Consistency.

[Mountain Goat]

Take a look at various paintings of scenes by various artists and even if the painting looks crude and vague, if it has consistency it can be enjoyed and paints a scene in the minds of the viewer. So as long as the same artist has completed the same scene according to their own unique styles and abilities, and the scene is one that is a subject which pleases the viewer, we have success.

 

We can apply this to our model railways. I was going to reply this to another post but I thought it best to give it a seperate thread, so I have copied and pasted it to be used in here instead, and I will add to it to finish what I wrote.

 

With my modelling skills I have learned to have a "That will do" attitude with my 7mm narrow gauge. Turning to model in 0-16.5 gave me something which I lacked when I modelled in 00, and that is consistency, as in 00 gauge, I had issues of various consistencies from my scratchbuilding efforts when I was young, to my improved scratchbuilding efforts, to some of the lesser detailed RTR models and all mixed with more modern highly detailed RTR factory made models which along with a mix of kits and premade buildings mixing excellent resin ready made buildings with card kits and pastic kits painted by my own crude standards... It just was not looking right. 

But along with the change to 7mm narrow gauge, I origionally faced a problem. You see, there is little or nothing available in UK styles when it comes to locos and rolling stock that is ready made. Everything has to be RTR bashed, scratchbuilt, kitbuilt or kit bashed to get the desired results. 

I have found this to be generally easier to do then I had initially imagined but my efforts are not that great when compared to some of you who make real delightful models! But one thing I noticed as I carried on building in this new scale was that everything I made or painted had consistency. As long as I painted everything myself to my own ability using the same style of painting (Brushpainting. Gloss paints preferred for locos and coaches and matt paints preferred for waggons and vans if possible). 

Now by doing this, for what seems to be the first time in my life in regards to the hobby, I have a genuine chance of really achieving a scene which makes sense even though it will all be freelancing, as I am "Painting" a scene which will look consistent. 

 

The lack of consistanc I ended up with in 00 gauge meant that no matter how hard I tried, my efforts just did not seem to work, and until I changed scale and found this out, I was unlikely to have any success.

Now my little layout is still a work in progress in its various states of build. My rolling stock and locomotives are in similar stages of build. But I am hoping that when it all comes together it will paint a nice scene which will make up for any lack of skills or detail, and it will let the skills and character of my handiwork shine through. (That is the plan!)

 

So with that in mind, I am wondering if it may help others in their modelling projects in their own desired gauges and scales? And this basic idea of consistency can help many achieve a convincing scene. Take Hornby Dublo 3 rail. One can make it look good if one carefully selects appropiate buildings which have been made from appropiate materials which match the same style. If one buys a wonderful premade resin building from the Hornby Skaledale range and adds it on a 3 rail layout as it is, the lack of consistency will detract from the scene, and any lack of detail of the rest of the layout and models will be exposed. But if everything is consistent, one can create a lovely scene!

[Sotto]

I absolutely agree. It's a fundamental problem with RTR and with corresponding buildings (RTP, ready to plant?)- it's so tempting to buy the best you can afford at the time, irrespective of how it fits in.

 

There is definitely something about 0-16.5 - as you say, very little 'off the shelf' so everything ends up consistent. I built a plank 0.16.5 which as you describe was all bashed/kit built stock and improvised buildings (coffee stirrers a wonderful thing!). and I was happy with it- well at least with its appearance- it never ran well but that's another thing altogether- lesson regarding poor track laying well learned!)

 

There is of course a huge risk with 0-16.5 - it leads to O gauge!. When I have space to build a bigger layout I would like to combine the two, but we will see!

[The Johnster]

I agree wholeheartedly.  Model railways are theatre, which needs a degree of suspension of disbelief.  For one's own layout, this is easily enough achieved; your standard of modelling and interpretation of how to present it pervades the whole scene, so everything sort of matches, but anything that is too crude, or differently finished, or too finescale, stands out as an anomaly and the illusion is broken.  In a way, the HD 3 rail layout, or tinplate 0 clockwork, can be more realistic than finescale, because one is allowed to 'fill in' the detail, background, and running with one's imagination.

