How far does your true to scale finishing go in either direction and why, if there is a why?
So you have meticulously built that perfect true to scale structure and set it on the layout, or made a scene that is hard to tell from the real thing. Then comes the area surrounding your masterpiece. How far do you extend the scene or as is the case for so many of us, how far can you extend the scene?
I remember returning to the hobby thinking of what I really wanted to copy from the real world and soon realized it would take a 300' stretch to do that. My Sister thrilled that I was doing MRR again, remembering the hours spent with Dad running trains and creating our own little empire. She thought for sure a scale model of the Canadian Pacific Spiral Tunnels would be in the corner of the trainroom. She was somewhat shocked when I told her a scale model of the Spiral Tunnels would take the entire lower floor of the house. The Spiral Tunnels are something I had to give up due to space constraints.
There is no right or wrong here, but tell us about what is important when it comes to fine-scale modelling, the "must-do's, must-have's" in the margins around the perfect bit on the layout. How much real estate around your structure is required to make it stand out rather than just be part of the clutter?
Is the surrounding area or area of transition low or high priority for you? Having empty space between scenes helps people focus more on that super scene and makes them appreciate the detail of your work even more. Is less more?
I like the scrutiny the camera offers and the things on the layout I have photographed quickly show where the most improvements can be made which is usually the surrounding area. I know of the perfect scratch-built structure sitting on pink foam and yet another set into a perfect diorama that slides into the layout and everything else in between.
Tell us, show us, everything you have and can do to make what could be a stand-alone masterpiece fit onto the layout without looking out of place because the rest of the layout is not quite as detailed (yet). Help us learn through what you have done.
Unless of course, your entire layout is the perfect masterpiece and it all is done to scale. We really want to see that.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Brent, thanks for starting the conversation.
I think that for all of us, there's a cost/benefit analysis of sorts that we do. Whether it's being pressed for time, money, materials, or just mojo (it takes a lot of mojo and time to build a convincing, useful, fun, and enduring layout), we all have to define our own limits.
I don't paint the fars sides of rails if I know a camera will never show them. I do finish all my structure kits, and I do paint them as well as my skills allow. Same for scenery. But, the further stuff is from my illusion-needing eyes, the less time and effort I spend on making stuff really 'good', or veridical.
I have only ever wanted to model, truly take a stab at realism, with my second layout that has all those photos posted over the years...now gone 9 years. I tried to model that rock cut along Horseshoe Curve as best I could, the one often seen in proto photos.
Unfortunately, I also wanted a rock tunnel portal, and that's where it ended up. I fly by the seat of me pants.
Well, I am between layouts, getting ready to start the next one soon.
A few of my self imposed standards include things like close coupling and working/touching diaphragms on passenger cars - even if those passenger cars are selectively compressed freelanced cars.
On the topic of scenery, I have never been motivated to build scenes of real places.
But I work hard at capturing the features and flavor of the region I model.
I tried building a "shelf" type layout last time around. It was also multi deck.
By the time some of it was running I knew I was not going to be happy with the scenery.
So for the new layout I have gone back to the more traditional one scenic level and much deeper scenery. Most of the layout will be 3-4 feet deep, some places even deeper, to allow full developement of scenery that tells more of a story than just the 80' either side of the tracks.
I have a long list of "signature" scenes I intend to build.
Hard to do that on a two foot deep shelf.......
More later,
Sheldon
I've built my layout in phases, completing one before starting the next. I seldom had periods of Plywood Prairie between scenes. The phases have always been small enough to complete a scene and tie it pretty completely to the previously completed scene without a gap.
The pink foam was always in the corners awaiting completion.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Brent, you do realize you have asked a rarther complex question.
That's why I only gave a preliminary reply at first, I wanted to think about your questions a bit more.
So, I'm starting my new layout, I have spent about 18 months off and on working on the track plan. Hopefully you have taken a look at in my thread on the subject where the plan is now posted.
As I said above, I make no effort to copy actual scenes. I do prefer to build buildings that are "full scale" or a believable size even if slightly compressed.
The new layout plan has lots of "real estate" for non railroad scenery.
There will be an urban area, representing a small Mid Atlantic city that will be about 2' deep and over 25' long - sounds big until you realize that is not even 1/2 mile long.
The very nature of your question is a key element in my design approach - only model one place, only model one of each major element, do not try to model both "ends" of the line.
