
If I wanted Victorian in the composed scene, I would have deleted the middle one, giving adequate space for other essentials ie a driveway, garage (depending on era), a garden, someone mowing the grass, etc.
Probably would have deleted the haunted house, or at least moved it.
I beleive this is the point that is trying to be conveyed. There isnt really the space to "complete the scene".
"Realistic"
"Representative"
"Whimsical"
"Nostalgic"
"Quaint"
"Current"
"Modern"
"Historic"
Each of these words pertains on all layouts to one degree or another, and their relative weight, or impact, is determined by the person setting the parameters and goals for its achievement.
We remind each other, especially newcomers, that one should choose an era and ideally a place if one's intent it to faithfully (oh...yet another term!) replicate in scale what existed in those places, or what exist there today. If our goal is just to build a fair representation of a railroad, then we can accord to each other a lot of license. If we choose a certain town, or an industry in a town, we become more rigidly bound if we want to be faithful to its representation.
Lastly, we see differently. What stands out for each of us when we view the same setting is not necessarily the same. Our need for reminders, if they are needed at all, or our need for cues or representativeness, are unique to each of us. Sheldon might need that old Victorian, but he may need it to look as he saw it before he restored it...say as it was in 1972. Or, he may wish to have it appear on his layout after he'd done all that marvelous restoration. Lance sees what he sees, and it becomes the most salient as he replicates the setting.
dknelsonI think we can all agree that, at the very least, Neil met the primary goal of any editorial, which is to be thought provoking.
Or at least memory provoking.
dknelsonMy reaction generally is that his editorial would have made its points stronger, oh, about 40, 50 or more years ago
It did. This idea is at least 40 or 50 years. How ironic that an editorial about seeing the same stuff over and over is based on an old idea we've heard over and over.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
dknelson I think we can all agree that, at the very least, Neil met the primary goal of any editorial, which is to be thought provoking. My reaction generally is that his editorial would have made its points stronger, oh, about 40, 50 or more years ago, when the comparatively limited selection of plastic structure kits and figures, and the strong resistance to kitbashing that some modelers expressed, did tend to result in the same cliches being seen on layout after layout. If you visited a layout, it was almost a matter of a checklist: "Atlas lumber yard? check. Revell interlocking tower? check. Plasticville signal bridge? check. LifeLike freight station? check. Atlas turntable? check. Mrs. Spumoni hanging laundry? check." Dave Nelson
I think we can all agree that, at the very least, Neil met the primary goal of any editorial, which is to be thought provoking.
My reaction generally is that his editorial would have made its points stronger, oh, about 40, 50 or more years ago, when the comparatively limited selection of plastic structure kits and figures, and the strong resistance to kitbashing that some modelers expressed, did tend to result in the same cliches being seen on layout after layout. If you visited a layout, it was almost a matter of a checklist: "Atlas lumber yard? check. Revell interlocking tower? check. Plasticville signal bridge? check. LifeLike freight station? check. Atlas turntable? check. Mrs. Spumoni hanging laundry? check."
Dave Nelson
Agreed!
E-L man tom In a way, this thread makes a case in point for scratch building, or kit bashing at the least. I think Neil's point is accurate in that one can place more emphasis on the "actors", i. e. the trains themselves, and not enough attention to the "Set", i. e. the scenic details, which, in my opinion, are what make the trains more interesting, as well as portraying a purpose for that model railroad. In the work that I've seen of Lance Mindheim's, he portrays that very well. At the same time, he keeps the track configuration very simple, leaving more room for those scenic details.
In a way, this thread makes a case in point for scratch building, or kit bashing at the least. I think Neil's point is accurate in that one can place more emphasis on the "actors", i. e. the trains themselves, and not enough attention to the "Set", i. e. the scenic details, which, in my opinion, are what make the trains more interesting, as well as portraying a purpose for that model railroad. In the work that I've seen of Lance Mindheim's, he portrays that very well. At the same time, he keeps the track configuration very simple, leaving more room for those scenic details.
I agree, and that might have been what Neil was driving at. But it is a separate topic from what Lance was saying. Lance did not address the issue of over used "stock" commercial structures, he spoke specificly about bland vs interesting, about plan vs fancy, about less vs more.
For some the scenery/structures are an equal "player" with the trains, I wonder what Howard Zane might have to say.........
Again, I am all for scratch or kit bashed structures to maintain originality, the question here is what kind?
In the backyard of the only residence on my layout, there are a couple of hunters field dressing a velociraptor hanging from an A frame hoist. I doubt they had a permit for it.
.
Pickle factories and haunted houses make things fun. How does someone have the restraint to build a model railroad and not make it fun?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Tom,
You are expressing my thoughts on many a layout I have seen in my "career" of 53 years in this hobby. Quite often too much emphasize is put on the track plan and too little attention to the scenery and the setting of the layout. Scenery and structures are there to fill the gaps in between the tracks, giving the layout a rather "fabricated" than natural look. This goes for the scenery as well as for the structures placed on the layout.
Whenever I see a layout my fellow German model railroaders have built, I seem to have a deja vu - I have seen it before. No, of course I have not, but I have seen all the buildings before on other layouts. Hardly a soul goes through the pain of creating a bespoke, scratchbuilt building for a particular scene. It´s all those Faller, Vollmer, Kibri, Auhagen buildings that make the layouts all look alike.
