Philosophy Friday -- Scale Bird Droppings

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

“Scale Bird Droppings”

We have all probably seen pictures of “great” layouts such as George Sellios’ “Franklin and South Manchester”, Allen McClelland’s “V&O”, Tony Koester’s “Allegheny Midland”, and lots of other “notable” pikes, perhaps even your own… each of them has their own style and flavor, and all of them are pretty nice to look at. And while each of them differs in their modeling perspectives, I think it’s fair to say that one of the aspects that makes them “notable” is their overall “cohesiveness”, “consistency”, and “uniformity of style”. In other words, the modeler has done a good job of establishing his vision and applying it in a regular manner over the entirety of his layout. But there is an extra element added, at least in my own opinion, that takes a layout from being a well-built and arranged collection of parts to being a little window into another world-- and that is the level of “realism” the modeler is able to achieve, which brings us to the focus of this week’s topic:

“Does realism have to go to the extent of modeling scale bird droppings?” – Sir Madog

If you stop and think for a moment, each great layout you admire probably has a strong theme, consistency of modeling, the ability to evoke a “place” in your mind, even if it’s only imaginary, and the ability to cause you to “suspend disbelief” and draw you in into the modeler’s world. Just like in a movie or a stage production, the modeler must be able to establish a foundation of "plausible rea

2

Some heady questions with many answers.

So,here’s my thoughts.

1.What does “realism” mean to you? And what would “modeled realism” mean?

Believable would sum it up.IMHO modeling a freelance or prototype railroad should be believable when view by visitors…

Since we all have different modeling styles I can sum up the remaining questions by simply saying I would consider the modeler’s modeling style and if the final results is believable…Its hard to judge another modeler’s modeling style since there are so many.

In other words if the modeler is happy with his/her style who am I to judge other wise?

A word on bird poo…

I see these fantastic layouts but,seldom do I see pigeons being modeled and we all know how they flock to the tracks for grain,wheat,soybeans and such like that has leaked from covered hoppers.

3

realism, to me, is whats outside right now, modeled realism is making me believe this could be a real life scene.

I’m not sure of what degree, more of what percentage is needed. That would have to be over 70%.

All of them, painting is especially important, nothing looks more unrealistic than some thing molded in color. Everything must be painted… Weathering is essential, there is a finer line here, as too much is as bad as none.Same for details, specific,artifacts, etc.

Ballasted track and painted rail is important, nothing detracts from my eye more than track nails and cork roadbed and no ballast to hold it down.Correct scale vehicles, sorry but I’m lost when hot-wheels and matchbox cars sit by HO scale people.Buildings that just sit on the ground with gaps, that just takes the realistic out of the picture also.

Every aspect will definitely help, but if the degree is some what less, 50% or less, it can work out . I’m thinking of background, two foot rule here.

Let’s use the FS&M as an example, now I don’t want to argue if it’s overly decrepit or detailed because that is his style,but look at the track, rolling stock, streets. they do look believable. A better railroad for me would be Dick Elwell’s Hoosic Valley RR, look it up on the net, it’s there, an excellent use of trains, structures, vehicles, very realistic, from trees to water to rolling stock.

4

As I am the guilty one having raised that question, I´d like to chip in my idea of realism.

My main goal in modeling is to create a realistic atmosphere. Whatever serves this purpose, I´d like to include it in my layout. This could even mean including over sized details, if they are important for the atmosphere, and deliberately omitting details, if they´d prove to be distractive.

The important issue in determining the amount of details to achieve my kind of realism is the viewing distance, which is about 2 ft. As I model in N scale, a lot of those minute details don´t show up at this distance at all. Omitting them does not spoil the overall atmosphere. However, this lack of detail becomes very prominent on close-up photos. Maybe that´s one of the reasons, why so many pictures of N scale layouts look to “clean”.

As a rule of thumb, I´d suggest the following: The bigger the scale is you are modeling in, the more detail you have to add to create the atmosphere you are going for. This could even modeling the bird poo - if you are into O gauge or gauge One.

In N scale, I don´t have to go for that photo-realism. [swg] No bird droppings for me!