I'm modeling a sub division yard in a small city and few selectively compressed miles either side of it - that's going to fill 1500 sq ft.
But also as explained above, I want scenic depth. I want to be able to model the other aspects of daily life besides what goes on right near the tracks.
So my city will have suburbs, older suburbs with Victorian houses, and newer suburbs with bungalows and such.
And then the rural areas, farming, small "intersection" communities like we still have here, forests, streams, a little taste of what the Mid Atlantic looks like.
One signature scene will be this swing bridge:
The river is about 6' wide, or 525 scale feet. Small but believable for a navigable river.
Another key scene will be an autombile assembly plant - big enough to look like they do actually build cars there. The two building complex will be about 10' long.
And here is how and why I do use selective compression.
Passenger cars - most of my passenger cars are 72' freelanced/compressed models. Why?
Because a 12 car passenger train of 10" long cars (close coupled with working diaphragms) looks more like the real thing from a distance than 10 cars that are 12" long with big gaps between the cars ends - both trains take up the same amount of platform space in the station..........
And the shorter cars are much more graceful looking on my curves, which are pretty large, 36" minimum, 40" average.
Other elements - a freight yard actually long enough to be a freight yard, about 22' not counting the drill leads or approach trackage.
I could have "crammed" a lot more into 1500 sq ft, shorter fright yard, sharper curves, less "open space" for scenery would have allowed a lot more "railroading".
But I'm tring to do exactly what you are talking about, create that sense of real life and real proportions as much as practical.
I'll never achieve the levels some demand of themselves regarding a number of things, like detail on rolling stock and such.
In a 200 sq foot room with an ISL, even with selective compression, I can't have it all. One thing I try to do is give industries enough space so as not to look crammed, and make them big enough to legitimize being served by rail. And have some space not served by rail.
This meant eliminating some proposed rail customers and track, tearing out hard earned trackage for a more pleasing open look. I hope that each scene transitions into the other instead of colliding, giving each it's space for a measure of convincing detail. Dan
When it comes to adding detail around specific scenes, I hope that over time I can come close to what David (North Brit) has done with his layout. Every one of his scenes is highly detailed and tells a story.
For example, I plan on having a small suburban scene with five or six houses. My desire is to make those houses look lived in with lots of details like gardens (which David does particularly well), picnic tables, BBQs, lawn mowers, and most importantly, families and pets playing in the yards.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thanks for your kind comments, Dave. You have knocked me off my feet.
To illustrate what Dave means. I make little scenes that I have seen in life. Most are not railroad related, but of life in general. Here are a few examples --
I have many transport related passions. One being canal boats. I wanted a quiet scene of a canal boat tied up for the day. Bring it to life. A boy watching. A dog beside him. The horses are inquisitive. Maybe they will be given a carrot?
'Yesterday' was a windy day and has made a mess of the garden. Not everything is 'neat and organized'. Matt Summers is about to tidy it all up. He has his wheelbarrow out. Then he sees a train passing.
At Cranfield's Newagents we see people heading towards it. The pedal bike left outside whilst the owner is inside. A street cleaner with his barrow.
Thompson's Timber Yard. Work goes on oblivious to any railroad.
Fixing the wheel on the vehicle. Max the guard dog is wandering over wondering why it is taking so long. Jimmy Marston has been holding that wheel for three years. . To the right Agnes Marston is off to the store and taking her dog with her.
And so it goes on. Lots of little scenes. You have all seen them. They do not have to be railroad related. All have a reason to be there to bring it to life.
Remember, a railroad is only part of the scene and a train passes thru it. Scenery is not 'perfect'. If a piece of fencing falls down you could leave it and have the owner looking at it and think how he should fix it. See what you see and not what you thought you saw.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
Nice scenes David!
I have a very small space - 7X11 - so a deep layout would mean a lot of sacrifice on the operations front. I find that taking the time to do a proper background to hide the corners makes a big difference. Also, less is always more when it comes to track and buildings. And my buildings will all be completed before I start my scenery. I'm at that point now, scenery work will start soon.
Simon
Goodness, I miss these discussion topics. Thanks for restarting them. What a perfect way to tip off the weekend!
My 1st train mentor Charles "Bill" Day mentioned that having miles of track is more realistic than a ton of structures. I'd agree, but it depends on what you're replicating. I try to replicate southern VA where the N&W reigned supreme in the 1980s.
