Time to stir up the hornets' nest again!
WARNING: My opinion follows. It is neither a sermon nor an edict. If you disagree, you have every right. I'm not telling anyone how to do anything here, just voicing an opinion.
I was reading the August 2007 Model Railroader again and took note of John Bowling's L&N layout. Many layout stories draw me in with interest, but this one didn't. I wondered why (with no offense intended to Mr. Bowling)...
It occurred to me that there are a lot of layout features in MR in which the level of detail is over the top. We like to think that there is no such thing as too much detail, but I think that there is.
George Sellios' F&SM is an example. He's a wonderful modeler and by all accounts an excellent human being. But his layout (and many inspired by it) are hard for me to look at. There's just so many things going on, I can't tell what the "main points of the story" are. The trains are the main players, in my opinion, and all else should trend toward a supporting role. Yet buildings many hundreds of scale yards away in from the viewer appear, on some layouts, as detailed as the items up front. The trains seem to be the supporting actors in these scnes.
Detail is also a scale issue. Just as the individual trees that make up the canopy on distant hillsides are not discernable, neither should every crack, downspout, and curtain be visible in the background structures.
Recently MR had a layout in which every single structure was one of those super-detailed whimsical clapboard structures with the platforms, cranes, rainbarrels, and exposed roof rafter ends. But the reality is that very, very few of those structures really exist. Even in New England, where those sorts of structures are more commonplace, they should not account for the majority of the structures.
Additionally, few businesses (yes, there are exceptions like lumber yards and building supply companies) would leave all of their merchandise outside exposed to the elements and thieves. Yet so many of these craftsman kits have so many boxes, barrels, and sacks to stack around them.
Modern industrial parks tend to be more sterile than in years past, but even older business and manufacturing districts in the past were usually kept neat and tidy. Clutter is a safety issue.
Another major turn-off for me is excessive use of color. Too many bold colors in structures and scenery can cause too much competition for my eye. Colorful trains are one thing; too much color in the scenery can be distracting and too busy. It's very hard to pull off a believable fall scene, since except for peak color (which usually lasts a week or so), most trees are a more muted color. Even then, most trees don't change all at once, but instead are a mixture of their fall color and green.
I use more muted, unifying colors (such as black coal dust and a mixture of green ground foam) to tie everything together and tone down the scenery. I also detail only the foreground scenes (although my layout is mostly foreground because it's so small!) with just enough detail to "suggest" that there's more going on. That way the eye can choose the focal point instead of being forced into multiple focal points. Also, it means the scenery doesn't compete for attention with the trains.
My way isn't the only way by far, but in my humble opinion modeling the "mundane" is more believable, since life in general tends to be more mundane than we'd like. If fantasy is your thing, and you want your layout to look like the set from the movie Popeye, it's your layout!
While I know my town needs more cars, I think in general I've found an optimal level of detail that conveys realism to my eye:
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave, it is a good job you are in N scale since you can't see the detail any way.
Each to their own of course, but I do agree regarding the use of fall colors. To me the layout you reference looked very "toy-like" because of the over use of intense color.
However, it is also fair to say that there are many modellers for whom the trains are almost secondary and the structures are what they focus their attention on. Thankfully we don't all share the same opinion regarding this as MRR mag would get very boring very quickly. Variety adds spice as they say.
Simon Modelling CB&Q and Wabash See my slowly evolving layout on my picturetrail site http://www.picturetrail.com/simontrains and our videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrCrispybake?feature=mhum
I do agree with many of your statements. Everyone has their own wish list and we all know that we can learn and enjoy the efforts of the next guy.
My wife and kids are always wondering why I do some of the things I do. Like muting colors. My daughters gave me a purple boxcar, cute huh, but I HEAVILY weathered it and it blends in nicely. It takes effort for them to find it at times. I like to have some scenic structure to force the viewer into a scene that surprisses when the train rolls in and complettes the purpose. So eventually I will cram detail closer to the RR and less farther away from the tracks.
I may not appreciate some of the more wimsical aproaches to the hobby but it draws many people into it. So I don't knock it, not that you do, but learn from it.
I have vissited layouts that every inch has been superdetailed but the trains just run in circles and the sidings and engine facilities just don't make sense to me. Upon disscusion with the owners, most simply like to watch the trains run through the scenes and the engine facility is like a trophy room. Even though I don't agree with the design of the layout their modeling skills are admirable. In the past I would come away from such visits dissapointed but now I look past what I don't like and look for what I can take to my layout to accomplish more.
