Realism V's Aesthetics?


I look on my layouts as a whole scenes, so I try to have the same level of detail across the board, from fences to loco's! However I am a firm believer in 'if it looks right, it is right, even if it isn't right'!

Years ago I was so focussed on getting the minute details correct on my loco's that nothing else got done, which turned the hobby in to a chore and I lost interest for a good while (moved to aircraft kits). When I started modelling railways again I got away from the 'everything must be 100% correct' view and as a result I am much more relaxed in the hobby, and get more done!
 
I would say visual for me as well. I've come to realize I don't have the talent to make a magazine quality layout.
Hi Migalyto,

Mag quality layouts aren't always masterpieces! I've had a couple of my layouts published and they were far from perfect!! Professional photographers really can polish turds!

I would say the majority of mag readers (certainly here in the UK) look at the whole scene, rather than every little detail.
 
@Smudge617 That is why I asked, because I just laid some of the (supposedly) Heavy EZ-Line I bought across the pole cross arms and you can barely see it. Perhaps it is because of the color (black) I don't know. Maybe when I got all four lines on the poles you'd see them better - just not sure what I might end up doing.

By the way, visually good wins with me every time as well :)
The trick with EZ Line is contrast. But that's almost impossible. I have high tension power lines across the layout. When you walk in the black EZ line shows well against the blue sky. When you get closer the black line gets washed away with the forest background. I bet if you eyeballed your
power poles from ground level the line would stand out way better. (Assuming you don't have black walls)........
 
For me it needs to look right. The trick (for me) is to create small
clusters of detailed scenes all around the layout, flashing lights, sounds
that sort of thing. Importantly, each scene needs to be self explanatory.
Nobody has ever stopped to count the rivets.
 
To the point - what is more important to you guys - absolute realism, 100% to scale correct OR what looks visual good and possibly not 100% scale correct?
Absolute realism is hard, expensive, and can be boring both to look at AND to operate.
First to do absolute realism one must have a massive amount of space in which to put a very small amount of railroad. Even the smallest industries are enormous when one tries to fit them into a layout. Example. Just the other day I drove by a small but modern grain elevator. I thought wow that would be great to model. I counted the hopper cars lined up and did the math. 30 cars at 50' each is 1500' / 87 is 17 plus feet just for the track where the cars were sitting, that doesn't count the leads and other things. Well back to selective compression.

How much of a real railroad is mile after mile along side a highway. 61 feet of one track and one road and bunches of weeds and trees. yawn.

Even 61 feet of something really cool like the Gore Canyon seems a bit too much. Rock wall, single track, river, a few trees. 3 feet, cool. 6 - 10 feet wow, 15 feet interesting just because of size, 20 feet hmmm, 30 feet will it never end, 40 feet I've lost interest.

Operated on a fellow's layout who did one tiny town and mine in SW Colorado at 100% real size. The operation was simple. Pull the train in, run around spot three ore/hopper cars at on the spur at a mine. Had to run at scale speed. Make all the stops to pick up, drop off brakeman, switchman etc. and/or allow time for brakeman to walk to the correct car to uncouple or switchman to walk over to the turnout. It took over an hour. I was ready to be done after the first 10 minutes. Never again. There is a reason the railroads have to pay people do to these jobs.
 
Following up on Iron Horseman's post, I recently looked at the realism involved in putting an Ethanol refinery on my layout. No problem with much of it. For realism, I assembled four loading platforms that can each load two tankers at one time, thus eight tankers per loading. The Walther's fermentation tanks were sufficient and I used a couple of Rix 41' liquid storage tanks to pre-stage the ethanol for loading. Most of the rest of the facility is low-relief Rix walls against the backdrop. However when I did the bushel of corn to the gallon of Ethanol conversion, I needed ~4 covered hoppers of corn for every tanker! Whoops! That's 32 hoppers for every loading session! I had room for a covered grain unloading shed for just four hoppers at a time, along with some grain silos. A lot of switching was going to be involved, but I went with it and just actually unload 8 hoppers per session. It's the illusion that counts.
 
As to both Willie and Iron Horseman statements. Yup, even with the smallest industry you still need to selectivity compress it to make it fit. I wanted to create a Kemira location thinking that it would be small. The length of the thing was probably doable, but the width is almost or bigger than the length; not including the switch lead. As you can see in the pix, there are 5 cars waiting for processing, plus switch lead. The map at the resolution I was looking at is about 100Ft per inch. Probably not true for the resolution you are looking at. All of the tanks and piping would be interesting to model and should add to the busy-ness of the location. It only seems that you would put in the trailer/truck yard also. Length just doubled. So I would need to magically compress it down to the busy stuff and pitch the rest. Probably doable.

