Perfection is the enemy of good. In my past attempts at modeling, I allowed my desire for perfection to prevent the completion of what I was working on. It wasn't 100% realistic so I got frustrated and stopped working on it. As I start down the path of modeling again I need to keep this forefront in my mind. One nice thing about modeling a train layout versus say, a ship, is that you can incrementally rework on individual components as your skills improve.
Thanks for sharing Jim and you've hit the nail on the head. It's easy to burn out or become sort of nihilistic about modeling if a 100% 'true' copy of reality is the goal, since it's fundamentally unachievable - CCMR is still just a 3x7 thing on some cabinets no matter what I do to make it look 'real'. It's why I take the view of CCMR as an artwork seriously, because that allows me the license to follow my vision and not sweat too much at getting everything exact. The incremental nature of a layout that you mention is also spot on. It's funny how what looked good to me a few years ago now forms the springboard for the next round of adjustments and improvements :)
Some wise words there. In many of my own projects I find that to be the case. I seek out perfection on the first try and in turn, never actually get anything done.
@@ElationProductions Not uncommon. I do my best to manage expectations up front with the knowledge that I can revise down the road, or just start over if it's a big fail.
I've learned to expect Good Enough, near perfection, Is when a non-modeler visitor recognizes the scene or says how do you accomplish that? Not that they are going to even try to duplicate, just admiring the works. Compliments are the pay for the hobby efforts. Great topic and discussion. Thank you. Your financial corner trash is beautiful. Ha! Beautiful trash, like beautiful rust.
@@allenkotlan3606 thanks Allen, really appreciated and spot on with your comment. Anyone who visits this railroad in person is initially just amazed by how tiny the layout really is, and after that like you say, they enjoy the aesthetic qualities of a minature world. I had a ton of fun with that corner BTW, never thought I'd enjoy building trash piles.
In "N" you are doing better than most! Nobody needs to measure chain link fence wire or squares. What I see is that if I'm 2-4 ft from the scene and it looks good and it represents life it is better than it needs to be for 90% of modelers. Keep up the wonderful work and keep your explanations coming. A model railroad is a picture book of a story that is being told. Some of the best books that I have read had no pictures other than what the author put in my mind.
Totally agree with you Peter, and I think the picture book analogy fits perfectly. Models can come close but are never 100% literal fact. Selective compression, effective resolution, scale, etc. all come into play. It's a collaboration between builder and viewer in the end.
This is a really great conversation. I come from the theater world, and we used to have the 30' rule. No audience member will ever be closer than 30' from the scenery, so build it for that viewing distance. My layout is for operations, so I am building the layout to focus on the operations, not on the scenery. The plan for the scenery is that everything will be slightly out of focus as to not pull your view. You need to decide what your viewing angles are and what you goals are.
Funny, I was a theatre major before swapping to a science career so I remember exactly the approach to scenery that you mention (I actually do view the layout to some extent as a stage set in which the trains are the actors, though I don't often use the vocabulary to describe it as such). That same analogy you use really also works nicely in thinking about aesthetic choices related to the scenery - in some cases high detail, in other cases maybe more 'black box' minimalist and functional to focus attention. You're absolutely right that model railroads can inhabit any of those frameworks based on builder preference. Thanks for sharing.
Frank Ellison popularized and may have even invented the concept of model railroading as theater mid-twentieth century. Reality cannot be shrunk to the proper size. The modeler can only make it appear that it has. Excellent analysis!
Fascinating, I too believe the overall picture is more important than the absolute accuracy of any part. Some incredibly accurate models as well as paintings are dull as ditchwater though impressive in their quality. I like a layout to bring you in by it’s interest and/or as a place to run trains , not just be life like as, of course it can never truly be. Great video and great layout 👍
These are great points. Aesthetic and technical qualities are separable in many cases. This is where storytelling and the diorama concept really shine.
Ahh, Seurat and Satie on a Sunday. Love it, and the pixelism is very representative of the point you were making in this video. I often struggle with what is representative of the scene I’m creating, and what I can be reasonably pleased with. A scene that I recently finished near and about a turntable and engine house, was a good example where I took a close look at just how crazy I wanted to get with various sundry details. Oil barrels and crates, litter and grease and workers looking not all that busy with repairing the loco that’s languishing in front of them; all considerations. Stepping back, as you have so interestingly pointed out here, allows one to take in the scene rather than the minuscule. Thanks for another great video.
Thanks Brooklyn - That Seurat's at the Art Institute of Chicago so a little easter egg for the Chicago folks who watch the channel. I love Satie - the French composers of that era were phenomenal. I think there's a value to working in fits and starts on a scene, letting ideas emerge, put them into place, and then move on and refresh. Most of the parts of this layout I've gone over 2-3 times, why I call it 'evolving' a scene :). Engine houses are great places for really adding the sorts of details you mentioned - I'd love to see how that turned out.
Excellent video, as usual, CCMR. I had an experience in HO scale a couple of years ago that was right in line with this topic. I was modeling a small "hidden joke" area behind my enginehouse where local wayward teens would gather at night. I carefully researched the dimensions of cheap single bed mattresses and successfully modeled an abandoned looking one using styrene. Then I decided to add a few empty beer cans. Again I researched the dimensions and cut a few cylinders from brass rod. As I sprinkled the tiny beer can models over the ground cover of dirt they essentially disappeared! The enginehouse has been replaced with open air engine servicing and the mattress has been removed, but those invisible beer cars are still down in that ground cover somewhere. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Love that story Andrew, thanks for sharing. Moral of the story seems that it can absolutely be a challenge to create identifiable trash (as opposed to just trash) at any scale! If anything, those beer cans will be a fun time capsule if you ever re-scenic the area down the road.
Your layout is the perfect blend of realism and Impressionism. It definitely gets the job done of allowing me get lost in the scenery. Thanks for sharing!
You hit the nail on the head! More of this please… as much as I enjoy watching video of model construction, this shines a refreshing light on the thought process of building something to scale. Thank you! Dave
I used the fabric to make my (HO) chain link fence. All the posts and rails were styrene and the fabric easily glued to them. Trying to glue the fabric to metal is a nightmare. When everything was in place I sprayed it with a silverish paint and if the paint filled in the holes of the fabric I blew it out with a can of compressed air. Your concerns in the video were very well expressed. As I am watching this video (April 2) my beloved White Sox got their first win of the season 🎉
Ha, congrats on the win! Reminds me of the heady days back in 2005 when they took it to the series and won. Seems a lot of people are using fabric. Nice to know. I've got tons of styrene rod material, and a couple of spots that still need a fence, mostly by the steel mill. Might give it a go.
I've been doing this hobby for a little over a year now and just love learning and doing. TH-cam videos have walked me through everything that I've learned and I can't thank content providers like you and so many others enough for all of the great help. You mentioned about being concerned about poking yourself with the "fence" wire. I use the high "E" string for my chain link fence posts and rails along with silver ribbon that mimics chain link fence (also, learned on TH-cam) I was at my work bench and evidently my index finger had picked up a small length of the "E" string. When I pushed my glasses up I noticed a one inch piece had impaled my nose! No harm done but...ouch!
Ouch for sure! I hadn't thought of guitar string as a material for a fence post before. There's an art to taking a step back and seeing an object for what it can be rather than what it 'is.' I like that.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you described your layout as a "representation". Precisely, its a model; not a replica. It is easy to forget that, something I've been guilty of myself.
The problem you discuss of the thickness posted bills is a perfect example of the challenges of realism - it seems as though it's a minor issue and yet it's a major one because it creates the "something overall isn't quite right here" that's impossible to overcome. The thickness of the paint on buildings and how it catches light, the streets lack of realistic pavement, it's the the lacking of the next level of superfine detail that the viewer expects that destroys the illusion. Then the viewer starts looking for flaws. Very tiny things start to look "glumpy." It always brings to mind how models of battleships - even as long as five or six feet - they look great until you put them in the water. I've found the most rewarding and most complimented style is the "impressionistic" approach where the object is to share an impression rather than an approximation of realism. It's difficult to achieve, but n scale is a great place to try.
Thanks Charles - certainly true that one can really stare at this and pick out all the points where the layout doesn't scale optimally (god forbid they measure the height of the rails in this case :D) N scale really is an interesting intersection between what can be done to achieve realism vs. what can be done to achieve the overall impression. I find both of those objectives to be in tension in the scale, turns out I really enjoy the challenge that provides.
Hey Eric. Your observations are correct. This is a common dilemma across all scales. I model in 3-rail 0, and while It may appear that we have more leeway you'ld be surprised the challenges we face, especially when scratch building, because of the degree of selective compression that has been used with this scale. One can rack his brain if they try to make everything exactly to scale. Engines are produced in 1/48th, 1/64th, and in-between. While the track scales to 1/43rd. Putting a 1/43rd vehicle next to a Lionel 1/64th semi really sticks out like a sore thumb but thats the vehicle's they make for this scale, aparently because of the track. Try putting a 1/43rd or 1/48th vehicle in a 1/64th scale autorack. Just like a two dimensional painting is an illusion so is our three dimensional layouts. I view it from an artistic perspective and build it to look in scale or selectively compressed regardless of scale. I briefly look at those dimensions on a ruler and estimate the size of the overall scale where it will be placed on the layout and adjust from there. I've seen some convincing chain link fencing made from the materil I think you referred to. I belive it's used for wedding veils. Check your closets. Your wife might have some😊.
This is great Dale, appreciate these interesting insights - it reminds me how both 1:148 and 1:160 models are considered 'N gauge' but I had no idea just how much difference there is to negotiate for O. I can believe that's quite a challenge, and a good reason for just abandoning the scale ruler and going for what looks right and fits the scene. Regarding the tulle fabric, no veil here but easy to find it by the yard on Amazon. If nothing else, it's probably cheaper than wire mesh and certainly relative to the purpose-made model fences.
Well said! I've noticed that I can only go so low in terms of thinness on my resin prints. My seagulls wings had to be made from paper as the equivalent in resin simply disintegrated when I touched it. And I'm finding most details can't be seen without a magnifier, so why even bother modelling it? But I think all of us modellers want to push the boundaries of what we can model. I know with my current harbour scene at some point I need to say good enough and move onto other projects. But the itch is there to add just one more detail!
I'm honestly not sure how miniprints pulled off N scale gulls with open wings (or how I managed not to break them while cutting away the support sprues). I think saying 'good enough' is empowering and a good preventative for burnout. It gives time for new ideas and new skills. You've had your layout a good while as have I - it's nice to walk away knowing you can always come back to a scene if inspiration hits.
Yes, sometimes you do have to move into something else and come back to a scene later. I get good ideas all the time and add them to my reminders list for my model railroad. Just have to stop procrastinating and get things done!
Bravo Eric! Well said! I totally agree with everything you said.. We all have to embrace and live by Allen McClelland’s “good enough” philosophy. Otherwise, we would never do anything on our layouts unless it was “perfect “ which is impossible. All the parts should work equally to meet the overall goal of a well balanced presentation of what is being modeled. You are certainly doing that with CCMR!! Have a great week! Scott
Thanks Scott - Allen's philosophy is a really useful one, great that you mention it. When I was first building everything out, that was the guiding principle for sure, though I had no idea who Allen McClelland was (the fun of blindly stumbling through a hobby for a while!). Otherwise I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten anything done :). I'm reminded of a famous Carl Sagan quote: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, first you must invent the universe." Translated: You can't evolve a scene that isn't there to begin with :). Hope you and yours had a great Easter weekend.
Interesting video. I started in the movie industry during the 70s as a model builder and matte painter and moved to computer-aided modelling and computer graphics in the early 80s. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do, both practical and digital, back then and now, to recreate reality consistently and convincingly over larger scales. It holds up briefly, under the right light or from a distance, but it all falls apart (even today) upon closer scrutiny.
Happy Easter Eric and family! I'm interested in making a reasonable representation of objects that others will recognize, not an exact copy of that item. I feel that N scale is like taking a photo from a distance, when compared to HO or O. The scale is so fine that we don't have to try to model every single detail.
Thanks Chris and happy Easter to you and yours as well! Totally agree with you. I like the photo analogy, and it is very true that to some extent the value of N scale is that 'wide angle' overview you can have of a particular scene with maybe a bit less compression into the space as you might have with HO.
I appreciate the deep thought on this topic. Let me first say, whenever I see your videos and layout updates, I automatically get a feeling about growing up in the midwest and the many times the railroad touched my heart. I say to you and what you are doing A+, great representation achieved. I model in O scale and I can't begin to tell you how critical people can be, of course starting with that 3rd rail. At this point I pretty much have a method. If I want to model something I research it. Sometimes someone else has done it and sometimes not. If it's been done, I will steal the idea and adopt it to my situation. If not, I will do the research and come up with a respectable and convincing replication. I might add, a convincing replication TO ME! This or any hobby is meant to take us from the stresses of everyday life. If we dwell on the one rivet that is missing or the out of scale insulator on the utility pole then it becomes work and not as fun IMO. Lastly, I believe it comes down to time. Each and everyone one of us could spend an excess amount of time researching, learning, and creating the most prototypical model. If that's where one gets their joy go for it. However, the average person has so much more to do in life. Have fun and enjoy the hobby in a way that makes you happy. I could go on and on but will stop with the dissertation.
