Does "D&E" modelling put scale before soul?

[Dagworth]

I can utterly assure you that Buddlea was becoming a major "problem" lineside, at least on the SR, from the late 1970's at least. That is from having to hack my way through it on engineering jobs, trying to locate mileposts, rarely used telephone posts, boundary fencing, even gates on one occasion, etc. and from pleading with the P/Way to come and hack it back on sidings that we wanted to start using again. It was fairly easy to get rid of in those days, due to the weedkiller solutions we could still legally use. The real problems began when the roots grew into brickwork or around or under trunking, and then when the efficacy of weedkillers was reduced by legislation, as well as the reduction in budgets for lineside vegetation control, but those only became major issues over the following decade, Buddlea did not grow everywhere and there also different types - the most invasive is not the tallest.

 

It was definitely growing out of the brickwork of the road overbridge at Queenborough in 1982. So plant it at your leisure!

But what's the best way to model it? 

 

Andi

[Mike Storey]

But what's the best way to model it? 

 

Andi

 

Having made several, disappointing attempts myself, and having found nothing available commercially that looked "good enough", I found the best way to model it was to seek out Mrs Kipford, via Mr Kipford of this manor. Examples for all to see on his Brighton East layout (see thread). She does not make them commercially, and will need to be asked very nicely, together with the parting of a reasonable amount of silver.....

[Clive Mortimore]

But what's the best way to model it? 

 

Andi

Hi Andi

 

How's this for an idea, model the 1960s when the only weed was on Bill and Ben the Flower Potmen, but your too young to know what I am on about. :no:

[tomparryharry]

From a real railway perspective, you probably don't realise is that the current size of the big bits are that much bigger. Gone is the cramped steam age layouts. Switches & crossings are that much longer, to accommodate higher speeds ,as is the operating envelope itself. Add to that added incidental kit, like lineside cabins & boxes, and it's starting to fill up again. Very often, you need 15", to fit in a 12" gap. It's easy to see, but have another look at your favourite lineside location. Then, take a look at an old photo taken in the 50's & 60's. Signals are gone. Junctions are gone. The railway is still there, but the operating process has changed. A facing crossover on a junction would fit inside 800 yards. It's protection might be another 800 yards more. Now, a high speed line will now stretch for around 6-8 miles, even more if its got a ladder style crossover.

The 8 foot branch line exhibition is ok, but a real life scenario is now nearer 40 feet (No, I'm not kidding). It's not the quality of your skills, which by & large will still knock my socks off. It's perception which will not come up to your otherwise excellent work.

It's a problem we all suffer, especially in 4mm, a fairly commonly understood gauge & scale. I worked up a layout in 4mm, which was fully prototypical in size & operation character. I worked out I needed a layout 42 feet long, plus a fiddle yard. The biggest loss was scale-to-size perception.

I see, and continue to see, exhibitions of true quality of work.

Hopefully you will remember that when you visit a museum, that its sometimes more interesting what you don't see....

Cheers,

Ian.

Edited April 8, 2018 by tomparryharry

[newbryford]

Hi Andi

 

How's this for an idea, model the 1960s when the only weed was on Bill and Ben the Flower Potmen, but your too young to know what I am on about. :no:

 

Bill turns to Ben and says "flob-a-lob-a-lob"

 

Ben says "if you loved me, you'd swallow it"........................

 

 

 

(Fully expecting this post to be removed by the mods as it exceeds the good taste (!) boundaries)

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Reorte]

...

The 8 foot branch line exhibition is ok, but a real life scenario is now nearer 40 feet (No, I'm not kidding). It's not the quality of your skills, which by & large will still knock my socks off. It's perception which will not come up to your otherwise excellent work.

 

It's a problem we all suffer, especially in 4mm, a fairly commonly understood gauge & scale. I worked up a layout in 4mm, which was fully prototypical in size & operation character. I worked out I needed a layout 42 feet long, plus a fiddle yard. The biggest loss was scale-to-size perception.

...

