Layouts with too much detail?

[cordon]

I wasn't going to jump into this, but here goes.  I really love looking at all the MRs I see.  Most of them, however, are too much detail for me to do because it's too much work.  Plus, I have zero artistic ability.  I marvel at some of the beautiful creations other people have done, but I prefer putting my limited time (too many hobbies) into building track and running trains.

But that's me.  I'm happy with what I'm doing.  I recognize and respect that other folks like to do different things, and that they are happy with what they are doing, too. 

Dave, and many others, you are on a different level from me.  I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts, which are IMHO reasonable and interesting.  This has been an interesting thread, and you have all made interesting contributions.

 

 

 

 

[secondhandmodeler]

I bet I could easily pick up over 500 spikes if I walked up and down the tracks for about a 1000 feet.  Maybe I should sell them on Ebay, lol.

Better yet, sell them for scrap!  Of course that might be stealing.  I wonder if the hoodlums stealing copper pipe will ever start stealing rail?

[TheK4Kid]

When it comes to details, I always think of Bob Grech as he just has a "gift'"and his scenes are always just sooo enjoyable!

 

 TheK4Kid 

[cordon]

TA462's pics above are typical also of CSX in the areas around Alexandria, VA, including the loose spikes.

 

 

[SilverSpike]

Ya' know, I've mused about this before...  Maybe I should consider moving on.

I'm not doing the super-dramatic goodbye speech.  This also isn't about these forums letting me down.  I think maybe I'm pushing too hard here.  I think maybe I'm not doing a good enough job accomodating other people's modeling styles and preferences.

This is a fault of mine, not anyone else's.  So maybe I need to graduate from MR's forums and stick with the other more narrow-focused forums.  But I keep coming back because of the personalities here.

What's a guy to do?  I can't (and shouldn't) change everyone into the modeler I want to be, but I'm having trouble resisting that urge...

Na, Dave, don't leave!

This forum is great for sharing ideas and meeting new like minded folk, but I think your musings might be better served if they were in a blog format. Sadly, MR does not offer the blog format. An option would be to start your own blog on your website, post a link in a new post here in MR forums and off you go.

[doctorwayne]

What's a guy to do?  I can't (and shouldn't) change everyone into the modeler I want to be, but I'm having trouble resisting that urge...

Dave, perhaps you're just a control freak.    I am, to some degree (perhaps quite some degree) and I'd venture that many other model railroaders probably are too.  I mean, after all, we create our own little version of how we think the world should look.  Even if we're modelling the prototype, it's still our version of the prototype.  There's no crime on my layout, no poverty, no wars, no idiot drivers, and no real economic woes (and I'm modelling the '30s ).  I still agree with your original idea about some layouts having too much detail, or, as was later suggested, too much inappropriate detail.  Still, no reason why those guys shouldn't enjoy what they're doing and no reason why that should impinge on what anybody else is doing.  After all model railroading is fun:  it's up to the individual to amuse himself. 

Wayne

[SpaceMouse]

I for one enjoy having my envelope pushed. I'd miss these musings.

(Not to mention the help with the switching layout.)

[Dave Vollmer]

Ya' know, I've mused about this before...  Maybe I should consider moving on.

I'm not doing the super-dramatic goodbye speech.  This also isn't about these forums letting me down.  I think maybe I'm pushing too hard here.  I think maybe I'm not doing a good enough job accomodating other people's modeling styles and preferences.

This is a fault of mine, not anyone else's.  So maybe I need to graduate from MR's forums and stick with the other more narrow-focused forums.  But I keep coming back because of the personalities here.

What's a guy to do?  I can't (and shouldn't) change everyone into the modeler I want to be, but I'm having trouble resisting that urge...

[SpaceMouse]

Actually, I agree. Details should make the scene, not dominate it.

[SpaceMouse]

I know I'm gaining a reputation of being stubborn, hard to please, and closed-minded.

Look at the bright side. Microsoft would call that a feature.

[Dave Vollmer]

It is impossible for a model railroader to have too much detail no one has enough time for that. the thing that grates on me is detail that is out of context.

Perhaps that is a better way of phrasing what I'm saying.

