Actually I hadn’t seen the GN15 thread, GN15 being noplace on my radar right now (though a mine tram for my layout might be neat). The same kind of thread is going on on a 7/8 list, and the 1:20 list, that I read.
Interesting, eveyone has a different opinion, but ‘artist’ seems to be in the lead. Even the die-hard rivet counters have an interesting attitude “well, I like my models accurate, but I know I cant make the RGS in my yard, so I guess Im more an artist”.
Bob McCown said:
........................................Interesting, eveyone has a different opinion, but ‘artist’ seems to be in the lead. Even the die-hard rivet counters have an interesting attitude “well, I like my models accurate, but I know I cant make the RGS in my yard, so I guess Im more an artist”.
Perhaps it is a matter of the “die-hard rivet counters” being realistic enough to see the limitations that space enforces. 
Many of the “rivet counters” started out in the smaller scales which have similar space constrictions, but that doesn’t prevent anyone from strifing for the prototype look on a LS layout (inside or outside). Rather than model the “whole country mile” in LS, one models segments and connects them in a more or less “logical” manner.
Like this guy in France with a super RhB layout. I really like his Winter pictures.
Zirner said:
Hi, Of course, no real layout should be without at least one camel. Bought one years ago. It is looking out of the left window of the loco shed under construction.:
I would love to see Mueller´s camel together with one of his finished LS models. . I admire Mr. Malcolm Furlows work very much. At least, he actually built a few LS layouts and explaines how and why. The LGB exibition layout he built many years ago for the Nuremberg Toy Fair is still kept in the LGB showroom. He built annother one for a children´s clinic, I think somewhere in Texas. Maybe Austin or Dallas. I think, he is a legend amongst layout and model builders. He tought me a lot. For me, it was the first Large Scaler who succeeded in convincing vertical layout designing in a John Allen tradition. Have Fun Juergen Zirner
Hmmmmmmmmm…
Oh, that’s my problem! I don’t have a camel.
I’ll have to remedy that.
Tom Ruby said:
Oh, that's my problem! I don't have a camel.I’ll have to remedy that.
Check the variety from “Schleich”, they have “One Hump” and “Two Humps”. 
I also bought a “Grizzly”, that will come in mighty handy in the “near future”.
Bart Salmons said:Bart,
Hmmmmmmmmm.......
Not to worry, business as usual.
But I’m a Washingtonian. I’ll have to have a sasquach some place…
Warren
Warren Mumpower said:
But I'm a Washingtonian. I'll have to have a sasquach some place...:D :D :DWarren
A very long time ago I had a big laugh when I saw John Allen’s Dinosaur with a number stenciled on its rump. He was very good with sly humour and his floor to ceiling scenery was “quite nice” too. 
Wonder what he would have done with a purple Dino? Apply a special Streamliner scheme?
Hey , wot’s camels got to do with art ? Camel hair brushes is about all , and they don’t come from dromedaries .
Back to the question , I note that a broader definition of “Art” seems to be emerging . In that case , I go for art when I am doing real scale stuff , weathering for example is an art . If you are trying for realism , art very definitely comes into the equation . My dioramas are straight art , BUT , that sounds pompous . I do not claim to be an artist , and neither do a lot of good modellers . Hence the claim to art may be shunned through modesty .
Art , with respect to our hobby , relies a lot on observation of what things really look like .
How many of you carry a camera so’s you can be reminded of true detail when you get down to modelling with artistry ?
What I am getting at is—well , consider this , simple obsevation .
The dirty rain stains running down a boxcar sides—which way does it run ? Don’t cheat by looking , see if you can remember .
OK , it runs backwards in the airflow , downwards out of the airflow , so on the “front” corner , there are 45degree streaks of muck running from the front top corner . These become vertical as they go further back . Small point , but it makes a heck of a difference to artwork if you want to do it right .
Where’s the main track ballast muck get blown up to ? have a good look , you may be surprised . And , is weathering just that ? No , 'cos there is ageing as well .
Artistry gets you thinking about these things .
Look and observe .