There are must have industries in that part of the state. Def. coal and ag are prominent. Would many know that the industries I have are from that area? Doubt it. To help ground the localism and boost up the realism, I might even print out signs of local colleges to put on industries.
Adding clutter to the layout is great b/c not much of an industrial area is clean and tidy.
I try to do highly detailed everything but HO scale has its limitations as to what you can accually see (one reason I was considering On30 but didn't have the space). Things for me have to look good from one foot away. Even my highly detailed RTR stuff dose not look real much closer
Hi Simon. Thanks for your comment.
My layout is 11ft X 8ft (just a little bigger than yours.) The layout is 00 gauge.
No way would I suggest 'my way' is the way to do things. Far from it. Just my way.
I try to add little scenes I have seen to bring the layout to life and have a reason to be there. A living model railway.
The number of times you know a train is there, but can hardly see it.
It is not all sunshine and blue sky
After a downpour of rain. Puddles. Wet ground. A shaft of sunlight.
Dare to make your layout different.
When I had my first HO layout in the master bedroom, I added 6 feet to the layout when we moved to the new house. My wife thought it would be nice to add a model of our house, and our previous dream house, to the layout.
My house sits on a modest 1/4 acre lot, 80 feet by 125 feet. I found out the footprint for our lot would be 12 inches by 19 inches! Wow. The dream house was on 1 1/2 acres. An HO scale model of my house would be 10 inches wide and 5 inches deep. The dream house would have been 13 inches by 7 inches!
I will never model buildings in full size!
As far as extending a scene, I clump everything. Industrial buildings go together, businesses go together, and residences go together. The scenes just flow into one another.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 I will never model buildings in full size! -Kevin
I will!
At 5 feet long, this model scales out to the full 435 feet of the original. I was going to compress it's width, but decided since it's a model of a well known local prototype, illegally torn down in 2004, I had to give it the full footprint. Had to sacrifice one yard track, but well worth it. You should see the look on peoples faces when they see it! "Thats The Crane Shed!" Yep
I'm doing another local building too, full to scale, but it is far smaller, including it's slightly compressed parking yard.
This building, viewed from the opposite side as the view of the model.
I took 84 pictures of this building with film, a media I never got along with, before they tore it down without notice!
Since it could easily pass for a barn,I may add a model of my 1/1 shop to the layout, backdating it to the mid 60s by substituting the materials on it that weren't available in the 60s for those that were. Dan
BATMAN...So you have meticulously built that perfect true to scale structure and set it on the layout, or made a scene that is hard to tell from the real thing. Then comes the area surrounding your masterpiece. How far do you extend the scene or as is the case for so many of us, how far can you extend the scene?
Here's a scene of Chippawa Creek...
...it's source not shown, and its destination beyond the edge of the layout.
Here's the real Chippawa Creek...
...its source some unknown distance behind me, and it's destination to eventually become the Welland River, and then a feeder to the Welland Canal, all out of sight. We lived, for a couple of years, a stone's throw from this spot.Running somewhat parallel to the modelled Chippawa Creek is a road, which comes from nowhere-land beyond the edge of the layout...
...then curves and climbs...
...until it disappears...
BATMAN...Is the surrounding area or area of transition low or high priority for you? Having empty space between scenes helps people focus more on that super scene and makes them appreciate the detail of your work even more. Is less more?...
I don't have room for empty space. There are no houses on my layout, as they don't, in most cases for me, at-least, serve to enhance these scenes. I do plan to eventually add a couple of very small "neighbourhoods", but only if I can fit them appropriately into the scene.
Not too far away is another river. I call it the Maitland River, but have it emptying into Lake Erie, while the real Maitland River empties into Lake Huron. I took this liberty because one of my freelanced railroads is the Grand Valley, which supposedly would run alongside the Grand River, which does empty into Lake Erie. I opted to not model the Grand River, as there was no room to have it run alongside the Grand Valley's track.
Here's the real Grand River, with an abandonned CNR bridge over it...
....and my version of the transplanted Maitland River...
As seen above and viewed from a low-flying airplane, it's an interesting scene with a train and a river.However, when viewed from the river....
