Jump to content
 

How close to accurate do you need to be?


TravisM
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

I’m seriously thinking of modelling a real location but I was wondering just how accurate do you need to be when trying to portray a given location.  I have two locations in mind; one is St Bees in Cumbria as I like the track plan and suits my space available and the other is Spalding, Lincolnshire as I like the diversity of trains and have acquired a larger amount of stock to go on it.

 

Both layouts will need a large amount of scratch building and my scratch building skills are shall we say, woefully inadequate for the task.  Would it be acceptable to find something close to resemble the station and other buildings without incurring the wrath of the rivet counters?

Edited by jools1959
Typo
  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you do you will never satisfy everyone.

I am no modeler, but do visit quite a lot of exhibitions and see that the 'inspired by' layouts often work well.

For me if a layout can capture the atmosphere of time or place, (or general geographic area) then it works for me,

 

cheers 

  • Like 5
  • Agree 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Enjoy your layout and if it satisfies your own needs and 'looks like' the prototype you are modelling then IMHO that's it.   Anyway unless you have a enormous railway room some compression of dimensions is unavoidable.

 

 

Your thread title "How close to accurate do you need to be" reminded me of the one where a fitter was applying for a job in Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.  He told the interviewing foreman that he can make things accurate to within one thousandth of an inch.  Sadly he did not get the job as the foreman informed him that was not good enough as all measurements had to be "dead on".

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

It's your railway,  it's up to you how accurate it is, the are plenty of model railways on here and on the exhibition circuit that look nothing like the real thing. 

 

One of my layouts will be EM gauge,  as accurate as I can make it. 

 

The other an exhibition layout, is nothing like the original, I'm building a two station layout based very very roughly on highland railway practices,  the original was 600yards of narrow gauge on a pier with litterally 1 horse power. 

 

Following on from Colin,  most on here,  measure volts with a 3 or 4 digit meter.  I've got a 7 digit meter sat 10ft from me now,  but I know that's inaccurate,  because at work if I'm measuring  1V it will be typed into the computer as 1.xxx,xxx,x and we know that there is a way to measure that more accurately, there is no justification for a Josephson junction  system. 

 

Accuracy is a function of purpose,  cost and ability.  Do the best you can,  without wasting time,  money and effort. 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is your layout. Build it how you want.

 

I am working on a prototype replica. The important parts to me were to get the basic dimensions correct, then the tunnel mouths, retaining walls, station building had to look like the originals.

It is taking a long time but I am really enjoying the challenge of getting it looking right. The most satisfying items are those which I have rejected first time around to re-build better.

I have taken a few liberties though:

There is a line which crosses above almost at right angles then into tunnels each side. I have moved the tunnels closer together because there simply isn't room for them.

There are 2 types of arches used for the retaining wall; deeper & shallower ones. I have swapped these over because the deeper ones should be where I don't have space for them. There is also a big recess area which I have simply ignored because I don't have the space.

I absolutely hate doing windows for buildings & I find it difficult to get the platforms to look right.

 

I frequently look at photos I already had & see things I have never noticed before, Cable hangers on a platform edge was one of the more recent 'discoveries'. Once I had noticed them, I felt compelled to re-create them.

 

There is a link to my layout in my footer, including photos of the prototype. I don't expect you to like it (one of my friends always derides it for having no pointwork in the scenic section :biggrin_mini2:). The real place doesn't so neither does my layout.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
11 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

It's your layout.

Don't get hung up on what other people think.

The whole idea of this or any other hobby is to enjoy it.

Do what makes you happy.

Most of all, have fun.

 

Mike.


My main issue is that if I model Spalding, the platforms will be on a curve whereas the prototype are straight and the buildings match the straight platform.  I think I’ll just wing it and like you say, it’s my layout and try and make it look as close as possible.

 

Thanks for all your comments.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of our club layouts are or have been based on real locations and we have chosen to reflect that in the name of the layout, such as 'Newcastleton', which is based on the station of the same name on the former Waverley Route.  However, another club layout, 'Puddle Bridge', is again based on a real location: Ormiston in East Lothian.   The name we adopted is, I understand, how some locals refer to the bridge where the B6371 crosses over the former track bed to the north of the village of Ormiston.  Why did we not call this layout Ormiston, since that's what the station track plan and station building are based on?  The answer is that we also chose to incorporate a colliery behind the station, which would not have been there in the period that we tend to operate it - ie the British Railway era.  I understand that coal was mined in the area, but although there was at one time a colliery roughly where we have portrayed one, we're not sure how accurately our model represents what was actually there and in any case, I think it was closed by the 1920's, perhaps even earlier.  Since we felt that we weren't accurately portraying the station at any particular point in time, and that the operation was inspired by the area more than faithfully representing the timetable as it would have been through Ormiston in the 1950's we chose not to use the real place name and instead use a colloquial name.

