Lack of contemporary layouts on the exhibition circuit

[arran]

HI All

 

There's plenty to model with interest in the modern environment including freight facilities, but you wont "over very rarely get" the station come goods yard come engine shed oh and the cattle dock and i forgot the water tower and the bay platform for the branch service.

 

I have to admit i walk by most layout like this as they put me to sleep almost as fast as the time table brigade.

 

Modern layouts can and are if modeled right interesting and entertaining to the modeller and the public who when go to exhibitions are there to be entertained and not bored to death with scale boredom.

 

Regards Arran

[Glorious NSE]

Has anybody ever seen or heard of a layout of the current railway scene, based (closely or loosely) on a real place?

 

And as well as Hinksey, Drem, Law Jcn and all the others already mentioned Banbury and Cromer were mentioned earlier in the thread, both of which are closely modelled on the real locations...so, a fair proportion of the total are based directly on a real location.

 

Cromer is in O, but it is interesting that most are in N, I think that does point to it being easier to model long trains in a smaller scale...

 

I don't know about Acton as I never saw it in original guise

 

I did, it was contemporary when it first appeared and stayed as a sectorisation layout. Very well done, lots of kit and scratchbuilding involved to get the up to date and accurate for route stock of the day - real cutting edge stuff at the time...

[definate maybe]

Maybe I am wrong as we are currently on page 6 and I am the first to mention it but contemporary layouts seem to be second only to steam/ diesel transition layouts at many of the shows I go to. The mid 90's with the likes of Mainline, Transrail and Loadhaul seem to be the least modelled era and in many ways you could argue it was 1 of the more colourful and interesting as it mixed bright modern colours with more traditional loco hauled stock. the sectorised late 80's/ early 90's has a few models but I wouldnt say there are that many around.

I would suggest that you dont get a lot of variety in modern layouts. They seem to be either depot type layouts or the large round and round type but there is a difference between variety and number.

I would also argue that the modern layout has a lot more modelling scope, in terms of variety, than a number of earlier days but alot of this 'variety' may be seen as cliche. You can have large logo and rail blue 47's, deltics, steam, 2 locos and 3 coaches in top and tail mode, mixed freight with the likes of enterprise services. Unfortunately charter services that can cover everything from C&C MK1 buffet through to virgin mk2f stock in one train but it also adds to the variety.

Maybe not today, due to the financial downturn, but if you call modern the last 5 years, then a lot of freight has made a comeback on the railways and isnt it a fact that the likes of York are now seeing more rail services than they were back in the heyday of the railways.

In relation to is it interesting then I would suggest that it all depends how authentic you wish to be and what interests you.

For example a much loved model is a BR steam branch terminus. Many of these are lovely layouts but most of them are operated a million miles away from the true workings of a line. The majority were 1 engine in steam with the same 2 coaches making up all the branch traffic. If you were lucky a through service in the rush hour (!) and depending on how busy the line was this same engine would operate both the branch service and the daily freight and unless the branch had a specialist business then the majority of wagons would have been vans and opens. In reality they had charm and appeal but it wouldnt be a location to go for a days spotting but in model form they have been transformed into buzzing locations with the need for 4 or 5 locos a day and endless work. We overlook all the specialist well wagons etc that add variety to these services and can normally spend a fair amount of time watching them at exhibitons.

With a modern layout your passenger services could probably justity more colour and stock variety (ie different class of units) and possibly more daily services, although less movements (run round, watering etc). If a freight flow can be justified then (although it is likely to be weekly rather than daily - you would model it on the day of its run) it will again add more colour and add a new type of loco to haul this service.

All era's have their pros and cons but I think we are all too easy to accept poor example of prototypical running on old layouts yet are highly critical on modern ones.

[Catkins]

 

Whilst very popular in the states 'freelance' lines would require much more modelling effort. I'm not sure there are many modellers out there with the vision or skill to actually carry it off plausibly, see the reluctance of many people to repaint locos and stock as a starter, not to mention the cost outlay will be similar. Modern units will at least cost market box shifter or second hand prices to aquire, and once re-branded to the freelance livery will be virtually worthless for re-sale. It requires a committed modeller or group to choose such a path, though it could provide a very very interesting model.

The classic intersection of "contemporary" and "freelanced" North American model that is regularly in the press would be Eric Brooman's Utah Belt. The layout is continuously overhauled to always be "up to date". It was most recently featured in the November Model Railroader with a signalling upgrade.