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Actually, James's eyes don't roll as frantically as Thomas's. One of those quirks of "identical" mechanisms.Chris Vernell said:Yeah, right. And "James" is rolling his eyes furiously! ;) :)Bob McCown said:I run Thomas the Tank Engine. 'Nuff said :D
Howdy When you model your RR, are you going for a complete, to-scale, nothing-out-of-scale experience, or are you more into the 'art' of model railroading, where the look is more important than the exactness. Or something in between?
Chris Vernell said:Chris,
Actually, James's eyes don't roll as frantically as Thomas's. One of those quirks of "identical" mechanisms.
Do you suppose that the rolling eyes of those engines are a reaction to what some refer to as “Art”?
Three Alco dismals with a few wood-sided boxes and reefers. A 2-8-2 Steamer. That’s my standard 1940-50ish train.
A bunch of mallets, moguls, Forneys, and a couple Davenport’s along with a bunch of 1/24-1/22.5 rolling stock. That’s my 1900-40ish Narrow Gauge stuff.
Several E-locs, Croks, -II’s and -III’s with modern Swiss and old German and Austrian coaches. That’s my Euro trains.
Several scratch-built pieces of North American rolling stock.
All or any of these will be seen running at the same time on my new outdoor layout. With bridges made of modern steel and old wooden trestles. A tunnel thru a tree stump.
Sometimes the Mike pulling the RhB coaches. The Alco’s with a string of Rio-Grande coaches.
What do I model? Nothing in particular. Just what I like.
I guess I’m just a RR fan.
jb
John Bouck said:JB
Three Alco dismals with a few wood-sided boxes and reefers. A 2-8-2 Steamer. That's my standard 1940-50ish train. A bunch of mallets, moguls, Forneys, and a couple Davenport's along with a bunch of 1/24-1/22.5 rolling stock. That's my 1900-40ish Narrow Gauge stuff. Several E-locs, Croks, -II's and -III's with modern Swiss and old German and Austrian coaches. That's my Euro trains. Several scratch-built pieces of North American rolling stock. All or any of these will be seen running at the same time on my new outdoor layout. With bridges made of modern steel and old wooden trestles. A tunnel thru a tree stump. Sometimes the Mike pulling the RhB coaches. The Alco's with a string of Rio-Grande coaches. What do I model? Nothing in particular. Just what I like. I guess I'm just a RR fan. jb
I thought yours was a museum railway!
The Dirty and Dusty Railway is loosely based on a steam-era railroad in the Western United States. I’m trying to keep it in the 1900-1925 period. But just the name tells a lot about the layout!
…I thought yours was a museum railway!..
Well it was, Hans, back when I had to justify why I had so many different types of enjins and rolling stock.
Now as I age, I don’t give a rip what club members or others think about my modeling and trains.
I enjoy running all types, prototypical and non.
I run em right out of the box, I tear them to pieces right out of the box and bash them back into something else, take razor saws to LGB locos, it doesn’t matter…
Life is too short to count rivets.
jb
John Bouck said:
.....I thought yours was a museum railway!.......Well it was, Hans, back when I had to justify why I had so many different types of enjins and rolling stock.
Now as I age, I don’t give a rip what club members or others think about my modeling and trains.
I enjoy running all types, prototypical and non.
I run em right out of the box, I tear them to pieces right out of the box and bash them back into something else, take razor saws to LGB locos, it doesn’t matter…
Life is too short to count rivets.
jb
Life’s too short, indeed. That’s why I prefer engines and cars that have been welded, counting those rivets takes too much time.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Well, you could say you use countersunk rivets and drive the counters crazy. Just be sure the rivets meet exacting standards.
That's why I prefer engines and cars that have been welded, counting those rivets takes too much time. :D ;) :D
Oh, on the DC&M, we adhere strictly to a “complete, to-scale, nothing-out-of-scale experience.†We are absolutely faithful to our (imaginary) prototype.
For example, primary freight revenue derives from the mining, grading, washing, polishing, and bagging of “Premium Quality Natural Gravel Ballast,†found only in southwestern Montana. It’s in great demand by the D&RG to replace the inferior local rock. We transship this valuable bagged product to the D&RG interchange on high-security flatcars. For extra security, we carefully vet the shotgun guards who ride the cars from polishing/bagging mill to the interchange.
