# Realism: Steam, Water, People, Vehicles...



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

So I've read some points about smoke/steam from HO engines being "unrealistic" and "ruining the effect". Same thing with using real water: "It doesn't scale"...

It is true that steam and water don't look the same as the real deal, but what about vehicles, and even worse, people, that don't move? So our trains travel through towns and cities filled with non-moving vehicles and people looking like they were just frozen by some magical spell, but its the steam and real water that ruins the effect? I don't think that makes much sense.

Seems like a major part of this is suspension of disbelief, and I consider it far more difficult to accept frozen people and cars than I do smoke or water at the wrong scale. At least the smoke and water give another layer to the movement and interaction of the scene with the train. Now they are selling moving cars, which is great, but you can still tell up close that they are not real. 

If someone chooses not to use steam because its a pain, it gums up the tracks (_from what I see modern smoke juice has no effect of gumming up or residue_) etc. then fine. But saying it ruins the effect does not seem a valid point to me unless the same person eliminates all the people and cars on the roads, except maybe parked cars. The train would then be traveling through ghost towns, isolated areas, or very late at night when everyone is asleep. And then cities would be out of the question with all the night life etc. 

Personally I love the smoke from a steam engine! Yes, I wish someone would figure out how to put out a bunch of it, like from vapes, but I still think it looks beautiful seeing and hearing the synchronized puff and chugs!


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)




----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I always commend a person to their pleasures, provided they're not immoral, illegal, unhealthy, or fattening, with the last two being highly subjective in nature. Accordingly, if the smoke appeals to you, that's why the smoke generators are included in so many modern steamers. For many of us, it just doesn't pass the test. Same for water careening through a gorge at 200 scale mph. Or tap water sitting glassy-still, but accumulating a fine layer of dust over it due to surface tension. And the odd hair.

Some of us find photography covers the illusion nicely. I can generate smoke using a cloning brush, and while it isn't perfect, it is much better than the curling, swirling, wisps that smoke generators make. Mind you, the sound in HO is very tinny, but that's one thing that I enjoy...as you do your smoke. I know some who claim to be audiophiles who simply cannot abide the sound outputs of anything they have heard in the hobby.

There's room on this hobby bench for a lot of backsides, and the bench doesn't mind in which they they could be described. All are welcome. Some take up a bit more of the bench than others, but it all kinda averages out.

Enjoy your smoke.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I’m going to regret this….but if it don’t look like this, it ain’t smoke….. 😁


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> I’m going to regret this….but if it don’t look like this, it ain’t smoke….. 😁
> View attachment 571130


That is just gorgeous!
An Engine putting that out would be lovely indeed! But we’d have to install some high volume extractors in the room!

However, I still hold that the little bit of smoke from a nice BLI engine is still more believable than towns and cities full of frozen people. Maybe I’ll train some Beatles to dress like people and walk around and drive little cars,,,


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

So, get real people, only tiny.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I agree. Some smoke is better than no smoke. You expect smoke from a steam engine. I don't think I ever saw one that wasn't belching out some color of smoke. I don't get the mind set of 'all or nothing' when it comes to smoke.

It looks just as unrealistic to see a model steam lokomotive chugging down the track without any smoke as it does with a model lokomotive puffing out a healthy quantity of fake smoke. Give or take.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Steam locomotive smoke is one thing, but if you run ALCO or MLW locomotives, you will need something to make those look more realistic as well, don’t you think? 😁


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Well, yes. But it's hard to get exhaust out of electric locomotives.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Well, you can get smoke, which is really exhaust, out of model steam locomotives, and they are electric, so….


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Obviously, everyone's tastes and opinions are different, so obviously, this is just my take.

A model railroad is a scale model. Static (motionless) or not doesn't bother me, because figures post in"active" stances, and vehicles positioned as if they were moving, suggests a moment frozen in time, provided that they are detailed and realistic enough not to look fake. In a perfect world, vehicles would have operator / passenger figures in them, but that can be a challenge with some models. But the take-away here is that this doesn't ruin the illusion for me as long as the scale is consistent. Out of scale motion (even a train running unrealistically fast) really does.

