MJ4562 The G&D is a great example of a balanced artistic approach to modelling. I think John Allen approached model railroader like he would photography, looking at the big picture and getting everything as perfect as he could within the limitations of that frame. The reason I think John gave a slight preference to operations is the way he situated so many towns on the mainline and made them fit into somewhat confined spaces. I'm thinking Andrews, Gorre and Daphetid all got wedged in wherever he could squeeze-in more rail customers. Another scenic compromise was combining Great Divide with Port. That was done to increase operations but was a bit of a scenic compromise. Also, one of the most famous scenes on the layout, Frenchman Gulch, with 4 tracks stacked in one scene. Not realistic but it helped with a long mainline run. I see all those things as being scenic compromises in order to enhance operations. I understand the point about the bridge, but consider that it was meant to be finished and if finished it would have been a focal point for the layout and front and center. Having a plywood plank in its place would have been a major eyesore that would be hard to avoid in pictures. On the other hand, John was able to still operate the layout and test out his ideas on an almost fully scenicked layout for many years without having to look at plywood. From what I've read about it, the only problem the absent bridge presented was the layout couldn't be operated exactly as John's schematic showed it. Otherwise the G&D was pretty close to fully functional. John wasn't a zealot and beholden to any one facet of MRR. He took a very balanced and artistic approach to it. Artistic in operations as well as visual.
The G&D is a great example of a balanced artistic approach to modelling. I think John Allen approached model railroader like he would photography, looking at the big picture and getting everything as perfect as he could within the limitations of that frame.
The reason I think John gave a slight preference to operations is the way he situated so many towns on the mainline and made them fit into somewhat confined spaces. I'm thinking Andrews, Gorre and Daphetid all got wedged in wherever he could squeeze-in more rail customers. Another scenic compromise was combining Great Divide with Port. That was done to increase operations but was a bit of a scenic compromise. Also, one of the most famous scenes on the layout, Frenchman Gulch, with 4 tracks stacked in one scene. Not realistic but it helped with a long mainline run. I see all those things as being scenic compromises in order to enhance operations.
I understand the point about the bridge, but consider that it was meant to be finished and if finished it would have been a focal point for the layout and front and center. Having a plywood plank in its place would have been a major eyesore that would be hard to avoid in pictures. On the other hand, John was able to still operate the layout and test out his ideas on an almost fully scenicked layout for many years without having to look at plywood. From what I've read about it, the only problem the absent bridge presented was the layout couldn't be operated exactly as John's schematic showed it. Otherwise the G&D was pretty close to fully functional. John wasn't a zealot and beholden to any one facet of MRR. He took a very balanced and artistic approach to it. Artistic in operations as well as visual.
I agree with much of what you just wrote. One point I would make is that by combining towns into once scene is that one town becomes a scenic backdrop or foreground for the other, enhancing both. George Selios used a similar approach on the F&SM. I forgot the actual location names but originally one of his peninsulas had a mountain running down the middle of it which created a view block. He discovered that by removing the mountain, it opened up the scenes on both sides and the parts of the layout along the walls acted as 3D backdrops for the peninsula. This wasn't feasible for my peninsula since it is built around the center support posts and would have been a real distraction so I built a wall down the center scenicly seperating the two halves of the peninsula.
Both the G&D and the F&SM used what we now call a bowl-of-spaghetti trackplan with a train which travels the full length of the layout passing through the same scene more than once. This contrasts with the Allen McClelland approach of a more linear track plan in which a train passes through each portion of the layout only once creating the feeling of going somewhere. There are tradeoffs with either approach and it is largely a matter of preference. There is no one right way. I designed my layout following the Allen McClelland model. Had I wanted to increase the length of my mainline, I could have gone to a double decked layout as many now have but that just didn't appeal to me. That too has tradeoffs.
While the F&SM is largely a scenic layout, John Allen did use a balanced approach between scenery and operations. However, most of us when we think of the G&D remember the great scenery, not the operating scheme.
MJ4562 I've always been fascinated with miniature worlds and with history so I've always leaned towards the "whole town" aspect of model railroading. I want to become immersed into the miniature world that captures a moment in time. I also enjoy learning about the industries the railroad served and why they were there. That said, Model railroading is a combination of two hobbies, railroading and models. So while they have personal preferences which they emphasize, I don't think a Model Railroader can be exclusive to one camp or the other. John Allen is a great example of this. He built his pike for operations and scenerary. Some of his scenerary was contrived to facilitate operations but he still managed to include great scenes. I think the only reason he did not finish his layout was that he scratchbuilt almost everything on the layout.