 

This approach does seem pretty extreme to me. Even the "now minus two" concept would be hard to keep up with. Surely anything 21st century would count as being reasonably "contemporary".

 

The possibility of an 'imaginary TOC' could be extended to having a Passenger Transport Executive, as they are currently chasing "Quality Contracts" with the bus companies in the areas, and some have funded trains and new rail services and stations, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility to have something believable - but like all good fiction, the research is still done in the real world (the locations in Morse / Lewis and Rebus exist in the real world)

 

The idea that anything 21st century counts as contemporary is good, but as time marches on, it will become as dated as "modern Image", and I can remember when Modern Image meant 56s coming out of Crewe in the new livery of Large Logo, but all that is now history.

 

As for the general visual scene that is around now. I am not old enough to remember the application of BR Blue to anything that moved on the rails, but i can remember seeing new liveries - one of the earliest liveries I saw that wasn't BR was Chocolate and Fawn on a 114 DMU at Lincoln, that unit was supported by SYPTE.

i can also remember the interest that "Executive" livery caused, and NSE, along with the resultant changes.

Even now with the standard locos that move round the network there is variety - GBRF had its blue livery, 66709 was painted in MSC black, and the Metronet contract gave another livery, and they are still around - Freightliner, DRS and GBRF/Europorte keep swapping locos round.

add to that, the unexpected sights of Network Rail trains, Charter trains and Units being shuffled around TOCs the scene is still as interesting as it was 20 - 30 years ago.

[newbryford]

 

 

The idea that anything 21st century counts as contemporary is good, but as time marches on, it will become as dated as "modern Image", and I can remember when Modern Image meant 56s coming out of Crewe in the new livery of Large Logo, but all that is now history.

 

 

Thing is though - 56's coming out of Crewe are still "modern image" in many people's eyes. It was 1984 when the last 56 rolled off the production line. That's 27 years ago - the Big Four only lasted 25 years as a comparison.

 

Contemporary is one of those eras that can never be fixed in time as time marches on. I'm going to define contemporary as the immediate past 10 years, which sort-of conveniently fits in with the 21st century as mentioned by other posters on this thread, including me.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[GC Jack]

A direct reply my club has a modern image layout that is available for exhibitions.

 

Anyone out there interested?

 

Jack

[Catkins]

Contemporary is one of those eras that can never be fixed in time as time marches on. I'm going to define contemporary as the immediate past 10 years, which sort-of conveniently fits in with the 21st century as mentioned by other posters on this thread, including me.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Whilst the modern railway may be "bare" compared to railways of the past, this surely makes them more modellable in one sense, as there is less infrastructure to build.

 

Mick, I agree with your definition of contemporary, and as a way of marking it might it be possible to use something similar to computing "21.0" for the first decade, and "20.9" for the last decade of the 20th century? Or do people thinkthat could get complicated.

 

And I will agree that there is less infrastructure to model, but the remaining infrastructure has more detail to it, and there are still bits of the old around if you look.

 

EDIT - There is also a very good model of Cromer in OO guage. It won the Best Layout trophy at this years Grantham show, and that is contempory.

 

P.S. Sorry for editing your quote Mick, but I don't want to be reminded how old I am!

[Guest Max Stafford]

I still reckon the freight yard of 2011 can't hold a candle to its 1961 or 1971 equivalent.

 

Dave.

[Glorious NSE]

What do you mean by 'freight yard' Dave?

[RWJP]

Has anybody ever seen or heard of a layout of the current railway scene, based (closely or loosely) on a real place? There are plenty of older period layouts but I don't recall seeing anything more recent the Birmingham New Street. I am genuinely interested to know if anybody has found such a place that can be modelled in a sensible space with interesting operation, copying the way the real place works.

 

Cross Street on this forum takes very heavy influence from parts of Manchester (scenics wise), and a friend of mine is building a model of the southern end of Carlise Station (although that's a big'un, not really sensible space).

[t-b-g]

 

I guess it depends on what you are looking for, but don't confuse the actual trains with the operation, I would sooner have semaphore forests but that doesn't mean the modern scene is not interesting.

I am not confusing trains with operation. The trains in the 1950s were more varied and the operation was more varied. There were more points, sidings, signals, types of traffic, more of everything (except garish liveries, really long trains and speed).

