Sam Posey asks "Are you an Operator or Scenery Man"

[jfugate]

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I voted for operator because at the end of the day, everything I do is for realistic operation.

But anyone who has seen the scenery on my Siskiyou Line can attest, realistic scenery does not take a back seat with me.


Realistic scenery *AND* realistic operations

[Fergmiester]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Roadtrp

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

But the degree varies from art major Dave Frary "I'm happy just to pour a drink and watch a train do laps through the scenery"...

Bingo!! [tup] [tup]

I prefer a nice glass of Merlot to a drink, although I'll occasionally indulge in a Single Malt Scotch and glass of water.

[:D]

Count me in, Knew there was something very likable about Dave! Except I don't Drink and Throttle. Too hard on the equipment.

[Anonymous]

I am definately an "operator". I enjoy and take pride in my scenery but definately get my greatest joy for running my "stuff".

[n2mopac]

I can't put myself in either category alone. I enjoy building scenery, scratchbuilding structures, kitbashing structures, etc. I also enjoy good operations. If there is one thing I'm not, I suppors, it is a scratch builder of rollingstock or a stereotypical "rivet counter." I model for details that make the scene come alive, not necessarily for "prototypical exactness." If I see a structure or a scene and I recognize where it came from in the real world, I'm happy.
Ron

[darth9x9]

I can do scenery fairly well. Check out the upcoming issue of Great Model Railroads 2005 (probably page 76) for a sample. Also, you can see:
http://www.fcsme.org/bcarl/basic_scenery.htm

But I have really gotten into operations in the past two years. So I plan to do both on my new layout that I am currently planning.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

It wouldn't really apply to them--as the quote refers to those who have actually built layouts, rather than those who have not. The armchair modeler may not know yet whether they prefer scenery or operation. I suppose collectors would be "scenery", as they are purchasing trains as scenery (things to look at that don't move) rather than to run them. But the quote in general seems to refer to those WITH layouts, rather than those without them.

The more I think about my operations as "watching trains go back and forth" (vs. round and round) the more I think it fits--while I do have an operation scheme in mind, it is more based around being able to pull a few car cards and get right to the business of switching things than a sophisticated operating scheme/timetable. I don't have much interest in a centralized command-control network, or multiple-user operation--heck, my layout is currently wired only for single power-pack operation. But my layout is made to SWITCH UNTIL YOUR FINGERS HURT from uncoupling Kadees and throwing turnouts.

Even my non-functioning dioramas are built around the idea of how they COULD work if powered.

I think even if your going back and forth on a shelf layout, if your not on a fast clock or a card system you probably dont fall into the Operator group. Koester is pretty clear about how serious they take scheduling, running and sticking to a timetable, just like the real RR's do.

I'm sure theres room inbetween but I think your using a card system would definetly be more towards the Operators end of the spectrum.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aiireland

i'll have to take a look at this book. I've always liked Sam and have enjoyed his take on motor sports. i didn't know he liked trains as well!

btw operator

i didnt know any of this before reading the book but Posey had a Lionel layout in his room as a kid built by his mother for him, when he became a father he wanted to build a layout for his son and started an small 4x8 HO layout. One thing lead to another and he soon found himself building a rather large layout based on the Colorado Midland RR. 16 years later it was finished, it even made it into Model Railroader Twice. This book is his exploration of his own motivations and his attempt to explore the motivations of other modelers as well. I found the second half of the book the most interesting where he is discussing other modelers like Furlow, Sellios, and Koester.

[fec153]

I voted scenery/runner. But I am just a runner as I haven't any scenery.
Phil

[aiireland]

i'll have to take a look at this book. I've always liked Sam and have enjoyed his take on motor sports. i didn't know he liked trains as well!

btw operator

[Jetrock]

It wouldn't really apply to them--as the quote refers to those who have actually built layouts, rather than those who have not. The armchair modeler may not know yet whether they prefer scenery or operation. I suppose collectors would be "scenery", as they are purchasing trains as scenery (things to look at that don't move) rather than to run them. But the quote in general seems to refer to those WITH layouts, rather than those without them.

The more I think about my operations as "watching trains go back and forth" (vs. round and round) the more I think it fits--while I do have an operation scheme in mind, it is more based around being able to pull a few car cards and get right to the business of switching things than a sophisticated operating scheme/timetable. I don't have much interest in a centralized command-control network, or multiple-user operation--heck, my layout is currently wired only for single power-pack operation. But my layout is made to SWITCH UNTIL YOUR FINGERS HURT from uncoupling Kadees and throwing turnouts.

Even my non-functioning dioramas are built around the idea of how they COULD work if powered.

