On almost all layouts that I have seen on the internet and elsewhere, one thing that stands out the most is model cars, buses and trucks, The vehicles stand out because they lack the detail that is present on the trains themselves. A diorama or portion of a layout can show meticulous detail, but the vehicle, a car or truck ruins the overall image. I know modelers will place most detail on their trains, but a very generic looking car in the scene stands out. I consider this a reasonable criticism since so much detail is incorporated in all other areas of the layout. Miniature figures also leave much to be desired. It's the small "features" like figures, cars, street details that dedract from an otherwise highly detailed scene. I would suggest putting a bit more detail into the ancillary items so they enhance rather than degrade a scene. Some well detailed vehicles and figures are available in HO, but their cost is usually more than what a modeler wants to spend. I'm thinking of companies like Kibri, Woodland, etc. These vehicles can cost as much as $20+. I don't think modelers want to spend that much on a model vehicle, but if realism is wanted, they are worth it.
The beauty of this hobby is the fact that you can model like you want and I can model like I want. If I model the depression era there is a lack of pertinent vehicles. If you model the 1970s and have a 55 Chevy in a driveway, I'm not going to judge. I've seen layouts detailed to the last piece of trash stuck in the fence but still had a magical area with a UFO and little green men.
There's no wrong way or right way to portray your dreams and imagination.
Pete.
I think weathering and customizing vehicles, just like with any other man made item on a layout, can make up for the lack of detail any anything off the shelf. I just wish there was a bigger selection of 1930-1950's era models to choose from. And yes, at a somewhat lower price.
reasearchhoundI just wish there was a bigger selection of 1930-1950's era models to choose from. And yes, at a somewhat lower price.
Have you looked at Sylvan Scale Models? They are very nice resin kits but aren't difficult to put together. And the selection of cars, buses, and trucks in that era is quite impressive - at least in HO-scale.
Or, are you looking for RTR?
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
As soon as these Jeeps get to the Dealer's lot they should be showing up on the blacktop in the towns and dirt roads around the country.
Hey wrench567, I might have a '55 Chevy in the driveway on blocks. Bring 4 tires and a trailer and $250 bucks.
Yep $20.00 more or less makes for a expensive auto rack load let alone a whole town. I learned quickly to load only the Bi-levels and keep the Tri-levels empty.
OOPS! Wrong picture! That's the picture of Bridge Street, and there is baby Jumbo the elephant following James pushing his shopping cart. Oh look, some kid threw a tire up on the top of the light pole to the right of the blue Ford truck with the old stove in the bed.
That's better. Here's the picture ^ I wanted.
HEY, I build subways. Don't knead any stinkin vekles!
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Mr Ron On almost all layouts that I have seen on the internet and elsewhere, one thing that stands out the most is model cars, buses and trucks, The vehicles stand out because they lack the detail that is present on the trains themselves. A diorama or portion of a layout can show meticulous detail, but the vehicle, a car or truck ruins the overall image. I know modelers will place most detail on their trains, but a very generic looking car in the scene stands out. I consider this a reasonable criticism since so much detail is incorporated in all other areas of the layout. Miniature figures also leave much to be desired. It's the small "features" like figures, cars, street details that dedract from an otherwise highly detailed scene. I would suggest putting a bit more detail into the ancillary items so they enhance rather than degrade a scene. Some well detailed vehicles and figures are available in HO, but their cost is usually more than what a modeler wants to spend. I'm thinking of companies like Kibri, Woodland, etc. These vehicles can cost as much as $20+. I don't think modelers want to spend that much on a model vehicle, but if realism is wanted, they are worth it.
Well Ron, it depends on your perspective. If you are getting really close to a model scene and examining every detail ok, not every HO scale vehicle that has ever been made is a model masterpiece.
BUT, consider this, when you view a scene, or some part of a scene, from 3 actual feet away, you are 261 scale feet away.
Go to your local shopping mall and look at an auto that is 261 feet way. How much detail do you see? Are you even sure what brand or model it is?
And before you respond, I feel the same way about the trains themselves. While I have some very nice high detail models, both RTR and ones I have built, I don't require museum level detail on every piece of rolling stock.
I'm building a big layout, 1500 sq foot room, deep scenery (3-5 feet in most places) and I have pretty high detail standards.
But sometimes detail is added but is oversized - in that case I think it is better left off.
