Your right Doug

And it does get worse. Are the models that show up at prototype meets really prototype if all that detail is added and emphasized? Nope. How about the models that are being put out by such makers as Scale Trains? Probably not.

But it is perception and that is what counts. We see those details in real life or at least some of them and we want to see them on our models. This is why we see the continuous debate about using Athern Blue box kits or the old MDC kits for operation. If the train is moving, can you see the detail? Not me. Part of the reason that makes O scale so much more popular these days. It is easier to believe those details are closer to real size, and in a lot of cases they probably are. Get down to N or Z scales and it gets much worse.

Shingles are a really out of scale feature in N scale. The ones I have seen are pretty much HO scale and I really don't know how close to scale they are even though I have used a steady supply over the years.

Jack

Compromise

If you really want details, #1 scale or larger is where you want to be.  Even O scale is on the small side if you want to fully recreate all the detail from the prototype.

But then our layouts are in the same boat.  Stations too close together, towns and cities mere suggestions, curves too tight, etc.  And of course that the larger scales make that worse.  Even N scale or Z can't really get it right.

The hobby motto should be Compromise is Good.

My compromise is S scale, parts are larger than HO so model building is more enjoyable, trains are smaller than O so I can fit in more railroad.  Others of course find a different compromise works for them.

Paul

To paraphrase William Shakespeare

Our layouts are the stage and the trains are merely actors upon that stage. If you attend a good stage production of a play you will often notice that the sets may or may not have a lot of detail or even look real by themselves. They provide the setting for the actors telling us a story. You are right that the buildings and other "background" items are a kind of caricature of the real thing. They may not be 100% accurate in scale and texture but do provide the setting for your story. I like to think of myself as a set designer, lighting director, stage manager and director who is creating a believable world for the audience. As Jack pointed out "But it is perception and that is what counts." A good hobbyist strives for perfection only to have it somewhat out of reach, but we keep trying!

My point mostly was that we

My point mostly was that we do not and in many cases can not model true scale size. So it is somewhat pointless to have a discussion about accuracy when you are building a caricature of a model.  At that point it is not accuracy you are aiming for but impression,  you want the impression of the prototype.

Neither approach is right or wrong they are just different,  

To me much of what is don’t in this hobby just looks off.  Perhaps this is because having spent most of my live around the construction industry I have a firm grip of what a structure really looks like so drastically out of scale details stand out to me.  That is why I can’t stand “ nail holes” .  You don’t see them in real live.  So when I see them on a model it jumps up and shouts MODEL to me.  If you want them fine.  John Allen’s Layout was amazing, not very realistic but amazing non the less and there is nothing wrong with that.  

But let’s not pretend that some of what we do will end up with the most realistic looking model.  If you color you brick and mortar so that the joints jump out at you then for the most part that is NOT realistic,  If you see giant bold sized nail holes that is not realistic.  And so on.  Once again that is not bad if that is what you set out to accomplish but you have to understand what your goal is and make your decisions based on your goal.  But somehow in this hobby over the last 40 years we have developed standard materials and methods that we just take for granted as being they way to do things and the way things should look that frankly are NOT the best at giving realistic appearances.

we have all seen this. Two models both absolutely gorgeous and amazing work.  But one looks like it is a photo of the prototype and the other is obviously a model,  Usually it is the rolling stock that is the prototype photo looking piece and the building that looks like it belongs in Disney World,  And the reason is that we take massively oversized details on the building for granted.  Perhaps this is because we concentrate on the trains in this hobby and not the structures.  

Think about a corigated steel building,  in the hobby it is almost alwas said to be best to make this from individual aluminum pieces and overlap them.  Often adding pends or extreme rust that has eaten wholes in the siding.  But is this accepted become it is the best representation of the prototype or is it because the last thirty years of magazine articles has made it accepted practice?  Perhaps the best known modeler responsible for this back in the day was Malcolm Furrlow.  His models where amazing to look at.  But they had nothing in common with reality.  He went so far as to have track on his layout that did not actually connect to anything just because it looked good.  The man should have worked for Disney as head designer of their parks.  But the problem is that over the last 40 Years his technique and those like it has been used over and over again because “it is they way it is done”.  So we end up building models of models and not models of prototypes,

If that is what you are after fine.  Go for it.  But realize what you are doing,  You will never make a building that looks like it was a photo of the prototype and belongs in one of those “prototype or model” columns if you used corigated siding with ribs that are 4” wide and that has seams that show The thickness of the siding being an inch thick.  (as an example). 

