Prototype Railway Modelling - an article by Tony Wright

[Andy Y]

This month's BRM features an article by Tony Wright who firmly believes that modelling an accurate prototype is the way to go, irrespective of scale and gauge. Most of us don't necessarily have the space available to model the prototype locations we would love to do so but. Although I don't think it has to be a scale model as such in the way that Retford is (featured in the next issue of BRM) but be readily identifiable and an acceptable representation of the components parts of that location. In an era where many demand fidelity to the prototype in their locos and rolling stock are we actually meeting those developments in products or are we still 'playing trains'.

 

Where are the prototypes for those who can afford 8' x 2' of space? Are they interesting enough? Is it better to model a smaller portion of something accurately or just give a flavour of a location?

 

From a personal perspective I don't think it matters one scrap if we're considering artistry, modelling competence and presentation as things that inspire us but I do feel that yet another TMD in 6' with locos from three different operators on set-track are anything more than a parody of box-buying.

 

Over to you.

[rodshaw]

I would think it all depends on your modelling skills and how much you know or are prepared to find out about the prototype.

 

In general, the more you get to know about the real thing, the more accurately you want to portray it. But there will always be corners to cut, especially in 8ft by 2ft.

[gwrrob]

 

 

 Is it better to model a smaller portion of something accurately or just give a flavour of a location?

 

 

 

Over to you.

 

Both.

 

I'm a great believer in both scenarios but on my layout I went for the 'flavour' aspect more.This was more to me taking liberties with the prototype and leaving major civil engineering items out more than anything.Squeezing a quart into my pint pot springs to mind.

 

Modelling a prototype usually means plenty of photos available so suitable stock choices are not a problem if rtr items are available.Having an affinity ,as in my case , with the area modelled is an added bonus.I'm still playing trains but hopefully in time more accurately and with the correct lamps on.

 

Its a very satisfying hobby when everything comes together.

[Guest jim s-w]

Agree both but sometimes a unnapealing place makes an interesting model. Both New Street and peterborough are considered pretty horrible places to catch a train from. Also a poor location operationally can make a better model. Certainly in my case the older layout of proof house junction gives more excuse for stopping at signals etc (those things modellers like).

 

There are lots of accurate models of dull places and to me the fact that they are a model of a real place doesnt save them but at the end of the day its always easier to copy something that exists than to make somewhere up along with th full understanding of how everything should work.

 

I originally planned to model just the western end in an area a little bigger than 8ft by 2ft but that went a bit wrong with the current footprint being neatly 10 times wider and nearly 10 times longer - oops! My overall motivation has always been atmosphere first and foremost.

 

The original plan can be seen here http://www.p4newstreet.com/plans

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[The Stationmaster]

There is a lot to be said for picking a prototype but also there is , I think, room for what Robin has called a 'flavour' - and that can be done in two different ways in my view.  

 

Firstly you can follow Robin;'s approach where he clearly has something which has recognisable 'Brent' atmosphere/flavour to it, you see it and know where it is even tho' you know the real place wasn't quite like that.  In other words it is a step beyond selective compression of thelocation but it still 'catches' it to the extent you recognise it. 

 

The second way is slightly different in that you capture the flavour of a particular railway (company or Region) and the topography or features of a route in such a way that although your place is imaginary it is recognisable as being on that route - ideally sufficiently so as to cause head scratching while you try to figure out exactly which place it is.  Still in my book a form of prototype modelling but not of a specific place.  The $64,000 question is whether it is easier doing that or taking Tony's and Jim's route?

 

As for space well clearly small areas can be used for modelling a prototype accurately - just look at what Frank (Dukedog) is achieving with Penmaenpool, and it's a loco shed (with the correct locos for area of course, always a critical point with that sort of modelling).  Which in turn also says a lot about the modular or 'scene to scene' form of modelling as can also be seen to such good effect on John's (RE6/6) Netherhope.

[Guest jim s-w]

The $64,000 question is whether it is easier doing that or taking Tony's and Jim's route?

 

I would say that you would still need a better understanding of everything to do that than to just copy what you see at a real location. I get asked occasionally what something I have made is for and sometimes my answer is 'I dunno - it was just there, it was that big and that shape' I dont have a clue what it does or why its there'

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Revolution Mike]

I agree with Jim - personally I think it is harder to make an imaginary place convincing than to copy a real location (that doesn't mean some people can't do it!).

 

Cheers, Mike

[The Stationmaster]

I would say that you would still need a better understanding of everything to do that than to just copy what you see at a real location. I get asked occasionally what something I have made is for and sometimes my answer is 'I dunno - it was just there, it was that big and that shape' I dont have a clue what it does or why its there'

 

Cheers

 

Jim

I think you're probably quite right on that Jim - to model whatever it is convincingly you either have to have a detailed record of what was there or the knowledge of what ought to be/have been at such a place in order to make the model convincing.  And, simply because of an accident of time or geography (or lack of photographs and reading) quite a lot of people aren't in that lucky position.  Research is always easier if you know what you are looking for.