Regards,
Dawg
Mine must be “art” because there’s nothing very much like “scale” to be found. It is really a “garden” RR stuck on a tabletop inside. (Complete with ugly artificial pine trees). Motive power is an “americanized” LGB Stainz or a B’mann “indy”, but Thomas, James, Mr Roger’s trolley, and other whimsical things all have trackage rights… depending upon my mood.
Okay, I admit it, I’m a grown man playing with toy trains… but at least it (mostly) keeps me out of bars.
Life imitates Art… imitates life.
The Slate Creek obviously starts off as art, as it has no real prototype … but parts of it are supposed to be as faithful to “the real thing” as possible… in other words, it’s supposed to represent a reasonably believable railroad.
“Reasonably Believable” here depends on what folks will believe, and how reasonable they’ll be.
I have 5’ (plust a bit) radius curves, which even in Narrowgaugespeak are tight. That’s because the railroad is indoors, and that’s the biggest I could get. The terrain will go from woods to mountains and back in a hurry, and in actual scale length, the railroad is less than a mile long.
That said, the railroad has a purpose… it has a mine, a crush plant to process the ore, and a dock to ship it to the rest of the wide world. It has towns, and the towns have demands for this or that to be hauled in boxcars, or on flatcars… and passengers to be hauled, and mine workers … the railroad DOES something.
Next, the railroad has equipment that makes sense as legitimate railroad equipment. I prefer locomotives with enough detail that folks who know about them will find the things they’re looking for, and where they’d look for it. For example, while there may be no known US prototype for the Bachmann “Connie” it’s not inconceivable that a railroad could have bought one intended for FCM or some other point south of the border that had become available, and used it. The “What If” factor allows steam and diesel to work alongside each other as if the operation had simply survived through more than one era of motive power. I’m trying to detail models to the “believable” stage, and hope eventually to be rid of truck mounted couplers, as well as having correct appliances, etc. and prefer locomotives and rolling stock that are more detailed than most “toy trains.”
The reasons for this are simple; having worked with 1:1 trains, I know what it’s supposed to look like, and how it’s supposed to work, and want my models to provide a small version of the same experience. (If I can’t have a 1:1 locomotive to run, why, I’ll do it in miniature!) Unlike a “serious collector” I like to modify, detail, update, and “improve” models to suit me, and then run them quite a bit … and I want their operations to resemble the real ones as much as I can manage. While I might not notice a model having 27 rivets instead of 29, I would notice a locomotive with electric headlights and no turbogenerator, or air brakes and no air system … and “Casey Jones Junior” while very nice, probably won’t find a home on the Slate Creek (although Thomas might grudgingly be allowed on special occasions provided NOBODY confuses me with Sir Topham Hatt!) Scale is important to the extent that I can see that an Anniversary 4-6-0 looks too small for my 1:20.3 crew, and is dwarfed by my 1:20.3 locomotives … but not so important that a re-cabbed and re-detailed 4-6-0 wouldn’t fit right in as a legitimate and “believable” addition to the roster.
I knew of a fellow who modelled the New Haven Railroad, on July 1, 1956, at a particular location, at 11:05 in the morning. Every car, every bush, every speck of dust was in its place. Compared to him, I’m definately Art instead of Scale … although it’s a lot easier for me to justify actually moving a train, since once you move his, the scene is no longer “Correct!” I guess it’s kind of the same approach that “Happy Days” took on life in the 50’s … or perhaps more appropriately, “Emperor of the North” on railroading in the 30’s … not especially true-to-life, but certainly fun to experience, and not a cartoon or caricature, but realistic enough to allow what my literature professors called “a voluntary suspension of disbelief” for those who might be tempted to go railroading in a 40x40 foot basement. I’m reminded of the difference between “Floyd the Barber” in Andy Griffith’s “Mayberry” and the famous Norman Rockwell picture that portrayed the same kind of image … while I prefer the Mayberry approach (and not just because I live within a few miles of there!) to the Rockwell, I wouldn’t try to pretend that either actually represented life 1940something as a History Channel documentary might present it.
Matthew (OV)
