Copenhagen Fields

[CF MRC]

Thanks for those Jerry. I remember having a conversation with Bob Essery as we were standing at the front of Heckmondwike, his baby. It was along the lines that he considered this was the best layout ever for being finescale S4 etc.  He didn’t appreciate my comment that the fence posts weren’t upright on the hilly bits and that most hills don’t have big white tubes sticking out of them (the supports for the lighting). It was a layout that courted controversy. 
 

Tim

Edited March 4, 2021 by CF MRC

[D-A-T]

I think subconsciously Heckmondwike was the layout that edged me towards EM gauge as opposed to S4/P4. On the two occasions I saw it there appeared to be much going on behind the scenes but very little seemed to run. Or so it seemed to this late teens/20 year old. On the other hand Dunwich always seemed to have movement and operation.

Ironic really as my modelling is best expressed as bucolic and P4 would probably have been a good choice. Too late now. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by D-A-T
Typo

[RJS1977]

44 minutes ago, D-A-T said:

I think subconsciously Heckmondwike was the layout that edged me towards EM gauge as opposed to S4/P4. On the two occasions I saw it there appeared to be much going on behind the scenes but very little seemed to run.

 

Sadly that seems to be common for a lot of 'exhibition' layouts these days - especially the ones where someone seems to spend an inordinate amount of time scrolling through a list of about 50 locos every time they want to move a different train....

[bécasse]

14 hours ago, CF MRC said:

Thanks for those Jerry. I remember having a conversation with Bob Essery as we were standing at the front of Heckmondwike, his baby. It was along the lines that he considered this was the best layout ever for being finescale S4 etc.  He didn’t appreciate my comment that the fence posts weren’t upright on the hilly bits and that most hills don’t have big white tubes sticking out of them (the supports for the lighting). It was a layout that courted controversy. 

 

There was certainly something "holier than thou" about most of the group that built Heckmondwike, which wasn't a bad fictional layout for its day but which, to my mind at least, failed to meet CJF's challenge. I seem to recollect Essery himself, somewhere in his writings, criticising a "much vaunted fine scale layout" of that era (which he didn't actually name) for making the craven mistake of painting a white-line on its platform edge when it was supposed to set in 1937 when everyone knew that the white-lines were an ARP feature of the second war. Unfortunately he fell at the first hurdle having failed to consult period photographs which not only showed that that particular station did have a white-line in 1937, but that most if not all Isle of Wight stations had had such white-lines since the naval blackout imposed during the Great War, and that a number of companies had been using such white-lines in particular circumstances as early as the Edwardian period.

 

Although Essery was a particularly bad example, the "saintly" attitude, or lack of humility, wasn't uncommon in Scalefour circles at that time. One of the reasons that, although I was one of the pioneers 50 years ago and have continued to dabble ever since, I have only actually joined the Scalefour Society in the last few years, well after my move to Belgium.

 

 

[Ian Smith]

It is unfortunate that nearly every P4 layout I have ever stood and watched for any length of time at exhibitions has had at least one derailment while I was there.  I don’t know why, as at least in theory the track and wheel standards should minimise such events (perhaps I just exude bad luck). I know when I was modelling P4 the only things I compensated was the 1 and half locos I built, I felt that if I couldn’t lay flat and level track then I shouldn’t be trying to adopt such fine standards. Also, being a non-smoker I never dropped matches on my track so didn’t need to make mountaineering stock 

[Siberian Snooper]

7 hours ago, D-A-T said:

I think subconsciously Heckmondwike was the layout that edged me towards EM gauge as opposed to S4/P4. On the two occasions I saw it there appeared to be much going on behind the scenes but very little seemed to run. Or so it seemed to this late teens/20 year old. On the other hand Dunwich always seemed to have movement and operation.

Ironic really as my modelling is best expressed as bucolic and P4 would probably have been a good choice. Too late now. 

 

I tend to agree with your comments,  I can't remember where I saw it, but I stood infront of it for 10 or 15 minutes admiring the modelling, but I never saw a train during that time, it certainly put me off P/S4.

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

Conversely I have seen more finger poking and Hand of God action on OO  layouts at shows than I have on P4 layouts.