Out of scale things, like water, smoke, and sound, on the other hand jar me right out of the miniature world I am trying to create. I could handle the poor sound quality, for example, if the rest of the sound scaled properly, but it doesn't. Vaporized vegetable or mineral oil (model smoke fluid) just doesn't behave live vaporized water, no matter how much of it there is, so it's not just a column issue there. In fact, all three of these item have (to me, anyway), other significant drawbacks that just add to the scale problem.

Again, just my view, and everyone is free to do what makes them happy on their own layout.


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> I agree. Some smoke is better than no smoke. You expect smoke from a steam engine. I don't think I ever saw one that wasn't belching out some color of smoke. I don't get the mind set of 'all or nothing' when it comes to smoke.
> 
> It looks just as unrealistic to see a model steam lokomotive chugging down the track without any smoke as it does with a model lokomotive puffing out a healthy quantity of fake smoke. Give or take.


For sure!
That engine in the video is putting out steam in a synchronized way with the sound. That’s a LOT more realistic than frozen people and cars like something out of a twilight zone episode.
Not knocking the people and cars as I will use them for sure, but it makes zero sense to me to knock the HO steam because it “ruins the illusion” but then there’s the frozen twilight zone town.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

If someone complains that they don't use smoke on their layout because it ruins the effect, just ask them why their trees and flags aren't blowing in the breeze, or why the shadows indicate they have multiple suns in their sky. In most cases you could even ask why there is no wildlife (I mean come on, you can't have a proper scene without at least some squirrels) and no insects.

People will nit-pick anything until you point out to them that their own model also has inconsistencies. I say relax and enjoy what you have, those people will soon die from a stress-related heart attack anyway.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> If someone complains that they don't use smoke on their layout because it ruins the effect, just ask them why their trees and flags aren't blowing in the breeze, or why the shadows indicate they have multiple suns in their sky. In most cases you could even ask why there is no wildlife (I mean come on, you can't have a proper scene without at least some squirrels) and no insects.
> 
> People will nit-pick anything until you point out to them that their own model also has inconsistencies. I say relax and enjoy what you have, those people will soon die from a stress-related heart attack anyway.


 Each of us must create an illusion of a kind, and suspend disbelief for what's present and is at odds, and for what's missing. The sound, to me, is a decent stand-in for a scale locomotive underway because is is synchronous and sounds much like what one hears. But, the smoke detracts from the illusion because it is too poor a representation of what really takes place even thought it, too, is synchronized. Also, as a stickler-self-described, steamers don't do much smoking if they're being responsibly fired. They exhaust some particulate matter, but much of what they exhaust is condensate. We only see the condensate, not the steam, because steam is invisible, and what exits the blast pipe, goes through the diffusion process that is afforded by the petitcoat pipe, and then gets mixed with the particulates, is condensed steam....not steam itself. Further, the surrounding air must be of the right temperature and ambient humidity to encourage the condensate to linger long enough to show up in photos, such as that glorious roiling plume shown above. I think some of the O and G scale generators come close, but the smaller scales just don't cut it...for me. Their microdroplets of oil move unlike the smoke chuffed out of a prototypical smoke stack.

We can deal with the multiple suns with correct lighting, and people can't move in scale, just as our toys don't really generate revenue or have tiny widdo fiew boxes in dem. There are no real engineers seated at the throttle. The coal loads don't diminish, or get replenished, and track pans don't really have water in them when people bother to craft them on their layouts. Loads aren't really taken to real clients, there are no dispatchers, no train orders handed up on the hoops, and the clouds don't drop real rain. No wind is passed, nobody has to excuse themselves, there's no real gum dispensers in the stores, and no birds fly or emit sounds on our layouts.

Where do we go from here?


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

Shdwdrgn said:


> If someone complains that they don't use smoke on their layout because it ruins the effect, just ask them why their trees and flags aren't blowing in the breeze, or why the shadows indicate they have multiple suns in their sky. In most cases you could even ask why there is no wildlife (I mean come on, you can't have a proper scene without at least some squirrels) and no insects.
> 
> People will nit-pick anything until you point out to them that their own model also has inconsistencies. I say relax and enjoy what you have, those people will soon die from a stress-related heart attack anyway.


Agree 100%.


