You're comparing a layout set in the '30s with today. There were a lot more people on the streets back then. People walked a lot more. They shopped a lot more because ice boxes were small. Houses got hot with no air conditioning. Next time, consider the era before you reach a conclusion.
Look at photos taken at the time.
Yes, there were more people walking but as I wrote before, you still need to be careful and not over do it.
I think Sellios et al do over do it. Even Sellios has rebuilt parts of his original railroad as even he thought it was too much of a caricature.
On 18/12/2010 12:51 AM, Roger Traviss wrote: [...]
[...]C. S Lewis in one of his essays about fiction drew a distinction between "life-like" and "like life." A story can be "life-like" without being "like life", sci-fi and fantasy are the obvious examples. The opposite is also true, a story can be "like life" without being "life-like." Many (most, in my experience) of those educational stories concocted by well-meaning preachers and teachers are of that kind. TV's so-called "reality shows" are neither. ;-)
We may claim that the highest art is both life-like and like life, but that's another issue.
Apply these concepts to layouts: Allen's Gorre and Daphetid and Sellios's Franklin & South Manchester are life-like, but not like life. McClelland's V&O, Koester's Midlnad Road, are like life and life-like. I've seen many layouts (such as the UK ones you mentioned) that are like life, but are too neat and clean to be life like.
I think we differ mostly in our attitudes to "life-like" and "like life." But we can, I hope, all admire high levels of craft and skill, even when it's in the service of a fantasy that doesn't appeal to us. We all, I think, imagine the world we depict, more or less successfully, in out layouts.
Wolf K.
There's a Rulebook for Everything. Unfortunately, it was lost the last time the Universe moved into new accommodations.
Wolf K.
"Wolf K"
I agree with that last statement Wolf. I've seen far too many UK model railways that exhibit excellent modelling and as I wrote in a previous post, are far too clean and neat which I think spoils them.
OTOH, I've seen far too many (usually) narrow gauge model railroads that have gone overboard in the other direct. Far to run down and decrepit. So run down that in real life they would be shut down. :-)
One of the comments that I have made in the past in comparing the modeling of George Sellios to that of Dave Frary or Rand Hood is that the layout of the former has character, while the allegedly more realistic layouts of the latter two lack character. Frankly, I'd rather visit (and build) a layout with character.
Craig, check out
There would be more rolling stock and locomotives for WWII than the 1800's.
Yes there is. It is the one you write for your railroad.
Which means that there is no rulebook.
Which means that there is no rulebook.
--------------------------------
It depends.
For my GER there was an acquisition rule book.
As I was going for a particular "look" that meant only purchasing "stuff" that would be 1958 or earlier. Nothing newer than 1958.
Locomotives had to be those types typically seen or be possible to see in southern Quebec in 1958. I say "possible" as I have three Spectrum 2-10-0 (That have since been de-Russianed) that barely qualify as being "typical". Justification for these is they were used on a light rail, light bridges branch line serving an un-modelled paper mill. Then there are the three RS-1s, a model that was never sold new in Canada. I went with the non m.u.ed RS-1 as in the GER history, copying what the CPR did in real life, the GER dieselized it's main line across northern Maine as a diesel experiment but used FA-1s and RS-1s rather than the diesel power used by the CPR. The RS-1s were used as yard and way freight power and the A+A FA-1s were used on freights and were only m.u.ed between the two A units. The use of the RS-1 and FA-1 is still logical as that part of the GER's main line is, of course, in the U.S.A. so "American" diesel models are appropriate. Of course, the FA-1s and RS-1s have since migrated into the general locomotive pool but the RS-1s still do not have m.u. while the FA-1s have now been so equipped.
For example, because of my "rules" you'll not see any 2-8-4s as none ran in Canada nor will you see any articulated steam. The largest GER steam power is a small fleet, in two classes, of smallish 2-10-2s which may become small
2-10-4s as I'm not happy with the large space under the all weather cabs. Rolling stock is strictly what was typically seen in 1958. Yes, in the photos of the GER there are one or two anomalies, CPR script lettering on one or two boxcars for example but they were subsequently removed and either given away or repainted. Ditto for road vehicles and even the lettering font used on buildings. You'll find no Helvetica font on the GER as that wasn't in common usage and may not have even been invented, in 1958.All GER cabooses, three classes, have copulas as side vision "vans" were not typically used in Canada.
If you are trying to model a realistic model railroad, freelanced or prototypical you must have personal purchasing rules otherwise you end up with something that is completely un-realistic. Running steam with double stacks just doesn't cut it in the realism department and using the old saw "It's my model railroad" still doesn't make it "right", if you are aiming for realism rather than just a collection of unrelated model trains.
