I really enjoyed browsing this
http://www.009.cd2.com/index.htm (http://www.009.cd2.com/index.htm)
Great website, too, includes .pdf files with the technical drawings of some interesting rolling stock.
Agreed... a beautiful piece of work and well documented by the web site. The same high-standard in presentation is evident throughout the layout and the site. The British seem to be able to achieve the right balance between the modelled environment and the railroad that runs through it.
Paul
Superior. -- Russ
Beautiful. I recall seeing this before..but always a joy. Thanks. It sounds like this layout was at the Warley show as well as one or two others of sim quality. If that's true, thbetween Jacqs and these, it really puts to shame the layout quality we see at the NNGC.
Marc
I've seen this layout last year in Genk (Belgium). It stood in the same room as my own layout. Lucky me...it stood not beside me. Some times it was so crowded with spectators that his neighbours almost had to move to make more space. :D
But it really is a nice layout.
Leon
Stunning! The scenery, with its lush foliage, is especially well done.
Marc ,
County Gate was at Warley last year . The owner and builder live less than 20 miles from me . There have been thousands of hours put into its construction and it is certainly one of Britain's better layouts . However , I wouldn't labour under the illusion that British layouts in general are of a better quality than seen in the US . Because , believe me , there are some real crap ones over here . There are many layouts where the builder(s) have gone to great lengths to achieve prototypical accuracy in their buildings , locos , signalling system ( yawn) or what ever and then ruin the whole effect by liberally putting shiny metal cars and poorly painted figures all over the place . And most of them can't do weathering properly . I rarely find anything much at these shows that inspire me . Having said that , I have no interest in British standard gauge railways whatsoever . So you can imagine what a joy it was to be part ( albeit a very small part) of a pair of layouts ( Jacq's and Marcel's) that really are special . And what is more , I got to drive Marcel's loco for 5 minutes . It makes living all worth while !
The layout that won best in show was , ironically , an American logging layout . The modelling wasn't particularly good but the builder , a young chap who you would never imagine would be into modelling ,was very proud of it , and it gave the audience what it wanted , lots to look at .
Nick
I feel there is a lot of respect in UK/Europe for prototype, even in a freelance model like this. Respect for history, for engineering and for the real people who once lived and toiled on railroads. You can see it in the care this modeler took with this work, making it believable and showing conditions as they might have been, and presenting it beautifully. I'm a little uncomfortable with the typical American style caricature, because it usually doesn't convey much respect for the subject matter.
Dave
Quote from: shropshire lad on November 24, 2010, 10:59:24 AM
There are many layouts where the builder(s) have gone to great lengths to achieve prototypical accuracy in their buildings , locos , signalling system ( yawn) or what ever and then ruin the whole effect by liberally putting shiny metal cars and poorly painted figures all over the place . And most of them can't do weathering properly .
Nick
The same is prevalent here in the U.S. and Canada. Why is it that so much concern is given to the rail, scenery and structure elements while shiny, toy like and sometimes even out of scale vehicles are acceptable?
Some of the best foliage I have ever seen. That is an aspect to modeling that is an afterthought on so many layouts. Everything in a diorama or scene needs to be to scale, and the terrain must be thought out. This arrangement looks quite natural.
Poorly painted people and few decent scale automobiles are all that are available. They would take yet more effort to match equipment and structures. I was looking at slides just yesterday of an N-scale layout I made. It looks pretty good except the horrible plastic cars. I knew it at the time but I had my special good-enough glasses on. Now they look like crap. That was all that was available.
I focus on the bridges. That is certainly another overlooked area- not much available and little notice of critical details. The information is there but the mainstream press focuses on equipment, structures and "operation".
Anyway, this is an excellent example of what can happen when all the elements are in balance with the same attention to scale and detail. Thanks Dave!