 

Sorry this is plain rubbish, there are plenty of interesting places, just because your definition of interesting is different doesn't make it so.

There is much less railway now than there was in the 1950s. Many stations and lines have simply vanished. Those that exist are, in many cases, shadows of their previous existences. Therefore there are less real places to copy. How can such a blatant fact be called plain rubbish?

 

 

So they all run the correct prototype service on their branch lines ? they are all scale length, correct trains, they are all correctly modelled (in and outside the fence) ? again your comments apply to all layouts (even mine) (even New Street) - it really is called modellers licence and applies to 99.99999% of layouts ever built.

I agree totally. many otherwise good layouts of all eras are let down at exhibitions by poor operation and lack of understanding of what railways were really like but that is a whole OT discussion.

 

 

Whether you are next to another similar layout will surely depend on what is invited ? At a recent show we attended we also weren't next to any layouts with the same stock - proving ??

My point exactly!

 

Model something less commonly seen and you have less chance of being next to a similar layout. I will be at Wakefield this weekend with a certain GCR period layout (not built by me in this instance). I cannot recall seeing any others on the circuit at the present time and I can pretty much guarantee that we will be the only one there and also that having more than one would probably be wrong for the balance of the show. I seem to get as many invites as I can manage (admittedly I am involved with several layouts, which helps) and have started having to decline some.

 

The reason I asked about layouts is because I was wondering if the layouts were there and not being invited or if they didn't exist at all. Enough names have been put forward to suggest that there are several good layouts representing the current scene. I have a theory that some exhibition managers tend to have a slight bias towards certain types of layout, often towards things that they have a personal interest or knowledge of. It is a lot easier to tell that a layout is a good one of you know something about the subject. Perhaps the current crop of EMs don't favour up to date railways, if they are not handing out invitations to such layouts.

I go to shows and see plenty of steam era layouts with junctions, sidings and the likes and they are never used, the trains merely loop round and round, operationally they are as dull as the proverbially.

Totally agree. Boring as the most boring of boring things. There have also been lots of more modern layouts like that, the only difference is that they don't even have the sidings and they accurately portray big chunks of the modern railway system.

 

How about a challenge? Just for those who maintain that the present railway scene is one of variety and interesting operation. Can anybody can put forward a prototype where, at any time during the last 10 years, the variety of locos and stock (not talking different colours here, but types of locos, carriages and wagons) and the variety of different movements they perform on a regular basis is more than it was in the 1950s? Or the 1970s? There are probably loads but for every one put forward, I will give you 100 where there is less now.

 

On second thoughts, don't bother........ I suddenly find this whole discussion as dull as I find the modern railways! Why can't we all just enjoy what we enjoy and let others enjoy what they enjoy. Modern railways are not better or worse, just not as interesting to me and a few others.

[Guest Max Stafford]

What do you mean by 'freight yard' Dave?

 

More correctly called goods stations I suppose, mate. Something from the days when the railway was more than a glorified bus service. You don't see them any more! (unless they have a triple canopy rainforest on them!)

 

Dave.

[beast66606]

 

On second thoughts, don't bother........ I suddenly find this whole discussion as dull as I find the modern railways! Why can't we all just enjoy what we enjoy and let others enjoy what they enjoy. Modern railways are not better or worse, just not as interesting to me and a few others.

 

At last you have eventually confirmed what Edwin first posted.

 

You might do well to follow your own advice - highlighted for your own benefit.

[beast66606]

 

More correctly called goods stations I suppose, mate. Something from the days when the railway was more than a glorified bus service. You don't see them any more! (unless they have a triple canopy rainforest on them!)

 

Dave.

 

Prototypically you are (probably) right but then most models don't use their good yards, so they might as well be out of use anyway. (There are some locations where they still exist in a similar form such as Ely, Selby, Warrington Dallam and more) so whilst the prototype *might* be more varied/interesting, the vast majority of models don't portray it correctly, however I suspect the accuracy of models is lost on most exhibition managers (and arguably thats Ok, the general public and general modellers typically make up the money, not many like me who are going to tut (metaphortically) at the signalling or the operation of layouts so why would they target their shows at the likes of me ? - I don't when I help organise them)

[hmrspaul]

The Ebor Group Stanmore Edge was hurriedly prepared for the last York show, but it worked well and we had large numbers around it at times (once they had found us at the top of the building). The stock may have been a bit edgy for some people - too much colour - but plenty of excellent sound.

