Backdrops: discuss.

[Traintresta]

So I have always been put off by the abrupt meeting of a layout board and a backdrop, with no impression of depth given so as I look to plan my next layout, I'm giving the situation serious consideration.  Its not helped by articles in the modelling press of recent years showing how easily depth can be crammed into very small spaces, and yet, I find myself hesitant to give up such space to a back scene.

 

So I thought it might be interesting to discuss the merits of modelling just the right of way with limited space given up to anything else, to modelling a whole scene where there I more scenery than trains, and everything inbetween.  What do we prefer and why? Is it just personal preference or does it add/detract from a modellers achievements if the back scene is of a given standard?

Edited July 1, 2019 by Traintresta

[Phil Parker]

A backscene takes up around 1mm of depth. Just stick it on a board behind the layout. 

 

Adding some scenery to blend the 2D and 3D parts does need depth, but sometimes little more then the thickness of a fence or hedge.

 

The main point is though - this is your layout, do it the way you want. Stop worrying about things that "add/detract from a modellers achievements". It doesn't matter. Please yourself first.

[melmoth]

I'd suggest having a look at the Hembourne thread for a really good example of what a backscene can add to a layout, even where width is at a premium.

[Traintresta]

12 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

A backscene takes up around 1mm of depth. Just stick it on a board behind the layout. 

 

Adding some scenery to blend the 2D and 3D parts does need depth, but sometimes little more then the thickness of a fence or hedge.

 

The main point is though - this is your layout, do it the way you want. Stop worrying about things that "add/detract from a modellers achievements". It doesn't matter. Please yourself first.

I think your missed the point. I don't care what others thing of my layout, that for my personal enjoyment and I will probably make a decision on what I do for a backscene regardless of what is said here, however, I would like to know what others like to see, or not see, in a backscene. Its just a discussion.

 

That said I now understand that a simplistic backscene on a 1mm board is suitable for some so that suggests to me that you're not fused about a whole scene per se, just the railway related stuff. Would that be right? I tank it you don't find a backscene with lots of depth helps your enjoyment of the rail related modelling?

 

12 hours ago, melmoth said:

I'd suggest having a look at the Hembourne thread for a really good example of what a backscene can add to a layout, even where width is at a premium.

Very good, in fact excellent. Space constrained though it is the effect is superb.

[Miss Prism]

Inspiration

[Phil Parker]

2 hours ago, Traintresta said:

That said I now understand that a simplistic backscene on a 1mm board is suitable for some so that suggests to me that you're not fused about a whole scene per se, just the railway related stuff. Would that be right? I tank it you don't find a backscene with lots of depth helps your enjoyment of the rail related modelling? 

 

I think there is a language issue here. To me, a backscene is a printed or painted picture behind the scenery - hence it's only 1mm thick. I think you mean the entire 3D scene, which is a completely different matter. 

 

For me, a layout is a complete scene with a railway running through it. I wouldn't build a layout any other way, but then I'm not as interested in operating the model as I am in building it.

[Pete the Elaner]

10 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

For me, a layout is a complete scene with a railway running through it. I wouldn't build a layout any other way, but then I'm not as interested in operating the model as I am in building it.

For me too.

How often do you see a real station in the middle of a field with no way to access it? These are the exceptions & do not make a very interesting model.

Most have a method of access (road with a car park, or maybe a cart track depending on your era), especially if you have some kind of goods yard. A station would often be in a town or village so some housing and/or shops around it may give it a purpose.

You don't have to model any of these; just somehow infer that they exist.

 

But there is nothing wrong with just wanting to run trains around some track. I don't think the OP had this in mind though.

[grahame]

Sure, transitioning the modelled 3D scene in to the 2D backscene will need some space, but it can be part of that overall effect and doesn't have to be enormous. And there are techniques for ensuring the 2D backscene looks to continue the modelled scenery such as trompe l'oeil, distance fade and so on. Plus the backscene board itself takes up no 3D modelling space.

 

I consider a backscene to be quite an essential part of a model railway layout. It helps contain the scene and divorce it from any distracting real life clutter behind the layout. The trick is to ensure that the backscene is incorporated in the design to be viewed as part of the overall landscape that the trains run through and is not a separate discordant entity in it's own right.

