!OST #14_rev - O scale trains

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This month, we’re going someplacethat may not be initially regarded by mostas beginner’s fare. Indeed, at first blush thisprobably scores a solid 8 on Scace’s Neurotic-O-Meter.Stick with us, though,because there are lots of good thoughtshere, and a basic goal choice you shouldconsider early on. First, go back to theNov/Dec’ 03 OST and re-read the column.Then consider what Robert Weaver, ofWinnipeg, writes:“Reading Brian Scace’s article ’Easementsfor the Learning Curve’ (Nov/Dec’03) touched a chord of reality with myown ’O’ scale rail design process. Hisideas for the union of railway context anddramatic intent parallel a few of my ownapproaches to ’O’ scale rail design. Howeverhis conclusion disappoints becausehe fails to push the envelope of design to alogical end.We do not need “to invest morethought into how we create the illusion ofdistance to the horizon”. Rather thestrength of our scale precludes the needfor any perception of more depth at all. Nand HO both require a background withsky and landform to not only frame thepicture but also to provide a larger thanmodel context that counter balances theinadequacies of both scales namely a lackof ’details’. Whereas we should be thinkingabout how we can better use thosedetails and that ’background’ space to createrealistic excitement for the viewer.I would argue that our layouts shouldbe more inward oriented where the logicalviewing of the layout is ’in the round’. Thespatial design of the details should enticethe viewer to the extent that their mind istransported to the center of the modelwhere their imagination becomes surroundedby soaring structures, massivelocomotives and prototypical adventures.Whether it is an urban or a prairie landscapeis not a material issue.”Let’s look at approaches to this problema little further. First, I’m so pleased thatRobert wrote. His viewpoint differs so radicallyfrom mine, that it forced me to pourmyself a stiff one and ruminate as to why.His approach reflects a lot of thought onthe subject, yet we have come to twowildly different conclusions. Or havewe…?The biggest difference is in generalschool of thought. It sounds to me thatRobert’s approach leans more toward theRailroad Modeler side of the house, whilemine is strongly nested in the Model Railroadschool. Let me explain the difference.The Railroad Model school is arguably theolder concept, and is deeply rooted in OScale. Simplistically, the Railroad Modelerperspective is where the subject modeledis the boxcar, locomotive, or structure. Thelayout is considered, as Robert states, as a“larger-than-model-context”.I’m a staunch member of the ModelRailroad school, where the boxcar, locomotive,or structure is merely an elementof the subject modeled, which in our caseis the railroad itself and its operations. Tothose of us in the Model Railroad school,the layout is the model, and a reasonablereplication of the prototype’s operation thegoal.Although the difference sounds subtle,the approach to perceived realism quicklybecomes radically different.Here are some thoughts:In the Railroad Modeling school, eachmodel is made to be studied as a standaloneentity. This leads to a very highdegree of detail fidelity in each and everydiscrete piece as it’s placed on the layout,be it track, rolling stock, or structure. Eachmodel, with the possible exception oflarge structures, is dimensionally faithful tothe prototype and no subterfuge needs beindulged in for believability.In the Model Railroading school, thereis such a thing as over-detailing. If theviewer’s eyes glaze over when presentedwith an extremely high, yet even level ofdetail, you’ve lost the advantages of