John
Hornets nest, ok.
No, I don't agree, Dave. Detail makes a model railroad. Proper detail, within scope of reality, applied in context of the scale modeled, makes the difference between a toy and a model. Going overboard and grunging everything up is not realistic, even run down neighborhoods look better than some model railroads I've seen. Detail is key to making a believable miniature reality, the more real life elements in a given scene the more believable it is. Yes, modern industry is clean by most model standards, but there are things that can be used to "junk it up" without being gaudy. Photographs are gold when it comes to detail, you see things later in the photo that you didn't see when you were there. Those are the elements to model, the photo and not the memory.
And what of this "standard railroad of the world" illusion you live in??? Last time I was in PA all I saw was NORFOLK SOUTHERN, not a PRR or Pensy anything to be found. Standard of what? Failure?
[ OK, you know I'm just kidding about the PRR thing ]
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
Well, I'm willing to speak for the other side. I love details. I work in HO, and I greatly admire the work of modellers like Bob Grech and Jon Grant. To me, the detail level of their layouts is something to strive for.
Of course, I'm more of a "modeller" than an "operator." To some, the plywood prarie is a great layout, as long as it has staging, yards and sidings, and supports waybills and card ops. So what if the "brewery" is a shoe box with a Bud can on top? At the other end, some of us are happy to railfan on our own layouts. For us, it's the details that draw us into each scene. My brewery will be complete with boxes, barrels, bags and signs.
There was a thread about layout "depth" a couple of weeks back. The OP on that one asked how people obtained that feeling of depth, even when running an around-the-walls shelf layout which might only be a foot wide. One of the answers was foreground detail, which draws the eye up front and keeps it there, at least until a train comes by and takes your attention away. I will agree that foreground detailing is far more important than stuff you can hardly see.
One of my daughter's 16-year-old friends came by last week, and he was looking at my layout. Unlike most teens, he was drawn in, and specifically commented on the details of some of the scenes in Moose Bay. I figured that I had to be doing something right to impress a young man of 16.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Good points. I think a lot of it comes just from limited space. No real town looks like that, or so I used to think. Until I got my first look at Ketchikan, Alaska. I immediately thought, "This looks just like a model railroad."
Another good example is Ellicott City, Maryland.
Dave,
I agree with many of the things that you are saying and share some of the same feelings about over-detailing. Let me add that, by nature, I am a detail sort of person. But I also subscribe to the "Simple is better" or Less is more" truism and approach.
I do realize that folks enter this wonderful hobby of ours for a wide variety of reasons and intents. As you stated, for some, the scenery is focal and the operation of trains is second. For me, it's the other way around. Even so, like John, I can still glean and learn from these "scenery masters" and appreciate the time and effort that went into making the scene.
To have something detailed, to me, is to make it so that it appears to be "plausible"; as if you had swooped down out of the sky onto an arbitrary area of the country and were looking around to see what was there. I think there really is a fine line knowing what details are worth your time and consideration and what details will just get lost or overlooked. That's something that I'm still trying to determine for myself.
Good post, Dave! It's good to talk about these sorts of things. I trust that these conversations will stay civil and on an even keel and NOT ultimately degrade into a flame war.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
You raise some good points Dave, but my own tastes put me on the other side of this issue as well. Although I don't have a layout of my own at the present time, I really admire the work of Bob Grech, Jon Grant, and the like. One of the biggest reasons I suppose, is that for me, each time I view their work, I see some new little detail that I never saw before. I don't have that kind of an artistic eye, or the talent either, to produce that kind of modeling, but I certainly would if I could. Having said that, I also enjoy someone's layout even if it's just a circle of track on a piece of plywood painted green. In other words, I'm kind of happy looking at any layout.
Pittsburgh, PA
First off, up here in the Adirondacks of New York and over in Vermont peak foliage lasts about 3 to 4 weeks and everything except evergreens change to the brightest colors you can imagine.
George Selios' layoutis not really far from the reality of the period he models. If you look at pictures of the period (early 1930s) a lot of people were out of work, maintenance of buildings and properties was not a priority and therefore things looked dingy and run down. The major means of advertising were billboards and signs painted on buildings everywhere. There was no TV or air conditioning so people spent time out doors during daylight. He modeled an inner city scene in the railroad district, not a rural town like you, (which does look great btw).
I've seen a lot photos of that era including Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc. and they looked a lot like his scenes, a lot of them even more so.
