Compression of the Prototype

[Southall]

Hi All.

 

Despite being a long time consumer of RMweb, I am newly joined. The reason being is that I have now committed myself to a project which, as currently planned, will be 4mm.

 

I finally selected a prototype to copy. It consists of twin passing lines and 4 colliery sidings, a simple starting point without too complex pointwork and something that could be completed within a reasonable period of time.

 

However, I have started scaling from the various books I have and this simple layout will come in at 7.6M (25ft)!!!

 

My question is - is there a general rule for compression ie 50% or 70% - or do you go for the 'look and feel' without accurate reproduction - or do you keep the centre faithful and compress at the ends?

 

Or do I just go N scale?

 

Any help would be gratefully appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Southall

[10800]

My question is - is there a general rule for compression ie 50% or 70% - or do you go for the 'look and feel' without accurate reproduction - or do you keep the centre faithful and compress at the ends?

 

Or do I just go N scale?

 

 

There's no general rule, any of those you mention are valid options, it's entirely up to you!

 

Easy things to compress without affecting the overall feel are long sidings and headshunts, more difficult would be station pointwork.

 

But what are your constraints? Train length, physical features such as bridges?

 

Maybe putting up a track plan with some other significant features would make it easier to comment?

[Southall]

Hi 10800,

 

Thank you for your input. I know that there is an amount of 'vagueness in my post' but this is early on in my planning process to understand if it is viable.

 

Very luckily, there is space available to accommodate a 'small' layout of this size, so there are no real constraints other than the time involved in construction & building which I think would kill the project

 

The largest of the sidings, I believe was to reverse goods/local trains into to allow expresses to pass, but as you suggest, long sidings and headshunts seem the targets. It would be sensible to understand what the size of these trains are likely to be, in order to to decide what could can be the minimum for the longest siding.

 

Once I am closer to committing, I will post a track plan for review which I am sure will generate plenty of comment and options, most of which I had never considered!

 

Thanks,

 

Southall

[Kris]

I think for compression, that it has to look and feel right for you, but that having been said, if you wish to display it you'll need to consider what others may feel about it and the amount of compression that you have used. For example you might be happy to compress a station like Paddington to a single platform but you'ed be unlikely to carry many others along with that line of thought, but if you had have put in 4 platforms you might be more likely to get away with things.

 

As another thought, some things just don't compress. A wagon or loco is a fixed length so reduce the length of the siding and you reduce the number of wagons that it can hold, reduce it to much and you might find that you just don't end up with trains that hit your requirements.

[The Stationmaster]

I think it is a good idea to start by sorting your train length and deciding what you want that to be - then work your track layout design around it and swop between the two to reach the compromise which best suits you. Once you have the train length sorted it will be a basic planning 'building block' which you not only use to plan your track layout but also use to test the operational validity of that layout.

As you go through that process you will begin to see where compression is possible and where it won't make sense.

[Oldddudders]

You've already had good advice from some RMWeb "heavy-hitters" but I'd like to suggest that if you are trying to reproduce or mimic an actual scene, then there will be a number of signature features in the original that you need to replicate in miniature. They might not all be railway-related items, but landscape features e.g a roadbridge etc. If you manage to represent each of those key items in your model, then the selective compression that almost all of us have to accept will not diminish the sense of the model being a true likeness. Identify what those features are, and you're half-way there.

[craigwelsh]

If you use Peco points you'll probably already be looking at 50% or more compression in those alone and train length will then dictate the sidings and loops as others have mentioned.

 

The section of a colliery I want to model is proving a challenge as that 1/2 of the whole site is 2miles (10560 feet = 42240mm ~140feet ) long..

[Tay Bridge]

Hi

 

Have a look at Waverley West's layout. He has a compressed version of Edinburgh Waverley and seems to have packed a lot into a small space but everyone who has ever been to Waverley would recognise it straight away. My wife did without any prompting and she is about as interested in railways as I am about shopping!

PM (personal message) and I am sure he will give some advice.

I have limited space too but have gone for a TMD (Traction Maintainance Depot) to avoid having to think too hard.....

 

Chris

 

PS- You can PM by clicking on the user names and this gives a link to send a message

[Southall]

Thanks all.

 

The responses, as usual, were all very useful and have helped crystallise my thoughts.

 

Signature features such as signal box, bridge and colliery will remain in as close to prototype relationship as possible.

