Without getting into the old tired debate about which is “better,” I was wondering if the two realms can co-exist on the same layout. My layout is cetainly a TOY TRAIN layout, but there are parts of it that I would like to make look a little realistic—just for the heck of it–but I am afraid that, to use a term of my son’s, it might look dorky. So, without getting into a heated display that will almost certainly get locked down, what do you think? I think a nice, real-looking tunnel along side a bright, unweathered house may not be all that bad looking.
Hell, I’d go ahead and do it for two reasons:
- Just to see how good of a job I could do on the “realism”…and,
- Just to hear the comments from your friends as to what their thoughts would be on the contrasting parts of your layout. Both have their place…even on the same layout.
Post some pics to share with us…
jd
I personally would go ahead and do it. In fact, when I finally get around to setting up my layout, I’ll probably do something simmilar. I love the look of a well detailed, sceniced hi-rail layout almost as much as I do the look of a toy train layout.
I don’t know guy’s[?] What is Spanky Cove [?]
I think the key is to not weather it and not detail it too much. The trains would look okay if the scene has the same new appearance as the trains with the same level of detail. On the other hand if you weather your trains and use only the cars/engines that are detailed, then the scene could be done like wise. For best appearance it should all be comparable.
Enjoy
Paul
I think the key to pulling it off is not placing the largest cars next to the smallest cars. By keeping the cars grouped and maybe even in seperate trains, it should look just fine.
Jack, if you can accept the advice from one who has many questions, few answers but a desire to know more… I will give you a resounding yes.
Look through the various train magazines and see the pictures of the many layouts. After a while you’ll notice (even with the modelers who aim for the hi-rail, scale horizon) that there are inconsistencies. We humans strive for perfection and usually fall short. But there’s nothing wrong with that. One beauty of this hobby is despite the layout advice from we many many “experts,” the best way to do things is your way. The folks who seem to be happiest with their layouts (and lives) are the ones who do this.
My layout is something of a small hi-rail masterpiece… all buildings and accessories have been custom repainted. Accessories have been altered and painted. The track has ties added and is well ballasted… sidings with different colored ballast, sand piles and weeds. I have a K-Line Signal Bridge which has been altered: base made smaller, painted to lose the plastic look and sheen, wood walkway on top - YET for all these supposed improvements for realism, there stands a small Mickey Mouse on top looking the passing trains below. The trains pass a detailed, self built coaling facility where nearby the Tazamanian Devil is ready to start spinning on the push of a button.
I love to mix my “grown-up” desire for detail and so-called realism with my “childhood” desire for fun and play. So when adults see my layout, they may marvel at some of the details and effects. But children marvel at all the little play elements.
Ah, the best of both worlds. And what better way to help “grow” the hobby than to reach all the age groups. I tell little girls there are women engineers in my trains. If you want to see a girl have a renewed interest in trains, try telling her that and spark a dream.
I personally don’t mind running a detailed freight train along with an aquarium car. Obviously (depite the scale direction of the
I think you are doing a lot of forehead wringing for no reason. My take is if it runs on 3 rail and I like it and can afford it then it will run on the layout. I’ve found a mix of prewar (pre WWI and pre WWII), poswar and modern can be a real crowd pleaser. It also give me a chance to give my visitors a short history lesson along with the entertainment.
Usually, I will have one or two very old consists running alongside my post 1945 equipment. Since all of the post 1945 equipment can mix and match as far as couplers are concerned there isn’t any issue wih respect to consist makeup. My usual procedure with visitors (and myself) is to use the prewar trains as through trains (hotshots, limiteds etc.) and then take advantage of coupler consistency to run all of the post 1945 equipment like a real railroad - pickups, set outs, time tables, spotting cars for loading, unloading, etc. As for the visitors, the overall effect is everything you could hope for - they are fascinated and would stay all night if you let them.
I’d do it for one reason only: It’s my layout & I’ll do as I d*mn well please! Whether it looks good to me is all that matters. If I build it & it doesn’t please me, it comes off.
It’s that simple
Tony
I wrote an article on this very topic.
See “Pete’s Practice Layout,” May04 CTT.
dav
Does anyone have a scheme to change the Red Roof and Green Base of my
Lionel Gateman and 156 Station.
Need to make it look more natural, gray or brown, something like that.[8D][8D]
gwarrin,
Chop off the base and plant the gateman shack into the groundfoam.
Take a tack hammer and knock the gatemen over; replace with scale figure
Remove the oversized door and replace with styrene, distressed to give wood grain appearance.
Spray entire structure with tester’s grime for weathering; followed by a coating of dullcoat
Replace gateman shack motor with tortoise switch machine to make door open more slowly and prototypically
take 2 aspirans & call me in the morning.
dave vergun
Gee Dave, what is left of the orginal building [?] [(-D]
I’m in a similar situation. I have an old American Flyer 4-4-2 (4-4-0 and the last 2 is really part of the coal tender.) And it is pretty well detailed so it looks quite realistic for a ‘toy’. I’m starting a layout myself and will be running this engine alone for quite a while.
Most of the cars I’m attracted to are the more realistic ones. The scenery I like is more realistic. My plan is to recreate a bit of the mining industry of the early days of my childhood home town in Norhtern Wisconsin. I think the American Flyer engine will fit in just fine.
I’m not concerned for absolute prototypical accuracy, or really too much about realistic operation, it’s for me to have fun building stuff and then watching my trains go. I do want to have some operating equipment to ‘play’ with and move around, but as for really being proto… not a big concern.
It just has to be fun.
I want my son to appreciate the fun of model railroading. He’s only 2 1/2 and it’s going to be a little while before there are any realistic trains running through any landscapes, but we’ll have fun playing with his plastic ones for now. And if Nathan’s still young enough when it gets done. I’m sure we’ll have a circus train or something like Thomas running through scenery that’s as good as I can make it.
Brian
Even the scale modellers have to make compromizes, a curve is never the scaled down curve from the open, it’s always too small… We still use a third rail, which is also not prototypical. The thing is that a toytrain layout accepts more compromizes, like 027 curves and tubular rail. But it’s no black and white, between hirail and toy are a lot of gray’s and those grays are worth it too.
If it doesn’t turn out the way you like, you can always tear it up and start over.
Yes, that is true about starting over. Right now, I think I have to scratch build a building as none made today fit what I need. Woodland Scenics here I come.
Amtrack Jack the two realms can and do co-exist on my layouts. Especially when I turn the room lights off and light my buildings and accessories. At those times all is right with my little world.
Bill
www.modeltrainjournal.com
Dave:
That was a very nice article you did about that layout. And I loved the track plan. Wish I had space like that in my house.
Tony
Thx Tony,
BTW, was reading MR magazine the other day (latest issue) and they compare a curve on a real railroad with that of an HO layout. I forget if it was radius or diameter, but the article states that it would take 400 feet to replicate a mainline curve rated for 80mph running. In O scale, i believe that would translate to something like 800 feet and 200 feet for N scale. Anyone have a basement that wide?
Dav