SpaceMouse wrote: This is turning into an artist vs realists with the prototypers striking the first blow. To those of you saying that the layout should be taken from pictures not other layouts, I say fine. For those of you that want a layout like Selios, Furcho, Pete S., John A. Tony K., Allen, M etc,etc, that's fine. For those that want looped-de-loops with carpet grass and unpainted structures that's fine. This is a matter of goals. Of all of the above the details can be over-done or under done. And they can be done ineffectively. The idea of studying pictures is a good idea and works 90% of the time. On the other hand, if what you are creating is coming out of your head, ala Furlow or Allen, you sometimes have to leave photos behind. The use of details should rise to meet the needs of your vision, no matter which camp you are in.
This is turning into an artist vs realists with the prototypers striking the first blow. To those of you saying that the layout should be taken from pictures not other layouts, I say fine. For those of you that want a layout like Selios, Furcho, Pete S., John A. Tony K., Allen, M etc,etc, that's fine. For those that want looped-de-loops with carpet grass and unpainted structures that's fine.
This is a matter of goals.
Of all of the above the details can be over-done or under done. And they can be done ineffectively. The idea of studying pictures is a good idea and works 90% of the time. On the other hand, if what you are creating is coming out of your head, ala Furlow or Allen, you sometimes have to leave photos behind.
The use of details should rise to meet the needs of your vision, no matter which camp you are in.
Chip,
This is why I'm being careful to use words like "I think" and "my opinion." This is because my goal is plausibility.
I used to be a big fan of Malcolm Furlow myself, back when he was popular. To this day I think he does a great job simulating rust and rotting wood. But what he does doesn't look like what I'm modeling (i.e., a class-1 railroad in the transition era), so I would stray from my own goal if I followed his lead.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
TA462 wrote: BRAKIE wrote: 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.
BRAKIE wrote: 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.
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.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Dave Vollmer wrote: CNJ831 wrote: 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 Excellent point!!! When I was a Civil War reenactor, our First Sergreant used to admonish us to study photographs of real soldiers from the war, and not try simply to emulate other reenactors.This is the same thing. Studying other layouts as a prototype instead of real trains leads to an incestuous process that stifles ones own creativity (and substitutes someones else's) and generally moves one farther from plausibility.How many layouts were inspired by John Allen's G&D, and have that canyon with the stacked bridges? Spectacular? You bet! Realistic? Not really. Yes, there were exceptions to every rule. But I argue that modeling the rule, and not the exception, is the route to plausibility.Drawing inspiration from a layout is good (and should be done, I think), but the prototype should provide the majority of the inspiration (even for freelanceers) in my opinion.
CNJ831 wrote: 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
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
Excellent point!!! When I was a Civil War reenactor, our First Sergreant used to admonish us to study photographs of real soldiers from the war, and not try simply to emulate other reenactors.
This is the same thing. Studying other layouts as a prototype instead of real trains leads to an incestuous process that stifles ones own creativity (and substitutes someones else's) and generally moves one farther from plausibility.
How many layouts were inspired by John Allen's G&D, and have that canyon with the stacked bridges? Spectacular? You bet! Realistic? Not really. Yes, there were exceptions to every rule. But I argue that modeling the rule, and not the exception, is the route to plausibility.
Drawing inspiration from a layout is good (and should be done, I think), but the prototype should provide the majority of the inspiration (even for freelanceers) in my opinion.
You can have all the authenticay or homespun under the sun, but to the public who hears the hoarse shouts of the Captain and sees the glinting silver leveling downrange... none of that matters.
Now if you are doing a camp or exhibit and replicating the era, the rule I went by was "Nothing modern" anywhere in sight. Woe onto the pvt who has a fist wrapped around a can of soda, "CALL out the PROVOST! Corporal!"
I'm not sure I understand you, Dave. If you did as you say and emulated the prototype you model, then you would declare bankruptcy and sell out to a southern rail system. No hypocrites please.
I agree with many of the responses in the fact that you should model from photos and prototypes, not from other model railroads. This still allows you unlimited creativity and personal expression whether or not you are a free lancer or rivet counter. It just keeps it believable. Now don't get me wrong, Furlow was a major huge inspiration to me in my younger days, but I don't try to duplicate his work. In fact, his work inspired me to find my own "way" of modeling. Bob's (Fundy Northern) work also has inspired me for very many years, I admire the detail he puts into his models, yet none of them seem unbelievable or over the top. I also don't try to duplicate what he does, but use it to inspire me to improve my own work.
The Dixie D Short Line "Lux Lucet In Tenebris Nihil Igitur Mors Est Ad Nos 2001"
George Selios?
Hmm, might have to look him up.
