Prototype Railway Modelling - an article by Tony Wright

[Adams442T]

Layouts like Buckingham, or Martin Brent's 'Arcadia', many of Iain Rice's scenarios and, more recently Chris Nevard's wonderful cameos capture, for me, all that's best in railway modelling.

 

If you want a CJF 'roundy roundy' in 00 with a Duchess and 3 coaches fine, but it'll never give the 'feel' of the real thing.  But is fidelity to every last thing [i nearly said rivet!] necessary?  I don't think so.

 

The whole should scream 'Railway', before you even notice the Throckmorton Trammel Excluder is missing.  Difficult? Yes.  Is it what I aim for? Yes.

 

I love the 'broad church' of RMWeb and most of its adherents.  If one does one's best with the time, funds and knowledge one has it is churlish for anyone to criticise, other than constructively, and I for one try to avoid doing so.

 

Following prototypes in a limited space is hard to pull off, but capturing the 'essence' is possible.  IMHO it's better to convince in a yard than play trains in a mile.

[Del]

I'm probably the wrong person to comment, as I have never built a layout (prototypical or otherwise) that has looked remotely like a model of a railway, as they've never got finished.

But my thought having read the article was 'Is that fun?'. By that I mean if you have enough books and photos of your prototype location, you can model it pretty accurately without actually knowing why you're building what you're building. Why is that signal arranged in that particular way? Why is the box at that end and not the other? Why does the Up line curve left after the overbridge?

But if you want an 'accurate' model of a fictitious location, you need to research these things. You need to know the signalling principles of the company you want to model and the topography and geology of the area you wish to locate your model in.

That doesn't mean you can't build an interesting layout without doing that (and to be honest, I almost certainly won't) but in my opinion, that research would make for a more enjoyable model.

[Sasquatch]

 From my experience having built two portable prototype layouts (Dunster & Goathland) copying an actual location was easier than my current fictional shelf project Avon Park which measures in at 9`x14". It would be hard to fit any real location into 8`x2` (OO scale).

It also comes down to each individuals skills,budget,tastes and various other talents. For me it`s all about creating a small piece of art which must be great fun and I must admit that I do like a challenge. Dunster and Goathland have attended shows and both are quite differently constructed with such features as working crossing gates and ground dols,  quick assembly and puzzle piece scenic sections. This year I had most stisfaction letting some kids drive the trains.

Goathland is 20` long only half of which portrays the actual location the other was dreamt up with in the depths of my imagination but does capture the essence of the NYMR.

My second point being its a great place to run model trains wether they be old Lima sloggers or my latest scratch built  NE stock (yes I`ll totally put my hands up to playing trains,only on RMweb at least).

Lastly Ventnor. Which terminus, there were two! Ventnor West actually got started when I lived in Helgium and have always wanted to build the other station but I`m just not a southern fan. 

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/11359-goathland-layout/

[winterbournecm]

My layouts have tended to spring from the rolling stock I have gathered and having a purpose for the these to appear. Thats why I favour imaginary layouts with features of places I love railway and scenery wise. perhaps that's why I have a Cornish harbour scene 6 feet away from a large yard & TMD! My theory is the average range of eyesight on a layout is only around 4ft x 4ft, so I tend to move the scenes on every 6 feet to a different one. The idea of 15 feet of rolling hills does not appeal to me.

 

I admire accurately modelled locations, and maybe will make a start on my "things to do before dying" Cockwood / Dawlish scene, but the Devon sea wall does limit my appearances of Tilcon hoppers, Yeoman stone trains, MGRs, etc...!

[grahame]

I guess at the end of the day unless we have unlimited time, unlimited space, unlimited skill and unlimited money, the layout we end up building will be limited in some way and some sort of compromise. So it's all about how much compromise we accept.

 

I'd love to be able to model and have a layout of the entire Southern third rail network. So far I've had to pick little bits of it and try and meld them in to a half decent layout. How successful I've been is for others to judge.

 

G.

[Guest jim s-w]

in my opinion, that research would make for a more enjoyable model.

 

I find the research itself immensely enjoyable. I can understand why some love the planning but dont ever build anything.

 

The whole should scream 'Railway', before you even notice the Throckmorton Trammel Excluder is missing.

 

Indeed. I am lucky to get lots of nice comments that my model in unmistakably birmingham, despite there being no overhead yet!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[2ManySpams]

I suppose another issue is that the vast majority of us are not professional modellers - ie earning our keep from modelling activities as a full time job. The closest I've come is getting involved with BCB for RMweb / BRM where the project is funded but, timewise, we're all having to fit the project in and around paid real world jobs. Far from easy and not something to enter lightly. 

 

As others have said, space, time and cash are big constraints on the projects we'd like to build. Real locations, particularly those using the big ER Pacifics that Tony favours, take up lots of space, time and cash. It's not surprising then that the vast majority of us have massive compromises to make and opt for something smaller based on our imaginations. 

