Caricature 3d Model

[Kensel Whiteman]

GrantedI've never seen a Fine Scale Miniatures or Sierra West Structure, but when I look at the ads in the mags for the likes of Bar Mills and Campbell's and others, I see highly stylized structures to the point of unbelievability. It seems every one is detailed to the point of looking like a hillbilly flea market.

Now I have both Muir Models and Campbell's and the difference between the two is that Muir Models uses a specific prototype (ala 1890 Sacramento Sand House or Melrose Station) and is pretty much no non-sense. Campbell's on the other hand tends toward the romantic, that saloon that you would have liked to have seen or the hooker hotel that you might have gone to if you weren't married or afraid of VD.

I have a hard time lumping Campbell kits in the same lot as FSM or Bar Mills. The two latter mfgr's kits include a huge amount of detail items intended for scattering around the completed kit to create an over-the-top impression of dilapidation. Also, the architecture does seem somewhat whimsical to me. I guess they're supposed to look like something you would find up in the mountains of New England during the depression, 'cause they sure don't look like they belong anywhere else in the US.

As for Campbell, I know that they produced at least one series of kits based on prototypes found in Quincy, CA, and that their "Grandmas House" kit was patterend after a prototype in Coupeville, WA. I built one of their kits that was nearly a dead ringer for an actual lumber mill on the Washington coast. Also, Campbell doesn't include all the detail parts, so there is less of a tendency for the builder to create an unrealistically cluttered kit. I believe most Campbell's kits, if not exact copies of the real thing, have a fairly strong prototype influence.

Model railroads are, in some ways, caricatures in themselves: instead of a miles-long railroad, we have an impossibly short mainline with shrunken mountains. Instead of a whole town, we place a half-dozen buildings, typically also dramatically under-scale for their apparent purpose. In a moderately sized town that has been around long enough to have some history, there are hundreds of buildings, only a handful of which may stand out as particularly charming, stylized or dilapidated. Because we don't have the room to model hundreds of structures, we generally don't think to model the mundane ones with a single charming representative--although of course we could, but a visitor would probably go "Well, that town looks kind of boring and plain, except for that one building with the peeled paint and a half-dozen cats congregated on the back porch near the trash pile and the washerwoman hanging her laundry!"

A modern-era model railroader could model a 21st century suburban tract with a row of identical pseudo stucco homes in two alternating shades of taupe (with a pair of HO scale SUVs parked in front,) and put far-away signs on the backdrop for Target, Wal-Mart, In 'N Out Burger, Blockbuster Video and Applebee's to represent the business district just out of view, although that in itself would be a caricature of the real thing, with hundreds of homes, and typically in most of such a development the retail segment is nowhere in sight.

I believe some Campbell kits are based on prototype structures from out west. Some Branchline's follow prototypes from the northeast and American Model builders kits seem to be basic structures. FSM, Fos Scale, Bars Mills and others seem to follow the Sellios idea of extra additions and pipes and stacks etc, but as the model builder, you can decide how much "character" each building recieves.Mike

I concur with Tom. As I understand the history, many of the Campbell kits came from various structure articles in Model Railroader. Others came from real prototypes. True, some of the Campbell kits have whimisical and cute names, and the "how it looks built" pictures may suggest a caricature. But the Campbell kits I have built had no suggestions in the instructions or materials in the kits for building other than the straight forward structure in normal to good condition.

I had planned to use the open air fruit packing shed and platform in the picture as the basis for my narrow gauge to standard gauge transfer facility. That's one of the positive aspects of Campbell kits to me - the complete templates and instructions and wood construction make for easy modifications into something that fits my specific situation.

Bar Mills is deliberately trying for that New England look. I agree that they tend to overdo the deep Depression Era look for some of their displays and ads, but of course you don't have to finish them as near derelicts with trash, old parts, etc. strewn about. Most of them seem to be pretty New England to me. Wicked Wanda's may be a little fanciful, but then I've seen some pretty strange buildings as a result of additions.

Whimsy, nostalgia, quaintness, powerful imagery, a feast for the eyes before the imagination, and careful scaling. They have it all. They have immense appeal because of their visual nature....but not alone. I think they don't look so hot when by themselves. Or, they look odd. It is when they are placed in a context, a carefully crafted setting that has its own realism in scale, that these models come into their own.

I've built quite a few FSM, Bar Mills, Cambell & others over the years. The great thing about craftsmen kits, is that you can build and detail them any way you want. The ads just show one of the possibillities. I usually build them to look like they're 10 to 30 years years old. Most have that painted in the last 5 to 10 years "look". I love the multitude of detail castings that come with the kits; they get spread all over the layout not just one structure.

BTW here in the northeast, you can find a lot of buildings like the FSM stuff if you know where to look. They may look over the top on a layout, but in reality they're sprinkled amoungst hundreds of other buildings and don't really stand out.

The fact of the matter is that a considerable segment of hobbyists today seems rather hard pressed to recognize the difference between realistic structure modeling and caricature. So, it is of little wonder that many are willing to spend big bucks on kits that do not resemble anything you are likely to encounter in the real world.

One would have to say that the current situation arose with John Allen's often tongue-in-cheek modeling from the pages of MR and RMC in the 1950's. John unintentionly created a trend or style that was bolstered by the later efforts of certain other, also high profile, hobbyists and arguably peaked with the downright Disney-esque, over the top, modeling of Malcom Furlow.

As a truly outstanding realistic modeler when he wanted to be, J.A. was quite obviously poking fun with many of his scenic vignettes, never considering them examples of serious modeling he was certainly very capable of. Those that followed in this style early on, however, likely did so more to gain attention than out of any belief that it was good modeling. Unfortunately, with time, many hobbyists came to accept the outlandish and improbable as part of the norm, representing some sort of solid reality, especially in cases of depicting the Depression Era or of backwoods railroading.

"Realistic structure modeling" is not a function of the kit , but rather the modeler. An FSM (or similar) model built "straight" is every bit as realistic as the LaserArt and JL stuff, if not more so, as they are mostly "stick" built structures. It's up to the modeler to finish it the way he or she wants.

I've spoken with George Selios and he told me that most of he structures are taken either from old photos or rreal structures that are/were still standing. Many of the larger kits were selectively compressed to "fit" in our HO worlds.

I may get flamed for saying this, but for most applications, scenery and structures should (IMHO) take a supporting role to our trains. Railroad-related structures would be an exception, those being either company buildings or rail-served industries. Houses, towns, etc., should (again, IMHO) be detailed enough to suggest life and realism yet not take center stage.

I tend to use mundane-looking structures. I paint them so they don't look identical to everyone else's, but generally I don't go for the Sanford & Sons junkyard or haunted-house look. After all, most towns in Central PA in the 1950s (my locale and era) were a bit dirty from coal smoke and may have seen better days, but their residents had pride and kept them generally in good repair.

I admit that I am guilty of structure caricature to a great degree, partially due to my own sense of humor and architectural presence. In addition to my other reasons for modeling Sacramento in the 1950s, it was also an era when the central city was in a state of decay, before redevelopment and slum clearance took its toll. This means that modeling where I model requires a backdrop of aging and semi-abandoned Victorian and Craftsman homes, multi-story tenements, and various industrial buildings, mostly beat to heck and the worse for wear. The railroad is serviced by a gaggle of comically small 44-tonners, aging steeplecab locomotives, and whatever small diesel power Western Pacific doesn't need at the moment.

3a8082e126