Tehachapi, BC

[Coxy]

I think we may be trying to solve the wrong problem with the wrong method.

The tasks are to 1) plausibly disguise the exit of the staging tracks which are located very close to the lower track leading to the loop, 2) not foul the scenes with structural contrivances (backdrops or high fascias), 3) smoothly transition scenery from the loop scene to the scene along the right wall, and 4) ensure that the lower loop scene is visually separated from the exit to staging. On that last point, the lower loop is the site of a very nice bridge and it would be a shame to put all that backdrop interference into what is already a very open and expansive overall scene. (for this reason I would discourage any high fascias near the loop)

The challenge is created by the staging tracks which move away from the wall and pass very close to the lower loop track.

I doubt there is a good solution to this problem by just positioning and curving backdrops. For all the reasons brought up by Gary, the double backdrop approach is problematic, especially when viewing along the tracks to staging, and potentially when viewing the loop but standing to the right side.

I feel the solution is to move the staging tracks several inches away from the lower loop by changing where they swing away from the wall.

Here is an adjusted image showing the tracks heading into staging with a little more separation from the loop scene.



Granted, there is some distortion but the concept works I think and hopefully this conveys the general idea. If the staging tracks are relocated similar to the image, the staging tracks no longer crowd/compete with the loop scene. Moving these tracks also creates enough space to put in the 58 overpass, (a nice scene in and of itself), and, leaves a little room to add a small hill to visually separate the lower loop track from the 58 overpass. I estimate the overpass would be located about 12 - 18 " along the side wall from the lower loop track.

Here's a rough attempt to show what the overpass might look like (if you did a really crappy job modeling it!)



The pic with the overpass also shows how the scenery can comfortably transition to the more arid area east of Tehachapi. The overpass serves as a visual break between the two types of scenery.

Since a lot of the discussion has been about backdrops, the backdrop on the RHS next to the train simply curves back to the wall near the overpass, allowing trains to/from staging to discretely move on/off-stage.

Relocating the track to staging should yield a much more satisfying group of scenes with out having to do anything much special with backdrops. Moving the track and roadbed should be doable in an hour or two, especially at this stage of construction.

Hope this helps.
Coxy

[svedblen]

Interesting discussion going on here. Coxy, I think you are on to something, but to me it looks like you have not so much relocated the tracks to staging towards the wall than lowered them. And is not the fact that they run slightly lower than the loop track makes it possible to squeeze in the overpass so nicely? And is it possible to lower those tracks?

But this is mostly speculations   Gary is of course the one to say if your idea is doable.

[Coxy]

Interesting observation svedblen. The intent is only to provide horizontal separation between staging and loop tracks, not change any elevations. If the staging tracks look lowered, that is just the limits of what I can do on photoshop. Lowering would make this situation worse and I imagine Gary will need pretty good reasons to move track and roadbed as it is.

Here's a marked up track plan to illustrate the lateral separation. The point where the staging tracks swing away from the wall has been moved to the right by about 6" to create the space for the overpass - more space may be needed once the overpass and hill are mapped out in more detail.



Cheers,
Coxy

[Scottl]

That really works well in my mind.  I don't know how it holds to the fidelity of the desert area, which I know is Gary's concern as well.

[robert3985]

Just a suggestion.  No need to move any tracks.  I'd butt the wall-side of the overpass (if Gary decides to use one) up against a thin mirror set perpendicular to the road which would instantly imply much added length to that stretch of road.  To make it easier, I'd make the road over the track perpendicular to the wall, and curve the fascia side of the road downward and towards the camera in these views, running it off the front of the layout.

Seems like overpasses in this area are created by building ramps out of dirt, much like Pelle Soeberg's example, so they're rather independent of the rest of the topography.

Also, so the tracks don't look like they're entering a tunnel, a bit of the wall should be lightly scenicked on the other side of the overpass and the tracks and visible backdrop behind the main skyboard should also be lit with the same intensity and color temp of light as the skyboard or section of layout it's penetrating.  That trick really adds depth.

[svedblen]

The intent is only to provide horizontal separation between staging and loop tracks, not change any elevations.

Good, no lowering, then I am all with you...

[mark.hinds]

Interesting observation svedblen. The intent is only to provide horizontal separation between staging and loop tracks, not change any elevations. If the staging tracks look lowered, that is just the limits of what I can do on photoshop. Lowering would make this situation worse and I imagine Gary will need pretty good reasons to move track and roadbed as it is.

Here's a marked up track plan to illustrate the lateral separation. The point where the staging tracks swing away from the wall has been moved to the right by about 6" to create the space for the overpass - more space may be needed once the overpass and hill are mapped out in more detail.



Cheers,
Coxy

Interesting solution.  However, this doesn't separate the two scenes as well it might, as the same backdrop is being used for both.  I think that there may be a fundamental issue involved here, which is the degree to which Gary wants to preserve the linearity of his track plan.  It seems as if one must either make a definitive statement that "this is separate from that" using backdrops/fascias/whatever, or one must (to a degree) blend the 2 scenes into each other as in your latest suggestion. 

MH

[mark dance]

Very good point...

Blending the scenes will always be a compromise as you have to come up with "tricks" to make the blend work. 

Separating the scenes has the benefit of the visual break, so no "trick" is needed, at the cost of the visual discontinuity.  More purity in the visual break...in some ways the same as a dealign with a "round and around plan" or a "two pass through same scene" plan.  They may provide an opportunity for a more open and appealing panorama but at the expense of 'sincerity" of a single scene

so Gary needs to decide on where he wants his layout - or at least this area - on the sincerity/panorama spectrum.