[Anonymous]

I guess I'm neither - I'm a model builder. While I've built scenery on my two pairs of modules and on several dioramas, they were just a part of the overall modelled scene. My modules are stored boxed together except when they are assembled with our local club or when I set them up to do photography, so I'm not an operator.

I make models and I take photos of them. [:D]

What about the armchair model railroaders, or the collectors, or the "some day I'll have a layout" modelers?

Bob Boudreau

[Jetrock]

Well, there's a difficulty here.

I like scenery and structure building more than pretty much any other element of model railroading.

But my layout is a point-to-point switching layout that doesn't even include provision for continuous running.

So, while I'm a scenery guy, I'm not a "runner." I suppose that if I had to pick one or the other "scenery guy" would certainly fit--liberal arts background, check, artistic tendencies, check, lack of timetables, check...

maybe it's because when I train-watched as a kid, it was always switching and yard operations that engaged my attention, rather than watching trains on a mainline. So while my layout doesn't allow me to sit back and watch trains go round and round, I do spend considerable time sitting back and watching trains go back and forth.

[egmurphy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by aiireland

is this Sam Posey the race car driver?

Yup, that's the one. He recently wrote a book entitled "Playing with Trains". We had a thread discussing it. It got fairly positive marks from those who had read it.

Ed

[Big_Boy_4005]

I disagree, it is possible to be both an operator and a scenery man, rare but possible. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[aiireland]

is this Sam Posey the race car driver?

[twhite]

Actually, I'm a little bit of both. I'm designing the scenery to be the Sierra Nevada mountains of California on a mainline, so I'll have a lot of trains just running through the canyons and around the ridges, but I've also got some local freights to run and make up, ergo I've got a fairly large yard and some scattered spurs for such things as moving cattle from foothill to mountain pasturage. I'm also projecting a brewery at one spot and a lumber RR connection at another, so there will be plenty of local action. But I also want to watch those big articulateds of mine busy hauling reefer extras over the mountains. So I think I'll have a little bit of both.

[rexhea]

Well, I have a technical background and I do lean toward the "Operator" type more than Scenery. I usually let my passenger do the loopa-de-loopa thing, but the freight hauls difinitely have a point A to point B schedule. I like the end result of scenery work, but I hate having to do it. I just can't wait to get done with it so I can [:p] CONTROL! CONTROL! [:p]

[:D] REX[:D]

[egmurphy]

Geez, I hate trying to fit myself into a category, but guess I'll have to go with scenery/runner. Of course, tomorrow could be different, (but I doubt it).

I actually fit "armchair modeler" a lot better, but that wasn't one of the options. [:D]


Regards

Ed

[Roadtrp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

But the degree varies from art major Dave Frary "I'm happy just to pour a drink and watch a train do laps through the scenery"...

Bingo!! [tup] [tup]

I prefer a nice glass of Merlot to a drink, although I'll occasionally indulge in a Single Malt Scotch and glass of water.

[:D]

[bcammack]

Ya beat me to it! [:)] Great book. I'm an "operator", BTW.

[vsmith]

Sam Posey asks "Are you an Operator or Scenery Man"
Sam Posey in his book "Playing with Trains" states that we as model railroaders basicly fall into 2 catagories, Operators and Scenery Men. He states:

"But no matter what form your layout took, you were, deep down, either an operator or a scenery man. Consider the differences between the operators like John Pryke, Tony Koester,and Jim Hediger, and the scenery makers like Malcomn Furlow, George Sellios, and Dave Frary. The technical men tended toward operation, while those with liberal arts backgrounds were drawn to scenery-in other words, the way they though about trains was connected with impulses powerful enough to have guided thier choices of profession.
It was also possible to see a connection between the technical men and the need for control. Of course, anyone who builds a layout is creating a world that he can control. But the degree varies from art major Dave Frary "I'm happy just to pour a drink and watch a train do laps through the scenery" to operators like MIT man John Pryke, who seeks domination over timetables, a half dozen trains, and ten grown-ups. The operators also tend to see trains as vehicles on a literal journey that has a beginning, middle, and end. People who are content to watch trains do laps see them more abstractly, as objects in motion, or even objects that, in thier lapping, suggest the cycles of life"

I tend to agree with this observation though I see it as Operators and Runners, Runners being content to let the trains run, since both operators and runners both model scenery to a greater or lessor extent. Furlow being on one extreme and Dave Barrow on the opposite extreme. I also contend that those like me who are more intersted in the modeling of our locos and cars fall into the scenery camp. I use the layout as a backdrop for my trains to run on, I am content to model all the aspects of the layout and let the trains run in loops.

So are you a Operator or a Scenery man / Runner?