A response to a question: Is scenery necessary?

[Anonymous]

First I know some of you will recognize the following post. I first wrote it in the layout design sig just after I had joined the list - so some years back. But it is the best expression of what I look for in a layout; and as you can see - scenery is right up there. On an incredible looking layout I'm willing to sacrifice some operating potential. Parts of my response may be dated, but I think the intent still comes through. I am writing this in response to the question: Does a layout really need scenery? The author of this question thought possibly naught, but my response is on the opposite end of the spectrum: the yin of yang.

Before I say anything further, I would like to be up front and say
that my modelling skills are not up to the standards I am about to
apply. I hope they will be someday, and I strive to achieve it, but
there are many, many, many, superior modeller's than I.
When I visit a new layout, on the drive over to this person's home, I
always have this same thought: "I hope this layout will make me
say 'Wow!'" I'm cheering for the author and builder of said layout.
I hope they can bring the child in me out so that I itch to own it,
play on it, or just be generally envious of it.

When I do see one that makes me go "Wow," it is the artistry of it
that I am responding to first; not its operational capacity, whether
it is free lance or prototypical, whether it is true to one era, or
that it has all the "right stuff." This makes me a real sucker for
narrow gauge layouts.

The next thought after I have or have not gone "Wow" is, does this
layout accomplish what the author hoped to accomplish? By this I
mean, does the theme extend into the modelled railroad and does it
work. I don't like to compare layouts, but I would rather see a
good "eclectic - perhaps a little bit too much eclectic" layout well
modelled rather than an inferiorly modelled prototypical railroad. In
other words, quality rather than "following the rules" which many
have told me I'm not to good at...lol.

I have seen an 11 year's old model railroad make me say "Wow" - well
done. Oh, he didn't have proper staging, the tracks were a little
bit spaghetti like, there was too much happening in the space he had,
but "Wow!!!" His layout worked for me. I kept thinking, if this kid
is this good now, I wonder what he'll be like in 30 years.

And I have seen layouts where the modelling was up and down, excellent
in some areas, not so hot in others and yet the layout as a whole
made me go "Wow!" In the particular one I'm thinking of, I was
immediately itching to bring one of my engines over and run it on
this chaps railroad. Since it was a Superintendent's tour, I had the
good sense to keep my mouth shut...lol. I find I am able to forgive
the sins of layout transgressions when a layout "works."

Before I visited another layout, I had heard from many that I would
be impressed. The first second I saw it, I thought...this is a small
layout. But after that first second had passed, I thought "Wow,
wow!!" His layout was moving from the "Wow" category to the "oh my
god!!" category.

I have never seen an "oh my god" layout except in MR and MRP and
other mags. The obvious artists come to mind, John Allen et al.
Unfortunately, a Japanese chap who's name escapes me, modelling the
Pacific Northwest (while residing in Japan) always takes my breath
away when I see pictures of his work.

For me, if you can pull me into your world and have me enjoy it, then
you've got a great layout.

[BRAKIE]

Hi ya Rick! As I often say a layout is such a personal thing..Over the years I been in this hobby I have seen all kinds of home layouts some like you I said wow! while others I would not care to comment on to the owner other then"You have a very nice layout."
You see it pleased him so who am I to judge what is right or wrong for him?

I have seen 2 OMG layouts Worthy of being publish..All to sadly they looked better then they ran and it was not due to the equipment.It was all soddy track work in both cases.

[vsmith]

This is an interesting question...is scenery necessary? NO

Why? simple, its truely NOT NECESSARY to have a well planned , well operating, interestingly planned layout and have to clog it up with trees, foam and hydrocal for still to be a succesfull layout.

Adding scenery is a purely personal decision. If you HATE scenery but LOVE trains, why would you torture yourself doing something you dislike when you could be operating?

If you LOVE scenery, then go for it, add the Rocky Mountains in your basement, But please dont impose on those who would rather run than plaster.

[trainfan1221]

Have to agree, I don`t put a big priority on scenery. I don`t even have much room for it. A little is nice but I must admit I think when there is too much it overwhelms the rest of the layout.

[Anonymous]

Ya[:)]

[Budliner]

well I say yes
you need somthing like trees houses to show a size referance
or its just a plain model

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

This is an interesting question...is scenery necessary? NO

Please talk to my wife. I've been trying to tell her the same thing about the yard...

[AggroJones]

Yes, it is nessesary. Without scenery, it becomes hard to tell what location you model. What region in the country. As BUDLINER pointed out, structures and trees (if it matches region) do help in giving preportion to the trains.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is necessary for some folks. However, I'm not one of them. I like my trains to run over bridges and I feel there needs to be a reason for there to be a bridge. However, I can understand if a person is totally into operation and operation then becomes in and of itself the "hobby", then who needs scenery? I truly had not ever thought about this until reading the 2004 MR Track Planing. David Barrow's layout at this time is pretty much exactly what we're describing here.

[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?

