Backdrop Light and Shadow

When I designed the train room I wanted more or less even lighting from recessed fixtures.  The arrangement makes the room look like a finished part of the house, and keeps me from bonking my head on a valence.

There is some variation in light intensity, primarily noticeable across they sky, and far more visible in photos than in person.  People sometimes ask if I plan to add valenced lighting with baffles or other measures to address this.  The effect doesn't bother me so no.

Would you look at this.  There's a room corner causing a vertical crease through the whole scene.  Am I going to cove the backdrop or otherwise do something about that?  Nope.

Also note the shadows caused by foreground structures.  It's almost inevitable when 3-D and 2-D meet.  Some viewers aren't used to seeing mountains that high behind an urban area, but the entire backdrop was scaled from prototype photos to have features of appropriate size for the location modeled.  I just figure there's a certain awkward quality to the whole enterprise no matter what, and don't find anything here to be objectionable.  Your concerns are duly noted.

Looks more than acceptable to

Looks more than acceptable to run my custom camera car on.  I think it would make great video.

...

If they think the mountains are too close, they should spend some time in Provo...

I'll second...

...both AzBaja and Benny. I have always liked the look of your layout and the mountains ARE that close.

I’m jealous

haters. Doesn’t matter what sport, hobby, career you’re in, people are going to hate on what you have. You posted 2 pictures and they made me envious. People asking you about valence lighting and mountains in the backdrop??  

Those questions equate to throwing chairs and clothes off the titanic as she’s going down.  Haters. 

You cant satisfy everyone no matter what.  Sick layout 

No objections from me

Model Railroading Rules:

1. It's my railroad.

2. In case of questions about scale fidelity, weathering, proper scenery, etc., please refer to Rule #1.

What you have looks just fine to me.

Mountains...

The mountains remind me of where I grew up, and their size scaled with the buildings are PERFECT!

Background

The idea behind this thread was to pose a sort of counterpoint to an oft-discussed "problem."   You've seen it if you've been around the forum for any length of time - experienced modelers allegedly setting unattainable standards and driving less serious modelers off.

As a veteran modeler I have another perspective, from forum activity and in-person visitors alike.  There are  groups that engage in similar worry from different angles.  Our hobby is full of people who analyze themselves into paralysis wanting to achieve a level of perfection that isn't attainable if you actually wish to get things done. 

Some of them are relative newcomers who want to build the perfect layout, and have no benefit of experience to understand how you can't get everything just right - at least not without spending an inordinate amount of time and effort addressing issues that yield scant improvement to the finished product.  Others have been around, but spend LOTS of time planning so they can avoid every single potential shortcoming they've seen on a layout.  If they're going to do something now, it will be completely without compromise.  They wonder why I haven't gone that extra mile too.  Of course, you never see photos of these layouts because they either don't exist, or remain perpetually incomplete while the builder figures out how to light every shadow, find photos to model the back wall of a structure you'll never see, or maybe place every grain of ballast individually. 

You know the comments.  Yeah, I like what you're doing here overall, but why haven't you REALLY done it right and finished every little thing to 100%?  Couldn't you have planned that better?  How about adding those final details?  Simple.  That last bit of marginal improvement can easily take 99% of your time.  I know we have people hereabouts who despise concepts like the perfect being the enemy of the good, but I ain't one of them.  I want to get the layout to a level of completion where I can enjoy running trains through finished scenes.  I'm willing to make compromises to get there, and feel no shame in doing so.

Please note that I am in no way chastising people for constructive input or good-natured back and forth discussions.  Understand, however, that the answer to why I haven't done something you're wondering about, might just be that I don't care to do it.

Rob,  Your layout looks to be

Rob,  Your layout looks to be about the same level as every other layout that I have operated on.  As for the top 101% layout that every ones wants.  I have never operated on one of that high a caliber.  Seems those layouts are built to a less than operation slandered,  Owner is afraid it will get damaged during normal operation (TRUE: Damage happens on the layout like it can happen on the proto type).  Or you get invited to an operation session and it is more a show with trains running around the track doing absolutely nothing other than making a photo op run by.

One other thing I will never understand,  They take a picture of an area, car engine on the prototype.  Then build a model to match it in every detail.  Then they take a picture of the model so it looks exactly like the prototype picture. Then give you both prototype and model identical pictures as if something great was done. and ask what picture do you think looks more real...?  Umm the picture with the real equipment in it.  

The old 80/20 rule

80% of the results for 20% of the effort. The last 20% will require 80% of the effort. 

I think you have a wonderful layout to look at. I would love to see it in person someday but that's not likely to happen.

Everyone should remember "Rule #1"

bonking your head...

I am 6'5", I agree, bonking your head is a great thing to avoid. As for shadows, it looks more realistic to me. Look at how many model railroad pictures don't have them. Without shadows, it's a dead giveaway that it is a model.

@AzBaja

I admire the strict model builders for their skill in reproducing a specific piece of equipment. That is one aspect of the hobby one can indulge in. I want a layout that I can run reasonable representations of trains through reasonable representations of the real world. 

Doing the kind of modeling you describe would be the final 1% of detailing and probably would not hold up to any kind of operation. 

It all depends on what the individual wants out of the hobby - exact scale models or an operation simulation - or somewhere in between. Most people wind up in the middle someplace. Whatever makes them happy. We should all be "having fun with trains"! And we should respect all the different routes to that fun.

