A response to a question: Is scenery necessary?

[jfugate]

I spoke with David Barrow of recent "minimalist" scenery fame at the Seattle National this past July about his layout approach. His primary goal is to be able to change things quickly, and for that, the minimalist approach works very well.

While I applaud the well thought out minimalist approach like David's, it is true that the general public non-modelers will be most impressed with a fully scenicked and detailed layout.

And some of my greatest pleasure in the hobby comes from doing the realistic scenery. I truly enjoy it.


My attempt to model southern Oregon on the HO Siskiyou Line

Having said all this, there is also a counter point if you are really into realistic operation, like I also am. When I am intently focusing on way freight switching, I hardly notice if the loco has handrails, much less things like detailed scenery. I can understand how being really into operation can allow one to still have a lot of fun even without scenery.

I even had a visitor come to an op session on my layout years ago when it had a lot less scenery and remark, "I didn't know a layout without scenery could be so much fun to operate!"

But there are also times when I'm in the hole waiting for the hotshot to come through town that I have time to look around, and it's then that I notice the presence or lack of scenery! And if there is none, being in the hole is *boring* indeed!

[dharmon]

I do not believe that scenery is neccesary. It is a choice, a preference and optional. Your hobby is really about impressing, satisfying and pleasing yourself. I guess it would be like saying "can you be a model railroader if you don't have a layout?" Well, yes you can. So if you can be a model railroader without a layout, than you can have a layout without scenery.

[bcammack]

I think the answer to the question is really that the amount/degree of scenery necessary is a matter for the tastes of the individual whose layout it is. [:)]

[CBQ_Guy]

Tony Koester addresses this to my way of thinking in his new book from Kalmbach on designing the layout under the heading of Plausibility. Personally, if you want to run trains around without some type scenery, and still call it a model railroad, go ahead. Just don't expect me to necessarily appreciate whatever you're calling your efforts, 'cause to ME this isn't, nor will EVER be, the "right way" to build a model railroad. Call it something else...

[Anonymous]

??
Is there a "right way" to build a model railroad? Guess we shouldn't use plastic engines either as the real ones were made of metal.

To me . . . if it involves trains and makes the owner happy - it's a model railroad. I'm sure Tony would agree.

[CBQ_Guy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dkelly

??
Is there a "right way" to build a model railroad? Guess we shouldn't use plastic engines either as the real ones were made of metal.

Sure there is. There's also various "right ways" to achieve the same thing when building a layout. Otherwise we wouldn't be asking questions on how to do something on all these forums and email lists, and all the train mags would be out of business 'cause we wouldn't need to learn. We could all just "do our own thing", and no one could say we were WRONG! (oh my gosh, I said it - the "W" word!)

Now if you want to do it different or incomplete that's your decision, I've got no right to stop you...just the right to point it out! [:0] But please don't call it a "model (of a) railroad" with a straight face. It's offensive...

[Anonymous]

hmmmmm Good point. As a newbie to the hobby (only been doing it for 25 years or so) I don't want to mess up my layout. What's the right track to use?

[bcammack]

Yeah, I'm deeply concerned that my interpretation of a railroad might offend somebody... [V]

[easyaces]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Fergmiester

Speaking of wifes....

What do you think?


ya i know.....

Silly question

Of course scenery is important DUH!!!!

How many people do you see living in a desert?

Exactly!


You need scenery!!!!

It's a no brainer

Hey BB 4005 back me on this one would ya?

Does your wife cringe when you but a new loco or anything else Ferg? But anyway , yes some scenery can and does make a difference. I think it would get old just running trains arouind a bare-bones track layout.[:D]

[Jetrock]

Even a desert has scenery...and often, people. If they didn't, the railroad wouldn't run there, and where the railroad ran, people came, even if it was just a lonely telegraph operator at a way station...with a little tan paint and a $15 Woodland Scenics station, a single miniature, and maybe a couple of pipe-cleaner cacti if you want to get fancy, you can turn a stretch of plywood with some track on it into a vista that is both functional (as a flag stop) and that tugs at the heart-strings.

Scenery does not have to be dramatic or gigantic or expensive to be effective. I like scenery because my favorite part of model railroading is being taken SOMEWHERE ELSE by the layout (even though I model the city where I live, I prefer to be transported back to a time when trolleys ran in the streets.)

Put some work in on my yard today--not a huge one, 1x6 feet and four tracks including the mainline, technically it's sort of a staging yard but I wanted to give it a little scenic feel. So I spent an afternoon applying some Sculptamold hills to one end (about half an inch high), splattered a little drywall plaster in between the tracks, then airbrushed the track with some Railroad Tie Brown, ballasted and threw some dirt and ground foam in between the tracks. For a few hours' labor I now have a surface that, if I do nothing else to it at all, at least looks like a railroad yard instead of a slab of MDF with track on it.

(best thing: I went to the actual site where the yard was located and collected dirt for use on the layout! Even that only added half an hour to drive over there and scoop up some dirt with a coffee can.)

Of course, over time I'll add a couple yard buildings, assorted piles of detritus, telephone lines running alongside the track, switchstands, etcetera, as well as a backdrop.

Is scenery necessary? No.

But it's nice.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CBQ_Guy

Now if you want to do it different or incomplete that's your decision, I've got no right to stop you...just the right to point it out! [:0] But please don't call it a "model (of a) railroad" with a straight face. It's offensive...

Incomplete in your eyes.....

I'd be offended if you came in my home and pointed out to me that my layout was incomplete because it lacked scenery. I'm not sure where the right to point that out comes from...is it after five years in the hobby or after you scratchbuild your first item....where is that right granted?

I think I can do whatever I want and call finished when I want.