Little 1/87 scale humans, yes some look better than others. Few are really that convincing up close. But the "Lady of the lake" is still fun.
A note about vehicles and weathering. I don't weather many vehicles. Be it 1950, or 1930, or 2020, from a distance most cars look relatively clean and good condition.
I model 1954, people were buying new cars like crazy, we can justify a little "optimistic" modeling.
I will not address the cost issue, we all have different resources available for this hobby.
Sheldon
As for cars on auto racks, well I don't model the "auto rack era", but being a 50's modeler, I do have a few of the experimential EVANS 50' open auto racks.
They are populated with generic 50's sedans sold by LifeLike years ago and look very much like Chevy's and Buick's of the era.
But in 1954, most new autos were still moved in 50' double door box cars, of which I have lots......
Mr Ronone thing that stands out the most is model cars, buses and trucks, The vehicles stand out because they lack the detail that is present on the trains themselves
Hi Mr. Ron,
I agree, mostly. There certainly are some hideous vehicle models out there. I'm referring to the all plastic cheapos that have no interior or floor and snap in black plastic axles. Those distract me!
However, the good quality models I find to be very attractive. Yes, they are expensive! Shipping alone to Canada can be $20.00! Fortunately I bought most of my vehicles years ago so I'm able to avoid today's sticker shock. I did just buy one of Woodland Scenics 'Just Plug' cars for what I thought was a reasonable price. It is nicely done, and it has a driver!
I like to enhance my models by adding lights and drivers/passengers, but adding people is what grinds me! There are almost no HO scale figures that are designed to fit into an HO scale car without having to be butchered significantly. I believe the manufacturers would do well if they offered figures with just heads, arms and torsos with the back of the torso hollowed out to fit the typically oversized seats.
That brings up another beef. Almost all vehicle seats are too thick and too close to the steering wheel. Cutting the depth of the seat backs by half would go a long way toward solving that.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I have 98 vehicles with head, tail lights and some with marker lights that look quite good close up;Here is a 1951 Rolls Royce that was a kit that I bought off eBay for $8 delivered.Here are a few more eBay vehicles.I found this jeep in the park, it was squished into the ground for what looked like several years. It cleaned up pretty good.
EDIT:
I also have about 700 HO figures on my layout that look good up close, most are Mel castings all are hand painted. I love tiny figures.
I have to amputate the feet in most vehicles the Jeep above is an exception, I wanted the young ladies legs to show so I cut the bottom floor out to keep the legs.
All my passengers in my passennger car have feet, I reised the seats to accommodate the passengers feet.
Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
RR_MelI have 98 vehicles with head, tail lights and some with marker lights
Hi Mel,
Your vehicles are beautiful! Perhaps I could convince you to explain how you supply power to them so others can benefit from your modelling creativity. Personally, I think it is one of the best innovations in HO scale modelling.
I plan on using your system even though that will mean reworking every illuminated vehicle that I own. It will be well worth the effort!
I'm modelling the late '30s, so most of my vehicles are from Jordan and Sylvan, but a do have a few that are a little too modern or are solid castings from the correct era....
...and, like many others, I'm often called upon to perform operations on both drivers and passengers...
...representing the late '30s also allows for use of much older vehicles, too...
...and maybe I'll eventually get around to adding reins and the other tack appropriate to horse-drawn vehicles. (We had both dairy and baked goods delivery, using horses, into the early '50s.)
These trucks date from the 'teens and early '20s...
...but were still around in the '30s, as many couldn't afford newer ones.
Here are a couple of the solid-casting vehicles...
Wayne
I fully see the OP's point. I considder my HO vehicles to be a hobby in itself, one that at least is usable in connection with the layout. (unlike my 1/25 builds) I'd rather have too few, but good looking vehicles than an ample array of those that miss mthe mark.
When I place a vehicle on the layout it either helps make the scene, or detracts from it. Where to draw the line is hard to say, but I can sure tell which way it goes when I post a picture of it here on the forum! Thus:
Photographs brutally expose imperfections that can easily go unnoticed when viewing in person. And our vehicles are one of the most glaring examples of this. I say "our" vehicles, because I'm including my own offenders. Kinda just the way it is, sometimes.
Now, to throw a spin on the discussion, here's something I can't figure out: Say I'm going to go work on a given structure on the layout. There are vehicles parked around it. Instead of putting them off the layout, I quickly grab and set them over on a nearby handy space somewhere else on the layout that will get them out of the way.
