At some point (hopefully soon) I'll be mapping out the base for my German railyard dio. Size is approx. 57" x 22". I know conventional thinking is to put the scene at an angle to the edges of the base. However if I do this I'm concerned I might lose a lot of track, which I kinda feel I need.
Can I get anyone's thoughts on this? Maybe a very slight angle would be preferable to parallel?
Hosted by Darren Baker
large dio- angled or parallel?
TB2
Joined: June 13, 2005
KitMaker: 361 posts
Armorama: 279 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 01:56 AM UTC
MrMox
Joined: July 18, 2003
KitMaker: 3,377 posts
Armorama: 1,088 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 02:01 AM UTC
Well as you say, the diorama rule of thumb is to never put anything parallel to the base edges, but with the seize you are planning, its difficult. I would say that a little is much better than nothing 
So just a few degrees would propably work wonders.
Cheers
So just a few degrees would propably work wonders.
Cheers
trahe
Joined: April 03, 2006
KitMaker: 1,158 posts
Armorama: 950 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 02:28 AM UTC
I agree. I think a slight angle would probably look great, depending on your layout.
exer
Joined: November 27, 2004
KitMaker: 6,048 posts
Armorama: 4,619 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 02:33 AM UTC
Rules are made to be ..... 
I understand your concern about losing track space and I think it would be okay to have all your track parralel as long as some element in the dio is at an angle. What will the story or focus of the dio be?
I understand your concern about losing track space and I think it would be okay to have all your track parralel as long as some element in the dio is at an angle. What will the story or focus of the dio be?
slodder
Joined: February 22, 2002
KitMaker: 11,718 posts
Armorama: 7,138 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 03:32 AM UTC
Here's a thought, try a very slight 1 or 2 degree angle. That will leave you with something a bit off parallel, but not taking up or adding much dead space.
And ultimately, there is No Parallel Police to write a ticket for it.
Neo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 916 posts
Armorama: 758 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 03:52 AM UTC
Corner to opposite corner (diagonal line) would be the longest distance and give you an angled layout. I would not go exactly corner to corner - just a general line.
My 2 cents...
Good Luck,
NEO
Neo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 916 posts
Armorama: 758 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 03:53 AM UTC
Scott beat me to the post... LMAO
Great minds think alike
Great minds think alike
Uruk-Hai
Joined: January 31, 2003
KitMaker: 795 posts
Armorama: 472 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 06:25 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Corner to opposite corner (diagonal line) would be the longest distance and give you an angled layout. I would not go exactly corner to corner - just a general line.
My 2 cents...
Good Luck,
NEO
Rule of thumb. Allways an angle even if only as slight as it can be.
Id rather have the first example. This one leaves to much space only to become background. Or just landfill.
Finch
Joined: August 03, 2005
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 273 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:17 AM UTC
The major elements absolutely should be at an angle to the base. Even a very slight angle will do, as others have said. The reason for this is kinda simple: if th eelements are parallel to the base frame, it "fits" so well that there is no illusion that the scene continues beyond the frame. We don't usually give this much thought but that's why we do it. The effect should be like a photo in th esense that we all know there is more to see beyond the frame.
You might get creative with the junctions so that, for example, a switch leads the viewer's eye to the center of th estory, whatever it is. Or if a section of track has been bombed, it can also help lead the viewer to the action.
Also, if it's a rail yard, it may be possible / accurate to fill the entire base with rails, again, depending on your story, it might work. If you look at any WW2 aerial photos of rail marshalling yards, they can be huge.
You might get creative with the junctions so that, for example, a switch leads the viewer's eye to the center of th estory, whatever it is. Or if a section of track has been bombed, it can also help lead the viewer to the action.
Also, if it's a rail yard, it may be possible / accurate to fill the entire base with rails, again, depending on your story, it might work. If you look at any WW2 aerial photos of rail marshalling yards, they can be huge.
t34-85
Joined: August 16, 2006
KitMaker: 232 posts
Armorama: 230 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 11:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The major elements absolutely should be at an angle to the base. Even a very slight angle will do, as others have said. The reason for this is kinda simple: if th eelements are parallel to the base frame, it "fits" so well that there is no illusion that the scene continues beyond the frame.
I'm not too sure about that. It sounds a lot like the infamous "rule of thirds" in photography. Every amateur who thinks he/she is a genius --just because he/she can afford super-expensive cameras and lenses-- religiously sticks to it, while poking fun at the "unwashed masses" for not "getting" photography. All the while, the true masters break the rule every day...
Neo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 916 posts
Armorama: 758 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 01:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
The major elements absolutely should be at an angle to the base. Even a very slight angle will do, as others have said. The reason for this is kinda simple: if th eelements are parallel to the base frame, it "fits" so well that there is no illusion that the scene continues beyond the frame.
_________________________________________________________________________
I'm not too sure about that. It sounds a lot like the infamous "rule of thirds" in photography. Every amateur who thinks he/she is a genius --just because he/she can afford super-expensive cameras and lenses-- religiously sticks to it, while poking fun at the "unwashed masses" for not "getting" photography. All the while, the true masters break the rule every day...
The true masters are few and far between – we mortals must make due w/ what we have.
SO… without a long essay on perspective, composition, etc…
There is little doubt that the “random angle” layout, as opposed to the “square to the edge” approach is significantly more lifelike to the viewer w/ a notably higher degree of visual tension. The age-old battle of static vs. dynamic observation…
Boy can I throw the BS !!! My Mom & Dad would be so proud all the money they spent on my education was not wasted – Still LMAO !!!
KoSprueOne
Joined: March 05, 2004
KitMaker: 4,011 posts
Armorama: 1,498 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 04:34 PM UTC
You can also cut or build the edges of the base with no parallels.
Or, if you cut the edges parallel, then add elevation.
Just ideas.
Or, if you cut the edges parallel, then add elevation.
Just ideas.
HONEYCUT
Joined: May 07, 2003
KitMaker: 4,002 posts
Armorama: 2,947 posts
Posted: Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 09:11 PM UTC
Now that is thinking outside the square, KoSprueOne! (Pun intended)
I do think that Danny's reasoning rings true though, all photography aside. So long as the viewer can appreciate a snapshot of a larger 'action', you have achieved your aim.
As for the railyard plan Barry, I agree that even slightly off centre will aid in your aims. At the size and dimensions you intend, we would need to know what the plan is in regards to track layout. If there is to be multiple parallel tracks then clearly they will occupy a lot of width as well as the obvious length. Are you thinking of using more of track space, or its surrounds? To me a railyard conjures images of many parallel tracks and less in the way of buildings etc. This should immediately tell the viewer what they are dealing with, so therefore the optimum length of track achievable isn't as important maybe? Clearly you don't want to have just tracks though, so a part platform and some signals would be needed...
Get some ideas of what you have in your head out here for us to peruse, and we can help a little more maybe...
Cheers
Brad
I do think that Danny's reasoning rings true though, all photography aside. So long as the viewer can appreciate a snapshot of a larger 'action', you have achieved your aim.
As for the railyard plan Barry, I agree that even slightly off centre will aid in your aims. At the size and dimensions you intend, we would need to know what the plan is in regards to track layout. If there is to be multiple parallel tracks then clearly they will occupy a lot of width as well as the obvious length. Are you thinking of using more of track space, or its surrounds? To me a railyard conjures images of many parallel tracks and less in the way of buildings etc. This should immediately tell the viewer what they are dealing with, so therefore the optimum length of track achievable isn't as important maybe? Clearly you don't want to have just tracks though, so a part platform and some signals would be needed...
Get some ideas of what you have in your head out here for us to peruse, and we can help a little more maybe...
Cheers
Brad
Finch
Joined: August 03, 2005
KitMaker: 411 posts
Armorama: 273 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 01:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThe major elements absolutely should be at an angle to the base. Even a very slight angle will do, as others have said. The reason for this is kinda simple: if th eelements are parallel to the base frame, it "fits" so well that there is no illusion that the scene continues beyond the frame.
I'm not too sure about that. It sounds a lot like the infamous "rule of thirds" in photography. Every amateur who thinks he/she is a genius --just because he/she can afford super-expensive cameras and lenses-- religiously sticks to it, while poking fun at the "unwashed masses" for not "getting" photography. All the while, the true masters break the rule every day...
I can't think of a really great diorama I've ever seen that had major elements square with the base.
TB2
Joined: June 13, 2005
KitMaker: 361 posts
Armorama: 279 posts
Posted: Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 03:18 PM UTC
Wow, thanks guys. Great answers all. My 'diorama' perhaps will not be a diorama in the truest sense of the word. No real 'story', I plan to depict a railyard scene w/ many parallel tracks, utilizing switches to break up the monotony. I have built a switch tower (from Hansa Systems, LOTS of fun to build!), which will occupy a spot about three feet from the left and will span some tracks.
I will also be incorporating a platform w/ MIG crane for loading a BR52 tender. I have been sketching and re-sketching layout ideas so it doesn't just look like a bunch of items were thrown in just because they look 'cool'. This is something I'm definitely not rushing and am giving a lot of thought to.
I think after this discussion I'll put it a few degrees off parallel to make the scene look as if it continues off the base, as some have stated.
Again, everyone's advice is much appreciated. I LOVE this place!!
I will also be incorporating a platform w/ MIG crane for loading a BR52 tender. I have been sketching and re-sketching layout ideas so it doesn't just look like a bunch of items were thrown in just because they look 'cool'. This is something I'm definitely not rushing and am giving a lot of thought to.
I think after this discussion I'll put it a few degrees off parallel to make the scene look as if it continues off the base, as some have stated.
Again, everyone's advice is much appreciated. I LOVE this place!!
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.