...ducks and runs for cover.

md
 

[Smike]

I think the idea form Coxy is the best yet. I would not add something obtrusive just to make it a firm separation of the scenes. (like a hard edge or the end of a backdrop coming out from the wall) That will limit your photo ops and increase your time in Photoshop later.(if you want really stellar shots close to out the box)  If you want more separation in the idea from Coxy you can push the bridge down the tracks away from the loop section, that would give you more options to make the hill taller and not looked all crammed in. 

Is it important to have the tracks leading into staging visible as far as possible down near the loop section anyway? Whats the more important scene?  More space left and right can really help separation as much as something like a backdrop cutting the scene.

Mike

[Coxy]

Great discussion, all. 

And echoing Smike's note, a backdrop that transitions from the loop scenery to monolith/cameron/mojave could work quite well. Some strategically placed trees on the hill between the loop scene and the overpass could further minimize the transition on the backdrop. i.e. make it so that is not a part of the layout where the backdrop is easily viewed.

The key is to make the transition sorta unremarkable so the blend is not abrupt. Abrupt changes draw attention and are visually jarring.

Gary's layout is shaping up so well so far, this little transition scene will be hardly noticed - yay!. There'll be so many other great scenes to enjoy.
- Coxy

[mark.hinds]

I think the idea form Coxy is the best yet. I would not add something obtrusive just to make it a firm separation of the scenes. (like a hard edge or the end of a backdrop coming out from the wall) That will limit your photo ops and increase your time in Photoshop later.(if you want really stellar shots close to out the box) 
<snip>

I thought I would comment on the implicaton here that a distinct division between scenes is somehow inherently bad.  (It's not that I have an issue with different personal preferences, but I think that we should be clear as to what is involved in these different preferences.) 

Consider those natural history museum dioramas, which to my mind are the prototype (i.e. they did it first)  for our model backdrops.  The museum scenes are framed explicitly (like a painting), and each has a unique backdrop.  The advantage of this is that you get a more prototypical scene.  The museum wouldn't mix a scene showing an polar bear with a zebra, because it wouldn't look prototypical.  Going further, you wouldn't argue that mixing together the polar bear and the zebra gives better photo ops, or that it reduces the amount of Photoshopping needed.  I mean, why would you want such an image in the first place? 

So, analogously, the blended Layout scene doesn't really give us more photo ops either.  That's because we wouldn't phototgraph it in the first place, as it would be an unrealistic-looking combination of the Loop and the Mojave desert.  Instead, we would photograph either the Loop side, or the Mojave side. 

So, given the above reasoning, I think that the real advantage of the "blended" alternative which you guys have been discussiing is that it allows Gary to keep his original concept of representing the sky with a blue-painted wall, combined with stage-type hill backrops in front.  It also would probably be more compatible with the diffuse ceiling lighting scheme envisioned.  The cost of all this is a slight reduction of scene integrity in the places where the blending occurs.  This might well be an acceptable cost, depending on personal preferences of the builder and the prospective operators. 

MH

[Smike]

All valid points Mark. I guess I'm under the impression that the visual difference between the loop and Mojave desert section is not as far apart as say the eastern mountains and California desert. (the Polar Bear/Zebra)

For me seeing Gary’s design evolve I get more of the sense of ‘flow’ and less of distinct separate scenes. But again valid points on all sides, no wrong answers here.

[Coxy]

All valid points Mark. I guess I'm under the impression that the visual difference between the loop and Mojave desert section is not as far apart as say the eastern mountains and California desert. (the Polar Bear/Zebra)

For me seeing Gary’s design evolve I get more of the sense of ‘flow’ and less of distinct separate scenes. But again valid points on all sides, no wrong answers here.

I second that.

I should add, my comments and suggestions should be viewed through the lens of an engineer operating the on the layout. I tend to not care very much about the diorama quality of a layout. So if the diorama angle matters more than the operator's view, then I would agree, the backdrop separated approach has a lot of merit.

[GaryHinshaw]

Hi guys, thanks for keeping the discussion going while I was away.    I'm back now and have had a chance to digest the comments and think about ways forward.  To this end, I have hacked out a concept that includes an overpass and a backdrop transition, kind of a blend of what jb and coxy described.   Bear in mind that this is only held together with chewing gum and baling wire at this point (a.k.a. scotch tape and paper clips), but hopefully you can see past that.  Here is a side view:



and a higher level view with and without the overpass, which is just some Rix components taped together:





Finally, a shot down the east slope, mildly cropped:



A few comments:
* As you can see, I simply curved the Loop "sidedrop" into the Loop fascia (and lowered the fascia a bit).  I'm still thinking about Coxy's sidedrop suggestion, but haven't tried to mock that up yet.
* I think I like the angled overpass.  It does give an excuse to raise the east slope fascia "organically" up to the level of the Loop fascia.  The topography at the joint should probably be tweaked a bit (and made more plumb!) but the concept has potential.
* On the back-side of the sidedrop, I think the overpass fill could meet it directly; then I would just paint the backside of that sky blue.  I would also extend the desert backdrop further along the wall, and trim the visible stringers.
* In general, I favor a straight scene break here.  The question now is: does this treatment help to achieve that without being too awkward?  Let the next round of comments begin. 

Thanks as always,
-gfh

[Coxy]

Anyone know this Gary guy?!!!  It's like he owns the layout!!!

It seems to me if you are okay with the encroachment off the backdrop onto the lower loop scene, your approach has the advantage that the overpass can be open on both sides.

It may help to have the backdrop double sided to scenically support the overpass scene, and to position the overpass such that a view-blocking hill limits the amount of track that can be seen beyond the overpass. Not really prototypical of the region east of Tehach but better than seeing scenery turn into plywood.

Yet another $0.02 worth.
Coxy