Just a thought.
That is a totally unrealistic rock formation.
No railroad would build a tunnel with so much loose rock ready to fall on the track.
I give the modeler a “C-” at best.
Have fun
Lee [:-^] [swg]
Pictures from railpictures.net There’s a proto for everything.
That top one definitely looks fake. I know it’s real, however if not for the exhaust from the loco blurring the pic, it would look like photoshop was used. If you look at it long enough you can see faces and profiles in the rock.
Great pic. I wonder where it is.
I’ve been to both places in the photos.
The first is part of Sherman Hill, WY. The rocks here show spheroidal weathering of granite, a common pattern in dry climates with broad temperature ranges, especially where it freezes in winter. I’ve seen granite like this in WY, CO, UT, NV and CA.
The lower photo is of Rock Tunnel on the former D&RGW that’s now the Cumbres & Toltec Scenic RR. While this is narrow gauge, tunnels on many standard gauge lines in the western US and Canada are similar.
Basing your scenery on photos can inspire modeling that’s far more interesting than what most people can imagine on their own.
Yea, I like using photos to help inspire. I posted about composite/plastic ties a few days ago as there is probably a prototype for everything–lol.
Richard
Realistic modeling is modeling what’s actually there, no matter how far it varies from the engineering textbooks. Some loose-looking rock has been there, rigid and immobile, for thousands of years - and probably won’t move without the assistance of drills and dynamite. Other formations, seemingly, “Solid as a rock’” will break up and slide at the first impact of a few raindrops.
As usual, the prototype locating engineers did what the local geology required. Those who model that prototype would be well advised to follow suite.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with concrete slide sheds where necessary)
According to the dictionary definition: a model is a representation of something, not an actual accurate “carbon copy”.
SO anything that approximates or Represents something 1:1, real, already existing or proposed to exist, can be a model without being fussy over every little pebble, paint scraping and wood chip.
Adn Nature, in her infinite wisdom, has given us some mighty odd things to admire in 1:1 here on earth, and in space.
Have fun and enjoy the hobby!
[8-|]
The first image is deleted so I’ll have to imagine what it was. (Edited post - it’s back)
Some of our notions of what is normal and expected from the standpoint of nature and geography are just mistaken. Having said that, I feel about wildly improbable – but genuine – scenery features the same way I feel about the wildly improbable - but genuine - train consists or paint schemes or track arrangements that tend to get published under a heading such as “it ain’t prototype.” (MR used to run more of those photos than they do now.)
Our layouts focus on such a tiny portion of the huge world that including anything that is rare or “one in a million” makes that feature disproportionate and usually detracts from the final effect even if you can demonstrate that the rarity does exist and is accurately captured. If you have to do something a certain unorthodox way and yeah there is a prototype for it, somewhere, then go ahead but to intentionally introduce such features when you don’t have to should be thought about long and hard.
Dave Nelson
You’ll have to excuse me, but I didn’t know we were grading people’s layouts. It’s model railroading, we all model what we want the way we want it. I guess you would most likely grade my layout a D or F, all I know is I like it, my family and friends like it. That’s all that matters to me.
I have always been of the opinion that there is no wrong way to build a model railroad if the end results are satisfactory to the builder.
I’ll second that motion.
Actually, except for the fact that the OP put up prototype photos (the missing, ‘Pile of pebbles,’ is a type of rock formation seen all over Wyoming) I was expecting some comments on real vs whimsey vs what-if modeling. Every one of us has givens and druthers - applicable to our own modeling. That doesn’t give me the right to criticise someone’s ground-level monorail with gyroscopes balancing the cars (actually appeared in Tetsudo Mokei Shumi.) Nor does it give anyone else a license to throw bricks at my articulated coal hoppers - or the six-axle articulateds pulling them (In a country that never had a steam loco with six driving axles.)
As for the one station with the one double slip at the corner of a double crossover with the main line taking the diagonal route - the prototype was called Higashi Shiojiri, and it was a lot closer to the Upper Kiso Valley than the rest of the coal-originating route I moved from Kyushu.)
I’ve been polishing the details of my master plan since 1964. I like it. Do you like it? Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a (built as Boulder, now called Hoover)n.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in the Alfred E. Neumann universe)
Sorry, that was just a little wry humor, the pictures were of a real railroad.
Can not figure why the one pic was deleted? I guess I should have posted the photographer’s credits.
My bad. [:$]
Enjoy.
Lee
Lee
I see that missing picture was on your Photobucket account, you may have accidentally deleted it or moved it.
You were right.
All good now.
Lee
I drove out to California last year and saw rocks just like those in the UP picture ! My first thought upon seeing them was they looked like something straight out of Disney World ! Looked almost cartoonish.
Mark.
The first one reminds me of the rock scene in the movei Galaxy Quest
http://www.fxguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/galaxyquest.jpg
Sometimes reality just doesn’t look real. If you’re striving for reality you should probably skip the first scene along with all the real but unusual things out there.
OTOH if an artistic approach is what you prefer then use what appeals to your aesthetic sense.
Enjoy
Paul
Unless you’re modeling Sherman Hill of course, in which case those rocks are everywhere.
Whew, let me breath a sigh of relief.
I saw the title to the thread and thought, for sure, that it was a reference to my layout. [(-D]
Rich
And if you look,really close enough,you may realize,that the blurred part,is actually heat trace’s from the hot exhaust and very faint,whisp’s of smoke. The face’s, I won’t get into. [:D]
Cheers, [D]
Frank
No, I thought it was mine! I think we are all the worst judge of our own work. I have a lot of thing I need to fix on my layout and yet when I show it to people the are blown away. I suspect that would the same with all us. But no matter if we have a super detailed layout or a single track in a oval in a sheet of plywood, it is our layout and we are having fun.
This is a fun thread and we should post pics of the real world gone wrong.