Now, as I model the late 60s to the early 80s, my scenes are more modern and clean looking, with less clutter. OSHA existed by my era, so the factories are a lot more well kept with a lot of "Safety First" signs and fewer billboards etc.
On modern layouts (50s onward) the trains do stand out more and therefore are the stars of a scene, in the twenties and thirties and forties, trains were everywhere and were just another character in the scene, with just a few exceptions like some of the special passenger trains.
Just my opinion.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
Dave,I agree..We as modelers should look to real life around us and detail accordingly..
As you mention shipments laying on docks is a big no no..At the warehouse I was employed at the best way to get written up is to leave a shipment on the docks unattended even for a few minutes..The reason is to prevent theft by truckers and employees.Leaving broken skids laying about here,there and yonder is also BIG NO NO for safety reasons..A trucker trips and falls hurting his/her self there will be a negligence lawsuit against the company.BTW.This was another write up for the forklift operator.
Now I am a firm believer in details makes a layout come to life regardless of scale but,only with real life believability as your picture strongly suggest.
Time for my detail pet peeve.
Why is modelers must put replacement or replace rail and ties close to the tracks?
My answer is they don't understand the safety issued involved..It is a tripping hazard for switch crews,carman MOW workers and sadly trespassers.
Keep a walkway between the tracks and lose rail and ties.Your wee railroad workers and trespassers will thank you for keeping them safe.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
More musing....
I also think that the reality of selectic compression can also be a contributing factor to the noticeable abundance of details in a scene. The tendency is to cram more and more in the limited amount of space and scenes that we have on our layout. This is where the fine line of too much and too little scenery can be easily crossed.
I haven't added my industries yet, and my village is quite lean with only the most basic items visible. Still, my own siblings and my father marvel at what I have in place at the moment, spare as it is, and ask me, "Did you have the turntable last time I was here?" (yes). "I can't get over the detail...there is so much to take in..." (which of my 12 details are you talking about? The telegraph poles, the baggage cart, the rusty rail that Barkie ...er, Brakie would trip over , what...?
Yeeeeeeettttttt.....I can't believe that someone would call Bob's layout overdone. It just suggests to me that he has done it to the T such that a person has to really "look" to "see".
We learn to see...I learned that in my basic officer training many years ago, and while I was at the eyepiece of my telescope in earlier times. As a former tank corps officer, and a tank and recce vehicle commander while at it, I had to "fight the vehicle" for its intended purpose, but also because my crew depended on me to be alert and skilled in viewing what was around me. Armoured vehicles are large, slow targets, and when armour piercing shells come at you, a prayer and good luck are about all that will make it easy. So, I had to learn to "see" what was in the shadows, what outline didn't quite fit in with the foliage, which shadow should not have been there, and so on. I think that some folks are simply overwhelmed with the level of detail in some layouts, and in the case of my own family, with my sparsely detailed one.
It's a range, both of effect and of ability to assimilate. My
I agree with you Dave. Some what. I think it's OK to have LOTS of detail in one scene that's not crouded with another. That's what I think makes it distracting. Because you have mutiple scenes right next to each other. You can't constrate on that scene. It's kinda like LDEs. But with industrys. You can have a industry wiht alot of detail here, but alteast 1 foot away I would put the other highly detailed industry.
Now for towns. In a down town ariea thing. I wouldn't go ALL OUT on intireors. You can have a highly detailed ally, and that draws your attention away from the un interior buildings. I would probably put interiors in buildings on corners or some I want to highlight. I also wouldn't put ALOT of figures in a street.
BTW: I don't want it to sound like I was making you do the stuff I say. I'm just saying what I would do.
My Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/JR7582 My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wcfan/
tstage wrote: More musing....I also think that the reality of selectic compression can also be a contributing factor to the noticeable abundance of details in a scene. The tendency is to cram more and more in the limited amount of space and scenes that we have on our layout. This is where the fine line of too much and too little scenery can be easily crossed.Tom
Tom, I think you're right on the money. I offer that many of the scenes are not only selectively compressed spatially, but temporally as well. That is, we tend to make each scene as if action is taking place. Imagine a midwestern, downtown scene on Saturday morning, lots of cars parked and moving, people going from shop to shop, and merchants unloading trucks. Now, look at that same scene Sunday morning. We don't generally rearrange the details so now the cars and people look out of place. If all of our scenes have action, then it tends to look a little too much.
Now, while respect the level of detail on many of the layouts, I think mine will be somewhat less with highlights on important scenes.
