Should trains be the primary focus or incidental to the modeled scene?

Classic Toy Trains Forum
1

Most of you will say YES! Understandably. That’s why O scale is so popular. The trains are bigger and it is hard not to notice them. In N scale, the scenery often predominates. Most of you likely design the track plan first, then determine scenery possibilities.

One of the famous train dudes said something about the trains being actors on a stage.

But, can one get away with building a layout that tries to portray realism, possibly with the structures or mountains or fields and other scenes dominating, and the trains appearing incidental to the scene? Instead of the trains being the main actors, they instead become the extras.

In a word, NO. You should never do this! DO NOT, I repeat, do not do this.

Just kidding!

I’m attempting to build an entire layout, single tracked with just one spur, with river and mountains totally dominating the scene. The trains will be weathered and grimy and will blend in with the scenery. Furthermore, the train will remain hidden most of the time, and only make infrequent appearances, just like the real trains.

That’s for the top shelf; the lower shelf will be more traditional, with lots of activity and switching of industries taking place. In the top shelf, however, the trains will violate every rule that modelers ever devised, with scenery dominating and trains being incidental.

dave vergun

BTW, in the latest MR magazine (may 04), there’s an article dealing with how to make your layout more realistic. Some nice tips. But one recommendation they give on backdrops I feel should not be a fast and hard rule.

They advise to keep the horizon low. This seems like a good suggestion to keep everything in perspective.

Then, they advise keeping the background painting (or photos) subdued so as not to divert attention away from the trains. I disagree. The background should be subdued for a different reason, namely, the natu

2

Dave, I like to play with trains. On last layout, I got tack and etc laid and then started playing. Scenery came very slow there after. Bet I do the same with this new layout.

3

We all have different “perfect worlds” as far as our layouts go…in mine, trains would not be the PRIMARY focus, neither would the scenery - they would be equally complementary and constantly in flux. The real test to me is the initial reaction of the person that views the layout. Do they feel “Wow! What a cool train!” or, “Wow! What a cool, setup”, etc.

And I think there might/can be certain areas in your setup where you would want the scenery/accessory to relegate the train to secondary status to emphasize it. A fluid, smooth, constantly changing transition of what stands out is what I would choose.

No right answer. But if they respond the way you want them to, it’s a satisfying feeling. …at least to me.

JD

4

"The real test to me is the initial reaction of the person that views the layout. Do they feel “Wow! What a cool train!” or, “Wow! What a cool, setup”, etc. "

JD,

One additional observation. I sometimes attend NMRA open houses and I notice that about 1/2 of the time is spent observing the trains and 1/2 the time, and towards the end of the session most of the time, is spent observing the little details or scenes on the layout. A deer in the forest, a skinny dipper behind a rock next to a lake, a humorous scene, details inside a structure, and so on. So, your balanced approach has merit.

5

One of the most beautiful layouts in the country that I have been fortunate to visit is at the Cincinnati Museum of History located in the old train station. The trains are definitely actors on a stage. The link below lets one maneuver the camera above the layout.
http://www.aroundcinci.com/inmotion/