Modeling Cliches to Avoid when Building your Layout

[Mileswestern]

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.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://modelrailroading.wordpress.com/?s=cliche">http://modelrailroading.wordpress.com/?s=cliche</a><!-- m -->

[nachoman]

I think there was a pet peeve thread recently on the MR forums that may give you a few ideas.

Keep in mind, that some of your "cliches" are unavoidable due to spatial or scale constraints. In other words, you could make "too sharp of curves" a cliche that all layouts fall victim too. Or the mountain that is not large enough to warrant a tunnel as opposed to simply blasting a cut. Too many tunnels is true of most layouts, but if the options are to either have too many tunnels or see towns spaced too close together, most would opt for the tunnels. In the end, they are all our own layouts and we can do what we want to achieve the goals that we want. I want my layout to be a "dramatic characterization" with things "plausible yet exaggerated". I find the ultra-realistic prototype-faithful layouts to be somewhat boring. They look good, but are somewhat less inspiring.

In light of my profession, I will try to give a few things that bug me, and things I try to avoid (if possible) on my own layouts.

1) landforms that don't pay homage to the processes that created them. Real landforms obey laws of physics and nature. That means, the steepest slope you will ever see in uncomsolidated material is about 25 degrees. There are also particular geometries to meander bends, and the angles in which tributary rivers join their trunk streams. Floodplains are also well-defined by topography and vegetation. Thre are also particular relationships between topography, where and what kind of vegetation you see, and where talus accumulates. Sure, we all have exaggerated slopes and topography on our layouts, because if we didn't every layout would be "plywood flat". But I have seen some layouts where there is nowhere for the water to drain, no places fro rockfalls to accumulate, and streams with vegetated point bars and gentle cut banks.

2) layouts that pay little attention to the rock type beneath the land on which they are "built". I see too many canyons and cliffs of that ubiquitous grayish-brown stained plaster rock casting.. In the real world, rocks are many different colors - not just gray or brown. There are many different types of rockscreated by many different processes, but the model railroad standard seems to be to gray generic "country rock" of unknown type. I have been guilty of this in the past - mainly because of the issue of time and resources. But the reality is that it shouldn't take much more time or money to make more convincing rocks.

[Herc Driver]

In about 15 minutes...without visiting all the picture links because I'm on a hotel server...I've learned a lot about my layout, some mistakes I've either made or am contemplating. Thank you! The article on adding needed roadways, bridges, embankments, and correct vehicles hit home. I'm one of those who is on his second layout, but really the first serious attempt at a layout that will probably last me many years with little changing. So it goes without saying that I want to get it right the first time, without spending precious resources ripping up what was put down wrong. Just by reading the short articles, I've already learned quite a number of great mistakes to avoid, and tips to use. One of the things I value about this forum is the ability to garner so many great insights, hints, and critical comments about my layout (past and present) and modeling work. So I whole-heartedly think you should continue this series. Good work.

[MasonJar]

Hi Miles,

Interesting series! One big one cliche I am mindful of is "no connection to the rest of the world". The first "industry" that one really should consider is an interchange with another road, or at least somewhere - even in staging - that represents the un-modelled world beyond the layout. There are very few real-world examples of completely captive roads.

I am not going to try to put too many words in your mouth, in case you decide to expand on this theme for a future instalment...!

A couple of constructive (I hope) criticisms - I noted a few typos, and two "#5" cliches, but no #6... . Also, the example of a '58 Corvette and early Ford-C cabover not seeing mainline steam is not entirely correct. Mainline steam was still going strong (although about to meet a very rapid and final demise) in Southern Ontario in 1958.

Good stuff.

Andrew

[Mileswestern]

Nachoman,

Could you help me develop some articles about geology on model railroads?

Herc Driver, what a stellar compliment, could you post that on my website? Thank you!!

MasonJar, you're right about the autos' possibility of seeing steam. They also could have visited the Buffalo Creek & Gauley into 1962 or one southern shortline that was running a shay into the 1970's in revenue service. I meant in a more general sense though. Most of steam was vanquished by 1958, and more than 90% by 1963.