 

G 

Edited July 2, 2019 by grahame
Reordered

[HonestTom]

For me, if I'm making a layout with the intent of displaying it for others, then yeah I'll add a backscene. If it's just for me, I have been known not to bother. After all, I don't have to convey the setting to others.

[TheQ]

I do like to have a lot of non railway related scenery. So the N gauge layout has a rising hillside at the back which either goes to blue sky or a painted representation of fading mountain sides. the fore ground I've added countryside down to the cliffs / harbour. I've removed a lot of excess track which was just unrealistic in it's layout and complexity.

 

 Sadly the EM gauge layout will have less room for scenery, so at the main station the background rapidly will go to the edge of a field, then Sky, or to the faces of low relief bungalows and painted representations of their back garden between them.

 The foreground will include however much of the village and station approach road as I can fit in..

Edited July 2, 2019 by TheQ

[Zomboid]

I find that more often than not a backscene detracts from a layout. I suppose I don't go in for visual fidelity that much, I'm more interested in operating in an accurate manner (such that the big hand in the sky can actually be more accurate than a point motor or remotely controlled coupler actuation), and a backscene can get in the way of interacting with the models.

 

As ever with this, there's no universal right or wrong answer. Just do what suits your purposes and it'll be right.

[grahame]

30 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I find that more often than not a backscene detracts from a layout. 

 

 

It is true that some backscenes detract from a layout, and I've seen some, but it's those that are very poorly executed. However as a general statement I wouldn't agree that they do 'often' detract from the layout. And a well conceived and produced one will add positively to the viewing experience IMO.

 

G

[298]

42 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

I find that more often than not a backscene detracts from a layout. 

 

Especially when it has one of those great sodding personalized Totems stuck on it. Sometimes when you squint at them they can look like a Zeppelin Airship or a flying saucer, but even that effect is ruined by the fine display big elbows resting along the top.

[PaulRhB]

These are both 8” deep boards, one with backscene and one without. I enjoy running on both but one is meant to to be a show layout and the other primarily an operation layout which needs access on both sides. 

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by PaulRhB

[grahame]

1 minute ago, 298 said:

 

Especially when it has one of those great sodding personalized Totems stuck on it. Sometimes when you squint at them they can look like a Zeppelin Airship or a flying saucer, but even that effect is ruined by the fine display big elbows resting along the top.

 

Snag is that often the alternative is a distracting backdrop of wobbly bellies, dirty tea cups and people eating behind the layout at exhibitions.

;-)

G

 

[PaulRhB]

All these are true and the ideal would be huge backscenes colour matched to the scene. Unfortunately our artistic ability can limit one and the size of our car, room or budget can limit the other  

As Phil said at the top as long as you enjoy it, it’s a success. 

[PatB]

I'd rather no backscene than a bad backscene, although, on an exhibition layout, "no backscene" might translate to a neutral coloured board to screen the more unsightly bits of the operators ;-).

 

What constitutes a bad backscene, though, might well vary with context. For example, the artwork on the now classic (and a bit cliched) Peco backscene sheets is rather nice in itself, but they are so often used inappropriately it's hard to bring to mind an instance where I've seen them and thought "that looks good". The generic rolling hills one is OK, but I can't think of too many cases where the mountain lakes one wold really work, and, although I can sort of  visualise how it may be possible to make the town scenes work, I've not seen it done.

 

IMHO, for what it's worth, good backscenes are, generally, not terribly detailed but are more impressionistic. The key seems to be to suggest that the detail would be there if you looked for it but, hopefully, the foreground scenery is sufficiently engaging that you don't really want to. One area where many (again IMHO) fall short, is to use colours that are too bold and bright. In real life things in the distance tend to look washed out and faded. Making their representation too stark and high contrast brings them into the foreground where their deficiencies become all too apparent.

 

As for the transition from 3D to 2D, I find that my own suspension of disbelief allows a fair bit of leeway here. In an urban setting it's not difficult to place a suitable retaining wall, row of house backs, rank of factories and industry. Urban areas are, after all, full of boundaries, flat surfaces and straight lines, against which the starkness of a baseboard edge doesn't stand out as being exceptional. This is one area where having the layout up near eye level can really score. You can squeeze a retaining wall, a road and a row of low relief terraced houses into a depth of an inch or so, with enough 3Dness to pass at a glance. Because you can't look directly down on the road you can't really tell it's only a scale 4' wide.

