Wright writes.....

[CF MRC]

I consider that big scenic layouts in 7mm scale don’t really work, as to get the full effect, you have to stand further away, so you might as well have used the smaller scales in the first place. 
 

There really isn’t a right or wrong in any of these discussions - it’s entirely up to individual preferences. 
 

Tim

Edited September 22, 2020 by CF MRC

[Barry Ten]

N gives me a scenic depth that I couldn't hope to achieve in the larger scales.

 

 

There's no Photoshopping here, just a deep scene with a reasonably high backscene. In HO or 00 it would be impractical due to the reach-in distance.

 

 

The scale is at its best, for me, when viewed from a few feet away, taking in a large scene in which the trains are just part

of the overall effect, rather than being the sole focus of attention.

 

 

With careful work in ballasting and painting, too, the rail profile can be disguised to some extent.

 

 

Although a lot depends on viewing angle and lighting.

 

 

Four F units would look daft unless pulling a reasonably long train (25 box cars in this case) which I can achieve in N, even in a 12 x 11 foot room.

 

 

N also gives me the chance to drop the scenery below the track level very easily, as just a couple of inches pf depth is enough to convey a sense of the railway cutting through the landscape.

 

 

It also lends itself to big scenic features such as this bridge across a swamp, which would consume an awful lot of space and depth in one of the larger scales.

 

 

And what would  normally be a space-hungry feature like a roundhouse becomes practical:

 

 

Al

 

 

[t-b-g]

I can't remember who wrote it now but I read once about taking the field of vision into account.

 

Standing a few feet from a layout, the author wrote that most viewers could take in a reasonable amount of detail viewing a 4ft scene.

 

Now in that length, you can take in a loco and a carriage in 7mm, a four or five carriage train in 4mm and a decent length express in 2mm.

 

I saw a 7mm layout once that ran long trains and it just didn't satisfy my eyes. It was rather like standing on a platform at a real station and having a long train go by at close quarters. You could only look at a bit of the train at a time.

 

I found that when viewing Retford. I never really saw the trains properly as by the time I moved my eyes from the loco to look at the train, it had gone. The trains were too long for my eyes to see a whole train properly all at the same time. Operating it was a bit different as you were further away and higher up, rather like watching the real Doncaster station from the multi storey car park.

 

From up there, I got a much better feel of the to and fro, the different things happening behind the station that were missed from the platform view and you could even look over North Bridge and watch the goods workings on the "avoiding line". It was perhaps my favourite place to watch from, although we did go on the platform mainly so we could get up close to the Deltics. From high up you couldn't see what sort of bogies or handrails the carriages had and it didn't matter, it was the scene that counted and my eyes could easily take in a whole train at once.

 

The nearest I have seen to that sort of view on a model is probably Copenhagen Fields and I have never seen a 4mm or 7mm layout that has allowed me to see a long express train properly as they fall beyond my 4ft field of vision.

 

Maybe it explains why a train around 4ft long on Buckingham seems "just right" to my eyes. I can view the whole train well as it goes along.    

[john new]

2 hours ago, Steven B said:

 

,,, snipped

 

With a smaller physical area to work with I'd go up in scale. There's no way with say a 1x4' board you can get any distance from it before the magic is lost (i.e. you start seeing 1:1 furniture etc). You need to be close, meaning you need the extra detail only the larger scales. A physically longer layout can be seen from further away before your eye starts getting distracted by real world objects, meaning much of the fine detail isn't needed.

 

Steven B.

 

But it is horses for courses as far as taste goes. I prefer the wide open aspect to even a small layout; the background you don't like is part of the ambience but the brain ignores it. In the real world we watch the railway and ignore much of the surrounding scenery.

 

I like small layouts, I am building one, but what it won't be is enclosed in a visually claustrophobic plywood aquarium setting. I think the term is a cameo box layout; fine in magazine photographs but not for me in the flesh. Yes it needs a back-scene but not necessarily a low pelmet etc.

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by john new
I missed out a word!

[Tony Wright]

Picking up on a recent theme..............................

 

I think brick papers are excellent for representing, err, 'scale' brickwork.

