Modeling Cliches to Avoid when Building your Layout


M

MilesWestern

Member
I'm currently writing an ongoing series of modeling cliches. I define "modeling cliches" as a visual or design layout element that most people see and notice that something is amiss, but they can't exactly put their finger on it. This is an ongoing series, so I'll add to this post as time goes on.

Let me know what you think. I think this should be discussed in the modeling community.

http://modelrailroading.wordpress.com/?s=cliche
 
Never model a hanging. Nobody ever lynches a snake oil salesman.

Vitamin01.jpg

Vitamin07.jpg

Vitamin09.jpg
 
I guess anything can be a cliche if one is inclined to label it as such. The highway patrolman ticketing a speeder, someone fishing at a fishin' hole, the ubiquitous engineer raising his cap or waving out of the cab, legs sticking out of a hayroll, the lone deer perched up on a hill...the list is lengthy. I wouldnt doubt that modern era modellers think steam is a cliche. Diesels are newer, so the steam guys can't label their diesel counterparts as cliches.

I can't recall, offhand, any image recently where there was some obviously overdone theme or item. About the only thing I have never appreciated were the two steamers either colliding on purpose for entertainment value or the push/pull tugs of war with drivers spinning and steam billowing everywhere. My personal opinion is that such things are undignified and generally wasteful.

-Crandell
 
True, some scenes like those in which you describe are indeed common, but most of the time, they don't look odd, but a familar scene. People fish, they get speeding tickets, etc.

My articles are more leaned towards planning mistakes, like roads leading nowhere and industries plopped in the middle of nowhere for no reason. Others deal with anachronisms and other visual problems like the retaining walls.
 
Okay, that narrows it down a lot better for me. I took your use of the term "cliches" to mean overdone cutsies. Errors in design and construction are what I would call gaffs. ;)

-Crandell
 
How about errors in era or place?
I model the Pacific Northwest, but like running my C&O Kanahwa over the layout.
I was also given a pair of 1980's taxicabs. I only put them on the layout when I know the friend that gave them to me is coming over, but to me the two 1985 Chevys look out of place on my 1960's layout.
Kind of like an SD90MAC and a Baldwin diesel on a unit coal train.
 
I agree with Crandell. Cliche literally means overused, but does not by itself connote an error. Anachronism is a good example of an error, but unless a particular anachronism is overused, it is not cliche.

Still, it is an interesting pursuit and I look forward to continued discussion.
 
roads coming out of a blank blue wall with no background to support where it is going or coming from.

To many switch tracks/ runarounds etc..that just take up space on a lyout but serve little use other than runing thru them.

huge mountains that look like a blob in the middle of a layout.

running 5 locos to pull 20 cars

diesels locos LOL
 
Absolutely table flat layout----anyone think of drainage----please?

Lichen for individual trees---no trunk

Ever' dang train has eccentric rolling stock----doesn't anyone on the route use normal product?----what no raw material?:eek:

OK--my "favourite": Someone put up a supremely well thought out and built, superdetailed in the appropriate areas, layout and then deconstructed the entire process by painting a backdrop that could've been done better by a 10 year old.:eek::(
 
Josh, the monument is at Techachapi, yet the wreck happened at the base of Cajon, in San Berdoo, right?

Cylinder--Oh! The Backdrop one is a huge pet peeve of mine, it completely ruins the realism of the layout in that one simple step. The worst is when a person thinks they're a good enough painter to think they can teach others, but they themselves are still terrible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this is a really interesting subject. If we are trying to recreate a world in miniature, we should try to recreate as many elements as our time, modeling skills, and interests allow. I tend to agree that cliché is not the correct term. Maybe incorrect or out of place modeling element makes mores sense. OTOH, almost none of us are experts in or have any interest in all phases of the miniature world. I happen to like roads, sidewalks, street lights, traffic lights, road signs...all the things you'd normally see while driving down the road. I spent a lot of time detailing all these elements. I make sure I have drainage ditches and gravel shoulders on roads, and used brick streets in the downtown area to make a connection back to an earlier time. By contrast, my track detailing is only passable at best. I like to think I've done an OK job of ballasting and track weathering but I've seen pictures of other people's layouts that have much better looking trackwork than I have. Is my layout better because I have nicer roads and working streetlights or is their layout better because they have more realistic track work? Neither, I think. Once we get into the world of everything has to be perfect, we will drive away a lot of modelers who aren't in it for perfection. I think every modeler has things that he both knows and enjoys modeling and I would expect that work to be at least adequate, if not outstanding. For things which he's not so interested in, passable is good enough as long as the gaff isn't glaring.

Even the definition a glaring error will change depending on your interests. One of the pictures you have that illustrates a four lane road has a glaring error in my eyes. It has double yellow lines and the lane striping is solid white. By the time double yellows came into use, lane striping was always broken white stripes. How many people would actually look at this as an error? A small group, and I suspect that even Mike Budde, who made an otherwise fine looking road, doesn't realize the striping error he made. Would I call him out on the error if I was at his layout? No way, unless he asked. The rest of the modeling is so good that this one error isn't even worth mentioning. This the picture I'm writing about:

101960119.AGKaznOY.jpg


I look forward to more on this and seeing what other people have to say. Oh, and you need to spell check a little better. Bad thing to write about glaring errors with typos. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, my 2 cents worth on the subject. Every engine, piece of rolling stock, MOW equipment etc. brand spanking new and not a speck of dust, dirt, rust (weathering) on anything.
 
that lynching was HILARIOUS! in a dark sort of way.


okay, for a gaff. how about animals in fields with no fencing? what keeps them in? (a pet peeve of mine with the layout here in St. Jacobs! all the horses cows and sheep can get into the vegetable garden AND out on the road!) I keep forgetting to mention it to them. :D
 
Tracks going under buildings bother me, even tho I have seen pics of the real thing doing so. Some good stuff so far, are we all rushing to the workbench for some rebuilds? :D
 
I agree with many of the previous items, and would like to add a few of my own. I seem to see these a lot at model railroad shows, and all of them "bother" me.

However, I MUST offer one point before I get on my soapbox...

At least these folks have running layouts. I do not at this time -- so maybe I shouldn't "throw stones"! But... since you asked...

(1) Crashed UFO
(2) Dinosaur dig
(3) Cow / horse / deer / other large animal hit by car or truck
(4) Bare plywood -- I know it's a work in progress, but c'mon, guys -- even a coat of tan paint would be better than bare plywood!
(5) Too-narrow streets, and parking lots so cramped that there's no way a truck could have ever backed into that loading dock
(6) "Hot Wheels" (or some such) cars, completely un-modified and un-weathered
(7) Airport with 200' long runway

My two cents worth... and we all know what two cents is worth nowadays!! :D

Regards,
Tom Stockton
 
The cop-issuing-a-speeding-ticket scene may be overdone, but it does provide a static view involving vehicles. Most of the time, the vehicles we see on a road are (duh) moving, and we can't model that, so we either have to populate our roads with static vehicles which only look good in pictures, or we have to give them a reason to be stopped. Similarly with other little scenes.

It's not just tracks going under buildings that looks wrong. In the real world, tunnels are expensive and railroads build them when there's no alternative, usually when a track has climbed as high as it can go in rugged country. We use them for convenience, when there's no geographic reason. Maybe a tunnel under a building looks better than a tunnel under a freight yard.

Passenger stations with a platform long enough for just possibly two cars!

Never enough fences.

Roads and buildings obviously placed over, not embedded in, the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top