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

mesenteria said:


> Each of us must create an illusion of a kind, and suspend disbelief for what's present and is at odds, and for what's missing. The sound, to me, is a decent stand-in for a scale locomotive underway because is is synchronous and sounds much like what one hears. But, the smoke detracts from the illusion because it is too poor a representation of what really takes place even thought it, too, is synchronized. Also, as a stickler-self-described, steamers don't do much smoking if they're being responsibly fired. They exhaust some particulate matter, but much of what they exhaust is condensate. We only see the condensate, not the steam, because steam is invisible, and what exits the blast pipe, goes through the diffusion process that is afforded by the petitcoat pipe, and then gets mixed with the particulates, is condensed steam....not steam itself. Further, the surrounding air must be of the right temperature and ambient humidity to encourage the condensate to linger long enough to show up in photos, such as that glorious roiling plume shown above. I think some of the O and G scale generators come close, but the smaller scales just don't cut it...for me. Their microdroplets of oil move unlike the smoke chuffed out of a prototypical smoke stack.
> 
> We can deal with the multiple suns with correct lighting, and people can't move in scale, just as our toys don't really generate revenue or have tiny widdo fiew boxes in dem. There are no real engineers seated at the throttle. The coal loads don't diminish, or get replenished, and track pans don't really have water in them when people bother to craft them on their layouts. Loads aren't really taken to real clients, there are no dispatchers, no train orders handed up on the hoops, and the clouds don't drop real rain. No wind is passed, nobody has to excuse themselves, there's no real gum dispensers in the stores, and no birds fly or emit sounds on our layouts.
> 
> Where do we go from here?


My point has not been to say that anything diminishes from this hobby, or to harp on realism. The frozen people and cars, multiple suns, etc. are not an issue for me, nor for anyone else I would say. That's all fine; we each build our layouts as we choose.

My point has been that saying smoke diminishes from the realism while using frozen people and stationary cars, (and multiple suns, no wind) is not a logical argument. Not saying that choosing not to use smoke is bad: do what you want. But I am saying that claiming smoke ruins the effect because it doesn't scale while being fine with frozen figures etc. doesn't add up. Even the minuscule smoke from an HO steam engine is far more realistic than towns of people frozen in one position while the engine moves along.

Again, someone choosing not to use smoke because of whatever, I understand. I just can't understand how smoke, synchronized with sound, can be said to ruin the effect while towns of frozen people doesn't.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

There is an advantage to electric lokomotives not having to worry about whether or not they should be smoking. As for what others here are smoking...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Commander Zarkon said:


> For sure!
> That engine in the video is putting out steam in a synchronized way with the sound. That’s a LOT more realistic than frozen people and cars like something out of a twilight zone episode.
> Not knocking the people and cars as I will use them for sure, but it makes zero sense to me to knock the HO steam because it “ruins the illusion” but then there’s the frozen twilight zone town.


If you say so. Having lots of experience with real steam locomotives, that doesn't look synchronized to me, nor realistic in any meaningful way. But again, it's a matter of opinion.

The frozen twilight zone town makes more sense to me than anemic wisps of something that isn't nearly thick enough and doesn't behave like actual steam.

You'll never sell me on it.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

mesenteria said:


> Each of us must create an illusion of a kind, and suspend disbelief for what's present and is at odds, and for what's missing. The sound, to me, is a decent stand-in for a scale locomotive underway because is is synchronous and sounds much like what one hears. But, the smoke detracts from the illusion because it is too poor a representation of what really takes place even thought it, too, is synchronized. Also, as a stickler-self-described, steamers don't do much smoking if they're being responsibly fired. They exhaust some particulate matter, but much of what they exhaust is condensate. We only see the condensate, not the steam, because steam is invisible, and what exits the blast pipe, goes through the diffusion process that is afforded by the petitcoat pipe, and then gets mixed with the particulates, is condensed steam....not steam itself. Further, the surrounding air must be of the right temperature and ambient humidity to encourage the condensate to linger long enough to show up in photos, such as that glorious roiling plume shown above. I think some of the O and G scale generators come close, but the smaller scales just don't cut it...for me. Their microdroplets of oil move unlike the smoke chuffed out of a prototypical smoke stack.
> 
> We can deal with the multiple suns with correct lighting, and people can't move in scale, just as our toys don't really generate revenue or have tiny widdo fiew boxes in dem. There are no real engineers seated at the throttle. The coal loads don't diminish, or get replenished, and track pans don't really have water in them when people bother to craft them on their layouts. Loads aren't really taken to real clients, there are no dispatchers, no train orders handed up on the hoops, and the clouds don't drop real rain. No wind is passed, nobody has to excuse themselves, there's no real gum dispensers in the stores, and no birds fly or emit sounds on our layouts.
> 
> Where do we go from here?


