Modeling Cliches to Avoid when Building your Layout


Did I miss a comment?

I may have missed a comment about the "fresh plastic sheen" of an unpainted plastic kit or factory-built structure on a well sceniced layout.

I have visited several layouts where these structures stood out like divas and invite critical examination of their construction or compatiblility with surrounding structures.
One 10 year-old rose to the challenge on a HO Model Power "built" gas station by removing the factory base, painting the building and adding some computer-generated signs. He added a couple scale vehicles, 5 scale people and a few 55-gallon drums along one side of the building.
It was the first thing his grandfather pointed out to me on my next visit. It made a big change in the cross-roads scene.
As a 13 year-old, the grandson scatchbuilt a wooden roadside produce stand across from the gas station. All the grandfather did was give advice on weathering the stand.
 
Seems like I read something once about a guy using bonsai on his "large-scale" indoor / outdoor layout. If I recall correctly, the picture of the train passing behind the bonsai looked pretty cool!

Don't think I'm gonna try it for HO scale, tho... nor the Chia stuff. I know lighting in my basement will be tough enough without having to add "plant grow" lights!! :D

Regards,
Tom Stockton

p.s. Mikey -- Yeah, unpainted plastic sheen... that's another I've seen too frequently!
 
DirtyD79 said:
I'm surprised nobody's tried Chia for scenery it would probably look pretty good.
Click to expand...

In N scale it would look like the title scene from----"Kudzu that ate Savannah", or some such---

If one is doing Fall colours---try not to use circus like or neon based colourization----PUHHLLLEEEEZZZE!!!???:confused::eek::eek::eek:

Most 'T' intersections on highways are usually depicted with an outside lane opposite to the T. At least they do up here---:rolleyes:

A Dari-King on a layout allegedly based in the 1920's. Modern buildings passing for 1900's. Did Frank Lloyd Wright design 'Fallingwater' --of 40's vintage--for 1899 LA?--seen someone attempt this bit on a prototype--non fantasy--layout:confused::confused::eek:
 
I will start with my disclaimer: I am or have been guilty of almost all these over the years as well and currently don't have anything more than an un-detailed test track, so please take my input as nothing more that another observation.

I have always been disenchanted by seeing dusty layouts! I have seen so many that have put excellent work into their layouts with much skill and precision only to let them get a layer of dust settling over the whole thing making it look like it was just pulled out of my grandfather’s basement.

The other is the use of the older miniature people with almost blinding bright colored clothing that doesn't fit the period you are aiming for.

These are just things that stand out to me maybe I am over reacting
:cool:
 
Chia, all seem to agree, is Cheezy. I have used moss, Spanish Moss, I believe. I use food coloring through the air brush to "paint" it a darker green. It made a very nice field. A bit of spray tack holds it down.

As for the dust on the layout, that is sometimes a tougher issue than the construction itself. I use a hand vac, compressed air cans, feather duster, and my air compressor. The learning process as to how much air can be an experience. Having high winds can certainly "blow away" the most detailed of layouts.

Live fish? Might work if one had a nuclear power plant on the layout. I least you could justify, or explain, the disparity in the size of the fish. You could even use those "glo-fish".

Lighting is always a problem. I use warm white fluorescents and flood-type can lights. The warm whites better imitate the sun's light and the "flood" lights have a wider angle of dispersion. Looks more realistic. The clinical look of cool white fluorescent bulbs just detracts from the scene. I prefer to "splash" my lighting rather than to highlight with a narrow spot.

Another one of my complaints is trains that chase their tail. Layouts too small for long consists and hobbyists that insist on running long trains on a layout too small for them. But I can understand their wanting long trains. Been there.

The guest who wishes to critique the owner's layout out is the most lewd behavior. The hobbyist that shows his pride and joy only to be put down for his efforts has to be one of the most discouraging moments I can think of. We fail to realize that we all have different levels of talent. Mine is building switch yards. I'm not bad at weathering but not as talented as some on this site.

If one were to visit my layout and begin to critique it negatively, I would show them the door, with my foot in their posterior.

