Details that change when scaling down

In message , Luke Briner writes

We recently decided for some perverse reason to build a model of an actual church [St Neots] for our NVR layout. Armed with cameras and various bits and pieces to aid measurement we sallied forth and spent a few happy hours getting all of the dimensions completely accurate. We then built the cardboard mock up to precise scale based on our original measurement. At 4mm scale the model was huge. In fact overpowering once placed on the layout. In fact we were forced to reduced the overall size of the building to the point where by general consensus it looked right. As we continue with the main construction is has become ever more apparent that we were correct to do so. The great problem in a case like this however is the decision whether to just reduce the size of the building outline, or in fact to down size the whole of the construction

- windows etc. This in some respects can be quite noticeable and so we decided not to t6ake this route. Great fun, however building the ornate scrolled church style windows out of plasticard is definitely not a task to be undertaken lightly.

Cheers.

construction

It depends on where the model is going to be place, if placed near other true to scale items (such as the railway) or in front of them you can't down scale the said model, it needs to be to the same scale as other models - you can't have 3ft scale high doors with scale 6ft people for example - but if the model is going to be place at the back of the baseboard then you can down scale and indulge in a bit of 'perspective modelling' IYSWIM.

Often a 3.5mm scale building and figures at the rear of a baseboard can add, the appearance of otherwise non existence, distance to the scene.

Luke;

Here is my 64 yr. old 2 cents worth (US)

PAINT As a lad, growing up in San Francisco, and hanging around the station South of Market, I never saw any glossy locomotives except when a new diesel was added to the fleet. And the gloss didn't last long.

The old steamers were not even semi-gloss, they were flat black that was faded and weathered. You know the flat black I mean, like the paint used on wood burning stoves. Good stuff and that's what I'm going to use on my steam stuff.

I do have to hand it to you Brits, having seen some of your restorations on the web (like the Blue Bell group). They are glossy and shiny, but more over, they are clean, and operational. They all look outstanding, even the brass. We do have museum pieces that look as well but not necessarily operational.

With all that said I guess it depends on whether you want your model to be prototypical as it now is or as it was originally while in service???

Guess I should have said 2 pence worth!

Thanks to all for all the nice sites and pics.

Dave

At various periods British (and New Zealand) locomotives were polished before they left the sheds. Certainly, on long runs they got a bit dirty, but that would be expected. During and after the two world wars there were labour shortages and loco cleaning was an unessential job which could be ignored. Here in NZ in the 50s and 60s the steam locos I saw were relatively clean but matt, not filthy and unkempt in the manner that is fashionable today amongst (US) modellers. The "Royal Train" (1953/54) loco was shinier than a new car straight from the showroom floor.

Regards, Greg.P.

In message , Greg Procter writes

They certainly were. My first 'real' railway job as a lad was as an engine cleaner based at Bath Road engine shed, a short way from Bristol's Temple Meads Station. In those days the progression through the ranks was the time honoured way to achieve the giddy heights of a mainline driver. Engine cleaners were at the bottom of the pecking order and progression was through fireman grades to driver. I have a [somewhat hazy] recollection of eight of us working each loco [four each side] I often wished that I had managed to pinch a 'Bristolian' head board :0)

Cheers.

Greg,

I stand corrected, and I didn't mean to single out just the Brits. I have seen original photos that were taken in other countries where the steam locos looked well kept and attractive. But I have also seen the other end of the scale where even the connecting rods were well greased - - - on the outside, you know, the spider effect!

It really depended on where the engine resided, what routes it traveled and the pride of the crew. I remember a lot of Pigeons inside the terminal and Sea Gulls outside, both never passed up the chance to decorate the trains - - - - - - or an occasional passenger.

I don't think I want to be that realistic !

Dave Sacramento, CA

Those guys don't know what they are doing. US steam locos did not look the way many of those people model them. They looked just the same way as you describe the NZ machines. I am old enough to remember steam quite well in the US. It was not until the twilight of steam that they were allowed to get into that condition. They never looked the way you see so many of them modeled. Up through the end of the '40s and even the first few years of the '50s they were mostly clean and neat, insomuch as a coal-burning steam locomotive can be "clean". The Norfolk & Western Ry., which ran mainline steam up until the '60s kept the engines clean and bright right up to the very end. The 600 class always had a high-gloss finish and got washed at each end of a run.

Luke,

I think the matter is very subjective and depends on what we expect to see in our models. We expect to see wood grain on models when the scale reproducion of the full size grain would be completely smooth to our eyes, and we expect to see rough brick surfaces with deep mortar courses when scale reproduction would render an almost smooth surface, even allowing for mortar courses. Like your ballast example, we expect to see some reproduction of the detail when viewed from two or three feet, and to do that, we have to over-emphasise the features.

And the opposite effect might have to be applied if we look at the scale size of objects. A scale model of a full size oak tree would be about 400mm high in 4mm scale and would completely overpower most, if not all, layouts. Therefore, you model a much smaller oak tree to keep things apparently in proportion to the rest of your layout.

I also read that the late James Beeson, the famous model loco builder, would adjust sizes of parts of a loco to match what the viewer expected to see, and not what they actually scaled to. I believe his reasoning was that most peoples' close up view of a locomotive was from the ground or platform level and their perception of details was affected by the perspective distortion from those viewing points. I know that I have found myself modelling some detail to scale size and finding that I have to adjust the size to get it 'looking right' .

I suspect that we all have to be sort of impressionist artists when we model to get a result that pleases the eye and not the scale ruler, and that factor is what probably makes the difference between a good model and an award winner.

Jim.

luke,

Just think about it! Your eyes are further apart than the width (and often length), of a 4mm scale model.

This causes a loss of perspective and is something which is unscalable.

In professional modelling (research etc) we have to change the media or fluids in order to get things to relate better but time cannot be modelled!

It follows that in order to produce a model for our railways that the shape will be different than that of the prototype in order to satisfy our eyes - even photographs fail to do this for the same reasons.

Trial and error is quite a satisfying method as it is reallty an individual taste.

Peter A

Montarlot

In message , Luke Briner writes

I think it all boils down to what we expect to see. We become accustomed to seeing models as they are presented, and as we have probably seen them since childhood. Taking the church as an example, we expect a church to be about the size of the Airfix kit, because we have seen so many of them, and they therefore look correct, even if they are not. I always think that a main line coach should be about the length of the Hornby Dublo model, even though I know the Dublo model is too short. Correct scale length coaches look too long :-)

Good thread this.

Have enjoyed reading it, and it has yet to develope into a slanging match.

Time yet I suppose : )

Eddie.

Another factor, though very difficult to quantify, is the fact that light itself doesn't scale. Therefore a surface finish on the model cannot be the same as on the real thing. We have to modify the finish to take account of the realities of physics. Also, we can't model water using water, as it doesn't scale down. We would need to use a more dense, but freer flowing liquid (that I am not aware exists?).

And in a model, we basically are resorting to compression of one form or another to get things into our layouts, like with the church, and the oak tree. When I look at a layout, my main focus, rightly or wrongly, is the trains, not the scenery. Anything too big in the scenery, no matter how much to scale it is, will draw my eye from the trains, thereby taking my focus away from the point of the railway layout in the first place.

Ian J.

Of course not, "slanging" only verifies the ignorance of the author!

DS

Mercury is denser than water, and (at low temperatures at least) has a lower viscosity, but I wouldn't recommend using it in your models. :-(

Ian forgot to mention that the surface tension also needs to be reduced, and the liquid must be transparent, fortunately either of those rules mercury out. Keith

As is Alcohol but you might have a flammability problem! "Smoke that layout"

Dave

I wasn't meaning to bite you, just to point out that the US fashion of weathering steam locos to the point that they look like something that might live under my bed _isn't_ realistic in most modelling circumstances for many countries! OTOH, a steam loco can only be shiney polished as it leaves the cleaning depot/loco depot.

Regards, Greg.P.

I built my second model loco from a single photograph (3/4 front - low position) and two published dimensions, driving wheel diameter amd length over-all. I didn't expect to ever find a scale drawing. You won't be surprised to hear that one turned up a few years later. I had had the photo blown up by a professional photographer (pre scaleable photocopiers, computers etc) In spite of my careful measurements, formulas etc, about the only thing I got sufficiently right was the driving wheel diameter and length overall!

Greg.P.

About the only time one sees an unobstructed passenger coach is when one is standing on the platform right beside the thing. A model railway like viewpoint is extremely rare and then one is normally driving along a motorway and has no time to get more than an impression of the scene.

Regards, Greg.P.