Heck, you're right... we can't come anywhere near realism, so why even try?

Obviously (I hope), this is a sarcastic reply.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Commander Zarkon said:


> My point has not been to say that anything diminishes from this hobby, or to harp on realism. The frozen people and cars, multiple suns, etc. are not an issue for me, nor for anyone else I would say. That's all fine; we each build our layouts as we choose.
> 
> My point has been that saying smoke diminishes from the realism while using frozen people and stationary cars, (and multiple suns, no wind) is not a logical argument. Not saying that choosing not to use smoke is bad: do what you want. But I am saying that claiming smoke ruins the effect because it doesn't scale while being fine with frozen figures etc. doesn't add up. Even the minuscule smoke from an HO steam engine is far more realistic than towns of people frozen in one position while the engine moves along.
> 
> Again, someone choosing not to use smoke because of whatever, I understand. I just can't understand how smoke, synchronized with sound, can be said to ruin the effect while towns of frozen people doesn't.


I think there is a point to be made here: lack of motion in everything except trains vs. Issues with scale appearance is comparing apples and oranges. There is no inconsistency there, at all. Taking the leap that "poor scale appearance = lack of realism, therefore bad" misses the point of the argument, and is an exercise in twisting the perception to fit your argument. Complete realism in miniature scale is impossible (although I don't know of an insect large enough to show up in 1/87 scale); our point is that there is no way my brain can reconcile out of scale objects without screaming "TOY!"; the static elements diminish realism without shattering the illusion of reality and therefore do not have the same effect.

Again, my perception. Disagree if you wish, but don't call it logically inconsistent. You're creating the inconsistency in an attempt to bolster your position.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

"...our point is that there is no way my brain can reconcile out of scale objects without screaming "TOY!"..."

That is the problem I have with most O scale layouts. Particularly Lionel based accessories, locomotives, and coaches. Not to mention the Code 500 tube track.

But as I said, that's my problem. Which I avoided by modelling HO.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Commander Zarkon said:


> .... Even the minuscule smoke from an HO steam engine is far more realistic than towns of people frozen in one position while the engine moves along.
> 
> Again, someone choosing not to use smoke because of whatever, I understand. I just can't understand how smoke, synchronized with sound, can be said to ruin the effect while towns of frozen people doesn't.


We stand over our models from a scale 100m away, even more by the time the engine drags its tonnage to the far side of a 12' oval. A person not standing still in that scale, and at that distance, would hardly be seen to move in relation to the scenery or the passing train, and that's if they're not meant to be standing...which people do all the time. People stand and wave at trains, or they just watch them, or they stand on a platform near the tracks and ponder a weigh bill....while still. Not so the smoke which, on both prototype and model, issues in a blast of some kind. However, the former billows and lingers. The latter wisps and curlicues and settles down or disappears. Like the water running down the 'creek' on the model (I see I made a few typos back when I first replied, and have since gone back and corrected them...sorry) at a torrid 120 scale mph, which never happens, anywhere, it doesn't compute, and THAT is illogical....to me.

Some cars move, some are parked. The train moves. Some people stand, the train moves. Smoke billows, and then slowly dissipates, but the fake smoke doesn't and doesn't. So,...........

I think we should just end this by disagreeing, but defending until death the choices each other takes from our disparate experiences. I'd do it for you.


----------



## Severn (May 13, 2016)

My overall feeling is your railway your rules. For example because I like star wars I plan to mix in some star wars models I've built. (Don't ask me how. I haven't gotten that far yet. So ok, it's an idea.)

Now is that prototypical? Here's the way I think about it. Man people would wish it were!

So steam you like: good. Running water to similate a water feature .. I mean it seems interesting to me...

But others would barf at such ideas...


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Nothing to say about fake smoke. Just not my thing.