 

Much more so than some plastic card alternatives, especially with regard to the depth of the mortar courses. 

 

 

Though the real girder bridge represented on the model to the left of this picture has long gone, its abutments remain, at least in truncated form. I cannot 'hide' my finger in the mortar courses - at 4mm scale they're flush with the bricks. In some plastics, the effect would be rusticated, yet this is engineering brick construction.

 

I built these abutments using Prototype engineering brick paper fixed to wooden formers. 

 

Station Road bridge is produced in the same way.

 

 

The still-standing booking hall was made by Ian Wilson (ex of Prototype Models) using his own computer-generated brick papers. Much more realistic than plastic in my opinion. 

 

One of the best modellers I know, David Amias, used brick papers on his Wellington in EM. Unfortunately, any pictures of that I have are on an old computer. 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Picking up on the 'horses for courses' theme with regard to layouts, preferences, prejudices, likes and dislikes, may I offer the following selection of images, please?

 

 

Without doubt, one of the greatest model railways ever made (and still being made!) in any scale/gauge is Copenhagen Fields. 

 

The 'trick' of diminishing scales towards the horizon works perfectly. 

 

 

It's breathtaking; truly showing 'trains in the landscape'. 

 

Though it's probably a quarter of a mile away from my 'helicopter', one can still tell that's an A4 in the centre.

 

 

At closer quarters, it's definitely an A4, DOMINION OF CANADA no less. However, is taking a shot at these close quarters of a 2mm loco fair? I might be wrong, but I was once told that one of CF's A4s has a body which came from an old Lone Star 'push-along' die-cast 'toy' (I had one as a boy). Could this be the (hugely-altered) Lone Star one? It's probably near life-size. 

 

Now, let's go up a least a couple of scales.......

 

 

To show the same loco, but this time in 7mm FS RTR. Disregarding the fact that this A4 is probably the wrong side of £3,000.00 to buy (Golden Age), it can (and should) be able to stand the closest of scrutiny by the camera. 

 

Which brings me to the point I'm trying to make. That both A4s are on 'trains in the landscape', but the smaller one is best shown from a distance away (in my opinion). Not only that, to show the same 'train in the landscape' effect, a huge layout in the larger scale is required; and huge resources. 

 

This is on John Ryan's massive Over Peover. It might surprise you (the generic 'you') which one I prefer! 

 

Certainly, as a photographer, 7mm is much easier to photograph than smaller scales. Especially with regard to close-ups of locos.............

 

 

 

Like these.....

 

And, civil engineering structures in 7mm, if done as well as this (Norman Solomon's work) really do stand up well to a camera's scrutiny. 

 

 

A viaduct on Over Peover. 

 

I have to say I'm not too sure about some of the 'arguments' about 'what looks right' with regard to scale-length trains.

 

Being of basically simplistic mind, if one models an actual (not made-up) location to scale length (or as near as makes no difference - can one forgive LB being around a foot short over 32'?), then one should be able to run scale-length trains without their appearing to be too long; as I hope the two shots below illustrate. 

 

 

Eleven Pullmans in this rake.................

 

 

And ten in this one. 

 

Though four coach trains on a made-up layout might look 'right', Pullmans such as these reduced to such lengths would not. 

 

Indeed, horses for courses!  

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

Without doubt, one of the greatest model railways ever made (and still being made!) in any scale/gauge is Copenhagen Fields. 

 

This is the sort of statement that should get a round of applause.

[LNER4479]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I have to say I'm not too sure about some of the 'arguments' about 'what looks right' with regard to scale-length trains.

 

Being of basically simplistic mind, if one models an actual (not made-up) location to scale length (or as near as makes no difference - can one forgive LB being around a foot short over 32'?), then one should be able to run scale-length trains without their appearing to be too long; as I hope the two shots below illustrate. 

 

 

Eleven Pullmans in this rake.................

 

 

And ten in this one. 

 

Though four coach trains on a made-up layout might look 'right', Pullmans such as these reduced to such lengths would not. 

 

Indeed, horses for courses!  

 

 

Ah yes, but ...