I do plan to expand the series, and based on the feedback here and elsewhere it looks like I have some more fodder for future articles!

[eightyeightfan1]

In other words, you could make "too sharp of curves" a cliche that all layouts fall victim too.

Tell me about it!
Here was one mistake I found out. Try running an Auto-Max through the top corner. In fact, anything over HO scale 50' didn't make it. That included my SD70's and C44.
But that mistake will become part of the scenery. I'll make it look like it was left over when the railroad did a "re-alignment".

[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.

[MasonJar]

It's hard to say... where do you draw the line between cliche and "poor practice"? E.g. cliche is too many tunnels in a prairie layout, but overly tight curves combined with AutoMax car carriers is simply poor practice that will lead to operational headaches.

I tend to think of cliches as the naked swimmer, the crashed car with attendant police, train wreck, and possibly many of the Woodland Scenics mini-scenes. Cliches aren't necessarily poor practice, but things that really make (most) viewers groan (silently or not... ) when they see it on a layout.

Some things you've highlighted though seem to blur the line - like the spagetti bowl of track. While the trackwork, turnouts, scenery etc may be impeccible, there is simply no way that a prototype - even allowing for modellers' licence and selective compression - would have laid out something like that.

Interesting, though-provoking topic!

Andrew

[nachoman]

It's hard to say... where do you draw the line between cliche and "poor practice"? E.g. cliche is too many tunnels in a prairie layout, but overly tight curves combined with AutoMax car carriers is simply poor practice that will lead to operational headaches.

Andrew

Good point. There are the things that everyone seems to have to have one of on their layout, and then there are things that many people do that makes their layout unrealistic.

I think the thread I saw on the Model railroader forums labeled all as "pet peeves". But no matter what we call them, they are all things we should consider when we build a layout. Many are unavoidable, but can be controlled or can be minimized. We also need to consider the context of what our layouts are trying to achieve. A "train wreck" scene seems much more hokey on a layout that is obviously striving for prototypical accuracy. If one wants their layout to look a little more "whimsical", the train wreck fits right in. The goal for my layout is to not be entirely prototypically faithful - I want it to look like a model railroad. Therefore, there could be justification for a few steep mountains, rickety bridges, and overweatherd rolling stock.

And many of these "cliches" are must-haves on any layout open to the public. People love the gimmicks, and putting few on will increase the popularity of the layout.

[Brakie]

There are many poor practices in layout design..Of course most modelers are lead by track planing books which is full of such mistakes and many contain "Spaghetti Bowl" type layouts...There is NO law written you must have unprotyical grades or tunnels on your layout..Look beyod the 50 era layout thinking.Less is better in many ways.

[Sumpter250]

Every once in a while, there comes a truly eye opening discussion. Mileswestern, I think you've hit on one of those discussions.

landforms that don't pay homage to the processes that created them.

Not only rock formations, but the general flow of the "growing" areas (grassy knolls , forested areas, cuts through areas that are mostly soil, etc.)
Very few rivers end in lakes (or ponds), and we add them to justify a neat bridge.

Nachoman,Could you help me develop some articles about geology on model railroads?

Excellent!!!! The small knowledge I have of geology, comes from modeling scenes.

too many tunnels in a prairie layout

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :oops:
Guilty.......but no longer. A well modeled "cut" can be just as "spectacular as a tunnel, and, perhaps, more appropriate. Whether a cut through a low hill, or through rock, the detail in a cut is rarely modeled well.

layouts that pay little attention to the rock type beneath the land on which they are "built". I see too many canyons and cliffs of that ubiquitous grayish-brown stained plaster rock casting.. In the real world, rocks are many different colors - not just gray or brown.

......and rarely is a cliff, canyon, or cut modeled with different rock strata. Not only color, but texture differences exist in almost every exposed rock strata, Yes, there are exceptions, a sedimentary rock layer tilted up, may be all one color, but then the "grain" will run vertically, not horizontally. (vertical being greater than 45 degrees, horizontal, less).
The two most valuable resources are: 1. nature, and 2. your eyes!
Anyone who has seen Northlandz, has seen just about every cliche ever used in a model railroad.........and some that have never been used before, or since.
A small "island" in a stream:    

Front to back, this is 72 scale feet of stream, running straight. Most streams/rivers, modeled with a curve in their course, don't allow for the deeper water on the outside of the curve, and the "beach", shallows, on the inside. ( think about where and how the water flows, in creating the banks of a stream, or river.

