Philosophy Friday -- Detail... What?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

“Detail… What?”

Everyone likes to see a nicely-made layout with lots of scenery and interesting detail. And its fun watching a well-modeled locomotive pulling a good-looking string of cars down the track to destinations yonder.

If you had to decide, which would you say is more important to detail… the locomotives? The rolling stock? Some of the locos? Some of the rolling stock (i.e., just “key” cars)?

When you look at trains / railfan-- do you see the locos more or the train as a whole or bits and pieces as it goes by? (I know I’ve asked that specific question before, but I think its relevant again as context.)

So, My Question for Today Is:

– What elements are the most important to detail (or super-detail)? And what elements can you get by with less detail or even practically no detail. I’m asking mainly about trains, but you can answer about scenery or structures or other elements too if you want.

As always, I’m looking forward to your thoughts and comments (pictures too if you got 'em!)

John

2

1} what I notice when railfaning is the Locos first. I want to see what is pulling the train, and study it as quickly as I can as it goes by. Then I get bits and pieces of the cars unless I see one that catches my eye in particular tehn I follow it along {mixed freight}. If it is a long train of the same type of cars, then I study how they may be different from each other while serving the same purpose {lets say hoppers- which are 3 bay, 4 bay, more bay, which are squared off, which are rounded, which has what type of doors or caps on it etc.}. I will also try to study the “workings” of the cars-that is the wheel sets, the undercarriage equipment it may have etc. Mind you this is all relatively quick unless it is a slow train or a tourist train that stops for loading/unloading where I can study it in more detail up close as it sits.

2} I don’t detail my model trains any more than they come with. I also don’t {yet anyways} weather my RR cars and locos. I prefer to think of my RR as taking pride in their rolling stock and taking care of it. {It really boils down to not wanting to “mess up” a perfectly good car…now IF I could weather my rolling stock like Robby P. that would be a different story!!}

3} I will and do detail AND weather my buildings though. SOmetimes it take imagination, sometimes seeing something similar in the real world, sometimes just whims and folly. When I get the basics done, I then go back and see what I can maybe do to “super detail” my structures. Maybe window flower boxes on a house? Maybe a mailbox in the yard or on the side by the door of a house? Maybe a “cobble stone” pathway to the front door? Maybe street number on the side of the house by the door? Maybe milk bottles on the stoop? Maybe a “welcome mat” at the door? MAybe even a door knocker on the door? What else can I do to make it look more realistic {without getting carried away}.<

3

I’m a detailed-scenery guy. When the trains are in motion, it’s hard to notice the details. And when they’re not in motion, they’re just not as interesting.

Today’s RTR and kit offerings are pretty good, with the bar being raised all the time. I still have a substantial number of Athearn blue-box cars, and others of similar quality, but as I’ve bought more rolling stock I’ve been generally upgrading my fleet to include wire grab-ons and other small but significant improvements. Still, that’s the way the cars come, and I don’t consider them to be added detailing. As time passes, I suppose my “active” fleet will be more and more detailed, but I’ll probably do that by replacement more than by detailing low-end models.

Scenery, on the other hand, requires imagination and creativity. As good as a structure kit might be, it is still only a template, a bare-bones model which I take as the starting point for a project, not the goal. Even a craftsman kit requires more than what’s in the box. It needs a setting, an environment, a complete 360-degree surrounding envelope of realism to fully bring out its potential.

I love kits by City Classics and DPM. Big windows invite me to position the buildings so that the viewer can see inside, where I provide lights and modest interiors. The urban scenes where many of these structures belong are “intense” modeling spaces, full of sidewalks, lamp posts, signs, autos and people. The viewer is drawn in, first by the buildings, but then by the busy scenes between them.

