Im just wondering how far other people go to achieve realism on their layouts. Do you have to have wiindshield wipers on your windows,lift bars ,a engineer in the cab,,windows that work on the engine,see thru fan blades,the right kind of horn or bell sound,grab irons that are not molded on,the right rail size,ditches on each side of the tracks for drainage,smoke for steam and diesel engines,lines on your telephone poles,birds on your telephone lines,curtains in all the windows,lettering that is so small you have to have a magnifier to read and sometimes even that doesnt help,paint eyebrows and other features on faces of the people on your layout,piles of to scale dung in cattle yards, smoke coming out of all of your chimneys,see thru lift rings not molded on, etc.
I am all over the map on this one.
For locomotives I want durability. Anything that can easily break during a maintenance or repair event is unwanted.
For freight cars, I am a bit more of a stickler. There needs to be enough detail to look great in photographs, but I will never turn a car over and inspect the underframe details with a magnifying glass.
Trackwork must be functional. All detail is secondary to flawless operation.
Buildings get a lot more detail. These do not have moving parts or require maintenance, so I tend to go all-out on these.
Automobiles I use generally straight from the box. I paint a few things flat black to make them disappear, but other than that, they are good enough.
Figures get the full treatment from me. I am an award-winning figure painter, so I take this way too seriously.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
All of the above! Of course I will be a couple of centuries old by the time I get there!
Seriously, I love having really detailed stuff but it is not essential to my enjoyment of the hobby. I'm quite happy with Athearn BB freight cars with upgraded wheels, couplers at the right height, and proper weight. Having said that, I do like the small collection of well detailed RTR items that I have.
Where I am fussy is with the decoders I use. AFIC, Loksound is worth the money. I also agree with Kevin. Track work has to work. Code comes in a distant second.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I like the way Kevin did his post so I’ll follow his format.Locomotives: Pretty much out of the box, maybe redo the lighting.Freight cars: Only add Kadee couplers and make sure they roll properly.Passenger cars: Lighting, interiors, passengers, paint, add Kadee Shelf Couplers and diaphragms. Trackwork: No derails!!!! Ballast and crossings, no paint at this point.Structures: Try my best to make them as real looking as I can, Detailed interiors that can be seen and most defiantly realistic lighting, figures, most are powered by Arduino Random Lighting Controllers.Automobiles/Vehicles: Paint and lighting, headlights, taillights and running lights.Figures: While I can’t even come close to Kevin’s figure painting I do spend a lot of time painting figures.Automation: I like to see things do something so anything that I can make move while staying realistic is my goal on automation.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
the old train man Im just wondering how far other people go to achieve realism on their layouts.
Im just wondering how far other people go to achieve realism on their layouts.
Do you have to have wiindshield wipers on your windows,lift bars
,a engineer in the cab,,windows that work on the engine,
see thru fan blades,the right kind of horn or bell sound,
grab irons that are not molded on,the right rail size,
ditches on each side of the tracks for drainage,
smoke for steam and diesel engines,lines on your telephone poles,birds on your telephone lines,curtains in all the windows,lettering that is so small you have to have a magnifier to read and sometimes even that doesnt help,paint eyebrows and other features on faces of the people on your layout,piles of to scale dung in cattle yards, smoke coming out of all of your chimneys,
see thru lift rings not molded on, etc.
Yes, to all of the above not stricken.
- Douglas
A similar question was asked years ago by Wolfgang Dudler, now one of our sadly gone members. He asked, "Do we really need 1:87 bird poop?"
I immediately posted a photo of a recently-completed bridge, complete with a seagull and a big messy white blotch below him. There followed, of course, a discussion of the defecatory habits of large shore birds.
I've had two instances where I fooled people with pictures of my layout they thought were real. One was a placid mill pond with a stone arch bridge at one end and a trio if swans. The other was a picture of my Saint Anne Street subway station. A native New Yorker asked me what line it was on, because he didn't recognize the station name.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Oh boy Im waiting for DoctorWaynes response... :D
I used to not really care for detail or realism, but the more I learned about each engine's history, the more I wanted accuracy and detail.
An inccurate, crude model just doesnt do its historical prototype justice.