Nevertheless, I do believe that "too much detail" can exist when it is out of context.  For example, a freight station with the platforms loaded to the gills with boxes, crates, barrels, bags, sacks, etc.  It looks neat, sure...  But even during loading, I imagine most crews would bring out what they needed when they needed to load it since a jam-packed platform is a safety hazard and exposes freight to thievery and the weather.  My freight station has a few open doors where, if you look right, you can see stacks of boxes and barrels inside.  The platform itself has only a few packages and pallets, and one freight agent.  After all, crews need to have a clear path between the door of the station and the door of the boxcar.

Another example of too much detail being detail "out of context" is having a whole town or industrial area filled with those FSM-style super-complex dilapidated multiple-gabled, exposed-rafter, rain-barrel-on-the-roof, cranes-and-pulleys, $250 kits.  One or two is pushing it, but still plausible.  But a layout full of 'em just doesn't look like anything I've ever seen in real life or in photographs.  Granted, I've only been on this planet since 1974, but uber-detail just doesn't look like what photographic evidence of the past I've seen.

...to say nothing of the fact that such a scene is just hard for me to absorb.  Yes, you can stare for hours and still find new things, and that's fun, I know.  I do it to when I look at Sellios' F&SM in photos.  It is fun to look at everything.  But it's the "big picture" that doesn't get through to me.  What am I looking at?  What's the story?  Or is the detail the story?

Lastly, does it look like a small version of a real railroad?  That's my personal litmus test.  Yours may differ, of course!!!

I know I'm gaining a reputation of being stubborn, hard to please, and closed-minded.  That's fine, because maybe I am.  But I hope that I have inspired some thought and constructive debate.  My intention is always to discuss things that I personally believe will better the hobby, even if that's an arrogant position to take.

[John Busby]

Hi Dave Vollmer

It is impossible for a model railroader to have too much detail no one has enough time for that. the thing that grates on me is detail that is out of context.

Colour is horses for courses if an area is a gaudy & colorful one then a model should also be so

If its the dark satanic mills then so should the model be.

Whimsy done by John Allen is fine he got it right whimsy done by me forget it I get it wrong.

railway modeling is 1 part acuracy 1 part art.

For any model railway to work it must carry the theme all the way through without any way off lurches.

just to be different thats my two copper crowns worth on the subject

regards John 

[SilverSpike]

The devil is in the details Dave!

And the proverb still rings true today, and in my estimation has meaning with model railroading too. 

"The Devil is in the Details"

From The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition.  2002.¹

Even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components. This version of the proverb often implies that the details might cause failure. A more positive version is "God is in the details," a saying often attributed to the architect Le Corbusier.

From Go English.com Pocket English Idioms. ²

When the hard part of what you are trying to do is in the many small details, you can say "the devil is in the details." Example: "I thought I would be able to write that article in two hours, but it ended up taking me five. The devil was in the details." The devil is known for always make life difficult for man in many small ways. Example: "I can sketch a basic outline of the plan for you and it may look very simple, but the devil is in the details."

 

1 http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/devilisinthe.html

2 http://www.goenglish.com/TheDevilIsInTheDetails.asp

 

[richhotrain]

Dave,

You are absolutely correct!  When I first saw the title of your post, I chuckled and knew immediately what layout you were referring to.  If you look at the photo that straddles pages 44 and 45, your first impression is that the layout is way too busy and takes on an artificial look.  My wife and I collect Department 56 ceramic buildings which we display over the Christmas holidays, and we have to be careful to avoid a cramped look in which a display can overwhelm the viewer.  Many photos of Department 56 collections look like the displayer overbought and overdisplayed.  I believe that the same is true here with the L&N layout.  The panoramic photos on the MRR web site confirm this observation.

Yet, there are many aspects of Mr Bowling's layout that I truly like.  The size and configuration of the layout are truly impressive, and the placement of such areas as the turntable, roundhouse and the yard are great.  Although I do wonder how the operator can reach into the center of the turntable, if need be, since the distance between the two closest access points seems to be a 10 foot span.  I also like the use of pleated skirts as a finished look to the display.  If this were my layout, I would simplify the use of buildings and lanscaping quite a bit.

[Dave Vollmer]

Again, a way to avoid the caricature look is to do prototype research for your locale and era.  Again, freelancers can do this too.

There are so many railroad books out there, it hurts!  Unless you're into a fairly obscure era or prototype, photographic evidence of the truth is there for your buying!