Compression of distance is a fairly common thing in modelling, so I think most people accept it as long as it's not shoved in your face. So junctions that would've been a bit tight for the local goods 80 years ago can be swallowed for a modern setting too, as long as it's not too blatant. It's all part of having curves that should have checkrails but don't because they're only that tight because it's a model in the first place and we're pretending otherwise, freight trains rather shorter than are usually (but not always) seen these days and so on. The hardest part might be accepting making these compromises in the first place.

[LBRJ]

Yes, maybe. But after 7 pages of contributions it would appear that the original OP premise that D&E modelling puts scale before soul is well and truly nailed: it most certainly does not any more so than any other type or genre of railway modelling. And I guess having discussed, voted on and dismissed the motion the thread is bound to wander off in other directions, just like most other threads.

;-)

 

G

 

Not really.

Some very high quality layouts do indeed put scene before stock, as I said in the first place.

But there are so many TMD layouts and Freight that doesn't exist scenarios that do kind of help my point along.

 

I know you are well  known as being particularly argumentative about  putting your views forward  (I'm in the NGS ) - I wasn't trying to go there, just raise what is an issue in D&E matters

[Jol Wilkinson]

Perhaps the OP should be "Availability before soul". The D&E layouts I have seen at shows, especially the larger ones, usually have​ to rely on using RTR to provide sufficient stock. Hence, the modelling of the infrastructure becomes more important in creating the "soul" of the layout. If the builder(s) have researched and observed the prototype, then they can create it more realistically. Sadly, some layouts are a defined by how much the builder has tried to cram in, features lots of inappropriate gimmicks (disco lighting, welding effects, repeatedly circulating Faller vehicles etc.) or how mismatched various things are (lots of fixed, over bright LED lighting on platforms, etc. presumably representing dusk or dawn but road vehicles with no lights).

 

These were all things I saw at the Easter York MRS and are of course, not limited to D&E layouts, although they do seem to suffer from it more. Perhaps that is because D&E layouts model a time when such modelling accessories are possibly relevant, but they need to be carefully managed to avoid looking "wrong". 

[Clive Mortimore]

Perhaps the OP should be "Availability before soul". The D&E layouts I have seen at shows, especially the larger ones, usually have​ to rely on using RTR to provide sufficient stock. Hence, the modelling of the infrastructure becomes more important in creating the "soul" of the layout. If the builder(s) have researched and observed the prototype, then they can create it more realistically. Sadly, some layouts are a defined by how much the builder has tried to cram in, features lots of inappropriate gimmicks (disco lighting, welding effects, repeatedly circulating Faller vehicles etc.) or how mismatched various things are (lots of fixed, over bright LED lighting on platforms, etc. presumably representing dusk or dawn but road vehicles with no lights).

 

These were all things I saw at the Easter York MRS and are of course, not limited to D&E layouts, although they do seem to suffer from it more. Perhaps that is because D&E layouts model a time when such modelling accessories are possibly relevant, but they need to be carefully managed to avoid looking "wrong". 

Hi Jol

 

Two layouts that have been mentioned in this thread quite a bit were both at Ally Pally this year, both P4, both, BIG, both based on real locations, and can be identified as such, both have vast amounts of kit and heavily modified RTR stock and both D&E. Neither are filled with gimmicks. Calcutta Sidings and Mostyn.

 

I could mention the vast amount of steam era layouts, especially club ones with RTR stock that would never been seen together, un-weathered stock, ready to plonk buildings, so called comical scenes (the undersized church, with the funeral going in one door as the wedding comes out the other). The idea of operation is to see who can get his tank engine with two wrong liveried coaches to the fiddle yard the fastest. No signalling, not even incorrectly placed non working signals. Retaining walls that in real life would have given way with the weight of stuff they were supposed to be holding up. And worse of all badly painted ready to plonk figures randomly placed along the platforms and those sitting having their feet waving around in mid air.  You were next to one at York.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Clive Mortimore

[tomparryharry]

There is one that made me chuckle, but not D&E...

 

It's a railway line, disappearing into a tunnel. Directly above the tunnel mouth is a church, with a graveyard. In the graveyard is a burial taking place complete with burial party, mourners, and the casket being interred.

 

"If you time it right, you should catch the 6:15....."

 

Ian.

Edited April 8, 2018 by tomparryharry

[grahame]

Not really.