I've always been fascinated with miniature worlds and with history so I've always leaned towards the "whole town" aspect of model railroading. I want to become immersed into the miniature world that captures a moment in time. I also enjoy learning about the industries the railroad served and why they were there. That said, Model railroading is a combination of two hobbies, railroading and models. So while they have personal preferences which they emphasize, I don't think a Model Railroader can be exclusive to one camp or the other. John Allen is a great example of this. He built his pike for operations and scenerary. Some of his scenerary was contrived to facilitate operations but he still managed to include great scenes. I think the only reason he did not finish his layout was that he scratchbuilt almost everything on the layout.
I agree that both operations and scenery were important on the G&D but I have to believe John gave greater priority to the scenery. If operations had been his top priority I believe he would have completed his mainline first so he could operate the railroad as he had planned and filled in the scenery later, even if it would have meant using a bridge made of a plank and risers until he was able to finish the real bridge. Instead he chose to finish the scenery first.
As for me, the scenery is the priority. I didn't even thing of conducting operating sessions until at least the base scenery was completed on every square inch of the layout. I think I could be happy just running trains back and forth through the scenery with no rhyme or reason why they moving from one place to another. I don't think operations with spartan scenery would be very satisfying for me.
As I building the last leg of the layout, a long branchline on a peninsula of the layout, I'm considering where I could use the approach Tony Koester wrote about in last month's issue, with a narrow shelf and little more than the right of way scenicked. There are only a few short stretches where I could do that unless I wanted to leave out some layout design elements that are important to me. Yes, modeling just the right-of-way would save a lot in terms of time and money, but I don't think I would be as happy with the end product.
I model the BNSF in norrhern California and Southern Oregon. I like to operate and have set the tonnage rating of my locmotives in grams based on the locomotive actual tonnage ratings. This will mean that for a train weighiing 600 grams I would need two locomotives rated at more than 200 grams each pulling and one DPU at the rear of teh train.
SLC RR To see the content you have to be logged in. You may also have to subscribe, I get the magazine and that must be enough. The video shows a very nice layout that must be what they call a shelf type because it is only one or two feet wide and wraps around a wall and has some peninsulas. Anyway, the Dave Barrow's layout video is worth watching.
To see the content you have to be logged in. You may also have to subscribe, I get the magazine and that must be enough.
The video shows a very nice layout that must be what they call a shelf type because it is only one or two feet wide and wraps around a wall and has some peninsulas. Anyway, the Dave Barrow's layout video is worth watching.
I was logged in and I have the all access pass. It may have been that for whatever reason (website maintenance?) the content was temporarily unavailable.
I remember pictures of the old CMSF and it was an impressive layout. The scenery was well done but since it was of the desert southwest, even that was somewhat spartan because that is what the real life terrain is like in that area of the country. Even in that verison, the emphasis was on the railroading and not the setting. It seems to me that choice of locale goes a long way in determining what the proper level of scenery should be. Modeling deserts or the Great Plains allows you to get by with minimal scenery and still be quite realistic since the backdrop will provide most of the scenic element.
jecorbettI clicked on the link but got a message saying CONTENT UNAVAILABLE.
I don´t have any problems viewing that video.
The video shows the original CM & SF RR, the one that what supposedly replaced by the domino-style operations layout.
jecorbett carl425 Sir Madog Some years back, MR ran a feature on David Barrow´s domino-style layout, the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe RR. This layout is void of any scenery and is made just for "operations". Here's a video tour of David Barrow's HO scale Cat Mountain & Santa Fe. It has very nice scenery. http://mrv.trains.com/series/video-vault/2015/10/mrvp-video-vault---layout-tour-david-barrows-ho-scale-cat-mountain--santa-fe I clicked on the link but got a message saying CONTENT UNAVAILABLE. It did indicate it was from the 1980s which would mean it was a previous version of Dave Barrow's railroad. I believe his most recent version is the domino style Sir Maddog spoke of. My recollection is that it has minimal scerery as opposed to no scenery although I could be wrong about that. In any case it is an example of a layout in which the emphasis is on the railroad and not the setting.
carl425 Sir Madog Some years back, MR ran a feature on David Barrow´s domino-style layout, the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe RR. This layout is void of any scenery and is made just for "operations". Here's a video tour of David Barrow's HO scale Cat Mountain & Santa Fe. It has very nice scenery. http://mrv.trains.com/series/video-vault/2015/10/mrvp-video-vault---layout-tour-david-barrows-ho-scale-cat-mountain--santa-fe
Sir Madog Some years back, MR ran a feature on David Barrow´s domino-style layout, the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe RR. This layout is void of any scenery and is made just for "operations".