The British show us how to do it!
carl425 One guy's whimsy is another guy's silly. I for one agree with Lance that believability, not necessarily realism, is achieved by modeling the ordinary. OTOH, I also agree with the most overused quote/excuse on this forum... "It's your railroad..." BTW, the idea of modeling the ordinary is not new.
Completely agreed. I'm real big on modeling "ordinary", but ordinary is very different from one area to another.
100 year old houses are rather common here in the Mid Atlantic, some well cared for, some not. And many are near railroad tracks given the nature of transportation in 1900.
BRAKIE ATLANTIC CENTRAL But it is not a shelf layout, the scene is more than 5 feet deep at that point. It is one of the most realistic layouts I have ever seen. I've seen shelf layouts with more realistic detail in that 5 feet then some basement filling layouts had in all its size. Attention to detail is what makes a great layout not the size. Personally I would rather have one highly detailed and fully believable shelf layout then a basement filling layout that lacks detail and believability..If one choose to look the majority of those basement fillers suffers from "Here a track,there a track everywhere a track" planning.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But it is not a shelf layout, the scene is more than 5 feet deep at that point. It is one of the most realistic layouts I have ever seen.
I've seen shelf layouts with more realistic detail in that 5 feet then some basement filling layouts had in all its size.
Attention to detail is what makes a great layout not the size.
Personally I would rather have one highly detailed and fully believable shelf layout then a basement filling layout that lacks detail and believability..If one choose to look the majority of those basement fillers suffers from "Here a track,there a track everywhere a track" planning.
Not the case with the layout I'm refering to. Readers from this area likely know the layout. It is actually an example of my thinking, large but simple in terms of track, lots of scenery, deep, well detailed scenes.
And I don't consider a 5' deep scene a "shelf" layout. Shelf layouts have 2' deep scenes, or less.
I am not really sure what we are actually discussing here. It seems to me that this is more of an "art pour l´art" discussion, as there is a prototype for just about anything we can imagine for our layouts. A street with a row of Victorian houses next to factories and simple worker´s homes - not unlikely. A Swiss chalet style house next to a cement loading facility - not unreal in Switzerland.
If you like it, than it´s probably OK.
OTOH, Sheldon´s post with those beautiful Victorian homes reminded me once again, how young a nation the US are. The earliest found settlement on the place I live in dates back to about 500BC, townhood was granted at the time of the crusades, the right to hold court was granted in the early 17th centure - 5 years before the Mayflower sailed off - yet we don´t have homes as pretty as the ones shown.
I really don't think Neil's point was to keep things to near trackside, though that may be Lance's approach. What I think Neil is on about is hitting up 10 different layouts and every one has that same haunted house kit on it. Or the house on fire kit. I'm sure you could find examples where there's one old Victorian standing in a 50's tract house development, but that would be rare and odd. Equally odd would be the opposite, modeling a Victorian era town and then throwing in a 70's modern house in the middle (though perhaps more likely - not all those glorious old Victorians are properly maintained). You might spill this over to the 'cutesy' industries and names - does everyone's model town need a Dewey, Cheatham & Howe law office? How big IS that firm anyway if they are all over the country?
I think the editorial was about being more realistic - so if you are modeling a town that DID have a pickle plant - well, the realistic thing is to include the pickle plant. Just randomly throwing different industries on to have industries, without regard for what makes sense for the area you are modeling - that's the sort of thing I feel he was talking about.
The point is that it attracts attention. Sure they are attractive houses, but is that where you want the attention to be.
Once upon a time, when I ran freight cars on the layout, I wouold only allow 40' brown cars. The train looks longer that way since the eye cannot focus on one point in the train, but continually sweeps up and down making the train look longer. You go and put abright RED or Green box car on that train and the eye locks on to it and you only see that car and ignore the rest of the train. Ergo, the train seems shorter: Is that all there is?
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
BRAKIE"Here a track,there a track everywhere a track"
Larry,
LOL......I agree.
Take Care!
Frank
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut it is not a shelf layout, the scene is more than 5 feet deep at that point. It is one of the most realistic layouts I have ever seen.
mlehman I don't think Neil and Lance's point was to argue that the examples given couldn't happen. Instead, they argued that such examples are often over-represnted in what is modeled.
I don't think Neil and Lance's point was to argue that the examples given couldn't happen. Instead, they argued that such examples are often over-represnted in what is modeled.
And the points made by myself and others above are that over represented is a matter of opinion, and highly dependant on what, where and when you choose to model, not a matter of realism.
I'll tell you what is over represented, Union Pacfic Big Boys, any 4-8-4 (considering there were only about 700 of them in all of North America) and a bunch of other high image, low quantity of prototype locomotives cranked out by the manufacturers. That is just my opinion.
But, that is apparently what the people want......or at least what they settle for.....
There is great layout not too far from me that models the N&W in great detail. A large section of the town of Luray Va is modeled accurately house for house, too many cute turn of the century houses to be realistic? But it is not a shelf layout, the scene is more than 5 feet deep at that point. It is one of the most realistic layouts I have ever seen.
Just my view, Lance is welcome to his.
Not only those type of industries but,many others like scrap yards,lumber companies,coal mines and large storage tanks.
This may be mind boggling to some but,those industries I mention may not even be rail served.