 "You've seen it if you've

I've been around for a long time and don't recall this being a problem. We can't expect experienced modelers to dumb down their layouts so ours doesn't look bad in comparison. If someone posts a layout that's better than mine I don't feel anger, I try to learn something from it. I also welcome criticism of my efforts because it's often free research that I can take advantage of. The thing I do sometimes see that I don't get is an attitude of doing something wrong when it takes just as much effort as doing it right,then using the old  rule #1 card to make the wrongness admirable.Why not just just admit it's wrong and live with the fact,or learn to do it right? Every action or task can be improved with research and coaching but model railroaders seem to have a unique desire to embrace their wrongness........DaveB

It’s human nature, so don’t worry

Your comment, Ken, reminded me of Jack Burgess’ Yosemite Valley railroad. There’s a modeler who took 30 years to complete his layout with the single vision of reproducing the YVRR as exact as possible. His layout is fairly modest in terms of size, so one may ask why it took three decades to complete. 

Having followed Jack’s progress it’s apparent to me that he did a huge amount of research and analysis, but that was just part of the fun of the process. In other words, he wanted to be as exact as possible and he took the time to do the work apart from modeling and enjoyed the whole process. Good for him. His layout is about as exact and perfect as is possible in our hobby and he operates it realistically, too. Kudos. 

I’m not saying his approach is the best. I’m just pointing out an example of someone whose goal seemed to be that 1% and he happened to get there, IMO. 

I can relate to Jack, because with my layout I build like a turtle because I like thinking about all the possibilities. I’m sure I would drive other modelers nuts, but like Rob stated, I don’t really care because it’s what I enjoy. 

Plus, we ALL filter our opinions through our own presuppositions. It’s in our nature as human beings, so I don’t get upset when someone tells me I should do something different. I may ask them questions about why they think I should go with a different approach, or I may graciously thank them which almost always seems to disarm their opinion because their need to express was satisfied. No big deal.

Oh, and as far as Rob’s layout work – are you kidding me?! Rob, your layout is to die for. One of the best layouts I’ve ever seen. 

'Tis an Illusion

I agree, but the perception is very much a thing.

Re: Scott

You raise a good point - that some modelers do in fact insist on a lack of compromise and somehow seem to accomplish their goals.  To be clear, those aren't the ones that drive me bonkers, so they're exempt from any concerns on this thread.  It's the ones who allow such a desire to drive them into a near work stoppage, while simultaneously wondering how anyone else would choose to get things done to a lesser standard.

Got it!

Thanks for the clarification, Rob. 

Since I’m a prototype modeler, I do experience this type of person on occasion but actually, it’s pretty rare. Maybe I hang around with the proto modelers who just don’t sweat it. 

Over the years, my experience has been the armchair guys who have some knowledge (dangerous) about a particular prototype and are ready to spot an infraction and then talk on incessantly about their little bit of knowledge. And it always seems like those are the guys it’s hard to get away from. Thank goodness for cell phones because I can interrupt his blabbering and say, "oh, excuse me, my phones vibrating and I need to take this call."

@Scott

Jack Burgess is probably the exception that proves the rule! His YV is truly a "model railroad." One can't help but be impressed. He has gotten 30 years of enjoyment (I hope!) out of his efforts. 

Then there is Micheal Rose, who builds at a prodigious rate and at high quality. Again, one can't help but be impressed.

I have been working on my shelf layout for about six and a half years ans have nothing like Jack's YV or your IAIS layout. I enjoy what I am doing. That, I think, is the reason to have a hobby. Everybody should do the hobby in a manner that is "fun" for them and recognize their way is not the only way. 

I read most of the threads on here and I like seeing the different ways we all have fun with trains.

Fear of failure

someone said: "As a veteran modeler I have another perspective, from forum activity and in-person visitors alike.  There are  groups that engage in similar worry from different angles.  Our hobby is full of people who analyze themselves into paralysis wanting to achieve a level of perfection that isn't attainable if you actually wish to get things done."

People studying a few photos of a top-notch layout often do not understand the time and effort that goes into high-quality models and seem to think that stellar results were achieved on the first try.

They have not learned to experiment and to upgrade their own skills over a period of time. They may not have learned how to modify products off the store shelf to match their goals.

Our club's operating scheme has evolved over seven years, and at its start was based on efforts going back 20 years. Our club's backdrop painter is a third of his way into a 400' mural, essentially, and has already gone back and corrected his early work as his skills improved.

Jack Burgess has written about how he has gone over older scenes and built replacements for early buildings. Eric Brooman is on his third, or maybe fourth, version of the Utah Belt.

If you wait until you draw the perfect plan, your skills are magically perfect, and the manufacturers supply every car and structure you need, you will never start.

Thanks Rob

As a huge fan of your work and pike I have to say you have done very well and better than most modelers ever will.   If there is any one who has issue the issue is with them.  Ther eis a reason we have the saying "goodenough"

Steve

Are we making hobby complicated

I read this post then happened to read the new MRH issue and in the back there’s a good article that deals with exactly what the writer of this post is talking about.  It’s titled “are we making the hobby too complicated”. To each his own 

Rob I do have a problem with your layout..

I have not seen enough photos of it!  Seriously, I enjoy your layout and posts and would like to see more photos of your work. 

Corners, and shadows and lights, oh my!

Rob,

Just run trains man.  Your layout is YOURS - and we who view it through the lens you choose to use to show it off are all the better for seeing your efforts.  I lik ethe scaled mountain backdrop prints - help sme orient to my location way better.

Well done sir!.

Whatever makes you happy...

First of all, your layout looks great. Post more pictures! Second and most importantly, the only person that should be concerned about what your layout looks like should be you. Forget the perfectionists that comment from their armchairs. If running Thomas the train in a circle makes you happy, do it... If modeling a Great Northern Class C-1 0-8-0 steam locomotive as seen in a photo on October 2, 1955 at 2:01 pm in the afternoon down to the last rivet makes you happy, do it... By the way, your layout is probably further along than what 90% of us on this forum have.