Some very high quality layouts do indeed put scene before stock, as I said in the first place.

But there are so many TMD layouts and Freight that doesn't exist scenarios that do kind of help my point along.

Undoubtedly, there are D&E layouts that represent 'didn't exist' scenarios, and/or are soulless or even put scale first. But it is not all of them and not even the majority. And, of course, those sort of claims can be levelled at all layout types regardless of their genre. Making it a particular D&E issue (as in the OP and title of the thread) does tend to sound somewhat divisive of genres.

 

I know you are well known as being particularly argumentative about putting your views forward 

Hmmmm, that sounds rather unnecessarily personal, somewhat argumentative in itself and an unsubstantiated opinion accusation.

 

G.

[Steamport Southport]

Regarding gimmicks.

 

The problem is by exhibiting you are putting on a show for the general public, not just enthusiasts. Lights, sound, welding effects, Faller vehicles, churches, comic scenes, etc. Those are all things that the average person in the street likes.

 

 

I've seen people walk past layouts that are accurate, but with not much happening before now. Ironically it's usually the finescale pre grouping layouts that suffer this the most in my experience. Which is often the layout that I'm personally most interested in.

 

 

 

Jason

[wombatofludham]

I like to see humour. Far too many layouts seem to be too po-faced in their presentation. It doesn't have to be anything over the top - we put a road accident scene on the Dolgellau layout to create interest, and when I showed "King's Oak" at exhibitions there was a film crew outside "Crossroads" filming an episode with a thinly disguised BR crew bus as an ATV outside broadcast unit. Even the most authentic of layouts could inject a little bit of everyday humour with a vignette, say a traditional "British Bobby" stood underneath a tree with a boy up it "scrumping", or for more modern eras, a police car pulling over a speeding motorist, everyday scenes that are just that little bit out of the ordinary and which humanise the presentation.

[jjb1970]

In a sense this thread (apart from my own asinine interventions that is, sorry aboot that) is similar to the eternal arguments about what is art and what constitutes good art. A model railway layout is like a photograph or painting in that if it provokes an emotional or intellectual response, moves the person watching it or in any way enriches their experience of an exhibition (or even as a private visitor) then in my opinion it has merit and has succeeded. If it leaves people cold, provokes no response at either an emotional or intellectual response then it has failed. And I honestly believe those responses have little, if indeed anything, to do with the subject of the layout. That may be great operation, it may be superb composition of the scenic work, wonderful modelling or whatever else but a good layout has something and how it is received by viewers is a very personal thing.

And sometimes it doesn't have to be invoked by brilliant modelling, it may be the composition of a scene. There is technical skill and there is artistic sensibility. I love the photography of Robert Capa, in some ways I can't say why and I'm sure many people today would look at his work and just complain about sharpness and exposure being used to taking those things for granted in an era where even entry level cameras basically ensure both things are a given. A model railway is the same, brilliant technical skill is not enough, I believe a great layout needs something more. The layout that started this thread should be right up my street as I love BR D&E subjects and the trains I grew up watching in the 70's, 80's, 90's remain very dear to me but to be honest it just leaves me cold despite the undoubted technical skill behind it. Does that mean it's a bad layout? No, it just means it doesn't connect with me.

[jjb1970]

On what some might call gimmicks, I'm a bit of a conservative I'm afraid. Again, if others like all the effects that digital control allows then fair enough but it does nothing for me and in many ways I find they detract from a layout. Sound just doesn't scale well IMO and sounds very contrived (partly at least because volume levels tend to be set far too high leading to incongruence between what we see and what we hear). My pet hate is diesel smoke effects, I've spent a good part of my life looking at, measuring and analysing engine exhaust and I've never seen anything that looks like the effects of smoke generators so to me the things just shatter the optical illusion. But like I say, that's just me.

[Neil]

On what some might call gimmicks, I'm a bit of a conservative I'm afraid. Again, if others like all the effects that digital control allows then fair enough but it does nothing for me and in many ways I find they detract from a layout. Sound just doesn't scale well IMO and sounds very contrived (partly at least because volume levels tend to be set far too high leading to incongruence between what we see and what we hear). My pet hate is diesel smoke effects, I've spent a good part of my life looking at, measuring and analysing engine exhaust and I've never seen anything that looks like the effects of smoke generators so to me the things just shatter the optical illusion. But like I say, that's just me.