...what the viewer sees is Lake Erie. I made this choice mainly because, when I was a child, our family often went to beaches on Lake Erie, even though we lived very close to Lake Ontario. The water temperature in Lake Erie was generally 10º-15º higher than Lake Ontario. Often, we would see smudges of smoke on the horizon...perhaps passing lake boats or maybe from a factory on the U.S. side of the Lake. Lots of good memories, so I'm very certain about what I see when looking under that bridge - visitors might not see it the same, unless their childhood was similar.
I won't claim to make meticulously-built structures, but the space around them is filled with other structures of similar quality. Most of my layout is only a little more than couple of feet deep, so this scene, taken from a low-flying plane...
...shows businesses in a small town, crammed together between the tracks and the backdrop. The partial white structure in the right foreground is a large icehouse which supplies ice to affiliated dealers in most of the towns on my layout. Beyond the station, the green structures are a small lumber yard, very loosely-based on a real one, owned by an uncle. The red structure is a coal dealer, also affiliated with the icehouse-running family, and with outlets in most of my on-layout towns. Beyond that, and bracketing the coal dealer, are trackside stockpens on the left, and the stockyard auction house to the right.To the left of the mainline track is railroad property: enginehouse in the foreground, turntable pit, coaling tower, and carshop. Beyond the distant crossing are section-gang buildings and the water tower.The scenery along the backdrop here rises slightly, but unbeknownst to many visitors, the shore of Lake Erie is there; just out-of-sight
BATMANThere is no right or wrong here, but tell us about what is important when it comes to fine-scale modelling, the "must-do's, must-have's" in the margins around the perfect bit on the layout. How much real estate around your structure is required to make it stand out rather than just be part of the clutter?
I don't really do what I'd call fine-scale modelling. What I want is interesting scenes, and I don't have room to space them out (nor do I want it). The city where I grew up had industry everywhere, some of it too massive in model-form to fit into any basement.I picked what I wanted from a vast menu of choices, many vocalised by my father, who worked at many industries and in many capacities, along with friends and relatives who visited often, and where shop-talk was common and very interesting to me as a child, perhaps from the age of 4 or 5, and right up into adulthood.Most of what I modelled was buildings of known businesses, but mostly never seen by me....by the time I was able to see them on my own, many were gone or re-purposed. I'm disappointed that even more are gone nowadays, but those earlier ones, not seen, allowed me to make them as I thought they should have, or might have, looked. I called this town Dunnville, and it bears absolutely no ressemblance at all to the real Dunnville, but it's also a reminder of earlier times there, even when simply passing through there on the way to Lake Erie.This is the Evel Casket Company...the real one was just slightly beyond downtown Hamilton, but as young children, my brother and I often passed it when we went shopping with out mother. It was mostly hidden behind a tall board fence, but I could see the upper storeys of a large brick building. I also thought the name oddly appropriate, although on the model, I did misspell it. It was torn down at a time where I had little interest in model railroading, so it's based strictly on conjecture...
...across the street, at least on the layout, is Wilkinson-Kompass, another real business that I never saw (and it was apparently very much smaller than my version of it). They supplied all sorts of stuff for industry and other businesses - tools, nuts & bolts, metals, pipe, hardware, cleaning and maintenance products, etc., etc.
Close by was Coffield Washer, building washing machines...
...my father had worked there when I was very young, but the real one was apparently in a much smaller building, too.
Here's another structure, based on another real building that I've never seen - National Grocers...
...they had outlets all over southern Ontario, but I knew of them only through my mother, as my parents had friends who ran a couple of hotels/bars. My mother often went with them when they bought supplies for their business, but her usual purchase was ground coffee, at wholesale prices. That connection alone was reason enough to build a model, however incorrect it might be...I think that it looks exactly how it should have looked.
A little further into town is Bertram's Machine Tool Works. It's also modelled after a real business in nearby Dundas, although most of it is now gone. My interest in it was because my mother had worked with one of her girl-friends at a Loblaws store in Hamilton, and that woman later married to a guy who worked at Bertram's.When that couple came to visit, the ladies had their own conversation going, while my father and the woman's husband talked-shop, with me as an engaged listener.I had seen some of the real factory, but not enough to recall much of it, so it's another stand-in, and one of my favorites...
...and the main offices (the complex occupies a city block)...
Somewhat further north is this coal dealer...
It's strictly freelanced, and named for a longtime good friend, who's also into model railroading...