Re: "Frozen" people and cars... Someone on this board has said, "It's a model railroad, not a model world."

Vignette.









Definition of vignette | Dictionary.com


Vignette definition, a decorative design or small illustration used on the title page of a book or at the beginning or end of a chapter. See more.




www.dictionary.com





Yes, the scene is "frozen" in time. You have to set the scene so it tells a story.

Not much doubt about what's going on here even though it is "frozen".


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Severn said:


> My overall feeling is your railway your rules. For example because I like star wars I plan to mix in some star wars models I've built. (Don't ask me how. I haven't gotten that far yet. So ok, it's an idea.)


“A long time ago, on a railway far far away…..”

I love it, actually! 👍


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

mesenteria said:


> We stand over our models from a scale 100m away, even more by the time the engine drags its tonnage to the far side of a 12' oval. A person not standing still in that scale, and at that distance, would hardly be seen to move in relation to the scenery or the passing train, and that's if they're not meant to be standing...which people do all the time. People stand and wave at trains, or they just watch them, or they stand on a platform near the tracks and ponder a weigh bill....while still. Not so the smoke which, on both prototype and model, issues in a blast of some kind. However, the former billows and lingers. The latter wisps and curlicues and settles down or disappears. Like the water running down the 'creek' on the model (I see I made a few typos back when I first replied, and have since gone back and corrected them...sorry) at a torrid 120 scale mph, which never happens, anywhere, it doesn't compute, and THAT is illogical....to me.
> 
> Some cars move, some are parked. The train moves. Some people stand, the train moves. Smoke billows, and then slowly dissipates, but the fake smoke doesn't and doesn't. So,...........
> 
> I think we should just end this by disagreeing, but defending until death the choices each other takes from our disparate experiences. I'd do it for you.


I think we should have a contest: whoever can sit the longest on a speeding locomotive’s stack wins.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Steam or diesel….? 😁


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> Steam or diesel….? 😁


Steam! Definitely has to be steam!!!


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

@mesenteria -- From the length of your response to my comment I feel like maybe I touched a nerve? I wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong for using or not using smoke. I was just trying to make the point that nobody has the right to comment on the 'realism' of anyone else's layout unless their own layout is a near-perfect scale representation of the prototype (which of course is impossible). I try not to judge anyone else's work, I just enjoy the details that catch my eye and try to take note of anything I might want to add to my own modeling.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Shdwdrgn said:


> @mesenteria -- From the length of your response to my comment I feel like maybe I touched a nerve? I wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong for using or not using smoke. I was just trying to make the point that nobody has the right to comment on the 'realism' of anyone else's layout unless their own layout is a near-perfect scale representation of the prototype (which of course is impossible). I try not to judge anyone else's work, I just enjoy the details that catch my eye and try to take note of anything I might want to add to my own modeling.


I think most of us posting have been very clear that what we are talking about is our own opinion, and that it doesn't govern anyone else.

The only way a person can be "wrong" on a topic like this is to try to invalidate someone else's perspective. Let's all keep that in mind as we discuss it.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> @mesenteria -- From the length of your response to my comment I feel like maybe I touched a nerve? I wanted to clarify that I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong for using or not using smoke. I was just trying to make the point that nobody has the right to comment on the 'realism' of anyone else's layout unless their own layout is a near-perfect scale representation of the prototype (which of course is impossible). I try not to judge anyone else's work, I just enjoy the details that catch my eye and try to take note of anything I might want to add to my own modeling.


Not to get too far into the weeds here, but telling someone that, unless they're perfect they ought not to have a critical view, or express it, disqualifies all of us from having a legitimate right to comment about anything. As a result, logicians label such circuitous arguments 'ad hominem'. That is, while not bothering to respond to the comment, even to the extent of destroying it handily, we instead tell _the person uttering it_ that THEY are diminished, defective, wanting, or simply inadequate to offer a legitimate comment. 

An example: (seen numerous times on hobby and photography fora)

"RAW is the only real way to get good photos because it's a non-loss file used when doing post processing."

"Oh yeah? Let's see your RAW processing. Otherwise, stop posting on this forum. You don't know what you're talking about."