I have a set of passenger cars that came with user-applied wire grabs. One day, I’ll get to them, but I don’t see that as a “fun” project. If I do a perfect job, well, then I know what it will look like. The 5-story City Classics office building I’m working on, though, will be a surprise when it’s done, even to me. I’m planning a below-street-level business for one of these buildings, which will invo

4

I think that it’s good to detail all your locomotives to some extent, maybe superdetail your favorites. Also, all the freight cars should receive some level of weathering, with perhaps 20 superdetailed and weathered. You can use these superdetailed cars in a train with some of your favorite locos at an open house or showing off the layout, and then have all the cars etc for operating. By having all the cars at least weathered a bit there won’t be any sticking out like a sore thumb in the background of a photo.

Now as to scenery, if it’s like a mountain expanse or something the scenery doesn’t need to be as detailed as if it’s a downtown district or just a small grove of trees. I also think there should be some miniscenes etc to add some interest to the layout in long scenery expanses but packing it full crowds the layout. However, if we’re talking urban scenes then it should be bursting with miniscenes in the urban setting. If it’s a farm really detail the house and barn areas, with the fields neutral to add focus to the house and barn.

5

It seems to me that the level of detail depends on the size and scope of a given layout. I’ve seen shortline layouts where every piece of rolling stock and every structure was a work of art. Limited scope allowed for unlimited painstaking detail work. On a large mainline type layout well done shake-the-box kit structures and rolling stock are timesavers. I would say detail your engines and caboose and just weather the rolling stock in between. Plastic structures can be weathered and supplemented with detail accessories and that should suffice for an operations oriented pike. All things being equal, available time, patience and skill level determines the degree of detail to be built into a pike and each of us has a different threshold.

6

Just as Mister Beasely indicates above, it’s the quality of the train’s static surroundings (groundcover, trees, structures, etc.) that counts most in creating the feeling of realism/reality to a layout and thus is the most important. Like it, or not, even the best selection of super-detailed loco and cars money can buy can only be regarded as a group of toy trains if they are running around on a plywood central, or similarly crude scenic arrangement.

Mister Beasely also correctly points out that for objects in motion the viewer’s mind inserts much of the detail, whether actually present or not. It is only in regard to items the eye can linger on that one gets a true impression of the degree of detailing/super-detailing actually present.

CNJ831

7

After chasing detrain for five miles usually all I am ever able to get dephoto of is detail.

Just slightly away from the direct object of this topic!

I have seen some nicely detailed N-Scale locomotives and I have seen some nicely detailed N-Scale rolling stock . . . . . . . . . . I certainly notice fine looking rolling stock but superdetailing is not a prime interest to me when I visit an N-Scale layout. Maybe it’s because it is standing still allowing more time for examination but I tend to give close observation to scenery i.e. buildings that jump out at you, bridges that look like they belong where they are placed, trees that blend well into a forest, and above all I like water that looks like I could take a good refreshing swim if only somebody could reeduce my heighth down to 7/16"/10.8mm.

8

Detail what interests you, try to maintain everything to a similar level of detail. Having only superdetailed, every nut and bolt, engines with train set cars on grass mat scenery will look worse than having moderately detailed models pulled by a moderately detailed engine in a moderately detailed scene.

Of course, superdetailing too much will result in your being an object of scorn as a “rivet counter” on this and other lists. :sunglasses:

And you can’t “superdetail” unless you “count rivets” i.e. determine the details.

9

I’ll go with CNJ on the idea of detailed scenery, and yes, the locos and rolling stock are always usually ‘in motion’ enough that the eye can provide detail as the train goes by. I know that my own Yuba River Sub is sceinicked (and I use the following phrase cautiously) to the best of my ability. For me, it’s the realistic setting (or as realistic as I can make it) that enhances the total aura of having a model railroad.

Because of the railroads I model, most of my locomotives come already extremely well detailed (brass), so I don’t usually ‘super-detail’ them, unless they’re older brass and can benefit from more detailed castings. And my rolling stock is usually just straight from the kit (or box) and whatever ‘upgrades’ they receive are more for rolling quality (couplers, wheelsets, weighting) than external detail.