 

In a rural setting things are harder. Nature doesn't do straight lines anything like as obligingly, so you've got a harder job to hide corners and angles. Trees help, but not everywhere has convenient trees. A cutting leading up to the railway fence and then just a plain, vaguely skylike backdrop also work (for me), but not every line is in a cutting. Again, an eye level height is good, because a train running along the top of an embankment with nothing behind it but sky is quite plausible. If you can't see down into the dip behind the embankment, does it matter that there's a right-angle joint between ground and sky?

 

One thing that really grates, when i see it, is lighting that casts the shadows of foreground scenery onto the sky. As I noted, my personal suspension of disbelief can cope with quite a bit, but shadows on the sky are a bridge (appropriate, given that it's often a bridge casting the offending shadow) too far.

 

But take that lot with a pinch of salt. I can't even do convincing retaining walls, so what right do I have to judge :D?

[Stubby47]

3 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

I think there is a language issue here. To me, a backscene is a printed or painted picture behind the scenery - hence it's only 1mm thick. I think you mean the entire 3D scene, which is a completely different matter. 

 

For me, a layout is a complete scene with a railway running through it. I wouldn't build a layout any other way, but then I'm not as interested in operating the model as I am in building it.

 

Excuse me, Mr Garden Rail Editor, aren't your backscenes called "fences" ?

 

My attempt at a backscene for 'Tinner's Forge':

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Stubby47

[HonestTom]

1 hour ago, Stubby47 said:

 

Excuse me, Mr Garden Rail Editor, aren't your backscenes called "fences" ?

 

My attempt at a backscene for 'Tinner's Forge':

 

That's some excellent backscene work. Honestly, I had to look pretty hard to spot where the 3-D bit ends.

[Stubby47]

41 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

That's some excellent backscene work. Honestly, I had to look pretty hard to spot where the 3-D bit ends.

 

All done following Andy Peters' video tutorial, and by half-mixing paint so it's still streaky.

[Karhedron]

Sometimes the issue can be designed out if the railway surroundings themselves form part of the backscene. The classic Minories trick of modelling in a cutting is a great space-saver. 

 

 

[PMP]

Successful joining of backscene and layout works best with carefully blending the background and foreground colours.

this layout is 1ft depth from front edge to backscene.

[Nick G]

My backdrop is photos stitched together taken at the place I am modelling. A file is then created and printed onto Foamex.

[The Johnster]

Cwmdimbath is a real location, though never had a mining village or a railway to serve it.  It is a very narrow and steep sided valley let into the mountain plateau of Central Glamorgan, which is about 1,800 feet above sea level at the top end of the valley. 

 

Thus, where the station is located in my alternative reality, a steep mountainside rises about 1,400-1,500 ft directly behind the platform.  It is bare, the trees having been cut years ago for pitprops.  It consists, for now, of a couple of ‘scenic mats’ upended to about 70 degrees, with some bushes and girlfriends, I mean sheep. 

 

It’s a work in progress, though, and outcrops of the Pennant Sandstone rock typical of the area, showing the correct dip and strike as you’d have every right to expect from a 6th form Geologist, will be added.  I’m also thinking of a pigeon loft or two...

 

It isn’t to scale; a 1,500’ mountainside would be to the ceiling, but the 2 feet or so it actually looms above the station is impressive enough as a piece of perspective modelling.  It’s crude at the edges and needs tidying, but from the operating seat, a viewpoint equating to a spot about 100’ up the nearer (unmodelled) mountainside, it soars impressively and oppressively skywards out of sight.  

 

Works for me!

[eastglosmog]

I thought the point of a backdrop was to prevent the train disappearing off the back of the baseboard when it derailed at speed! 

My biggest problem has always been disguising the vertical corners in the backscene, not the horizontal join with the baseboard.  I'm impressed with how Nick G has managed it.

Edited July 3, 2019 by eastglosmog
Hit submit to soon