Great discussion
Rick
Dave Vollmer wrote: George Sellios' F&SM is an example. He's a wonderful modeler and by all accounts an excellent human being. But his layout (and many inspired by it) are hard for me to look at. There's just so many things going on, I can't tell what the "main points of the story" are. The trains are the main players, in my opinion, and all else should trend toward a supporting role. Yet buildings many hundreds of scale yards away in from the viewer appear, on some layouts, as detailed as the items up front. The trains seem to be the supporting actors in these scnes.
Was there a time when things were so cluttered, trashy, & junk ridden?....Well I'm 54 & not old enough to remember what it was like in the 1920's & 1930's.....but in most old photographs it does not look that bad....I model the late 1960's so things do not look so depressing. My style [I try] tends to follow more like: Paul Dolkos' Boston & Maine New Hampshire Division, Lou Sassi's West Hoosic Division, Cliff Powers' Mississippi, Alabama & Gulf , Gary Hoover's Santa Fe, & Robert Smaus Southern Pacific ect.
Model railroading is part "ART" and we all are different in what we like.
I am amazed at George Sellios' F&SM & others who put so much time into the details on their layouts, they are truely artist. I myself do not have that level of skill, the money & the time to devote to my "Hobby".
So we have a wide range in this hobby from those who have a circle on a 4x8 sheet of plywood to George Sellios' F&SM. Let each person enjoy their own level and not be discourage that all layout must be that detailed.
Well thats my
One point of clarification...
I'm not speaking out against detail. In fact, I enjoy detailing foreground scenes.
For example, I add weeds to the cracks in my sidewalks, and I add trash cans full of garbage behind each business and home.
All I mean to say is that it can be overdone to the point where it stops being realistic.
My foreground scenes have some detail, but I think not too much:
tangerine-jack wrote: Hornets nest, ok.No, I don't agree, Dave. Detail makes a model railroad. Proper detail, within scope of reality, applied in context of the scale modeled, makes the difference between a toy and a model. Going overboard and grunging everything up is not realistic, even run down neighborhoods look better than some model railroads I've seen. Detail is key to making a believable miniature reality, the more real life elements in a given scene the more believable it is.
No, I don't agree, Dave. Detail makes a model railroad. Proper detail, within scope of reality, applied in context of the scale modeled, makes the difference between a toy and a model. Going overboard and grunging everything up is not realistic, even run down neighborhoods look better than some model railroads I've seen. Detail is key to making a believable miniature reality, the more real life elements in a given scene the more believable it is.
TJ,
I hope you're doing well this July 4th on your deployment. You and I actually don't disagree on this point. The proper use of detail (i.e., not too much but not too little) is key to realism.
I'm railing (pun intended!) against, as you say, "going overboard."
I agree with the OP and I disagree with it.
Or...
I disagree with the OP and I agree with it
(Just trying to achieve balance...)
First off...
If it's a home layout then it is the owner/maker's choice.
If it is a club layout it's going to be the result of a committee decision most times anyway and will probably be a compromise in many respects.
Modules... it helps if each modeule or cluster is consistent.
layouts for exhbition...
Now these are the bug bear...
I think that we have a lot more (%wise) of these than seems to be the case in the US (could be wrong - but our exhibition circuit is extremely busy).
Several things annoy me...
Things I like...
One thing I HATE!
What has this got to do with detail?
I think that it is the same as in a movie... if the plot is good and the characters play their roles well I don't particularly notice details in the scenery unless the director choses to draw my attention to them to progress his theme. If, on the other hand, the plot is poor and/or the actors are poor then no amount of attention to detail will persuade me to spend much time on the thing.
One thing that makes a huge difference is good signalling. I think that this is much easier in British prototypes because our signalling is so specific. Our signalling almost narates the plot. When a signal clears it tells me that a train is about and pretty much what it will do. US signalling only does the first part of that... it is still much nicer to see this element well done.
Working crossbucks with or without barriers also help. (NO SOUND)!
BRAKIE wrote: Time for my detail pet peeve.Why is it modelers must put replacement or replaced rail and ties close to the tracks?My answer is they don't understand the safety issued involved..It is a tripping hazard for switch crews,carman MOW workers and sadly trespassers.Keep a walkway between the tracks and lose rail and ties.Your wee railroad workers and trespassers will thank you for keeping them safe.
Why is it modelers must put replacement or replaced rail and ties close to the tracks?
