Are you a realism nut?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomwatkins

Both. I want my locomotives to be close enough to accurate to be recognizable as Southern and L&N locomotives. I want my rolling stock to reflect what was used in the late forties to early fifties. My towns and scenery will look like western North Carolina in the Spring. It is and will continue to be fun, whether I'm detailing a locomotive, building structures or scenery, or just running trains. If I stop having fun it's time to look at what I'm doing or how I'm doing it and make some adjustments fast.
Have Fun,
Tom Watkins

Tom, you hit the nail right on the head, THANKYOU[:)][:)][:)][:)][:)][:)]

[Anonymous]

I voted for both, I like to see realizm to a certain extent, But when it comes down to the "nuts & bolts" (rivet counting) who cares , Let's have fun. Although I'm glad to see that some people are diehard rivet counters, Because I get some pretty good ideas from them that I can use on my layout , Something that I would not have thought of ect.

[Anonymous]

I am a dyed in the wool nut about realism is some things, but less focused in other areas. I strive for the type of realism evident in the work of George Sellios. Maybe the rivets are wrong, but the effect is right. George is a master, I am a duffer. But maybe one day?

Keep the stoker running.

Tom

[Jacktal]

I'm actually working on a layout that will feature a fictitious area as I wanted some specific features that probably aren't found anywhere...well,I don't know,may be there is such a place.However I want it to look realistic enough so that it could exist.

On the other hand,I buy locos I like for different reasons.I like collecting them and certainly will use them on my layout.Having my SD50 parked alongside my 4-8-4 won't be an offending sight...at least not to me.

[Anonymous]

i try to stay realistic

[Anonymous]

Gets to the heart of the question of why I left HO and Model Railroader for Classic Toy Trains and toy train O. I want to have fun -- not sweat the details -- I have to do that at work.

Good poll!

[Anonymous]

I want my locomotives, rolling stock, and scernary, to be pretty close to real looking (but not like the exact location real looking). As for running my trains realisticly, sure, speed limits, making up trains in yards, switching, etc. But, I run my trains my own way. I'm in this for fun, not rivet counting.

[Anonymous]

I voted for both but I am I geuss a realisim nut. I do not have a layout yet but it will feture opertunities for realistic operation. I am hoping for a linear trackplan but that may not happen.

Alex in the sooner state

[CBQ_Guy]

I try to be fairly realistic but I'm not obsessed by it. I am modeling the old CB&Q railroad and as such feel I need to have a fairly high level of "prototypicality" going to make it seem somewhat believable and legitimate. As I find a new piece of info concering the 'Q I didn't have before, I try to incorporate it into my modeling if possible. If not, that's usually OK, too. I think there will be no doubt whatsoever what RR I am modeling and probably a lot, not most, never some rivet counter types will be satisfied with the layout and modeling. If not, so what, as for me it all also is just plain FUN!

[jwar]

Both, but above all, the internal satisfaction of accomplishing my contention of modeling a specific time or area. Does It really matter if one counts rivits or not. everone has a different goal, if ya count rivits what about scale flat spots on the rolling stock(just kidding), O well its better then flying planes, if one has a power outage, one doest have to worry about sudden stops. What ever you like go for it, its your hobbie as well as mine. I try to go for scale and a prototype theme. However I placed a light timber bridge on a heavy main line, account of a ravine I wanted to hilight, I like it and its cool. If ya dont like it thats ok too, so whateverfloats yer boat...go for it.

[Anonymous]

both arer good

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: Originally posted by codyr

well i think realism is in the eye of the beholder im from new zealand and i dont know the first thing about american railways if you asked me where rio grande run id say iceland so when im running a 90's geep on a 50's layout with 70's cars a chemical in my brain makes me see the train and thats it even if its on a flat pooltabel cover with no scenary i am pleased

It's definitely a matter of degree--I don't know the first thing about NZ railroads, other than the narrow-gauge trolleys I saw in "Heavenly Creatures", so I'd be a bit thrown modeling New Zealand railways--I'd assume lightweight British-style equipment, but that's about all I'd know--but if I built an NZ-based layout and you saw it, you'd know what was realistic and what was not right away.

[Anonymous]

I think all who chose both are right. You don't want to have your layout too unrealistic, but remember, model railroading is fun.

[Anonymous]

well i think realism is in the eye of the beholder im from new zealand and i dont know the first thing about american railways if you asked me where rio grande run id say iceland so when im running a 90's geep on a 50's layout with 70's cars a chemical in my brain makes me see the train and thats it even if its on a flat pooltabel cover with no scenary i am pleased

| |
| |

\___/

[Jetrock]

I suppose I'm one of those freaks who considers spending a few hours in the city archives or the Railroad Museum library poring over dusty old maps to be a good time.