Some years back, MR ran a feature on David Barrow´s domino-style layout, the Cat Mountain & Santa Fe RR.
This layout is void of any scenery and is made just for "operations".
Here's a video tour of David Barrow's HO scale Cat Mountain & Santa Fe. It has very nice scenery.
http://mrv.trains.com/series/video-vault/2015/10/mrvp-video-vault---layout-tour-david-barrows-ho-scale-cat-mountain--santa-fe
I clicked on the link but got a message saying CONTENT UNAVAILABLE. It did indicate it was from the 1980s which would mean it was a previous version of Dave Barrow's railroad. I believe his most recent version is the domino style Sir Maddog spoke of. My recollection is that it has minimal scerery as opposed to no scenery although I could be wrong about that. In any case it is an example of a layout in which the emphasis is on the railroad and not the setting.
CMSF had scenery. DB's wife painted the backdrop. Later he apparently tore it down and built a very spartan switching district as published in MR Planning or something. I have the issue buried somewhere at home. No idea if he's built a new CMSF.
MRR builder. Emphasis on rail fanning CN Leithton Sub with some local switching at Plainfield, IL. - liquor (Diageo), Entec plastics and a coil steel processor. A little protolancing with a foodstuff transload and a lumber yard off the BNSF nearby. Most scenery around here is cornfields or subdivisions anyway.
I am currently constructing the last leg of my layout, a branchline that will travel up one side of a center peninsula and down the other with a center wall/backdrop. Originally I intended to make it a relatively straight run up both sides but decided that was boring. My layout room is 26 feet wide and since the outter shelves are each only 3 feet deep, that left plenty of width for the branchline. The current plan calls for the track to weave its way along both sides of the peninusla so at some points it will be very shallow and other places very deep. Since the deep sections are going to end up being smaller peninsulas, that will allow access from the side as well.
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe I’m building a miniature world which includes trains and operation but my layout also includes lots of non railroad structures and scenes. Once upon a time a decided that all the models I build shall be HO scale so they can all be displayed together instead of having different scale models scattered all over the house. j............
I’m building a miniature world which includes trains and operation but my layout also includes lots of non railroad structures and scenes. Once upon a time a decided that all the models I build shall be HO scale so they can all be displayed together instead of having different scale models scattered all over the house.
j............
Something like me. In my railroad world is a combination of many places I have been or want to be. It is important that the scene makes some sort of sense, however. Nothing is very complicated, but there must be a purpose for every switch or siding.
It helped me a lot to write a story about the layout, before I got too far into it. Since I like turn of the century buildings as well as 50's rolling stock, I dedicated one part of the layout to the earlier era and one section to later. There is a continuous loop so my trains run the whole gammit.
Another factor to keep in mind about the trend towards shelf-width layouts is that they make room for more RR. But there is the scenic tradeoff that requires a different approach to that aspect of things. You tend to rely more on backdrop-type techniques.
I' do both. My main layout room is on page one, so I really do value depth of scenery, even if that makes me old-fashioned. On the other hand, the Cascade Extension was built in a narrower space that necessitated, in part, the use of shelf-style benchwork in the latter half. Part of it is in a 10" high by 15" deep space at Crater Lake Junction, but it looks bigger.
Using the aisle side for industry does work, if you're willing to slice and dice...
Ultimately, I prefer working in 3D with depth. What you should consider about whether to think more seriously about narrow, shelf like benchwork (besides if that scenery will fit your skill set or interest, is "Can I gain an extra aisle if I go narrow?" If the answer is yes, consider the operating possibilities. If the answer is no, the all you get is a wider aisle, which is not a bad thing, but may not leave you with as much RR as you'd prefer.
One last example of "close to the edge" scenery -- or even a little over the edge...