Come back in the room a day or 2 later, and somehow, those vehicles look good placed just the way they landed. They have a natural look about them. But then, when I carefully place them where they logically "belong" they look stiff and posed.
Dan
Hi Wayne,
Your vehicles are all beautiful, and you have done a masterful job of fitting people into them. However, I have a minor problem with the vehicles in the last couple of photos. I just can't get past the painted windows. Please understand that I am not criticizing your excellent work. This is very much a personal issue. I haven't purchased any Sylvan products precisely for that reason. Maybe some day I will buy one to see if I can hollow out the interior and open up the windows without destroying the thing. Edit: Tom has informed me that Sylvan models do come with open interiors and details, including a driver figure. I stand corrected.
FWIW, I would rather have open windows with no glazing rather than painted windows. That's just me.
That's it. From now on I'm buying all my vehicles from the RR Mel & Dr Wayne store. I just have to find it....
Beautiful work, both of you.
Mike
hon30critterHowever, I have a minor problem with the vehicles in the last couple of photos. I just can't get past the painted windows...I haven't purchased any Sylvan products precisely for that reason. Maybe some day I will buy one to see if I can hollow out the interior and open up the windows without destroying the thing.
Dave,
I believe those last three photos in Wayne's post above with the solid bodies & painted windows are not Sylvan Models - i.e. unless they are very early ones. I have put together several Sylvan kits and they all came with open interiors, a "torso" driver, rubber tires, and a clear plastic front & rear window insert. If painted well they make very nice looking vehicles. Their truck trailers are extremely nice, too.
Take a look at the link I provided earlier to see what Sylvan has to offer. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
[Edit: Although more limited in scope, I agree that Oxford is a great bang-for-the-buck for RTR vehicles.]
I recently got an Oxford Diecast 1946 DeSoto Suburban because I was impressed by its detail at a relatively low price. I see several Oxford Diecasts at online train stores and the going price is around $10. They've got a few cars in the 1930s to 50s timeframe.
For me, what's most jarring about a vehicle scene, is when stationary vehicles are positioned on the road as if they should be driving... looks weird to me when I see a moving train but on an adjacent street the cars are frozen in time. So I like to position my cars (not that I have many yet) in positions of rest, eg, parked, or trucks at loading docks, etc. Same goes for people, I put them in positions that should be stationary like sitting on a bench or leaning on a wall.
Though considering how much time I've spent in Toronto, I ought to be accustomed to seeing cars on the road not moving.
I counted up my vehicles on my layout and at that time I had almost 700. I recently bought a box lot from a friend and I'm probably over 700 now.
My absolute favorites are the Oxford line from England. They are the best value for the money.
Joe
Jordan alone produced dozens of 1930's appropriate cars and trucks and there are lots of others too. Athearn made a few RTR ones too. Then there are those that take a bit of work like Woodland Scenics metal line and old Dyna models etc.
I think the OP was making the point that unrealistic props in photographs, such as sub-standard vehicles, detract from the rest of the scene.
This might be a good subject for Filosophy Phriday.
I object to hyper-realistic photographs in general. Models should look like models. I try to create a mood or scene in my photographs, but I am not creating artificial realism.
My layouts have been intended to both operate and be photo-shoot locations. Too much realism for photographs interferes with running trains, so it is a trade-off.
If your goal it to create a hyper-realistic photo, build a diorama. If you are photographing your layout, it should look like a model.
-Photograph by Kevin Parson
Pleasing construction of a scene is more important to me, but all photographers have their own style.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I try to at least have a driver in the vehicles I pose on the roadway. It can be a pain to find reduced sized figures. I['m always looking for "seated passengers" as I have dozens of coaches to populate. When I recently bought a package of the Walthers Scenemaster (949-6034) figures I noticed quite a few of them were in the petite category:
Scenemaster_passenger figures by Edmund, on Flickr
Then it occurred to me that these would be perfect for squeezing into the reduced quarters of most HO vehicle interiors.
Lincoln by Edmund, on Flickr
Cadillac by Edmund, on Flickr
Pardon the dust. I don't have a car wash on the layout yet. The figures are quite crude detail-wise, certainly not up to Mel-quality, but it beats having vacant automobiles.
Regards, Ed
speedybeeFor me, what's most jarring about a vehicle scene, is when
In recent years we have many more choices for vehicles, I would say. But as a child of the nineteen fifties, there are some details that clash with my recollection as a kid.