I suppose even realism nuts have their own incongruities. For me, the sense of place is most important--my rolling stock will not be precise, but I'm making sure that the buildings on my layout reflect the businesses that existed on the prototype--down to the street addresses on the buildings. I've modified engines pretty extensively to more closely resemble my prototype--but you can certainly tell the difference between the model and the prototype side-by-side.

For me, the research and detail IS fun--and so are the incongruities and anachronisms that will be in place on the layout--many of which would go totally unnoticed by anyone who ISN'T a rivet-counter.

I definitely got into a discussion about this sort of thing this weekend--I am helping start a modular traction club, and we discussed what we'd do in the case of very incongruous prototypes, equipment from vastly different railroads or times (like a wood-frame early 1900's trolley car running alongside a modern light-rail vehicle) and other such issues, etcetera. In many ways, it would dilute the message we're trying to put across, and reduce the fun we get in that respect--although we decided that there were places where showing such contrasts would create interests (like two modular modelers creating modules of the same scene in different times, to show the contrasts and similarities between them.)

One person's fun is another person's tedium. It's your layout--do what you like with it. Just don't criticize mine for not reflecting your idea of what a fun layout should be...

[liquidcross]

I'd say a bit of both. I'm not modeling a specific railroad or era, but I don't want my layout to seem too "toylike."

[Anonymous]

I voted both. While I endeavour to make the overall scene realistic, I do take creative liberties. Right now, one of my many projects is a model of Amtrak's now discontinued "San Diegan." The locomotives and cars will be accurate models of the originals. But the fare paying passengers will be little green men from Planet Purple.

[vsmith]

Well I'm doing indoor large scale, (I'm calling it 1:20.3) which is very big and I want extreme realism, like coffee pot steaming on top of the loco's backhead realism, like piles of scale beer cans piled up behind the planned saloon. but I also want to have fun with it like surprise views when you look into a building or some humorous touches on the layout.

But I'm not a rivet counter, I have a mix of scales on my layout due to the bizzare mix offered in large scale, some 1:20.3 and 1:22.5 locos and buildings, some 1:24 rolling stock cars, and some 1:18 autos, (large scale is a mess) so I cant be fussy about "exact to scaleness", that I dont worry about. Its more important that things "look right".

I dont know how long it will take to do this level of detailing or if it is even up to my skills but I love the trying. I guess the secret is not to try and ru***o completetion.

[ClinchValleySD40]

Realism to the point that it is believable and feels right. Beyond that (rivet counting) - no.

[orsonroy]

What's with the anti-prototype bias of this question? How come the question isn't "Are you a fantasyland nut?"

[AggroJones]

Yes. I am very much for realism on my layout. Everything is highly detailed and weathered properly, but on this western layout, you might see a N&W Y3 cruise by. All the trains I run are not from the location I model. Otherwise, I go as real as I can.

[PistolPete]

Enjoyment (fun) is the driving force behind my model railroading. Hopefully it looks good also, but that is secondary. Their is no way that my layout will ever look like The Franklin & South Manchester or any other layout featured in MR, but I enjoy the hobby as much as the builders of those layouts do. [:)]

[Anonymous]

I like realism, but I'm not too much of a nut.

[bcammack]

I just want to convey the sense of a real railroad, not recreate it in miniature. Firstly, my eyes are too bad to either implement or see minutae. Secondly, I'm a perfectionist and it is flat impossible to for me recreate in miniature to my satisfaction.

My only recourse is to convey a sense of reality to the degree that satifies myself and the average non-railfan/railroader/modeler who sees these things occasionally.

Regards,
Brett C. Cammack
League City, TX

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rsn48

Your poll reads like a political poll which wants to support one candidate. Do I want realism or do I want fun? Yes. The implication is that realism is no fun or that fun leaves out realism, neither statement is true. I didn't vote.

Please keep in mind that the pollster is 12 years old, beside some people view challenges as fun. And going for total realism is certainly challenging.[;)]

[CP5415]

I model for the fun of it.
I want a certain degree of realism but I don't count rivets. I don't have time for that.

Gordon

[tomwatkins]

Both. I want my locomotives to be close enough to accurate to be recognizable as Southern and L&N locomotives. I want my rolling stock to reflect what was used in the late forties to early fifties. My towns and scenery will look like western North Carolina in the Spring. It is and will continue to be fun, whether I'm detailing a locomotive, building structures or scenery, or just running trains. If I stop having fun it's time to look at what I'm doing or how I'm doing it and make some adjustments fast.
Have Fun,
Tom Watkins

[ShaunCN]

I like some realism but also want to have fun. what would be the point to model railroading if it wasn't fun.

[Anonymous]

Your poll reads like a political poll which wants to support one candidate. Do I want realism or do I want fun? Yes. The implication is that realism is no fun or that fun leaves out realism, neither statement is true. I didn't vote.