Thank you for this, and glad this little railroad evokes some memories of the midwest. I hadn't ever really considered how much this project would reconnect me to my roots and previous experiences growing up and living in Chicago. To your point about critical people, I've certainly seen comments from the group that mostly serves as a peanut gallery rather than a constructive source of insight or dialogue. That anyone at this point feels compelled to comment about 3-rail O scale is frankly just insane to me (the first trains I loved were my dad's Lionels, which now sit in a place of honor above my work desk). I've been duly impressed with your models and the opportunity O scale provides for beautifully weathering and detailing what's there. I also think you make an excellent point about using the hobby as a way to relieve stress and to make conscious choices about what we value and pursue those ends regardless of others' opinions.
Consistency of finish and no gaps, like between a building and the ground. also no glossy colours especially on road vehicles. In the end just model what you think looks good and forget what other people think or whether it is 100% prototypically correct. After all there is a massive compression of scale on most layouts so you are behind the eight ball to start with. Your layout is very impressive and is hard to tell what gauge it is which means you are an excellent modeller.
Thanks and appreciate that. I agree that gaps between the 'ground' and buildings can be a bit of a challenge to address, particularly as smaller scales accentuate the size of the gap and interior lighting can spill through. All of my buildings are purposely removable, so there's always a bit there. I've found using kids' craft foam as the 'concrete' foundation is helpful to minimize the issue. In any case, I like the balance on your perspective in that ultimately the hobby is for self satisfaction and enjoyment, others will think as they please.
This is the thing I love about N scale, you can get away with less detail relative to larger scales but it's insanely impressive and satisfying when you pull something off. There's more technical challenge if you're up for it. But yes, appropriate materials can be very hard to find. I would also say that on youtube in particular, everyone has been one upping each other in terms of detail for years now and it's hard not to join the brinkmanship if you're competing for views. It's why I love your content, you capture that detail so well. It's very aspirational. Most importantly though, your enjoyment of your hobby comes first. You've certainly added to my enjoyment of the hobby. We'll be here wherever you choose to draw that line.
Thank you! I appreciate the kind words and you're right that N scale can be more forgiving in some capacity and allow for some really fun innovation. Funny you mention the brinksmanship and competition inherent in TH-cam. I'm sure it happens. Content for content's sake (or for the sake of views) rarely moves the ball forward for the community, just adds to the noise. I opt out of that rat race.
The hours we Fine Scalers and Rivet Counters spend trying to achieve visual perfection can often drive us crazy. We might consider that a visitor to our layout will usually view a scene for but a few brief moments. Watching my layout visitors, I realized that perception was far more important than finite accuracy. I shifted from spending countless hours trying to replicate a challenging man-made object to an emphasis of recreating mostly items found in Mother Nature that have no consistency...trees, grasses, bushes, rocks, etc. In the meantime, the other stuff seems to have taken care of itself. Yee Haw--!!!
Hi Cam, thank you for sharing your experiences and solutions. I agree, it's pretty rare that the average visitor to Chicago Crossing notices all the little details that I add in. I also like that you spend a good amount of time with vegetation - I find a lot of joy in those sorts of scenic elements too. Given I'm the most frequent visitor to the layout, I also get to enjoy the other stuff too. Hope you do as well ;)
Just discovered your channel and like what I see ! My faves to date are Chandwell and Everard Junction. (because I am English). Realism and authenticity are the key for convincing modelling.
Hi Robert, thank you for dropping in and glad you enjoyed! Thanks also for sharing your favorite channels. Those have popped up more than once in my feed. I really enjoy the UK modelers.
I sometimes scratchbuild warships in 1/600 scale, but there's a limit to the level of detail that I'm prepared to go to. If I can't do it neatly, I think it's better to omit it than to try clumsily ... after all, only a rivet-counter will probably spot that I've omitted something.
Not sure why TH-cam presented me with your channel but absolutely loving your work. Looking at some other channels, very often it's just small trains running (too fast) through a clearly manufactured landscape, but not with yours. The story-telling you are doing on such a small plot is just amazing. It look amazing, and there are interesting things to see, looking at the full set, down to the smallest corners. If this is you "in your early stages of being a builder" I'm scared for what you will come up with when you gain more experience.
Thanks Arjan - I do my best to keep the quality of the content high. There are some truly amazing layouts and builders with a great deal more experience who I learn from. If I end up approaching their skill level in a decade or so it's going to be a LOT of fun.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I'll keep my eyes open and see if the TH-cam algorithm does its thing 🙂 What works so well for me in your setup is that it feels like it's a realistic situation that happens to have trains in them, instead of falling into the trap to start with the trains/tracks, put all the focus there which then impacts the suspense of disbelief because it does not feel real. I'm curious to see where you go from here.
Large things also present problems. As an example a typical mature deciduous tree is 60 - 80 feet tall, yet trees on layouts are rarely more than half that scale size. A tree a bit taller than a locomotive is more typical. We routinely layout curves that would never occur on the prototype. It is not possible to avoid compromise. The real questions are where, when, and how much.
Trees are a good subject. Most of the HO trees actually scale better to N, the matter complicates on little loop style layouts such as this where perspective becomes increasingly compressed.
Your representations are certainly some of the finest I have ever seen, which is why I watch you. This was a great video and confirms what I have often thought of as shortcuts on my own layout. Nobody who looks at mine ever gets as close as I do when building it. By the way the U in tulle is pronounced as you would "you". Sounds more like when you say you'll. Forgive my impertinence.
Thanks Mel, always enjoy your comments. When I used to produce music, I'd think of sonic details as nested elements that you could pick up with headphones on, but which weren't necessary to hear in order to enjoy the piece as a whole. I think there's a lot to be said for keeping the big picture vision evident and accessible for the casual viewer, while rewarding closer inspection with detail elements that can focus and engage. Appreciate the pronunciation help as well :)
I share your frustration and agree with your thoughts completely. I chose N scale to get back into model railroading because I had decided to build a replica of the Chicago neighborhood where I grew up (Rogers Park, with L trains, the North Shore interurban, and the CNW mainline running through) and I wanted to do it as close to correct scale as I could, which takes a LOT of room (thank you Google Earth for actual street widths and angles, old buildings still there, etc.). I quickly found out that it is really difficult to get, as you say, the resolution, on small and even some large details. My original (naive) idea was to commission the major actual buildings with 3D printing from measurements I took on Google, but it turns out that resolution is 3D's biggest weakness, at least for now (good luck trying to 3D a really smooth surface or N scale bricks); so I ended up finding kits and materials that I could kit-bash myself to achieve the best representation I could. And sometimes I find that strict adherence to scale doesn't work either, for example true-to scale street curbs (6-8") almost disappear visually; I ended up using a 9-10" height which actually looks better. One of my pet peeves is the descriptions of kits and raw materials in catalogs and on line. Many of them will just say "N scale" and give you an overall measurement and one blurry photo, and then when you get it it is clumsy and out of scale. You don't want to know how may items I have bought and then had to re-sell on eBay at a loss because I was not satisfied with the size or the details. One thing I did was establish ground level at 50" instead of normal table height; this puts the observer closer to eye level rather then viewing as if from a drone 500' in the air. Anyway, great topic and great modeling, Eric - keep on keepin' on!
I've often thought about jacking CCMR up to eye level, but I'll save that for the shelf layout that will come next :). It's funny how one can get really deep into the rabbit hole of precise measurements and prototypicality only to find that the end return is actually less visually appealing, like the curb heights you mention. On my layout, the curb heights would be approximately a scale foot, but they look great because you can actually see them (just as you found) 😀
Great video. Where was that reference picture by torrence ave taken? I ask because I am in the Chicagoland area and am modeling a Moasic plant, so pictures of MOCX covered hoppers are helpful.
You have struck a chord with me regarding this topic… I am a trained artist and see my layout as a piece of art created by me to (hopefully) represent my version of reality in miniature. I love detailed models but in all reality, like a painting, we never look at the minutiae in the same way as the overall experience the piece represents. Yes, details are important but it’s way too easy to overdo them and end up with something that almost becomes a parody of itself. Your use of the work of Seurat is spot on in this way.
Thanks for the comments Greg. I agree that ultimately a layout is a mix of technical and aesthetic choices that represent someone's vision, albeit one that can be dynamic and evolving, and potentially never truly 'done' if one chooses. The point you make about overdoing it is a great one. There are some layouts out there that I find to be extremely well done from a technical standpoint but are overly stimulating visually, and it's hard to know where to go with them. In keeping with the art analogy, that may well be as valid as Seurat critiquing Warhol and it may be entirely subjective but so be it :). For me, I try to keep as much 'breathing room' in the layout as possible where the eye can relax, and integrate the details together to avoid detracting from the whole.
I built an oil refinery from scratch for our club in HO scale and that took months to do I find that in my N scale I do not intend to build another from scratch but so far have not found a kit I live in New Zealand and the hobby shops here do not have a lot in N scale.
Another trick which I'm learning is forced perspective. I learned that from the armour modellers. The other I think is incorporating different scales for backrounds, foregrounds, that goes back to forced perspective. I'm trying to think of it as a movie set and how they are made. I will be building an HO layout into a wall length cabinet soon and will have to do this. Hi from Winnipeg, the Chicago of the north.
@@ChicagoCrossingRRI think t would work. I also thought of making buildings as a one dimensional piece and overlaying them if you don't have the depth in a layout like near a wall. Of course putting smaller ones behind those. The layout I want to make will be about 42" deep.
I work in HO and find meny of the same challenges. An other huge challenge for me are physicle limitations such as poor vision and lack of dexterity. I have come to the mindset, that if something looks convincing I'll run with it.
Great thoughts. I don't model below 1:25 (model car), but believe that much of the challenge is due to the fact that 1:1 particles are interacting with our models. If we could scale down light and the receptors in our eyes, things might be easier. Our models lack the natural shadows of 1:1. Our highlights and reflections are too large and clumsy looking. To compensate for this, muted colors, duller surfaces, and painted-in shadows can help to compensate. Undersize and under-detail, giving the 1:1 eye less 'errors' to gravitate to. Not easy, of course... if you haven't already, look into miniature paintings. These works have the same goal, and the masters at this art accomplish what you're discussing, an impressionist approach, but somehow working in reverse.
This is great, thank you! You're absolutely right that at some point there's simply an irreducible factor of resolution and how light hits and object that we can play with but not fully overcome. I've not looked into miniature paintings but will now. What you mention about them makes total sense.
I do N scale. I do agree with you. With me, I like the challenge at times. Sometimes I get stressed out I step away and look at it a different way. And the main thing is to have fun messing with trains
Jon - absolutely so. It's easy to burn out on a hobby when it becomes stressful. Inherent in model railroading is a degree of problem solving (and problem making!) it's good that you step away and remember the priority, which is to enjoy yourself.
Hope you and yours had a fun Easter! Eric it looks like you and I are on the same page. Making a scene as a supporting cast on the stage. When things seem out of scale I make the scene to move your eye down the track sorta speak. I also like to use color lines to move the eyes, to not, zero in on one area. My hat is off to you, the king of clutter. FYI Preiser makes a n scale industrial workers #79009you have to paint them but you get 70 folks some made with posable heads. Been painting them like Boomer showed great results.
Will - thanks for writing and happy Easter! You hit on a very nice point which is to make focal points on the layout and some other areas that don't need focus. I love the idea of using color in this capacity, would love to see how that plays out on your layout. If you have examples, shoot me a photo via email at eric.pietras(at)gmail.com. Also - huge thanks on those Preiser figures. I do need a bunch and I don't mind painting my own figures. I base my approach on what Shep Paine published in his seminal books on dioramas, I missed Boomer's video on the topic, I bet he takes a similar approach.
Yeah I've been struggling with this too. The big thing of course is knowing when to a cut the losses and do. I ended up a weird paralysis over the last week because I needed custom lettering for a post office on my layout. The 3D printer couldn't render them right directly on the face of the building. Trying to hand cut was a fools errand. No product got close. But my brain said "I NEED THEM TO STICK OUT LIKE THE PROTOTYPE" But after so much tinkering, I gave up. I got a sheet of decal paper. Printed Arial font lettering, cut it. Slid it on. Put it on the layout. Realized there is no reasonable way to discern from even close up photos of rolling stock that there is anything "incorrect" with the sign. Kicked myself a little over it.
Yeah funny how that works. I think you took the right approach here, which was to just generate the decal and move on. I've recently gotten some of the very small Plastruct lettering for the Finkl Steel plant. Will be fun to see how well those work while keeping everything in a straight line :).
Hi CCMR, As you get older you'll run into another issue, failing eyesight and hands that are not as steady as they once were. I use to go all out super detailing my N scale diesels, but that is no longer a priority for me. I'm loosing both the eyesight even with opti-visors and the manual dexterity to accomplish those tasks. So I had a serious conversation with myself and decided what I liked best with the hobby was switching ops. So even though my MP15DC does not have all the bells and whistles of it's prototype, it still preforms that basic function of moving a car from one location to another and over all it looks like a MP15DC. Also 20 years ago, code 40 rail was what I wanted to use for sidings and spurs. But today, Code 80 and Code 55 work just fine. So yes I understand challenging yourself but as you age, you may find you change the location of your modeling bar as your interests change. In my life time it has occurred to me, that model railroaders fall into two broad categorizes, modelers and operators. With some modelers becoming 3D artists and capturing exact locations with every bit of detail in place. I've also seen operators with plywood pacifics, but the locomotives and rolling stock all operate flawlessly and the movement of cars and trains on their layouts is 100% true to prototype. Now I'd say many of us fall someplace in between, I tend to lean more toward operations, but my layout is sceniced. Anyway CCMR, hope you had a great Easter and this was a great topic and very nice video. I look forward to future videos from your layout. Cheers, Rich S.