[john flann]

I have recently made a post on my Hintock tread on this very point. My aim is for credibility in that if one has a credible setting all other things fit in naturally.

 

I don't either think exact scale is essential, far better to go for proportion and of items in the whole being appropriate and in balance. I'm not going for a replica, just a representation.

 

That suits me, looks good, and I get pleasure and enjoyment. Others get it in different ways.

[martin_wynne]

This month's BRM features an article by Tony Wright who firmly believes that modelling an accurate prototype is the way to go, irrespective of scale and gauge. Most of us don't necessarily have the space available to model the prototype locations we would love to do.

 

Templot (now free) can wrap a prototype plan onto a curve or into a corner, as a design guide for your track plan. So you can get the essential "essence of place" in a much smaller model space.

 

Here for example I started with a 25" scan of Corfe Castle, and loaded it as a normal track plan picture shape: 

 

 

If anyone wants to try it, the original image file in the Gallery is 300dpi and 1:2500 scale:

http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/46/original/46_131232_230000000.png

Thanks to Neil Berrington.

 

The intention was to fit it into the corner of a room, and this is the result, now ready to have the remaining tracks aligned over it:

 

 

 

This is a 2-stage process. First to straighten out the original running line, and then to wrap it onto the desired curve.

 

Here's another one -- Crewkerne on an S-curve:

 

 

 

Obviously it would need a few changes -- unless you have a curved goods shed to hand.

 

 

Martin.

[James]

personally I think it is harder to make an imaginary place convincing than to copy a real location

To do it convincinly I think you really have to know an area well and understand why the railway is there and the purpose behind things. For my new layout I've tried to come up with a convincing back story which justifies the existance of all the viewer will see.

[Revolution Mike]

To do it convincinly I think you really have to know an area well and understand why the railway is there and the purpose behind things. For my new layout I've tried to come up with a convincing back story which justifies the existance of all the viewer will see.

 

Absolutely - I know I don't have the knowledge or imagination so easier to take lots of photos of the prototype and try to copy it!

 

Cheers, Mike

[martin_wynne]

If it's valid to create an imaginary location, is it equally valid to invent an imaginary railway company? With imaginary locomotives? The famous "Cathedrals" class 4-4-0s of the Central Southern Railway come to mind.

 

If not, why not? Such freelance modelling was at one time quite common. And still is to some extent, for narrow-gauge, light railways and industrials. Why not for main lines? 

 

Martin.

[Guest jim s-w]

Certainly is Martin

 

But i would add a valid history too. Ive often seen advice that to make a realistic model railway things need to have a purpose but from studying a real place its not true. Yes everything does have a purpose when its new but often things change, the old is not always swept away and you often end up with things, their purpose or reason for being so having long passed.

 

I might be wrong but im pretty sure Pempoul is freelance but having spoken briefly with the Gravetts they seem to have researched it like a real place.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Kris]

Where are the prototypes for those who can afford 8' x 2' of space? Are they interesting enough? Is it better to model a smaller portion of something accurately or just give a flavour of a location?

They are out there and are generally much easier to find if you are modelling in a scale smaller than OO. Are they interesting to operate? Generally not but that doesn't mean that they can't be interesting to model.

[trisonic]

 

Absolutely - I know I don't have the knowledge or imagination so easier to take lots of photos of the prototype and try to copy it!

 

Cheers, Mike

I think you're selling yourself short by referring of it as a "copy" - you are truly making a model of the location, however much you choose to model.

 

Best, Pete.

[aberdare]

Having never worked on the railway and not having enough knowledge of it I always knew I would have trouble designing a fictional one, that was why I decided many years ago it would be easier to model a prototype station. I am lucky enough to have the space to build my chosen subject, although that has not always been the case hence an absence of many years.

 

I try to try and build as near to the real thing as I can get but am also aware that time and cost are involved therefore some compromises have to be made, in my case the track and a little compression. All I would like to do is fulfil my dream in what I find the best way possible and as long as it captures the atmosphere of the photographs of the time I will be a happy man. If I only had the 8x2 space I would select a smaller section of the branch and spend more time on it than I currently do.

[PLD]

Another of those subjects where there isn't a '(w)right way' and a 'wrong way', there are some excelent examples of prototype and freelance layouts, but there are also some poor examples of both. Just because it isn't based on a prototype doesn't mean it can't be operated prototypically and exude atmosphere of it's supposed location, but being based on a prototype can sometimes be a bit 'sterile' and if operated strictly to propotype can be a bit boreing to watch (lacking variety or long periods of inaction)...

 

There are pluses to both aproaches. For the prototype all the design work has been done for you (track layout, signaling, operation) but you do have to research it properly to avoid the pointing finger of the rivet counters... A freelance layout allows more flexibility in design and operation but you have to be careful that it remains within realistic boundaries of what the prototype operator would have done in that situation...

