How close to accurate do you need to be?

[Nearholmer]

“.....ideally you want consistency.....”

 

Totally agree.

 

However much selective compression is or isn’t applied, consistency of approach and standard in what is created is possibly the best easy winner of all.

 

If you are into a very big project, it’s something to think hard about, because if you are going to build, say, thirty decent-sized buildings in the scene, and you got to town’ in detail on the first, you are going to have to do the same on the other twenty nine (like wise coaches, wagons etc), and a big project can easily turn into a lifetimes work ....... which is only OK if you want it to!

 

I rather like the mainstream US H0 approach, which seems to be a bit more 80/20 that is common here, and works very well for the room-sized essays that they tend to build over there.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Nearholmer

[TravisM]

Thanks for all your input and it’s all been noted.  A friend came round earlier and we were talking about it and he said “instead of modelling the actual station, why not model the countryside approaches which are lined with trees”.

 

He also said that rather than calling the layout “Spalding”, you could call it “The joint line” and it could be anywhere along the line and no-one would be the wiser.  Agreed there would be no trains stopping and just rolling through the scenery which happens on most layouts.

[hayfield]

2 hours ago, jools1959 said:

Thanks for all your input and it’s all been noted.  A friend came round earlier and we were talking about it and he said “instead of modelling the actual station, why not model the countryside approaches which are lined with trees”.

 

He also said that rather than calling the layout “Spalding”, you could call it “The joint line” and it could be anywhere along the line and no-one would be the wiser.  Agreed there would be no trains stopping and just rolling through the scenery which happens on most layouts.

 

 

Why not make one of the exits a station, then they can start stop or go straight through. Depending on how muck of the station is modelled you could also include part of a goods yard and or engine shed/stabling/coaling

[newbryford]

I've used the "half-station" to good effect on a couple of layouts.

 

One thing to watch out for is the hidden part of the track plan to ensure that a train visibly stopped at the station doesn't b&gger up any other operation.

For example the stationary train doesn't block the entry to the through line that's off scene.

 

(I hope that makes sense)

[Merfyn Jones]

On 28/12/2019 at 22:56, Nick G said:

I strived to get the feel of the real location but as others have said the biggest problem is space.

First picture captures the real thing very well, and it looks rather good in the second as well .

On 28/12/2019 at 22:56, Nick G said:

 

[Tallpaul69]

While we all (well 90% of us who model a home layout!) have to accept compromises if we model a real location, the effect of these compromises are different depending on the reason we are making the model, and do not work in isolation. So we need to think through the implications of any compromises and perhaps make a small scale model of our ideas.

So for those new to modelling or to the art of compromise, what follows is a bit of detail on some aspects of compromise.

 

If we are modelling to operate a reasonable version of the actual timetable for the location, then we need to ensure the compromises do not impede the operation. If we model to produce something that looks good then some compromises will be the same as for operation, others will be different.

So for instance, for operation, we need the correct number of platforms of sufficient length to make our trains (whose length is probably a compromise) look right in the model. and to ensure that the correct number of trains can be at platforms at the same time. If we are just interested in looks, this may not be a concern.

If the real platforms are 12 coaches long but most trains are 8 coaches long then, if we decide we can accept the model representing the trains by 4 coach trains, the platforms need to be 6 coaches long. However, if the trains are from the steam /early diesel era or earlier, then the trains irrespective of length will pull up to the end of the platform, whereas in the more modern diesel unit area trains will stop more centrally in the platform depending on the positioning of stop boards for different length trains (e.g.:- 4 car stop here boards).

A compromise worth considering is the bitza station mentioned by earlier posts to this thread. In our above example the 4 coach train can legitimately stop at a shorter than train length platform without looking wrong provided there are view blockers to obscure the rear part of the train and the shortness of the platform.

Thus the station needs to be mocked up before track is laid, because different viewing points will require different approaches and what view blocks are required will not be apparent purely from a track plan even if it is to scale because the plan is 2 dimensional, the model 3 dimensional.

The above station compromise may allow us to use 6 coach trains which are a lesser compromise from the real 8 coaches than the 4 coaches we first thought of .

This shows that the compromises we make often interact. Sometimes introducing an additional compromise may enable us to reduce another compromise. The best overall effect will be obtained if the compromises balance. So a number of small compromises working together will produce a better model than one big compromise in isolation among  a number of true to life items.

Hope you all have followed the above?

If there is sufficient intertest, I will expand on these ideas on a further post on another occasion?