Thanks for bringing that up Rich. Had a lovely Easter, hope you and yours did as well. LOTS of folks saying the same regarding eyesight. It's actually very useful to read about your insights into how you adapt the hobby to be fulfilling in response to these sorts of changes, it's also a great point to consider that one's engagement with a hobby can be dynamic and change with tastes, interests or (yes) the vagaries of age.
The original of the Seurat is actually in Chicago. You really can see the individual brush strokes, because that painting almost fills a wall. It's really BIG, and you can enjoy it up close, or at a distance. Just like our model empires!
The key is to know what you consider to be good enough using what's available. Also, how well does it look from three feet away or your normal viewing distance? Obviously, in photo or video, it will be enhanced either good or not so well. With what you have done so far, looks great.
I agree Stewart. I actually am not a huge fan of the close-up photos of my layout. It simply doesn't look right. The photo of the currency exchange in the intro is initially from the optimal viewing distance you mention.
Dear CCMR, excellent point! Can we indeed achieve a level of realism? Does the resolution matter, whether scale res or material res, or does it add to the representation? Have been experimenting with certain types of teabag mesh, which aren’t very biodegradable. Their mesh is super fine. Disadvantage is that they very easily clog up when painted. And paint they do need. Hence, does it work? Well, sometimes it does. There’s a lot of trial and error involved. Nevertheless, I don’t strive for perfection. Whether it is my hands, or my patience, the main objective for me is to make it look good (for my eyes). Does that mean things will or can be out of scale? Well, that can only be answered with a full on ‘yes.’ Where sometimes realism seems important, resolution can/could ‘kill’ the effect, representation therefore is my leading goal. Plus, it leaves room for improvement in a very humble manner. Cheerio
Illustrators like myself deal with this issue a lot too, as you no doubt could guess from the Seurat painting in your intro. We try to go for the *effect* of detail vs. actual detail a lot in part because focusing on every single little detail will burn you out fast and it might not look as good or consistent with the rest of the piece as just the effect of it.
Eric , Happy Easter . TKS so much for your video . I don't have your talent or patience . But I am trying hard to put a town , houses , farm with Corn field and silo's with cattle / horse pasture and feed lot . Also a train yard And more on a 28" X 66" layout . HEHEHEH . I have finally realized that I can have a town with a few industries without 10 houses . As I've told you with my physical limitations it's hard to build the small stuff . But I keep at it and am having a great time . Get flustered , Take a break . Come back later . Tried building roads out of 800 grit black sandpaper with 1/16" pin striping . Not bad , 🤣but really not good . Take care , I take a lot from your video's .
Happy Easter Steve, thank you for the note. I agree, the finescale stuff can be a challenge from a physical standpoint, eyesight/dexterity. I'm in my mid-40s and just starting to notice the slowing of close/distant eye focus, so I'm beginning to understand these issues more intrinsically. As you say, the "great time" aspect is most important. Art can take a lot of forms. Keep going, and always appreciate hearing from you.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I'll be 76 this October . 8 yrs ago went to work ( I drove big truck) . Went to lift leg to first step and couldn't make it to get into the truck . I still keep trying even after surgery . But I have my Ham Radio and Trains . Oh Ya , I spent a few years in Northbrook and Highland Park in the 1970's . Take care Steve
@@stevetandysr.2816 thanks for sharing Steve, glad you spent a bit of time out in the Chicago area too. Glad you're enjoying the fruits of all your hard work, ham radio seems like a sweet hobby, trains is a nice icing on the cake.
A question that is a quandary to a lot of people .I dont know if you have ever watched my scratch builds , but I always use the term " To have the flavor of " I love fine scale type work , But it is not what I strive for !!
Thanks Stew - I like your philosophy as it's appropriately practical and keeps 'analysis paralysis' in check. I've seen a lot of successful model railroaders who approach the issue from the same way and the result is visually and viscerally satisfactory. I kind of use that as my start point on a scene or a building, then set it down and let inspiration, research and evolution guide what happens next.
What a wonderful channel. Superb beginning, and of course the rest of the intelligent dialogue. I'm of the thought that scale exactness isn't of necessity. Not even effective representation of the subject either. For me, it's the perspective of an expectation. By this, I mean the rubbish pile. You'd mentioned the larger than scale, same as the chain link. Now, the expectation of the rubbish pile is I expect to see old cans, newspapers, flotsam. I expect to see a chain link fence where there is a chain link fence. A typical catenary wire is 1/2" (13mm) in section. Even in H0 scale this equates to a 10th of a mm, or something like 5 thou thickness. In effect, it would be so thin as to be nigh translucent. A chain link fence in N would, for all intensive purposes, be invisible: the wires being literally microscopic. But again, we expect to see a chain link fence where there is supposed to be one, so we aren't perturbed by the overscale. In saying that though, there is also the reverse that can come into play, where for instance scale static grass can end up looking like a hay field. This can also be brought even into colours, where sudden contrasts with hues and even shadows can come across as quite visually jarring. However above all else; it has to remain an enjoyable pastime. creating little rubbish piles because we enjoy creating the little pieces, not because it's another job that I'm not looking forward to and don't want to do. Great channel :)
Thanks for all of the spot-on comments. I like the concept of addressing expectations and letting the mind do the rest in terms of accepting the scale, even if out of proportion by some amount. It makes sense in that even the track on this layout is well out of scale (code 80 rather than 55) but is accepted by pretty much everyone as being scale railroad track.
I have always said that the camera is not the friend of N scale close ups. Any N scale builder at some point has to satisfy a level of detail knowing that it will not be on par with other scales. Do what you can with your skills and materials. In the movie business if we want an actor to look better we pull the camera back as far as we can. Great topic.
Good analogy. You're details in n scale are fantastic! But other than your videos, how often is the layout scrutinized under bright lights and magnification? Keep up the good work, it looks fantastic from afar as well as up close!
Congratulations man, fine scale is in ho are already hard to handle, as an artist, I can say I agree 💯% on your point when comparing modelling to painting or arts. Great work 👍⚡⚡
This all resonates with me. I’d love to hear you discuss the challenges of perspective, perhaps you already have? I find it frustrating to the point of giving up, to see from a distance, a lovely N scale mountain side, but the engine and ore cars coming out of the tunnel while in N scale are vastly oversized for the distant “vista”. I’ve rationalized the impossibility of having it both ways.
Hi Steve, I haven't ever tackled that issue, for Chicago Crossing it's never really been a concern since the dense urban environment minimizes the potential for vistas where perspective is an issue. Clearly some in the community have played with 'forced' perspective to try and fool the eye (I've never really seen a convincing example at the arms' reach depth of a typical layout. The local model railroad club to which I belong has a ton of mountain views and vistas on the layout, all of which looks good enough but doesn't fool anyone. Another viewer on the channel put it well - depth is extremely difficult to simulate in model form as most of the key features associated with distant objects (loss of color, detail, relief, etc. aren't fully replicable at these scales as they have to do with light diffraction in the air column in between you and the object. I suppose I have little to offer other than to say no matter what, it'll look like a model. Your rationalization is probably correct, maybe that's okay as it fits into the 'good enough' category.
Interesting thoughts. You are doing pretty amazing work for being in N scale. Your beer can thought is interesting. So in HO that is about 1/16, O scale would be about 1/8, G scale if you use 1/2" equals a foot well then you have finally reached the point where you can actually make the can and it will be around a 1/4" long. Big enough to see, but can you decorate it? So N scale would be about a 1/32". At that size N and HO become indecipherable bits of trash.
For the beer cans that I made, they are likely oversized and are painted kind of a solid color or with a little dot that may resemble a label. Honestly, when viewed I think most folks probably just see it as basic trash as you say. But at least it offers some variety in shape :)
@@laspiedrasrailroad we might be of a kind he and I, though I can't say I carry anything like the same authority as a professional modelmaker like Boomer does (I'm a scientist by trade).
I switched to HO from N mainly for two reasons, one was DCC and sound, another was the availability of models. I think the smaller the scale you are in the less details you can include and maybe the less you should include. Even if you consider a photograph, the larger the area the less details you see, just like the more restricted you go the more detail you see. The importance of the size and focus is important I think. Also it depends on what you want to do. If you are trying to put feather strokes on the plumage of a dove in N scale I think you might end up in a mental hospital. That might be the case also in HO. I don't know if it can be done in O scale! But at some point it gets ridiculous because we are modeling trains ultimately not a bird. So it is a challenge to strike that balance and maintain the focus I think.
Totally agree, HO still commands the biggest market and best array of options for models. Regarding detail, I think it depends. There will always be an impressionistic aspect in modeling and there are certain things I just leave alone (power lines are a great example). Mind you, I did work on those gulls quite a bit to get the plumage right and I'm still firing on all cylinders upstairs *I think* 😂. It's not for everyone though. I find it to be great fun. Others' mileage will vary.
I struggle with this constantly. The thing about N scale is that there's (1) a perpetual conflict between what the eye can resolve and the limitations of the materials we're working with (this is why N scale telephone wire never looks realistic), and (2) a tricky relationship between what the brain is willing to accept as 'realistic' and what is actually to scale. As you note, signs are a good example of the former -- they almost have to be thicker than is accurate, but they generally end up looking fine. Chain link fence is an interesting instance of the latter -- it would be possible to use a fabric that would approximate the 2" spacing of actual chain link, but it would read as a solid sheet, not as a mesh. I find tulle to be a great compromise for this: the individual threads are much finer than the metal "chain link" sold in kits, so it doesn't have that chunky look, but the brain doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the gaps are much larger than two scale inches -- it 'looks like' chain link. (It's also not that finicky to work with if you tape down the ends of a strip of mesh over a non-stick surface like parchment paper, put glue on your wire posts and rails, and press them down on top of the fabric.)
It's funny Evan because I had a whole minute of discussion about telephone wire that I cut for time. I really enjoyed reading this comment because you nicely get into the issue of how we subjectively (and objectively - much of this is likely hardwired neurobiology) perceive what looks 'real.' You're also spot on about how certain things won't scale well to the eye even if they are formally correct due to visual resolution. There's probably a whole conversation and discourse around these topics! Glad to hear others are enjoying working with tulle fabric. If I have more fences to build (which I do) I bet I'll use this.
Legitimately, me, Earlier today, I’m doing calculations and finding that any material I have is going to mean my stop signs are actually about an inch thick…. But they are going to look fine! :-)
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I think you'll like the results you get with tulle. I solder 0.020" brass rod for the posts and rails, and that makes a pretty sturdy framework. Airbrushed with Tamiya flat aluminum and an overlay of whatever you use for rust, it looks nice.
I’ll take anywhere from good to something that was quite a (fun) challenge and worth it 😀. As the other commenter said, atmosphere is a really good goal.
Great video, it's one thing to get fiddely with HO and bigger scales, which is where I was at, now I'm switching to N just so I can do some justice to a Conrail layout in a 15x10 basement, I'm not striving for a spot on depiction of buildings, people or other various details, I will concentrate on track, some buildings and a operating scheme, I've spent hours detailing freight cars and locomotives in HO and N is too small to waste that time adding details to a loco that nobody will see other than snow plows!!!😂😂😂 I'll watch Norms Trains who builds in O scale when he's detailing buildings and railroad equipment, besides when I finish the layout in 5 years hopefully it will be a few friends and grandkids running it, Tulle I think would make some decent looking fence in N scale to get the close enough look of the real thing!! Great video on this subject because I think most of us are building a slice of our favorite railroads in a an area we grew up in and not something we're sweating over for a cover of Model Railroader, I do love what you have done in N scale and seeing your work has really helped me make the choice to go to that scale, keep up the awesome work and hopefully as mine comes along I can get a few scenes close to yours!!!👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks and always great hearing from you - I'm looking forward to seeing how your railroad turns out! I You make some great points in your comment - do what suits your taste and do what you enjoy most about the hobby, I think that's good enough all round. The idea of sweating over a hobby for any particular end other than one's enjoyment means it's probably the wrong hobby after all. I suppose I'm a bit like an earlier stage Boomer or Norm in that I absolutely love the deep dive into all these little details, but I'd never argue that's the way everyone should approach their layout.
@ChicagoCrossingRR Hope you and your family had a great Easter weekend!! Yeah I went way overboard with my Locomotives and Cabooses in HO, I installed brass walkway tread and pilot steps, air filters and paint and decals, plus I wanted some transfer Cabooses so at the time I acquired blueprints off of the Conrail Historical Society and scratch built two, N scale is too small to detail to that degree but I will add snow plows and signal control boxes to the Locomotives I do model!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 I know I'll be tempted to detail some buildings and factories but I will definitely concentrate on trackwork and operating scheme to achieve my goal of unit trains, TOFC TV trains and Intermodal trains that passed thru Anderson Indiana in the mid 80s, Boomer and Norm along with Tim Garland are Uber talented and I throw your modeling in with those guys too, Southern Alberta Railroad is another well done N scale layout that runs well, it's a great time to be modeling in N Scale and my Walthers catalog is full of building kits, plus I have 2 Sons in law who both are great at 3D printing so I'll be able to print up certain water towers in my area that helps sets location and era of my 80s layout!!! Cheers!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@conrailfan6277 hats off to you for taking the time and effort to really detail the HO stuff. Those sound like works of art! Thanks for all the additional suggestions - I'll have to check whether Tim's stuff is on my radar, I bet it is and I don't know it!