I model the steam era, and one reason I do is because steam engines just have more pipes and odd parts and pieces placed on or around the engine. I find beauty in how these grimy oily machines look. Without detail kind of ruins the point of modeling the steam era for me.
I have yet to finish my layout so I cant speak for that yet.
Im sure as my eyesight gets worse, my demand for detail will lessen...
Cheers!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
Pretty much what Kevin said (except for the award-winning part!).
Operational requirements and spending limits basically lead to a lot of compromises. I also must admit that I'm not that skilled as a modeler... Some of the amazing work posted here is just beyond my reach!
Simon
I never know how to answer these kind of questions.
I try to go as far as I can, while recognizing the limitations of time and budget. I don't have award-winning skills, but I have moderately decent skills, and I try to use them where they can do the most good.
Regarding windshield wipers, birds, and belt buckles on the gandy dancers . . . N scale pretty much solves that issue. The manufacturers have stepped up their game in that arena; my game has already pretty much slowed to a crawl stepping up.
But a serious response . . . Pelle Soeborg and Luke Towan are at the far end of the line. Worth aspiring to and working towards.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
ROBERT PETRICKI try to go as far as I can, while recognizing the limitations of time and budget
This answer probable speaks for most here in a nutshell.
Next topic?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I run two timeframes on my layout. A 1914/19 time with steam locomotives and a 1970s timeframe running diesels. It has to be entertaining for my grandchildren.
All the locomotives have to work without exception. I do not count the rivets. All have crew where possible
Most of the goods wagons on the steam layout have names of members of our family on their sides. To entertain the children as they see 'their wagon' running.
The trains that run (either steam or diesel) have a start point and destination.
Every train must have a reason to be on the track and are in their timeframes. Passenger are added to the passenger cars.
Scenery. I hate 'the perfect look' on my layout. Grass is overgrown in places. Branches of trees 'smack' the coach sides as the train passes. Views at the backscene have to 'go further out' where possible. I like to have 'fifty shades of green'.
Simple scenes. I like to make little scenes that have nothing to do with the railway. A delivery of coal to a house. A road vehicle being unloaded with a man on a forklift truck. Changing a wheel on a road vehicle . Men working in the timber yard.
Animals. Dogs 'on a walk' with the Postman. Guard dogs. Birds on buildings. Sheep being 'rounded up' by a sheepdog.
Putting it all together a railway with a purpose in a general scene.
There is so much more to do. It is not perfect by any means, but I am getting there.
Then the grandchildren arrive. (Not as much now because of Covid.) Then rule 1 takes over. (Their rule 1). The searchlight wagon and rocket launcher are brought out along with Iron Man and the rest of the Superheroes. I am relegated to Signalman.
All great fun.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
riogrande5761This answer probable speaks for most here in a nutshell.
Yep, pretty much. I do add a crew to my locomotives when I redo them with detail parts, lights and decoder.
Mike.
My You Tube
I go for the "good enough" approach.
I also aim to ensure people can get lost in the layout while keeping it grounded to my geographic location and era.
riogrande5761ROBERT PETRICK I try to go as far as I can, while recognizing the limitations of time and budget This answer probable speaks for most here in a nutshell.
Ditto. Though I will add that photographing the scene is the best way for me to see where improvements can be made.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
BATMANROBERT PETRICK I try to go as far as I can, while recognizing the limitations of time and budget This answer probable speaks for most here in a nutshell. Ditto...
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
For me, the hobby is about nostalgia and the visceral experience of being trackside and seeing steam locomotives bear down on me, pass by, and disappearing around the bend. I can capture that with a minimum of assistance from the models. So, I do need some scenery, nothing too spicy, and the trackwork has to be 99.9% reliable, and the locomotives and rolling stock need to remind me what it all looks like underway.
After that, some things can begin to get in my way. Smoke issuing from smoke generators is definitely one, although I quite appreciate the tinny sounds/noises/din emitting from the sound devices. Go figure. I can't have real water anywhere on the layout for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that it simply doesn't scale. I do like some scale people here and there, a boat of some kind, and there ought to be some conveyances other than the rolling stock. A bus, a van,... And of course, lots and lots of trees and utility poles. From there, my mind easily fills in the rest.
