I think it might have been Olssen or Furlow who created the scenery and then created the trackwork, but very very few modelers choose this method, and for a variety of good reasons.
Well, I’m going to try this method. I’ve got a stack of styrofoam that is 4 feet thick and will be carving out a river from the styrofoam, then followed by trackwork.
It is esp. exciting because this actually is how real railroads are built, tho constructors, I’m sure, don’t create their own rivers–well, sometimes they do to change channels or to bring in water for the water towers.
For those who have scenery as a priority over trackwork, this I would think, would be a method one might consider. I’m looking forward to carving as soon as the house inspector gets done doing his inspecting.
–Dave Vergun
I have considered this option and will probably do a modified version of that on parts of my layout.
It was once suggested to me when designing a layout that one should design the “lay of the land” first, then put in the tracks, as this is how the real railroads do it. David has the advantage of modeling something that actually exists.
I hope you have a good resperator for this project, David! And a good vacuum cleaner, too.
Tony
Thx Tony,
I’ve got a 6.5 HP shop vac that can pull ticks off my Beagle.
Dave:
Nice shop vac! You’ve probably already thought of this, but since you’re going to be doing a lot of sanding & foam shaping, there’s gonna be a s**t load of dust in the air. You probably want to close any doors to prevent it from traveling elsewhere in the house. And open any windows to let in fresh air.
Tony
The secret with foam shaping is not to sand or grate, but to use a KNIFE as much as possible, thus eliminating much of the waste and need for the shopvac.
I’m just getting started on this layout, but I have dealt with many different types of foam over the years, and this pink stuff is no different.
By cutting chunks It may be possible to glue them together for some of the detail areas. Keep in mind that it isn’t necessary to make everything solid foam. The material trapped inside is just wasted. It may take a little more effort to to build up land forms out of smaller pieces, but once covered, no one will ever know.
I was at Sam’s club yesterday, and picked up a box of those brown paper towels. My plan is to mix a solution of white glue, soak the paper towels, and apply them to cover the foam.
NO MORE PINK, instead a nice mellow brown shell, that I can use as a base for my finished scenery. I didn’t make this one up, I saw it used on a modular layout a number of years ago, and thought it was cool!!![8D]
Several bennies of foam:
Carve it any way you like.
If you make mistake, just glue on another piece of foam
Light weight
You can stick trees in it
You can apply paint directly to it and then throw dried clay for earth (that’s my low-tech technique. The clay’s fine particles are perfectly scaled for “earth” and give the paint enough texture to be believable.
I sometimes use plaster or mortar mix or whatever is handy like drywall mud, to fill in cracks around the base of the styrofoam or elsewhere.
That’s my handy dandy technique that’s served me well in the past.
Fifty years ago a feller by the name of John Allen built scenery first then installed track. Maybe you heard of his model pike…the Gorre & Daphetid. Odd-d
Hey Odd-d, I for one am very familiar with John Allen’s work. I have a number of the magazine featuring a wide range of subjects that he had truely mastered.
There are a few people here that are really into the works of Frank Ellison. Perhaps Ellison is better known in this circle because he worked in O while Allen worked in HO. However both are great pioneers in this hobby in general.
Ellison and Allen were totally different but equally important to the hobby itself. Ellison was more concerned with the operation of the trains and less with the actual modelling. That is probably because in his heyday, the early forties and fifties he didn’t have the sheer amount of materials to work with. Allen was more interested in modelling the railroad as a series of passing scenes. He stressed scenery and thoughtful and sometimes whimsical detail of the pike itself. I don’t remember him stressing operation as much as making scenes. Perhaps it might be due to their career background. Ellison was involved in the theatre and even called his trains actors on the stage provided by the model railroad while Allen was a photographer and approached his pike as a set providing interesting if not always convincing scenes. Ellison was one who did not bother with any more scenery than was absolutely necessary for realism whie Allen would build scenery from the floor up. IMO he relied too heavily on bridges, having his trains jump from mountaintop to mountaintop on a series of bridges. Personally I liked the second version of the GD better than the third and final version. Allen was more of a pioneer in striving for realism by painting and weathering his models and populating his scenes in ways that told a story. Allen was more concerned with the vast vistas of Western scenery while Ellison was more concerned with the pounding action of heavy mainline class 1 railroading as it must have been in his day. It would be a shame for Ogaugers to ignore John Allen just because he worked in HO. Great modelling is great modelling regardless of scale. Truly both men belong in the pantheon of great model railroaders. Odd-d
One lesson that Allan could teach is learning from others, even if it was a different scale than his own.
Also I shared his dislike for plastic, IMO, the worst “advance” in model railroading, notwithstanding CTT’s nice article on plastics in the may04 issue.
one other thing. you left out the other giant in model railroading, John Armstrong
Dave, what do you dislike about plastic?
Well, it is a necessary evil. It’s really more about what I like about metal:
heft
keeps em tracking and rolling better
doesn’t melt w/the heat or become brittle w/sunlight UV rays or flourescent lighting
solid feel
allows for better coupling (you can wack into it better)
because it’s cool
the ultimate material would be steel with real rust weathering
Dave, I agree with your ‘positives’ about metal. I have read the Kalmbach book about John Allen. I sure would like to learn more about Frank Ellison - he sounds like a true pioneer in this scale.
Odd-d, I like your comparison between Allen and Ellison. Here’s my short version. Ellison was more analytical in his style, choosing to focus operation, electrial, and realism with only a hint of whimsey.
Allen was more of an artist who chose model railroading as his subject, and was filled with whimsey. I believe that he was also into operation, but that aspect took more of a back seat to his art.
Malcom Furlow had taken the Allen style to the extereme, virtually ignoring operation in favor pure art and highly detailed dioramas.
If we create a spectrum of art vs technical using the alphabet from A to T (which is really 1 to 20) with A being Artistic, and T being Technical we could try to place the great model railroaders on it based on their style.
Furlow would have to fall on A. Allen would be more in the EFG range. I would place Ellison in the OPQ range. I can think of someone to go on T, but most of the guys here won’t know who he is. Bruce Chubb is definately a T on this scale.
There is no wrong place to fall on this spectrum, but when people with different tastes get together there can be WORDS. I would like to think that my tastes would place me somewhere near the middle, rather torn between art and technical. This is a rather awkward place to be. Where would you place your style??
Dave you are right, it is very important to follow things done by other people even if they model in a different scale, which is exactly why I still read MR. This is the reason that OGR is so different. It is DELIBERATELY NARROW IN FOCUS… this is NOT A BAD THING, just different. In order to follow the entire hobby from an O gauge we need all three magazines. [:)]
Furlow has drawn a lot of criticism among the rivet counters. He’s one of my heroes and his “artwork” is a real inspiration and a breath of fresh air. Someday, he may rank up with the top 3 icons: Allan, Ellison, and Armstrong.
Furlow is the Van Gogh of the model train world.
Bruce Chubb is the creator of the Computer/Model Railroad Interface. This is a system of custom boards & software for controlling a layout with a computer.
I don’t know all of what C/MRI is capable of doing, but I do know that much about Bruce Chubb.
Tony
I need to do some more research on Armstrong’s work to get a better feel as to where he falls on my spectrum. I’m most familiar with his Kalmbach book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, which has had a tremendous influence on me over the years.
CMRI is really capable of doing anything Tony. It basicly functions as a bunch of on/off that can be controlled through a port on your computer. That’s it in a nut shell. That means that it can be used to control ANYTHING!!! That’s the beauty!
It works by sending information packets back and forth between the “switches” in the field, and the computer which processes the information.
I have this system left over from the mall, and have big plans for it![:D]