 

As the owner and exhibitor of the London  Road LNWR P4 layout I was well aware of the populist view of P4 layouts and so put a lot of effort into ensuring the layout and stock performed well. I hope I achieved that reasonably well  but found that there is a section of this hobby who will go out of their way to criticise those that use P4 track standards and the models they make.

[D-A-T]

6 minutes ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Conversely I have seen more finger poking and Hand of God action on OO  layouts at shows than I have on P4 layouts.

 

As the owner and exhibitor of the London  Road LNWR P4 layout I was well aware of the populist view of P4 layouts and so put a lot of effort into ensuring the layout and stock performed well. I hope I achieved that reasonably well  but found that there is a section of this hobby who will go out of their way to criticise those that use P4 track standards and the models they make.

London Road is one of the P4 layouts I truly admire. Realistic movement/operation. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect a Jazz style service, time to admire the static modelling between trains is greatly appreciated. But I also realise you can’t please all the people all the time!

PS Is it merely coincidence that the P4 layouts I think succeed the most are all Pre-Grouping?

[CF MRC]

Let’s just say that all layouts have there moments...

 

Tim

[Caley Jim]

Burntisland is another P4 layout with superb modelling and operation (at least any time I've seen it).  Not only that, but the builders are some of the nicest guys you will meet in the hobby.

 

Jim

[drduncan]

9 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Conversely I have seen more finger poking and Hand of God action on OO  layouts at shows than I have on P4 layouts.

 

As the owner and exhibitor of the London  Road LNWR P4 layout I was well aware of the populist view of P4 layouts and so put a lot of effort into ensuring the layout and stock performed well. I hope I achieved that reasonably well  but found that there is a section of this hobby who will go out of their way to criticise those that use P4 track standards and the models they make.

London Road is one of the shining examples of not just P4, but also the non scale/gauge dependent ‘finescale’ creed.  (And waves a bloody big flag for the pre grouping fraternity too).

 

And Jol is right about running standards on many layouts.  Rigorous stock running standards are something the every exhibition layout should follow for starters...
 

But as a happy disputant (mischief making division, 1st class) I’d observe that things need to be trying to move out front for the hand of god to be needed...

 

But what I hope is accepted as good natured teasing aside, Jol’s mention of there being a populist  view of P4 is important.  Whether the populist view is right or wrong (and on balance I believe it is more wrong than right regarding P4 - but I can think of one Scaleforum several years ago that clearly was embracing the populist view) something always lies at its core.  And before the rest of us get too complacent let us think about how the wider finescale community might be seen at our worst by the coarse scale mob - and what we might think of them can say about us! Trying to see ourselves as others might see us can be ego inflating, ego bursting, or humbling - and just plain frustrating when based on misunderstanding or wilful ignorance - but it can help us get to the nub of what might be wrong in our community and help us do better. (In writing this I must admit to feeling uncomfortable about anyone being ‘better’ than others in the hobby - different yes, with different values, and prepared to accept different compromises in pursuit of our hobby - I hope you all get what I mean.)

 

Duncan

[D-A-T]

And moving back to CF.... 
I’d be more than interested in seeing a video production.

And if I maybe so bold I’d like it to be similar to the Bradfield Gloucester Square i.e. a typical day in the life of with captions or voice over explaining what is happening. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by D-A-T
Found the correct name.

[Siberian Snooper]

15 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Conversely I have seen more finger poking and Hand of God action on OO  layouts at shows than I have on P4 layouts.

 

As the owner and exhibitor of the London  Road LNWR P4 layout I was well aware of the populist view of P4 layouts and so put a lot of effort into ensuring the layout and stock performed well. I hope I achieved that reasonably well  but found that there is a section of this hobby who will go out of their way to criticise those that use P4 track standards and the models they make.

 

There is no criticism of London Road, and other P/S 4 layouts, but they have come sometime after the damage was done by Heckmondwike, if I remember there was a lot of hype on how good the layout was supposed to be. When you don't see anything run in a 10 minute or so period and no offer of a reason for the lack of activity,  I understand that all layouts will have a visit from the gremlins, but one of the operators will normally look up and offer an apology for the lack of activity and the reasons, not just be in a huddle at the back.

 

When I visited the last Scaleforum, Balcombe/Ouse viaduct was having a huge outage, but the operators that were sorting it out were very apologetic about it and were doing their best to get something back up and running.  So a big thanks to those that make the effort.

