After reading the article in the October 2010 issue of MR about using photos to extend roads into backdrops, I would like to ask if anyone has any ideas on how to do the same for railroad tracks with the following context.
There are a few scenes where there will be trackage crossing over the mainline perpendicular to the aisle and backdrop, and therefore the track will end up going into the backdrop. And in addition, some of these scenes will be attempts to recreate what it looked like in 1953. The problem is many of the locations that had trackage, no longer does. Though the right of way is somewhat visible, the trackage has been ripped out and the right of way has deteriorated. So my question is, how does one recreate these scenes so the trackage appears to continue once the track reaches the backdrop.
I think they did some pruning on the forums, but this was the most recent active mirror thread. All the caveats are there (keep mirror at right angles to the (end of) track, front surfaced mirror (so no unsightly gaps), hide the edges with various devices (trees, buildings, overpasses etc), avoid angles that reflect full scale humans (as mentioned by tgindy) and so on.
BTW, when I first saw the MR article on running roads into photobackdrops, it took a while for me to grasp the illusion of the road ‘curving’ when you look at it from an angle. It would have also been nice if they had a section-view diagram of the road ‘fillet’ into photo (to show how much does the ‘fillet’ curve up into the photo background?) And what was with the ‘gravel’ road? The first photo caption says the author masked off the road edges with masking tape, but the road looked like some grey cloth draped over the tracks up to the backdrop. The article concept is a great idea, but the article itself seemed kinda an optical illusion…
My hunch is that it would be far more difficult to show track heading directly into a backdrop and paint (or photograph) track going into infinity than it is a road which has fewer aspects such as ties and rails to give away the visual trick that is being played. The guy who wrote the MR article did a most effective job of fooling the eye.
Most people who try to have track disappear “into” a backdrop do so in parallel to the backdrop (rather than head straight for it) so the track is more and more obscured by buildings (or trees or hills) in front until finally it cannot be seen.
An article not long ago showed how a guy created flats, almost like theater scenery, that looked like hills but were only 1/4 inch thick that gradually increased in height so as to obscure a spur entirely. The track may have continued into staging. This is probably easier to pull off if you have control over your viewing angles.
A few years ago I visited a layout on tour where the guy had quite cleverly taken the HO rails and on a curve going towards the backdrop made them closer and closer together (and perhaps smaller in Code) until finally they were N and he had some N equipment. and, if memory serves, vehicles and figures, for forced perspective.
Following that logic I think it would probably look plausible to have the track squeeze together even more on a painted backdrop if it is very narrow rather than “hit” the backdrop at full HO gauge.
If I’m understanding you correctly it sounds lie what your trying to do is forced perspective using track. It has been done extensively with the use of structures and tracks running parallel to the foreground track but from a perpendicular perspective I can’t see how it’s possible again if I am understanding this correctly I am standing in the isle in front of some tracks that are coming out of the backdrop and crossing a set of tracks and terminate obviously at the fascia.
I have seen something similar to what your speaking of on Tony Koester’s Nickle Plate extension where tracks terminated at the fascia but they came from around a bend so to speak from hidden track, sorry not going to post any pics without Tony’s permission but you get the idea, so maybe don’t make it a head on shot per-say but if you choose to have it straight on my best guess would be to find some photos of the area in question and have them blown up to the correct size to be used as photographic a backdrop and build you scale track into the scene. You would need a lot of things like structures and brush etc. to kind of camouflage the transition portion between model railroad and backdrop photo. Sounds like a bit of a challenge but a very interesting concept, Good luck
If you look at the “Y” that is formed by French Creek (on the left) and the Allegheny River (on the Right and Bottom legs of the “Y”), the NYC crosses over French Creek then runs along the Northern/Western Bank of the Allegheny River. The Erie Railroad runs alogn the North/East bank of French Creek, then makes a “U” Turn while crossing underneath the NYC and also runs along the North/West Bank of the Allegheny River towards Oil City, PA.
I am modifying history a bit, and the Pennsylvania & Allegheny (my proto-freelanced railroad circa 1953) acquires the right of way along the North/East bank of French Creek, as well as the west bank of the Allegheny River (by acquiring the Allegheny Valley Railway before the PRR can!) up to Franklin, where the P&A will cross the Allegheny River and join up with the right of way on the North/East Bank of French Creek, crossing underneath the NYC trackage.