John
We all know this but it bears repeating:
Most people in the train hobby (regardless of nationality) want to see choo-choos go around and around. The more sophisticated of them enjoy a game called "operation". Those folks are not modelers. For them, modeling is a necessary evil and they only do it if they can't get what they want ready-to-run or -install.
A minuscule fraction of those people also happen to like modeling and research. When a guy with that outlook builds a layout it is more likely to reflect what we like.
Each of us on this forum is a modeler. Some of us specializing in railroad related subjects don't even want a layout. Others build cars, military vehicles, ships, or fantasy subjects. Our focus is on creating a plausible replica -- except for FichtenFoo and JESTER who have completely lost their minds. Either way, because all of us are modelers first, of course we find unsophisticated, toylike, or crude layouts almost offensive.
I long ago realized I am one of a tiny minority of hobbyists and stopped retching at typical layouts. I was able to do that because I stopped visiting them and stopped looking at articles about them and stopped thinking about them as anything other than a curiosity. About fifteen years ago, after a conversation with the great modeler, Richard Christ, I realized I am a dioramist who usually models railroad related subjects. When I build the latter, I am a railroad modeler, not a "model railroader". The distinction is important because there is a world of difference between the two approaches.
So let's focus on only those layouts where the builder does some research and has good modeling skills. Let's forget the rest and relegate them to the Domain of the Great Unwashed. They are irrelevant to our interests no matter how ubiquitous they may be. We will be happier if we stop wondering what motivates their creation and why they are so common.
Russ
I second that Russ... unless of course there are thong-clad cuties operating trains, and then, who cares about the trains anyway... ;D
Paul
You're so right, Paul and Russ, despite the broad range of opinions you emit.
Russ, it's something I often try to do, avoid looking were you know you won't like what you see.
This may be the reason why I feel unhappy when I read certain comments on this forum about models that are really not in the same planet as the one we, members of here, live in. I don't see what it gives us to say they are not good. I prefer by far being introduced to a great model (be this a railroad or a diorama - I may even have a glance at some military thing... :) ) like the one Dave showed us here (and on another thread too).
Dave, I liked your comment about having respect to the people implicitely included in our models (even if I'm not sure many european modellers have really this in mind). Reading books about real mining or logging railroads has given me opportunities to understand better the way these people lived, for instance. As for the reason why Europeans would focus on this more than Americans (which, again, I think would deserve some serious examination), it might be that we don't have the great landscapes you have (although there are some impressive places here too, and some are - or were - even crossed by trains) so that we have to focus more on the simple things of ordinary life, the one with the people.
Quote from: finescalerr on November 25, 2010, 05:35:14 PM
We all know this but it bears repeating:
Most people in the train hobby (regardless of nationality) want to see choo-choos go around and around. The more sophisticated of them enjoy a game called "operation". Those folks are not modelers. For them, modeling is a necessary evil and they only do it if they can't get what they want ready-to-run or -install.
Ha-ha! I will say without shame that I get a simple-minded pleasure out of watching trains go round-n-round. Spend many hours during the week sitting at a table and packaging kits ... there's an unfinished layout with a loop of track across the room ... it's somehow quite relaxing (to me) to have a train running roundy-round over there. Kinda like fish in an aquarium. (But no pesky sound units please, rather have a musical sound "track")
Quote from: finescalerr on November 25, 2010, 05:35:14 PM
Each of us on this forum is a modeler. Some of us specializing in railroad related subjects don't even want a layout ....
About fifteen years ago, after a conversation with the great modeler, Richard Christ, I realized I am a dioramist who usually models railroad related subjects. When I build the latter, I am a railroad modeler, not a "model railroader". The distinction is important because there is a world of difference between the two approaches.
I'm starting to think that I'm some of each ... dioramas are just a little too "static" for me, but I think I'm inherently NOT a layout-builder.
A couple of the local guys have done some neat things with "Free Mo" (free-form) modules. One of them has become quite adept at building frames for very free-form frames with all sorts of organic shapes and end plates that might be 30 or 60 degrees off the perpendicular, etc.