[Anonymous]

Hello Vsmith & Trainfan1221,

I'm with you guys, I haven't grown up enough to get past the thrill of just seeing trains run and would be quite content to run a plywood empire.

Unfortunately I am blessed with creative, artistic and helpful friends with completely different ideas. they also descend on my layout with big ugly Macro lenses and build Traincams that show every unpainted, unscenicked nook and cranny.

I value my friends more than my layout which has resulted in Trainfans caveat. Overwhelmed....if it wasn't for the yard as you walk in the door you could be forgiven for not realising that trains run through the forested mountain of the Hairy Otter.

[Roadtrp]

Is extensive scenery necessary? No.

Would I like it if some of you scenery masters came over to my house and did it for me?

Sure!!

Just let me know if you're interested. I'll buy the materials and provide the beverage of your choice.

[:D]

[Jetrock]

Which shows the plus side of club modeling...the scenery monsters can go to work on the scenery while the rolling stock mavens can go crazy building cars and engines and not have to worry about that plaster stuff.

As to those folks who get their thrills from really good wiring, framework and track, they're so scarce that clubs keep trying to steal them from each other!

[Anonymous]

Scenery is the thing that turns a train set into a model railroad layout. Well modelled scenery makes you go 'Wow!'

Jon

[MAbruce]

Model Railroading is a hobby, and any hobby is intended for the “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation” (Webster’s dictionary definition).

There should be really no right and wrong, except as determined by the one doing the modeling. The trouble arises when someone else chooses to determine what is “right and wrong”.

Webster also has a definition for this:

Critic: One who expresses an opinion on any matter especially involving a judgment of its value, truth, righteousness, beauty, or technique.

I think we need to be clear on the definitions of “Hobby” and “Critic”.

[Anonymous]

MAbruce,

Webster may have his definitions... here's "Snakester's definitions:

Hobby: 1: The enjoyable persuit of spending your hard earned cash on something you really don't need. 2: A relaxing thang to do 'cause ya don't have any mo' money.
Critic: See rivet counter.
Rivet Counter: See critic.

[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

---

"Is scenery necessary?" IMHO - YES - A rattle-can of brown paint to at least paint the sub-roadbed to look like dirt.

[MAbruce]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Snake

MAbruce,

Webster may have his definitions... here's "Snakester's definitions:

Hobby: 1: The enjoyable persuit of spending your hard earned cash on something you really don't need. 2: A relaxing thang to do 'cause ya don't have any mo' money.

[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]

Oh, can I relate to that (not that I had much money to begin with). [(-D]

[DSchmitt]

Whats great about Model Railroading is it is not just one thing. The participant may choose what they want from the hobby.

Some love to run train
Others love to operate them

Some design layouts, but never build them.
Others build layouts, but never design them.

Some build super detailed, prototypically correct equipment
Others buy everyting RTR.

Some are also Railfans
Others never look at a real train

Some are protypically correct
Others do there own thing

There is room or all of us. Scenery is necessary if you want it, not necessary if you don't want it. I personally enjoy seeing sceniced model railroads, but have also enjoyed operating on several that had no scenery at all. After a few minutes concentrating on the trains, I didn't even notice there was no scenery.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

Whats great about Model Railroading is it is not just one thing. The participant may choose what they want from the hobby..........
There is room or all of us. Scenery is necessary if you want it, not necessary if you don't want it. I personally enjoy seeing sceniced model railroads, but have also enjoyed operating on several that had no scenery at all. After a few minutes concentrating on the trains, I didn't even notice there was no scenery.

Well said. One other thing...those who agree with the above, tend to be people who are the MOST fun to spend time with, in our hobby....and tend to be the most helpful to others.[8D]
Those who hold rigid views on their own perceptions of "good & bad" , tend to be the LEAST fun of anyone in the hobby, and the "help" they offer, too often comes across as a lecture.[V]
Mike

[mikebonellisr]

It's YOUR railroad,....Or mine. To each his own!

[Anonymous]

I would have to say yes, otherwise I would not be adding it to my layout. I absoultely HATE doing scenery but for me it makes a better back drop than plywood. So I add scenery. Did I say I hate scenery?[censored][banghead][:(!][:(!][sigh]


Thanks,

Jeremy

[johncolley]

I am probably a minimalist when it comes to scenery, but stop and think about it... The railroads were built across this great new broad land and there were REASONS for curves and grades and bridges and tunnels. So at the very least there should be a suggestion of a big hunk of rock to go around, or a river that's too wide and deep for a culvert, so ya got ta build a bridge, eh? I think Dave Barrow has got that part of Texas just right, but even the Dakotas and eastern Montana have rolling hills and coulees. Now when you get to the rockies or cascades/ sierras you have some serious walls. John Colley Port Townsend, WA Go Rocky...GN through the cascades, or bust!