 

Consistency is rarely mentioned, but is always a component of a successful layout.  Nobody would describe the original Borchester, or Buckingham, as anywhere close to finescale; crude track and wheel profiles, stud contact for Borchester, tight curves, short trains.  But they wee inspirational and we owe much to them in the modern hobby, despite being able (if we've deep enough pockets) to build vastly superior layout with RTR and RTP.  We will only be successful if we achieve a consistency and uniformity of 'look', scale, finish, and presentation across the entire layout, or it'll look like a train set.

 

My layout uses mostly RTR stock and some kit built, with tension lock couplings, and a mix of Peco Streamline code 100 and Peco setrack (in the fy).  The couplings look terrible, but I've learned to live with them and 'tune them out' of the experience; disbelief is suspended.  But if I were to put scale couplings, say on the ends of my fixed rake auto trains, the ability to tune the t/ls out would be destroyed because consistency would be compromised, and I'd have to have scale throughout, which I can't do, because this would mean the easing of curves in the fy, which is not possible in the space I have, and I'd have to build a new layout.  I'm not in any rush to do that, because I'm quite happy with the one I've got, thanks, so the t/ls stay.  I could replace with Kadees but they look even worse, or Hornby Dublo/Peco, which would allow me to lift vehicles out more easily in the fy, but it seems a lot of faff.  The t/ls are very reliable in operation, and can be easily uncoupled with a shunting pole.  I don't want to be restricted as to positions to uncouple; on the real railway you can uncouple anywhere, and sometimes you have to...

 

My intent when I built the layout was to construct something that I would enjoy operating in a railway-like manner to a real time timetable (with condensed time between trains) to the 1955 Rule Book, with stock that looked right against a background that looked like the area I had set the layout in at the time I'd set it in, to a restricted budget.  I've achieved all of those aims except the budget; went way over that, but mostly on stock and locos, the layout was fairly cheap!  I hand operate points which saves on motors and aids reliability, but have indulged in Dapol working signals.  This is, I contend, a consistent approach, and has been instrumental in the success achieved.

 

The brutal truth is that I don't have enough room for a model railway, and have accepted compromises to defy this undeniable fact.  I think this goes for most of us; when I win the lottery I'm buying an aircraft hanger to model several miles of branch line in.

 

 

[Mountain Goat]

Aircraft carrier! Haha. Well. I used to think big, but to be honest, with thinking big there was so much track to clean which took quite a while to clean before one can run any trains that even my small big layout (I had crammed my boards full of track so I had a lot of track to clean in the space I had, even though the space itself did not seem that large)... So though the current little portable layout that I am building I thought of as being an "In between" to keep myself busy as I may be relocating in the future, I did notice the difference in that it does not take long to clean the track.

 

Going back to consistency. When I realized the importance of consistency, which I realized before it hit me that it was an issue if that makes sense? I realized that after painting over the top of pre painted kits like those lovely Peco coaches, everything tied in well. But if I had left them in their immaculate pre painted finishes the whole scene would not have looked right. 

[Mountain Goat]

1 hour ago, Sotto said:

I absolutely agree. It's a fundamental problem with RTR and with corresponding buildings (RTP, ready to plant?)- it's so tempting to buy the best you can afford at the time, irrespective of how it fits in.

 

There is definitely something about 0-16.5 - as you say, very little 'off the shelf' so everything ends up consistent. I built a plank 0.16.5 which as you describe was all bashed/kit built stock and improvised buildings (coffee stirrers a wonderful thing!). and I was happy with it- well at least with its appearance- it never ran well but that's another thing altogether- lesson regarding poor track laying well learned!)

 

There is of course a huge risk with 0-16.5 - it leads to O gauge!. When I have space to build a bigger layout I would like to combine the two, but we will see!

 

I did not see your reply. Just seen it now. Haha. It leads to 0 gauge! I am quite enjoying 0-16.5 at the moment. 

I remember being surprized that the last exhibition I attended (I could not face going last year or the year before) was a few years ago now (Doesn't time fly! I disn't think it has been this long) and I was surprized that most of the 00 gauge layouts I saw tended to be running done up and detailed older locos from the likes of Triang and Hornby, Lima etc... models made 20 to 40 years ago. I asked the odd person about them and most of the replies were that new models are lovely, but they are just so expensive! I can see their point, but also one thing that the older models had after being done up is consistency. I actually found it hard to find a model that had been produced in the last few years apart from on the trade stands and the odd DCC layout which had every loco (Or every other loco) on the loco depot type layout with DCC sound. It must have cost them a fortune! 