 

You're not on your own; I have a hearty dislike for on board sound effects partly because of the volume that they're played at, partly because the sound has none of the subtle variations of the real thing (think drum machine vs man with the sticks) and partly because at the distances involved on the average model railway the noise is there all the time, no rise in level as the train comes into view, no Doppler shift as the train passes and no fade out as it heads into the fiddle yard. From a finescale perspective sound has got a lot of catching up to do with the other aspects of model making. There probably is a place for sound to enhance the viewing experience but I'd suggest that it should be either based on what you might hear in the city or countryside at a suitably subdued level or perhaps music which evokes the place, time and mood which you would seek to portray. Film and TV do this really well these days and perhaps point the way forwards.

 

At the risk of coming across as a grumpy old man I generally feel the same way about lighting but with a few exceptions. A friend has a Heljan LMS Garratt, it has beautifully subtle lights which are hard to see  when the room is lit. This is how it should be, most other models have ridiculously bright lights which like ridiculously loud sound detract from rather than add to realism.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Neil

[rob D2]

It’s a purely personal choice, but I really think there should be a difference between exhibition and at home.

 

At home if you want to run a sparkly unicorn express, interspersed with the flying Scotsman on a rake of EWS coal hoppers go ahead.

 

At I show, I kinda, expect, well......professional.

 

And that’s when the TMDs sometimes get to me, because all the layout is is a way of displaying a ( often ) vast collection of similar locos. It’s not a model railway, it’s a display case. And if often bears no relation to reality .

[newbryford]

In a sense this thread (apart from my own asinine interventions that is, sorry aboot that) is similar to the eternal arguments about what is art and what constitutes good art. A model railway layout is like a photograph or painting in that if it provokes an emotional or intellectual response, moves the person watching it or in any way enriches their experience of an exhibition (or even as a private visitor) then in my opinion it has merit and has succeeded. If it leaves people cold, provokes no response at either an emotional or intellectual response then it has failed. And I honestly believe those responses have little, if indeed anything, to do with the subject of the layout. That may be great operation, it may be superb composition of the scenic work, wonderful modelling or whatever else but a good layout has something and how it is received by viewers is a very personal thing.

And sometimes it doesn't have to be invoked by brilliant modelling, it may be the composition of a scene. There is technical skill and there is artistic sensibility. I love the photography of Robert Capa, in some ways I can't say why and I'm sure many people today would look at his work and just complain about sharpness and exposure being used to taking those things for granted in an era where even entry level cameras basically ensure both things are a given. A model railway is the same, brilliant technical skill is not enough, I believe a great layout needs something more. The layout that started this thread should be right up my street as I love BR D&E subjects and the trains I grew up watching in the 70's, 80's, 90's remain very dear to me but to be honest it just leaves me cold despite the undoubted technical skill behind it. Does that mean it's a bad layout? No, it just means it doesn't connect with me.

 

The aforementioned layout hasn't failed because it has provoked a response - 8 pages of it!

 

Cheers,

MIck

[jjb1970]

The aforementioned layout hasn't failed because it has provoked a response - 8 pages of it!

 

Cheers,

MIck

Touche! I walked into that one! I'll qualify my statement by saying it leaves me cold, but clearly it has stimulated a discussion of why some layouts leave people cold.

[Guest teacupteacup]

One of our issues, IMHO (and knock me down with a feather if I'm wrong), is that most of us in this hobby are introverts. That may not be entirely apparent from the bonhomie and passionate debate often evident on here. But we are often only truly at ease with others of the same mould, and there are many of us that prefer to work alone.

 

 

I must disagree with you, of all the railway modellers (and modellers of different genres) that I know, I would not say any are introverted.  A couple are far too extrovert!!!  I like to work on my own, but Im not an introvert.  At the same time, I like to work with the rest of my modelling group on each others projects.  True, there are some folk who are introverted, painfully shy or socially awkward, and there are some who are just plain strange (and strangers to soap).  The greater public seems to view railway modellers as a weird bunch of middle age men, who have never had girlfriends, the press doesnt help.