So if you are interested in a prototypical looking structure actually look at the prototype you are trying to model and see what you can actually SEE.  And model that.  And when looking for new ways of doing things don’t devise a new technique to give you the same old out of scale results work on getting a result that actually matches the prototype.  I have seen more then a few new methods on this forum and elsewhere, where the author had obviously put in a lot of time and work and money to invent a new method of doing things that resulted in a model that was still not prototypically accurate.  Not because he wanted to be inaccurate but because he was basing his results off the inaccurate methods that had gone before.  If you think that corrugated metal looks like what most articles show with huge oversized ribs and way way to thick and visible seams then inventing a new method of achieving this is not going to make your model look anymore realistic then the current methods do.

Note I keep using corigated metal as an example because most people understand what what it looks like.  But there are any number of other problems with building models.  And while you may not know exactly why a building model looks wrong you have seen enough real building to subconsciously realize that something is just not right.  This is why an amazing beautiful model often still does not look realistic.

once again if your goal is a gorgeous but not particularly accurate model then that is fine.  I love the Gorre and Dephetted and the F&SM and similar things and they sure have there place.  But for those of you who are interested in prototypical realistic looking models continuing to use out of scale materials and effects are not going to get you there.

So i guess what I am saying is we need to consciously decide what our goal is and choose materials and methods that achieve this and not just continue to use the standard methods because they are the standard.

Doug Meyer 

Doug - I think you're right

Doug - I think you're right on target.  For a long time I have been bothered by the artificial looking mortar lines molded into brick. To top it off we often see them emphasized with a lighter color. Drive around town and look at the brick buildings. From the street, you can tell there is a line, but seldom can you see the actual mortar.  

I think I heard Miles Hale mention not coloring the mortar, but simply running a pencil along the line so it creates a slight shadow.  When I heard that it seemed to immediately make sense.

gs

For what its worth...

Malcolm Furlow did work for Disney...as a model maker. 

I do agree with you, Doug, many of the architectural details on model buildings are exaggerated.  Some of this is imposed by the artistic side of modeling, such as oversized nail holes, and some by the limitations of the manufacturing process.  If a mortar joint were truly depicted as 3/8" wide/tall with a shallow concave profile as would be realistic, it would not exist at all on any commercially molded wall.

Miles may have it right by just drawing mortar lines on the wall!  (Talk about tedious!)

I actually aim for a caricature

When I started realizing that certain things about this hobby had to be "out of scale" in order to function, I became less focused on actually trying to make everything "scale".

- Wheels, flanges, couplers are already out of scale.  hard to get around that if I want a model train that runs.

- Selective compression and sharper-than-prototype curves are almost impossible to eliminate on a layout.  I want a layout. 

- Some items, when made to scale, will be too flimsy to actually touch or work with.  

So my goal is now to make something that looks good, functions, and is believable.  I know it is a caricature. My intent is a caricature. I feel that I would not be interested in this hobby if it wasn't.

Doug -- Hmmm . . .

I read your words with interest Doug. You struck a nerve. I am not sure where you are going with this. While I technically agree with you, my "take" is, I think, different from yours. My primary purpose in the hobby is to produce a realistic layout and realistic models for the layout. I NEVER add detail that will detract from the realistic appearance of a model. Detail can be a detractor that takes away from realism. I believe that paint and weathering is the one, overriding detail that will make a realistic model, not nail heads, rivet heads, or other fine detail.  

No model will ever be mistaken for the prototype -- if anyone who really knows what the prototype looks like examines the model photo carefully. You made a point that most of us base our models on other people's models. That is a sure prescription for building an unrealistic model. To maximize realism, modeling needs to be based on the real thing. But keep in mind, not everyone strives for realism, and if they do, it is to different degrees of realism. We don't all have the same knowledge of what the prototype looks like. We don't all have the same artistic skills or craftsman skills to apply to our models.

Don't be so hard on us.   LOL  

James Six

Our plastic diesels and steam locos ...

Representational Modeling

"Caricature" has a pejorative sense. In the modeling press, "representational modeling" has been used frequently to refer to models with less detail that capture the overall sense of a prototype and are acceptable to the eye. It connotes an acceptance that all modeling requires compromises. I am fine with it. Each of us should pursue what pleases us, whether it is a high level of detail that causes us to question whether images show models, or a lower level detail that is nonetheless enjoyable and amenable to operation.