@ChicagoCrossingRR Tim Garland has the HO scale Seaboard Central, also Dan Cortopassi got me interested in detailing HO engines when he did a series on a SD40-2 which is my favorite to model, he's doing a series now on a quartet of engines he saw growing up on the West Coast!! Also check out Daryl Kruse's layout in HO, the UP in Utah, it's massive for sure, he started out in N scale and had his layout in Model Railroader then switched scales when him and his wife retired and built a Basement with a house on top of it!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
One major aspect of model scaling is the difference in view perspectives. A model is allways viewed from birds eye perspective and not pov. In addition there are optical effects like vanishing of colors in far distances in real but not on scale.
Ive never tried micron pens. I believe il give that a try. Traditionally i use masking tape, and draw the outline of the graffiti piece, cut it with a sharp hobby knife, affix the tape to the car, mask everything else off, and airbrush the basecoat color of the artwork im going to apply. Afterwards i use a very small brush and hand draw the details a spec of paint at a time. Those pens would make my process much easier
Thanks much - the pens do work well, but I find your method really interesting. I was watching a video the other day of someone using a similar approach and I think for blending colors the stencil and airbrush method will be far superior in achieving the outcome you're looking for. There are a lot of good methods for doing graffiti, maybe we swap for a bit and will learn something new.
Can't help but wonder if this video wasn't inspired by my latest FB group rant! Printed out and been painting some figures for N scale, and not too happy with the results under extreme magnification, but, when viewed with the naked eye, at any distance, they look pretty damn good. I need to learn to ease up on myself, and perfection isn't a reality!
I'm not actively on social media (other than this) so an interesting coincidence I suppose. Extreme magnification of an object at 1:160 is inherently self-defeating. Hence the opening sequence on the video. Sheperd Paine offered some great advice on figure painting that to an extent can also be used at this scale. Mostly it's a matter of adding shadows and highlights on face, clothes, etc where achievable. Imagine looking at someone from 500 ft. away. That's about all you could add to a 1:160 figurine, and it's plenty to make them look like they belong.
Agree whole heartedly with the other comment saying great topic. All your vids provide inspiration and knowledge for me. I do look forward to your Train Talk vids 😉. Thank you Eric/k.
Tulle is almost 1:1 perfect for HO scale fences. Sadly it's too big for N, even though it looks pretty good. It's enough to drive me crazy though, I've been trying to search for a fabric closer to N scale chain link but haven't had luck yet.
Not sure you’d find anything exactly to scale that would look good - that fine a mesh would probably look opaque…the strands would be thicker than scale chain link.
In N scale, illusion is reality, unless you literally want to start using microscopes and tweezers for every detail. There is a finite limit to doing everything in N, simply because to scale everything would make it unlikely to survive use or handling. As a former N scaler who did a few detail projects, like painting the headlights and tail lights of vehicle on the layout, and modifying a couple of Bachman pre-built buildings, I found it frustrating to work to that level of detail in items that small. Your pizza slice is relatively huge, as are the couplers on the tank car. But couplers actually have to work, so you have a strength concern. The yellow handrails on the petrochem site are too thick, but again, to scale down standard materials creates the headache you identified--what the heck do you use to make the model parts?? And as you point out, it's like the whole printer resolution issue. Beyond a certain point, the eye doesn't even see the difference/detail any way, so why bother? If I ever get my HO switching shelf built, even that won't be hyper-detailed to fine-scale standards, but it will be easier to do than in N (or Z!) for those details I choose to fuss over.
going back to the start, some 25 years ago, n scale was very toy-like because the technology to produce the fine-scale parts wasn't there or was too expensive. But as the technology and materials improved, better details were possible to the point where we have ScaleTrains and the like doing yeoman's work in detail perfection. but even here - we're limited to what can be seen and what can be made to fit and still be reliable. that's where the beauty in n scale is for me. very small details can be omitted due to size but cost nothing to the realism of the model or scene. so your example of a glass of water is an unnecessary detail the likely couldn't be made convincing in n scale. But, at a larger scale, an outdoor cafe might look odd with nothing on the tables.
It's crazy isn't it. I have some old models from that era - the oldest N scale model I have is a cherished boxcar from the early 80s (granted, heavily modified now) and absolutely right, they were toys in comparison. Great to hear from you again, I've been enjoying your channel as always :)
As someone who is getting older, eye sight plays a part as well. N scale would not be something I would consider now. I model in OO9 and even that is getting too small and fiddly. The next scale for me will probably be On30 or O 16.5.
This is always good to know. Given the play in the measurements, often what I end up doing is simply taking a 1:160 figurine and measure the objects I'm making in relative terms. In that sense, accuracy trumps precision.
True that! Granted it isn't always fun (wiring all of the lighting was just work) but even then I think the metric for time well spent is that you can find a reward at the end for investing the effort.
I agree that N scale has come a long way in the recent years, BUT I strongly disagree that the old stuff look like toys. Fleischmann has some products from the 70' at N scale (especially the class 01 and class 80- tank locos) that give class in terms of appearance to some of the locos produced by other N scale manufacturers by modern means. On your topic about realism vs resolution, the general line that many Europeean manufacturers use is based on the true to scale observatory phenomenon and stepping feet illusion. You want to maximize (macro) realism until the stepping feet illusion threshold is 0. The resolution at which you achieve this threshold is your optimum resolution for that scale. That is why some of the details on some models are completely missing in smaller scales.
Hi Munteanu, Thank you for your take on European models. Perhaps some of this accounts for the relative realism of older vs. newer models between Europe and elsewhere. I'd agree that some of the old Fleischmann locos would likely still pass in looks with some of today's steam models (I can't comment on their run quality as I don't run those), but I don't consider that to be paradigmatic of older models at least among manufacturers common to the US. I own plenty of old diesels and rolling stock and between then and now there really is no comparison in the crispness of molding and paint/decals, quality and scaling of applied parts, and quality of wheelsets, even with what was considered high quality back then among ready-to-run gear.
@@pauljensen5699 yeah I used to get two big wedge slices and a pop from this place on Chicago and Western when I lived in Ukrainian Village. It was like $2.50 so an easy dinner. That said I've always been most partial to the Chicago tavern style stuff you'd get at Chesdan's or Ledo's or places like that. Cheese and sausage, cut into squares. That's the ticket :)
With building LEGO MOC's is the same dilemma. You want the details, but the sheer size of the bricks seriously gets in the way. You'll end up with 3mm handle bars in 1:40 scale MOC's that are way off, but actually do help to transmit the image you want. In the scenery depicted the railings also are way oversized, but to leave them out will completely ruin the essence of the modeled building.
That's a really interesting point Erik thanks for sharing. I hadn't thought about these issues in Lego until I recently built a space shuttle/hubble telescope kit and noted the extent to which the essence of what the objects are was clearly there, even with some of the distortions in detail and scale related to the nature of the building material.
The biggest problem and challenge to fine scale in N scale is the available track. Most N scale track is so far out of scale it's a visual problem, imo. Tie spacing is too far apart and rail size is too large in most cases.
Yeah the code 55 stuff looks better than code 80 to be sure - though I appreciate the additional bit of leeway I have with modeling weeds growing between the rails using static grass.
See i believe that a model railroad is never done. So i start at the big and then go smaller and smaller. I think that looking at things through the lens of amusement parks where you have a central focal point and thats the most detailed thing, and things that compliment it that are a little less detailed in a given area are important because it lets people focus on the important stuff. If everything looks amazing it’s hard for the audience to understand what to look at, and it actually works against the effort and time put into that hard work
Yes, I think some control of the visual narrative is really helpful. We've all seen layouts that are technically perfect but don't offer these focal points. They can just be too much to take in.
In this scale, your realism is top notch. You’ve never injured yourself constructing this railroad?!! I injure myself once week! You’re not trying hard enough.
Very interesting topic! The real dilemma that I see is putting all the details in the same order of precision to each other. While you strove to find a material to replicate the thinness of chain link fencing, the handrails on the platform for the tank farm appear to be four inches thick! I’m not suggesting that you need to replace the railing, although photo etch brass railing does exist, but we all face the “good enough” compromise somewhere in our modeling pursuits. There’s the issue of how much time one should devote to a particular project. You’ve already accomplished quite an impressive layout with what you have to work with, I commend your efforts and thoughtfulness. By the way, you should keep up on your tetanus shot boosters, I believe it’s every ten years or so! Keep up the great work!
Dan - thanks for the thoughtful comment and good eye. In a 'perfect' world where I scratchbuilt rather than sourced from multiple manufacturers or 3D prints, I agree that equivalent order of precision would be achievable in a practical way. In this case, depending on where the model comes from, I've got handrails of all different sizes! On the other hand, I have a bit more ability to manage the order of precision for the fences on the layout, so at least a class of objects will look reasonably similar. It's unlikely I'll go about replacing handrails on my models since, as you point out, they're otherwise good enough. The risk of damaging the models in the process and setting back other more interesting goals outweighs the payoff from re-railing everything with brass etch material, and as you say, that risk/reward ratio is pretty important. I'll look into the tetanus shot too - thankfully haven't needed it just yet :)
Actors have to exaggerate their facial expressions and body language to make things look "real" on screen or on stage. I would imagine you deal with the same issue when constructing a layout. Too much realism doesn't produce the desired effect.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 63 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ยอดภูผา vs โซเนอร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RGVmBsegKEI/mqdefault.jpg)
Perfection is the enemy of good. In my past attempts at modeling, I allowed my desire for perfection to prevent the completion of what I was working on. It wasn't 100% realistic so I got frustrated and stopped working on it. As I start down the path of modeling again I need to keep this forefront in my mind. One nice thing about modeling a train layout versus say, a ship, is that you can incrementally rework on individual components as your skills improve.
Thanks for sharing Jim and you've hit the nail on the head. It's easy to burn out or become sort of nihilistic about modeling if a 100% 'true' copy of reality is the goal, since it's fundamentally unachievable - CCMR is still just a 3x7 thing on some cabinets no matter what I do to make it look 'real'. It's why I take the view of CCMR as an artwork seriously, because that allows me the license to follow my vision and not sweat too much at getting everything exact. The incremental nature of a layout that you mention is also spot on. It's funny how what looked good to me a few years ago now forms the springboard for the next round of adjustments and improvements :)
Some wise words there. In many of my own projects I find that to be the case. I seek out perfection on the first try and in turn, never actually get anything done.
@@ElationProductions Not uncommon. I do my best to manage expectations up front with the knowledge that I can revise down the road, or just start over if it's a big fail.
I've learned to expect Good Enough, near perfection, Is when a non-modeler visitor recognizes the scene or says how do you accomplish that? Not that they are going to even try to duplicate, just admiring the works. Compliments are the pay for the hobby efforts. Great topic and discussion. Thank you. Your financial corner trash is beautiful. Ha! Beautiful trash, like beautiful rust.
@@allenkotlan3606 thanks Allen, really appreciated and spot on with your comment. Anyone who visits this railroad in person is initially just amazed by how tiny the layout really is, and after that like you say, they enjoy the aesthetic qualities of a minature world. I had a ton of fun with that corner BTW, never thought I'd enjoy building trash piles.
In "N" you are doing better than most! Nobody needs to measure chain link fence wire or squares. What I see is that if I'm 2-4 ft from the scene and it looks good and it represents life it is better than it needs to be for 90% of modelers. Keep up the wonderful work and keep your explanations coming. A model railroad is a picture book of a story that is being told. Some of the best books that I have read had no pictures other than what the author put in my mind.
Totally agree with you Peter, and I think the picture book analogy fits perfectly. Models can come close but are never 100% literal fact. Selective compression, effective resolution, scale, etc. all come into play. It's a collaboration between builder and viewer in the end.
This is a really great conversation.
I come from the theater world, and we used to have the 30' rule. No audience member will ever be closer than 30' from the scenery, so build it for that viewing distance.
My layout is for operations, so I am building the layout to focus on the operations, not on the scenery. The plan for the scenery is that everything will be slightly out of focus as to not pull your view.
You need to decide what your viewing angles are and what you goals are.
Funny, I was a theatre major before swapping to a science career so I remember exactly the approach to scenery that you mention (I actually do view the layout to some extent as a stage set in which the trains are the actors, though I don't often use the vocabulary to describe it as such). That same analogy you use really also works nicely in thinking about aesthetic choices related to the scenery - in some cases high detail, in other cases maybe more 'black box' minimalist and functional to focus attention. You're absolutely right that model railroads can inhabit any of those frameworks based on builder preference. Thanks for sharing.
Frank Ellison popularized and may have even invented the concept of model railroading as theater mid-twentieth century.
Reality cannot be shrunk to the proper size. The modeler can only make it appear that it has.
Excellent analysis!