Happy New Year to you All

 

Regards

Paul     

 

[TravisM]

After much thought, I’ve finally decided to model from the footbridge just north of Spalding station, which will include the tamper sidings and crossover to where Mill Green signal box used to be.  Even though the box has long been demolished, I plan to keep it in as it’s a good talking point and in my world, still protecting the level crossing.

 

As the route is lined with trees, the signal box will be the only building I need to worry about, and I plan to adapt a LCUT LNER signal box to closely resemble it.

 

Okay, it won’t have any shunting or stopping at a station, but I can have it showing one of my EMT’s Class 153’s, 156 or 158 slowing for the station or leaving towards Lincoln.  Also, if I just want to watch trains go round and round, I can .  Any thoughts?

Edited January 1, 2020 by jools1959

[Chris M]

6 hours ago, jools1959 said:

After much thought, I’ve finally decided to model from the footbridge just north of Spalding station, which will include the tamper sidings and crossover to where Mill Green signal box used to be.  Even though the box has long been demolished, I plan to keep it in as it’s a good talking point and in my world, still protecting the level crossing.

 

As the route is lined with trees, the signal box will be the only building I need to worry about, and I plan to adapt a LCUT LNER signal box to closely resemble it.

 

Okay, it won’t have any shunting or stopping at a station, but I can have it showing one of my EMT’s Class 153’s, 156 or 158 slowing for the station or leaving towards Lincoln.  Also, if I just want to watch trains go round and round, I can .  Any thoughts?

 

That's similar to what I did on my last layout. No station but a four track junction to watch the trains go through - and very enjoyable it is too. Also, while the junction and  right hand side of the layout was an attempt at an actual place the left hand side ended in tunnels which did not exist in the real world. I found this to be a necessary and therefore acceptable compromise and it also seemed to be accepted at exhibitions. I adapted a Ratio wooden signal box kit to make a brick built one which was somewhere near correct for the real junction signal box.

 

I now have another project on the go which will be another attempt at a real location and will result in the current layout being dismantled for components for the new project. This is a shame and I will miss it but it has to be done for space and cost reasons.

 

I think that once the bug for trying to capture a real place has bitten it doesn't go away. I love finding out about workings at the place being modelled.  For instance the scene below could almost make the "prototype for everything " topic. It is based on a photo of what could be seen through my junction on summer Saturdays when fuelled and service locos were coupled together and worked in reverse from Newton Abbot down to Paignton ready to work the up holiday trains. Apparently the footplate crews did not enjoy going backwards with a newly filled tender.

Edited January 2, 2020 by Chris M

[Enterprisingwestern]

7 hours ago, jools1959 said:

.  Any thoughts?

 

Yes.

Stop worrying about other people and just get on with it!

You are the only person to whom it really matters.

 

Mike.

In a friendly/supportive fashion.

[Kris]

It only has to be as accurate as you want it to be. I can remember being told that a tree was the wrong colour on my layout by a member of the public at an exhibition. The colour worked for me which was good enough for me. 

[Pete the Elaner]

8 hours ago, jools1959 said:

After much thought, I’ve finally decided to model from the footbridge just north of Spalding station, which will include the tamper sidings and crossover to where Mill Green signal box used to be.

Now you have given yourself a prototype to work from, I think you're going to find it rewarding to get some of the aspects of it looking just right. Take your time on some of the parts which give the layout its identity (the signal box), get then just right & don't be afraid to throw something away if you are less than happy with it.

 

& enjoy building it.

[hayfield]

If you were an accomplished artist and painted a landscape, would it be to scale? I doubt it. Would you miss things out ? definitely yes, would others see the scene exactly as you do ? no

 

I think there is a world of difference in portraying a scene against building a loco, yet with locos we accept compromises due to scaling down and gauge. Just do your own thing and enjoy yourself

[Guy Rixon]

Apart from accuracy with respect to the map, you might want to consider how much you value historical accuracy and accuracy of "feeling".

 

By historical accuracy, I mean tracking the many changes to the site and structures. It can be a hobby in its own right. You might decide that you don't care about the rivet pitch on the water tank but you care a lot about when the tank was rebuilt on a slightly different site. You might care deeply about the details of the properties just over the railway fence.

