Realistic or Play Value?

[TF Twitch]

I have a question for my fellow Train MOCers. To build realistically, or build for play value? I see lots of great MOCs here, on flickr, and on MOCpages that are super realistic and look like more like models, but they lack what I consider "play factors" (aka opening doors, full interiors, and being able to interact with Mini figures). So far I have made my train MOCs in 6-/7-wide so that they scale better with official sets. So far I build this way because I like the challenge of including the "play" into my MOCs. Another reason is that each year my wife and I set up her Winter Village around the Christmas tree with the train going around it all. I feel that having a more realistic model train would not be in scale and would look out of place.

With all of this considered, I have wanted to venture into the realm of more realistic train MOCs. I do feel that my current build style is "inferior" in terms of realism and looks, but I like having the "play factors". I have thought about expanding into building everything in 7-wide, but I know that it can be a hassle structurally.

Does anyone have any advice on this matter or their own input? Anything is appreciated.

[Redimus]

Depends who you're building the MoCs for. I found I slowly stopped using play features on my MoCs as it both became obvious I never used them, and they were just making it harder to achieve what I wanted with the looks, but if I had any kids who would actually use the features, I'd probably still use them.

If you do want to go a bit more 'realistic' (it's always going to be a relative term in Lego), just start designing with a whole train in mind, but consider what you already have so you can run it with something until the full train is complete. I started with a very toy-like 6 wide blue steam engine, and toy-like 6 wide coaches (with opening doors!) to go with it. Then a slightly less toy like additional 6-wide coach to try out some techniques. Taking what I'd learnt from the first loco (and this forum) I went for a much more realistic 7 wide steam engine which shared the coaches until I had built a rake of 7 wide trucks for it. Then I significantly upscale and improve the ideas behind the 3 coach to build a couple of 7 wide coaches which could go behind either loco and still look fine, but which will eventually go with a 7 wide express steam loco, leaving me with 3 steam era 'sets', the 6 wide toy-like passenger train, the 7 wide freight train and 7 wide express train.

Also bare in mind that even Lego don't play hard and fast with their widths, Emerald Night was (in places) 8 wide, and still didn't look completely stupid in front of it's 6 wide coach (although I'd argue that EN is not a great example of Lego engineering myself).

[Electricsteam]

I just can't build realistic for the life of me. I can sneak in a few snots here and there but my brain can understand how people build with such detail. I'm going to be sticking with the realm of the odd and the realm of the pneumatic for trains.

[MGCJerry]

Eventhough I'm 34 and only have limited train experience and only a single simple MOC boxcar under my belt, I look at my trains and the rest of my Lego collection from a play perspective. However, I do try to incorporate some realism in MOCs & MODs. I just cant shake that "play" ideal when building so instead of fighting it, I go with it. As far as the hardcore realism such as the mini cooper, vw bus, and even the modulars, those I feel are more display only pieces but absolutely great models and have no problem showing them- but I wouldnt 'play' with them.

I was never a big fan of the vehicles that were only 4 wide, I absolutely love the new 6 wide vehicles. My trains are mostly stock, but I'd love to make them a little wider since real trains are wider than most vehicles. I have highly considered making my 60052 locos 8 wide in effort to actually have minifigures 'walk around' (albiet 1 stud wide). I do actively try to reduce unncessary greebling (why is this antenna here, this vent doesnt make sesne) and in some instances increase greelbling (rooftop AC units, plumbing vent stacks, etc).

I take my MOCs & MODs from the perspective of a minifigure. If he cant get there by walking, he needs stairs, a lift, or an elevator. As a result I have added many ladders, stairs and elevators in my MOCs and sets over the years. I'm even planning on adding ladders to my trains as well because the only way to get into the loco is to climb it. How many times have I seen "no step" on heavy machinery... I can only expect "realistically" for the same things to happen in my Legoverse.

In the end I see sets in the following "realism" settings:

* Play & unrealistic. Such as fire station (60004) and police station (60047) and most of the city sets (trains included).

* Play & realistic. Playable, but elements from real-world incorporated. Stairs, some enclosed spaces. I prefer my MODS & MOCs to be here. Even when I was a kid. I will go ahead and say the modular buildings are a good example.

* Realistic. Sets designed primarily for show and not play (eg delicate, and you wouldnt let kids play with them). All the architecture, modulars, and many of the train MOCs I see here. Many of these I wouldnt dream of playing with, but would love to have.

[xboxtravis7992]

I own a few HO Trains, and hope to someday build a layout: and for that project I see realism would be a nessessity. As such Lego Trains fall somewhere closer to the play side of things for me, although I"d love someday to build a prototypically operated Lego layout, even if things are for play!