Fascinating, I too believe the overall picture is more important than the absolute accuracy of any part. Some incredibly accurate models as well as paintings are dull as ditchwater though impressive in their quality. I like a layout to bring you in by it’s interest and/or as a place to run trains , not just be life like as, of course it can never truly be.
Great video and great layout 👍
These are great points. Aesthetic and technical qualities are separable in many cases. This is where storytelling and the diorama concept really shine.
Ahh, Seurat and Satie on a Sunday. Love it, and the pixelism is very representative of the point you were making in this video. I often struggle with what is representative of the scene I’m creating, and what I can be reasonably pleased with. A scene that I recently finished near and about a turntable and engine house, was a good example where I took a close look at just how crazy I wanted to get with various sundry details. Oil barrels and crates, litter and grease and workers looking not all that busy with repairing the loco that’s languishing in front of them; all considerations. Stepping back, as you have so interestingly pointed out here, allows one to take in the scene rather than the minuscule. Thanks for another great video.
Thanks Brooklyn - That Seurat's at the Art Institute of Chicago so a little easter egg for the Chicago folks who watch the channel. I love Satie - the French composers of that era were phenomenal. I think there's a value to working in fits and starts on a scene, letting ideas emerge, put them into place, and then move on and refresh. Most of the parts of this layout I've gone over 2-3 times, why I call it 'evolving' a scene :). Engine houses are great places for really adding the sorts of details you mentioned - I'd love to see how that turned out.
Excellent video, as usual, CCMR. I had an experience in HO scale a couple of years ago that was right in line with this topic. I was modeling a small "hidden joke" area behind my enginehouse where local wayward teens would gather at night. I carefully researched the dimensions of cheap single bed mattresses and successfully modeled an abandoned looking one using styrene. Then I decided to add a few empty beer cans. Again I researched the dimensions and cut a few cylinders from brass rod. As I sprinkled the tiny beer can models over the ground cover of dirt they essentially disappeared! The enginehouse has been replaced with open air engine servicing and the mattress has been removed, but those invisible beer cars are still down in that ground cover somewhere. Cheers from Wisconsin!
Love that story Andrew, thanks for sharing. Moral of the story seems that it can absolutely be a challenge to create identifiable trash (as opposed to just trash) at any scale! If anything, those beer cans will be a fun time capsule if you ever re-scenic the area down the road.
Your layout is the perfect blend of realism and Impressionism. It definitely gets the job done of allowing me get lost in the scenery. Thanks for sharing!
Absolutely! Much appreciated and thanks for the comment!
You hit the nail on the head! More of this please… as much as I enjoy watching video of model construction, this shines a refreshing light on the thought process of building something to scale. Thank you! Dave
Thanks Dave and glad you enjoyed. Never a bad thing to slow down from the rush and contemplate a bit, even for a hobby :)
I used the fabric to make my (HO) chain link fence. All the posts and rails were styrene and the fabric easily glued to them. Trying to glue the fabric to metal is a nightmare. When everything was in place I sprayed it with a silverish paint and if the paint filled in the holes of the fabric I blew it out with a can of compressed air.
Your concerns in the video were very well expressed.
As I am watching this video (April 2) my beloved White Sox got their first win of the season 🎉
Ha, congrats on the win! Reminds me of the heady days back in 2005 when they took it to the series and won. Seems a lot of people are using fabric. Nice to know. I've got tons of styrene rod material, and a couple of spots that still need a fence, mostly by the steel mill. Might give it a go.
Yeah, your 1 win was from my Beloved Braves! Your welcome😄
@@LeonKolenda in that case thanks much!
YT recommended this video, glad I checked it out, your video and commentary are superb! Subbed.
Thanks for supporting the channel!
I always look forward to your posts. Absolutely wonderful.
Thanks John, really appreciate the kind note. Have a great Sunday!
@@ChicagoCrossingRR and to you good sir.
I've been doing this hobby for a little over a year now and just love learning and doing. TH-cam videos have walked me through everything that I've learned and I can't thank content providers like you and so many others enough for all of the great help. You mentioned about being concerned about poking yourself with the "fence" wire. I use the high "E" string for my chain link fence posts and rails along with silver ribbon that mimics chain link fence (also, learned on TH-cam) I was at my work bench and evidently my index finger had picked up a small length of the "E" string. When I pushed my glasses up I noticed a one inch piece had impaled my nose! No harm done but...ouch!
Ouch for sure! I hadn't thought of guitar string as a material for a fence post before. There's an art to taking a step back and seeing an object for what it can be rather than what it 'is.' I like that.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you described your layout as a "representation". Precisely, its a model; not a replica. It is easy to forget that, something I've been guilty of myself.
Thanks Robert. I suspect many of us have at some point or another. It's easy to get into the (overly detailed) weeds
The problem you discuss of the thickness posted bills is a perfect example of the challenges of realism - it seems as though it's a minor issue and yet it's a major one because it creates the "something overall isn't quite right here" that's impossible to overcome. The thickness of the paint on buildings and how it catches light, the streets lack of realistic pavement, it's the the lacking of the next level of superfine detail that the viewer expects that destroys the illusion. Then the viewer starts looking for flaws. Very tiny things start to look "glumpy." It always brings to mind how models of battleships - even as long as five or six feet - they look great until you put them in the water. I've found the most rewarding and most complimented style is the "impressionistic" approach where the object is to share an impression rather than an approximation of realism. It's difficult to achieve, but n scale is a great place to try.
Thanks Charles - certainly true that one can really stare at this and pick out all the points where the layout doesn't scale optimally (god forbid they measure the height of the rails in this case :D) N scale really is an interesting intersection between what can be done to achieve realism vs. what can be done to achieve the overall impression. I find both of those objectives to be in tension in the scale, turns out I really enjoy the challenge that provides.
Hey Eric. Your observations are correct. This is a common dilemma across all scales. I model in 3-rail 0, and while It may appear that we have more leeway you'ld be surprised the challenges we face, especially when scratch building, because of the degree of selective compression that has been used with this scale. One can rack his brain if they try to make everything exactly to scale. Engines are produced in 1/48th, 1/64th, and in-between. While the track scales to 1/43rd. Putting a 1/43rd vehicle next to a Lionel 1/64th semi really sticks out like a sore thumb but thats the vehicle's they make for this scale, aparently because of the track. Try putting a 1/43rd or 1/48th vehicle in a 1/64th scale autorack. Just like a two dimensional painting is an illusion so is our three dimensional layouts. I view it from an artistic perspective and build it to look in scale or selectively compressed regardless of scale. I briefly look at those dimensions on a ruler and estimate the size of the overall scale where it will be placed on the layout and adjust from there.
I've seen some convincing chain link fencing made from the materil I think you referred to. I belive it's used for wedding veils. Check your closets. Your wife might have some😊.
This is great Dale, appreciate these interesting insights - it reminds me how both 1:148 and 1:160 models are considered 'N gauge' but I had no idea just how much difference there is to negotiate for O. I can believe that's quite a challenge, and a good reason for just abandoning the scale ruler and going for what looks right and fits the scene. Regarding the tulle fabric, no veil here but easy to find it by the yard on Amazon. If nothing else, it's probably cheaper than wire mesh and certainly relative to the purpose-made model fences.
Well said! I've noticed that I can only go so low in terms of thinness on my resin prints. My seagulls wings had to be made from paper as the equivalent in resin simply disintegrated when I touched it. And I'm finding most details can't be seen without a magnifier, so why even bother modelling it? But I think all of us modellers want to push the boundaries of what we can model. I know with my current harbour scene at some point I need to say good enough and move onto other projects. But the itch is there to add just one more detail!
I'm honestly not sure how miniprints pulled off N scale gulls with open wings (or how I managed not to break them while cutting away the support sprues). I think saying 'good enough' is empowering and a good preventative for burnout. It gives time for new ideas and new skills. You've had your layout a good while as have I - it's nice to walk away knowing you can always come back to a scene if inspiration hits.
Yes, sometimes you do have to move into something else and come back to a scene later. I get good ideas all the time and add them to my reminders list for my model railroad. Just have to stop procrastinating and get things done!
@@pacificcoastminiatures I'm a top notch procrastinator. I figure it's okay, if the spirit moves me then it's the right time :)
Bravo Eric! Well said!
I totally agree with everything you said..
We all have to embrace and live by Allen McClelland’s “good enough” philosophy. Otherwise, we would never do anything on our layouts unless it was “perfect “ which is impossible.
All the parts should work equally to meet the overall goal of a well balanced presentation of what is being modeled. You are certainly doing that with CCMR!!
Have a great week!
Scott
Thanks Scott - Allen's philosophy is a really useful one, great that you mention it. When I was first building everything out, that was the guiding principle for sure, though I had no idea who Allen McClelland was (the fun of blindly stumbling through a hobby for a while!). Otherwise I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten anything done :). I'm reminded of a famous Carl Sagan quote: "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, first you must invent the universe." Translated: You can't evolve a scene that isn't there to begin with :). Hope you and yours had a great Easter weekend.
Interesting video.
I started in the movie industry during the 70s as a model builder and matte painter and moved to computer-aided modelling and computer graphics in the early 80s. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do, both practical and digital, back then and now, to recreate reality consistently and convincingly over larger scales. It holds up briefly, under the right light or from a distance, but it all falls apart (even today) upon closer scrutiny.
Thank you for posting a comment. It's always helpful for the community to hear the experiences of those who do this sort of thing for a living.
Happy Easter Eric and family!
I'm interested in making a reasonable representation of objects that others will recognize, not an exact copy of that item.
I feel that N scale is like taking a photo from a distance, when compared to HO or O. The scale is so fine that we don't have to try to model every single detail.
Thanks Chris and happy Easter to you and yours as well! Totally agree with you. I like the photo analogy, and it is very true that to some extent the value of N scale is that 'wide angle' overview you can have of a particular scene with maybe a bit less compression into the space as you might have with HO.
I appreciate the deep thought on this topic. Let me first say, whenever I see your videos and layout updates, I automatically get a feeling about growing up in the midwest and the many times the railroad touched my heart. I say to you and what you are doing A+, great representation achieved. I model in O scale and I can't begin to tell you how critical people can be, of course starting with that 3rd rail. At this point I pretty much have a method. If I want to model something I research it. Sometimes someone else has done it and sometimes not. If it's been done, I will steal the idea and adopt it to my situation. If not, I will do the research and come up with a respectable and convincing replication. I might add, a convincing replication TO ME! This or any hobby is meant to take us from the stresses of everyday life. If we dwell on the one rivet that is missing or the out of scale insulator on the utility pole then it becomes work and not as fun IMO. Lastly, I believe it comes down to time. Each and everyone one of us could spend an excess amount of time researching, learning, and creating the most prototypical model. If that's where one gets their joy go for it. However, the average person has so much more to do in life. Have fun and enjoy the hobby in a way that makes you happy. I could go on and on but will stop with the dissertation.
Thank you for this, and glad this little railroad evokes some memories of the midwest. I hadn't ever really considered how much this project would reconnect me to my roots and previous experiences growing up and living in Chicago. To your point about critical people, I've certainly seen comments from the group that mostly serves as a peanut gallery rather than a constructive source of insight or dialogue. That anyone at this point feels compelled to comment about 3-rail O scale is frankly just insane to me (the first trains I loved were my dad's Lionels, which now sit in a place of honor above my work desk). I've been duly impressed with your models and the opportunity O scale provides for beautifully weathering and detailing what's there. I also think you make an excellent point about using the hobby as a way to relieve stress and to make conscious choices about what we value and pursue those ends regardless of others' opinions.
Consistency of finish and no gaps, like between a building and the ground. also no glossy colours especially on road vehicles. In the end just model what you think looks good and forget what other people think or whether it is 100% prototypically correct. After all there is a massive compression of scale on most layouts so you are behind the eight ball to start with. Your layout is very impressive and is hard to tell what gauge it is which means you are an excellent modeller.
Thanks and appreciate that. I agree that gaps between the 'ground' and buildings can be a bit of a challenge to address, particularly as smaller scales accentuate the size of the gap and interior lighting can spill through. All of my buildings are purposely removable, so there's always a bit there. I've found using kids' craft foam as the 'concrete' foundation is helpful to minimize the issue. In any case, I like the balance on your perspective in that ultimately the hobby is for self satisfaction and enjoyment, others will think as they please.
This is the thing I love about N scale, you can get away with less detail relative to larger scales but it's insanely impressive and satisfying when you pull something off. There's more technical challenge if you're up for it. But yes, appropriate materials can be very hard to find.
I would also say that on youtube in particular, everyone has been one upping each other in terms of detail for years now and it's hard not to join the brinkmanship if you're competing for views. It's why I love your content, you capture that detail so well. It's very aspirational.
Most importantly though, your enjoyment of your hobby comes first. You've certainly added to my enjoyment of the hobby. We'll be here wherever you choose to draw that line.
Thank you! I appreciate the kind words and you're right that N scale can be more forgiving in some capacity and allow for some really fun innovation. Funny you mention the brinksmanship and competition inherent in TH-cam. I'm sure it happens. Content for content's sake (or for the sake of views) rarely moves the ball forward for the community, just adds to the noise. I opt out of that rat race.
The hours we Fine Scalers and Rivet Counters spend trying to achieve visual perfection can often drive us crazy.
We might consider that a visitor to our layout will usually view a scene for but a few brief moments.