 

But I am not aware we have received any invitations to other shows. http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/eborstanmoreedge

 

Paul Bartlett

[t-b-g]

 

At last you have eventually confirmed what Edwin first posted.

 

You might do well to follow your own advice - highlighted for your own benefit.

 

I am nearly at a loss for words (first time for everything). I have always lived by those words, which you feel the need to highlight back to me as if I didn't write them!

 

If you can find anything, anywhere, that I have written that says that people are not free to enjoy modelling whatever they like, then please quote that back at me. But please don't sink to that level just because I have put across my thoughts on why I am not an enthusiast of modern railways, or models of them.

 

I did have a degree of respect for your views (which are different to mine but I think just as valid) but I am quickly losing that now if we are going down to that sort of posting.

 

Shame you bring a good discussion down like that but hey ho, it is a hobby and not worth getting upset about. I have better ways to spend my time, working on really interesting, colourful, pre-grouping steam layouts..................

[GC Jack]

Sorry to see someone taken to task like this. I agree with t-b-g lets keep it friendly guys.

 

We all have our own opinions and a forum is for discussion of those ideas and thoughts in a constructive way.

 

Jack

[beast66606]

Your points have been addressed, by several posters, but like a politician you simply ignore that and continue with your prepared speech, you have managed to tell us how good your pre-grouping period modelling is several posts, smacks of self-promotion to me*. (btw, I modelled LNWR pre group, the locos were black, the coaches were plum and spilt milk, the wagons were dirty, so the chocolate box view of pre group does not necessarily exist, except maybe in fantasy).

 

*

I seem to get as many invites as I can manage (admittedly I am involved with several layouts, which helps) and have started having to decline some.

 

If you can find anything, anywhere, that I have written that says that people are not free to enjoy modelling whatever they like, then please quote that back at me

 

You don't directly say people can't model what they like but you've spent a lot of soap box time telling us how bad the modern scene is (frequently wrongly) and how much better it was in the good old days and how your layout is unique, quite what this has to do with the price of fish has frequently lost me to be honest

 

BTW - even the LNWR (for example) closed lines, and the LMS and BR in the 1950s, line closures and rationalisations is not a modern thing, one of my favourite locations, Grayrigg, lost it's passenger service in 1953, so we could have had a similar discussion in 1955 if I had modelled it after the station was closed. My home town station lost it's two signal boxes in 1957, so if I'd modelled it in as it was in 1958 we could have had the same discussion about the changing face, we could have dreamt the LMS period was more colourful than it really was.

 

I suddenly find this whole discussion as dull as I find those who try to put down modern railways when it's apparent they know little about the subject and are simply soap boxing.

 

Shame to bring a good discussion down like this but hey ho, it is a hobby and not worth getting upset about. I have better ways to spend my time, working on really interesting, colourful, modern diesel layouts..................

 

And my final word on a personal level.

 

Shame you bring a good discussion down like that

 

I'm happy to be judged by my comments, they are in black and white, if people feel my points are wrong they are at liberty to do so and answer me, or PM me or whatever, your postings are also visible, people are able to make their own minds up they don't need a smoke and mirrors comment to deflect from the real problem, it was not I who got on the soap box, I have addressed your points, not originated them.

 

Now we all understand you don't like modern railways, can we get back to the real discussion ...

[Edwin_m]

t-b-g,

 

Imagine you were having a conversation about the best way to model, say, Great Central Directors, and someone kept butting in to say that they thought the GC was a rubbish railway and you should all be modelling the Japanese railway in the 1970s instead (but hey it's a broad church you can do what you want). I think you'd quickly find it annoying.

 

As I posted before your viewpoint is noted, essentially it boils down to you saying there is no point in modelling today's railway. But it is no more than your personal point of view, shared by some but not by everybody. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any more true, interesting or relevant.

 

It may however make us think that if exhibition managers hold similar views, it probably biases their choice of layouts.

[49395]

It seems to me (possibly incorrectly) that this was originally aimed at why there aren't more 'current' / 'recent past' layouts at exhibitions, there appear to be a good few reasons for this as have been discussed.