The 1/35 repair shop under construction now is sitting on the corner of that unfinished layout ... but I worry that the overall "plan" for that little layout might not prove ultimately satisfying ... yet, I do want some potential "animation" ... ie, a train running thru the scene occasionally.
I'm thinking that my best compromise might be to build a few little individual "dioramas" that satisfy the individual building urges that I get ... but still have the potential to be linked together to allow a train to run around hands free. So, building dioramas as free-form modules might be a solution that will work for me. (Like to see the trains in motion, but I'll never be one of those intensely focused point-to-point operators.)
Quote from: finescalerr on November 25, 2010, 05:35:14 PM
So let's focus on only those layouts where the builder does some research and has good modeling skills. Let's forget the rest and relegate them to the Domain of the Great Unwashed. They are irrelevant to our interests no matter how ubiquitous they may be. We will be happier if we stop wondering what motivates their creation and why they are so common.
Russ
When I first read your post last night, I had the impression you were canning the whole idea of posting any layout references here. Now, it looks different to me. There ARE at least a handful of members here who are building or aspiring to some sort of layout ...
AND ... any particular layout that a member of this forum finds interesting or inspiring has the same potential interest for at least some other members . So, maybe an "interesting layouts" thread (along the lines of "photo of the day") would be a good place to deposit those notes, links and discussions.
Cheers,
Dallas
Actually, Dallas, in response to some previous posts I was just suggesting that none of us should get upset at the generally poor quality of layouts and modeling we so often see in magazines and online. Please don't infer any more than that. The rest of the babbling was only to put that idea into context. -- Russ
A fine idea Dallas, to create specific area for layout threads. We could start by moving Dave's two recent suggestions there.
Russ, I believe I understand your points about "The Great Unwashed" and their layouts. And the point about operators- I have seen layouts where it is just tracks on plywood, maybe a structure or two and index cars of what industry the siding is supposed to serve. Maybe they should do it on a computer.
But, regarding the unwashed, I have given clinics to the masses. Most modelers are mere mortals. Maybe because they put their energies elsewhere, maybe they haven't had a chance to expand their skills, maybe they just don't have it. But what was sad to me was that they were very insecure about what they have done and what to do next. The main stream, and by that I mean Model Railroader and Kalmbach, have created an empire based on shaming folks who just want to have fun with model trains. MR has figured out how to profit on a human's natural insecurities by telling their followers how to make things "better" by implicitly implying anyone's work is inadequate if it is not like the work done by the "experts" featured in the magazine. It is always about "improving" everything. It is always about following certain methods and using certain products. It is about categorization, modeling scale prejudices, and just about any other way they can get modelers to feel inadequate and make them buy advertisers' products. Even the title of something like "Great Model Railroads" I find insulting coming from them. Who says they are "great"?
When I gave the clinics I first emphasized I am not an expert. I was only there to help them and explain some basic materials, tools and techniques. I told them I was going to show them how I did things and it did not mean it was the only way. Every clinic started with a slide show (yup Kodak carousel) of the real world and I went from there with ideas and inspiration. I started with pictures of the real world, not someone elses' pre-judged great modeling. I was always happy to look at snapshots of their layouts, even if they were not to my taste, because it supported their creativity.
Your books are similar. The modeling projects are a demonstration of how others have interpreted a real-life object and what tools, material and techniques they used to create the model. I do not believe I have ever read anything telling me this is the way and the only way. On the forum we say yea or nay, but that is the idea. Your thread Wall is a perfect example. Pages of discussion and opinions. In the Model Railroader world, there is no discussion about what Kalmbach pronounces as good.
John
Kalmbach is a moderately large, soulless publishing corporation and MR long ago gave up any pretense of being a magazine by modelers for modelers. It is, in fact, a magazine by corporate nincompoops for the purpose of obtaining advertising and promoting the products of their biggest advertisers to make as much money as possible. How do I know? Kalmbach is my distributor. Content is a necessary evil to fill the pages between the ads they publish.