Cars had distinctive styling, which I noticed as early as 8 yrs old. So the details and "spotting features" were important. This continues to plague me when I see vehicles on layouts. I do like them, but notice discrepancies which take away from the effect.
whitewall tires: my memory is that these were few, expensive, and fairly wide on the tires, maybe 3 or 4 inches. Many models that are offered for the 50's seem to have these. But, most cars of that period had black tires, period. Painted on thin stripe whitewalls (and colored accent stripe tires) appeared in the early 60's, I think. Our 63 mercury wagon had these.
Likewise, chrome wheelcovers. What i recall are the smaller chrome hubcaps, with exposed wheels painted (I think) to match the car body. I realize there are exceptions. But on every car, I do notice this.
thoughts?
hon30critter RR_Mel I have 98 vehicles with head, tail lights and some with marker lights Hi Mel, Your vehicles are beautiful! Perhaps I could convince you to explain how you supply power to them so others can benefit from your modelling creativity. Personally, I think it is one of the best innovations in HO scale modelling. I plan on using your system even though that will mean reworking every illuminated vehicle that I own. It will be well worth the effort! Cheers!! Dave
RR_Mel I have 98 vehicles with head, tail lights and some with marker lights
Thanks Dave.I’ve had to change my newer vehicles, I haven’t been able to find any of the 1mm micro bulbs in a couple of years. I like using the 1½ volt 1mm micro bulbs, much more realistic for the 1950s. I’ll post a link to my Blog on my vehicle incandescent lighting.https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2010/04/april-24-vehicle-lighting.htmlFor over a year I’ve been using SMD LEDs for vehicle lighting. It presented a problem, the LEDs require a higher voltage so I went with a commercial socket and plug to prevent blowing up my 1½ volt micro bulbs accidentally.This post is using the tiny LEDs with series resistors and a standard Arduino style connectors at 12 volts. I use a buck converter for the supply voltage so I can easily reduce the voltage.https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2020/04/apil-152020-kenworth-tractor-trailer.htmlOne of my Rolls Royces.https://melvineperry.blogspot.com/2020/03/march-15-2020-1951-rolls-royce.htmlThese are all LED using the Arduino style connectors.This shows an Arduino type connector in an asphalt road. The positive pin is always toward the center of the road or drivers side.My under construction Diorama for picture taking.
By the way the Digi-Key 0603 IR sensors work great with the FC-51 module. They are mounted between the ties operating the crossing controller above.
Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 last July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
tstageDave, I believe those last three photos in Wayne's post above with the solid bodies & painted windows are not Sylvan Models
Hi Tom,
Thanks for that. I edited my previous post.
I had some of those solid-block resin vehicles years ago. I believe they were Magnuson Models offerings.
There were several that made solid block resin Autos. These were found mostly in the 90's and before. Classic Metal Works intro (and a few others) really did a lot of these in. They are certainly not as detailed as the CMW/ Oxford etc offerings but do give variety and most are good for background use. This website (although not updated since 2008 gives most 1/87 vehicles that are out there up until that point http://www.87thscale.info/ Most of what is below is listed there.
Greg's garage- these were cast in clear resin (yellowish tint) and were fairly well detailed. They had one of the widest variety of the resin autos out there spanning from a few in the 30's to the 50's. OOP
Vulcan Hobbies- Cast in clear resin (yellowish tint) Not as detailed as the Greg's garage and a little clunkier these have a seperate metal bumper that often looks a little oversized. That being said they did do some unique models that were pretty neat including a Dodge airflow tanker and a Pierce Arrow 15 passenger bus. OOP
Magnuson Models/ Walthers. These were generally cast in a solid color resin- so you needed to paint the windows (painting the windows black with a couple of streaks of sky blue applied with a toothpick help.) Seperate cast metal bumpers. Some of the later Walthers ones (and a few of the Magnuson ones) were produced in clear resin. These are probably the most common solid cast resin ones to find because of their wide distribution. OOP
Stoney Mountain Classic Castings- These have nice detail to them- perhaps a little better than Greg's garage. The ones I have gotten have been in a very clear resin with no yellowish tinge to them. I am not sure this was the case for all. OOP
Cutters Miniature Castings- I have not had any of these but they were solid opaque castings that from the pics I have seen were pretty well done. I think they were generally sold on ebay- I do not believe that are still in production?? as the dealer that had carried them no longer did.
