Show us your layout

[Jerrys HO]

Thanks Jeff I really enjoyed the ones you posted earlier. You said your dad's layout was featured in a past issue, can you recall which one. The club by my house converted all theirs onto disk and said if there was any particular one I was interested in let them know. Although they did not have the Jack Work's coal mine issue ( thanks to Ken I have copies now) they may have it.

Jerry

[jward]

I think it was 2009 or 2010.

[rogertra]

Jerrys HO.

I agree 100% with everything you wrote.

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

 You have to allow the artist his medium.

Modeling is an art .
Monet, Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, They were not serious artists, they were playing .
I for one think you're all a bit off. The answer is in multiple terms, "true to life", "scale modeling","a "precision scale modeler"(the guys that actually build your models for you, IE Bachmanns team of modelers"),"model collector" or things like "semi scale" and even tin plate. Sorry to break it to you, but those are models too. Not extremely true to life, but, models none the less. And the lines between them all blur.
The term toy is derogatory when used callously, as it often is here. Plain and simple it too often denotes a certain snide superiority in some kind of contest that most often doesn't exist to the person its directed at. Like calling a kid on a playground "four eyes" from behind you're new contact lenses. I would remind you all of the proverbial visitors, or wife that laughs at or belittles hubby for playing with the toy trains despite his obvious modeling expertise. Its dismissive.
Models are toys if any type of fantasy/play is involved, outside of building them, or if used as a "tool" (for testing, sales of modeled item, art display, etc.) If you run a model railroad for pleasure, it is in fact a toy, no matter how detailed...But the term toy used without respect, is disrespectful in itself even to a toy modeler.    

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

Oh..... the 3d layout was a setting for?..... Nope not telling you yet!

[Doneldon]

Monet, Van Gogh, Dali, Picasso, They were not serious artists, they were playing .
I for one think you're all a bit off. The answer is in multiple terms, "true to life", "scale modeling","a "precision scale modeler"(the guys that actually build your models for you, IE Bachmanns team of modelers"),"model collector" or things like "semi scale" and even tin plate. Sorry to break it to you, but those are models too. Not extremely true to life, but, models none the less. And the lines between them all blur.
The term toy is derogatory when used callously, as it often is here. Plain and simple it too often denotes a certain snide superiority in some kind of contest that most often doesn't exist to the person its directed at. Like calling a kid on a playground "four eyes" from behind you're new contact lenses. I would remind you all of the proverbial visitors, or wife that laughs at or belittles hubby for playing with the toy trains despite his obvious modeling expertise. Its dismissive.
Models are toys if any type of fantasy/play is involved, outside of building them, or if used as a "tool" (for testing, sales of modeled item, art display, etc.) If you run a model railroad for pleasure, it is in fact a toy, no matter how detailed...But the term toy used without respect, is disrespectful in itself even to a toy modeler.

GG1-

Thank you. I was about to write the same thing. We're all modelers. And yet we all play with toy trains, too. It's condescending and disrespectful to refer to another hobbyists's set up as toys while conceitedly implying that our own choices of how to play with toys is somehow superior.
                                                                                                                                           -- D

[jbrock27]

Yep, as has been touched on here and in other spots on this board, the most important thing, I think, is the enjoyment each of us and our associated family members get, out of doing whatever it is we are doing concerning our endeavors and interests in scale model railroads.

[M1FredQ]

Thanks for sharing the layout plans I got a lot of ideas to to work with. Creativity and Imagination are 2 more of the many positive adjectives I would add to this great hobby.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear All,

Quote Les:

".. the mountain with many portals...very entertaining."

As an example, see "Mystery Mountain" layout in Classic Toy Trains (CTT) magazine, September 2013, page 40.

A bit of fun on the D-27:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utuTnDjrI34

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik 

[Desertdweller]

Joe,

That is a real classic!

Very well done!

Les

[Skarloey Railway]

On the subject of regarding one type of modelling as better or superior to another, I was just reminded of the phenomenon of "rabbit-warren" layouts that had a, thankfully, brief spell of popularity in the UK back in the early days of OO9 - a scale equivalent to HOn3 using OO scale on N gauge track. Basically, a "rabbit-warren" layout used the small radii possible in OO9 (down to 6"), along with as many changes of level as possible, to cram a lot of track into a small amount of space, say 4' by 2'.

They are much less common now, but you still see them about: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairlightworks/410062449/ is end-to-end and so not technically a rabbit-warren, which were continuous run, but which shows the general look of such layouts.

It's fair to say that the great majority of UK railway modellers despised them and their popularity pretty much stopped narrow-gauge modelling being taken seriously for well over a decade.

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

On the subject of regarding one type of modelling as better or superior to another, I was just reminded of the phenomenon of "rabbit-warren" layouts that had a, thankfully, brief spell of popularity in the UK back in the early days of OO9 - a scale equivalent to HOn3 using OO scale on N gauge track. Basically, a "rabbit-warren" layout used the small radii possible in OO9 (down to 6"), along with as many changes of level as possible, to cram a lot of track into a small amount of space, say 4' by 2'.

They are much less common now, but you still see them about: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairlightworks/410062449/ is end-to-end and so not technically a rabbit-warren, which were continuous run, but which shows the general look of such layouts.

It's fair to say that the great majority of UK railway modellers despised them and their popularity pretty much stopped narrow-gauge modelling being taken seriously for well over a decade.

While not true to scale in many respects, those builders obviously took their work seriously, just not seriously scale.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear Les and All,

Just to be clear:

I only provided the youtube link,

not my layout,

not my video.

Hope you enjoyed it anyway. 

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

Dear Les and All,
Just to be clear:
I only provided the youtube link,
not my layout,
not my video.
Hope you enjoyed it anyway. 
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik

I know I did , Thanks for spending the time to do this for us.

Now hers to hoping page 25 of this fine thread can return to its original topic, showing layouts of all forms of trains.
Maybe a new thread devoted to scale vs toys is needed for all to have their further say in? 

[Doneldon]

On the subject of regarding one type of modelling as better or superior to another, I was just reminded of the phenomenon of "rabbit-warren" layouts that had a, thankfully, brief spell of popularity in the UK back in the early days of OO9 - a scale equivalent to HOn3 using OO scale on N gauge track. Basically, a "rabbit-warren" layout used the small radii possible in OO9 (down to 6"), along with as many changes of level as possible, to cram a lot of track into a small amount of space, say 4' by 2'.

They are much less common now, but you still see them about: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairlightworks/410062449/ is end-to-end and so not technically a rabbit-warren, which were continuous run, but which shows the general look of such layouts.

It's fair to say that the great majority of UK railway modellers despised them and their popularity pretty much stopped narrow-gauge modelling being taken seriously for well over a decade.

Skar-

Well, I don't know. I think the rabbit warren layouts have a certain appeal, kind of a tour-de-force of track work. I think a branch mining or logging run like this could be a lot of fun on a larger layout, introducing some meticulous animation while displaying the builder's equally meticulous commitment to quality construction standards. Such a thing would also capture the ad lib quality of many back woods and mountain short lines. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

                                                                                                                                                        -- D