Though I definitely admire ‘weathered’ rolling stock, and super-detailed locomotives on other MR’s, it’s not a really primary concern on my own.

But I want my rocks and trees to look as if they BELONG there, LOL! [:P]

Tom [:)]

10

I have to agree with Dave on tihs one - its not how much or how little, but the consistancy of detail as you look around a scene.

I can’t define it in terms of this “much” is enough, this “much” is too little, but I know it when I see it.

Dealing in HO, many modelers, some very talented, loose sight of what scale thay are working in. A realistic appearance is not always gained by having more detail.

At 1/87, viewing the model at 2 feet away, places you 174 feet from it. What level of detail can you see of a similar item in real life at 174’? That’s how detailed your model needs to be. Or, if you prefer closer viewing than use this basis - At 10" in HO, you are 72’ away - how much detail can you see?

If your model, viewed at 10" away (this is as close as most people can focus on such an item), looks like the real thing viewed from 72’, than that is detailed enough for a realistic impression. Too much detail, or detail that is oversized/exaggerated just so that you can distinguish it, does not in my view make a more realistic or better model.

Example: HO model of house with wood clapboard siding, with the model intended to repersent house in reasonably good condition. You should NOT see wood grain in the siding. Painted wood siding when new or reasonably well maint

11

I guess I am somewhat of a freight car and traffic nut. When I watch trains today, I hardly look at the locomotive except for noticing the road. None of the locos running today will be the ones I model on my 1957 layout. The loco is just what is pulling the train. But the cars-- even though they are not the same cars I model from 50 years ago, they suggest the story of what is moving where and why.

My layouts are not big enough to feature trains running and running and running. My past layout represented a small town on a secondary main. Trains ran through (the same 2 trains from staging) but the main interest was the local switching.

I repainted my locomotives to more or less follow my prototype Santa Fe, with a few details changed or added to match photos, at a stage of detailing I tried to get one or one-and-a-half

12

IMHO it’s rather dependent on two things:

  • How important is the item to setting the mood of the entire scene?
  • How close is the item to the viewer?

Certain specific items will get a LOT of detail - my 5-tiered pagoda and its immediate surroundings, the interlocking at Yamamoto, a little roadside shrine, the smaller colliery. They are both mood-setters and right up front.

Things which will get less attention to detail are my rolling stock (which will be in motion most of the time, and will only stand still in places where observation is inconvenient or impossible) and the ‘middle distance’ which includes most of the railroad infrastructure. My objective will be to develop a consistent level of appearance, not to have anything stand out which should be anonymously mundane.

Things which are in the reduced-scale ‘distance’ will be detailed mainly with paint. I see no advantage in putting Grandt Line windows in a half-scale building that’s supposed to be several hundred scale meters farther from the viewer than it actually is. Then, too, everything at that virtual ‘distance’ will receive a pretty uniform coat of blue-grey ‘humidity’ haze, typical of the place and time I’m modeling.

Seen close up, the difference between the highly detailed and the much lesser detailed will be painfully obvious - but they aren’t meant to be seen side-by-side. On the layout, they won’t be.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

13

I am a fan of small layouts and when I say small, I mean really small, not more than 6´ by 1´6" in OO gauge (British prototype).

Small layouts require a close attention to detail, be it track, structures and scenery, as well as rolling stock. Built at near to eye level, the lack of detail would be much more apparent. As a small layout cab be easily overlooked, the lack of detail would make it look “toyish”.

Building a highly detailed small layout is as time consuming as building a much bigger one, but it also is equally rewarding! It also requires careful planning, as there is no room for corrections.

This is what I will be working on:

14

Detail work…(clears throat)

It just depends. On some of my cars I go all the way to adding cut-levers, and air hoses. Some of that detail you won’t even see, unless you really look. The engines, weill…I’ve added snow plows, mu cables, ditch lights, ac units, wiper blades, etc…

Like I said, some you have to really look for, but sometimes that close up shot really looks good/real.