 

Thankfully for my own area of interest, the North Cornwall Railway used Bulleid Pacifics on relatively short trains and the platform lengths could really be as short as the 4' on Treneglos. It is therefore possible to find areas to model with realistic train formations, you just have to be picky. Likewise, for some reason (thank you Dapol), I can see a load of micro layouts based on the Bodmin and Wenford emerging in the next few years. A small distinctive loco running short trains on tightly curved track is ideal for small places!  

 

The main thing is to enjoy what you are doing. 

[New Haven Neil]

I always enjoy the challenge of a TW style article, although not agreeing to it all.  If we didn't have people prepared to put their head above the parapet and make these bold statements to stimulate us, we would all still be building layouts from a certain pair of blue fronted booklets. 

 

My own layouts have to fit shelf style along two and a half walls of a double garage, which some would look at as a lot of space.  Not in US modelling, it's not!  I also don't like terminal stations, so it means two fiddle yards which eat into space, although one has an industry switching area above it.  I can't find anything prototypical to fit into my space, so therefore it has to be imagineered.  8 cars trains are hardly representative of the New Haven's freight operations, but reality has to be suspended, unless we are so lucky as to have Retford type space.  How many people do? Less than 1% of our hobby I should imagine, although there is an enormous O gauge layout not 4 miles from where I live.  Representing a reasonable facsimilie of a prototype yard/station/whatever is just not practicable for most of us.

 

I still love these almost provocative, straight talking articles though, because they make me think about how I may better utilise the space I do have!

 

I'd also love the ability to have a roundy roundy run occasionally, but that is just not on, as the garage is also full of motorcyles and workbench.  Compromise.

 

Ppower to your pen TW, and the others who write in this way.

[AngryMeerkat]

Hobby -

 

1.

an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation: Her hobbies include stamp-collecting and woodcarving.

 

Well I apologise for the fact that my hobby is creating a TDM on a 6ft board as i remember the place, instead of an exact replica of the Allerton/Speke/Garston area in the 1980s done to an exact scale and incorporating every single detail exactly as it was. As this doesn't meet with Gods approval (who is this Tony Wright anyway?) I shall go and rip it up right away. After that I will go and get a job that finances this hobby and everything else I need, including the new large house for the 50ft x 10ft replica of Allerton. Again I apologise for getting into this HOBBY as a way to relax and have some fun with trains.

 

Thankfully most on RMWeb aren't as judgemental when it comes to people entering the hobby and doing what they can with the space and finances available, but I guess that's the difference between having the space and money to do as you wish and us mere mortals. But this article (and the last paragraph of Andy's opening post) do show the divide in modelling circles and could possibly explain the severe lack of 'new blood' entering this hobby. As a newcomer to this hobby myself, and the builder of my first ever layout which is a 6ft TDM, I'm now sat here wondering why I'm bothering with it, or if this website is the right place for me to come when my layout is clearly just another way of buying boxes and planting them (if only that were true!!!).

 

I wonder who is REALLY having more fun in this hobby .....

 

Mr Adenoid who is telling Mr Socks-N-Sandals this his distant signal is a scale 2" too tall and 6ft further down the track than it should be, which has ruined the whole atmosphere of the model.

 

Or

 

Mr Youngen who has just got home from seeing his girlfriend, ran up to his bedroom where his latest purchase awaits - he has spent all his pocket money on the latest Bachmann 57 in NR yellow because he saw a picture of one on here and it looked cool. So he asked his dad to save up his pocket money so he could buy one for his 6ft TMD built on a wall in his bedroom.

 

I know who I'd rather be!!

 

Mark

[10800]

If imaginary was / is good enough for renowned modellers such as Peter Denny, David Jenkinson, Gordon Gravitt, Tom Harland, then it is good enough for me!!

 

Nothing wrong with imaginary, but the four you have cited were extraordinarily good at it because they had done the homework on the 'flavour' and authenticity aspects.

 

I prefer modelling the prototype, but it has to be 'interesting' and has to be researchable.  But that doesn't mean there is no scope for imagination - Eridge is a case in point, where at the London end the real thing curves off in flat terrain.  What we did to provide for a scenic break was to shift the landscape a bit to the left and provide for a shallow cutting and three arch bridge, both of which were closely based on Ashurst a bit further up the line.  People recognise the station as Eridge but rarely comment on the revised topography!

 

I tried designing a fictitious terminus once (Camberhurst) but abandoned it when I could never get it looking authentic enough for my needs.

['CHARD]

I regard the TMD stage as a rite of passage these days.  My interest in creating those came at a time when it was a reaction against the omnipresent GWR BLT which was all I seemed to see at the turn of the eighties, and a TMD layout got up the nose of the serious (read boring, to me as a teenage upstart), stuffy, old brigade.  And so the wheel turns full circle, it seems.