Watching my layout visitors, I realized that perception was far more important than finite accuracy.
I shifted from spending countless hours trying to replicate a challenging man-made object to an emphasis of recreating mostly items found in Mother Nature that have no consistency...trees, grasses, bushes, rocks, etc.
In the meantime, the other stuff seems to have taken care of itself.
Yee Haw--!!!
Hi Cam, thank you for sharing your experiences and solutions. I agree, it's pretty rare that the average visitor to Chicago Crossing notices all the little details that I add in. I also like that you spend a good amount of time with vegetation - I find a lot of joy in those sorts of scenic elements too. Given I'm the most frequent visitor to the layout, I also get to enjoy the other stuff too. Hope you do as well ;)
Just discovered your channel and like what I see ! My faves to date are Chandwell and Everard Junction. (because I am English).
Realism and authenticity are the key for convincing modelling.
Hi Robert, thank you for dropping in and glad you enjoyed! Thanks also for sharing your favorite channels. Those have popped up more than once in my feed. I really enjoy the UK modelers.
I sometimes scratchbuild warships in 1/600 scale, but there's a limit to the level of detail that I'm prepared to go to. If I can't do it neatly, I think it's better to omit it than to try clumsily ... after all, only a rivet-counter will probably spot that I've omitted something.
That's a great point!
Great detail work!
Thank you!
Very interesting video. Good luck with the rest of your modelling journey.
Thanks Chris, glad you enjoyed.
Thanks for the thoughtful video.
You bet Keith, glad it was helpful.
Not sure why TH-cam presented me with your channel but absolutely loving your work.
Looking at some other channels, very often it's just small trains running (too fast) through a clearly manufactured landscape, but not with yours.
The story-telling you are doing on such a small plot is just amazing. It look amazing, and there are interesting things to see, looking at the full set, down to the smallest corners.
If this is you "in your early stages of being a builder" I'm scared for what you will come up with when you gain more experience.
Thanks Arjan - I do my best to keep the quality of the content high. There are some truly amazing layouts and builders with a great deal more experience who I learn from. If I end up approaching their skill level in a decade or so it's going to be a LOT of fun.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I'll keep my eyes open and see if the TH-cam algorithm does its thing 🙂
What works so well for me in your setup is that it feels like it's a realistic situation that happens to have trains in them, instead of falling into the trap to start with the trains/tracks, put all the focus there which then impacts the suspense of disbelief because it does not feel real. I'm curious to see where you go from here.
Always great video
Thank you!
Large things also present problems. As an example a typical mature deciduous tree is 60 - 80 feet tall, yet trees on layouts are rarely more than half that scale size. A tree a bit taller than a locomotive is more typical. We routinely layout curves that would never occur on the prototype. It is not possible to avoid compromise. The real questions are where, when, and how much.
Trees are a good subject. Most of the HO trees actually scale better to N, the matter complicates on little loop style layouts such as this where perspective becomes increasingly compressed.
Your representations are certainly some of the finest I have ever seen, which is why I watch you. This was a great video and confirms what I have often thought of as shortcuts on my own layout. Nobody who looks at mine ever gets as close as I do when building it. By the way the U in tulle is pronounced as you would "you". Sounds more like when you say you'll. Forgive my impertinence.
Thanks Mel, always enjoy your comments. When I used to produce music, I'd think of sonic details as nested elements that you could pick up with headphones on, but which weren't necessary to hear in order to enjoy the piece as a whole. I think there's a lot to be said for keeping the big picture vision evident and accessible for the casual viewer, while rewarding closer inspection with detail elements that can focus and engage. Appreciate the pronunciation help as well :)
I share your frustration and agree with your thoughts completely. I chose N scale to get back into model railroading because I had decided to build a replica of the Chicago neighborhood where I grew up (Rogers Park, with L trains, the North Shore interurban, and the CNW mainline running through) and I wanted to do it as close to correct scale as I could, which takes a LOT of room (thank you Google Earth for actual street widths and angles, old buildings still there, etc.). I quickly found out that it is really difficult to get, as you say, the resolution, on small and even some large details.
My original (naive) idea was to commission the major actual buildings with 3D printing from measurements I took on Google, but it turns out that resolution is 3D's biggest weakness, at least for now (good luck trying to 3D a really smooth surface or N scale bricks); so I ended up finding kits and materials that I could kit-bash myself to achieve the best representation I could. And sometimes I find that strict adherence to scale doesn't work either, for example true-to scale street curbs (6-8") almost disappear visually; I ended up using a 9-10" height which actually looks better.
One of my pet peeves is the descriptions of kits and raw materials in catalogs and on line. Many of them will just say "N scale" and give you an overall measurement and one blurry photo, and then when you get it it is clumsy and out of scale. You don't want to know how may items I have bought and then had to re-sell on eBay at a loss because I was not satisfied with the size or the details.
One thing I did was establish ground level at 50" instead of normal table height; this puts the observer closer to eye level rather then viewing as if from a drone 500' in the air.
Anyway, great topic and great modeling, Eric - keep on keepin' on!
I've often thought about jacking CCMR up to eye level, but I'll save that for the shelf layout that will come next :). It's funny how one can get really deep into the rabbit hole of precise measurements and prototypicality only to find that the end return is actually less visually appealing, like the curb heights you mention. On my layout, the curb heights would be approximately a scale foot, but they look great because you can actually see them (just as you found) 😀
Very interesting video...And gorgeous layout, Georges Seurat would hava like it! 😊😊👍👍
Thank you Phil!
Great video.
Where was that reference picture by torrence ave taken? I ask because I am in the Chicagoland area and am modeling a Moasic plant, so pictures of MOCX covered hoppers are helpful.
You can find it on Google Maps - 10900 S. Torrance Ave :)
@@ChicagoCrossingRR thank you kindly
@@eagleriverandkankakeerailr6042 you bet - enjoy!!!
Looks nice. Good job creating the appearance.
Thank you Alan!
You have struck a chord with me regarding this topic… I am a trained artist and see my layout as a piece of art created by me to (hopefully) represent my version of reality in miniature. I love detailed models but in all reality, like a painting, we never look at the minutiae in the same way as the overall experience the piece represents. Yes, details are important but it’s way too easy to overdo them and end up with something that almost becomes a parody of itself. Your use of the work of Seurat is spot on in this way.
Thanks for the comments Greg. I agree that ultimately a layout is a mix of technical and aesthetic choices that represent someone's vision, albeit one that can be dynamic and evolving, and potentially never truly 'done' if one chooses. The point you make about overdoing it is a great one. There are some layouts out there that I find to be extremely well done from a technical standpoint but are overly stimulating visually, and it's hard to know where to go with them. In keeping with the art analogy, that may well be as valid as Seurat critiquing Warhol and it may be entirely subjective but so be it :). For me, I try to keep as much 'breathing room' in the layout as possible where the eye can relax, and integrate the details together to avoid detracting from the whole.
I built an oil refinery from scratch for our club in HO scale and that took months to do I find that in my N scale I do not intend to build another from scratch but so far have not found a kit I live in New Zealand and the hobby shops here do not have a lot in N scale.
There's a reason the refinery on my layout has been 'saved' for last for like five years.
Another trick which I'm learning is forced perspective. I learned that from the armour modellers. The other I think is incorporating different scales for backrounds, foregrounds, that goes back to forced perspective. I'm trying to think of it as a movie set and how they are made. I will be building an HO layout into a wall length cabinet soon and will have to do this. Hi from Winnipeg, the Chicago of the north.
I've thought about this and wonder how effective it might be in the setting of a small layout. Clearly does work for dioramas as you point out...
@@ChicagoCrossingRRI think t would work. I also thought of making buildings as a one dimensional piece and overlaying them if you don't have the depth in a layout like near a wall. Of course putting smaller ones behind those. The layout I want to make will be about 42" deep.
I work in HO and find meny of the same challenges. An other huge challenge for me are physicle limitations such as poor vision and lack of dexterity. I have come to the mindset, that if something looks convincing I'll run with it.
Thanks for sharing Paul and I agree this is an issue many folks run into, particularly with the smaller scales.
Great thoughts. I don't model below 1:25 (model car), but believe that much of the challenge is due to the fact that 1:1 particles are interacting with our models. If we could scale down light and the receptors in our eyes, things might be easier. Our models lack the natural shadows of 1:1. Our highlights and reflections are too large and clumsy looking. To compensate for this, muted colors, duller surfaces, and painted-in shadows can help to compensate. Undersize and under-detail, giving the 1:1 eye less 'errors' to gravitate to. Not easy, of course... if you haven't already, look into miniature paintings. These works have the same goal, and the masters at this art accomplish what you're discussing, an impressionist approach, but somehow working in reverse.
This is great, thank you! You're absolutely right that at some point there's simply an irreducible factor of resolution and how light hits and object that we can play with but not fully overcome. I've not looked into miniature paintings but will now. What you mention about them makes total sense.
I do N scale. I do agree with you. With me, I like the challenge at times. Sometimes I get stressed out I step away and look at it a different way. And the main thing is to have fun messing with trains
Jon - absolutely so. It's easy to burn out on a hobby when it becomes stressful. Inherent in model railroading is a degree of problem solving (and problem making!) it's good that you step away and remember the priority, which is to enjoy yourself.
Hope you and yours had a fun Easter! Eric it looks like you and I are on the same page. Making a scene as a supporting cast on the stage. When things seem out of scale I make the scene to move your eye down the track sorta speak. I also like to use color lines to move the eyes, to not, zero in on one area. My hat is off to you, the king of clutter. FYI Preiser makes a n scale industrial workers #79009you have to paint them but you get 70 folks some made with posable heads. Been painting them like Boomer showed great results.
Will - thanks for writing and happy Easter! You hit on a very nice point which is to make focal points on the layout and some other areas that don't need focus. I love the idea of using color in this capacity, would love to see how that plays out on your layout. If you have examples, shoot me a photo via email at eric.pietras(at)gmail.com. Also - huge thanks on those Preiser figures. I do need a bunch and I don't mind painting my own figures. I base my approach on what Shep Paine published in his seminal books on dioramas, I missed Boomer's video on the topic, I bet he takes a similar approach.
Yeah I've been struggling with this too. The big thing of course is knowing when to a cut the losses and do. I ended up a weird paralysis over the last week because I needed custom lettering for a post office on my layout. The 3D printer couldn't render them right directly on the face of the building. Trying to hand cut was a fools errand. No product got close. But my brain said "I NEED THEM TO STICK OUT LIKE THE PROTOTYPE" But after so much tinkering, I gave up. I got a sheet of decal paper. Printed Arial font lettering, cut it. Slid it on. Put it on the layout. Realized there is no reasonable way to discern from even close up photos of rolling stock that there is anything "incorrect" with the sign. Kicked myself a little over it.
Yeah funny how that works. I think you took the right approach here, which was to just generate the decal and move on. I've recently gotten some of the very small Plastruct lettering for the Finkl Steel plant. Will be fun to see how well those work while keeping everything in a straight line :).
Hi CCMR, As you get older you'll run into another issue, failing eyesight and hands that are not as steady as they once were. I use to go all out super detailing my N scale diesels, but that is no longer a priority for me. I'm loosing both the eyesight even with opti-visors and the manual dexterity to accomplish those tasks. So I had a serious conversation with myself and decided what I liked best with the hobby was switching ops. So even though my MP15DC does not have all the bells and whistles of it's prototype, it still preforms that basic function of moving a car from one location to another and over all it looks like a MP15DC. Also 20 years ago, code 40 rail was what I wanted to use for sidings and spurs. But today, Code 80 and Code 55 work just fine. So yes I understand challenging yourself but as you age, you may find you change the location of your modeling bar as your interests change. In my life time it has occurred to me, that model railroaders fall into two broad categorizes, modelers and operators. With some modelers becoming 3D artists and capturing exact locations with every bit of detail in place. I've also seen operators with plywood pacifics, but the locomotives and rolling stock all operate flawlessly and the movement of cars and trains on their layouts is 100% true to prototype. Now I'd say many of us fall someplace in between, I tend to lean more toward operations, but my layout is sceniced. Anyway CCMR, hope you had a great Easter and this was a great topic and very nice video. I look forward to future videos from your layout. Cheers, Rich S.
Thanks for bringing that up Rich. Had a lovely Easter, hope you and yours did as well. LOTS of folks saying the same regarding eyesight. It's actually very useful to read about your insights into how you adapt the hobby to be fulfilling in response to these sorts of changes, it's also a great point to consider that one's engagement with a hobby can be dynamic and change with tastes, interests or (yes) the vagaries of age.
The original of the Seurat is actually in Chicago. You really can see the individual brush strokes, because that painting almost fills a wall. It's really BIG, and you can enjoy it up close, or at a distance. Just like our model empires!
Great catch! Back when I lived in the city I used to admire this painting every time I went to the Art Institute :)
The key is to know what you consider to be good enough using what's available. Also, how well does it look from three feet away or your normal viewing distance? Obviously, in photo or video, it will be enhanced either good or not so well. With what you have done so far, looks great.
I agree Stewart. I actually am not a huge fan of the close-up photos of my layout. It simply doesn't look right. The photo of the currency exchange in the intro is initially from the optimal viewing distance you mention.