However, if you are not aiming for realism, then buy and run what you like and knock your socks off while doing it. :-)
On 19/12/2010 4:49 PM, Roger Traviss wrote: [...]
From Wiki's site:
"Helvetica was developed in 1957 by Max Miedinger with Eduard Hoffmann=20 at the Haas'sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas type foundry) of M=FCnchenstein, =
Switzerland. Haas set out to design a new sans-serif typeface that could =
compete with the successful Akzidenz-Grotesk in the Swiss market.=20 Originally called Neue Haas Grotesk, its design was based on=20 Schelter-Grotesk and Haas=92 Normal Grotesk. The aim of the new design wa= s=20 to create a neutral typeface that had great clarity, no intrinsic=20 meaning in its form, and could be used on a wide variety of signage.[1]
When Linotype adopted Neue Haas Grotesk (which was never planned to be a =
full range of mechanical and hot-metal typefaces) its design was=20 reworked. After the success of Univers, Arthur Ritzel of Stempel=20 redesigned Neue Haas Grotesk into a larger family.[2]
In 1960, the typeface's name was changed by Haas' German parent company=20 Stempel to Helvetica (derived from Confoederatio Helvetica, the Latin=20 name for Switzerland) in order to make it more marketable=20 internationally. It was initially suggested that the type be called=20 'Helvetia' which is the original Latin name for Switzerland. This was=20 ignored by Eduard Hoffmann as he decided it wouldn't be appropriate to=20 name a type after a country. He then decided on 'Helvetica' as this=20 meant 'Swiss' as opposed to 'Switzerland'."
Helevtica became popular in the 60s.
HTH Wolf K.
From Wiki's site:
"Helvetica was developed in 1957 by Max Miedinger with Eduard Hoffmann at the Haas'sche Schriftgiesserei (Haas type foundry) of Münchenstein, Switzerland.
[Big Snip]Helevtica became popular in the 60s.
---------------------------------------
Which is, in effect, what I wrote. :-)
It has become THE most popular type face.
Merry Christmas Roger Traviss
Photos of the late GER: -
On 12/19/2010 6:54 PM Roger Traviss spake thus:
Your point is a good one; I've seen too many otherwise realistic layouts, buildings or dioramas that were absolutely ruined by using an inappropriate typeface, like Helvetica (or its predecessors) in a pre-1960s scene. It's a seemingly small detail, but actually a crucial one.
I think some modelers, lacking typographic resources, end up making signs on a computer printer using "default" fonts (like Arial, which is very close to Helvetica). Thing is, it's actually not difficult at all to obtain better fonts, even for free.
Just thought I'd show your surmise was correct. ;-)
Merry Christmas to you, too.
Wolf K.
Wolf K.
"Wolf K"
Just thought I'd show your surmise was correct. ;-)
---------------------------------------------
OK Wolf, cheers. :-)
Layouts are like anything else, everyone does them differently. I've seen plenty of stripped down layouts...which look VERY realistic, but on the other hand I've seen just what you describe above.
All too often layouts have way too much track and not enough scenery. This is understandable in sections of the layout that feature yards, but some people try to cram as much track as possible in every nook and cranny.
One of the biggest problems I often see is many layouts have multitrack mainlines throughout the entire railroad. Most real railroads have some areas which are single track. Also especially on smaller layours switches seem to be every foot or two, and again this is understandable from an operational standpoint, as the builder is trying to put in as many industries as possible to justify the trains that run the layout.
Larger layouts have the luxury of space for long runs where there aren't tons of industry tracks branching off in all directions...but again, sometimes when a builder has such space, he fills it up.
I personally don't currently have any space to build, so it's not an issue with me at the moment. But when I do get into a home with enough room to build, I plan to exercise some restraint in cramming everything possible into every scene. Some of the finest scenes I've seen on layouts have nothing more than a single track running through, and some rolling hills and trees, maybe one building or other structure and a few figures.
In photographs the number one give away that you're looking at a model is figures. Followed closely by track.
OTH the more detail you have the more interesting it is to the visitors. It is also mre fun to build
Model railroading covers more than just building static models and dioramas. For some model railroaders, operation (or electronics, or collecting) are the part(s) of the hobby they enjoy most, and the scenery is but an afterthought, something put there just to cover the bare plywood. Heck, I've operated with some people who are happy with bare plywood with unfinished plastic models for most of their layout - operating is what they enjoy and their scenery will probably never go further than that.
It's a broad hobby - more than just diorama building.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.