 

The point that Tony (Gee) made above is all about our viewpoint of a model railway. Wonderful though these photos of LB are, when I and others come to visit, it is simply impossible for our eyeball to be in the same position as your camera lens. Although we can of course crouch down in one or two places, out of necessity, we generally adopt a bird's eye viewpoint, from which the whole perspective and scale of a model railway is completely different. And unless one's creation is festooned with miniature cameras, tied to a bank of video monitors, then the operation of a layout must be performed from a similar orientation.

 

Viewed from a typical operating angle, an 8 coach train (say) looks 'long' and I would venture to suggest that, if you took a picture of an eight coach train from the same viewpoint as your pictures above, it wouldn't actually look that much different, due to the front on, foreshortening effect.

 

The satisfaction of knowing that you are running a full length train in a more-or-less scale length setting is a rather different thing ...

[Tony Wright]

I've just completed taking all the moving footage for my contribution to the forthcoming BRM Virtual Exhibition, taking place in November.

 

These are likely to be the only exhibitions anyone is likely to 'visit' in the foreseeable future. 

 

There are three layouts I've taken moving footage of.................

 

 

 

Obviously, my own Little Bytham.

 

 

 

Ian Wilson's O Gauge Bridgefield Quarry.

 

 

And Retford. 

 

This view shows the mammoth amount of work still necessary to complete this heroic creation. 

 

 

I've also taken camcorder shots of Hornby's latest Prairies on LB. 

 

All of this new footage will not have been seen before.................

 

 

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Ah yes, but ...

 

The point that Tony (Gee) made above is all about our viewpoint of a model railway. Wonderful though these photos of LB are, when I and others come to visit, it is simply impossible for our eyeball to be in the same position as your camera lens. Although we can of course crouch down in one or two places, out of necessity, we generally adopt a bird's eye viewpoint, from which the whole perspective and scale of a model railway is completely different. And unless one's creation is festooned with miniature cameras, tied to a bank of video monitors, then the operation of a layout must be performed from a similar orientation.

 

Viewed from a typical operating angle, an 8 coach train (say) looks 'long' and I would venture to suggest that, if you took a picture of an eight coach train from the same viewpoint as your pictures above, it wouldn't actually look that much different, due to the front on, foreshortening effect.

 

The satisfaction of knowing that you are running a full length train in a more-or-less scale length setting is a rather different thing ...

 

That was indeed the point I was trying to make.

 

On Buckingham, we have scale models of full length express trains (4 or 5 carriages was quite normal in the early years of the 20th century) and the human eye can take it all in from a normal viewing angle. They then have a run through a scenic section with a total length of around 45ft, so over 10 times the train length.

 

So I get the best of both worlds. I can watch the whole train go round a substantial run and take it all in without having to pass my eyes up and down the train.

 

To me, it is the perfect balance of authentic train length and watching a train run through a scene.

 

 

[drmditch]

15 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Without doubt, one of the greatest model railways ever made (and still being made!) in any scale/gauge is Copenhagen Fields. 

 

The 'trick' of diminishing scales towards the horizon works perfectly. 

 

 

It's breathtaking; truly showing 'trains in the landscape'. 

 

Though it's probably a quarter of a mile away from my 'helicopter', one can still tell that's an A4 in the centre.

 

 

Is this not a bit early for 'helicopters'?, perhaps an 'airship' might be more contemporary?

(Although I fear in the UK at this time it might, for economic reasons, have to be hydrogen filled.)

On this august thread one would not dare to suggest a hot-air balloon!

 

I have only seen CF once, but very much hope to see it again.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

 

Ah yes, but ...

 

The point that Tony (Gee) made above is all about our viewpoint of a model railway. Wonderful though these photos of LB are, when I and others come to visit, it is simply impossible for our eyeball to be in the same position as your camera lens. Although we can of course crouch down in one or two places, out of necessity, we generally adopt a bird's eye viewpoint, from which the whole perspective and scale of a model railway is completely different. And unless one's creation is festooned with miniature cameras, tied to a bank of video monitors, then the operation of a layout must be performed from a similar orientation.