Totally agree with this. The rules we have for what can be left where and when are extensive... but frequently honoured by their non-observqance... often because conditions mean that they cannot be applied.
I'm not making excuses here. I have both made myself unpopular for reporting equipment placed incorrectly and for stopping the job if it cannot be done correctly. (Telling me to "go away" in Anglo-Saxon isn't going to persuade me...)
I think that the thing to do is to study pics of the location (area) and era very closely.
My general impression is that most US pics show a much tidier and cleaner rail environment than we tend to have... most of the time... on the Class 1s and shortlines at least. I suspect that there is a lot more pride in working on the RR than we have of doing the job on the railway. This is one product of privatisation... and previously it was a product of Nationalisation and the railways being a national "Music Hall" joke. Whatever period it comes down to Management neither motivating nor supervising properly. You can't get away with leaving a job half finished if the manager hasn't skived off ahead of you...
This is one reason that I like US RR... as far as I can see them...
ARTHILL wrote:To each his own.
Scenery and detail is what completes a scene for a layout. Some will do the absolute prisine. Engines and rolling stock right out of the box. The scenery is almost manicured with perfect transitions between ballast, grasses and roads. This is fine but ,in my opinon, just too toylike.
Then you have the opposite extreme. Diapitated, run down almost decrepid buildings with the filthy rusted equipment rolling by is what some like to see. All the locos and rolling stock is so heavily weathered, looks like it never even rained let alone have ever been washed.
I feel that there is the just right layout somewhere in the middle. I was rather young for the 50's but don't remember all around me being old, dirty and rusty. a good many model this period. Some older industries and sections of poor towns may have resembled this look, but all in all the average company or town looked fairly clean. Yes things get old and dirty but unless it is a real depressed local, people tried to do some semblance of maintenence and repair.
One thing I notice about many layout scenes is that almost all the activity that could ever occur seems to happen. This would be a rare sight in the real world. As long as it doesn't approach the whimsicle or almost silly I don't mind it.
This applies to the level of detail as well. Some things just wouldn't all be there for real. But it is a model RR and modeler's license usually will prevail.
I like an appropriate level of detail, but what I consider enough or just right is the way I see it.
The thing that bothers me the most is when things just look too toylike. Vibrant colors, no tranistions between scenes, lollypop trees or a bunch of colored balls glued to a hillside just don't do it for me.
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
As this one has already been kicke around a bit and I tend to agree with many of the sentiments of the OP - I'll try and keep it to a couple of new points:
George Selios is a fantastic modeller - as an individual competition winning model each of his buildings are excellent on their own. For me looking at the F&SM its the fact that there is a large basement layout full of them all together - it just confuses the eye. I think folks could argue the "was the 30s really like that" point until the cows come home and never get anywhere - as there's not many here who will ever know except by looking at photos - and they can be deceptive.
I think it was the well known British railway modeller Rev Peter Denny (might be wrong on that - but I remember reading about it in an old railway modelling mag) who had what he called a two foot rule - if you can't see the detail from two feet away then don't put it in. Its a good rule - especially for background structures, trees and the like.
tatans wrote:Do you mean "too much detail" to be small bits of grass between cracks OR too much "stuff" as in hundreds of items jammed into a small area, like too many people , far too many cars and away too much clutter???? I have seen layouts so packed with "stuff" it's almost impossible to make out the train, I think I would think you can "detail" in varying degrees, weathering is a fine example, it really shows up when " too much" is applied to a locomotive for example. Best we define "too much detail"
Yes, I mean the latter... too many details all cluttered together. Not every structure in a town will look like an antique shop having a sidewalk sale. Some detail is very important, and I think some structures should be more detailed than others (like in real life).
Also, the occasional junkyard is good, as is the occasional rusted out vehicle or delapidated boxcar serving as a lineside shed. Too much of that, though, is not realistic but more fantasy.
I automatically examine a truck dock and create in my head the movements required to get into such a dock. If it seems to be sufficient in room and easy to get into the dock properly I get a feeling that is warm and fuzzy that someone actually takes a moment to give the "Little Plastic citizens" some space to go about thier business.
Detail is good, less is more I say. A nice sleepy town with "Just enough" or "Just good enough" is much more attractive than a town that exhibits hundreds of dollars or hours of uber-precision work. If I see puddles next to fire hydrants on this ultra-detailed hyper-work of art, there better be some dogs and cats lurking somewhere for me to find.