 

Ultimately, it's up to you how accurate you want to represent either place, or whether you want to do as we've done and use the track plan for a location and then give it a different name to get round the liberties we have taken.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I have plans to include a station called Inchamore in my next layout.  This is a real place and the backdrop and some physical structures will portray the actual location. However there was never a station nor even a railway in Inchamore.

 

So yes, it is ok to be a bit inaccurate. It's part of Rule one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jools1959 said:

I’m seriously thinking of modelling a real location but I was wondering just how accurate do you need to be when trying to portray a given location.  I have two locations in mind; one is St Bees in Cumbria as I like the track plan and suits my space available and the other is Spalding, Lincolnshire as I like the diversity of trains and have acquired a larger amount of stock to go on it.

 

Both layouts will need a large amount of scratch building and my scratch building skills are shall we say, woefully inadequate for the task.  Would it be acceptable to find something close to resemble the station and other buildings without incurring the wrath of the rivet counters?

 

Been there and done all that.:yes:  In the end it can get to you which is why I gave it all up and turned to British and American tinplate trains.  Now nobody frets over, scale, colour or whether the building have the correct number of chimney pots.  But it give just as much pleasure, perhaps more, free from the aforementioned constraints.  Obviously not for the diehards but relieved my stress level! :)

       Brian.

  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said it is very much up to you. You have to decide what you  want from building a layout.  I have a garden railway  which has no intention of being anything other than somewhere in the USA and I am very happy with that. My indoor layouts are a different kettle of fish though. Of 9 layouts built or started over the last 40 years 6 have been attempts of modelling a real place. Some not very satisfactory and some not too bad.

I do enjoy the challenge of trying to capture a place within the constraints of the space available which is inevitably less space than you really need. Working out where to make the required compromises is a great mental exercise. Some of these layouts got to go to exhibitions and were well received. Nearly everyone seems to be enthusiastic when they see a model of somewhere they recognise and hardly anyone criticises. The only thing I really dislike is when someone makes a layout which is absolutely nothing like the name they have given it.

You should try making a few buildings from scratch, you will learn a lot and might get to make acceptable buildings.

I say give it a go and wish you all the best.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 27/12/2019 at 07:54, Colin_McLeod said:

Enjoy your layout and if it satisfies your own needs and 'looks like' the prototype you are modelling then IMHO that's it.   Anyway unless you have a enormous railway room some compression of dimensions is unavoidable.

 

 

Your thread title "How close to accurate do you need to be" reminded me of the one where a fitter was applying for a job in Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.  He told the interviewing foreman that he can make things accurate to within one thousandth of an inch.  Sadly he did not get the job as the foreman informed him that was not good enough as all measurements had to be "dead on".

 

 

 

Near enuf idn good enuf, when tis zackly then tis near enuf.

 

Translation:

 

Near enough isn't good enough,

when it's exact, then it's near enough

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The mind tends to edit-out a lot of ‘samey’ bits when remembering the real thing, so in many cases it’s possible to convey a very clear impression, entirely recognisable, while leaving bits out, when making a model of a real place. 
 

Artists have been getting away with it for millennia ...... leaving boring bits out, emphasising the characteristic and interesting bits, messing about subtly with the arrangement of buildings, adding the odd tree to frame a view.

 

IMHO, models of rural stations particularly tend to be a tad uninteresting if produced to exact scale, notably scale length. Less the case with urban things, but then the amount of model-making becomes very great - I once did 15ft of wharfside and associated buildings in H0 to a fair level of detail, and it was a looong old job!

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

In my opinion one of the finest layouts seen on these pages is "Worseter" 

The name signifies that the place portrayed is in some ways Worcester and in some ways not - the famous Rainbow Bridge is represented pretty much as it actually is, but the surroundings are imaginary, although very reminiscent of the region.

 

So if you were to tweak the names a bit, you could signal that you were paying homage to your chosen location, representing such signature features as would give the flavour of the place and operating the same services, but without claiming your layout to be a replica.

Edited by Andy Kirkham
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I'm idly planning a prototype location for my next layout (actually flitting between two), and the reality is that there'll be a roughly halving of prototype dimensions. I think if you can evoke the feel of a real location then you've succeeded. The reality is that real stations, even small ones, have massive platforms, turnouts are huge, buildings are massive, and our space tends to be limited!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
31 minutes ago, njee20 said:

I'm idly planning a prototype location for my next layout (actually flitting between two), and the reality is that there'll be a roughly halving of prototype dimensions. I think if you can evoke the feel of a real location then you've succeeded. The reality is that real stations, even small ones, have massive platforms, turnouts are huge, buildings are massive, and our space tends to be limited!

 

Agreed.

Space is usually the biggest issue in recreating a prototype location.

Even a simple BLT can be many 10s of feet long.

There are very few layouts that accurately portray the prototype to a correct length.