Part of why I've had some degree of success modeling the Pennsylvania RR is because I have nearly two whole bookshelves of reference PRR books and magazines (such as Pennsy Journal and the PRRT&HS Keystone).  These make up my personal research library that tell me exactly how the right-of-way and surrounding areas looked in July, 1956.

I draw inspiration from other layouts, sure.  Everything from track plans to techniques to scene set-up...  What I don't do is model a model.

I agree with Mark Newton on this when I say, as much as I love John Allen's work and as much as I acknowledge his incredible influence on this hobby, that he no longer represents the pinnacle achievement in model railroading.  He was a true craftsman, but what he built didn't look much like the real world of railroading.  It looked too much like fantasy, and the excessive use of details (along with an overabundance of bridges), while stunning and keenly interesting to look at, helped make it appear less like any real railroad in the US.  If fantasy is your thing (as it is to many), you should be able to re-create Allen's G&D with no hassle from us.  But if you want to model a railroad, your best bet is to look at real railroads, past or present, as your prototype.  Drawing your detail distribution from the prototype will always steer you toward plausibility.

I understand, of course, that super-duper clutter does happen in real life from time to time (such as logging/mining operations, junk yards, etc.), but I still argue that they tend to be the exception, not the rule.

Realism, in my humble opinion comes from modeling the rule, not the exception.

[marknewton]

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...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.

I don't have any problems with people modelling that way or thinking that way - horses for courses. What I do have a problem with is the idea, often expressed in these and other forums, that this style of modelling is "realistic", and that every modeller should aspire to be like the so-called "masters". These layouts are often presented as being the pinnacle of model railroading achievement, and that, I can't fathom at all.

Cheers,

Mark.

[BRAKIE]

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.

Brakie, CN leaves new and old rail beside the trackon the Kingston Sub.  I can show you areas where there is rail laying beside the track maybe two feet away from it.  Its very common to see rail laying beside the track for months at a time.  Ties on the other hand are very seldom left close to the track. 

 

I suspect any closer then that two feet then there would be a safety violation involved..Railroads takes a very dim view of wanton safety violations..Heck,some of the rule bending we did would have been time off if anything went wrong.In fact I was on "force" vacation twice for rule violations along with the other crew members that was involved.

One thing to consider... if it will take more than two moderately fit people (usually males) to move an object it will not (usually) be a hazard for vandalism...  Therefore anything over ten feet of rail will pretty much stay where you put it.

When rail is dropped ready to be put in it usually (usually) gets put in the 4ft way or close to the tie ends if not on them.  The 60' lengths of rail we use aren't going anywhere without a crane or a lot of men.  200lbs per yard x 60 =1,200lbs.  Once you get into ribbon rail (continuous wellded rail) there is a lot of weight to be shifted.

We have a requirement that timber ties must be removed or secured to a fixed object if there are less than 6 and 6 and upwards must be securely banded.  this achieves the same end.  You can't shift six ties at once without a machine.

Concrete sleepers are probably 3 times as heavy as timber.  Jarra wood is pretty much as heavy - used in switches.

A lot of small material is ow handled in 1 tonne bags that are kept in yards, trucked to site access and moved to the job by road-railers.

All this is a huge difference from the old days when massive gangs of men shifted pretty much everything, including rail, by hand.  In general things were much tidier because the men who did the big jobs were employed between them... in the "quiet time" they inspected the tracks, did smal routine maintenance and kept everything tidy.  Grass as well as trees/foliage had to be kept cut back in steam days because of the constant fire risk in dry weather.  Similarly any paper or similar waste around the track was a fire risk.  It had to be removed.

Share holders also expected their railway/railroad to look nice as well.

Things changed with diesels, competition from trucks and airlines and the economics of labour plus the march of machines - especially hydraulic booms.

 

Dave and guys,I have seen NS track crews heave ho a 40 foot section of track into place.This was a temporary replacement rail.

Again I can only go by my personal railroad experience and what I observe on NS and at times CSX.

Notice the space between the track and main line..I had lots of room to walk around.

 

 

So you will know spikes are still driven by hand if the need araises.