Since the track is only on a VERY slight curve, and since the benchwork is only 18" Deep, there is no way to disguise this track from going into the backdrop. The only way to make this scene beleivable is to have the tracks run ito the backdrop practically at a 90 degree angle. A mirror won’t work becuase there is a bridge that would be scene in the mirror. My only hope is to somehow recreate this in a photo. I was hoping for some specfiic techniques using a program such as photoshop as to how to accomplish this.
Quote from Ken L. “A mirror won’t work becuase there is a bridge that would be scene in the mirror.”
Reply from ANOTHER “Ken L.” (Kenneth “leighant” Anthony): Could you build HALF of a bridge up against a mirror, and let the other half appear in the mirror?
Do you have space in your workshop, backyard etc (not on the layout) to build a temporary model of the scene that needs to appear on the backdrop, to photograph and paste onto your background?
In this photo, the five track filled with cars are an open/visible staging yard with models. The boxcars in the background on tracks more or less perpendicular to the foreground tracks are PHOTOGRAPHS of model cars, taken at an angle to fit the scene. (I took a bunch of exposures changing angle slightly to get something that worked- but digital photography is cheap once you’ve bought the camera…) The two big warehouse buildings are DRAWN in Photoshop (no photos used except as reference). The Hulett unloaded looming over one warehouse is a cutoff from a Walthers ad!
In the scene, the prototype tracks between the warehouses actually ran at that angle to the long yard tracks in the foreground. I omitted the curving connections and left it to viewer to guess that the tracks must somehow connect “somewhere else.”
Angles between 3D foreground and 2D background are a problem, especially when viewed from an angle other than the “perfect viewer.” I once tackled the problem by making an obvious turn in alignment of roads and pavement, that suggested it was supposed to be there, not a parallax problem.
Might not work for your specific situation. I had an unusual perspective situation in this project. Most viewers will be looking at
I don’t think putting something in front on the track would work, as the NYC Mainline really needs to be “active” and not blocked since it is a interchange point for tank cars going to Oil City, PA.
the bridge would be located in the aisle before it crosses the P&A so that wouldn’t work either in this case.
It would look like I have two choices, and neither are very appealing. I either A) have a major visual headache to try to solve that is virtually impossibel to solve since I do not have any real artistic ablilty (I am more of a Operate Railroader vs Model Railroader) and I don’t think anyone in the immediate area has the skills needed to do the job that would be required… The other choice is B) change the actual landscape in Franklin, PA, and hope no one from the area knows it that well. It’s one thing to add a bridge that never existed, it’s another to be the “finger of god” and change the mountain location. I will have the NYC mainline take a sharper turn behind a mountain and have it cross the P&A at a more acute angle versus having it cross at 90 degrees which is what it would do if I followed the terrain in the immediate area.
Thanks for the feedback though. It has helped in focusing the two options I have, and I am allmost forced to go with the second
The following photo is not exactly on the topic of your question, but shows how one can create “forced perspective”. The N scale loop is slightly raised on a rough 2’x4’ directly behind my HO scale rail line. Behind this,is a SceniKing photo view of distant hills. One end of the N scale loop disappears into the portal of an industrial building. The other end of the N scale loop disappears behind the ledge of rock behind the HO tracks. These ideas might apply to your situation. Bob Hahn
Unless you can force the viewer to see the scene from a very narrow angle, tracks running at right angles into a painted backdrop or mirror won’t pass the believability test. In the MR article, when the viewpoint shifted sideways the road ‘curved’ at a rather sharp angle. Country roads do that (usually with appropriate signage.) Railroad tracks don’t.
If you are protolancing, a few minor deviations from reality can be, and must be, accepted. OTOH, if you are modeling the well-(rain)watered Northeast, plant some trees to obscure the scene. That’s what I expect to do when working up the scenery for my cedar-forested prototype. Here in the 1:1 scale Dessicated Desert I couldn’t get away with that - Joshua trees don’t hide much.