Allen, Allen....yep, thinking back, I saw a pic about 30 years ago, floor to ceiling mountain, monster bridge, nice.
I don't read MR, or buy model railroad videos. Sometimes browse the Walther's catalog trying to fall asleep, but why read a mag or watch a video, when the layout is right there, with a LONG list of things that need done? There's only ONE source of information for realistically modelling the San Juan mountains, and it isn't any master modeller, nor magazine, it is the mountains themselves, and if I could spend more time there, I would and the layout might not exist.
Too much detail, not enough detail, who says? Too much detail for the background? Why waste space on background? That's why I like an island layout, instead of around the walls, every square foot is foreground, and there's a million more camera angles to explore.
Too much for what, for who, and why is it too much?
Too much for MY railroad, now that's fine with me, there's only one master per road, and if you don't have your's the way YOU want it, shame on you.
Too much for ANYONE's railroad? Heh heh, enforce that, if you can. ;-)
Too much, why does everybody ooh and ahh over HIS and not MINE?
Well, here's a pic, there's a train, looks like shiny plastic, blob-o-groundfoam there, building setting on ground with no foundation here, add some trees, call it done, ho-hum, on to the next.
And then here's a pic you just can't stop staring at. Everywhere you turn, there's something else to see, even areas you've been over a thousand times, why?
Well, figuring THAT out is part of the magic that keeps you looking, sweep after sweep, analyzing stare after analyzing stare.
Part of it, the whole scene works. It is...integrated. Not only are the foliage colors right for that plant, in that place...but the foliage complements the rocks, which closely but do not precisely match the ballast, and as you sweep you notice, or better yet, fail to notice two things...it looks good from a long way away, and when you get close, it looks even better.
Part of it, there are no ragged edges. It doesn't look like sloppy plaster work where the road meets the dirt, the street doesn't fold from flat to uphill along a perfectly straight crease, like cardboard might, because during the time that thousands of myriad tiny details were added, the layout has been ...honed... one glance tells you that you are looking at thousands and thousands of man hours, of artistic genius, of persiration and holding one's breath to place the detail perfectly and getting it right...and inspiration, putting that one detail on, taking it off, putting it on differently, taking it off, thinking through where and why the detail needs to be there, and not there, and finally getting it right, not to stand back and call it done but to head on to the NEXT detail.
Not tens of manhours following a recipe.
Part of it is good photography. Understanding the camera, learning to overcome its limitations, painting with light, painting with the RIGHT light, believable camera angles, attention to detail, again, honing and polishing the good into the sterling.
And yes, part of it is knowing when to stop. Or, if you are just hackers like us, and not legendary modellers, stopping early, and thinking before proceeding, there'a always time to add one more detail later, but too much for that scene, for that model, for that modeller, is, well, just too much.
Our layout isn't anywhere near any of this. No leglends here. Might not ever be. We run a...took me a long time to figure this out...a model runway, sort of lie a fashion show except with trains, and in the mountains. I'm a railfan, like lots of trains, old trains, new trains, many trains. Lots of staging here, barely believable scenery, clockwork wiring, new train appears, laps the main a time or two, stops to let on passengers or pick up a boxcar, couple more laps, drops a boxcar, then back to his cave for a month or two. Meanwhile, one or two other models are walking out on the runway, displaying their wares, and back to their caves too. Two or three trains on display at once, then a different group, till you're tired of looking at trains, or run out of staging. Then when the audience is gone, some complicated runs to reset the staging and get thing where they need to be, rinse and repeat.
And just maybe, in between modelling trains, and hanging out in a pine forest up above 12,000 feet, miles from the nearest human, after all the big projects are done, we'll find time to add a few details, so who knows, greatness is still withnin the realm of the empirically possible.
I guess I could mandate that all modellers follow this procedure.
I guess I could then demonstrate how they failed to follow "official policy" and use that to "prove" their layout wasn't as good as mine, and justify, to myself and perhaps a few like minded others, that all the ohhs and ahhs are misplaced...that my misunderstood work was just too well executed for the common man to appreciate.
Yes, I could, but that would presuppose I wanted ooohs and ahhhs in the first place. Sure it's nice for someone to appreciate the work you put in, but the real ZING up the old spine comes when YOU bend down and it all LOCKS into place... and you can SMELL the pines.......and once you feel that a time or two... the rest is peanut butter and while a tasty lunch from time to time, oily spread just isn't quite in the same ballpark as the porterhouse feeling of YOU knowing that YOU nailed it, exactly the way YOU planned to, hundreds or thousands of hours ago.
I guess its all about priorities...
:-)
Dave, Chip, et al...