 

 

[Jol Wilkinson]

16 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

There is no criticism of London Road, and other P/S 4 layouts, but they have come sometime after the damage was done by Heckmondwike, if I remember there was a lot of hype on how good the layout was supposed to be. When you don't see anything run in a 10 minute or so period and no offer of a reason for the lack of activity,  I understand that all layouts will have a visit from the gremlins, but one of the operators will normally look up and offer an apology for the lack of activity and the reasons, not just be in a huddle at the back.

 

When I visited the last Scaleforum, Balcombe/Ouse viaduct was having a huge outage, but the operators that were sorting it out were very apologetic about it and were doing their best to get something back up and running.  So a big thanks to those that make the effort.

 

 

 

Yes it is sad that the heritage of Heckmondwike has left such a poor image of P4 layouts and modellers, which more recent layouts have not been able to dispel. It does seem to be the case though that people are quick to denigrate a P4 layout but accept mediocre running and modelling on other gauges. 

 

On the occasions I have been fortunate to see Copenhagen Fields it is not the frequency and quality of running that draws my interest but the attention to detail in the superb modelling. Other layouts don't always hold my attention in the same way, even with a continual stream of movement. If it is a layout based on a period or location in which I have little interest  I usually end up looking at the static detail, too often to be disappointed in the poor attention to detail and lack of observation. I am not talking about the correct sighting of signals (of which I know little), etc. but the small details that bring a layout to life.

[grahame]

5 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Other layouts don't always hold my attention in the same way, even with a continual stream of movement. If it is a layout based on a period or location in which I have little interest  I usually end up looking at the static detail, too often to be disappointed in the poor attention to detail and lack of observation. I am not talking about the correct sighting of signals (of which I know little), etc. but the small details that bring a layout to life.

 

I tend to check out the details on layouts whether or not the running is satisfactory, or that the period/location are to my taste or not. But I too do prefer to see well observed aspects of real life that are appropriate to the location and that the modelling fit and finish of them has been achieved with care and sympathy. However, I'm not a fan of twee cliched cameos (car crashes, burning buildings, weddings and plenty of flashing lights), however well done, that many layouts now seem to include as a de rigueur requirement. I'd rather see more mundane, ubiquitous and ordinary scenes of life that reflect the layout period and location.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by grahame

[woodenhead]

17 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

Conversely I have seen more finger poking and Hand of God action on OO  layouts at shows than I have on P4 layouts.

 

As the owner and exhibitor of the London  Road LNWR P4 layout I was well aware of the populist view of P4 layouts and so put a lot of effort into ensuring the layout and stock performed well. I hope I achieved that reasonably well  but found that there is a section of this hobby who will go out of their way to criticise those that use P4 track standards and the models they make.

One of my favourite models when it was out on the circuit, would always make an effort to watch it even though I seen it countless times, a layout I would get my camera out for too.

16 hours ago, D-A-T said:

London Road is one of the P4 layouts I truly admire. Realistic movement/operation. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect a Jazz style service, time to admire the static modelling between trains is greatly appreciated. But I also realise you can’t please all the people all the time!

PS Is it merely coincidence that the P4 layouts I think succeed the most are all Pre-Grouping?

Maybe because pre-grouping means kits and scratch building, so if you are going to go to that effort you might as well go all the way.

 

Pre-grouping is also so much more interesting...

[2mmKiwi]

On 05/03/2021 at 09:06, queensquare said:

I was recently sent these pictures of CG by a friend. I saw it a couple of times, once with and once without LH. The first was Bristol, I was still at school so 79 or 80, I seem to remember Heckmondwyke was also there. At the time I was on the point of giving up N gauge as my two Farish locos were so poor and my Minitrix

 ones worked well but didn't look great, I couldn't afford a Peco Jubilee! CG looked and worked beautifully, it inspired me to keep at it. The second, with LH, was in London I think and would have been a couple of years later - 82-83? That visit and a few influential articles in RM around that time by people like Nick Dearnley and particularly John Greenwood, persuaded me to join the 2mm Association (84/85?) although it was a long time before I successfully built anything that worked well.

The pictures are from Imrex 1980.