The responder didn't attempt to demonstrate why the OP is mistaken, even if in his own opinion, but instead tells the person that unless he can produce even one example, he's illegitimate as a poster about that topic. Nonsense. In the same way, telling a mere priest that his claim that our sun is a ball of hydrogen gas in hydrodynamic equilibrium is not correct because a mere priest has stated it is also an ad hominem.

Did you touch a nerve? Nope. Did you offer a perspective on a public forum that I don't share, or that I believe to be contrary to my own experience? Yup. Discussion is good. Sharing opinions is good. Offering countering opinions to an OP stating an opinion is good.

BTW, my posts do probably get windy...I'll admit it. I have taught professionals and adult learners at the post-secondary level in various subjects, from ethics to leadership theory and organizational behaviour. Those topics get windy of their own accord, and often result in lengthy sentences with multiple clauses and lengthy explanations. I could try to do better.


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

The reason I started this post was because I saw comments here and elsewhere from some folks who don't like smoke talk about smoke ruining the effect/illusion etc. but I never saw anyone who likes having smoke say that non-moving people/ cars, multiple suns... ruin the effect and better not to use those. This seemed really odd to me for the reasons I mention above.
However, as I also stated, I will not only be using smoke, but also non-moving people, cars, etc. though I am looking into those little moving car systems available now.
Point being: they’re miniature trains and there’s no real way to make the layout look real with either the smoke or people. Even with a still photograph the people look like little plastic people.
I don’t care: My imagination easily makes those people come alive and move about in a way.


G Scale can put out some pretty convincing smoke, but really for things like smoke and especially water, anything below 1/4 scale is going to be pretty obvious.


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

It’s your railroad, your rules…..I have a love/hate relationship with sound, and maybe 50 percent of my engines have it. It’s fun when casual visitors come over, as the experience of a model railroad is out of there everyday realm. But when I’m by myself, I prefer the sound of just steel wheels on steel rail. One thing that I did on my old layout was using a old iPod, with a relaxation app, nature sounds, of birds chirping. It was set under my forest, and that was effective in creating the illusion of life being in the forest. It was set to a low volume, and blended in well…cheers…☕🍩


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

Stumpy, Excellent dump truck scene, I’m keeping that image for future use…..love it….cheers.☕🍩


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

Frozen, like this?


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Or this…..


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

Andreash said:


> It’s your railroad, your rules…..I have a love/hate relationship with sound, and maybe 50 percent of my engines have it. It’s fun when casual visitors come over, as the experience of a model railroad is out of there everyday realm. But when I’m by myself, I prefer the sound of just steel wheels on steel rail. One thing that I did on my old layout was using a old iPod, with a relaxation app, nature sounds, of birds chirping. It was set under my forest, and that was effective in creating the illusion of life being in the forest. It was set to a low volume, and blended in well…cheers…☕🍩



Love the ipod for the forest sounds. Great idea!


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)




----------



## MidwestMikeGT (Jan 4, 2021)

Commander Zarkon said:


> The reason I started this post ...
> Point being: they’re miniature trains and *there’s no real way to make the layout look real with either the smoke or people*. Even with a still photograph the people look like little plastic people.
> I don’t care: My imagination easily makes those people come alive and move about in a way.
> ...


Ummmmm.... have you not heard of Shrink Ray Guns???? C'mon man! You're a teacher. Here's how you can make one...








_Sorry! I could not resist!_


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Commander Zarkon said:


> Love the ipod for the forest sounds. Great idea!


Maybe I’m out of touch, but don’t ipods need a speaker somewhere? 

Or do some have their own built-in speakers?


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

It’s a old iPod, and I had a really small speaker that plugged into it


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Ah ok thanks….

I have a bunch of older ipods around the house my kids left behind….maybe I will use them like that!