[Hrw-Amen]

I think for me it is a mixture. I like my trains to look like what they are supposed to be but at the same time I want them to be able to interact with the mini-figs, so I am looking for something that is half way. I have made trains that the doors don't open on, but then again so have LEGO. I do want to be able to put minifigures into the passenger cars and a driver in the cab though and I'd like the big doors on my box cars to open for loading freight. So as much detail as I can without loosing too much playability or it being so fiddly that it keeps falling to bits everytime someone touches it. Compromise is the name of the game I feel. If I wanted a very real layout I would go for N or HO or something like that.

[CrispyBassist]

For me it's more of the realistic than the playable. I like to challenge myself to build things as realistically as possible, which often involves a lot of head scratching and new techniques. The doors on most of my builds don't open, largely because of the way I had to build them to get them to look 'right.' Fitting the Power Functions elements in makes it hard to have detailed interiors on some MOCs, but I've been slowly progressing towards realistic interiors on others. Some MOCs are easier to make playable than others too. My wrecker is one of my most detailed builds, and by far the most playable in that the boom and hooks all lift and lower, and the body moves like the real thing. I think Redimus made a good point in that it all depends who you're building it for. The way I'd have the most fun playing with them is with a big yard, lots of cars, and a shunter.

[Heppeng]

For me it was a bit of both. When I wanted more coaches for my Emerald Night the expense of matching the original design ruled that option out. I also thought that I could improve upon what Lego had designed, which to me was not much of a step up from the coaches in 7740 from the eighties. So I decided to make some proper Pullman coaches. 6 wide, with play features and opening doors, but not attempting to get as accurate as possible. Kind of like something Lego might have done if they were a bit more imaginative.

Here is the result:

This is the interior of the bar car, which besides the bar includes bar stool, beer on tap, spirits and glasses on the shelf, and a sink with tap to wash the glasses with:

[Dutchiedoughnut]

Whilst I appreciate play factors... I never use them myself. I guess my models are more to the realistic than play, but they lack the detail of other MOCs. I dont mind. I dont like models that are really busy. So I build my models quite clean and simple and I try to make them look like the originals.

[dr_spock]

Do what you enjoy doing. If you are a superdetailing guy, then build detailed. If you enjoy operations, then build towards that. If you're a bit of both, then figure out how to balance it. Unless you're building on commission, then you're at the mercy of the client.

For me, I enjoy the toy and play side of LEGO trains. I don't care as much for scale and exact prototype details match with LEGO as I did in HO scale.

[MaineBrickFan]

I try to have it both ways. I have taken to 8-wide train building, using O-gauge decals and other tricks for maximum realism, but I still frequently add interiors and other features that let minifigs "play." Eight wide is still within the range of "minifig" scale, and one can design trains that both look realistic and permit some play. A few examples of my efforts can be seen below:

Finished 50 foot FMC boxcar by Patrick Strawbridge, on Flickr

MEC 573 by Patrick Strawbridge, on Flickr

[TF Twitch]

Thank you everyone for the kind responses! I think that I will make my MOCs a tad more realistic in the future, but still retain that play value. I may venture into building in 7-wide, since that would allow full interiors of passenger cars and allow two rows of seating instead of only the one that can be done with 6-wide.

[Heppeng]

I can really see the benefit of 8-wide, I would have really liked to do the Pullmans in 8-wide since it opens up so many other possibilities - seats and tables both sides, more space behind the bar as well as in front etc. There would also have been more space to add external details too. However I run my creations on 12V track which pretty much limits the width to six. I have to be really careful when running my Emerald Night which is a real fatty at a maximum width of about 9 1/2 studs over the smoke deflectors...

[CrispyBassist]

I run my creations on 12V track which pretty much limits the width to six.

I'm not very familiar with 12V trains (I grew up with 9V) so out of curiosity, what about the track restricts trains to 6-wide?

[obsidianheart]

I build all my Train stuff for my son, so I have to sacrifice some of both in favor of high, high durability. I built a kind of weird hopper car for some boulders for his train, and it's flimsy as all get out, but he won't give it up and I have to put it back together for him every few days, so I learned my lesson. Play features are neat, but I don't think he cares for them much (aside from power functions remote control), and realistic detail is both too fiddly for him, and mostly out of my area of expertise.

[brickbuilder711]

My standard is a hybrid between a realistic and an operations value. The FEC and CSX locomotives I have constructed over the last two years have some really dodgy techniques built into them. But on the other hand, just so I can run them efficiently, they have four axles that make them able to negotiate the curves and power up using the stock Power Functions components whereas they would realistically be 6-axle motors. It is all about balance on my end. Honestly, it depends on what you have in mind, if you want prototype looking trains you can take the initiative, otherwise if you want something simpler you can easily go in that direction too.