The rivet counting comment brings to mind a saying I created for my signature on a model making forum, "Screw the rivets, I build for atmosphere".
💯 well said!
Dear CCMR, excellent point! Can we indeed achieve a level of realism? Does the resolution matter, whether scale res or material res, or does it add to the representation? Have been experimenting with certain types of teabag mesh, which aren’t very biodegradable. Their mesh is super fine. Disadvantage is that they very easily clog up when painted. And paint they do need. Hence, does it work? Well, sometimes it does. There’s a lot of trial and error involved. Nevertheless, I don’t strive for perfection. Whether it is my hands, or my patience, the main objective for me is to make it look good (for my eyes). Does that mean things will or can be out of scale? Well, that can only be answered with a full on ‘yes.’ Where sometimes realism seems important, resolution can/could ‘kill’ the effect, representation therefore is my leading goal. Plus, it leaves room for improvement in a very humble manner. Cheerio
Thanks Vincent - all good points and many of them on my mind too. Good luck!!
Illustrators like myself deal with this issue a lot too, as you no doubt could guess from the Seurat painting in your intro. We try to go for the *effect* of detail vs. actual detail a lot in part because focusing on every single little detail will burn you out fast and it might not look as good or consistent with the rest of the piece as just the effect of it.
Thanks for sharing Valetta - this makes a lot of sense. Always helpful to hear what experienced people in the modelmaking/graphics fields do.
Eric , Happy Easter . TKS so much for your video . I don't have your talent or patience . But I am trying hard to put a town , houses , farm with Corn field and silo's with cattle / horse pasture and feed lot . Also a train yard And more on a 28" X 66" layout . HEHEHEH . I have finally realized that I can have a town with a few industries without 10 houses . As I've told you with my physical limitations it's hard to build the small stuff . But I keep at it and am having a great time . Get flustered , Take a break . Come back later . Tried building roads out of 800 grit black sandpaper with 1/16" pin striping . Not bad , 🤣but really not good . Take care , I take a lot from your video's .
Happy Easter Steve, thank you for the note. I agree, the finescale stuff can be a challenge from a physical standpoint, eyesight/dexterity. I'm in my mid-40s and just starting to notice the slowing of close/distant eye focus, so I'm beginning to understand these issues more intrinsically. As you say, the "great time" aspect is most important. Art can take a lot of forms. Keep going, and always appreciate hearing from you.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I'll be 76 this October . 8 yrs ago went to work ( I drove big truck) . Went to lift leg to first step and couldn't make it to get into the truck . I still keep trying even after surgery . But I have my Ham Radio and Trains . Oh Ya , I spent a few years in Northbrook and Highland Park in the 1970's . Take care
Steve
@@stevetandysr.2816 thanks for sharing Steve, glad you spent a bit of time out in the Chicago area too. Glad you're enjoying the fruits of all your hard work, ham radio seems like a sweet hobby, trains is a nice icing on the cake.
A question that is a quandary to a lot of people .I dont know if you have ever watched my scratch builds , but I always use the term " To have the flavor of " I love fine scale type work , But it is not what I strive for !!
Thanks Stew - I like your philosophy as it's appropriately practical and keeps 'analysis paralysis' in check. I've seen a lot of successful model railroaders who approach the issue from the same way and the result is visually and viscerally satisfactory. I kind of use that as my start point on a scene or a building, then set it down and let inspiration, research and evolution guide what happens next.
What a wonderful channel. Superb beginning, and of course the rest of the intelligent dialogue.
I'm of the thought that scale exactness isn't of necessity. Not even effective representation of the subject either.
For me, it's the perspective of an expectation.
By this, I mean the rubbish pile. You'd mentioned the larger than scale, same as the chain link. Now, the expectation of the rubbish pile is I expect to see old cans, newspapers, flotsam. I expect to see a chain link fence where there is a chain link fence. A typical catenary wire is 1/2" (13mm) in section. Even in H0 scale this equates to a 10th of a mm, or something like 5 thou thickness. In effect, it would be so thin as to be nigh translucent. A chain link fence in N would, for all intensive purposes, be invisible: the wires being literally microscopic. But again, we expect to see a chain link fence where there is supposed to be one, so we aren't perturbed by the overscale.
In saying that though, there is also the reverse that can come into play, where for instance scale static grass can end up looking like a hay field.
This can also be brought even into colours, where sudden contrasts with hues and even shadows can come across as quite visually jarring.
However above all else; it has to remain an enjoyable pastime. creating little rubbish piles because we enjoy creating the little pieces, not because it's another job that I'm not looking forward to and don't want to do.
Great channel :)
Thanks for all of the spot-on comments. I like the concept of addressing expectations and letting the mind do the rest in terms of accepting the scale, even if out of proportion by some amount. It makes sense in that even the track on this layout is well out of scale (code 80 rather than 55) but is accepted by pretty much everyone as being scale railroad track.
Once again Eric, great work. Like you said, what's the point if it's not fun.
Great to hear from you Steven - always a pleasure. Hope you’re enjoying all your cool IHB trains!
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Thanks Eric, most definitely. IHB, EJ&E, and BRC ( my favorite belt line actually). Love 'em' all.
@@Steven_Williams Me too. I love what you can get in O scale for those.
And Satie as well! Lovely.
Thanks James, glad you enjoyed!
I have always said that the camera is not the friend of N scale close ups. Any N scale builder at some point has to satisfy a level of detail knowing that it will not be on par with other scales. Do what you can with your skills and materials. In the movie business if we want an actor to look better we pull the camera back as far as we can. Great topic.
Sandy you are absolutely correct. N scale does not lend well to close-in shots, something I'm all too familiar with :). Thanks for writing.
Good analogy. You're details in n scale are fantastic! But other than your videos, how often is the layout scrutinized under bright lights and magnification? Keep up the good work, it looks fantastic from afar as well as up close!
Thank you! And to your question, rarely ever except by me and you all :)
Congratulations man, fine scale is in ho are already hard to handle, as an artist, I can say I agree 💯% on your point when comparing modelling to painting or arts. Great work 👍⚡⚡
Thank you!
This all resonates with me. I’d love to hear you discuss the challenges of perspective, perhaps you already have? I find it frustrating to the point of giving up, to see from a distance, a lovely N scale mountain side, but the engine and ore cars coming out of the tunnel while in N scale are vastly oversized for the distant “vista”. I’ve rationalized the impossibility of having it both ways.
Hi Steve, I haven't ever tackled that issue, for Chicago Crossing it's never really been a concern since the dense urban environment minimizes the potential for vistas where perspective is an issue. Clearly some in the community have played with 'forced' perspective to try and fool the eye (I've never really seen a convincing example at the arms' reach depth of a typical layout. The local model railroad club to which I belong has a ton of mountain views and vistas on the layout, all of which looks good enough but doesn't fool anyone. Another viewer on the channel put it well - depth is extremely difficult to simulate in model form as most of the key features associated with distant objects (loss of color, detail, relief, etc. aren't fully replicable at these scales as they have to do with light diffraction in the air column in between you and the object. I suppose I have little to offer other than to say no matter what, it'll look like a model. Your rationalization is probably correct, maybe that's okay as it fits into the 'good enough' category.
My dad was a ship modeler. For very very fine “wire”, he found horse hair (mane and tail hair) worked great, and was very strong
For sure! Same material as on my cello bow (for a musical saw though, not a cello). That is really tough stuff.
Interesting thoughts. You are doing pretty amazing work for being in N scale. Your beer can thought is interesting. So in HO that is about 1/16, O scale would be about 1/8, G scale if you use 1/2" equals a foot well then you have finally reached the point where you can actually make the can and it will be around a 1/4" long. Big enough to see, but can you decorate it? So N scale would be about a 1/32". At that size N and HO become indecipherable bits of trash.
For the beer cans that I made, they are likely oversized and are painted kind of a solid color or with a little dot that may resemble a label. Honestly, when viewed I think most folks probably just see it as basic trash as you say. But at least it offers some variety in shape :)
This is truly a great video and the subject is vital to N Scale.
Thank you for the feedback - glad you found it useful.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR Very Boomer lol
@@laspiedrasrailroad we might be of a kind he and I, though I can't say I carry anything like the same authority as a professional modelmaker like Boomer does (I'm a scientist by trade).
I switched to HO from N mainly for two reasons, one was DCC and sound, another was the availability of models. I think the smaller the scale you are in the less details you can include and maybe the less you should include. Even if you consider a photograph, the larger the area the less details you see, just like the more restricted you go the more detail you see. The importance of the size and focus is important I think. Also it depends on what you want to do. If you are trying to put feather strokes on the plumage of a dove in N scale I think you might end up in a mental hospital. That might be the case also in HO. I don't know if it can be done in O scale! But at some point it gets ridiculous because we are modeling trains ultimately not a bird. So it is a challenge to strike that balance and maintain the focus I think.
Totally agree, HO still commands the biggest market and best array of options for models. Regarding detail, I think it depends. There will always be an impressionistic aspect in modeling and there are certain things I just leave alone (power lines are a great example). Mind you, I did work on those gulls quite a bit to get the plumage right and I'm still firing on all cylinders upstairs *I think* 😂. It's not for everyone though. I find it to be great fun. Others' mileage will vary.
I struggle with this constantly. The thing about N scale is that there's (1) a perpetual conflict between what the eye can resolve and the limitations of the materials we're working with (this is why N scale telephone wire never looks realistic), and (2) a tricky relationship between what the brain is willing to accept as 'realistic' and what is actually to scale. As you note, signs are a good example of the former -- they almost have to be thicker than is accurate, but they generally end up looking fine. Chain link fence is an interesting instance of the latter -- it would be possible to use a fabric that would approximate the 2" spacing of actual chain link, but it would read as a solid sheet, not as a mesh. I find tulle to be a great compromise for this: the individual threads are much finer than the metal "chain link" sold in kits, so it doesn't have that chunky look, but the brain doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the gaps are much larger than two scale inches -- it 'looks like' chain link. (It's also not that finicky to work with if you tape down the ends of a strip of mesh over a non-stick surface like parchment paper, put glue on your wire posts and rails, and press them down on top of the fabric.)
It's funny Evan because I had a whole minute of discussion about telephone wire that I cut for time. I really enjoyed reading this comment because you nicely get into the issue of how we subjectively (and objectively - much of this is likely hardwired neurobiology) perceive what looks 'real.' You're also spot on about how certain things won't scale well to the eye even if they are formally correct due to visual resolution. There's probably a whole conversation and discourse around these topics! Glad to hear others are enjoying working with tulle fabric. If I have more fences to build (which I do) I bet I'll use this.
Legitimately, me, Earlier today, I’m doing calculations and finding that any material I have is going to mean my stop signs are actually about an inch thick…. But they are going to look fine! :-)
@@jtmonsman they will. There really isn't much of a thinner material to use and still get a good result.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR I think you'll like the results you get with tulle. I solder 0.020" brass rod for the posts and rails, and that makes a pretty sturdy framework. Airbrushed with Tamiya flat aluminum and an overlay of whatever you use for rust, it looks nice.
@@evanthomas635 awesome - thank you for sharing Evan. I'm handy with a soldering iron so should be good fun.
Great Insight...
Thanks Daryl, glad you enjoyed.
"It looks good and that's OK." Wise words.
I’ll take anywhere from good to something that was quite a (fun) challenge and worth it 😀. As the other commenter said, atmosphere is a really good goal.
Great video, it's one thing to get fiddely with HO and bigger
scales, which is where I was at, now I'm switching to N just
so I can do some justice to a
Conrail layout in a 15x10 basement, I'm not striving for
a spot on depiction of buildings, people or other various details, I will concentrate on track, some buildings and a operating
scheme, I've spent hours detailing freight cars and locomotives in HO and N is
too small to waste that time
adding details to a loco that nobody will see other than snow plows!!!😂😂😂
I'll watch Norms Trains who builds in O scale when he's
detailing buildings and railroad
equipment, besides when I
finish the layout in 5 years hopefully it will be a few friends and grandkids running
it, Tulle I think would make some decent looking fence in
N scale to get the close enough look of the real thing!!
Great video on this subject because I think most of us are
building a slice of our favorite
railroads in a an area we grew
up in and not something we're
sweating over for a cover of
Model Railroader, I do love what you have done in N scale
and seeing your work has really helped me make the
choice to go to that scale, keep
up the awesome work and hopefully as mine comes along I can get a few scenes
close to yours!!!👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks and always great hearing from you - I'm looking forward to seeing how your railroad turns out! I You make some great points in your comment - do what suits your taste and do what you enjoy most about the hobby, I think that's good enough all round. The idea of sweating over a hobby for any particular end other than one's enjoyment means it's probably the wrong hobby after all. I suppose I'm a bit like an earlier stage Boomer or Norm in that I absolutely love the deep dive into all these little details, but I'd never argue that's the way everyone should approach their layout.