[ne_trains]

Well CNJ, I grew up there in the twenties and up until the late fifties. As a carton salesman in the late forties I called on plants in Eastern Connecticut that still had waterwheels for power with a huge overhead shaft that ran the length of the building with leather belts driving the looms, etc. Remember, New England wasn't built in a day. Many of the buildings where erected in the 1800s and still in use into the fifities until they all headed south for the cheap labor.

True enough, however, the Yankee owners of these mills tended to keep their properties in pretty decent shape up until the bitter end. Quite a few still stand today due to plain New England tenacity and the extreme overengineering by their original builders.

I think to many modelers have a tendancy to fall back on generalizing their scenes, rather than putting into play what they could actually observe. There are endless amounts of information out in internet land; both Library of Congress and Historic American building Survey are tremendous as visual resources for vernacular architectural history.

The one other thing I would add is that in the "popula eras" the United States was still much more regional in flavor. A mill town in Eastern Connecticut would look different from one in Rhode Island or Pennsylvannia. Now in our post Interstate highway era you can go to an identical looking Lowe's are Target in any of these places. I mention this simply becuase when it comes to detailing, I think regional specificity is key. The level of grime for a depiction of Pittsburg should be far greater than for a small mill village in Conn. Pittsburgh still looks dirty even years after the disappearence of its steel mills.

In the end, if its realistic scene making your after, trust your eyes and forget everything that's published in the magazines.

[on30francisco]

To me details are very important and make a model railroad. My main enjoyment is building and super-detailing structures, one-of-a-kind pieces of rolling stock, bridges, trestles, trackside details,detailed trackwork and the interiors of some structures (I model in narrow gauge Large Scale indoors). It's the little, minute, details - whether on structures, rolling stock, locos, or small scenes - that make a model railroad come alive .  I also believe that weathering, if not overdone too much, makes the railroad look realistic, especially to us narrow gaugers and back woods modelers. Viva George Sellios and Malcolm Furlow. I'm mostly a railfan-type operator and enjoy watching the trains run through super-detailed scenes and over trestles and bridges. I plan to build a very small (for Large Scale) yard so I can have an excuse to build a small,wooden gallows-type turntable and a two stall roundhouse (or should I say squarehouse).  Although I like locos (old-time steam) and some operation, they take a back seat to building and detailing, however, I have one rule that takes precedence - every loco, piece of rolling stock, and every inch of trackwork must operate flawlessly.

[Dave-the-Train]

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.

Brakie, CN leaves new and old rail beside the trackon the Kingston Sub.  I can show you areas where there is rail laying beside the track maybe two feet away from it.  Its very common to see rail laying beside the track for months at a time.  Ties on the other hand are very seldom left close to the track. 

 

I suspect any closer then that two feet then there would be a safety violation involved..Railroads takes a very dim view of wanton safety violations..Heck,some of the rule bending we did would have been time off if anything went wrong.In fact I was on "force" vacation twice for rule violations along with the other crew members that was involved.

One thing to consider... if it will take more than two moderately fit people (usually males) to move an object it will not (usually) be a hazard for vandalism...  Therefore anything over ten feet of rail will pretty much stay where you put it.

When rail is dropped ready to be put in it usually (usually) gets put in the 4ft way or close to the tie ends if not on them.  The 60' lengths of rail we use aren't going anywhere without a crane or a lot of men.  200lbs per yard x 60 =1,200lbs.  Once you get into ribbon rail (continuous wellded rail) there is a lot of weight to be shifted.

We have a requirement that timber ties must be removed or secured to a fixed object if there are less than 6 and 6 and upwards must be securely banded.  this achieves the same end.  You can't shift six ties at once without a machine.

Concrete sleepers are probably 3 times as heavy as timber.  Jarra wood is pretty much as heavy - used in switches.

A lot of small material is ow handled in 1 tonne bags that are kept in yards, trucked to site access and moved to the job by road-railers.

All this is a huge difference from the old days when massive gangs of men shifted pretty much everything, including rail, by hand.  In general things were much tidier because the men who did the big jobs were employed between them... in the "quiet time" they inspected the tracks, did smal routine maintenance and kept everything tidy.  Grass as well as trees/foliage had to be kept cut back in steam days because of the constant fire risk in dry weather.  Similarly any paper or similar waste around the track was a fire risk.  It had to be removed.

Share holders also expected their railway/railroad to look nice as well.

Things changed with diesels, competition from trucks and airlines and the economics of labour plus the march of machines - especially hydraulic booms.

