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
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!
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.
your railroad-your scenery…OR NOT!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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:
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]
I spoke with David Barrow of recent “minimalist” scenery fame at the Seattle National this past July about his layout approach. His primary goal is to be able to change things quickly, and for that, the minimalist approach works very well.
While I applaud the well thought out minimalist approach like David’s, it is true that the general public non-modelers will be most impressed with a fully scenicked and detailed layout.
And some of my greatest pleasure in the hobby comes from doing the realistic scenery. I truly enjoy it.
My attempt to model southern Oregon on the HO Siskiyou Line
Having said all this, there is also a counter point if you are really into realistic operation, like I also am. When I am intently focusing on way freight switching, I hardly notice if the loco has handrails, much less things like detailed scenery. I can understand how being really into operation can allow one to still have a lot of fun even without scenery.
I even had a visitor come to an op session on my layout years ago when it had a lot less scenery and remark, “I didn’t know a layout without scenery could be so much fun to operate!”
But there are also times when I’m in the hole waiting for the hotshot to come through town that I have time to look around, and it’s then that I notice the presence or lack of scenery! And if there is none, being in the hole is boring indeed!
I do not believe that scenery is neccesary. It is a choice, a preference and optional. Your hobby is really about impressing, satisfying and pleasing yourself. I guess it would be like saying “can you be a model railroader if you don’t have a layout?” Well, yes you can. So if you can be a model railroader without a layout, than you can have a layout without scenery.
I think the answer to the question is really that the amount/degree of scenery necessary is a matter for the tastes of the individual whose layout it is. [:)]
Tony Koester addresses this to my way of thinking in his new book from Kalmbach on designing the layout under the heading of Plausibility. Personally, if you want to run trains around without some type scenery, and still call it a model railroad, go ahead. Just don’t expect me to necessarily appreciate whatever you’re calling your efforts, 'cause to ME this isn’t, nor will EVER be, the “right way” to build a model railroad. Call it something else…
??
Is there a “right way” to build a model railroad? Guess we shouldn’t use plastic engines either as the real ones were made of metal.
To me . . . if it involves trains and makes the owner happy - it’s a model railroad. I’m sure Tony would agree.
Sure there is. There’s also various “right ways” to achieve the same thing when building a layout. Otherwise we wouldn’t be asking questions on how to do something on all these forums and email lists, and all the train mags would be out of business 'cause we wouldn’t need to learn. We could all just “do our own thing”, and no one could say we were WRONG! (oh my gosh, I said it - the “W” word!)
Now if you want to do it different or incomplete that’s your decision, I’ve got no right to stop you…just the right to point it out! [:0] But please don’t call it a “model (of a) railroad” with a straight face. It’s offensive…
hmmmmm Good point. As a newbie to the hobby (only been doing it for 25 years or so) I don’t want to mess up my layout. What’s the right track to use?
Yeah, I’m deeply concerned that my interpretation of a railroad might offend somebody… [V]
Does your wife cringe when you but a new loco or anything else Ferg? But anyway , yes some scenery can and does make a difference. I think it would get old just running trains arouind a bare-bones track layout.[:D]
Even a desert has scenery…and often, people. If they didn’t, the railroad wouldn’t run there, and where the railroad ran, people came, even if it was just a lonely telegraph operator at a way station…with a little tan paint and a $15 Woodland Scenics station, a single miniature, and maybe a couple of pipe-cleaner cacti if you want to get fancy, you can turn a stretch of plywood with some track on it into a vista that is both functional (as a flag stop) and that tugs at the heart-strings.
Scenery does not have to be dramatic or gigantic or expensive to be effective. I like scenery because my favorite part of model railroading is being taken SOMEWHERE ELSE by the layout (even though I model the city where I live, I prefer to be transported back to a time when trolleys ran in the streets.)
Put some work in on my yard today–not a huge one, 1x6 feet and four tracks including the mainline, technically it’s sort of a staging yard but I wanted to give it a little scenic feel. So I spent an afternoon applying some Sculptamold hills to one end (about half an inch high), splattered a little drywall plaster in between the tracks, then airbrushed the track with some Railroad Tie Brown, ballasted and threw some dirt and ground foam in between the tracks. For a few hours’ labor I now have a surface that, if I do nothing else to it at all, at least looks like a railroad yard instead of a slab of MDF with track on it.
(best thing: I went to the actual site where the yard was located and collected dirt for use on the layout! Even that only added half an hour to drive over there and scoop up some dirt with a coffee can.)
Of course, over time I’ll add a couple yard buildings, assorted piles of detritus, telephone lines running alongside the track, switchstands, etcetera, as well as a backdrop.
Is scenery necessary? No.
But it’s nice.