 

Accuracy of feeling is subjective, of course, but lighting and horizons are important. (Spalding presumably has low horizons and notable light from the big-sky effect of a flat landscape). Accuracy of feeling can be in tension with historical accuracy when you're short of space because the more space you use to fit in the railway features the less you have for the surroundings. Also, if you're compressing the length to fit in the features, you're compressing the space between features and it can easily make a cramped feeling that is wrong for almost all railways except a few urban and industrial scenes. Layouts in 7mm scale suffer particular from this. It speaks to Nearholmer's suggestion of leaving out the less notabale features as the compression increases.

 

There is, incidentally, a mathematical technique that could compare "crampedness" in photos of scenes: take the spatial frequency spectrum and check the low frequencies, which come from the long, sweeping lines, against the high frequencies which come from the clutter. This is what your brain is doing anyway but, were suitable image-processing software available, it could be used as a second opinion.

[croydon junction]

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".

 

 

did they ever get the measurements dead on there? If not how far out were they, and how many of their boats sunk?

[Colin_McLeod]

59 minutes ago, croydon junction said:

did they ever get the measurements dead on there? If not how far out were they, and how many of their boats sunk?

They were ok when the left the yard. lol

Apart from navigational errors or enemy action I don't think any actually sank all by themselves, but I would be interested to learn about any that did.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Colin_McLeod

[johnsmithuk]

On 02/01/2020 at 07:05, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Yes.

Stop worrying about other people and just get on with it!

You are the only person to whom it really matters.

 

Mike.

In a friendly/supportive fashion.

I believe this is a Rule Number 1 scenario.

[9C85]

On 29/12/2019 at 14:05, michaelp said:

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.

 

 

I stumbled across  pictures of the staithes in the 80s on the Internet.  Fascinating location.  My 

[sjp23480]

David Jenkinson in Historic Railway Modelling had some interesting comments on compression. He suggested leaving platforms as close to their original scale length if space was available, but compress sidings and laybys according to the space and the length of your trains.

 

As for scratch building, I would suggest using ready to plant or kit buildings but plan to replace them with scratch built items as you improve your skills and as time allows.  

 

You will probably find your railway will end up like the Forth Bridge, neverending. 

 

Steve

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

2 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

 

As for scratch building, I would suggest using ready to plant or kit buildings but plan to replace them with scratch built items as you improve your skills and as time allows.  

 

I like that idea. It allows the layout to look like a layout more quickly & I find it hugely satisfying to upgrade structures for something better.

[Adrian Stevenson]

Hi Steve, interesting you mention David Jenkinson's mantra. I have tried to follow this with my own 7mm layout where I am modelling Malmesbury station.  I have been doing a blow by blow account in the 7mm sub forum. Most of my (hideous!) compression is down to where the line runs off over the bridge and into the tunnel. This allows the station itself to be a fairly good representation.

 

Cheers, Ade.

[sjp23480]

Ade,

 

Agree, I have aspirations to model a station on the Settle Carlisle.

 

Most platform lengths were reasonably short and quite manageable from a space perspective, but the elongated nature of the goods and layby sidings means quite a lot of compression to make things fit whilst maintaining something of a resemblance to the real thing. 

 

For instance, Dent (per 67A's thread) is over 30' long, despite that I don't believe it is quite scale length.

 

Steve

[Chris M]

Warley club's N gauge Hawes Junction with scale length platforms but shortened sidings. Apologies for the inappropriate train.

 

[67A]

On 15/02/2020 at 11:37, sjp23480 said:

Ade,

 

Agree, I have aspirations to model a station on the Settle Carlisle.

 

Most platform lengths were reasonably short and quite manageable from a space perspective, but the elongated nature of the goods and layby sidings means quite a lot of compression to make things fit whilst maintaining something of a resemblance to the real thing. 

 

For instance, Dent (per 67A's thread) is over 30' long, despite that I don't believe it is quite scale length.

 

Steve

Hi Steve and Ade,

 

Quite correct, my take on DENT station is almost scale length within the Coal Road bridge to signalbox area but the sidings had to be curtailed by at least half actual length. It still gives a good representation and is recognisable as Dent which is a bonus.

[Sturminster_Newton]

Playing devils advocate

 

Build it like a train-set, roundy.

 

Flat boards no scenery, just the track layout, as BR might have to train signallers.

 

But do put in ALL the signals and points.

 

Then you only have to run the locomotive(s) with correct headcodes but no stock.

 

Loops compressed to a loco length.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Sturminster_Newton said:

Then you only have to run the locomotive(s) with correct headcodes but no stock.

 

With the light engine headcode, then?