----------



## Andreash (Dec 30, 2018)

I downloaded “naturescapes” for my Apple phone….it had birds, sound of crickets, a babbling river, rain…..lots of different “relaxation” apps…..I recall that birds was more effective, then say babbling river, the river seemed to upfront, whereas some sounds work better in the background…cheers☕🍩


----------



## Murv2 (Nov 5, 2017)

I think you have to decide what your level of reality you are shooting for. Personally, I don't like graffiti, dirt, rust or oil streaks on my layout, if I want to see that I can go for a drive. I put people on my layout because the fact that moving people aren't moving isn't as strange as a ghost town. Sound is cool when it happens but I don't go looking for it.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Murv2 said:


> I think you have to decide what your level of reality you are shooting for


And there it is, the best advice I have read on this issue….it’ll be different for everyone…..it’s not wrong, it’s just different…. 👍


----------



## Bryan Marino (Aug 1, 2021)

Commander Zarkon said:


>


That water looks OK, perhaps it could be slowed down some by making it thicker? Dunno how to do that but it would be cool. More realistic?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Bryan Marino said:


> That water looks OK, perhaps it could be slowed down some by making it thicker? Dunno how to do that but it would be cool. More realistic?


This is what we mean when we say that it's very much a matter of personal opinion. 

That water does NOT look OK to my eye. Scale-wise, that watercourse is as wide as a 25 foot ore car, and tumbling down a fairly steep, rocky slope. There would be pockets of foam, eddies, and back currents, not to mention that the volume of water would just appear much more massive. The appearance of depth is all wrong -- water 6-8 foot deep (estimating from width) would mostly obscure the bottom, not be crystal clear. I have several similar creeks near my home, and I can assure you, they look nothing like that. That model looks like what it is: a tiny trickle coming out of a small hose. If that looks "ok" to you, then fine, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

There are two ways for me to accept what I see:

a. the river is flowing normal rate, but it's sped up, and the train is actually only going about 5 scale mph. But the train really does seem to be running quickly, more like 20 mph, which means the river is moving impossibly/implausibly fast: or

b. the water is sped up, video-wise, and so is the train. This is maybe3X speed. Why would I want to watch a model of a river moving at 3X speed?

Leaving the unlikely speed aside, a stream moving this rapidly, but clearly, no turbidity, no silt, would either have to be in a man-made, and very well maintained channel clear of natural materials, or it's a fake. Turns out it's both. 

QED

Rivers, naturally, carry detritus, bits of plants, run-off, silt, and other organic matter than render them at least semi-opaque. They also tend to move at about 1-6 knots, unless they're mountain streams, in which case they could run as fast as 10 knots, even more, but that speed requires turbulence, aeration, and therefore other artefacts that are visible. Foaming was mentioned, but how about bubbles by the millions which act like tiny diamonds. That means a rough surface and a lot of refraction. In order to replicate this, the model would have to have an aeration pump and make the water flow even faster than it appears to in this video, where it is mostly placid and crystal clear. Looks like a cute toy. 

As we have all agreed, we are playing WITH TOYS. Some things help some of us with the illusion, some get in the way. This, for me, gets in the way.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I think scale speed is the one thing we can all control and trains running at 100+ scale MPH look unbelievably toy-like.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

If I remember right, isn't the gelatin used in Jello transparent? Seems like I read somewhere there was a way to add that to water with it setting up, so you basically ended up with thicker water. If not that, I wonder if there's a transparent oil you could use for this?


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

I used Polytranspar artificial water. It ran pretty slow... until it set up.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

You still won't get the foaming, whitecaps, and aeration from the stuff.


----------



## Stumpy (Mar 19, 2013)

Well... you can, but you need to do the "effects" before it hardens.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Stumpy said:


> I used Polytranspar artificial water. It ran pretty slow... until it set up.


Imagine what that would do to your pump though!


----------



## Commander Zarkon (Sep 24, 2021)

It’s a model railroad. Water running “too fast”, just like steam from the model engines, is as viable as people standing frozen in time as a train goes by. 

To some, like me, the water at least is moving and is water. The movement adds to the atmosphere and feeling. Same with the smoke/steam. To some, it is a negative effect.

I am considering a river and waterfalls with real water, and small fish in the river.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Isn't funny how we want our clocks to run faster for "scale" speed, but the flow of real water somehow looks unnaturally fast?  Imagine if all the little people were scurrying around like ants.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Deleted. My logic is faulty in this matter.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Running water and a model railroad layout are not good fits….real water has a tendency to get dirty and green….and if it leaks into the benchwork, well…..


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Has anyone heard of the Magnorail system (magnorail.com)? I caught a video tonight where a diorama uses it, and that was pretty impressive seeing bicycles on the road.

(It's a half hour video and not much of it is about this system)


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Can you imagine that much work over an entire huge layout?


----------