 

If the lack of a larger number of 'current' layouts at exhibitions is an issue, do we (as I suggested on page 2 of this thread) need a list of available and under construction layouts that fit the O/P's criteria?

 

Mike

[beast66606]

Well t-b-g's first post where he asked a good few questions, and stated why he personally found contemporary modelling not for him was accused of being 'full of lashings of vitriol' by yourself, which was far from the truth.

 

I don't recall Edwin directly accusing "Tony" as being the (only ?) one ? - invisible ink perhaps ? there were a few posts saying how boring the modern scene is.

 

In either case the real railway is not necessarily the reason anyway, we didn't discuss how interesting 1977 was for example, or 1962, or LMS or GWR or ... need I go on ?, by all means make a comment such as "perhaps it's because not as many people find the post privatisation scene too interesting" but I'm afraid the soap box appeared and he got well and truly on it.

 

(PS - popularity does not indicate quality)

 

 

I would never tell anybody what they should or shouldn't enjoy and if modern railways float your boat, good modelling to you. They just leave me cold.

 

Clearly some are reading what they want to read rather than whats written, or invisible ink is becoming far more widely available.

 

Yes, you obviously missed the repeated postings he made telling us how much he dislikes modern image*, no-one has suggested he was not able to make that point, I (and by the looks Edwin) got fed up with him repeatedly making it, we got the message the first time.

[Will Vale]

I hope the desire for people to have the last word doesn't turn this thread into squabbling...

 

Whilst the modern railway may be "bare" compared to railways of the past, this surely makes them more modellable in one sense, as there is less infrastructure to build.

I'm replying to this post, but I think maybe I'm thinking of another which said something similar that made me think about surroundings vs. infrastructure - I realise this isn't quite what you were saying. But...

 

One of the things that appeals to me about the modern railway is the run-down weediness of it - it's very much not bare in that respect - I love the contrast of greenery and working parts (trains and rails and infrastructure) in close proximity. Makes for a fantastically colourful, even lush environment, and an interesting background for the stock. It's nice to be able to trade off the modelling of infrastructure for scenic modelling despite building a layout which doesn't stray far outside the lineside fence. Possibly this translates into more visual interest per square foot for exhibition-goers?

 

I've seen pictures of weedy older railways as well, but the impression I get is that larger not-a-branch-just-prior-to-closure lines and facilities were well-maintained, with weeds killed off and paint kept fresh. Maybe that's wrong, or I'm being fooled by the B&W photography

 

Will

[Glorious NSE]

More correctly called goods stations I suppose, mate. Something from the days when the railway was more than a glorified bus service. You don't see them any more! (unless they have a triple canopy rainforest on them!)

 

Just trying to quantify your point in order to answer it.

 

If you mean 'local station goods yards' I agree with you totally - although as Beast says there's a few locations round the country that even now do still operate as multi-commodity general 'goods yards'.

If you mean 'yards' - still plenty around, and whilst their number and scope may be very different i'm not sure the 70s version is particularly modelleable either due to size.

If you mean 'freight facilities' which you seem to - plenty out there - some of which are incredibly busy and incredibly varied in their own way!

 

No rainforests here (at least, not inside the railway fence)....

 

['CHARD]

I've voted that post 'up,' Will, because it has opened my eyes more than somewhat.

 

Respect where it's due, you have reminded me that where one of us sees a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend, the next man sees something stimulating, colourful, enchanting, and inspiring. I am delighted that a railway environment that to me looks neglected, unloved, run-down, second-best and in large part unprofessional and profoundly uninspiring, has the diametrically opposite effect for others.

 

I'm delighted because this confirms that the railway of my present continues to have its devotees when those of my peculiar persuasion barely give it a second glance because it's just so depressing. Working amongst it doesn't help any, in my case, either.

[Edwin_m]

 

Well t-b-g's first post where he asked a good few questions, and stated why he personally found contemporary modelling not for him was accused of being 'full of lashings of vitriol' by yourself, which was far from the truth.

 

I've just re-read the post and there are no questions, only statements (some of which I agree with) to justify a personal opinion (which I respect but don't share). They are all highly negative about the contemporary railway in comparison to earlier eras, as are some shorter posts by others. One poster even accused another of not being a railway enthusiast, albeit qualified by some kind of smiley, for daring to suggest that Beeching got some things right.

 

Dictionary.com defines vitriol in this context as "something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism".