Running trains versus scenery

Running/operations versus Setting/scenery

  • Running/operations

    Votes: 18 56.3%
  • Scenery setting

    Votes: 14 43.8%

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .

nkp174

Active Member
KCS, in the On3 world, that is known as "less is more".

I prefer to plan the layout out...including the scenery. I then like to build a smoothly operating mainline. Next I put in the scenery...and then it is time for sidings and such. Scenery cannot be compromised for the track plan as it will look bad...but compromising the track plan for the scenery looks great.
 

RobertInOntario

Active Member
This topic is actually a theme (or recurring topic) of the March issue of the British Hornby Magazine.

The issue says that 50 years ago, MRR was focused more on operating trains prototypically. Scenery was either very basic or non-existent and the detail on the locos varied a lot too. But there was much more an emphasis on operating trains correctly. Most MRR folks operated trains as a group.

Nowadays, (the articles go on to say), the emphasis seems to be on building very "pretty" layouts but they're only built to look good -- while operating them is either very basic or not that interesting. There is also more of a "solitary" trend now where individuals will build layouts on their own, again with more of a scenery emphasis than an operating one.

This issue is trying to correct this imbalance by encouraging readers to focus more on building layouts for correct operation and simply running trains (or "playing trains").

At any rate, it's kind of interesting that this issue came out just now, focussing so much on operation, at the same time this question was asked here.

Rob
 

kokoracer

New Member
For me the real run is running trains! Without the ability to run, I would quickly lose interest, especially when the $$ gets tight, like it is right now.
Even though, at 14x25, my layout is not small, it is realitively simple. I run on a DC upgraded pack, no blocks and manual use of switches. Thank God for roadbed track. It got me back into the hobby. John
 

Squidbait

Recovering ALCO-holic
OK, being a professional nit-pick and journeyman curmudgeon, I'll point out that the option "Running/operating" is an oxymoron.

Running trains around in a circle, chasing their tails is about as far from operating to a timetable or switchlist as you can get. Opposite ends of the spectrum.

I like operating realistic looking trains in a prototypical fashion through realistic scenery. Sometimes I'll just run my realistic looking trains through realistic scenery.

Realistic operation without scenery makes up for the lack of scenery, and scenery makes up for the lack of operation... yin and yang.

But just running trains with no scenery? Blech. Might as well set up a circle of track on the carpet and watch 'em go round and round. :p ;)
 

N Gauger

1:20.3 Train Addict
OK, being a professional nit-pick and journeyman curmudgeon, I'll point out that the option "Running/operating" is an oxymoron.

:p ;)

I read that as running (or) operating :) He's only asking a question as to the presence or absence of "Moving trains" or the presence or absence of scenery :D :D :D :D
 

riverotter

Midwest Alliance Rail Sys
I don't really think you can have one without the other.
While I don't disagree with this POV, I'd like to leave a lot of latitude regarding the 'quantity' of scenery. David Barrow's recent work comes immediately to mind. I can't even say that I intend for my layout to be "developed" at least one step removed from bare plywood -- on more than 50% of the benchwork I've used hardboard which has a textured dark brown surface that can pass for "dirt". The rest of it is modular hollow-core doors to which I've judiciously affixed cut-up WS grass mats, and cork for some track roadbed. And I do have buildings, especially trackside industries to give my railroad something to "do". Definitely not Model Railroader centerfold material, but on the other hand operations is what I'm interested in, and these methods are getting me there effectively and efficiently. I'm sure I'll add some details going forward, but for now, hand me that switch list, please!
 

Triplex

Active Member
The issue says that 50 years ago, MRR was focused more on operating trains prototypically. Scenery was either very basic or non-existent and the detail on the locos varied a lot too. But there was much more an emphasis on operating trains correctly. Most MRR folks operated trains as a group.

Nowadays, (the articles go on to say), the emphasis seems to be on building very "pretty" layouts but they're only built to look good -- while operating them is either very basic or not that interesting. There is also more of a "solitary" trend now where individuals will build layouts on their own, again with more of a scenery emphasis than an operating one.
I've certainly noticed this. Most people requesting trackplans on forums expect to run alone most of the time. Few layouts seem designed for the formal operating session.
 

Art Decko

Member
Here's something I don't quite understand, can one of you explain this to a non-model railroader?

As a card modeler, I can readily understand those who are drawn to MRRing by the aspect of building a functioning world in miniature. But the operations-oriented MRRers are more mysterious to me.

Wouldn't those of you who most enjoy "running operations" be much better off using a PC-based sim? Then you could operate real-world scale operations of unlimited size and complexity with a massive variety of inter-connected mutually-supporting industries. Doesn't "Trainz" or "MS Train Simulator" allow for this?

I'm thinking for you operations-types, aren't the physical and space limitations of moving plastic replicas around the biggest constraint on what you really want to do? On a PC, those physical restraints are gone.

I mean, if the "scenery" isn't all that important to begin with, why not dispense with it completely, as a bonus you could more easily (and much more cheaply) "operate" in any period, geographic area, industry, etc.

Thanks for any illumination! :)
 

Squidbait

Recovering ALCO-holic
Wouldn't those of you who most enjoy "running operations" be much better off using a PC-based sim? Then you could operate real-world scale operations of unlimited size and complexity with a massive variety of inter-connected mutually-supporting industries. Doesn't "Trainz" or "MS Train Simulator" allow for this?

I'm thinking for you operations-types, aren't the physical and space limitations of moving plastic replicas around the biggest constraint on what you really want to do? On a PC, those physical restraints are gone.

Art,

rather than fiddling around with cards, wouldn't it be simpler to do your modelling on the computer? There's lots of 3D rendering software out there that can make a better-looking model than you can with cardstock... :p

Same thing for MRR's who like operation. There's more to it than just the operations, it's the physical "doing" of it that adds to the enjoyment.
 

Chief Eagles

Active Member
I will get to scenery one day. A few buildings scattered around right now will do. I love playing with trains.

BTW: us Eagles soar and are smart enough to stay away from jets. Weasel go get in your hole in the ground before we swoop you up. sign1
 

Squidbait

Recovering ALCO-holic
BTW: us Eagles soar and are smart enough to stay away from jets.

... but apparently not Hercules transports :p

C-130a.jpg
 

Art Decko

Member
rather than fiddling around with cards, wouldn't it be simpler to do your modelling on the computer? There's lots of 3D rendering software out there that can make a better-looking model than you can with cardstock... :p.
Actually, that's what I do! That's why I asked this question. I design architectural card models. If I want to do the equivalent of "running operations" on architecture, I forget about cardstock, and play Sim City on a pc! I could never hope to "manage" (or even build) an entire city in card. :)

Same thing for MRR's who like operation. There's more to it than just the operations, it's the physical "doing" of it that adds to the enjoyment.
I do see your point. It sounds like guys who run trains on a bare board may not care much about the physical scenery, but actually do care about the physical trains. That makes sense. Thanks! :thumb:
 
Top