5

Busted.

6

Given that many G-scale layouts are modeled outdoors, it could be that you’d get the bird-poo modeled for free, AND it would be an oversized feature! [:-,]

[(-D]

John

7

I’m ready for my close-up now, Mr Demille !

Interesting shot, and probably a view not oft seen…

John

8

How I hate to see my $ 1,000 plus loco covered by it [}:)]

9

I agree with Brakie, believability is important to making a layout look realistic. I also think a certain number of selected scenes should have a high level of detail, not the whole layout. A few examples. DJ.

10

The English author and philosopher Samuel Taylor Colerdige suggested that if one could produce “human interest and a semblance of truth” in a fantasy tale, then the reader could be drawn into it sufficiently to allow “suspension of disbelief,” allowing the implausible elements to take on an air of reality. I’m also reminded of a movie, “Somewhere in Time,” in which a young man (Christopher Reeve) manages to send himself back in time to meet a long-deceased actress (Jane Seymour) but abruptly must leave his fantasy.

First, the semblance of truth. We need to make our scenes believeable. The more detail, the better. Scale and the viewpoint of the reader are important, too, but the closer we get to a “real” scene, the more likely we are to get over to that place where “the boundries are that of imagination,” to quote Rod Serling. For this reason, I like to model from memory, rather than a photograph. I don’t remember every little detail, but those critical elements that I do remember are, well, the critical elements. For example, the most important thing to get right in my subways wasn’t the trains, but rather the tiles on the walls.

Then, “Somewhere in Time.” Our hero was jarred back to the present because he reached into his pocket and came out with a coin, not one from the past he was visiting, but one from the present he had left. This one anomaly destroyed the entire illusion, and his fantasy crumbled. So, we must be careful to avoid these pitfalls. Yes, some will argue that a built-on date 4 years after the exact era of your layout destroys the whole effect, but I’m thinking of larger problems. That Hot Wheels dragster with flames on the fenders in 1:64 scale, for example, is far more of an illusion-breaker than the mermaid sitting on a rock below the bridge.

11

The “danger” with modeling bird poop is that can easily be overdone and become a caricature. In the non-marine environment, about the only time I notice the stuff on sidewalks under telephone wires as well as the occasional “specially selected roofs.” The birds, mostly pigeons and doves, like to congregate at particular locations so there is the possibility of minor white “staining” on sidewalks and roofs.

Bird poop is most evident in marine environments. Marine birds are large and poop a great deal. Building roofs and rock outcroppings along the seaside, “islandettes”, buoys, dolphins (groups of piles, not the marine mammal), etc., often show a heavy white coating of bird poop.

You won’t notice quail poop unless he does his business on your lap.

Jenn Chai

12

Ask not for whom the bird poops, it poops for thee.

With apologies.

What I mean is, the person erecting the scene must determine for himself what level of detail he needs in order to consider the scene complete. I have had little time in the hobby, but one thing I learned very quickly is that guests won’t be able to take it all in. They miss a lot of little things, even if they spend 20 or 30 minutes in your train room. Later, they’ll forget some of what they did notice.

So, you must satisfy yourself. If you want to portray avian excrement washing down the side of a bridge railing, by all means, it is what you’re hobby is all about for you. But don’t expect anyone else to notice that detail. Certainly many will, but if they do they are just as likely to miss the newspapers flattened on your superb chain link fence.

Crandell

13

Another great PF topic. Good job, John.

– What does “realism” mean to you? And what would “modeled realism” mean?

For me it’s an overall effect that “feels” credible. I recall reading once that John Allen worked toward an overall effect that met his standards of realism; this struck a chord with me and I adopted it as my own approach. Here’s a case in point: Back then I was an N-scale modeler and I determined that an appropriate particle size for N-scale ballast was about .012" (roughly 4 times the diameter of a human hair). I found that very fine carborundum grit was about right. I applied it to track and the result just didn’t look right - It looked more like I had grouted my track as if it were ceramic tile. Taking the “overall effect” into consideration, I opted for HO scale fine ballast. Even though the particles were large enough to represent N-scale cantaloupe, it had the right texture and “communicated” the idea of ballast - it had the right overall effect.