Finally, your entire layout doesn't need to be one way or the other. Consider the shelf width you'd need to get through narrow spaces and you might be pleasantly surprised how much RR ROW you can find.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
John Busby Hi ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ah ha it makes sence now. I would have to say I am a part world modeller because I go outside the railroad fence and beyond the idustries but never seem to have the room to do the propper job of it I would like to. Scenery is the part I like to think I am good at and enjoy the most I try and get a sence of the comumities the railroad serves can be hard when town is only a couple of houses a shop, pub and appropriate riligiouse structure for the setting But then again stations, yards and industries are part of the scene to help create the town size as well. I have always though if running passanger trains the towns the train serves should be represented as well, not always easy to do in the space model rairoaders generaly want and don't have. While I have no particular riligeouse leanings I have always thought it odd if a suitable structure representation for the setting is missing. Purely on the basis that any where in the world you go towns and villages have a place of worship, and for some you look and wonder where and how far the faithfull travel to get there. Also this kind of structure really helps re-enforce where you are by its style of construction and architecture Have never had a farm house mainly because could find room for representation of fields but never enough to go into the farm yard not even to the barn. regards John
Hi ATLANTIC CENTRAL
Ah ha it makes sence now.
I would have to say I am a part world modeller because I go outside the railroad fence and beyond the idustries but never seem to have the room to do the propper job of it I would like to.
Scenery is the part I like to think I am good at and enjoy the most
I try and get a sence of the comumities the railroad serves can be hard when town is only a couple of houses a shop, pub and appropriate riligiouse structure for the setting
But then again stations, yards and industries are part of the scene to help create the town size as well.
I have always though if running passanger trains the towns the train serves should be represented as well, not always easy to do in the space model rairoaders generaly want and don't have.
While I have no particular riligeouse leanings I have always thought it odd if a suitable structure representation for the setting is missing.
Purely on the basis that any where in the world you go towns and villages have a place of worship, and for some you look and wonder where and how far the faithfull travel to get there.
Also this kind of structure really helps re-enforce where you are by its style of construction and architecture
Have never had a farm house mainly because could find room for representation of fields but never enough to go into the farm yard not even to the barn.
regards John
I agree with much of what you wrote here. I too put a lot of emphasis on the scenery away from the railroad as I indicated in the OP. I've gone so far as to violate recommendations for the depth of the scenes. All my benchwork is at least 3 feet deep except for one spot at the bottom of the stairs where it gets squeezed. My principle city is 4 feet deep with one corner being 5 feet deep. The track work itself is within reach of the aisle. I like to think of the farthest two feet as a 3 dimensional backdrop since there is no railroading in that area.
I try to include as many structures as would logically be in a given setting but there just isn't room for everything. There are two ways to deal with things that don't fit because either they are too big or other structures have taken up all the room. The easiest way is to imagine those things are on the aisleway side of the tracks. The other way is to include them on the backdrop. I wanted an arena and a sports stadium in my main city but both of those were way to big to model in 3D form. I found suitable pictures of these online, used Photoshop to expand them to the proper size, printed them off in several sheets of paper and then glued them on to the commercial back drop. I did model one large Catholic Church but the backdrops contain other houses of worship so I don't feel I am discriminating.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
As far as model railroads without scenery, I would be willing to wager that there are more (far, far more) model railroads out there without scenery than with. When comparing real world interactions with those in places such as this forum, I get the feeling that we (as in those that recreate a world, rather than just enjoy trains) are in the very small minority.
John Busby Hi all Well my thought is this. Could some one please explain how you build a current modern style of Model Railroad without the world it serves around it?? How basic that world is doesn't matter all modern style Model Railroads have some kind of scenic development on them regardless of period modeld. The days of a Model Railroad not having any scenery at all passed into history some time around WW II it may even be a little bit earlier than that. regards John
Hi all
Well my thought is this.
Could some one please explain how you build a current modern style of Model Railroad without the world it serves around it??
How basic that world is doesn't matter all modern style Model Railroads have some kind of scenic development on them regardless of period modeld.
The days of a Model Railroad not having any scenery at all passed into history some time around WW II it may even be a little bit earlier than that.
Check out the 2004 Model Railroad Planning for a layout without scenery. There have been other examples over the years since WWII as well.
They don't get a lot of press coverage since they are not as photogenic as layouts with scenery.
Enjoy
Paul
John, nobody is talking about building a railroad without scenery.
They are talking about this:
Does your scenery just model the railroad related things close to the tracks?
Or, do you include lots of non railroad stuff that may or may not be close to the tracks? Example - do you have a "town", with a school, stores, police department, fire department, houses, etc?