Viewers have already seen the Dunnville station on elevated track in the background. It was inspired by the TH&B's elevated right-of-way in downtown Hamilton, built to ease traffic congestion, and the TH&B's main station, which was only two blocks down from our house. When I was born, we were living right across the street from the elevated track, and when I got a little older, often watched Canada's only Berkshires, along with two New York Central Hudsons, that the TH&B had bought from the Central. New York Central trains, both steam- and diesel-powered made daily appearances, as the did those of the CPR, as both of those larger roads had controlling interest in the TH&B.Here's a couple views of that station...
I didn't wish to copy the real station, but did like the Ashlar stonework on the it, so decided to do my own version...again.
The near wing is the express department on the lower three floors, with railroad staff and executives in the offices above, while the lower part of the centre portion is a two-storey mezzanine, with ticket offices, waiting rooms and shops on the ground floor, and more exclusive shops along the esplanade on the second level. The storeys above are rented to various businesses.The far wing is occupied mostly by Canada Post, with some other businesses and some high-end apartments in the upper storeys...
Just across the side street from the station is this business, another made-up industry in recognition of friends, in this case a husband and wife both into model railroading...
The structure is fairly large, and represents a completely fictional business, which looks exactly how I imagined it should look....
Still in Dunnville, but a little further on, is this empty space. I plan to put a very small neighbourhood here, with the backyards abutting the tracks, and the two-storey houses severely truncated due to the lack of depth available. There will be, I hope, at least house-fronts on the opposite side of a very unrealistically-narrow street...
A little further along, on the outskirts of town, much like its prototype, is Mercury Mills, based on a real factory on, at the time it was built, the outskirts of Hamilton...
While the model is fairly large, I wouldn't have had room to build a to-scale model of the real one, the floor area of which was measured in acres, rather than square feet.When my mother wished to visit one of her sisters in east Hamilton, my brother and I had to tag along, too...he would have been 1 or 2, and I, 4 or 5. We went on the bus, and by the factory, and I was always amused by the slogan..."Makers of High Grade Hosiery for Women and Men - and Underwear for Men, Women and Children". It still elicits a smile.
Still on the outskirts of Dunnville is the local ice house...
...owned by the same family as the one shown earlier.
There are five other towns on the layout, all within walking distance, if the LPBs ever get off their little plastic butts and decide to go for a hike.
Brent, I don't know if I've responded to your original post appropriately, but I can say that for the most part, I am satisfied with what I have built and how it looks.If others enjoy it, too, I take it as a compliment, and if they don't, I won't be offended. I have made, so far, anyway, what I wanted to make, and hope to do more of the same for the rest of the layout, once I finish a few projects for friends.
Wayne
Wayne, I've never seen anything in any of your pictures that I didn't like. Always a treat, and everything flows without looking crammed. I'd like to be one of your LPBs so I could get of my plastic but and take that hike!
I notice you have a light touch on the weathering, but it's there. All the buildings look planted too, not floating. Your use of wild plants and grass, trees is what keeps it believable.
I forgot to mention in my post, although my crane shed is to scale, the real estate around it is more compressed that the 1/1, but I think it can breathe. Dan
Southgate 2You should see the look on peoples faces when they see it! "Thats The Crane Shed!" Yep
Yeah, I remember viewing your step-by-step build of that very impressive model.
I'd bet that on a suitable outdoor diorama, with an appropriate real background, it could easily pass as the real one.
Very nicely-done!
doctorwayne Yeah, I remember viewing your step-by-step build of that very impressive model. I'd bet that on a suitable outdoor diorama, with an appropriate real background, it could easily pass as the real one. Very nicely-done! Wayne
Thank you, Wayne. I don't tell visitors where I had to compromise on the structure, like the size and spacing of the windows on the end mainly. I just let them take it in.
By the way, the 1/1 structure was always well painted and kept looking good from the outside, even though it had internal rot damage towards the end of it's days. It had served a number of purposes after the sawmill was gone, from beer distributor to indoor tennis courts.
Back to your layout, I've been wanting to build a small Flux-O-Line distributor on my layout, and give visitors the true story that it's a Canadian based firm, the only manufacturer of it's kind. No further ado! Dan
I think it would be difficult to build a structure to fine scale detail. There's more more detail to buildings than what we think, IMO.