This post does not, necessarily, address cliche's but is more of a rant. But, still, the layout is an endeavor of the imagination of the builder. His talents may be limited but his love for the hobby is as big as the next hobbyist. And funding, as big as the problems the BIG railroads face, is always problematic. My layout has been many years in evolving. And it isn't done yet. More structures, more scenery, more cars, more engines.... It seems to never end. Don'tcha love it?

Bob

Bob
 
very well said Bob, I would like to think of this as more constructive than anything. Most everything brought up so far I just never thought of before. About everyone on here is well above my level so I could never critique, I alway go to admire what I wish to accomplish. Especially what I see from this site! LOL

Happy chugging!
 
This is a very interesting thread to read for a newbie. I am in the process of absorbing as much knowledge as I can pertaining to how to do things, what looks good, and what I really want to do as my first useful and entertaining layout. I tend to agree with the comment below...

But then, Larry "hit the nail on the head" with his observation:

Do it your way no matter what.

And while I (and others) may not like what you do -- in the end (unless you're being paid to build a model railroad for someone else), there's only one person you really have to please -- you. I already know that I'm going to do some things that others will think I should have done differently. But it will be my railroad -- and if it makes me happy, then it's all good!
Click to expand...

I am sure my first layout will not be very impressive to anyone but me, and like stated above, that is all that really counts.

But to be honest this will not actually be my very first layout. About 10 years ago I did a layout. It was out of some Atlas magazine, I think it was Nine N gauge layouts or something. I did this layout in an attempt to see if model trains interested me at all. This layout was huge and it must have had 10 or more switches and a reverse loop or two. I did a pretty good job with the bench work and the track laying if I do say so myself. The problem was this; there were so many switches and reverse loops and two controllers that I had myself so confused on how to work the darn thing. I am serious; it was ridiculous for a beginner layout. I know it was not intended to be a beginner’s layout, but I thought how hard can this be to run a couple of trains around some track? Hmmm, it turned out to be way too hard for me. I never did get to the scenery part before I got frustrated and tore the whole thing down.

When I do finally decide what I want to build this time around I really want it to be expandable. But I will definitely not make that mistake again.:D

But like I said, this was a very interesting read for a newbie...
 
I'm about to be guilty of planting vegetation on a hillside that is far too steep to support it. It is the only way I could fit the elevation in the allotted space. I may also make the trees too short for how tall they should be. It's certainly going to be tricky to strike the right balance. I'm guessing that my whole layout may very well be a faux pa!:D
 
Yeah, as I watch my shiny new SD70MAC with it's string of sparkling clean coal hoppers with chrome wheels roll past the blue styrofoam hills towards the Quaker oatmeal box on the plywood plains under the 1:160 scale Westjet hanging above I think to myself... it is good.
Okay... well for now! :D
 
Screwjack said:
But to be honest this will not actually be my very first layout. About 10 years ago I did a layout. It was out of some Atlas magazine, I think it was Nine N gauge layouts or something. I did this layout in an attempt to see if model trains interested me at all. This layout was huge and it must have had 10 or more switches and a reverse loop or two. I did a pretty good job with the bench work and the track laying if I do say so myself. The problem was this; there were so many switches and reverse loops and two controllers that I had myself so confused on how to work the darn thing. I am serious; it was ridiculous for a beginner layout. I know it was not intended to be a beginner’s layout, but I thought how hard can this be to run a couple of trains around some track? Hmmm, it turned out to be way too hard for me. I never did get to the scenery part before I got frustrated and tore the whole thing down.
Click to expand...

Yeah like other's have said it was probably a scheme by Atlas to get you to buy more of their track. They're probably leftover from the days of the old spaghetti bowl approach to layout design where you cram as much track as possible on the layout.
 
DirtyD79 said:
Yeah like other's have said it was probably a scheme by Atlas to get you to buy more of their track. They're probably leftover from the days of the old spaghetti bowl approach to layout design where you cram as much track as possible on the layout.
Click to expand...