This whole question also relates to how your layout is shaped, how much "extra" real estate you have on either side of the tracks. Is your benchwork 18" deep or 48" deep?
Some people have no interest in building the whole town, they only want the station and the line side industries........
Others want that whole feeling of community.
"Shelf" railroading has become very popular, at the expense of space for non railroad related scenes. Some noted modelers have build layouts with only 12" to 18" shelves to maximize track mileage at the expense of deep scenery.
So which type of modeler are you?
Sheldon
Doughless Farmers tend to be spartan folk not interested in architecture (casting a broad brush here). Many farm houses were simplified victorian style houses without all of the fancy trim and doo-dads. They painted the house and buildings simple white from the start. Here in Indiana, the spartan look of many of the Amish houses and farmsteads are truly elegant in their simplicity. All white, no decorative trim, but spotless and well maintained. Very attractive in their own way.
Farmers tend to be spartan folk not interested in architecture (casting a broad brush here). Many farm houses were simplified victorian style houses without all of the fancy trim and doo-dads. They painted the house and buildings simple white from the start.
Here in Indiana, the spartan look of many of the Amish houses and farmsteads are truly elegant in their simplicity. All white, no decorative trim, but spotless and well maintained. Very attractive in their own way.
Agreed, even here in the East, rural and farm houses were more likely white than were houses "in town". And we have a large Amish community just north of us in PA.
But the fact remains the depression played a role in house painting trends. Since we did not have much color photography in 1900, and no one is still alive from that time, we can only go on written record, water color prints, and actual testing of building paint layers.
Architectural historians have generally concluded that way less than half of all housing in 1900 was white.
- Douglas
sfcouple ATLANTIC CENTRAL Paul, Thank you for the kind words. I don't have a facebook account, so I will have to look at your picture one day when my wife is on facebook. Your house may well have always been white, but, it is a well known fact among architectural historians that many multi colored Victorian styles received "all white" makeovers during the depression. May people felt it was impolite to paint, or repaint, your home in flashy, expensive, multi color paint schemes while so many people were having a hard time just afording food and shelter. And if you too were having a tough time - all white was cheaper and easier...... Also, short of a color picture, lots of light colors, and blue and gray, will show very white in black and white photos. White was always "one" of the common choices, so again it may have been, but even photos and paint testing are not a sure bet. Complete removal old paint for repainting was fairly common as well, leaving few traces of past colors. Architectural fashion critics of the time detested the all white look, and even white trim did not return to high fashion acceptance until the "Colonial Revival" style started to show its infuence on both the Queen Anne and Craftsman styles. Our house, likely a pattern book design from the 1890's but not built until 1901, is commonly refered to as a "mature Queen Anne" or "Colonial Revival influenced Queen Anne" and so we chose a Colonial Revival paint scheme - blue, on blue, with white trim and dark blue accents. Our front porch floor is gray, ceiling is light blue....as was common. I will look forward to getting on facebook and having a look. I am currently doing a big restoration for a client, an rather fancy Colonial Revival influenced American Foursquare built in 1908, and heavily remodeled with an Edwardian interior theme about 1915 - they too picked a Colonial Revival exterior paint scheme, Gray with white trim, in keeping with the exterior style features. Train operation - I like structure, but I like simple and easy to understand. Hence my simple to use CTC and signaling. Interestingly even knowledgeable observers seldom notice the "short cuts" in the signal system, and operators find it easy to understand. Take care, Sheldon I've heard and read that porch ceilings painted a certain color blue will help keep wasps from building nests in those areas. Some theorize that wasps interpret the blue ceiling as the sky?? Wayne
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Paul, Thank you for the kind words. I don't have a facebook account, so I will have to look at your picture one day when my wife is on facebook. Your house may well have always been white, but, it is a well known fact among architectural historians that many multi colored Victorian styles received "all white" makeovers during the depression. May people felt it was impolite to paint, or repaint, your home in flashy, expensive, multi color paint schemes while so many people were having a hard time just afording food and shelter. And if you too were having a tough time - all white was cheaper and easier...... Also, short of a color picture, lots of light colors, and blue and gray, will show very white in black and white photos. White was always "one" of the common choices, so again it may have been, but even photos and paint testing are not a sure bet. Complete removal old paint for repainting was fairly common as well, leaving few traces of past colors. Architectural fashion critics of the time detested the all white look, and even white trim did not return to high fashion acceptance until the "Colonial Revival" style started to show its infuence on both the Queen Anne and Craftsman styles. Our house, likely a pattern book design from the 1890's but not built until 1901, is commonly refered to as a "mature Queen Anne" or "Colonial Revival influenced Queen Anne" and so we chose a Colonial Revival paint scheme - blue, on blue, with white trim and dark blue accents. Our front porch floor is gray, ceiling is light blue....as was common. I will look forward to getting on facebook and having a look. I am currently doing a big restoration for a client, an rather fancy Colonial Revival influenced American Foursquare built in 1908, and heavily remodeled with an Edwardian interior theme about 1915 - they too picked a Colonial Revival exterior paint scheme, Gray with white trim, in keeping with the exterior style features. Train operation - I like structure, but I like simple and easy to understand. Hence my simple to use CTC and signaling. Interestingly even knowledgeable observers seldom notice the "short cuts" in the signal system, and operators find it easy to understand. Take care, Sheldon
Paul,
Thank you for the kind words.