Layout wise…I try to add some detail work. Trash, load spills, etc…I seem to work more on weathered cars, and not my layout. BUT with fall/winter around the corner, I;m sure that will change.

Here’s a few shots of the layout. You can see some of the detail work in these (trash, load spill)

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/themes/trc/utility/[IMGhttp://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/robby_79/027-3.jpg[/IMG]:550:0]

http://cs.trains.com/trccs/themes/trc/utility/[IMGhttp://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o144/robby_79/003-8.jpg[/IMG]:550:0]

15

Very interesting question John and I’m interested in peoples answers/opinions.

For myself I believe that anything that can be seen up close should be superdetailed because it just gives the impression of a nice detailed layout, loco, boxcar or whatever. Anything that can be seen from 3 feet away or more detailing is less important because you honestly can’t see it. Now having said that I don’t follow it. I really enjoy superdetailing buildings and interiors. For me that is the best part of this hobby, I’ve got buildings on my layout that I’ve gone way overboard on and people can’t see whats inside but that doesn’t matter to me. The last building I just finished was a simple DPM Shultz’s Garage kit. I studded the walls and installed rafters, added a hoist with a car on it, added tool boxes, a welder, posters on the walls, etc. It turned out great but where it was going on the layout people can’t really appreciate it, lol. Oh well, it was fun to build.

16

A- Locomotives. I concentrate more detail on them.

B- Unusual cars and loads. I think these are cool to see on a layout and deserve more detail attension.

C- Scenery and track detail. The best detailed trains will look bad on a 4x8 grass mat with cheap, generic buildings and un-ballasted brass track.

[2c]

17

I think Sheldon makes a good point:

“At 1/87, viewing the model at 2 feet away, places you 174 feet from it. What level of detail can you see of a similar item in real life at 174’? That’s how detailed your model needs to be. Or, if you prefer closer viewing than use this basis - At 10” in HO, you are 72’ away - how much detail can you see?"

Myself, I feel that the overall effect is the most important thing to strive for.

I admire super detailed models and I’m grateful that there are modelers who take their work to this level - it shows us what is possible.

In terms of the most important thing to detail, my opinion is that it is the operation of the trains. When a prototype starts or stops it is apparent that there is both great mass and great power. When our models behave this way. it makes the illusion of a real train complete. Often, our models break the illusion by accelerating too fast and stopping too quickly.

Perhaps the most important aesthetic detail is people. Adding an engineer and fireman to a locomotive makes it look significantly more like a prototype. Drivers in automobiles, pedestrians on sidewalks, dogs on porches, workers at factories, all add to the believability of a layout - in my opinion, more than any other single element. There is something about people in a scene that draws viewers into it.

On the other hand, poorly painted or improperly positioned people will break the illusion as fast as a Big Boy doing a jack-rabbit start. People must appear balanced and realistically colored (clothing, hair color, and skin-tone), and they must not be glossy. They must be doing things that people commonly do.

I appreciate this thread. It’s a good topic to consider.

18

I think Shay Fan is on to something

I tend to put more detail on items close to the edge of my layout where they can be seen

and only some of my cars and locos are weathered

But when you think of the real world on any given train some of the cars were brand new others used and some ready for scrap

as were locos some fresh from the shop while others were dirty pigs

And since the are moving i don’t do a lot of super detailing

19

The short answer is, a little bit of everything. I model a railroad that had some interesting locomotive modifications, so I try to grab the flavor of them…

They also had some home-grown rolling stock that’s fun to emulate:

You’ll note that neither of these will win any contests, but they look good enough for my eye.

I also like detailed scenes:

Basically, I enjoy a level of detail that reinforces the story being told by the overall layout.

Lee

20

That in itself is a really good point. Doing something with a general goal in mind but not knowing exactly how it will turn out adds to the adventure, and the pleasure of “discovery” at the end when you decide you’re through and take a look to see what you’ve built.