[Guest teacupteacup]

On what some might call gimmicks, I'm a bit of a conservative I'm afraid. Again, if others like all the effects that digital control allows then fair enough but it does nothing for me and in many ways I find they detract from a layout. Sound just doesn't scale well IMO and sounds very contrived (partly at least because volume levels tend to be set far too high leading to incongruence between what we see and what we hear). My pet hate is diesel smoke effects, I've spent a good part of my life looking at, measuring and analysing engine exhaust and I've never seen anything that looks like the effects of smoke generators so to me the things just shatter the optical illusion. But like I say, that's just me.

+1 for this!

 

I like sound (in diesels, particularly Sulzers hence my username) but walking into an exhibition hall and being greeted by a wall of whistling EE's can get a bit grating.  Often I find the sound to be too high.  One particular annoyance is hearing these EE's in the fiddle yards, drowning out the sound of the non-EE's on the actual layout.

 

I've only seen smoke done well once, at an exhibition in the US a few years back, where the smoke emitted was in relation to how the motive power was perceived to be performing -ie plenty of clag climbing a gradient, easing off once the summit was mounted.

 

One other thing that grates me is over bright lights on stock.  The bright white LEDs used for marker lights is very off putting to me

Edited April 8, 2018 by teacupteacup

[Reorte]

Sound - can work on diesels, but I've not heard a steam sound that sounds convincing, but agree with the "too much" arguments. Smoke (diesel, let alone steam) never seems to work, perhaps it would on some of the largest scales, but it's one of those things, like running water, where the laws of physics are very much against getting it convincing.

 

Lighting can certainly have its place if done well (and colour light signals don't work very well without it!) It's another tool to use for a model, neither good nor bad in its own right, it depends upon how well it's used, just as much as a tin of paint.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Reorte

[Mike Storey]

I must disagree with you, of all the railway modellers (and modellers of different genres) that I know, I would not say any are introverted.  A couple are far too extrovert!!!  I like to work on my own, but Im not an introvert.  At the same time, I like to work with the rest of my modelling group on each others projects.  True, there are some folk who are introverted, painfully shy or socially awkward, and there are some who are just plain strange (and strangers to soap).  The greater public seems to view railway modellers as a weird bunch of middle age men, who have never had girlfriends, the press doesnt help.

 

It is not as black and white as that, as you are probably well aware, and most people fall somewhere in between (the mean being called ambivert). Many, quick on-line tests are available for anyone who wants an idea, but the more academically robust tests can take at least 30 mins or more. I studied this for a while as part of my degree (it is one of four key tests that were in favour some years ago, for personality testing, in staff recruitment.).

 

The key point of modelling, in any definition I have read, is close attention to detail and concentration over a significantly long period of time to achieve an end. People tending towards the extrovert side of the scale, such as many entertainers, usually find this much harder than those more tending to the introvert side. Similarly, introvert-tended people need more time to reflect and consider things than those who react emotionally or instinctively. And so on. I have personally found this to be true in the garden railway fraternity that I used to frequent when I lived in the UK. Those with greater extrovert personalities stood out, and often became leaders within the hobby, because so few others wanted to even though they held strong opinions and wanted things done differently.

 

Of course there will be many of us in between, in our hobby, and some near the extreme ends. But it is not a natural pursuit for most extrovert-tending personalities, by any measure. So my contention is merely that the "showmanship", of the sort requiring a high level of continuous interaction with a large number of complete strangers over a prolonged period, extolled by some as being more necessary at exhibitions these days, will not come naturally to a significant proportion of us. For those that it does, fantastic.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Mike Storey

[ejgray52]

I think I am having a senior moment, but I can't work out/find out what 'D & E' stands for... I am guessing 'D' is detail, but flummoxed by 'E' ! Bet when someone tells me I will say, "of course!".

[Reorte]

I think I am having a senior moment, but I can't work out/find out what 'D & E' stands for... I am guessing 'D' is detail, but flummoxed by 'E' ! Bet when someone tells me I will say, "of course!".

Diesel and electric.