I spent several years learning Timetable and Train Order operations to add realism to my layout.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Good enough - for me, is my policy.
Locos will be fitted with Hoses at each end and Freight-stock that has moulded Ladders and Steps, these will be carved-off and replaced with preferably metal equivalents - since for me, these two aspects give the realism I satisfied with.
As for Scenery & Scenic details, these are 9 below 0 on my list, not that I don't like to admire and respect good Scenery - just that I'd be OK with Foam/Cork on bare Baseboards, so long as I had Trains running - which to me is the most important aspect of MRR's. Paul
"It's the South Shore Line, Jim - but not as we know it".
Ok, I will tell you of a few of my attempts .... just a few .
I once successfully installed WORKING windshield wipers on an Athern dash 9. ( it was a time consuming endeavor, and I have not attempted it since.) I used a vibrating motor out of an old cellphone, 2 small springs, 3 small steel guitar strings cut incredibly short, and some brass sheet cut to fit an oscalating pully mounted to the motor.
I have also built working brakes on a Tichy ore car (also time consuming and I will never do it again.)
I have "weatherized" an abandoned tank car with bird poop (turned out great. I will probably do it again.... sooner or later.)
AND: I have been known to put scale crushed beer cans in the bed of pick-up trucks.
Rust...... It's a good thing !
I have a different take on this.
I like well detailed accurate models when practical, but there are a number of issues I consider more necessary.
Broad curves with easements - my minimum mainline radius is 36", most mainline curves are more like 40" and above. I am building a relatively simple layout in a large space with big curves and big features to capture the "immensity" of the prototype.
Realistic train lengths - my freight yard will be 22' long, my average mainline train will be 35 to 50 cars. Very realistic and only slightly compressed for my 1954 era. The layout will stage about 24 trains that length.
Passeneger cars must be close coupled with working/touching diaphragms - all of my passenger cars have American Limited diaphragms that touch and work, yet most of my passenger cars are selectively compressed 72' cars from Athearn and ConCor. They have been upgraded detail wise, but the slightly compressed length combined with my large curves give the moving passenger train that "gracefulness" of the prototype.
Deep scenery - the new layout I am getting ready to start on will have scenes 3' to 4' in most places and as deep as 8' in one spot. Trackage will generally be near the front with a good "scene" behind. I tried the "shelf" concept, and the double deck "concept" on the last layout, I was not happy with either.
I like well detailed structures - being a building designer and construction professional I appreciate and know the correct details on structures.
Lighting and night scenes - will be an important part of the layout.
Signals and CTC control - a must have.
What I don't need or don't do:
Every car does not need full brake rigging.
Every car does not have to be exactly correct, it just has to be reasonably representive.
I have a lot of fine detail cars and locos, some RTR, some I built or super detailed.
But I also have a lot of "mid range" detail level stuff. It is fine, I am not replacing it.
I only weather "lightly", I don't model much decay or neglect.
I am going for realism in the "broad view" more than the "up close" view.
Sheldon
One of the major benefits of this hobby for me is the great diversity of activities it offers. One day you're using carpentry skills, the next it is artistic persuits, or kit building, electronics for car or structure lighting, DCC sound installs then historic research to find out what signage may be found on a city scene or billboard.
Another activity is photography and this is where I feel my "detailing" skills are put to the test. Things show up in a photo that you don't seem to spot by looking into the actual scene on the layout.
PH-D_Mather by Edmund, on Flickr
This is where I'll compromise a bit, such as with wheel tread width, coupler size, grab iron or handrail diameter. Such things are unavoidable and not worth fretting over.
Union_Sta_departure8 by Edmund, on Flickr
I admit that I'm behind on some of my weathering chores. I prefer light to moderate weathering depending on the "age" of the car or structure as represented in the era of the layout.
EM1_7600_tone by Edmund, on Flickr
I like to see crews in the cabs, unless the diesel will be primarily a trailing unit. Eventually I'll have drivers in most of my vehicles.
PRR_diner by Edmund, on Flickr
I enjoy seeing signals on my latout, too. This adds another dimension of realism.
PRR_EF-15_2_tone by Edmund, on Flickr
All good FUN!
Cheers, Ed
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Deep scenery - the new layout I am getting ready to start on will have scenes 3' to 4' in most places and as deep as 8' in one spot. Trackage will generally be near the front with a good "scene" behind. I tried the "shelf" concept, and the double deck "concept" on the last layout, I was not happy with either.
Sheldon, I'm curious. How do you plan to build all of those trees?
Or will the deep scenes have a lot of buildings?
gmpullman All good FUN! Cheers, Ed
EdAs long as we’re showing off observation cars here’s mine.The figures are not Mel Castings, they are NOCH ladys of the night.
EDIT:
I did make molds of them for future ladies.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL Deep scenery - the new layout I am getting ready to start on will have scenes 3' to 4' in most places and as deep as 8' in one spot. Trackage will generally be near the front with a good "scene" behind. I tried the "shelf" concept, and the double deck "concept" on the last layout, I was not happy with either. Sheldon, I'm curious. How do you plan to build all of those trees? Or will the deep scenes have a lot of buildings?
Both in various places.
Imagine this scene, 22' long freight yard wraping around the corner of a room with two gentle 45 degree bends. Turntable and roundhouse in the "corner" behind the center of the yard. At a higher elevation, behind the freight yard, a four track thru passenger station with tracks over 12' long. Behind that, the city. That section of the layout will be 5' deep, and in the corner behind the roundhouse, from benchwork edge to the curved backdrop about 7' deep.
Sections of the city in the back will lift out for access, creating a 20' long access aisle, but most trackage will be within 30" of the front.
Under the passenger station and tracks, accessable from underneath and easily worked on with the city sections removed, one of the hidden staging yards.
Trees, nobody does a big forest with all actual individual trees. You only need actual trees for the visable front, then you just model the tree canopy.
The first time I did that I was only 15. I was part of a team that built a historic diorama of Harpers Ferry WV.
Around the whole layout most visable trackage will be within 24"-30" of the front, with all switching areas close enough for ground throws.
But I am old fashioned in the fact that I like to model scenery beyond those thing close to the tracks - that takes some real estate.
The track plan is relatively simple for its 1500 sq ft room size. With more narrow scenes and sharper curves I could have doubled the length of the 400' double track mainline. But no thank you.
The features I list in my post above are more important.
I refuse to use the pre-fab Z-scale anthills on my Z-scale layout. They don't look realistic. I make my own.
It varies from model to model at times. Hre are some recent examples.
DSC03728 by wp8thsub, on Flickr
DSC03728
This truck is a 3-D printed Wheels of Time kit. I added etched mirrors and wipers.
DSC03691 (2) by wp8thsub, on Flickr
DSC03691 (2)
This boxcar was a "kit" from Cannon & Co., which amounted to laser cut styrene sides, and a bunch of commercial parts from other manufacturers, to build most of a car. Many parts required modification per the instructions, and there was a lot of extra detail to add - things like etched crossover platforms, rivet deals from Archer, home made running board brackets, door tracks and operating hardware built up from styrene strip and rod, plus plenty of other stuff.
Not everything involves that much effort, or I'd never get much done. I choose to do extra on some things here and there for the challenge of it.
DSC02366 by wp8thsub, on Flickr
DSC02366
One area where I rarely compromise is scenery. I like to model plausible drainage features and excavations, along with natural elements modeled closely from photos.
I do all of this because it's enjoyable. If it wasn't fun I wouldn't bother.
Rob Spangler
I returned to the hobby in my 50s, after 40 years of moving boxes of trains from one home to another, thinking, "some day."
I discovered I loved the creative side, plaster casting, kit building and so on. I kept doing it. A four-walls-and-a-roof kit would take me a month of painting, decaling and detailing. I really like putting lights and interiors in structures, and I seek out those kits with the big windows that make my interior scenes visible. There are passengers in my coaches, engineers in my locomotives, and riders in my buses.
I've set up working crossing gates and grade crossing flashers. My railroad signals are just turnout position indicators. Are grade crossing gates realism or gimmicks? I don't know, but I like them.
Weathering is important to me, but I haven't painted my track or ties. I am meticulous about perfect trackwork, wheels and couplers.
wp8thsubOne area where I rarely compromise is scenery. I like to model plausible drainage features and excavations, along with natural elements modeled closely from photos.
Hi Rob,
The scene with the river running beside the track is really well done!
I had some nice scenery on this layout, but Cat #2 and Cat #3 each separately took their toll. My nice cornfield is being slowly eaten by Tiger. He already was eating a bunch of the trees (resulting in the removal of trees from the fall scene), and he has attacked the pumpkin patch that took a lot of time to assemble and get looking "right".
Fortunately, some of the layout is basically barren Mojave Desert...but Tiger took a toll. Maybe in the next house...
I try to get my rolling stock correct within a timeframe (son has a mix of rolling stock). I made an oops and acquired some Genesis Twin 45 flat cars, then learned that 45' trailers did not become legal until 1982. Since I have Alco motive power that was finished by Thanksgiving weekend in 1979, Twin 45 flat cars are just too late to run behind any Conrail or surviving patched predecessor Alcos. I need to have all elephant style flat cars with the bridge plates mostly intact. Already have some replacement correct flat cars.
The others will get bartered to a friend and/or sold on Ebay.
All my rolling stock, and most of my son's, was in existence, in reasonably good to new condition, during the 1970's. He has some exceptions: a cut of 14 NS Top Gons and a few later Autoracks, mostly BNSF orange. Oh, I am cheating with 3 Arrowhead Railgons, new in 1980.
The rest of the rolling stock, and all my diesels save one B36-7, belong in the 1970's. Two big 4-6-6-4's are also in Johnny's roster, and two DM&IR 2-8-8-4's are coming, but that's it for steam. We have a few just because...
I opted for ease of layout construction to get trains running quickly. I have a couple pipe culverts, but no streams, and tunnel portals are too wide and too high (located on curves) so that lots of big stuff can pass through them, and I can reach my hand inside when there is a derailment.
My layout of about 14 years has seen better days and I'm already looking forward to building the next, hopefully last, and more portable, version. I'll downsize to something 5' or 6' in width by say 9' or 10'. Not sure I can downsize to a switching layout after years of mainline running.
John
Here's my own philosophy for realism.
Practicality comes first. Everything must work first before I even think about details. For example, I have a steamer without a headlight, bell, or tender coal load. They must match actual engines on the PRR roster and the prewar/postwar headlight is where I get really picky. Layout set in 1944, so clearly prewar headlights only.
Though my railroad is still just a dream, I already developed a basic scenery philosophy from experience in clubs. Starting off, it's all about getting the railroad operational with only important structures and cardboard forms for mountains. I'm modeling a prototype, so my approach would probably be different from someone freelancing. Enough detail to set the scene without being too cluttered. (after all, my layout is set in 1944, so there wouldn't be too much scrap metal, etc sitting around anyway.) I'll have some highly detailed scenes, such as near bridges or in engine terminals.
For my freight cars, they need to be accurate in terms of matching photos of similar cars, etc, with appropriate weathering. In my case that would include coal dust, soot, and general road grime.
When it comes to the structures themselves, most would have been very old by 1944, and likely would have been in some disrepair. Everything in the modeled area was covered in a layer of soot and coal dust from passing trains. So everything would have to be heavily weathered. A new-looking building would both look out of place and unrealistic.
I personally have to have engineers in the cabs, passengers in the coaches, brakemen in cabooses, and passengers on platforms. Sounds have to be right, as PRR whistles were very distinctive.
Rail size has to be reasonably correct, as HO Code 100 track would look very out of place in 1944. Ditches in this area, according to the photos I have seen, filled up with vegetation anyway, so no point going out of my way to model them. The line was unsignaled, so N/A on that. There were derails at some interlockings (as far as I can tell), but they were the 'points' type, so that wouldn't be too hard to represent.
Other RR infrastructure such as telegraph lines and call boxes are very important to represent. If I omit them, how do all my railroaders communicate?
Smoke is too much of a hassle, especially in the basement where the layout will be, plus it's another thing to break down and give the HO scale ladies in the shops (remember that this is during the war) a hard time.
Anyway, with all that said, I think that the best approach is one that you're comfortable with and that works.