selectivedetailing. Selective detailing is the perfecttool to attract attention where wewant it. We need that tool, because ourmodel (the layout) is selectively compressed.The Model Railroad schoolaccepts that compromise.Railroad Modeling assumes a skill levelin all facets of the hobby. Because of thetradition that O Scalers are Railroad Modelers,we have more than our share ofhighly skilled craftsmen. I agree withRobert; the size is the perfect medium forthe Railroad Modeler.In the Model Railroading school, mostof us have areas within the railroad buildingexercise where we’re not entirely satisfiedwith our skill level. Few are equallyproficient at all aspects of the hobby orwant to be. In my case, I loathe layingtrack and love building locomotives.Therefore my track is not nearly as nice amodel as my locomotives are. So long asmy track is darkly colored (a theatre trick)and details are understated, the eye doesn’tfocus on my modeling weaknesses. Mylocomotives are highly detailed andweathered to highlight, rather than hide,the details. The eye is drawn to my longsuit. Hence (and heretically), underdetailingis also a useful tool, employed whenwe want the eye to move on.Railroad Modeling has its pitfalls.Because absolute scale fidelity is usually apersonal goal, sooner or later the compromisesin the “larger-than-model-context”become either limiting because of unacceptabilityor an insurmountable stumblingblock. Many folks in the RailroadModel school gravitate to narrow gauge,short lines, traction, or industrial operationsin order to reduce the need for illusion(call it selective compression) to atleast a tolerable level. I know several ofmy friends who are uncomfortable withany compromise at all. They have builtsome beautiful pieces and display them incases, just because any of the compromisesinherent in layout design are notacceptable to them.The Model Railroad school has its pitfalls,too. My railroad subject is the Bostonand Albany, circa August 1944, from StateLine Tunnels to Washington Summit.That’s about 30 miles of mainline proto-22 • O Scale Trains - May/June ’04
type. The room available is nominally 20x30 feet. The goal is for a visitor to see scenesthat cause him to pause and say, “I’ve been there! That’s North Adams Junction.” Noamount of detail is going to save me. I need illusion. The pitfall, and point of the Novembercolumn, is that illusion puts you at risk of glaring errors, which attract the eye aseffectively as high selective detailing. The eye just loves to focus on anomalies in ourmodeling. Any cases of non-natural occurrence, such as shadows on backdrops, willattract the eye like a flaming wreck. This is where depth of field considerations are, in theModel Railroad school, actually more valid in O than in the smaller scales, especially onsmaller railroads where shelf type construction is the rule. It’s a risk we take to make ourgoal, to replicate the railroad and its operation as closely as we choose.So, are you a Railroad Modeler, with a goal of absolute fidelity of each individualmodel? Or are you a Model Railroader, having the goal of the recognizable replication ofa railroad and its operation? Do you and your friends gather around the latest modelingproject or brass import on a Friday night, or do you head for the call board, ready tochalk up for the local? Probably the answer really is some combination of both. Thechoices really are what techniques will you use to get to the spot on the scale betweenthe two extremes that satisfies you. No approach “fails” or “disappoints”. Each has itsvalidity merely because the personal goals are different. You, gentle reader, get to pickyour goals and choose the techniques that get you there. There is no “right way”. Ourgoal here is to get you to think, so you can make intelligent choices that satisfy you.Let’s go Exploring!