and he notes - Maybe it's a factor of forced perspective, so t' speak, but if a layout is laid with Code 125 rail and the owner runs only 70 or 72' length passenger cars what comparison could be made?
Such perspective can also be drawn with structures and scenery. How many 60 and 70 foot trees have you seen on a layout? Most have trees not much bigger than shrubs. Isn't it common to foreshorten buildings? An average ranch house is 40' feet long. How many of these have you seen the length of a boxcar? Railroad yards can be miles long, terminals are huge structures and engine facilities cover acres yet we see little of this done. I remember seeing an N Gauge model of Hell Gate Bridge in the contest room at the joint NASG/NMRA convention at Valley Forge back in the 90s. It was HUGE - must have been 10' long and that was in N Gauge! And that didn't include the approaches. I can't imagine such a structure in S unless one lives in an auditorium. If a layout has 20' trees and scaled down structures, facilities and terminals, is laid with .125 rail and runs only 72' passenger cars, and a visitor shows up with a scale tree or an 85' passenger car, of course you can see the difference. But , IMHO, without any other frame of reference the layout would otherwise seem normal. RMC had an article several years ago on forced perspective which looked realistic unless you stood on top and looked down and Philip Houghton did some of this back in the 50s on his "Pillar To Post" series in MR. He mentioned that as long as the components fit together, the layout looked realistic. We all do it and wear blinders except for those who feel like full length passenger cars and proper height track is more important than full scale scenery and structures. If one is a stickler for scale, why don't we see wires strung between scale telephone poles on his layout (oops maybe there are and I just haven't seen any). I'll agree with Dick - add a maverick 85' car or a full sized tree and the difference stands out like a sore thumb. I guess it's all a matter what's in the eye of the beholder - yours or the modeler's - to paraphrase a comedy actor "It's all in fun until somebody loses.. their perspective"... Raleigh in Maine where the sun is about to come out At 01:17 PM 10/6/2005, Richard Karnes wrote: >rbnicholson2001 wrote: > > >Yes, and we certainly wouldn't want to use rail an actual .024" > >oversize that would stick out like a sore thumb on an otherwise scale > >layout and earn us eternal ridicule from the experts, would we? > > > > >All -- > >I know Brother Nicholson has his tongue in his cheek. Nevertheless, I >feel compelled to comment. > >Yes, I would challenge anyone to notice a discrepancy of .024" in, say, >the length of a boxcar or the diameter of a drive wheel. But the real >issue is one of proportion, not size. Just as we would surely notice >the difference between a 72' shorty passenger car and an 85' full-length >one, we also would surely notice the difference between .148 rail and >.125 rail. Why? Because human beings readily notice proportional >differences, not absolute differences. > >In the above examples, the proportional difference between the two >passenger cars is the difference in length divided by the longer length, >or 13/85, which is 15 percent. The proportional difference in the two >rail sizes is .023/.148, or 16 percent. So if you can readily see the >difference in passenger-car lengths, you can also readily see the >difference in rail height. > >That said, I need to acknowledge that many modelers are not bothered by >either of these (shorty passenger cars, overly high rail). But that >doesn't mean they don't notice them...except for one member of this >e-list, who once characterized me as a rivet-counter because I wanted >85' Budd cars instead of the shortie AM versions. > >Dick Karnes > > >To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use >REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list >(remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). > >Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or >photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list (remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