[hminky]

Didnt Allen have a Dinosaur as a switcher as a bit of fun whimsy?

LOL.

And a couple small pieces of whimsey seem to have become John's legacy. Too bad.

Harold

[Pruitt]

For some time, MR (and perhaps other model magazines) was, and to an extent still is, clamoring for "character," and "character" as used by MR translates roughly into details out the wazoo, clustered around VERY out-of-the-ordinary structures.

Now I'll be the first to admit that such scenes are intensely interesting. I enjoy seeing photos of such work, and amire the creator's talents. But I will not be emulating those uber-detailed layouts they don't appear to me to be very realistic. I think the detail needs to be selectively compressed along with the space.

I want a level of detail that's interesting but doesn't swamp the viewer. My layout may well wind up appearing somewhat visually boring to some folks, for what I hope will be it's typical prototype level of detailing. I may have a few highly detailed scenes similar to what I've seen in real life, like the amazing collection of rusty parts and half-disassembled machinery that is often clustered in the barnyard, or a small, forgotten stack of ties somewhere along the mainline, or a tricycle and a few toys in the front yard, for examples. But an entire layout of barrels, crates, and so-heavily-weathered-structures-you-can't-tell-what-color-the-bricks-are? Not for me, thanks!

[Anonymous]

<SNIP>To be fair to George Sellios, I grew up in a place not unlike South Manchester as he has modeled it - or as it would be if there were several cigar smokers fouling the atmosphere of his layout space.  (Has anyone ever developed a cigar that smells like domestic heating coal smoke?)  A run-down part of Da Bronx during WWII, to be specific.  I wonder; does he have a sanitation worker with a broom, scoop and big, high-wheeled bucket cleaning roadapples off his streets?

<SNIP>

Zounds, I do recall the sanitation man who used to come up our street every morning except sunday with his trashcan on wheels and broom/dustpan.

He got replaced by a trash truck and a street sweeper machine.

I also remember the Arab-ers with thier fresh produce and two horse team as well going door to door.

[Anonymous]

Didnt Allen have a Dinosaur as a switcher as a bit of fun whimsy?

LOL.

[SpaceMouse]

If you are not trying to duplicate realistic scenes then you are just playing with toy trains. There should be a seperate catagory for that endeavor rather than modeling railroads.

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Harold

I dunno, John Allen was just as serious about operations as he was creating Neverland.

John Allen was more concerned about railroad operation he just happened to also be a great artist. In the context of the time his railroad wasn't Neverland. His was the first movement toward realism. Look at the other railroads of the same time period and his was a giant leap forward.

Harold

All I'm saying is that you can be serious about realistic operations and set your railroad some where on the sliding scale of fantasy--say some where between Allegheny Midland and the G & D. Many operating layouts have a touch of whimsy here and there--that doesn't mean the modelers are any less serious.  

[hminky]

If you are not trying to duplicate realistic scenes then you are just playing with toy trains. There should be a seperate catagory for that endeavor rather than modeling railroads.

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Harold

I dunno, John Allen was just as serious about operations as he was creating Neverland.

John Allen was more concerned about railroad operation he just happened to also be a great artist. In the context of the time his railroad wasn't Neverland. His was the first movement toward realism. Look at the other railroads of the same time period and his was a giant leap forward.

Harold

[SpaceMouse]

If you are not trying to duplicate realistic scenes then you are just playing with toy trains. There should be a seperate catagory for that endeavor rather than modeling railroads.

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Harold

I dunno, John Allen was just as serious about operations as he was creating Neverland.

[hminky]

If you are not trying to duplicate realistic scenes then you are just playing with toy trains. There should be a seperate catagory for that endeavor rather than modeling railroads.

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Harold

[Dave Vollmer]

I also have to concede one major point...

I'm modeling in N scale.  Therefore, a little detail goes farther toward "implying" more detail in N than it does in the larger scales.

When I modeled HO, I needed more detailing in the foreground scenes to imply a working railroad or town.  However, I still think the idea of concentrating detail in certain areas instead of all over, and keeping the detail toward the front, works in most scales.

Again, just in case you missed it, let me hop up and down on one foot with my finger on my nose chanting "This is just my opinion...  it's your layout!  I'm not telling you what to do!"