◆NORM’SO SCALETrains & MoreBuy, Sell, Trade!www.normsoscale.cominfo@normsoscale.com41 Roosevelt Trail, Route302. S. Casco, ME 04077Ph: 207-655-2550T-BONE MODELS“O” ScaleCUSTOM PAINTING & REPAIRDealer for Pacific LimitedSunset & WeaverT-Bone Models James Christensen32264 ClevelandCottage Grove, OR 97424-9381email tbone@epud.net541-942-5237Send SASE for informationErrata OST#13There are a two errors in RonGribler’s Sector Plate article. Thesector plate is made from 3 ⁄4" plywood,not 1 ⁄4", and the yard tracks’base is 3 ⁄4" not 1 ⁄4".The photo of Chris Evers’ Pacificon page 51 does not show a B&Oloco. We mislabeled the photo. It isactually a Jersey Central “BlueComet.’ Thanks to Woody Mathewsfor pointing that out.Assembled all brass single & double target signals❍Infrared detector❍Brass dumpsters❍Animated signs❍Building kits: plastic and cardstock❍Quality plastic and metal detail parts❍Two 6 ft. backdropsFree catalog, write or call:Pioneer Valley Models35 Yale St., S. Hadley, MA 01075(413)533-5350620 Wright Loop Williamstown, N.J. 08094 — 2-RAILSS PRR I-1 2-10-0 Original Unpainted ( SHORT TDR. ) $1,120SS PRR Q-2 4-4-6-4 F⁄P $1,480SS PRR S-1 6-4-4-6 F⁄P Shrouded ⁄ Unshrouded $1500 eachSS PRR S-2 6-8-6 F/P TDR trucks $850SS PRR FF2 electric F⁄P $850SS PRR P5a electric F⁄P MODIFIED (baby GG1) $750SS PRR T-1 4-4-4-4 Baldwin version $1600SS PRR E-6 4-4-2 Original U⁄P $725SS PRR N-1 2-10-2 F⁄p $1,150SS PRR P70 Coach, baggage, F/P int, lights ea. $310SS PRR G-5 4-6-0 U⁄P $850SS PRR Q1 4-6-4-4 F/P shrouded $1500SS B&O 2-8-0 F/P $750CB PRR E8 Diesel A&B U/P $750WSM PRR Q-2 4-4-6-4 U⁄P $2,500WSM PRR M1 4-8-2 U⁄P Cab detail (NOB) $1,380WSM PRR M1a 4-8-2 C⁄P extra detail, by H. Hieke $1,500WSM PRR J1 2-10-4 C/P, light weathering $1550ALC PRR K-4 4-6-2 U⁄P Broadway Limited Streamlined $1,400WIL PRR T-1 4-4-4-4 U⁄P 2 Railed by Trackside $1,100WIL PRR L-1 2-8-2 2 Railed by Trackside $750Gem PRR B6sb 0-6-0 Used, ptd, wthr’d driver wear $500Call 856-629-9702Between 6 and 10 PM ESTMay/June ’04 - O Scale Trains • 23
Page 1 and 2: O TrainsScaleModelingTrainsfor theO
Page 3 and 4: Modelingfor theO ScaleCraftsmanIssu
Page 5 and 6: Figure 1 is a drawing of the Buckey
Page 7 and 8: Photo 4 is a view of the passenger
Page 9 and 10: RDC-1 DIESEL CARSDivision Point O S
Page 11 and 12: ing, too. I wanted to replace the o
Page 13 and 14: A New Drive By Accurate O ScaleMAX-
Page 15 and 16: Photos by Ed Rappe, Layout drawing
Page 17 and 18: olling stock is finished before ear
Page 19 and 20: 2004‘0 ’ Scale NationalConventi
Page 21: A Handy HO part for O-Scalersby Ron
Page 25 and 26: Once all the logs were finished in
Page 27 and 28: Fig. 15pieces until I have complete
Page 29 and 30: Prototype photo by Overland Models
Page 31: Reader FeedbackRigid Trucks A Probl
Page 35 and 36: fig. 6Form the wings of the guard r
Page 37 and 38: CABIN CREEKCOAL COMPANYLimited Edit
Page 39 and 40: The Meet: A photo from Carey Hinch
Page 41 and 42: Above: This N&W steam-era caboose w
Page 43 and 44: Product News & ReviewsNEWS: Model T
Page 45 and 46: Product News & Reviewsbottom gondol
Page 47 and 48: CHICAGOLAND S O GAUGE SPECIPCCGREEN
Page 49 and 50: Permission touse by theNMRANMRA Dat
Page 51 and 52: two large air pressure tanks, a cou
Page 53 and 54: sion that entails adding a block of
Page 55 and 56: May/June ’04 - O Scale Trains •
Page 57 and 58: Car & Locomotive Shop - SP 5000 4-1
Page 59 and 60: Advertisers IndexAccurate O Scale 1
Page 61 and 62: OST Dealer ListArkansasHobby Shack1
Page 63 and 64: Atlas O's 21st Century Signal Syste

!OST #14_rev - O scale trains

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?