I don't have a facebook account, so I will have to look at your picture one day when my wife is on facebook.
Your house may well have always been white, but, it is a well known fact among architectural historians that many multi colored Victorian styles received "all white" makeovers during the depression. May people felt it was impolite to paint, or repaint, your home in flashy, expensive, multi color paint schemes while so many people were having a hard time just afording food and shelter. And if you too were having a tough time - all white was cheaper and easier......
Also, short of a color picture, lots of light colors, and blue and gray, will show very white in black and white photos.
White was always "one" of the common choices, so again it may have been, but even photos and paint testing are not a sure bet. Complete removal old paint for repainting was fairly common as well, leaving few traces of past colors.
Architectural fashion critics of the time detested the all white look, and even white trim did not return to high fashion acceptance until the "Colonial Revival" style started to show its infuence on both the Queen Anne and Craftsman styles.
Our house, likely a pattern book design from the 1890's but not built until 1901, is commonly refered to as a "mature Queen Anne" or "Colonial Revival influenced Queen Anne" and so we chose a Colonial Revival paint scheme - blue, on blue, with white trim and dark blue accents. Our front porch floor is gray, ceiling is light blue....as was common.
I will look forward to getting on facebook and having a look.
I am currently doing a big restoration for a client, an rather fancy Colonial Revival influenced American Foursquare built in 1908, and heavily remodeled with an Edwardian interior theme about 1915 - they too picked a Colonial Revival exterior paint scheme, Gray with white trim, in keeping with the exterior style features.
Train operation - I like structure, but I like simple and easy to understand. Hence my simple to use CTC and signaling. Interestingly even knowledgeable observers seldom notice the "short cuts" in the signal system, and operators find it easy to understand.
Take care,
I've heard and read that porch ceilings painted a certain color blue will help keep wasps from building nests in those areas. Some theorize that wasps interpret the blue ceiling as the sky??
Wayne
Yes that is the common belief, and I must say, we have never had any bee or bird trouble with the porch - 20 years now.
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
Ulrich I'm more into the minature world building, mainly because one interest leads to another and another. A good example is modelling trees. I started out with a book on real trees and before you know it I'm interested in the real thing as much as recreating them in minature. Same with things like rivers, buildings, etc. Modelling forces one to see the world differently..
I'm more into the minature world building, mainly because one interest leads to another and another. A good example is modelling trees. I started out with a book on real trees and before you know it I'm interested in the real thing as much as recreating them in minature. Same with things like rivers, buildings, etc. Modelling forces one to see the world differently..
Ulrich,
OK, I'll buy that. I don't think more formal operations precludes seeing the world differently, though. It's a good example of things you can learn for partcipating like that. People on both sides of the divide (assuming there is a divide, of which I'm still something of a skeptic) enjoy track planning and we remember to varying degrees the words of John Armstrong's and others wisdoms.
Then you build what you plan, thinking you've got it all figured out. You might even read that Opsig stuff and other advice that's out there now on planning for ops and incorporate that. While this is helpful, it sometimes survives the first big ops session, sometimes even a year or two, then you start thinking about new track that would make things work more smoothly. Then if you did apply a lot of that advice and are lucky enough to have a few extra SF laying around, it might work out well.
So I'd have to say that operating also forces one to see the world differently.
Taking the hobby seriously in the way that most appeals to you personally seems to work for those I know who tend to come down on one side or the other the way it's being discussed here. I think the worst way you can go about this is to model something because someone tells you you should do it, or because that's what others are modeling or operating.