It not offensive.

It's YOUR definition, YOUR opinion....not based on any code, regulation or fact.

So if I don't have a layout, does that mean I can call myself a model railroader, cause I'm not part of the layout owning club?

Give me a break....it's a freakin hobby, not a religion.

Like Jetrock said....it's not required, but it's nice. ......well put by the way.

[trainfan1221]

I look at it this way, to each his own. As I stated when this topic started, I don't put a lot of priority on it. But I also feel that there are other things to be considered: If, like me, you are trying to represent a lot with a small layout, then I suggest scenery that is very generic. By that I mean don't make it too specific. There are those of us who have to simulate mileage on continuous loop layouts (note I do not use the term oval). But here's my point---you can spend time building the beautiful town of Centralville, and your trains will look great going through Centralville. And the next time around, they will again look great going through Centralville, and so on. If in this case one were to add significant scenery, tying it down to a certain place doesn't seem beneficial. A mountain pass or a river scene or something that could represent any basic landscape would work better and could still look nice. I will eventually try scenery, but for now the track plan I have is still not quite finished, at least not completely ballasted, and I have enough trackage that there isn't a lot of room for scenery at this time. Basic things like a good ballast job make a big difference.

[Jetrock]

There are ways to avoid that repetition, though, aside from the obvious point-to-point track plan. My layout is all set in a single town (it represents that town's industrial belt line) so there is no surprise that the train passes through Sacramento all the time--the purpose of the line is to service Sacramento's industries!

Small layouts are well-suited to portraying small geographical areas, rather than trying to represent Chicago on one end of a 4x8 and Los Angeless on the other end. There are other scenic tricks one can use to expand a small space: view blocks, multiple scenes, backdrop dividers, loads-in/empties-out simulation via a structure with hidden track, even something as mundane as the train running behind a hill can magnify apparent space--if you can't SEE the train running around in a circle, the sense that it is doing so is diminished. And for those modeling beautiful downtown Centralville, splitting the scene up so posh North Centralville is viewed from one side of the layout, while run-down industrial South Centralville is featured on the other, can provide that magnification of space and difference of scene that suggests a layout that actually goes from place to place.

Generic scenery, admittedly, is easier--but that puts limits on those who want to model prototypical scenery.

[Anonymous]

dharmon, jetrock

AMEN Brothers!!

[tatans]

I was at a recent train show gawking at massive h.o. train set-ups and they soon all looked the same, same strange looking rock walls, buildings jammed together with hundreds of cars and people standing on squares so they don't topple over, I continued only to look at the trains when I came upon a small 3'x3' diorama of a small logging scene, I was astounded at the detail and especially the exact scale of everything in the scene, a few other people all commented how real this looked and said you could almost smell the trees, and around another corner was a 2'x5' diorama of a small prairie setting and one lone grain elevator that should have been in a museum, these 2 sites really made an impression on me to see how important (to me) scenery is to a layout, GOOD scenery, that is. I hope the alternative is not to recreate those old Lionel main streets of plasticville buildings with a $1500 brass locomotive roaring by, good scenery can make a layout a work of art.

[Anonymous]

Of course it is. The human imagination only get so far with words depicting what you are trying to convey. Scenery is visual and trancends language and explaination. Creating or recreating a scene that conveys a 3 dimensional image for the viewer, and having them being drawn to it, is what the hobby is all about, isn't it?
IMHO, the most detailed and realistic train imaginable, still looks "toyish" perched on rails mounted to a plain sheet of homsaote or plywood.

[twhite]

For me, scenery is a necessity, but only AFTER everything else is working right. I'm modeling the Sierra Nevada during WWII, so yes, I'm going to have granite peaks and valleys and canyons and swift-flowing rivers and tons of Evergreen and Aspen and Fall deciduous and brush and even some skinny-dippers. But ONLY after everything on the railroad is working to the point where I feel safe putting it in. I've got some of the scenery in right now, over Yuba Summit, which is simply single track with no sophisticated wiring. This winter, I hope to be able to do some more scenery on some other portions that I've decided are working well, and as I progress with the track and wiring and all of the other things that a model railroader must do, I will progress with the scenery. I like scenery and I'm told I'm better than average at it. So yes, I will eventually scenick the entire layout. That doesn't mean that if I see your railroad that is all lumber and Homasote and the trains run flawlessly on the main and in the yards, and you've got only essential structures standing there on the raw wood that I'm not going to look at you and just go "Man, this is SPECTACULAR!" Because if it runs well and does what you want, scenery or no, you've got all of my admiration.

[twhite]

For me, scenery is a necessity, but only AFTER everything else is working right. I'm modeling the Sierra Nevada during WWII, so yes, I'm going to have granite peaks and valleys and canyons and swift-flowing rivers and tons of Evergreen and Aspen and Fall deciduous and brush and even some skinny-dippers. But ONLY after everything on the railroad is working to the point where I feel safe putting it in. I've got some of the scenery in right now, over Yuba Summit, which is simply single track with no sophisticated wiring. This winter, I hope to be able to do some more scenery on some other portions that I've decided are working well, and as I progress with the track and wiring and all of the other things that a model railroader must do, I will progress with the scenery. I like scenery and I'm told I'm better than average at it. So yes, I will eventually scenick the entire layout. That doesn't mean that if I see your railroad that is all lumber and Homasote and the trains run flawlessly on the main and in the yards, and you've got only essential structures standing there on the raw wood that I'm not going to look at you and just go "Man, this is SPECTACULAR!" Because if it runs well and does what you want, scenery or no, you've got all of my admiration.

[darth9x9]

The bottom line is - what floats YOUR boat? As long as you are happy, that is all that matters.

BC