I love railroads that carry small note cards with various questions on the outside face of the railroad with little tidbits like "Did you find the miner's lost fishing rod?" which helps me to understand the area presented. I dont rely on these for understanding, I rely on them to enjoy the challenge of learning and matching wits with the creator who might have things that happen in real life replicated on the railroad.
On the one LHS layout we had a plastic HO scale bull that we stuck into the woods on the one tree covered hill. Many a customer came into the store and I think few noticed the bull in the trees.
Intensly detailed railroads require me to take a video camcorder, film it, take the tape and put it onto the computer and spend 6 months re-visiting until I have seen everything there is to see on it.
I remember following one link about scenic backdrops that had some quality and one shot from a camera in macro mode showed a truck rolling down the road that had a hydrant, curbs, sidewalks etc etc etc... but had a 10 scale foot high earth-quake fault between module joints at some distance down the road for the HO scale traffic to be concerned about.
Bottom line, when you look at something and you think it is good enough stop right there. Dont worry because if someone views your work and says it needs a little something... like a delivery truck at the bakery on the corner then you have an oppertunity to make it happen.
Layouts with too much detail are exhausting and stressful, not only in the amount of information presented visually but perhaps also indicative of a very high dollar expense per square inch on such a display.
I dont mind quality. But good enough should be just that. Good enough. Enough is enough and everyone will like it very much; they may or may not exhibit a desire to know everything or see all of the stuff you did (They will miss half of it anyhow)
Let me offer what I ascribe to as being a major source for the decidedly over detailed, over weathered, unrealistic, sometimes even downright caricaturish layouts that one often sees presented in the magazines and on-line. It is, quite simply, that 80%-90% of all hobbyists today get their modeling styles and concepts of reality from other layouts they've seen, not from real-world observation. The magazines are concerned with selling their product and the more complex, ultra-detailed, perhaps even fantastic, a layout looks, the greater the probability it will draw in readers...just look at some of Furlow's bizarre efforts! This situation is exacerbated by the unwillingness of a high percentage of today's hobbyists to take the time to research the actual situation that exists or existed in the real world during the period they are modeling (which is far easier to do today than ever before).
So many hobbyists are in such awe of the work of Allen, Sellios and a few others, that they honestly believe pre-1950's America, especially the Depression Era cities, was a time when everything was totally run down and verging on dilapidated ruins. Believe me, it was never universally that way. But this concept has become so ingrained in hobbyists today that I'm increasingly seeing otherwise well done layouts set as late as the 1960's with the same rundown caricaturish appearance found on the F&SM. The idea seems to be that if you model in a reflection of the "masters" style, you must be doing it right. Depending on your choice of gurus...not necessarily.
We all have, or should, develop our own personal and independent modeling style. However, whatever your style, it should have some basis in reality since this is a hobby based on creating a representation of some small slice of the actual world in miniature, not a Disneyesque version of it.
CNJ831
I have to say I also agree with Dave. Sometimes a scene is so busy you hardly see the trains! I prefer more generic detail with scenery.. ie) when the train comes back around to the same spot, its still plausible that the scene would still look that way.
In essence I agree with Bob K. about figures doing this and that all the time and how they perpetually do this and that until the cows come home. A passenger sitting on a bench is one thing... but sometimes too many unique scenes become just that... a bunch of unique scenes that can get old if they are too specific. One example I can think of I noticed at a recent train show. There was a building on fire with a smoke generator chuffing out smoke and lights (flames) flickering in the building. The firefighters were on scene and their lights were on etc, etc. Well, I walked around the layout following a train and yep, the building was still on fire!
Now compare that to my favorite scene on the same layout which is more generic and in my opinion more plausible repeatedly. It was an engine repair facility and there was a welding arc barely visible through a partially closed door. This is something that could be happening at any given time in a building like this, unlike the fire which just never goes out.
Just my opinion on the subject.
PS- George S. has been decreasing the detail lately on his railroad!
Keep a walkway between the tracks and lose rail and ties.Your wee railroad workers and trespassers will thank you for keeping them safe. - end quote
Brakie, you're correct but remember some prototype railroads did this often. I remember seeing ties and sections of scrap rail within several feet of Seaboard Coast Line's main route here in Tampa. Funny thing is that here we are years later and CSX is no better! One can drive along the former ACL line in my county and see scatterings of ties, rails, steel wire and other "goodies".
So modelers in some scenarios are being prototypical.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Rule 1: This is MY railroad.
Rule 2: While illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, in the event of visitor-perceived anachronisms, detail decrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/