Hi, I’ve just received my May 2017 edition of Model Railroader. One thing that always strikes me about Pelle Soeborg’s layouts is that apart from the Trains and Railroad itself, there are (in my opinion) just enough ‘accessories-type’ details added to give an actual and/or suggestion of daily life. As Pelle points out - there is no distracting clutter. I only hope I can achieve a similar atmospheric result with my Model Railroad. Getting the correct balance of minimum Detail is crucial. Paul
Who is it that gets to say how mutch detail/clutter is too mutch? and what qualifys them to do so? Real life is full of clutter. Be it wind blown papers in a fence corrner, or tires laying in a ditch.
If you were a frequent vistitor to my layout, I would hope you would see something new each time.
I’ve seen many undetailed, sterile,boreing layouts at shows[,understandable because of the many moves]. I spend most of my time where there is something to look at. Besides a train going around and around.
I don’t know why you would ask such questions. Obviously nobody “gets to say”. There ain’t no clutter police.
Real life is NOT “full of clutter”. Real life has the RIGHT AMOUNT of clutter, by definition. Some places are real trash piles. Some are downright sterile. And everything in between.
To me, there IS the RIGHT AMOUNT of clutter in a scene on a layout. And I’ve seen ones with too much. And ones with too little. My goal is to have that RIGHT AMOUNT. And I appreciate it when some else manages to attain that goal.
Ed
My inspiration is the Franklin and South Manchester by George Sellios.
Pelle models the desert Southwest. It’s not a busy mythical city on the New England coastline. It should look far more barren and sparse.
There is nothing wrong with either of these railroads.
.
Me too, and Malcolm Furlow. Clutter is fun. More clutter is more fun. Clutter is fun to build and model.
.
Pelle’s stuff looks good, but it also looks way to boring to ever inspire me.
.
Bring on the fun… bring on the clutter.
.
-Kevin
.
I recall reading recently that George Sellios, whose Franklin & South Manchester RR layout is legendary for it’s detail, has actually reduced the number of figures and other items from his scenes.
Clutter, or lack thereof, is part of a scene. The purpose of a scene is to tell a story. Our trains move through scenes, but for the most part those scenes are static snapshots in time. When a scene tells its story, “Not much has happened here in a long time” is just as valid as “the poop hit the fan six hours ago.” Just like a good painting or photograph, if the scene causes a viewer to ask themselves “what happened here?”, “what’s happening here?” Or “what’s about to happen?” – rather than just move on to the next shiny object – it’s a successful scene.
A Pelle scene that you thought was too sparse, but kept you looking, was a successful scene wether you liked it or not. Same with a Sellios scene. Too cluttered for my tastes, but I spend a looooooong time looking at those photos. And Mindheim’s graffiti laden scenes make me wonder “why spend all that time on stuff I can see every time I’m stuck at a rail crossing?” but it keeps my interest because—although the scenes tell a story I’m not much interested in—there still a very well told story there.
Some people love the cluttered spaghetti bowl. Some don’t. Nothing wrong with either approach, as long as you’re building your layout for the person with the most invested in it (ie. you).
Like Rastafarr said, I think the level of detail is a very personal thing. I don’t like scenes that are barren, i.e. a machine shop with almost no machines. I also don’t like excess clutter like the molded junk piles with all sorts of things like oil drums, tires, hot water radiators, engine blocks, kitchen sinks and you name it, that are intended for use outside various buildings. Nor do I like things like workbenches that are littered with tools, paint cans, pieces of pipe and so forth. Any professional who was using those cluttered benches would be having a difficult time getting things done, and would also likely be under the thumb of the shop supervisor. I recently saw a very nicely done turntable that had a scrap wooden skid tossed into the pit. To me, it was totally out of place and distracting. I would not have put a skid there. Obviously the person who modelled the turntable thought it was a nice touch.