Hence the phrase---do not bite off more than you can chew---or summat:)
 
MilesWestern said:
I'm currently writing an ongoing series of modeling cliches. I define "modeling cliches" as a visual or design layout element that most people see and notice that something is amiss, but they can't exactly put their finger on it. This is an ongoing series, so I'll add to this post as time goes on.

Let me know what you think. I think this should be discussed in the modeling community.

http://modelrailroading.wordpress.com/?s=cliche
Click to expand...

Websters defines a cliché or cliche, as a saying, expression, or idea which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning, especially when at some earlier time it was considered distinctively meaningful or novel, rendering it a stereotype; e.g. "Sound as a Bell," "Dead as a Doornail," etc. The term is likely to be used in a negative context: "Dumb as a Rock." It is frequently used in modern culture to reference an action or idea which is expected or predictable, based on a prior event; i.e., the Aliens usually speak English and have same colloquialisms: planet, food, leader, etc.

I see a cliche as a vivid depiction of an abstract matter that works by means of analogy and/or exaggeration. The picture used usually is drawn from everyday experience so that the recipient most probably is able to relate to the depiction by tentatively querying their reaction to what is conveyed in the picture. When used sparingly and deliberately, a cliche can be used to great poetic effect. However, cliche in writing or modeling is generally considered a mark of inexperience or unoriginality.

As much as I see and understand the examples that have been posted or described, none of them really seems to qualify as a cliche. Some of them, like the snake-oil salesman and the hanging, are really quite good. Visual cliches are not easy to do on purpose; it is doubtful that they will occur by accident.

What you seem to be pointing out and collecting are compositional errors, gaffes, design flaws, and depictions of unreality. Some may serve a humorous purpose, such as the ubiquitous UFO landing (Faller - or is it Noch? - even make such a model kit) or the train wreck may at first prove to be attention-getting, but quickly become trite.

In summary, something is not a cliche simply because it is incorrect or commonplace. It is a cliche when it attempts an analogy or expression that simply doesn't work any longer, if it ever did.
 
cfinchum said:
Tom, Are you shaming me into painting.:rolleyes: I guess we do need to do that.:D. Now, what is a good paint for the flying saucer;)Carl
Click to expand...
Oh, man! Use this fantastic glow-in-the-dark paint! It has europium in it, and glows better than anything!
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=28_45&products_id=384

Don't worry - it's not radioactive.

dmeephd said:
Websters defines a cliché or cliche, as a saying, expression, or idea which has been overused to the point of losing its original meaning, especially when at some earlier time it was considered distinctively meaningful or novel, rendering it a stereotype; e.g. "Sound as a Bell," "Dead as a Doornail," etc. The term is likely to be used in a negative context: "Dumb as a Rock." It is frequently used in modern culture to reference an action or idea which is expected or predictable, based on a prior event; i.e., the Aliens usually speak English and have same colloquialisms: planet, food, leader, etc.

I see a cliche as a vivid depiction of an abstract matter that works by means of analogy and/or exaggeration. The picture used usually is drawn from everyday experience so that the recipient most probably is able to relate to the depiction by tentatively querying their reaction to what is conveyed in the picture. When used sparingly and deliberately, a cliche can be used to great poetic effect. However, cliche in writing or modeling is generally considered a mark of inexperience or unoriginality.

As much as I see and understand the examples that have been posted or described, none of them really seems to qualify as a cliche. Some of them, like the snake-oil salesman and the hanging, are really quite good. Visual cliches are not easy to do on purpose; it is doubtful that they will occur by accident.

What you seem to be pointing out and collecting are compositional errors, gaffes, design flaws, and depictions of unreality. Some may serve a humorous purpose, such as the ubiquitous UFO landing (Faller - or is it Noch? - even make such a model kit) or the train wreck may at first prove to be attention-getting, but quickly become trite.

In summary, something is not a cliche simply because it is incorrect or commonplace. It is a cliche when it attempts an analogy or expression that simply doesn't work any longer, if it ever did.
Click to expand...
Well written -- I think you've nailed it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top