 

I most definitely subscribe to the "based upon/inspired by" camp. My current layout is about 1/3 to 1/4 of the prototype location that it represents.

It the layout was much larger then I think it would become unmanageable

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, newbryford said:

 

Agreed.

Space is usually the biggest issue in recreating a prototype location.

Even a simple BLT can be many 10s of feet long.

There are very few layouts that accurately portray the prototype to a correct length.

 

I most definitely subscribe to the "based upon/inspired by" camp. My current layout is about 1/3 to 1/4 of the prototype location that it represents.

It the layout was much larger then I think it would become unmanageable

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

I completely understand that.

I found a location which I could model largely to scale but had to make compromises, some of which would be unacceptable to many people:

 

It is in an urban location - this was expected because it is usually the only place you can find a railway squeezed in somewhere.

It also dictated that I model the layout in a small section between tunnels & a bridge.

Urban = lots of buildings (lots of work to build) & not many open spaces (quicker to build).

There is no pointwork on the scenic section.

It's a 6-track main line. I only wanted to model 4 of them. It has been a real squeeze fitting the unwanted 2 into a fiddle yard & the rolling stock (class 313s for 1990s & Oerlikons for 1940) have to be kitbuilt or modified.

The real location has deep pillared retaining walls where I don't have space & shallow pillared ones where I have a little more space, so I have swapped them around.

There is another line which passes over the top almost at right angles then into tunnels. I have modelled it, but it has been impossible to make it operational & I have moved these tunnels a lot closer than they should be.

 

It has taken about 3 years to get boards & track laid, running lines wired (but not point motors) & some of the scenery/structures built. I expect it will take me another 3-5 years to finish it.

 

So the question is: could you accept a similar amount of compromises?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

 

So the question is: could you accept a similar amount of compromises?

 

That is a very valid point

 

Going slightly off-topic

One of my modelling mantras is to be happy with my compromises.

One of the largest concessions I have made - for many years and many layouts - is modelling in 00.

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The average modeller will make compromises, small ones may not matter but larger ones may. Rather than scratch building a station building I have kit bashed 3 Ratio station building kits into one, It is the shame size and shape as the station I am modelling, has the same number of doors and windows in approximately the correct place. But that is as far as it goes. The Layout again is just about the same size and shape, but I have altered the track plan slightly to increase operational interest and added a second platform. All is to scale and to EM standards but the plan is based on rather than a model of. More like it could have been if it developed in a different way

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some excellent and helpful replies above.

My layout is based on a  real location in 1970s North East England, a loco depot and coal export facility and will be known to people familiar with the area, having said, because of compression, the upper and lower sidings are not long enough nor is there the correct amount of sidings, the buildings on my layout are not totally accurate and some of the other trackwork work is inaccurate but I am happy with my layout being an 'interpretation of' or 'loosely based' layout.

There is nothing I can do but work with the space I have and try to get my layout as close as I possibly can with what modelling skills I have and I use the word skills very loosely! 

 

I say go for it but most of all enjoy your modelling.

 

Edited by michaelp
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/12/2019 at 04:48, jools1959 said:

I’m seriously thinking of modelling a real location but I was wondering just how accurate do you need to be when trying to portray a given location.  I have two locations in mind; one is St Bees in Cumbria as I like the track plan and suits my space available and the other is Spalding, Lincolnshire as I like the diversity of trains and have acquired a larger amount of stock to go on it.

 

Both layouts will need a large amount of scratch building and my scratch building skills are shall we say, woefully inadequate for the task.  Would it be acceptable to find something close to resemble the station and other buildings without incurring the wrath of the rivet counters?

If you don't exhibit it and don't post photos and don't have your mates round then who is going to know?  Its your world enjoy it.

However everyone is different.  Your acceptable compromise is someone elses no-no.     My philosophy is ideally you want consistency. One highly detailed model in a train of dross will destroy the illusion, a new Hornby wagon or a 1930s Hornby wagon in a train of 1960s Hornby Dublo sticks out lime a sore thumb. A Bachmann loco in BR Green and  Hornby one in that muddy Khaki that they pretend is BR Green destroys the illusion.  A plastic building against a card one.

Operating again a GW Saint and a Warship Diesel together is a No No, as is a loco with full yellow ends with a King.   Dont care how detailed they are as long as they look much the same, same for coaches, same lining style, Triang OK, Bachmann OK, mix them and its horrible.

My real hate is layouts you can't operate.  Can't terminate a train at a through station, or run round a half decent train, Or have to swap stock by hand on scenic sections, or indeed waste space by not tucking hidden sidings under scenic bits.    Oh and layouts where some trains always circulate clockwise and others anti clockwise, OK for coal trains but so few layouts let you turn trains around.   Some folk will get upset if you use the wrong GW Pannier on an Auto Train (me)  but thank them politely for their comments and tell them to do one.  Its your bloody layout.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...