04-28-2009, 10:33 AM
iis612 Wrote:Let's not forget about the woefully overdone!
Why is it that every model railroad has to have mountains? I love looking at them, used to live really close to them. It seems the trend is to model these scenes with huge, over powering mountains, at least this is the image that the mainstream publications surrounding our hobby has painted. When they are done well, they are very photogenic, I will give on that. However, did you know that the midwest has some really breathtaking scenery that have NO mountains? What about coastlines? There are other ways to break scenes apart, without the use of imposing scenery.
I don't know the psychology involved in picking a prototype to model, or to pattern after, but it seems that there are a great many that are singled out. I have nothing against ANY road, I am just tired of seeing DRGW, CSX, UP, BNSF, ad nauseum, ad infinitum... Every road is spectacular in it's own way. The evolution of every road, if looked at with thought and attention is incredible, but it seems that the major class I's are being beat into a generic pulp.
Both of these gripes come to you courtesy of the hobbies mainstream publications. They seem to show the same scenes over and over and over and over. The same roads, redone and redux. Of course, that is probably because of the policy that seems to be in place that they have to use stuff from the same handful of contributors, or whatever there advertisers cough up. They want the dollars, and big names sell.
Matt
I know what you mean. I have the same problems with the constantly over-presented freightyards and switching complexes, interlock towers and endless images of diesels hauling unit trains, not to mention the done-to-death roundhouse. Totally overdone.