REVERSE RUNNING: Time Out! Bigger isn't always Better ... Stepping outside the box with a contrary view
Quality of run depends on: Interesting trains Rare derailments Realistic speeds Detailed right-of-way Realistic looking locos Realistic rolling stock
Reader Feedback (click here)
— by Joe Fugate rying to figure out how to make that large dream layout a reality? Hold it! Time out!
T
The key to a more satisfying hobby is not necessarily going larger. Smaller may actually be better. It's that age old question – which is better, quality or quantity? The main reason model railroaders think bigger is better is because they believe quantity of run automatically yields a more satisfying layout. Quality of run actually outweighs quantity of run. Once you have some hobby experience, you realize a small layout with a high quality of run is far more satisfying than a large layout with a mediocre quality of run.
Nice scenery
Interesting trains: Lots of generic trains don't do anything to increase quality of run. A few trains with a welldefined purpose: "the logger", "fruit express", "daily commuter" add more to the layout than a horde of generic trains. Rare derailments: Lots of turnouts and equipment means more stuff to be debugged and tuned. Which would you enjoy more: a 4 hour op session on a small layout that had nary a single derailment, or a 20 minute run on a large layout that had a derailment every minute or two? Realistic slow speeds: Which would you enjoy more – running on a small layout with two locos that crawl along smooth as silk at slow speeds – or running dozens of locos on a large layout where everything runs like a jackrabbit?
Page 142 • Issue 6 • Mar/Apr 2010 • Reverse Running Editorial
Detailed right of way: When running trains, you spend much of your time looking at the track, so the better detailed your right-of-way, the more visual fun running the trains. The larger the layout, the more right-of-way you have to detail – so on a large layout it's very tempting to just run trains for a long time on unballasted flex track that's on bare roadbed. On a small layout, there's less track to detail, and you can take more time really detailing the right-of-way to a high degree of realism – and get a much higher quality of run! Realistic locos and rolling stock: Things you notice at a glance, like realistic weathering, count the most here. Trains in motion don't allow you to study the details very closely, so having the right number of louvers isn't as important as you might think! Which would you rather run trains on – a small layout where everything is realistically weathered, or a larger layout where most equipment looks like it's straight off the shelf – shiny and stark, with little weathering and some of the details are still just unpainted black plastic? Nice scenery: This one comes last because when running trains you don't spend much time just looking around – you focus on the trains. Many have
reported a great time operating on layouts with little scenery. If quality of run is high, then it's true, having much scenery isn't a requirement! Conclusion: Which of these two layouts would you enjoy more: LAYOUT A small layout interesting trains zero derailments weathered locos and equipment nicely ballasted and weatherd right of way minimal scenery yet
LAYOUT B large layout fully scenicked ballasted track with shiny rail sides proper equipment, fresh out of the box with no weathering trains are all generic things derail a lot
Most will say without hesitation: Layout A. I rest my case.
Tell a friend ...
Contents
Index