 

TMDs had appeal when I was spending a lot of time skulking around the prototype, and in fairness no-one had modelled them much back then.  I think part of their appeal for today's novice modellers is that it's a good way to showcase a riot of colourful locos, and after all don't most start off being lococentric.  I know I'd be categorised as a recovering locoholic.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hobby -

I wonder who is REALLY having more fun in this hobby .....

I know who I'd rather be!!

Mark

Me too. Your second example would FOR ME be utterly pointless. But if others enjoy thier hobby that way thats great.

 

Thats the thing with a hobby like this, what might seem a completely clear cut arguement from one point of view seems comletely wrong from another. I am sure you think someone wandering around brum photographing man-holes and drawing up etches or measuring kerbstones is not your idea of fun.

 

Jim

[APOLLO]

Andy York wrote in his opening thread

 

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.

 

 

Surely this is exactly how most of us started off in the hobby. A few non compatible locos and stock (bought because we liked the look of them) on a small board utilising set track.  There are many such posters from newbies on this site, some good, some average, none (in my eyes at least) bad. Please don't scare them away as our hobby will be the poorer.

 

And yes, I like to see the true to scale stuff to, especially the layouts etc that feature in Model Railway Journal, the other end of the spectrum. The fantastic Hornsey Broadway is one, (and that is not a true to prototype location layout either !!).

 

There is room for all in our hobby, Tony Wright included.

 

Brit15

[Andy Y]

Don't get me wrong; there are good TMDs out there but there are also some that have little affinity to any form or example of a prototype, portray nothing other than a generic stage on which to sit some RTR locos (preferably with sound lights and no weathering ) when with a little imagination the time and money invested could have built something which would please the owner for years rather than months.

 

I don't see why I can't express a personal perspective for a change.

[Guest jim s-w]

I don't see why I can't express a personal perspective for a change.

Afraid most people cant in thier job Andy. Although i too dont get a lot from TMDs and agree with your points, im sorry but you need to accept you are not 'just one of us'

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[PLD]

Andy York wrote in his opening thread

 

 

Surely this is exactly how most of us started off in the hobby. A few non compatible locos and stock (bought because we liked the look of them) on a small board utilising set track.  There are many such posters from newbies on this site, some good, some average, none (in my eyes at least) bad. Please don't scare them away as our hobby will be the poorer.

 

And yes, I like to see the true to scale stuff to, especially the layouts etc that feature in Model Railway Journal, the other end of the spectrum. The fantastic Hornsey Broadway is one, (and that is not a true to prototype location layout either !!).

 

There is room for all in our hobby, Tony Wright included.

 

Brit15

 

Don't get me wrong; there are good TMDs out there but there are also some that have little affinity to any form or example of a prototype, portray nothing other than a generic stage on which to sit some RTR locos (preferably with sound lights and no weathering ) when with a little imagination the time and money invested could have built something which would please the owner for years rather than months.

 

I don't see why I can't express a personal perspective for a change.

 

I don't think anyone has ever called for the banning of the MPD - it is afterall a fair starting point/entry project for a restricted space. Rather than dismissing the builders as 'playing trains' or 'just collectors' surely it is better to encourage them to develop their skills and move on to bigger and better things...

[Guest jim s-w]

No Jim, the ability to express ones self is a basic thing....or in my case a very basic thing If the "job" doesnt allow you to talk as you feel fit then *cough cough cough* to them

What do you do Mickey?

 

I am allowed to advise clents on facts but not opinion? My wife is an estate agent, if a buyer asks which area is a better place to live A or B she is not allowed to say even if she firmly thinks area B is a lot nicer than area A.

 

The ability to express yourself 'in your working environment to your clients' is not a basic thing, not in the slightest. You are required to uphold the companies views.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Southernman46]

 

 

them guys that pick up scrap and stuff... I like them cos they dont take any prisoners

 

Becomes a problem when the stuff doesn't belong to them and you're trying to stop them doing it though

 

anyway different conversation.......

[Guest jim s-w]

Agreed but lets not forget that for all the times we see Andy on here he is at work.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[TheSignalEngineer]

I think both camps have a place in the hobby. I would dearly like to model a couple of real layouts but both would need a scenic section of 20ft+ and the traffic was sparse ( and a bit boring). My current project is ficticious, but everything on it could have happened and i can run different groups of stock in roughly correct period.

 

There are some fantastic real place models out there like Jim's BNS, but as is hopefully being shown by BCB you can pull together several real buildings from an area and put them together in a ficticious setting provided that the context and the running of the railway is believeable.