I have been watching this thread develop with considerable interest, tempered by the fact that I don't have any 'to be visible' territory on my layout in its present state of development.
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?
That said, I think we need to try to force perspective in such a way that our narrow layouts look deeper than they are. This is difficult to do unless the layout is either built along the walls or has really serious view blocks. Speaking of a place where there are numerous wooded ridges, and a hazy day with sunlight mostly dimmed by a thin overcast, the farthest visible ridge will be a blue-grey silhouette against a whitish-grey sky. Even the closest ridge won't show much detail unless it is REALLY close - say within 200 yards. Colors are muted and flat, unless they are on a surface that is deliberately treated to be glossy (enameled steel, or oiled and rubbed cedar, come to mind.) Scale size and level of detail go along with that. If a building on my 1:80 scale layout is supposed to be twice as far away as it is physically possible to place it, using a 1:160 model is a no-brainer. Only extreme foreground models should be full scale, and only extreme foreground models need such touches as interior treatment or highly detailed architecture.
Then there is the legitimate point that there should be specific points of interest to draw the attention of the spectator. Perhaps all of those boxes, barrels and bales should be concentrated on a single freight station platform well populated with workers and cargo movers, not scattered helter-skelter across the landscape. Maybe ONE non-industrial building should have detailed interiors, while all the rest make do with curtains, roller shades or less. And, just maybe, the level of structural and landscape detail should be balanced against the level of detail on rolling stock. If all the cars are train set refugees and all the locomotives are blue box specials, having individual panes in the multi-mullion windows and working door locks on Grandma's bungalow two blocks from the tracks doesn't make much sense.
At present, I only have one non-railroad item that will become a specific point of interest - a 1:80 scale kit of a 5-tiered pagoda that is destined to become the centerpiece of a detailed scene. Balance that against some 1:160 (and smaller) buildings that will be little more than shaped and painted blocks of wood, their colors blue-muted, barely visible through trees that will be more suggestion than detailed models.
My take on the situation. Feel free to disagree.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Dave Vollmer wrote: 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.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:
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.
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:
I agree with you on this one, Dave. I too can appreciate fine modelling even if it's not in a style that appeals to me personally. Personally, I like the look of your town just as it is. Sometimes you could add a few more vehicles, or people, or even change them for different ones, but not all small towns were busy all of the time, and some, almost never. I try to keep most of the details on my own layout moveable, so the same car isn't always sitting at the same crossing, just as I use live loads in my open cars. I'd rather have fewer noticeable details and move them around as needed (for photos, or just for variety) and have some not so noticeable, or at least not "stand-out" details that just add to a scene in a subtle way. I haven't the time or the money to detail every scene to the nth degree, I just want to create a reasonably believeable scene in which to operate my railroad. I model the '30s, but most of the buildings are well-maintained, as are the trains. In the photos that I've seen of this area, things were kept in a pretty reasonable state of repair, and labour was both cheap and plentiful.
Wayne
Dave as this thread has developed I sense that many respondents have latched on to the Sellios school as being prime examples of "Too much detail". However, I am not necessarily sure that is what you were driving at when opening this discussion. Take for example the typical display layout, perhaps most epitomised by your average toy train layout or places like Northlandz. These types of layouts tend to be crammed with action, one scene on top of another. They are not realistic in the least but serve a particular purpose. Some modellers go down this route with their layouts by adding circus, fairground rides etc. Many modular layouts would fall into this category. IMO they should not be demeaned because of this, as their primary goal is to entertain the great unwashed masses. The layout in the Aug MRR that we referenced is actually a display layout to be fair, so will neccessarily have scenes to appeal to a visiting audience.
So turning my thoughts to Selios and the many modellers that follow his style. There is a style and a look that we all associate with FSM. I would liken this to the very distinctive style of the artist Thomas Kincaid. I personally loathe Kincaid's art, but one look at a print and you know immediately who the artist is. Sellios is a lot like that, I don't mean in style of the art, but in that it can be instantly recognized as his work. The FSM brand has been built over a very long time. There is a strong following and from what I can tell he can sell every kit he makes. Something with that level of success and recognition will garner its fair share of fans as well as detractors. I don't have any FSM kits, but I think that there is a lot that can be learned from the techniques. Selios is a superb artist, one that may not be to everyone's taste, but none-the-less superb. If every layout were a replica of the FSM it would be a dreary place. Fortunately there are many artists in this hobby that are depicting their ideas in their own way.
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'm jumping into this conversation a bit late, Dave, but I agree and disagree. For me the issue is not the amount of detail that is applied it is how it is applied. Take for example the Selios. His details are heavy but they are flat and consistent. There is no variance.