I enjoyed my time there but I find it difficult to cope with crowds.

Edited June 7, 2020 by Mountain Goat

[Sotto]

Of course, older models do have another advantage- indefinitely maintainable. I have got some old (up to 50 years old) Triang stuff which still goes and which I can easily take to bits to clean or sort out problems. Recent models- much more complex, and delicate bodies and detail. I wonder whether many of them will still be running in 50 years time?

Of course, while they work, modern stuff is so much better, but provided you don't mix the two, consistency is your friend!

[Mountain Goat]

On another site I am on a member has a freelance 00 gauge layout and he has his own livery colour so nearly all his locos and coaches are in a lovely blue colour and it is very effective. He mixes steam from many regions with diesel and the whole lot somehow works! And though most of his models are older models repainted, even a new model if repainted the same way will fit into the scene. 

 

The kits I have made blend into my less detailed scratchbuilds because they all share the same painted style. If one was not familiar with certain kits, one would have to look closer to see if it is a kit or a scratchbuild as paint covers a multitude of inaccuracies!

Edited June 7, 2020 by Mountain Goat

[5050]

Someone above mentioned Buckingham.  Many years ago I offered Peter Denny the ooportunity to have some etched GCR coaches but he refused them on the grounds that they would look to good against his own built card ones.  He was the master of consistency.

[Mountain Goat]

8 minutes ago, 5050 said:

Someone above mentioned Buckingham.  Many years ago I offered Peter Denny the ooportunity to have some etched GCR coaches but he refused them on the grounds that they would look to good against his own built card ones.  He was the master of consistency.

 

I can see where he is coming from. 

 

I am wondering, that if one is clever, could one create a convincing scene with contrasting colours but retain consistency?

[TheQ]

I've a layout I inherited which I'm rebuilding,  it's got 6 main boards and six sub boards.  I can only work on 2 boards and their two sub boards at a time.  Starting 3 years ago,  at one end,  I've recently reached the other. What is obvious,  is that while the static grass is the same,  the style of rock formations has slowly changed.

Sometime the whole layout will have to be assembled together for a period of time, while the rock formations are consistently matched up, but at the moment there is nowhere to do it. 

[GWR-fan]

A generation ago I joined a group of Friday night ramblers and would travel to other's layouts in their homes.  Many had the full scenic treatment and were nice,  but the one that inspired me was one built by an old guy Bill that encompassed most of a two-car garage.   Bill was a carpenter by trade and his elevated boards were expertly crafted,  his track laid true,  the wiring perfect,  however,  the most striking and memorable part of his layout was the scenery or lack thereof.  He laid the track and then using a four inch fence painting brush he painted the entire board surface, including the track,  with basically cheap fencing paint in a brownish hue,  reminiscent of many parts of outback New South Wales.  His buildings comprised a couple of basic stations, a turntable and a roundhouse (engine shed).  There was no attempt at recreating reality and yet I would eagerly anticipate when it was Bill's place to visit for a night's running.  On Bill's layout the locomotives and rolling stock were more important and Bill was a master at creating both locomotives and rolling stock from scratch.  He would mentor me and reminisce about the "old days" when as a child when he would scrounge every nail and tin can that could be found to make his models.  As he got older even the "shakes" did not hamper his talent.  When I knew him we were into NSWGR "ho" gauge.  After Bill moved from the area he was in his seventies and ventured into "O" gauge.  He had to build most of what he had as RTR in NSWGR "O" gauge was sparse.  To me,  what Bill created with his brush painted bare boards was as close as I got to running on a "real" model railway.  To me,  a model railway is the trains.  The scenery for most is important but unless done well the railway loses its impact and "reality".

[Mountain Goat]

That is majorly impressive. 

 

Sometimes someone can be very tallented and make a perfect scene and yet somehow it is lacking something as ones mind does not "Fill the gaps" to make it come to life. 

There are times when fine detailed models detract from an otherwize perfect modelled scene, and there are times when a fine detailed scene detract from lovely fine models.