– Using your definition, what degree of “realism” would be required in order for the viewer to be abl

14

My N scale model of a barn with a train layout in the loft lost a model contest to an HO 3-story drugstore with pigeons and pigeon poop on the parapet. However, the modeler also outdid me with a swing-down counterbalanced fire escape that swung down if you placed about one-quarter the weight of a postage stamp on it.

For me, “reality” and/or “plausibility” is creating a sense of place and time. Texture is much more important than details. “Too much” detail may even detract.

I think I WILL need some seagull poop on my shrimpboat harbor scene.

It’s only in mockup stage so far. And I don’t think I will model the smell. My Victorian era downtown commercial district as seen “hanging on” in the 1950s will need a little “pigeon poop on the parapets.” (This is a 2001 view of the “touristicated” prototype scene:

15

Editing to remove accidental double post. I think my contributions are pretty good, but not THAT pretty good.

16

I think that a railroad that “feels” realistic is one that combines purpose, consistency, a family look and attention to detail. I like point-to-point operation and get turned off by layouts where the trains just go 'round and 'round in a glorified spaghetti bowl. I like layouts that are consistent in location and era. I like it when the equipment is all one railroad and not a mix of whatever the proprietor bought on impulse and finally, I appreciate attention to detail, the more the better. To do it this way takes discipline and knowledge but it yeilds a layout worth going to see. Of course mechanical competence plays a large if hidden role in any great layout. Visual perfection is only half the battle. Constant derailments and other breakdowns is a major turn-off. Sooooo does my layout reflect all these values? I’m not there yet. The quest for perfection never ends.

17

Hi John and everyone!

Your questions required some thought - hey, I guess that that is what philosphy friday is all about!

Anyhow, to me ‘realism’ means ‘believable’, and if a scene is to be believable then that is where the details come in. Many important details have already been mentioned such as not having a building sitting on a surface where the gap at the foundation shows and/or light is coming from the wrong places. Other things that put me off include oversize vehicles and colours that are too bright. Overly bright colours on figures are all too common and I think many of the manufacturers could take a hint from this post in that regard (Woodland Scenics seems to understand this to some degree).

I would also suggest that there are two types of detail. The first is that which completes the feel of a scene such as a few spots of grass and weeds growing beside the tracks (where appropriate). Proper weathering is another example. These details do not ‘pop’ but their absence would make the scene less realistic, as would overdoing them. A previous poster suggested that most of these types of details would not be specifically picked out by someone viewing the layout, but in my opinion that is exactly the intent. They are not meant to stand out but instead to ‘fill in’ the details in a realistic manner. Without them the scene becomes toy like.

The second type of detail is the ones that are intended to be noticed. These are the details that are intended to be ‘discovered’ by the viewer, such as the beehive that will be tucked under the eave of my ice house, or the deer that is partially hidden in the forest, or the tow truck with a car hooked up, or a bird. These are the things that give the viewer a chuckle or an “ah ha - neat detail!” sort of moment. Again, there is a risk of overdoing these things so that they are not realistic.

Birds would fall into the second category whereas bird poop would fall into the first. A

18

Bird poop??? Hmm. I have things like a birds nest in some likely places… Here for example:

Hard to see, but there is an HO scale robin sitting in the nest as well. Sometimes its just the bird… I like to have some very small details just to see the reaction of folks visiting when they notice… just last week A friend was looking intently and suddenly said, “OMG there is a crow on the line pole…”

Sometimes it is just the “evidence” of activity like the old Ice house at Cooley’s:

They have a pigeon problem… Sometimes guys forget to close the door on hot summers days:

And… sometimes there is a snake in the grass…

Can you find it?

73

19

Nice details, Howmus, and nice photos, too. [tup] I especially like the one of the ice house - it reminds me a bit of the EBT at Orbisonia - partly the appearance, but just as much the mood which your modelling suggests. Nice work.

Wayne

Oh, yeah, I saw the snake, too. [dinner]

20

Wayne, thank you sir!

73