@ChicagoCrossingRR Hope you and your family had a great Easter
weekend!! Yeah I went way overboard with my Locomotives and
Cabooses in HO, I installed brass
walkway tread and pilot steps, air
filters and paint and decals, plus I
wanted some transfer Cabooses
so at the time I acquired blueprints
off of the Conrail Historical Society
and scratch built two, N scale is too
small to detail to that degree but I
will add snow plows and signal
control boxes to the Locomotives
I do model!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 I know I'll
be tempted to detail some buildings
and factories but I will definitely
concentrate on trackwork and operating scheme to achieve my
goal of unit trains, TOFC TV trains
and Intermodal trains that passed
thru Anderson Indiana in the mid
80s, Boomer and Norm along with
Tim Garland are Uber talented and
I throw your modeling in with those
guys too, Southern Alberta Railroad
is another well done N scale layout
that runs well, it's a great time to be
modeling in N Scale and my Walthers catalog is full of building
kits, plus I have 2 Sons in law who
both are great at 3D printing so I'll
be able to print up certain water
towers in my area that helps sets
location and era of my 80s layout!!!
Cheers!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@conrailfan6277 hats off to you for taking the time and effort to really detail the HO stuff. Those sound like works of art! Thanks for all the additional suggestions - I'll have to check whether Tim's stuff is on my radar, I bet it is and I don't know it!
@ChicagoCrossingRR Tim Garland has the HO scale Seaboard Central, also Dan Cortopassi got me interested in detailing HO engines
when he did a series on a SD40-2
which is my favorite to model, he's
doing a series now on a quartet of
engines he saw growing up on the
West Coast!! Also check out Daryl
Kruse's layout in HO, the UP in
Utah, it's massive for sure, he started
out in N scale and had his layout in
Model Railroader then switched
scales when him and his wife
retired and built a Basement with
a house on top of it!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@conrailfan6277 oh that's right, yeah I know Tim's channel well. That is a phenomenal layout. Will look up the other folks too!
One major aspect of model scaling is the difference in view perspectives. A model is allways viewed from birds eye perspective and not pov. In addition there are optical effects like vanishing of colors in far distances in real but not on scale.
Certainly true.
Ive never tried micron pens. I believe il give that a try.
Traditionally i use masking tape, and draw the outline of the graffiti piece, cut it with a sharp hobby knife, affix the tape to the car, mask everything else off, and airbrush the basecoat color of the artwork im going to apply. Afterwards i use a very small brush and hand draw the details a spec of paint at a time. Those pens would make my process much easier
Thanks much - the pens do work well, but I find your method really interesting. I was watching a video the other day of someone using a similar approach and I think for blending colors the stencil and airbrush method will be far superior in achieving the outcome you're looking for. There are a lot of good methods for doing graffiti, maybe we swap for a bit and will learn something new.
Can't help but wonder if this video wasn't inspired by my latest FB group rant! Printed out and been painting some figures for N scale, and not too happy with the results under extreme magnification, but, when viewed with the naked eye, at any distance, they look pretty damn good. I need to learn to ease up on myself, and perfection isn't a reality!
I'm not actively on social media (other than this) so an interesting coincidence I suppose. Extreme magnification of an object at 1:160 is inherently self-defeating. Hence the opening sequence on the video. Sheperd Paine offered some great advice on figure painting that to an extent can also be used at this scale. Mostly it's a matter of adding shadows and highlights on face, clothes, etc where achievable. Imagine looking at someone from 500 ft. away. That's about all you could add to a 1:160 figurine, and it's plenty to make them look like they belong.
In at least some cases, the use of fixturing may make closer-to-scale materials (fencing, for example) easier to handle and achieve a good result.
Thanks for sharing Thomas. Never a bad idea.
Couldn't agree more. Will it scale down and is it worth it? Terry
Well said Terry, and beautifully succinct. I could've shaved 9:45 off of my video putting it that way 😅. Have a great week.
@@ChicagoCrossingRRHa! Your video contains a lot of useful information, I wouldn't change a thing.
@@PennCentral99 awesome, thanks much and great summation. I may use that with attribution down the road.
Great points. Your modeling looks great! By the way, "tulle" is pronounced like "tool"😊
Thanks Susan. When it comes to pronunciation I'm a bit of a fulle.
I go larger than scale ( ho ) occasionally for some details. If you can't see it what's the point.
Thanks for sharing Al - it's a good way to address effective resolution and still allow others to enjoy the details.
This is why I hate it when people start putting “nail holes” in a craftsmen kit.
Heh, I've not seen that!
Agree whole heartedly with the other comment saying great topic. All your vids provide inspiration and knowledge for me. I do look forward to your Train Talk vids 😉. Thank you Eric/k.
You got it right with a 'c' - thank you for sharing and always happy to be of use to the community.
Tulle is almost 1:1 perfect for HO scale fences. Sadly it's too big for N, even though it looks pretty good. It's enough to drive me crazy though, I've been trying to search for a fabric closer to N scale chain link but haven't had luck yet.
Not sure you’d find anything exactly to scale that would look good - that fine a mesh would probably look opaque…the strands would be thicker than scale chain link.
In N scale, illusion is reality, unless you literally want to start using microscopes and tweezers for every detail. There is a finite limit to doing everything in N, simply because to scale everything would make it unlikely to survive use or handling. As a former N scaler who did a few detail projects, like painting the headlights and tail lights of vehicle on the layout, and modifying a couple of Bachman pre-built buildings, I found it frustrating to work to that level of detail in items that small. Your pizza slice is relatively huge, as are the couplers on the tank car. But couplers actually have to work, so you have a strength concern. The yellow handrails on the petrochem site are too thick, but again, to scale down standard materials creates the headache you identified--what the heck do you use to make the model parts?? And as you point out, it's like the whole printer resolution issue. Beyond a certain point, the eye doesn't even see the difference/detail any way, so why bother? If I ever get my HO switching shelf built, even that won't be hyper-detailed to fine-scale standards, but it will be easier to do than in N (or Z!) for those details I choose to fuss over.
Thanks for writing Mark. These are all great points!
going back to the start, some 25 years ago, n scale was very toy-like because the technology to produce the fine-scale parts wasn't there or was too expensive. But as the technology and materials improved, better details were possible to the point where we have ScaleTrains and the like doing yeoman's work in detail perfection. but even here - we're limited to what can be seen and what can be made to fit and still be reliable. that's where the beauty in n scale is for me. very small details can be omitted due to size but cost nothing to the realism of the model or scene. so your example of a glass of water is an unnecessary detail the likely couldn't be made convincing in n scale. But, at a larger scale, an outdoor cafe might look odd with nothing on the tables.
It's crazy isn't it. I have some old models from that era - the oldest N scale model I have is a cherished boxcar from the early 80s (granted, heavily modified now) and absolutely right, they were toys in comparison. Great to hear from you again, I've been enjoying your channel as always :)
Tulle fabric is great, just take care to cut it straight, so the grids are consistently even across the length of the fencing.
In that case I'm screwed...😅
As someone who is getting older, eye sight plays a part as well. N scale would not be something I would consider now. I model in OO9 and even that is getting too small and fiddly. The next scale for me will probably be On30 or O 16.5.
These are great points, thanks for sharing! between eyesight and dexterity, N scale can be a real challenge.
Your model, your rules, your enjoyment.🤣👍💕
Amen!
woodland Scenic N scale is 2mm per foot so its a little bigger then you measure.
This is always good to know. Given the play in the measurements, often what I end up doing is simply taking a 1:160 figurine and measure the objects I'm making in relative terms. In that sense, accuracy trumps precision.
Well it is N scale! Very small and IMHO you have broke it down my friend. Make it to suit you and what you like. Your layout is a work of art.
Thank you Bruce, well said :). Have a great week.
Realism 😊
For sure!
When you worry about perfection, you miss the important part of the hobby. You forget to have fun.
True that! Granted it isn't always fun (wiring all of the lighting was just work) but even then I think the metric for time well spent is that you can find a reward at the end for investing the effort.
I agree that N scale has come a long way in the recent years, BUT I strongly disagree that the old stuff look like toys. Fleischmann has some products from the 70' at N scale (especially the class 01 and class 80- tank locos) that give class in terms of appearance to some of the locos produced by other N scale manufacturers by modern means.
On your topic about realism vs resolution, the general line that many Europeean manufacturers use is based on the true to scale observatory phenomenon and stepping feet illusion. You want to maximize (macro) realism until the stepping feet illusion threshold is 0. The resolution at which you achieve this threshold is your optimum resolution for that scale. That is why some of the details on some models are completely missing in smaller scales.
Hi Munteanu,
Thank you for your take on European models. Perhaps some of this accounts for the relative realism of older vs. newer models between Europe and elsewhere.
I'd agree that some of the old Fleischmann locos would likely still pass in looks with some of today's steam models (I can't comment on their run quality as I don't run those), but I don't consider that to be paradigmatic of older models at least among manufacturers common to the US. I own plenty of old diesels and rolling stock and between then and now there really is no comparison in the crispness of molding and paint/decals, quality and scaling of applied parts, and quality of wheelsets, even with what was considered high quality back then among ready-to-run gear.
Even in abstract, the pizza slice is still visible! 😮
Thankfully, pizza is pretty easy to model :). At least the NY style stuff.
@@ChicagoCrossingRR
I remember a South Side Pizza joint that sold pizza that big.
Beggars Pizza isn't that big, but it's really tasty!
@@pauljensen5699 yeah I used to get two big wedge slices and a pop from this place on Chicago and Western when I lived in Ukrainian Village. It was like $2.50 so an easy dinner. That said I've always been most partial to the Chicago tavern style stuff you'd get at Chesdan's or Ledo's or places like that. Cheese and sausage, cut into squares. That's the ticket :)
With building LEGO MOC's is the same dilemma. You want the details, but the sheer size of the bricks seriously gets in the way. You'll end up with 3mm handle bars in 1:40 scale MOC's that are way off, but actually do help to transmit the image you want.
In the scenery depicted the railings also are way oversized, but to leave them out will completely ruin the essence of the modeled building.
That's a really interesting point Erik thanks for sharing. I hadn't thought about these issues in Lego until I recently built a space shuttle/hubble telescope kit and noted the extent to which the essence of what the objects are was clearly there, even with some of the distortions in detail and scale related to the nature of the building material.
The biggest problem and challenge to fine scale in N scale is the available track. Most N scale track is so far out of scale it's a visual problem, imo.
Tie spacing is too far apart and rail size is too large in most cases.
Yeah the code 55 stuff looks better than code 80 to be sure - though I appreciate the additional bit of leeway I have with modeling weeds growing between the rails using static grass.
To your point--those handrails are wildly out of scale and should probably be replaced with photo etch.
Come on over and do it!
You need to be practical and realistic about actually achieving realism and draw the line (pun #2) at what is reasonable.
Yes! Or at least have fun if you decide to do something unreasonable ;)
See i believe that a model railroad is never done. So i start at the big and then go smaller and smaller. I think that looking at things through the lens of amusement parks where you have a central focal point and thats the most detailed thing, and things that compliment it that are a little less detailed in a given area are important because it lets people focus on the important stuff. If everything looks amazing it’s hard for the audience to understand what to look at, and it actually works against the effort and time put into that hard work
Yes, I think some control of the visual narrative is really helpful. We've all seen layouts that are technically perfect but don't offer these focal points. They can just be too much to take in.
And this is N scale, I'm trying to find details on HO and that is almost twice the size.
I wouldn't even get close to this in HO.
Many won't and most don't have to unless you enjoy the process of doing these sorts of things ;)
Piano wire for fine fence poles.
Thanks Phillip - had another recommendation for that as well. Lots of interesting solutions which is fun to see.
In this scale, your realism is top notch. You’ve never injured yourself constructing this railroad?!! I injure myself once week! You’re not trying hard enough.
I did puncture my finger screwing together a part of the cabinet supporting the layout - I decided to count that as a separate problem 🧐
i am a community dialog all by myself!
the Simpsons reference says it all my friend.
Very interesting topic! The real dilemma that I see is putting all the details in the same order of precision to each other. While you strove to find a material to replicate the thinness of chain link fencing, the handrails on the platform for the tank farm appear to be four inches thick! I’m not suggesting that you need to replace the railing, although photo etch brass railing does exist, but we all face the “good enough” compromise somewhere in our modeling pursuits. There’s the issue of how much time one should devote to a particular project. You’ve already accomplished quite an impressive layout with what you have to work with, I commend your efforts and thoughtfulness.
By the way, you should keep up on your tetanus shot boosters, I believe it’s every ten years or so! Keep up the great work!
Dan - thanks for the thoughtful comment and good eye. In a 'perfect' world where I scratchbuilt rather than sourced from multiple manufacturers or 3D prints, I agree that equivalent order of precision would be achievable in a practical way. In this case, depending on where the model comes from, I've got handrails of all different sizes! On the other hand, I have a bit more ability to manage the order of precision for the fences on the layout, so at least a class of objects will look reasonably similar. It's unlikely I'll go about replacing handrails on my models since, as you point out, they're otherwise good enough. The risk of damaging the models in the process and setting back other more interesting goals outweighs the payoff from re-railing everything with brass etch material, and as you say, that risk/reward ratio is pretty important. I'll look into the tetanus shot too - thankfully haven't needed it just yet :)
!? N scale !
These days with me eyesight it’s Christmas if I can recognize a steam 141R mikado from a cat turd at the other end of the layout…
Couldn’t have come up with a better analogy. Thanks for sharing 😂
Actors have to exaggerate their facial expressions and body language to make things look "real" on screen or on stage. I would imagine you deal with the same issue when constructing a layout. Too much realism doesn't produce the desired effect.
Very true! I was a former theater major in college til I switched to biochemistry and I totally get it.