"Malcolm Furlow did work for

"Malcolm Furlow did work for Disney...as a model maker. "

Nope. John Olsen, whose articles were similar to Furlow's, was the one who worked for Disney as a designer and developer of theme park attractions. His layouts were the Mescal Lines, Cielo Lumber Company, and the Jerome and Southwestern.

"And your point?"

 I think it's to model the details as we'd  see them from the operator's aisle view and don't overemphasize details by making them too big? Look for protoype photos taken from the same relative distance as we'll be viewing our scale models and try to replicate that image in 3D?? Leave off stuff if it's more a detriment than an asset to the reality of the finished model???  Micro train N stuff is a good example of leaving off details but making great looking rolling stock. Of course the hobby press and manufacturers in general will not like this approach as they  make more money from pushing more details oversize or not. ......DaveB 

Sizes of things other than details

The original points are well-made.

The one thing parallel to that which I've always noticed is that generally, many model railroad structures occupy the same size footprint, regardless of scale. I know a guy with a G scale layout and the structures are so comically small (for their scale size), not even a low-budget western movie would have made buildings that small.

I think that's a reason why N scale has the potential for looking more accurate at a distance than other scales, as the structures are more accurate in footprint in relation to scale, and further apart.

Sure, size factors into it as many people would rather have more track than a non-lineside structure. I get that. Heck, I have a scratch built house on my On30 layout that has forced perspective in that it's not as deep as people think when they look at it. But people see my gas station, which is still pretty small for real life, and comment how massive it looks.

I guess they're used to the tiny structures many people have on layout, especially narrow-gauge one? How about modern layouts with businesses with no parking lots at all. Have you ever seen that in real life in the last several years, other than in Colonial Williamsburg (or place like that)?

But yeah, everything is condensed on a layout, even the big ones.

I remember someone once measured a small local RR yard and wanted to model everything in scale. To his shock upon running the numbers, he found he'd have to have a real structure the size of an airplane hangar to even model it in N scale!

@Graham Line

Well then, unless I have the wrong Malcolm Furlow, his own biography is wrong!  See:  http://parkcityfineart.com/artist-biography.php?artistId=55849&artist=Malcolm%20Furlow

It is also true that John Olson worked for (or still does) Walt Disney.

I don’t think there is a

I don’t think there is a “Wrong way” to do this hobby.  And if you want a layout that has a Disney feel to it like the G&D or Malcom’s models that is fine.  And it sure is art.  And if you do that I will be the first to congratulate you on your work.  

But those are not the folks I am aiming this thread at,  If you decide on a specific look or feel to your layout who am I, or anyone else t tell you you are wrong?  It is your railroad and it is your work of art.  Do what you want.

My point is and was aimed at those more interested in prototype fidelity and accuracy.  And while our locomotives don’t run on diesel fuel I have seen a number of models in this and other forums that are not all that easy to distinguish from the real thing.  Can you?  Yes.  But some of them are hard to tell.  That being said they are almost alwas models of rolling stock / locomotives.  And almost NEVER structures.

And I think that is because of a couple reasons.  

One we all tend to know more about the railroad equipment after all that is the main focus of most in this hobby.  

Two. Structures are viewed my many as simply a place to set off or pick up cars and as such are not as important 

Three. Structures are generally large and most folks don’t dedicate the space needed to them. This is starting to change a bit with people like Jim Six doing single towns as the centerpiece of there layouts where in the past many modelers would have squeezed as much track in as the could fit,

And Four we seam to be basing our models off other models or methods and not off what we can see with our own two eyes.

As for the scale factor issue I think it is a red herring.  Yes brick mortar lines close to scale would be hard to see but we have moved more and more towards scale in locomotives,  we have diamond plate and grills and what have you That while maybe not true scale are close.  And we have learned weathering and finishing techniques that that minimize the discrepancy.  But using mortar joints as an example instead of minimizing the joints most folks and most articles put forward a finishing method such as using a light gray color that actually emphasizes the oversized joints.

I guess where I am filing at this is that for those interested in producing more realistic looking structures and layouts that similar to what any are doing with equipment we/they need to re-examine the materials and methods we are using.  

-Doug Meyer

Caricature?