 

jerry

 

v

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing this story Jerry - look at the fine work you do now. I'm glad you persevered and it's a lesson to us all to keep going.  Sharing the CG photos on this site has inspired me to expand my paradigms about the depth of scenery I can achieve on my layout. I like the idea of having sections that can be bolted to the front of the layout to give more depth.  I can now see a practical pathway to adding another 1ft or so of scenic depth without creating permanent mobility and storage issues.

 

SteveM

[CF MRC]

Depth of scenery is what can make a 2mm scale layout, assuming you have the space. Of course it doesn’t all have to be 2mm scale. 
 

Tim

[Siberian Snooper]

14 hours ago, 2mmKiwi said:

 

Thanks for sharing this story Jerry - look at the fine work you do now. I'm glad you persevered and it's a lesson to us all to keep going.  Sharing the CG photos on this site has inspired me to expand my paradigms about the depth of scenery I can achieve on my layout. I like the idea of having sections that can be bolted to the front of the layout to give more depth.  I can now see a practical pathway to adding another 1ft or so of scenic depth without creating permanent mobility and storage issues.

 

SteveM

 

I once saw a 4mm exhibition layout with clip on scenic sections, the track part of the layout was around 12 to 18 inches wide and the about the same clipped on front and rear, which really made it look like trains in the scenery. It may have been based on the Settle and Carlisle, but don't hold me to it.

 

 

[New Haven Neil]

I recall seeing CG/LH at...err... was it Imrex or the model engineer exhibition?? 'some years' ago.  Anyway although such fine modelling is beyond me, the trains in the scenery view completely blew me away at the time, there were still a lot of 'spaghetti' exhibition layouts around at the time and the 'new approach' really made me sit up.

 

I have never had the space to be able to emulate anything like this, and a move to O has made it even less likely, but even all these years later the memory is strong.  I took Mrs NHN to York (IIRC) show also a long time ago  (before we left the UK so over 18 years ago) to see CF, and to her artists eye it was simply outstanding, but she would have preferred it all in 4mm!  I hate to think how big that would be.  It gives me so much pleasure to see this layout still developing and improving, the Underground really appeals somehow, I love the architecture and signage of it so recent developments float my particular boat.

 

Well done to all involved, indeed a 'classic' of the modelling world.  Thank you all for enrichening our lives!

[CF MRC]

Thank you for the kind comments, Neil. I have always seen 2mm scale as a pictorial scale - and hackneyed though the expression may be: a moving 3D painting. Your wife’s comment about being better in 4mm scale is interesting; I can understand that from the seeing the detail perspective. I don’t actually think the artistic effect of the scene would work in 4mm scale - you would simply have to stand further away to get the same effect. A big 2mm layout is similar in size to a large artwork canvas, in the larger scales it would become a mural. 
 

Tim

Edited March 7, 2021 by CF MRC

[New Haven Neil]

She has a preference for larger scales I'm afraid - qualified steam driver in 9 1/2" gauge in her past! 

 

You are correct in that CF wouldn't work if larger, chatting about it just now, Debs says she just wanted to try to absorb more detail than there actually is on the model, to actually get in to the picture herself and wander around the streets and look over a wall at the railway.  Actually that sounds like a very good idea - 'Honey we shrunk the modellers'!

[CF MRC]

24 minutes ago, New Haven Neil said:

She has a preference for larger scales I'm afraid - qualified steam driver in 9 1/2" gauge in her past! 

 

You are correct in that CF wouldn't work if larger, chatting about it just now, Debs says she just wanted to try to absorb more detail than there actually is on the model, to actually get in to the picture herself and wander around the streets and look over a wall at the railway.  Actually that sounds like a very good idea - 'Honey we shrunk the modellers'!

Your wish is my command...

 

Tim

[New Haven Neil]

11 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

Your wish is my command...

 

Tim

 

 

Well there we go, excellent thank you, hadn't seen that before. 

 

But where are Val, Chris and John, not to mention Shep?  Still, at least Matt speaks English like wot I do. 

[Mick Bonwick]

Following a comment by @queensquare at a recent online event, about only frequenting this part of RMweb, I thought that followers of this thread might like to see what went on during Saturday afternoon:

 

https://www.missendenrailwaymodellers.org.uk/index.php/spring-2021-tims-workbench-part-3/

 

There's more than just this that fits the 2mm scale discipline.