Somehow there is a balance.

Somehow, exact miniturizations of the real world lack creative character. 3D printing scanned and scaled down from the real thing can lack the character that the creator builds into it. Somehow a model railway made of the latest scenery using all the latest technology can miss the element of character which brings the scene to life.

 

When I was younger in my late teens, my Mum ordered me a surprize Christmas present. Brian Sheriff backscenes. Not many used them when I first had them, and they had real character. I poved them! 

But when they became popular ane every other layout had them, the mind was no longer able to picture the scene. Ones mind was thinking "Brian Sheriff backscenes".  One could no longer look at the scene but was picking out manufacturers in ones mind. "That's Hornby. That's Lima. That's Bachmann etc...

Ones mind was unable to seperate itself to see the "Painted" scene set before it. 

 

 

[Sotto]

This has got me thinking about what it is that creates the illusion of reality. There is more to it than just detail and proportion..

We started off here referring to 0-16.5. One thing I like about this is that it allows the use of 1:43 road vehicles. I like real cars- so let’s have them on the layout!

But there is an immediate dilemma. Modern ones are more detailed, more easily found, and are (generally) at their claimed scale, so why do I prefer 1960s/70s die casts?

One obvious reason is that they require restoration which is itself fun (I wouldn’t pay for a perfect one anyway)) but the main reason I  like them is that somehow they look heavier than say a new Oxford diecast. It’s obviously an illusion, but a real car is heavy and so a model car should appear heavy too!

[Mountain Goat]

2 hours ago, Sotto said:

This has got me thinking about what it is that creates the illusion of reality. There is more to it than just detail and proportion..

We started off here referring to 0-16.5. One thing I like about this is that it allows the use of 1:43 road vehicles. I like real cars- so let’s have them on the layout!

But there is an immediate dilemma. Modern ones are more detailed, more easily found, and are (generally) at their claimed scale, so why do I prefer 1960s/70s die casts?

One obvious reason is that they require restoration which is itself fun (I wouldn’t pay for a perfect one anyway)) but the main reason I  like them is that somehow they look heavier than say a new Oxford diecast. It’s obviously an illusion, but a real car is heavy and so a model car should appear heavy too!

 

Something to add to that is that there is a lot of debate about speed of a locomotive and to me, I believe this idea about scale speed is all out of proportion and does not look right in model form. What I mean by this is that if one watches a real express locomotive zoom past at speed, even a diesel or an electric locomotive makes quite an impression as one watches it while being fairly close to it (E.g. while standing at a level crossing). To me, this element needs to be captured in model form and this means that scaled down, we need to increase the speed at least double (Maybe even triple) to achieve a similar effect.  Rarely have I ever been able to capture this effect like running one of my Dads (Now mine) old Hornby Dublo 3 rail locomotives with a rake of tinplate coaches flat out... The sound and the feel of the moment is something which replicates the sound and feel of a real steam locomotive express running at speeds above 90mph. 

Yet DCC sound, as good as it is seems lacking as it is too realistic in the sound it makes so ones mind is less able to fill in the gaps to let ones imagination take over. It is hard for me to describe what it is that makes one thing seem and fewl real where another somehow screams "Model". And I am not saying not to go for DCC sound or a highly accurate and detailed finescale model as they are excellent in their own right. But I have noticed, that to go down that route, the finer and more detailed the models are, the more one has to do the same to the scenery and everything else on the layout to match before one has the effect consistent enough to make it believable. 

 

Consistency is not easy to achieve, but get it right and one has made something fantastic!

[GWR-fan]

21 minutes ago, Mountain Goat said:

 

................................................

Yet DCC sound, as good as it is seems lacking as it is too realistic in the sound it makes so ones mind is less able to fill in the gaps to let ones imagination take over. ............................................

 

Recalling my childhood back in the early 1950's we would sit in front of a radio every afternoon and listen to the serials .  All we could hear was sound and yet our imagination made up the rest of the scene.  Television did not come to Australia until 1956 and to our household not until the early 1960's so we had a lot of imagining to do in front of the radio.

[laurenceb]

A little boy was asked which he prefered wireless or telivision. His reply:- the wireless! the pictures are better

[Mountain Goat]

It is funny how our minds work.