On the other hand, I do like oil drums, tires, skids and kitchen sinks in their place but not all lumped together. I like a workbench with a tool or two on it and a piece of work in the vice instead of it being totally clean. Having a person working at the bench is good too, but having too many people just standing around is not.
There is no right answer. The layout is your own and the decisions are your own. We would be best to acknowledge other modeller’s work and opinions but not criticize them unless asked.
Dave
I haven’t received the magazine yet, so I haven’t read the article. But how is clutter being defined in the article? Is it supposed to be trash and other junk all over the place?
Or is it the Meriam-Webster definition:
"to fill or cover with scattered or disordered things that impede movement or reduce effectiveness a room clutter**ed with toys —often used with up Too many signs were clutter**ing up the street corner."
I agree with Paul. Nothing against those that like clutter, but I much prefer a more spartan scene where my own imagination can fill in the details. Personally, I don’t like the “characterization of life” seen in the Franklin & South Manchester or any of Malcolm Furlow’s work.
The oposite end of the spectrum is Vic Rossman’s work which is elegant in its simplicity. Another proponent of this approach was David Barrow’s Cat Mountain & Santa Fe.
Middle ground, which might be the best of both worlds can be seen in the work of Tony Koester, Lance Mindheim, and Mike Confalone.
Ray
If a scene looks cluttered to you, chances are that there is too much clutter - for you. Others may have a different impression than you.
I am lucky, I don´have to even think about clutter. My layout follows Swiss prototype and the only clutter you´ll find in Switzerland is mountains - they have lots of them all over the place. [swg]
[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D]
Dave
I noticed that…do you know if they have any plans to tidy things up a bit? [:-^][:P]
Wayne
Naw, no plans of tidying up the countryside! They dig deep and long holes called tunnel so you don´t see the mess when you pass through the country!
Near as I can figure out, Soeborg models those parts of the country where there is not that much “clutter”. Put an oil refinery on a layout and you would not be able to clutter it enough.
They come out of the sky and they stand there. Hard to miss.
–Randy
That about sums it up but,that will depend on the era especially in the industrialized areas before EPA and OSHA.
On my ISL I keep the clutter to a minimum based on studies of industrial areas on Bing and Google maps. You just can’t beat real life photos for information seeing that they will speak volumes of truths.
I think some layouts are to squeaky clean for real life while some looks like a third world country…
Well, I guess that explains the cheese.
In most locations, the world fits somewhere on a sliding scale between pristine and a total mess. In theory, you could choose to model either extreme, but most of us tend to feel most comfortable with what we usually see, which is neither extreme. As a transition era modeler, I like a certain amount of grime that befits the era; but the transition era was also a period of postwar rebuilding, so you could see a lot of vitality. The landscape wasn’t depressingly filthy, except in certain industrial areas. Even there, clutter was controlled so that it didn’t reach dangerous levels. In the pre-EPA days, this was not necessarily because of concerns for the environment, as much as to reduce loss of productivity due to injuries.
I like the middle of the road approach taken by Paul Dolkos on his current Baltimore theme layout and his former New England layout. Lou Sassi’s West Hoosic Division also followed that approach very successfully. I recall a yard scene on Lou’s layout. In the middle of the yard, there was on old newspaper that the wind had blown there. It wasn’t a big detail, and it didn’t detract from the overall neatness of the scene, but it introduced a bit of whimsy and a reminder that loose newspapers in the wind are a fact of life in the real world.
My own personal bottom line: A bit of grime and disorder comes with routine daily life, but it becomes a cartoonish distraction if you overdo it.
A friend once put this into perspective. He is a far more accomplished model builder than I will ever be. He likes to photograph his model scenes and analyze the photo. He is very critical of anything he sees in the photo that lets you know you are looking at a model instead of the real thing. If somebody mistakes the model photo for the real thing, that’s the highest praise. With all due respect for artists like John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and George Sellios, I don’t think I’ve ever mistaken photos of their work for the real thing.
My friend