Do We Want Realism or Toys?

Why can't they both? I prefer realism but that is my opinion.

Both sure works for me!  I have realistic scale models in the O gauge roads I prefer (although not all are truly to scale), and I also love my tinplate trains, which are as toy-like as you can get.

Just remember there's a center rail that is common to both categories.  

It's not a mater of either-or, even a $2000 engine is toy IMHO, talented modelers create great realistic scenes but in the end we all have "loops" because of space limitations.  Even Big layouts like the NJ Highrailers and NLOE have "loops".

For me realism or not interested.  The reason I have no layout is because I do not have the space to build a minimally realistic one.

I enjoy both.  I tend to be more of a scale modeler, but I like the postwar and "toy" train look as well.

George

I want realism, but since I am a long way from getting there yet, and everybody

has the right to do his own thing, and is king of his own hill, I try to keep my trap shut.

At What Price?  

I like traditional  Lionel trains. You can call them toys if you like, my feeling won't be hurt.

If I was after realism, I'd have gone with HO.

The trains we have today began as toys.  Now that we have grown up,

 we want our toys to be more realistic. At least that's what we say.  We get

upset when  the price is too high for the realism we want. Then, we criticize

the train maker when  they make a toy for the younger generation as not being

realistic enough.  I would hate to own that kind of business.

Not interested in realism.  I find life plenty realistic, the toy trains are a safety valve.

For those who are interested in realism, you'd be surprised what you can accomplish on an 18" shelf switching layout.  Working in a small space can actually be an advantage when it comes to detailing and scene creation.  Think of it as a diorama that operates.

Pete

I view model railroading as using toys to depict realism in various degrees of accuracy. 

Toys are fine. That's why I buy O.

Both, can't forget what started it all and a more realistic model is also welcomed!

Ralph 

Both, I love my scale ES44's, and other modern diesels as much as my PWCS, and Conventional Classics!

Bill

My grandson and I were running 4 trains over the weekend, I got a little too fast with a convential Berkshire, my grandson had 2 legacy trains running, the Berkshire was going too fast and jumped track, knocking 3 trains off the track. We both laughed and cleaned up the mess.

To me they are toys and if they break, with my grandchildren playing with them it is OK

Brent

Same for me! My layout is as "realistic" as possible, within the confines of the up-stairs room, thus locomotives and rolling stock (up-graded to Kadee couplers) are also realistic/scale, or I don't purchase them.

Hmmm. As someone without a year round layout I don't worry too much about realism. My engines smoke more than they should, I'm sure the chuffing isn't accurate, so I'd say toys based on realism.

Toys! You rivet counters can have your realism, I want all the PW, tinplate and windup my drawers can hold!

Yes.   Both.   We have the best of both worlds right now, really great scale trains, and wide variety of "traditional" stuff available, with varying levels of detail.   I run one of each typically - a scale diesel-led train on my O-60 route, and a traditional steam or diesel on my O-48 minimum diameter route. 

I prefer the modern more realistic things but do run my 1957 Lionel Santa Fe.  Just my preference all are fine with me.  To each his own.

I prefer both. I buy mostly MTH and Premier diesel and RailKing Imperial Steam unless it is not made in RailKIng then I would buy Premier Steam. I WANT my layout scenery to be as realistic as possible with in the confines of the space I have available. 

They are all toys, just some are more expensive than others.

in the end we all have "loops" because of space limitations

Well maybe not quite ALL. 

Both.  I run both Lionel postwar and realistic to-scale trains.  They both have their attractions.  I get just as much of a kick out of my "semi-scale" GG1 as I do my 783 Hudson

As for me its scale all the way. That is why on our railroad, we run all MARX. Esp the cool stuff like the Easter Bunny Train. Its very prototypical as it hops along the track it leaves little pellets that kind of look like ballast, Thanks for asking and a Merry Christmas , Gary Lisa and the Girls

Bill,

I decided to run Toy Trains (0-27) so that I DON'T have to have loops

Two most important criteria, No Duck Under, and a Point-to-Point layout:

They are toys no matter what want.....but I lean toward a scale look.....so sign me up for realistic.

I like realistic looking toys

You got that right!  You couldn't pay me enough to be in the manufacturing part of toy trains--O gauge toy trains in particular.  Not worth the grief.  I commend those who are still willing to stick with it in this day and age.

I have frantic bouts with both realism, and the love of toys. While in general I love high detail, but there is something to be said about a Marx Commador Vanderbuilt running around at just under half the speed of sound?(scale of course).  

I'd say both. Don't have the space for a scale layout, but want my semi-scale engines and rolling stock to look reasonably realistic in their paint schemes for the period I model. It drives me nuts that more accurately painted rolling stock isn't produced in semi-scale. I really don't want wildly colored boxcars or Rail King coal hoppers with some funky graphic stripe and herald slapped on the sides. 

The "toy" aspects of our hobby are so intertwined with O-Gauge that at times they are indistinguishable from realism.

This time of year many of us are hopefully involved one way or another with the Polar Express. Realism, no, fantasy, yes, and we are all better for it. Who said there is no Santa Claus and when you come down to it, then if it were not for the toy aspects of our hobby there would be no train under the Christmas Tree..

Mike, I took photos in Pennsylvania and my wife painted the back drops based on the photographs. I drew the rough outlines of the mountains in chaulk, based on the pictures, and she painted the mountains using oil paints. I had already painted the sky and clouds using cloud templates, a technique I picked up at a trainshow in Amhearst MA. I may add some additional clouds at some point.

Bruce

I've said this before - I want just enough realism that there's no mistaking what it is, but not so much that I'm afraid to touch it for fear of snapping off some obscure piece that no one would see but would slowly drive me insane