 

Paul

[Anglian]

What's always interested me is capturing the essence of 'railway' and what that may mean to each of us is different. However, those who have been able to make convincing models of fictitious locations have probably spent as much time studying the real thing as those making models of actual locations. Either can result in superb models that must surely have been satisfying to build to reach a stage of completeness. I don't agree that you have to model an actual location accurately to create a worthwhile layout but as other's have mentioned it might actually be easier than creating a plausible might have been.

 

If you start with a real location I guess you can chop it about and adapt it as need be and I always really enjoy seeing the Templot results of curving prototype locations that are an example of such an approach. There's also the question of how much compression is acceptable and at what point you loose the essence of the real location. None of this matters if the individual is a happy in their approach and I remain interested in reading the whole article.

 

However, as a counter to Tony Wright: is Denny's Buckingham Great Central a less successful or worthy model even though it doesn't portray stations that actually existed? I've certainly read that some where so convinced by the model they went looking for the evidence of the existence of the real thing and were disappointed not to find any, ditto with some of Jenkinson's models/locations.

[t-b-g]

I have tried both approaches and enjoyed them equally as much as each other. Tickhill has a correct track layout, curved and shortened to fit the available space. The interest in that one was that it was worked by 5 different railway companies, although it was a passing place n a single track branch. Narrow Road has the track layout of one half of Broad Street but with a fictional goods yard and loco shed. Several others have been totally made up or perhaps use a photo of a real place as inspiration.

 

Not everybody has the space for a "Little Bytham" or a "Stoke Summit, or a "Liverpool Lime Street" or even a "Retford". That is possibly why so many smaller layouts are not copies of real places. Any real place that small is usually pretty boring operationally, or really limited in locos and stock. "Stoke Summit" always gets a big crowd around it at shows but if I was operating it I would be bored out of my skull after 30 minutes.

 

Modelling a real place requires a certain self discipline, especially when it come to locos and stock. Many a branch line would be served by a single passenger train working back and forth all day, perhaps with an odd through carriage or tail load, along with perhaps a daily goods. It really wouldn't make for an iteresting model, so most people have a selection of different locos and trains.

 

The best layout I have ever operated was Buckingham. Totally fictional but with a realistic "back story" and plenty of operational interest. If you just want a big roundy roundy to watch the trains go by, then you might as well model a real place.

 

On the other hand.......... A friend of mine is working on a layout. It is a double track main line through station, 4 platforms, a goods yard, loads of operational and scenic interest and all dead to scale at 12' long. So such places do exist. I am not giving it away in case loads of other people start building the same one!! 

[2ManySpams]

I also think that modelling a prototype religiously tend to take away some of the creativity from the process, and a lot of prototypes are either i/ a bit boring or ii/ dont really translate that well to a model....Far better IMO to mix and match a few bits of reality to make something realistic but imaginary

Totally agree - which is why we took this approach on Treneglos, Diesels in the Duchy and Black Country Blues.

 

The main thing for me is to model the railway scene, and the land beyond the fence, in a way that is true to railway practice and the local area modelled.

[Kenton]

In an ideal world we would all have the space, the finances and the time to model ala Tony Wright, but most of us live in the real world where even 8 x 2 is so beyond reality for anything approaching prototypical feasibility so we have to make to with the imaginary or compromised even it is a TMD in 6ft. Of course sitting up there on the high horse, looking down on Mr Average modeller is easier for some. Others are supposedly left to look up at him.

 

In the end it takes all sorts and getting enjoyment out of the hobby is all that matters. If that is running toy trains on a 6ft TMD then that is good enough by my book (yes, even if the liveries are all different), and even if it is producing an exact replica of one second in the life of a perfect scale model of an obscure prototype location. Mr Wright can continue to do his thing but I'll not be listening at his pulpit.

[Trevellan]

I can see both sides of the argument, but I think there are acceptable compromises. Just as some artists create scenes that are an amalgam of elements from an area (Constable was one such, I believe), so railway modellers can pull together realistic elements to create a convincing scene in an imaginary location. As has been said above, there are numerous examples of this breed, Buckingham being one of the most famous. I have no problem with fictitious locations if the scene looks right and the operation is credible. As a young man I used to enjoy reading P.D Hancock's articles in Railway Modeller about the Craig & Mertonford.

[Ravenser]

It's not 8 x 2, but in a 10' x 6'  L I reckon Cromer and Sheringham in the modern era would be viable. The "branch off a branch" with a small terminus  is an old chestnut , and generally a bit unprototypical , but this is one case where something rather like that really exists. Sheringham could be very realistically modelled as a 2' or 3' platform with a single line and no pointwork , and a minimum width platform - so's the real thing. (2'8" would be perfectly adequete for a 3 car DMU on short underframe, and would make 2 car units look very realistic) . Units cross at Cromer and disappear into the fiddle yard (aka Norwich)

 

Limited operational potential, but still some, and you'd get a railway line not just a single station. 

 

Otherwise you could be clutching at straws - Island Gardens DLR before extension anyone?

 

How big was Ventnor ?

[Andy Y]

How big was Ventnor ?

According to my maps 180m from tunnel to buffer stops which leaves 1" beyond the buffer stops.