Note that I have not looked at this location for a few years, and Kemira has built on. Used to be only one of the big buildings and one set of tanks. Progress I guess. Also, this is on the UP, the wye heads toward KACC which was always busy when I worked there in the late 70's and Kemira was non-existent. BNSF also has entry into the plant, all that stuff is on the other side, bout 2 miles North of this location.

Kemira.jpg


Later
 
Oh! Such a question 'pops up' at different times in various disguises. :)

In a room of 11ft by 8ft the distance travelled is not far at 1.76 or 1.87. Something has to give. In fact a lot has to be sacrificed.

I made a list of what must be included on the layout. A large amount of what I wish to include had to be ommitted.
Having said that; what must be included had to be drastically reduced. The industrial estate, the scrap yard and others are representations of the real.

Train length operations are sacrificed, although true to the real timetable, are therefore representations.

The main thing I want on my layout is that the trains have a reason to be there. Travelling from A to B; through scenery.

Then I have my grandchildren to cater for. I think now their days of running trains at 300mph are over, they now like to run trains at a more gentle pace. They have now taken to operating 'their own' parts of the layout.
Train operations are quicker when they are here, because things are happening all around the layout at once.

When I am by myself trains run at a more gentle pace. There is no rush. There is no need to. :)

That is my take on model railroading. The main thing is whether I am by myself or with grandchildren, we have fun.

David
 
Ok, I thought it was going to be the scene where the two had been baptized and the other one sold his sole to Satan, so the third guy says "I guess I am the only one unafiliated. "
Well i do like to catch frogs, i just don't call them Pete:D...allright this thread is going on to a whole different level:D
So for me i like the realism, but even when building a locomotive there have to be compromises. Some locomotive models require off scale parts on them for optical reasons, because the parts stand out on pictures of real ones. I have had to in fact knowingly make some parts off scale because something was not right visually. And it was only after i went for "wrong size" that model started to look good.
 
To the point - what is more important to you guys - absolute realism, 100% to scale correct OR what looks visual good and possibly not 100% scale correct?
It didn't take long for me to realize scale everything was not going to happen. Wanted a place to park semi trailers and realized that was utterly impractical.

So, it is selective compression in lots of places with some scale elements. The trains, water tanks, some other details are true scale size and found I could cheat things a little by using small structures.

It helps that I am modeling 1939 in that lots of small "shacks", houses, outbuildings were commonplace. Most freight cars 36' - 40' also helps. I keep my trains relatively short. Screens of trees will be added as I progress to break up the scenes. An eventual backdrop will also help enlarge the layout without needing to buy real estate.

IMG_3271.JPG
 
but even when building a locomotive there have to be compromises.
Sorry I keep posting, must be addictive, but this one made me think of another instance.

I switched to N-scale when it was new in 1969. When one has a bedroom that is 8x9 it only makes sense. By 1982 I had advanced enough that I wanted to scratch build an E5 locomotive. I was modeling CB&Q, no one made one, and scratch building a locomotive is a requirement of one of the Achievement Program Awards. I started gathering prototype diagrams and drawings, collecting raw materials, and then I wanted real hand rails , none of this molded on stuff that was on all the basic models of the day. I read the blueprint and found I needed 3/4" in N-scale. Hmm, what wire size is that? .75 / 160 = .005 inches equates to a bigger "Hmmmm". That would be a about #163 wire if they it that small. So, I backed out and came from it the other way. The smallest stiff wire I could find was #80 = 0.0135". Conclusion, OK, I guess I'll have to settle for 1.1 inch hand rails and switch to HO scale. Never finished that locomotive, nor got the AP award, but I am still in HO scale.
 
I have used some 1:148 British models as well. They don't look out of place or strange if strategically located :)
Some 00 modeller like to push the distance visuals by using n gauge to force it, I have successfully used both 00 and h0 figures and some h0 vehicles, to be fair I have to watch some 00 as when different manufacturers are side by side the discrepancy is way off
905BEF4B-AFCC-4B8A-8354-C69896148C23.jpeg

this are both sold as 00 but close to each other oook ridiculous the green ve is oversized in my opinion and is usually on the layout by itself

this baby was a g scale 1:43 my layout is 00 1.76 so needs careful placement
746D4649-F233-4050-8D73-BA6B2CB45E95.jpeg

here is you know it’s supposedly a two lane it’s gigantic




2A319014-0304-4F41-A086-3CD17572F452.jpeg

the homage is only h0 but can easily pass on the layout

420F512F-3122-4EAF-AF71-A0354693CF2D.jpeg

I often use 1:72 airfix, 1:76 OO is so close
00F3F539-7F5A-4860-A097-5DE52D8E7656.jpeg
84977D37-3AAD-4082-8D39-6A88E32D53E2.jpeg


Planes and helicopter are al so 1:72, size lol
DE0D1BEA-BF97-42C4-8FAA-373406D18F78.jpeg
 



Back
Top