[on30francisco]

It isn't absolutely necessary as the trains will run without it, but for myself, it is the best part of the hobby. I enjoy building structures and bridges and I'm willing to sacrifice some additional trackage so I can have more scenery. I believe the scenery turns a layout into a model railroad. I really enjoy watching the trains run over trestles, through towns and tree lined hills, and by structures.

[mikebonellisr]

your railroad-your scenery....OR NOT!

[CNJ831]

I think jongrant has come closest to to pinning down the reality of the matter: it is scenery that turns a trainset into a model railroad. As I recall, something like 40 years ago the much revered Linn Westcott said about the same thing in an MR editorial. Thereafter, tin-plate and "trainset" layouts were essentially banned from the pages of MR for decades. Only recently have some attempted to re-write the goals of model railroading to make no-effort trainset layouts a viable choice for the wouldbe hobbyist. These folks have forgotten that model railroading _always_ was, and is, a craftsman's hobby.

CNJ831.

[jwmurrayjr]

If it weren't for real "scenery" we wouldn't need real railroads. Railroads cut through scenery. Through forests and over hills and mountains and across rivers. Railroads make it possible to move freight and folks across our very scenic (and uneven) land.

If the real world was flat like a piece of plywood it is doubtful that railroads would have been invented. There would probably just be roads, much straighter than we are used to, and pulled by who-knows-what. Motive power would probably be similar but rails would not be as necessary and in fact would be very limiting as far as where the vehicles could go since all surfaces would be flat as a table top.

A ping-pong table-top layout would not need scenery, but scenery would make it much more appealing and more nearly life-like in our world.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

Only recently have some attempted to re-write the goals of model railroading to make no-effort trainset layouts a viable choice for the wouldbe hobbyist. These folks have forgotten that model railroading _always_ was, and is, a craftsman's hobby.

CNJ831.

Well I dont think theres any such thing as a no-effort layout...

Benchwork, tracklaying, wiring, these alone can be enough to cause the most ardent fan to toss up his hands in frustration and walk away.

When it comes to Model Railroading its up the the Modeler to decide what they want to focus on. Some will want to focus on rolling stock, some on scenery, others on operation.

If someone choses to minimize the scenery to little or almost non-existant, maybe a few buildings spread around the layout. thats their choice and not for any of us to criticize. Scenery can be daunting for many and if one decides to stop at the trackwork and focus on creating an operation for moving trains around the layout or simply lettting them run in circles, let them. A well planned and built layout with no scenery is going to better than the best scenics layout this side of the Rio Grande but with lousy trackwork or controls. Its a balance between skill, and willingness.

My personal feeling is if you want to build a plywood empire DO IT.

You can always ADD scenery later.

Add it later and at your own pace and as your skill level allows you too. Should you decide to add scenery, it will get easier as the modeler learns how to accompli***hings.

[Anonymous]

Is scenary necessary? Well - yes it is if you want to have a scaled down version of the world for your trains to run through. Is it necessary to have sceneary in order to have fun in the hobby? Only you can answer that one!! There is no one right or wrong way. I have never gotten a layout to the point that I started to do scenery, but I would not consider any of them as not fun - I enjoyed them all. Do I want scenery on my next layout? You bet. Will I be bummed out and consider myself a failure if I'm having too much fun to get to doing scenery? No way!

[tstage]

That gets back to a question that I posted a month or so ago entitled "Realistic Modeling". You have to determine what the purpose of your layout is?

If you are wanting just the operational intrigue of the hobby then scenery is probably NOT a big priority for you. (By scenery, I'm assuming that we are all referring to trees, rocks, foliage, NOT buildings, structures, and industries.) On the other hand, If you enjoy the all the facets of a MRR, then scenery is a bigger priority.

I can honestly appreciate both views. And - come to think of it - I really utilize both in my modeling philosophy: "realistic realism". Call it the "less is more" idea. I like to make it look real and still have it operationally interesting. (Which is a challenge, especially on a 4 X 8' table! )

If you REALLY want to go the minimalist approach, then all you need is an oval and a power pack. I would have to whole-heartedly agree with Jon's comment that scenery turns a train set into a model railroad. To me, a modicum of scenery is icing on the cake for my layout [:)]

Tom

[Anonymous]

I can see the appeal of operation and those who get into model RRing soley for that aspect, but at the risk of repeating what's already been said on this thread:

1. No buildings, no geography, no people= no reason for a railroad.
2. No industries=no criteria for choosing rolling stock to move around.
3. A layout with no scenery doesn't seem like a model RR. Sounds more like a "model RR track".
4. Realistically speaking, how many people who go through the trouble of building a layout past the oval on the table have absolutely no structures or tunnels or trees or people (not including those of us whose hobby money has been curtailed by the family accountant, i.e. wife).

Having said all that, I don't think it's a right or wrong thing. I guess it just depends on how you define "model railroad". Hate to sound metaphysical here, but if there is nothing but track in a plywood universe, can it truly be called a model RR by those of us living in the buildings/trees/people universe?[:D]