RCB/ LeRoy Toy/ Lee Stokes- these were cast plaster I have one of the Model A's and the hood is over width. I have an unidentified taxi that I believe was made by them and it is comparable to the resin in quality. Way OOP
There were quite a few small manufacturers that only made a couple of models- They would be listed in the website above.
Sylvan models listed above makes resin models but they are two piece hollow cast. Windows are added using Microscale Crystal Clear. Still in production neat kits.
Hope this helps in the world of these resin autos. They may not be quite as good as some of the stuff now but they do make nice models if finished well.
gmpullmanI had some of those solid-block resin vehicles years ago. I believe they were Magnuson Models offerings.
I have three unassembled Magnuson vehicles. Two 1953 Chevrolets and a Divco delivery van.
Solid as a rock!
The choices -- at least in HO -- of vehicles now are so much better than they were in my first two or three decades in the hobby that it seems almost churlish to complain about them, or giving those complaints a high priority compared to things that are still needed. I agree with Dan's earlier posting that today's photography makes us notice so many more things, focus can be so much tighter and depth of field greater with clarity. We can now see impossibly tiny details which means we now can notice when impossibly tiny stuff ain't there.
But the OP makes a point that can extend beyond vehicles. With wonderful photography and the extraordinary levels of detail now available, any photo of a highly detailed locomotive or rolling stock that also includes things at a lower level of detail takes away from the final effect. Vehicles, yes, but sometimes the venicle looks great but the rigid "postures" if the front wheels can't be turned don't seem right, or if a vehicle is clearly being driven but nobody is in the car. But there are other things that detract too and some of them are much harder to address. Roads and sidewalks often don't measure up to the rest of the modeling. Pole lines -- often beautifully detailed with "real" (looking) green glass insulators, yet ... no wires. Figures standing or moving or holding their arms in postures that look decidedly un-human-being-like. The classic, but still seen far too often: gaps between the ground and structures.
We can't attend to everything. But the quality of today's photography and of today's rolling stock is really upping the ante. Or as Mischa Elman once said in an entirely different context, mediocrity has been taken to ever higher levels.
Dave Nelson
drgwcs OOP
Hi drgwcs,
I'm drawing a blank here. What does 'OOP' stand for? (It's probably really obvious. ).
Thanks,
dknelson The choices -- at least in HO -- of vehicles now are so much better than they were in my first two or three decades in the hobby that it seems almost churlish to complain about them, or giving those complaints a high priority compared to things that are still needed. I agree with Dan's earlier posting that today's photography makes us notice so many more things, focus can be so much tighter and depth of field greater with clarity. We can now see impossibly tiny details which means we now can notice when impossibly tiny stuff ain't there. But the OP makes a point that can extend beyond vehicles. With wonderful photography and the extraordinary levels of detail now available, any photo of a highly detailed locomotive or rolling stock that also includes things at a lower level of detail takes away from the final effect. Vehicles, yes, but sometimes the venicle looks great but the rigid "postures" if the front wheels can't be turned don't seem right, or if a vehicle is clearly being driven but nobody is in the car. But there are other things that detract too and some of them are much harder to address. Roads and sidewalks often don't measure up to the rest of the modeling. Pole lines -- often beautifully detailed with "real" (looking) green glass insulators, yet ... no wires. Figures standing or moving or holding their arms in postures that look decidedly un-human-being-like. The classic, but still seen far too often: gaps between the ground and structures. We can't attend to everything. But the quality of today's photography and of today's rolling stock is really upping the ante. Or as Mischa Elman once said in an entirely different context, mediocrity has been taken to ever higher levels. Dave Nelson
The reason so many other items on a layout are not as realistic as the trains is that they are treated and looked upon as secondary. The model railroader goes to great lengths to get every detail just right for his locomotive. It's paint scheme is period-correct down to the year, month, day, and hour. But he doesn't have that same passion for detail when it comes to structures floating above sidewalks or figures with an unrealistic gloss finish. There are very few modelers who care enough to make the effort it takes to ensure everything is done to the same exacting standard as the trains.
A well known Model Railroader personality recently released a YouTube video on painting figures. He used gloss paints and slathered the figure in a dark wash that made the skin color look gray to my eyes. I asked him why he would do such things, and he told me the figure looked good to him at three feet of distance, and that was good enough for him. I was greatly disappointed in his figure painting and even more so in his reply.
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale