After reviewing many of the post here and in other forums on this site, I am interested in something; In review, I have seen many fantastic scenery layouts, and many great track layouts. All of you here in the last week have been great with your feedback. So, I post this question.
What do you think is more important, scenery or track? This I'm sure this is the great divide between different model builders. Therefore, I am looking for a poll on what you guys think is the most important.
A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
What I actually don't like are speghetti bowl layouts where the designer tries to cram as much track as possible into every nook and crany of the layout.
I also prefer layouts that are designed for operation. While these may have scenic segments on them, they may also have areas where there are tracks going every direction possible from the mainline. The key here is that the tracks always appear to have a purpose, preferably one that enhances operation.
In the end, I guess my preference is for the ballance. Not too much track that you can't do effective scenery, and not too much scenery that the track plays second fiddle on the whole layout.
Paul
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
Depends on the function of the layout and the space available to the modeler. If you're really into operations and have a very limited space then a tangle of tracks is probably desireable. If you're mostly into watching or photographing your models or you have a gymnasium to build a layout in then I could see modeling the wide open spaces.
A poll on scenery vs. track
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
I am with Komata on this.
I was told when I was a teenager, way back in 1968-69, that what separated a "Model Railroad" from a "Toy Train" was that a model railroad ran through a model world, while a toy train was lots of track on a painted board.
Personally, I like the idea of a small train running through a believable world. I dislike model railroads that are what I call "Spaghetti Junction" layouts. All track and no scene.
That being said, my layout does have a yard, two turntables, a wye, 6 stations and 4 industrial sidings. But then it is roughly 47,400 square centimeters in size.
(For the Metrically challenged, that would be 51 sqaure feet). :lol:
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
Scenery is one of the reasons I am an N-scale fan! I agree: too much (especialy looping) track detracts from the overall image.
One of my peeves though, is when someone is lazy with their scenery;
Lots of lichen or cotton balls bundled up to represent trees or plastic models that have their origional glossy coating sitting alone without blending into their surrounding. When I see this I kind of expect to see a Thomas the Tank Engine come round' the bend :shock:
Just my 2 cents......
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
Datahead, since you're Polling, you should have filled in the Poll question and options at the bottom of your initial post...
I went back and edited it to include your basic question, so folks can now cast a vote, and we'll all see the results without having to sum up the posts...
--
Bryan
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
A Poll on Scenery vs Track
Hi All,
I prefer a "prototypical" balance and operation-oriented layouts.
There are places where the rails are abundant in a particular location (Chicago, Los Angeles etc), then there are those places where scenery is predominant (West Virginia, Colorado, California, Washington State).
I disagree with "Spaghetti Bowls". Scenery should compliment your trackwork and have a balance. Generally, if it looks like too much track is crammed together and you have little room for nice scenery, then yes, you have too much track and not enough scenery.
And I agree with Kilroy: Lazy Scenery (using his terms). I know scenery is an art in itself, but the more you practice, the better you become. Plus scenery makes the layout or module.
Visitors to your layout see the scenery first! If it looks toy-ish or pooly done, they will loose interest. People / specators like "Real".
When looking at a layout or module, think of this:
Buildings build, but unpainted, roads "from a roll" not secured properly (edges lifted), shiny fake-looking trees planted with glue using the base, unevenly laid and bright gray ballast and tracks everywhere.
OR
Buildings painted weathered and detailed, roads that look real, trees weathered and detailed, hand-made or combination of both, planted in foam with ground foam around the base, evenly laid and weathered ballast and a believeable track plan.
Balance and believeability.
My 2 cents........
Tom Fredenberg
Apex, NC
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
Will_annand wrote:
I know... it'll just be "vote" and no comment... much less typing involved :wink:Bryan wrote:Thanks Bryan, you are making me even lazier than I already am. :lol:I went back and edited it to include your basic question, so folks can now cast a vote, and we'll all see the results without having to sum up the posts...
--
Bryan
A poll on scenery vs. track
To develop on what Fredenberg said - just a little.
It is very important, I believe, that we model for NON-MODELLERS!
By Non-Modellers, I mean 'she indoors', the family, their friends, and any visitors that they may in turn bring with them.
When they see our creations (shown with due modesty - but busting with pride inside - we all do it..) they have no idea that we have just spent 4 hours attaching a working morse telegraph key to a scale-dimensioned desk (with opening draws already) inside a shed behind a tall appartment building.
All they are interested in is what they see before them, and if it looks 'real' - whatever 'real' may be to them (it varies).
I have found that, even though we might created have the most accurate house model ever for our layouts (as an example), unless it fits in with everything else, we might as well not have bothered - and our visitors do notice whn somehing 'grates' - and have no difficulty in commenting on it at all.
Granted we all have different perceptions of 'real' but as Fredenburg has implied, that has to be our aim.
So, get out the paintbrushes, the dullcote, even the hairspray (hairspray?), and a 'realing' we will go :lol: :lol:
Now, back to the topic...
happy 'reeling' (hic) :oops:
(Wrong 'Real' - must b the fumes from the hairspray . .)
Komata
Re:A Poll on Scenery vs. Track
in my simple little head, achieving a sense of realism in the scenery is what makes the whole thing "work". to me, there's nothing more hideous than a plastic life-like church all shiny, unrealistic and crappy looking sitting next to a 4-8-8-4 fully detailed and looking like the real thing. real trains run through real scenes.....in my opinion the same should hold true for a model railroad layout.
i agree wholeheartedly with mr. komata. modeling for non-modelers. they usually aren't going to say to you, "man, that [life-like or model power] church looks real crappy", but if you know that it looks like shiny plastic, then ya gotta know that your visitor thinks it looks crappy. i know that no one that i would invite into my home to see an operational model railroad would give a pound of poopie head for the operations aspect. but if the scenery looked genuine......that'd get to 'em.
Joined: 2006-01-23