A scene should have a focal point that sucks you in and leads your eye where the modeler wants it to go. It should suck you in to the details. If the details are heavy everywhere, the eye wanders willy nilly and the effect is lost.
It is even okay to have a lot of details everywhere, as long as there is enough contrast that the observer is intentionally moved by the modeler. The modeler should direct the attention to the highlights and away for m the "flaws" and distractions.
Lorne in GP wrote: There are two simple things, I think, would give your layout more realism. #1: A bit of graffiti on the side of the building in the foreground.#2: Those black lines the city likes to put on the roads when they crack. Judging by the shade of that road, I'd say it's seen use for quite some time. I hope you didn't mind my input.
There are two simple things, I think, would give your layout more realism.
#1: A bit of graffiti on the side of the building in the foreground.
#2: Those black lines the city likes to put on the roads when they crack. Judging by the shade of that road, I'd say it's seen use for quite some time.
I hope you didn't mind my input.
Thanks for the input! I agree with suggestion #2. #1 probably won't work; I model July, 1956! Not much of a graffiti problem 50 years ago...
BigRusty wrote: 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. or turned in factory outlets.
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. or turned in factory outlets.
I too grew up in essentially the same region you are speaking of, during the 1940's. While there certainly were many older industrial structures around, there was absolutely nothing like the level of filth and grime, nor any universal state of dilapidation and decay that is often depicted on certain of today's better known pikes. Such layouts are no more than caricatures of what once actually existed in New England...but their influence on other hobbyists is dramatic.
Some very interesting points made here. In my opinion, it all comes down to personal preferance and the style of that particular modeler. I like to compare modeling to other forms of art work. Every painter has their own preferance of what makes a work of art. Some like realism, some like semi abstract, some like abstract. It's their preferance. I, personally, am more attracted to realism. I like to know what I'm looking at and like to see details. As far as railroad modeling, I love to see deatails. It's the little things that complete the scene. It's like looking at a bunch of diaramas all in one package. Every one of them tells a different story. Just like different parts of a city. If you can acheive this outstanding detail AND include the properly modeled railroad ( by that, I mean, true to prototype), then, in my eyes, you're a master modeler. I look up to you and hope to acheive even a fraction of your abilities.
Dave, I don't think you stired a hornet's nest. You just voiced your opinion. That's what forums are all about. The picture you posted of a portion of your layout is done very well. It shows alot of details as far as weathering on the sides of the buildings and road. I love it. I agree with you, however...you DO need more cars...lol. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to make a suggestion. There are two simple things, I think, would give your layout more realism.
BTW, how did you manage to get the August 2007 issue already? I've got a subscription to Model Railroader and the latest one I have is July...and I just got it a little over a week ago.
I think a large part of the detail problem isn't that there is too much detail, but that the "contrast" is too high. Things at a distance become more muted. You can see the detail but the color range is less. I have been to modelers' layouts that were fantasically detailed but the colors were more consistent, balanced and realistic.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
When my daughter and son, who were raised in Chicago, visited with us for a family reunion in Groton, CT, they remarked, "WOW, everything is so OLD here". Why, because it was, VERY OLD. All of the mill towns in New England were the heart of the Industrial Revolution. From Eli Whitney, Samuel Colt and thousands of other inventors and entrepenuers built the vast New England industrial complex. Believe me, Mr. Sellios is depicting the truth, although maybe a little more crowded than actuality due to selective compression.
Yes, it was a bit dirty. Thousands of steam engines spouted soot, the mills that weren't water powered burned coal. Homeowners burned coal (anthracite) for heating. Soot and grime were a fact of life. The rivers and streams were polluted with industrial waste as well.
But, all in all, it was a great place to grow up.
In modelling the New Haven's Shore LIne, I am having a hard time finding photos of the lineside industries because so many of them have been torn down or turned in factory outlets.
Dave I totally agree with you on this, and I acknowledge that you're making observations, not passing judgement. Had to smile at the Popeye Set comment, btw. [:)
One aspect of many highly-detailed layouts that irks me is that seemingly everything has to look old. But whatever era it depicts, SOME things MUST have been either relatively new or at least well maintained. They can't all have been decrepid medieval relics, cracked and rotting and falling apart. And thinking back to my parents and grandparents [none of whom were wealthy] they took great care of their possessions and took pride in their appearance - quite probably much more so than we do today. Or at least, that's my opinion, and all we're really doing here is expressing opinions. There's no right or wrong. I'm not about to say you can't do it, any more than Dave is. It's just that I don't find such modelling convincing, and it's not for me.
Mike
Modelling the UK in 00, and New England - MEC, B&M, D&H and Guilford - in H0
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/
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!"
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!
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)
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.
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.
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
ARTHILL wrote:To each his own.