[zephyr1934]

As many others have said, the only right way to go is to build what you like. That said, you COULD have both realistic and heavy play value... but you'd have to bend the laws of physics (grin, and no, not my build). I started building trains with some play value (i.e., MODs of the Super Chief) but found that the roofs kept falling off and I never played with the inside. It is a LOT easier to hide complicated snot work if you don't have to attempt an interior, it is also a lot easier to build in rare colors when ignoring the inside (e.g., the structure in my North Cost Limited is mostly 6x white plates through the middle since sand green 6x plates were and are insanely expensive). Still, it is fun to wander into kid space some times.

[Electricsteam]

As many others have said, the only right way to go is to build what you like. That said, you COULD have both realistic and heavy play value... but you'd have to bend the laws of physics (grin, and no, not my build). I started building trains with some play value (i.e., MODs of the Super Chief) but found that the roofs kept falling off and I never played with the inside. It is a LOT easier to hide complicated snot work if you don't have to attempt an interior, it is also a lot easier to build in rare colors when ignoring the inside (e.g., the structure in my North Cost Limited is mostly 6x white plates through the middle since sand green 6x plates were and are insanely expensive). Still, it is fun to wander into kid space some times.

Jeee looking at those things. God I want at least one proper consist I have no clue how to use BL or I keep snatching bricks off of other things. Those two are gorgeous. I'd love realism but I also don't want my train to fall apart when I move it.

[Dan-147]

I'm not very familiar with 12V trains (I grew up with 9V) so out of curiosity, what about the track restricts trains to 6-wide?

The configuration of the switch is such that the ties (sleepers) of two parallel tracks touch each other. That means that if two 8-stud trains meet, they will rub against each other and forget about any details that stick out.

Dan-147

[Redimus]

I can really see the benefit of 8-wide, I would have really liked to do the Pullmans in 8-wide since it opens up so many other possibilities - seats and tables both sides, more space behind the bar as well as in front etc. There would also have been more space to add external details too. However I run my creations on 12V track which pretty much limits the width to six. I have to be really careful when running my Emerald Night which is a real fatty at a maximum width of about 9 1/2 studs over the smoke deflectors...

When I was in the process of designing my 7-wide Pullmans, I happened across your 6 wide ones, and I was extremely tempted to ditch my original plan of upscaling my own 6-wide and go with a design inspired by your design it looked so good. In the end I decided to stick with the hard to build but more realistic slightly inset doors (which have no play value at all I'm afraid) because it closer fitted the style and scale I want for my MoCs going forward.

As for the clearance issues, is there no way to have the loops extend out a bit, or do the points have parallel exits?

[dr_spock]

I should add if you belong to a LUG or club, you may have to build your event display train MOCs to your LUG's standards. Some LUGs are stricter than others on the consistency of the consists. You could end up with play for your home layout and realism for public displays with your buddies.

[davidzq]

I can't speak much from the train perspective, as my only train was built for realism, but does have some play features such as opening doors. But when it comes to my trucks, I aim to pack as much function into them as I can. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "play value", as if you were to actually "play" with them, they'd fall apart instantly. What I usually end up with is a highly detailed display model (similar to model car kits). Though my interest usually leans towards things which don't have interiors, I always ensure my vehicles can seat minifigs.

[Heppeng]

As for the clearance issues, is there no way to have the loops extend out a bit, or do the points have parallel exits?

They do have parallel exits:

[Ashi Valkoinen]

For me I try to find the best solution between being to realistic or focusing on play values. For me the best play value is making the train move along the layout (or even better, on the club layout), but running them for days without problems means not to include all details from the real thing, because the LEGO-model can simply be to fragile to run it without any problems for a long time. So I build everything as detailed as it could be until it is working without even minor problems (derails, falling parts, etc).

The opening doors you mentioned, it is really hard to build a working _and_ not too ugly door mechanism. The best solution I've ever seen was the video I linked below, but this solutions still needs a 'cut' on the side of the waggons ('cut'=the little narrow space left open with cheese slopes to make space for the train door while opening/closing), and the door still opens only to one direction, not both like real ones. So for me, I leave openable doors for more realism - the train has its play value with making it run around, and most of my designs includes easily removeable roofs to put minifigers inside as 'play'.

[TF Twitch]

Once again, I really do appreciate everyone's very thoughtful and helpful feedback. I really want to push myself and my creativity and find my own style. I think that I will find a good balance between realism and play factors since I do like working passenger car interiors and places for minifigs, and also to remind everyone that these are still just plastic bricks. With that being said, during this past week I have been working on a new MOC that is more "realistic" in terms of looks and techniques than my regular Emerald Night mod/derivative locomotives, and I am still not done with it yet. My thread about "Emerald Night locomotive mods" (or whatever it is called) has more information about it!