[nachoman]

A small "island" in a stream:[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]

Sumpter, I will use your photo as an example. First of all, this stream is modeled better than most. There are a few things that could have been done better, and I will get to those in a moment.

Dusting some cobwebs out of my brain - I can tell you a few things about that stream. First of all, it is not a meandering stream. I know this because the bedload is too coarse. The beds of meandering streams are not littered with rounded cobbles (there is physics behind this reason). It is also not a braided stream, because braided streams generally are very wide and shallow, with coarse bedloads and channels that may drastically shift position seasonally, or even continually. Because braided streams are so dynamic, the banks are almost completely unvegetated, and the island would be basically a pile of rounded cobbles and gravel - ready to be moved downstream in the next flood.

The trees along the bank and on the island suggest a stable channel for at least as long as the trees are old. And the coarse bedload suggests a more dynamic channel. If I was to see this stream in nature, I would either say there is a dam upstream controlling the flow, or that the banks and island are somewhat stabilized by bedrock beneath the surface. The floodplain is not very wide, and the annual flood stage is not very high. This either indicates human control (a dam) or that the stream does not experience very high seasonal floods. Assuming it is not dam-controlled, i would assume the watershed does not see much winter snowpack or springtime flooding.

There is really only one thing about the scene that I can think of that detracts from the overall realism of the stream. The rocks on the bed and the banks are too uniform in size, and too evenly distributed. Streams typically have a bar and channel morphology, and a range of bedload sizes. Even a moderate flood would organize and sort the cobbles into bars and channels. Again, the scene suggests a dam upstream, because it appears as if the channel is lacking in fine bedload components (sand and finer).

[MountainMan]

Perhaps the greatest "cliche`" in modeling is the use of certain repeated-to-death LDE's, such as the tunnels and the streams that have been mentioned that do not fit the geography of the layout.

Tunnels that drive directly into a mountain are a prime example. Railroad engineers do their very best not to drive tunnels straight through mountains for obvious reasons, cost being the biggest. Real railroads tunnel through outcroppings or spurs that they cannot reasonably go around, usually as a last resort. The only exception that comes easily to mind are the Swiss, who can be forgiven due to their lack of decent alternatives.

Then there are the Towering Trestles - this one I understand and sympathize with because they are such a great visual gimmick, but often they are placed in ways that no sane engineer would even dream about.

[Steamtrains]

I think that most of the opinions voiced here are legitimate, but we should not loose sight of the ends 99% of RR modelers are trying to accomplish....Namely, to entertain ourselves....I would venture that a great majority have no notions of geology (myself included), or the different features that differentiate a meandering stream from a raging river, and what the size of the "stones" would tell us about it. Nor are we manually gifted to be able to reproduce all those features faithfully....In fact, all of us delve into an imaginary world we create, some with greater "fidelity" to the "real" world, and most just take an honest stab at it. And all of us are guilty to a greater or lesser degree of indulging in these so-called "cliches"....Why...??? Because we can....and its our prerogative to do so....

I saw a video the other day of "toy trains"...American Flyer, to be exact. One of the layouts featured is just track on a table top. And the owner said what at the time seemed heresy...He said his layout was more "real" than those of "true" modelers; that his toy trains and their setting were truly real. And, after thinking about it, I came to agree with him. He was not pretending to have anything more than toy trains on a table top, as we pretend to have, and can't really achieve, no matter how gifted we may be, or how elaborate our settings. We do no more than pretend....and that's fine with me...

I'm gonna go and play with my trains now....

[MountainMan]

You can "entertain" yourself without sacrificing either accuracy or reality. All you have to do is take a few pictures of how it was really done and do a little research. With the internet, research is no longer the chore it used to be.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the use of these cliches` - just against doing them poorly and illogically.