And a finely detailed model looks out of place in a non finely detailed layout, and more so visa versa.
Non fine detailed layouts are great. I think the eye sees consistency and is fine with that. When I place a finely detailed model amonsgt non finely detailed models, my eye longs for more of the fine details. Can't go back, so to speak. But that's me.
As far as scenery, deep scenes are wonderful, especially when entering a room or for club style layouts where visitors have a chance to take in all sorts of things.
But when I'm operating trains, my eye focuses there, and the stuff beyond my immediate focus tends to be background noise, no matter how it looks. Depth of the non railroad scene doesn't really matter. For my layouts, I prefer a simple blue sky backdrop rather than a detailed photo or painting, because its really only viewed from my peripheral vision and the blank blue backdrop represents infinity. I know lots of things are back there, I just can't "see" them.
- Douglas
Good morning
I like the thread Brent. A lot of good information and pictures here that I have enjoyed.
I don't feel I'm far enough along with my sea of pink to post from experience on this subject yet. I'm still trying to finish the foam skeleton and all the custom bridges but I'm working on it.
I'm learning some good knowledge here for the future progress of my layout.
Thanks for all the informative posts
TF
Southgate 2I've been wanting to build a small Flux-O-Line distributor on my layout, and give visitors the true story that it's a Canadian based firm, the only manufacturer of it's kind. No further ado! Cool Dan
Dan, if you'd care to share your e-mail address in a PM, I can send you a bunch of GERN Industries advertising idiocy...it usually takes five e-mails, due to the attachments. After that, when my brother creates new stuff, it gets sent out to all the other GERNies, too.
I can read the PMs I receive, but a cannot reply to them - this situation has been ongoing for a couple of years.
Doug said:
"Non fine detailed layouts are great. I think the eye sees consistency and is fine with that. When I place a finely detailed model amonsgt non finely detailed models, my eye longs for more of the fine details. Can't go back, so to speak. But that's me."
-------------------------
I agree with that, consistancy is more important than fine detail. Quality has to be there though.
I personally like depth. I totally get your point about operating, making the trains the focus. But I will always spend far more time building than operating, so the layout beyond the moving trains is more important to me than the op session. I even have some track areas that aren't powered, and some that even if they are, the cars posed there will seldom, if ever move. Like dioramas among the live scenes. That's just me, though. Dan
BATMAN... the "must-do's, must-have's" in the margins around the perfect bit on the layout
BATMANSo you have meticulously built that perfect true to scale structure and set it on the layout...
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
ATLANTIC CENTRALBrent, you do realize you have asked a rarther complex question.
Yep, that's in my nature and I love to instigate complex conversations around the dinner table and at hockey night when the friends are all over. Rum or Scotch makes us have all the solutions in the end.
Sorry for abandoning you all and not responding sooner. Friends had a family emergency and a few families (close friends) had to leave town in a hurry to say unexpected goodbye to their Grandpa before he passes. He is 400KM away so I am watching the farm(s) literally.
Thanks for all your contributions.
No worries Brent, the responses so far quickly show how this matters a lot to some, and not at all to others, which I expected right away.
Southgate 2 Doug said: "Non fine detailed layouts are great. I think the eye sees consistency and is fine with that. When I place a finely detailed model amonsgt non finely detailed models, my eye longs for more of the fine details. Can't go back, so to speak. But that's me." ------------------------- I agree with that, consistancy is more important than fine detail. Quality has to be there though. I personally like depth. I totally get your point about operating, making the trains the focus. But I will always spend far more time building than operating, so the layout beyond the moving trains is more important to me than the op session. I even have some track areas that aren't powered, and some that even if they are, the cars posed there will seldom, if ever move. Like dioramas among the live scenes. That's just me, though. Dan
Well, this comes back to the idea of fine details.
You can finely detail the ROW. Look at Lance Mindheims shelf layout blogs and you'll see all sorts of little details I would never think to add on a layout. It would take a lot of time, IMO.
To me, they look like dioramas where much of the time is spent building and detailing rather than operating trains. So the diorama concept doesn't have a minimum size.
Detail is not the same as depth. I probably do neither. But I'll do more when I'm retired and have more time. Like OP, I'll probably focus on detailing the structures.
Maybe its about how much time you enjoy building and detailing the nonrailroady parts of the layout.
Ask Rod Stewart.