 

Sidings will be reduced in length to accommodate the space available. I am starting to 'doubt' the stated size of siding lengths. The latter two track plans I have are 1921 & 1950 which both agree roughly.

 

The period I intend to model is 1960 - 62 when the colliery approaches its last decade of operation. Photos I have seen in 1962 show the shunting of between 3 & 16, 21T slopped side & BR 16T wagons.

 

Interestingly, there is a picture of the empties siding looking over full with what I can count as being 20 wagons. It is on a slope and gated. Two 16T wagons are past the gate and almost impinging on the siding pointwork. Working on a dimension of 19' 6'' over buffers this would give a length of 390' not the 552' in the track plan. Either way, the siding could be sized for a maximum of 20 wagons, so starting to reduce overall length. By luck there is a passing goods train of 15 wagons which also tends to confirm the length.

 

Will continue on the suggested approach of scaling to train length.

 

Pointwork is intended to be handbuilt, so hopefully will not be constrained by the dimensional limitations of ready made track - would be very interested in what solutions you employ to get 280' into your available space (other than a mega house extension).

 

Have viewed Waverley West's layout on RM web and very stunning it is. Not knowing the area in detail I had always assumed that it was a faithfull reproduction of the original! Need to do some more research.

 

Thanks for taking the time for all the input.

 

Hopefully, will be back tomorrow with further questions on PW and pointwork - seems to be that the more you learn, the more questions it generates!

 

Southall

[Penrhos1920]

One thing to watch carefully is how your lengthwise compression affects the width items. Two examples:

 

There used to be a good layout of Chepstow if I remember correctly. The platforms had been reduced to a 1/3rd of there scale length, but the width was not changed. Consequently they looked fat and out of proportion. Ideally they should been reduced, but maybe by not as much as the length. And the station building would also need compressing in both dimensions.

 

Think about a bridge or other structure that crosses the railway at an angle. Assume it is 45°, half its length and the angle changes to 22.5°. Reduce the length further and it will look almost perpendicular.

 

The alternative is to compress some parts and not others so that the unequal reduction of length vs width does not become apparent. It's all very difficult.

[Southall]

Thanks Penrhos,

 

As the process goes on, this has also been nagging at me.

 

I think that there was an initial shock at the real size of even a small prototypical layout. If I have to summarise my approach it would be from an engineering background ie relational numbers. Having worked with a couple of very talented designers over the past 8 years there is a realisation that I do not have anything like the same gift to visualise in 3-D as they instinctually have.

 

As you say I am sure that the answer lies in compressing some parts and not others so that the unequal reduction of length vs width does not become apparent.

 

Yes it is very difficult. However, the replies are helping me to build a minds view of what would look right in the available space.

 

Many thanks,

 

Southall

[roger440]

Thanks Penrhos,

 

As the process goes on, this has also been nagging at me.

 

I think that there was an initial shock at the real size of even a small prototypical layout. If I have to summarise my approach it would be from an engineering background ie relational numbers. Having worked with a couple of very talented designers over the past 8 years there is a realisation that I do not have anything like the same gift to visualise in 3-D as they instinctually have.

 

As you say I am sure that the answer lies in compressing some parts and not others so that the unequal reduction of length vs width does not become apparent.

 

Yes it is very difficult. However, the replies are helping me to build a minds view of what would look right in the available space.

 

Many thanks,

 

Southall

 

Ive been pondering a not dissimilar issue in my thread in layout and track design.

 

Given my fixation on Reading, even with 29' at my disposal, some fairly serious compression needs to take place. Following some good suggestions from people here, i went back and looked at the site on google, then at the numerous pics i have taken from the end of the platform, i have realised that most of my compression should take place between the platform end and the west junction. In reality its quite a distance, but you would never know it stood on the platform. It feels like its just the other side of the bridge!

 

Maybe you should identify those parts of the site that can be compressed rather than squeezing the whole thing.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Any model is a simplified structuring of reality.

 

If everything is made exactly to scale it doesn't necessarily follow that it will look right. This is because our viewpoint isn't 5ft 8in (or whatever your height is) off the ground.

 

By their very nature, railways tend to be long and thin. So the higher our viewpoint, the shorter away further objects appear. Therefore we NEED to foreshorten things to make them appear more realistic.

 

As Iain Rice says in his latest book, what makes a realistic model is observation and consistency.

 

Do lots of sketches to rough out the main elements of your chosen location.Think carefully about train lengths; a 12 coach express in model form can look too long and unrealistic. Train lengths need to be in proportion to the layout as a whole.