Modeling Cliches to Avoid when Building your Layout

[MountainMan]

Not at all - just blend them in so that their appearance seems "right". Nice rhino, BTW. I always pictured a Mastadon for use in a logging outfit, myself.

Maybe what this hobby needs is a little more fantasy and humor!

[nachoman]

I definitely have the spaghetti bowl and stair step thing going on my layout. Over the years there have been "styles" of layout design that have come and gone in popularity. The kind I have was very much in vogue when I first stated noticing layouts as a boy, especially the local club layout. All of the action made an impression so I think I semi-subconsciously carried it into my plan!

Interesting, Ralph. Yours is one of my favorite layouts on this forum. For some reason, it screams "real working railroad" to me and does not convey the "rivet-counter stuffiness" that the ultra prototypically faithful layouts exhibit. Your comment made me think - that perhaps in my mind I have an idea of my own what a good model railroad shoud be. I think the perfect model railroad should clearly convey:

1) the owner had fun building it, and enjoys running tains on it
2) the owner's continued development in skills as the layout was built
3) a sense that the layout is not perfect and still has areas for improvement
4) the railroad feels"active" and that it serves a purpose.

"To each his own" definitely applies to this topic. But for my personal taste, I am much more impresed with a layout that conveys a sense of "unity" than none that seems to want to draw attention to the smallest of details, while other areas go unnoticed. I am more impressed with a layout that has freight yards full of athearn blue box cars with molded on grab irons than a layout that has a few superbly detailed cars in an empty yard, and plywood scenery.

[MountainMan]

And yet both of those are prime examples of layout cliche`s. 8-)

[MadModeler]

Another "cliche`" is structures that have no reason to be where they are, such as a hotel next to a track in the middle of nowhere, unconnected to any community or activity.

True there. However, one can cover that by making the hotel or other structure become derelict thus giving the cover story of a "Failed Dream".

[MountainMan]

Another "cliche`" is structures that have no reason to be where they are, such as a hotel next to a track in the middle of nowhere, unconnected to any community or activity.

True there. However, one can cover that by making the hotel or other structure become derelict thus giving the cover story of a "Failed Dream".

Or the once grand remnants of a ghost town, quite common in Colorado; however, that isn't how they are presented, which makes them cliche`s.

Well, I had a great image to add, but apparently that function isn't working. Six tries and nothing.

Try again, different approach:

[iis612]

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

[Russ Bellinis]

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 suspect that you will see a lot more model railroads featuring UP, BNSF, CSX, or NS because so many modelers want to model today's scene. There are a few shortlines, but I'm not sure how many modelers are aware of them. I would imagine that a bridge line like Montana Rail Link might also be popular. I think there is also the problem of so many "modelers" today wanting everything r-t-r and already painted and decorated out of the box. When you combine that with the fact that the manufacturers seem to be ignorant sometimes, example Atlas comes out with an Rs32 in Arkansas & Missouri livery, but they come out with a C420 painted in various original 1960's paint schemes but none in A&M, it means that the layouts available to feature are going to be limited to the "big 4."

I think the overdoing of mountains has to do with the modeler's desire to have view blocks and the lack of imagination to recognize that a cut in the midst of rolling hills or tall urban buildings can act as view blocks as well as mountains. I think in the case of the mainstream magazines you have a certain amount of human prejudice that is going to come through. Model Railroader has always had a bias toward the Milwaukee Road because they are headquartered in Milwaukee. RMC seems to have a bit of a New Jersey/New York bias. I'm also not sure how much of the repetition of the same authors in the magazines is due to them not wanting to publish other authors and how much is due to them just not receiving quality work form other people rather than what they publish. They are expecting that anything they publish will be of professional quality. When they reject an article and pictures from someone other than the regular contributors is it because they only use the same regular contributors or is it that the work they have rejected is just too amaturish? Lou Sassi and Micheal Tylick to name just two regular contributors, may show up in Model Railroader a lot, but both of them have spent the money for the equipment and learned the craft necessary to do professional quality photography. I don't how much editing is required for their writing, but what it comes down to is that editing poorly written prose is much easier than having to try to edit poor photography. Poor composition may be corrected by croping, but problems with focus, depth of field, etc is probably not possible to fix.

[MountainMan]

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.

[Steamtrains]

Are you referring to prototype, or model? I don't recall seeing unit trains per se, lots of unit train cars, but not many layouts will handle a full blown unit train. Freight yards..?? What's a railroad, unless you're modeling strictly passenger service, without a freight yard...?? Roundhouses/turntables..?? Unless you're modeling a present day prototype, roundhouses & turntables were an integral part of nearly every yard, or even small one-track spurs....

Perhaps you are inclined to a single, meandering main with a couple of spurs....That could grow old quickly....

Just my thoughts....

[MountainMan]

Are you referring to prototype, or model? I don't recall seeing unit trains per se, lots of unit train cars, but not many layouts will handle a full blown unit train. Freight yards..?? What's a railroad, unless you're modeling strictly passenger service, without a freight yard...?? Roundhouses/turntables..?? Unless you're modeling a present day prototype, roundhouses & turntables were an integral part of nearly every yard, or even small one-track spurs....

Perhaps you are inclined to a single, meandering main with a couple of spurs....That could grow old quickly....

Just my thoughts....

We're discussing over-used cliches. A previous poster mentioned how overused mountains and so forth are. I feel the same way about the mandatory cliches that make up large layout modeling. In other words, it's in the eye of the beholder. I would much rather see another scene of a steam loco struggling through rugged mountains than look at the endless monotony of huge switch yards.

[Herc Driver]

IMHO, The brilliance or bane of this hobby is that there is no "one right answer".

[yellowlynn]

I can't tell if I am brilliant or a bane, because I'm always right. My big advantage is that no one knows what my opinion is. Right?

Lynn

[Steamtrains]

...That is...No one knows what your opinions are....A wise man is a man of few words...
And I agree with Herc....We model (I think) to please ourselves...and everyone else can take a flying....leap..!!

[MountainMan]

...That is...No one knows what your opinions are....A wise man is a man of few words...
And I agree with Herc....We model (I think) to please ourselves...and everyone else can take a flying....leap..!!

Then why do so many of us post pictures and seek the approval of others?

[Steamtrains]

Self gratification....It goes with the "pleasing" part I mentioned before....