Now let me talk about the average model railroader so you fully understand my point of view: When I published a true magazine I made it a point to print any photo a hobbyist sent me, no matter how hideous the layout or model. I wanted to encourage every reader to pursue the hobby and to attain whatever degree of excellence or crudeness he wanted. I'm not a snob; the idea is to have fun with the hobby, not to compete.
But my personal interests have nothing to do with those of most readers I had at that time. When it became apparent that a magazine was no longer a feasible way to earn a living I gradually made the transition to the Annuals some of you guys read. Those books (that is really what they are) reflect the best articles I can publish about subjects many of us seem to prefer.
So, now that I am out of the magazine biz and approaching either full- or semi-retirement, I really don't give a rat's ass whether people approve or disapprove of what I like or what I say. I pretty much speak my mind on this forum and try to lead by example with my publications. My personal opinion is that anyone who collects out-of-the-box products and puts little or nothing of himself into a hobby is a short timer. He will move on to some other dilettantish semi-interest in a matter of months and good riddance. The guy who wants to create, has a sense of artistry,who has sufficient interest to do some research, and who has the desire to master some skills is worth encouraging. He'll be around for a lifetime and his modeling will improve with each new project.
I am under no illusions that what we do is "important". It's trivial and that is its awesome beauty. Each of us, in his or her own way, expresses something of his or her soul when we create a model. It can be as imperfect as my long departed grandfather's crude oil paintings or as sublime as some of the marvels we enjoy on these threads. That is irrelevant. But it is the most important thing on earth that we do it.
That is what this website and this forum are about.
Russ
Model railroading is unimportant. Doing the best you can at whatever you do is important.
.....and do it with your heart, not your head.
Jacq
Quote from: finescalerr on November 27, 2010, 01:38:13 AM
Content is a necessary evil to fill the pages between the ads they publish...
I am under no illusions that what we do is "important". It's trivial and that is its awesome beauty. Each of us, in his or her own way, expresses something of his or her soul when we create a model. It can be as imperfect as my long departed grandfather's crude oil paintings or as sublime as some of the marvels we enjoy on these threads. That is irrelevant. But it is the most important thing on earth that we do it.
Russ
Spot on with both comments Russ. There are exceptions of course in the magazine and newspaper publishing world, but they are few and far between. It used to be that the purpose of publishing a periodical was to disseminate ideas, information and commentary. Once it was determined that money could be made through advertising for the advertiser, the advertising agency (now there's a parasitic industry motivated solely by greed) and the publisher, content did indeed become a necessary evil. Advertising took over and editorial content became secondary. The worst offenders link editorial content to advertising... in other words, pay for an ad and we'll publish a glorious article about your business, that you of course get to edit and approve. It seems entirely plausible to me that the overwhelming presence of advertising is a contributing factor to the general dumbing down of our culture.
Your second comment is a perfect summation of what we do. What we do is indeed trivial in the grand and not-so-grand schemes of things and to many of the people who see our work. Regardless of the quality of our creative output, the important thing is that we do it honestly, to the best of our ability and put our heart and soul into what we do. If other people like it, that's a bonus, but in fact, it's irrelevant.
Paul
Quote from: jacq01 on November 27, 2010, 06:59:18 AM
.....and do it with your heart, not your head.
Jacq
In my humble opinion that is why a lot of the much earlier MR magazine articles have a timeless quality about them. Those guys were making things from raw wood, metal and crude castings. It required a lot of creative input and hand work. That needs the heart involved as well as technical aptitude. They seemed personally proud and/or pleased with their output and work. It recalls the more recent series you ran Russ with the guy building a brass engine with an electric drill strapped to the bench. So utterly cool.
Dave, Russ, Jacq, this is truly in the profound category. Quite unlike the other RR forums. Thanks.
Back to Dave's layouts now?? ::)
John