 

Viewed from a typical operating angle, an 8 coach train (say) looks 'long' and I would venture to suggest that, if you took a picture of an eight coach train from the same viewpoint as your pictures above, it wouldn't actually look that much different, due to the front on, foreshortening effect.

 

The satisfaction of knowing that you are running a full length train in a more-or-less scale length setting is a rather different thing ...

I take your point entirely, Graham.

 

And I might have missed what Tony was actually trying to illustrate.

 

However, I'm coming at the 'discussion' from the point of view of a photographer; of both real railways and, particularly, model railways. 

 

When I look at all the photographs of the real thing I've exposed, many of which have been published, very few are taken from a typical 'model railway viewpoint'. There's one looking out over Durham viaduct from the cathedral, a distant view of The Royal Border Bridge, a shot of the Waverley from Edinburgh Castle and a view looking into Dove Holes, among others, but very few more. 99% (maybe more) are from the classic three quarter front view, with the locos/trains taking centre stage (I've obviously not been 'creative' enough in my taking of pictures). 

 

Time was when almost all model railway photographs were taken from 'helicopters' (none better illustrated than the technically-peerless work of Brian Monaghan). Almost all of Brian's work showed an operator's or spectator's viewpoint of a model railway. 

 

I don't know who quite 'invented' the eye-level approach to model railway photography (Barry Norman?), but that's what I've always tried to do in the main. In a way, it's the acid test in my opinion, especially if one is taking pictures of a model based on an actual prototype. How 'real' does the scene look (not just a loco and train) in comparison with the 'real' thing? 

 

Take your own Grantham, for instance...................

 

 

 

 

Taken a few years ago now (with a few of the 'usual suspects' in evidence), these angles represent normal 'operating' positions or normal 'viewing' positions. That said, in no way could they be considered 'realistic' (I've never seen any prototype pictures of Grantham taken from these angles; has anyone?). 

 

However, get the camera down to eye level................................

 

 

Or even below (all the most-interesting model railways, in my opinion, model topography BELOW the trackbed as well as level with it or above).

 

 

 

 

Granted, in all the 'realistic' images I've taken out the background 'clutter' (though nothing on the models has been altered).

 

I know what I've presented is tangential to the discussion, but it comes back to my usual question.................. How realistic can we make our models look in a picture? A much easier question to answer if our models are based on actual prototypes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Tony Wright
close brackets

[t-b-g]

I think that if you ask a dozen modellers their thoughts about why they build model railways you will get a dozen different answers.

 

Recreating a scene from the real railway as accurately as possible is nowhere on my radar, yet for others, it is the ultimate goal.

 

Mine would to have some decent quality models, preferably ones I have made, blending them together into a believable layout, based firmly on real practice, that holds my interest when it is time to operate it.

 

Many very well known layouts fall down on that last bit but Buckingham satisfies everything apart from the bit about me making them, although the tasks involved in keeping it running are almost as much fun as making things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[St Enodoc]

37 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Mine would to have some decent quality models, preferably ones I have made, blending them together into a believable layout, based firmly on real practice, that holds my interest when it is time to operate it.

Couldn't have put it better myself, although I'm not so bothered about making things. I'll happily buy things ready-made to gain time that I can spend making things I can't buy.

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 

I don't know who quite 'invented' the eye-level approach to model railway photography (Barry Norman?), but that's what I've always tried to do in the main. In a way, it's the acid test in my opinion, especially if one is taking pictures of a model based on an actual prototype. How 'real' does the scene look (not just a loco and train) in comparison with the 'real' thing? 

 

Take your own Grantham, for instance...................

 

Taken a few years ago now (with a few of the 'usual suspects' in evidence), these angles represent normal 'operating' positions or normal 'viewing' positions. That said, in no way could they be considered 'realistic' (I've never seen any prototype pictures of Grantham taken from these angles; has anyone? 

 

However, get the camera down to eye level................................

 

I know what I've presented is tangential to the discussion, but it comes back to my usual question.................. How realistic can we make our models look in a picture? A much easier question to answer if our models are based on actual prototypes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

Thanks Tony,

 

Interestingly, there are a few photos of Grantham taken from a bird's eye view - when an intrepid photographer shinned up the coaling tower! Someone (official photographer?) must have done that when it (the coaling tower) was first commissioned in 1937. The two resulting photos have been invaluable for us for roof and other depot details.

 

I think you yourself can take some of the credit for the 'lineside' photographer viewpoint. It was certainly a very distinctive style and one of the things that drew me to BRM when it first hits the stands in 1993 (I think it was). There is a 'however', however(!):

 

Many layouts that have been so photographed often disappoint when seen in the flesh at an exhibition. Not only is it not possible to view it from the same photographic viewpoint, but without full proscenium arch / lighting presentation or background 'clutter' otherwise removed, it's difficult to appreciate the layout in its intended context.

 

As I should be, I would be critical of Grantham in this sense. With hindsight, I probably set the baseboard height too low - although with a maximum width of 4 1/2 feet in places, there are reasons why it is the height it is. Shap is better in this respect (about 6 ins higher).

 

Where Grantham does succeed (if I may say) - and we're going to get back to train lengths here - is that it obeys the 'rule of thirds'. And it does so by choosing to adopt relatively modest train lengths (8-9 coaches). Everything is about half the length it should be as a consequence but that is consistent across the whole scenic length. So a train comes 'on scene' from the north end (say) and you can see the whole train before it passes through the station (centre of the scene) before completely clearing the station and being seen in its full length at the south end prior to going 'off scene' under the Great North Road bridge. I think this is the point Tony alludes to with 'Buckingham'.

 

Shap, conversely, is less successful in this respect, particularly at the summit where the loco can already be through the hole in the backscene whilst the rear of its train is still in the cutting!

 

As always, it's down to personal preference - for me it's a question of balance and consistent compromise to allow an operational recreation of the overall railway in miniature and this will very much be the mantra for Carlisle going forward.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

Couldn't have put it better myself, although I'm not so bothered about making things. I'll happily buy things ready-made to gain time that I can spend making things I can't buy.

 

There was a time when having somewhere to run models I have made myself was more important than it is now.

 

Now I have Buckingham, a good amount of wagons and carriages that belonged to Sid Stubbs and a good few locos that were Malcolm Crawley's, I am happy to run things I haven't made.

 

If I was modelling a period or area that is supported by the RTR people, I am pretty sure I would be using their products to get me to where I wanted in a better timescale. 

[St Enodoc]

9 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

There was a time when having somewhere to run models I have made myself was more important than it is now.

 

Now I have Buckingham, a good amount of wagons and carriages that belonged to Sid Stubbs and a good few locos that were Malcolm Crawley's, I am happy to run things I haven't made.

 

If I was modelling a period or area that is supported by the RTR people, I am pretty sure I would be using their products to get me to where I wanted in a better timescale. 

That makes good sense Tony. Of course, "making things" isn't confined to locos and stock. I, like you and many others, make my own points and signals; build my own baseboards; wire up the layout; build structures and scenery; and so on.

[CF MRC]

2 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Is this not a bit early for 'helicopters'?, perhaps an 'airship' might be more contemporary?

(Although I fear in the UK at this time it might, for economic reasons, have to be hydrogen filled.)

On this august thread one would not dare to suggest a hot-air balloon!

 

I have only seen CF once, but very much hope to see it again.

R33 does hover over the layout - it is recorded as having flown over London a number of times post war - although this would be an anachronism with an A4 down below. I do have a suitably scaled model of Graf Zeppelin (LZ 127) which was quite a frequent visitor to London, but that has never appeared overhead on CF. I also have a 48” long 1:144 scale model of a WW1 Zeppelin that I will finish off and suspend over the layout if we ever return to Germany for an exhibition. 
 

Tim
 

 

[LNER4479]

3 minutes ago, CF MRC said:

I also have a 48” long 1:144 scale model of a WW1 Zeppelin that I will finish off and suspend over the layout if we ever return to Germany for an exhibition. 
 

 

Brave man!

[stewartingram]

3 hours ago, drmditch said:

 

Is this not a bit early for 'helicopters'?, perhaps an 'airship' might be more contemporary?

(Although I fear in the UK at this time it might, for economic reasons, have to be hydrogen filled.)