 

I know my mind works very well in pictures. I do maths in pictures of dots. I always did workings out in exams after I had the answer and I had to work backwards to do the workings out.  I come from a family of designers on my mothers side.  I am wondering if they had visual minds as well? 

 

I am also wondering if the way our minds work could effect the way we view our hobby. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Mountain Goat

[DCB]

7 hours ago, Sotto said:

This has got me thinking about what it is that creates the illusion of reality. There is more to it than just detail and proportion..

We started off here referring to 0-16.5. One thing I like about this is that it allows the use of 1:43 road vehicles. I like real cars- so let’s have them on the layout!

But there is an immediate dilemma. Modern ones are more detailed, more easily found, and are (generally) at their claimed scale, so why do I prefer 1960s/70s die casts?

One obvious reason is that they require restoration which is itself fun (I wouldn’t pay for a perfect one anyway)) but the main reason I  like them is that somehow they look heavier than say a new Oxford diecast. It’s obviously an illusion, but a real car is heavy and so a model car should appear heavy too!

 

Its like when you add a new Hornby BR Horsebox or a 70 year old Tinplate one to a rake of Hornby Dublo plastc bodied wagons, the illusion is shattered, the wagons had a consistency of finish which looks right.   Like when coaches nominally the same type but from different manufacturers are mixed with differing standards of lining, and cant rail and buffer heights, the illusion is spoiled. You just need the one brand new coach with flush glaze in a nine coach rake , or one hand painted one, even one without the interior painted to do the damage.

I get the point about Oxford and the similar new die casts vs the old ones.  The old ones didn't shine, that's full size, freshly ready for sale, highly polished,  cellulose. They didn't shine like the old cars like Rolls Royce or the post 1980 ish cars with base coat and lacquer.  The old Dinky diecasts had just that same quality of finish as the full size.  Obviously they don't have the same awful orange peel finish of the originals!

 Coaches were much the same, Pre Blue Grey they really shone when clean, They reflect the light as it glints off them as they pass. Blue Grey went sort of eggshell and dull even when clean while post Blue Grey some are positively dazzling, however manufacturers don't make that difference.   Hornby Dublo Tinplate looks far more realistic than 2015 Hornby coaches in some of my videos.

[Sotto]

6 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

Its like when you add a new Hornby BR Horsebox or a 70 year old Tinplate one to a rake of Hornby Dublo plastc bodied wagons, the illusion is shattered, the wagons had a consistency of finish which looks right.   Like when coaches nominally the same type but from different manufacturers are mixed with differing standards of lining, and cant rail and buffer heights, the illusion is spoiled. You just need the one brand new coach with flush glaze in a nine coach rake , or one hand painted one, even one without the interior painted to do the damage.

I get the point about Oxford and the similar new die casts vs the old ones.  The old ones didn't shine, that's full size, freshly ready for sale, highly polished,  cellulose. They didn't shine like the old cars like Rolls Royce or the post 1980 ish cars with base coat and lacquer.  The old Dinky diecasts had just that same quality of finish as the full size.  Obviously they don't have the same awful orange peel finish of the originals!

 Coaches were much the same, Pre Blue Grey they really shone when clean, They reflect the light as it glints off them as they pass. Blue Grey went sort of eggshell and dull even when clean while post Blue Grey some are positively dazzling, however manufacturers don't make that difference.   Hornby Dublo Tinplate looks far more realistic than 2015 Hornby coaches in some of my videos.

Gloss versus matt is a minefield! It seems to be received wisdom that matt is the way to go for OO and N gauge owing to apparent viewing distances, and it is probably a best approximation, even for clean stock. Consistency again.

But back in the real world we have all seen the sun glint off a parked car on a clear day perhaps half a mile away- easily N gauge viewing distance. That would look very odd in model form even if it could be replicated.

And then videos of models introduce a third reality- I imagine those tinplates look more realistic in a video than in reality. Certainly that is what I have found when videoing and photographing models, from the 7 year old me photographing Action Man in real snow, to recent times.

Then there is the framing effect of video- provided it is done carefully to avoid unwanted background. Nothing spoils the video illusion like bookshelves in the background, but if are you actually standing there. you cannot help but see them.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Sotto
word missing! (4/10-see me after the lesson)