Caricature?

No, that's why I call myself a model railroader as opposed to a railroad modeller.

The first is someone who uses artistic ways to convey the impression of a railroad, the second is someone who strictly models exactly what is true to the original.

Pendon in Great Britain is a good example of the latter.

It's all a facsimile

All modeling is a facsimile. Unless you have a shrinking machine, you will always be making something that sort of looks like something else, but actually is not that other thing.

As long as it looks good and the artist who fashioned it is pleased, then it's good. If you want to see mortar and nails from the aisle, then fine, make them show. If you don't, then don't make them show.

No approach is "right" apart from the beholder -- it's about what the creator likes and (to the degree that the creator cares) what the beholder likes. And no like or dislike is wrong, it's just a personal preference.

It's all just a facsimile anyway. Pick what you like and have fun.

Agreed, to an extent

I agree with this to an extent. Nail heads would be really hard to see, but when enough contrast is present do show up. I have a couple of abandoned houses in my neighborhood that haven't seen a lick of paint in a long time now. I can CLEARLY see the rust streaks from the nails at a good distance. It isn't until much closer that I see the nails themselves. I believe it goes to the point of the impression side but it can be seen. 

Your statement on brick is spot on. I have gone to mostly cardstock modeling and dor that I fix it with brick texture sheets. Almost no mortar lines visible and some of the best you can't see individual bricks precisely. The brick color is blended with the mortar and just doesn't show unless the structure were right up against the edge of the layout and be right in front of the scale sized viewer.

Same for corrugated. I print the stuff on the thinnest paper I can can and call it a day. Rusted in nice but most of it shouldn't be or whatever is under it is getting wet and damaged.....

Good food for thought when modeling. As an N scaler, I measure things like door handles and knobs. I go around my town and look at structures from a distance and photo them. I work from the photos. If I can't see it in the photo then I need to either leave them off or model them in correct size. I include them from time to time but they are ridiculously tiny and can't be seen unless you get right up on the model and look at it. Honestly it is kind of fun. While the level of detail is wasted for the distant view, when people get right on it and realize it was there all along they are quite inquisitive about what else they may have missed. Sometimes though, in order to convey a feeling of being close to the actual object you have to model out of scale and add detail that doesn't make sense. I think the impression part is important because sometimes it says ditch the details and other times it says include them even when it wouldn't be technically right.

It's all a facsimile

My modeling standard is that "if it looks right, then it is right". The idea of right is in the mind of the beholder. I am the only beholder that matters with my layout and models. I am not about to take my hobby too seriously. While some folks see me as a serious prototype modeler, I am not. I drive the truly serious prototype modelers crazy with my willingness to compromise. I am about appearance, not necessarily accuracy. It's a hobby!

LOL  (Somewhat serious but still laughing)  

James Six

Wow. Some of you guys WAY

Wow. Some of you guys WAY over-think this hobby. So much typing, pontificating, etc. I guess if that's where one finds their bulk of "enjoyment", then so be it, type away.

Simply put: Each modeler needs to find their "happy place" that results in receiving enjoyment from the hobby. No right way, no wrong way, just your way.

Andre

We are all illusionists - Reprise

Hi all, 

what follows was lifted from a previous post of mine here about a different matter, but I feel it has some relevance in this topic;

Read, ignore, draw inspiration or perhaps even additional discussion points from the above, the choice is yours and yours alone when it comes to which illusion you chose to chase in model form and how you go about it,

Whose mind?

Actually, the idea of right is in the mind of the artist (or modeler). This is not just the "it's your railroad" principle, it is inherent in the definition of an artist. (And modelers are definitely artists.) We strive to realize our visions, emphasis on our. The process of becoming a modeler is not just learning skills presented in Model Railroader, it is honing our visualization muscles to the point we know how to apply those skills. Once the result is right in our own mind, any beholders will be blown away.

pqe

Each modeler needs to find their "happy place"

I suspect it depends on the

I suspect it depends on the distance one is modeling. I have been looking at several photos from HAER, and Library Archives, but I am having a hard time posting them from flicker. The photos show buildings from a fairly decent distance 40 to 100 feet and mortar lines, groves in metal siding etc are fairly visible. Just as the groves in wood siding on box cars show up well after weathering many of these things show up quite well also.

I also believe it depends on the accuracy of the models. If the lines are not over size a bit of weathering will make them show up.