On this august thread one would not dare to suggest a hot-air balloon!

 

I have only seen CF once, but very much hope to see it again.

 

Ah, but aren't hot-air balloons associated with Finsbury Park - not that far away? I can't remember the details, but weren't early flights made from there, which is why the tube station has them displayed in the platform tiling.

 

Stewart

[Michael Edge]

That might go down better than you would expect - when we took Herculaneum Dock to Bremen we were asked "why does your engine shed have no roof?" They did laugh when we gave them the answer -  "Luftwaffe".

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

There was a time when having somewhere to run models I have made myself was more important than it is now.

 

Now I have Buckingham, a good amount of wagons and carriages that belonged to Sid Stubbs and a good few locos that were Malcolm Crawley's, I am happy to run things I haven't made.

 

If I was modelling a period or area that is supported by the RTR people, I am pretty sure I would be using their products to get me to where I wanted in a better timescale. 

Good afternoon Tony,

 

'If I was modelling a period or area that is supported by the RTR people, I am pretty sure I would be using their products to get me to where I wanted in a better timescale. '

 

Would you really? I'm not sure.

 

I've known many modellers (like yourself?) who deliberately choose prototypes because there's very little RTR support. They have no desire to make layouts which just look like those of everyone else. 

 

As is well known, my own modelling is entirely self-indulgent. I try to recreate (with considerable help, of course) what I saw as a 'spotter. That the RTR makers provide much of what I need in the form of carriages (though not locos - oh, no thank you) has freed up my time to build what they don't make. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

[CF MRC]

1 hour ago, Michael Edge said:

That might go down better than you would expect - when we took Herculaneum Dock to Bremen we were asked "why does your engine shed have no roof?" They did laugh when we gave them the answer -  "Luftwaffe".

When we visited Germany with CF, quite a few years ago, a couple of times we heard “I remember this - from up here!”

Tim

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by CF MRC

[t-b-g]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Tony,

 

'If I was modelling a period or area that is supported by the RTR people, I am pretty sure I would be using their products to get me to where I wanted in a better timescale. '

 

Would you really? I'm not sure.

 

I've known many modellers (like yourself?) who deliberately choose prototypes because there's very little RTR support. They have no desire to make layouts which just look like those of everyone else. 

 

As is well known, my own modelling is entirely self-indulgent. I try to recreate (with considerable help, of course) what I saw as a 'spotter. That the RTR makers provide much of what I need in the form of carriages (though not locos - oh, no thank you) has freed up my time to build what they don't make. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

I do tend to be less ambitious in terms of layouts in the hope that I can be as self sufficient as possible and I have very little RTR.

 

When I take layouts to shows, I often look around and try to work out how many other layouts have every item of motive power and every single carriage and wagon built by hand. I see them rarely and when I do the layouts are usually about as big as mine.

 

Around 10 years ago, when Ken Hill and I were discussing our next layout, we nearly built Leicester Central in GCR days, to fit one wall of his 40ft shed. The need to build a substantial layout plus a huge amount of locos and stock was just too much for us to take on, so we ended up building something much less ambitious.

 

I have plenty of GCR locos and we have plenty of goods wagons but little GCR passenger stock. If the stock had been available RTR and we didn't need to build every single item, I could have probably persuaded Ken that it was a good idea.

 

As it was, the idea was dropped as neither of us wanted a project that would drag on for many years before completion.

 

 

[Headstock]

the rule of thirds is a ridiculous when applied to train lengths, unless all trains on a layout are exactly the same length. That would be as prototypical as blancmange hauling a lettuce, on 99% of layouts.

It is conveniently forgotten by the rule of thirds acolytes, that the rule of thirds doesn't work on the principal of anything that conforms to the rule is ok, oh, and anything shorter than the rule is also ok. What a nonsense, that's like saying a bullseye includes the lower half of a dartboard but not the top. If you except that the rule of thirds applies to anything shorter than the  one train that conforms to the rule, you might as well include anything longer! 

Don't use it modelers, it doesn't exist in the real world. Free yourselves from tyranny of phony rule of thirds cliches.