[Guest jim s-w]

Lol

 

To be accurate andy and the team make RMweb work us plebs (all of us) provide its value!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Andy Y]

Believe me, I don't express everything here that I do think.   Why do you think there's a swearing filter?

 

I think saying that I'm not particularly keen on a type of TMD layout is at the innocuous end of the scale.

 

[James]

I don't see why I can't express a personal perspective for a change.

Whilst I agree with you completely about the little multi-coloured TMDs, you're part of the establishment now. Early on when the likes of Chris Leigh used phrases like "self appointed experts on the internet" and others wondered why Railway Modeller's reviews are generally 'nice', well this is all the same.

[Guest stuartp]

I'm probably the wrong person to comment, as I have never built a layout (prototypical or otherwise) that has looked remotely like a model of a railway, as they've never got finished.

But my thought having read the article was 'Is that fun?'. By that I mean if you have enough books and photos of your prototype location, you can model it pretty accurately without actually knowing why you're building what you're building. Why is that signal arranged in that particular way? Why is the box at that end and not the other? Why does the Up line curve left after the overbridge?

But if you want an 'accurate' model of a fictitious location, you need to research these things. You need to know the signalling principles of the company you want to model and the topography and geology of the area you wish to locate your model in.

That doesn't mean you can't build an interesting layout without doing that (and to be honest, I almost certainly won't) but in my opinion, that research would make for a more enjoyable model.

 

You need to research either way, just slightly differently. You can approach both as just 'following the pictures' if you want, it's just that with the fictitious location you get to choose the pictures. 

 

I'm doing both. Portwilliam is a fictitious station (albeit in a real place) based on prototype practice. Newton Stewart (if I ever get it started) is a real station the research for which has taken over 20 years on and off. I find both equally enjoyable, frustrating, easy, and difficult.

 

For example. Portwilliam is a terminus with an engine release crossover. Do I work it from the box , install a groundframe or what ? So off to the picture books for pictures of G&SWR branch termini, and seeing as there weren't many of them, we'll extend the search to LMS Scottish branch termini in general. The consensus comes down firmly in favour of a ground frame - except that the only G&SWR terminus I could find a clear picture of (Dalmellington) had hand points ! No locks, no signals, no interlocking, just hand levers on a passenger line. So that's what I'll have. The rest of the signalling was made up based on those bits of G&SWR practice I could pin down.

 

By comparison, Newton Stewart should be easy. Just copy the photos. But first you have to find the photos, and a photo only ever shows one side of anything, and one moment in time. The difficult bit is filling in the spaces and identifying what you're actually looking at.

 

Two examples:

 

There is a lovely photo in the Norris Forrest collection of a grounded coach body in the yard at Newton Stewart. Now if you were looking for a grounded coach body for a fictitous CR/G&SWR/LNWR/MR joint station you would probably pick a coach from one of those, you might even pick one of the Ratio MR/LNWR kits and save a bit of time. You probably wouldn't think "I know, I'll scratch build an ex MS&LR 6 wheeled non-corridor third, because I have absolutely no references for that and I like a challenge". It took me years to work out that that's what I was looking at. You're right, I didn't actually need to know, I could have just copied the photo, but I get satisfaction from tracking down exactly what I'm looking at.

 

Second. Just across the road from Newton Stewart station is a large electrical sub-station. Pylons, transformers etc. It's off stage on the model so I don't need to model it but in the background of one photo of the station yard is a very large transformer sitting next to a siding. It clearly came in by rail and was unloaded, but how ? It's way to big for the yard crane (we're talking the sort of size that needs a proper transformer wagon)  so how was it done ? Jacking, packing and sliding ? Big rail crane borrowed from the engineers ? Big road crane arranged by the Electric Board ?  What's coming to take it away ? I could guess at a couple of Scammel Contractors and a very big trailer but it would be nice to know.

 

What are all those Conflat Ls doing in the yard ? Where does the brake van off the branch goods go overnight ? What does the offside of the island platform building look like ? Why does that pick up goods have a full brake in the middle of it ? Why are there three invalid carriages parked there - deliveries which arrived in a CCT or were half the station staff registered disabled ? What exactly is that parked in the loading dock ? How did coal get from the station yard to the gas works ? who was the coal merchant ? etc etc etc...

[t-b-g]

I don't have any problem with anybody following their hobby however they wish. But there are certain types of layout that has been done to death and yet we still see examples in magazines and at exhibitions, sometimes in multiples of almost identical examples. I recall one show I went to where there were about 6 or 7 almost identikit terminus layouts. All diesel period (mostly 1980s), all Peco code 100 track (badly laid and ballasted with bright red rust paint on the rail sides - ugh!!), all RTR stock and locos, all having loco hauled 3 coach trains running alongside multiple units, all with resin bought buildings, all with an arched retaining wall down the back with a half relief row of shops/houses/buildings along the top, all with the obligatory street full of "out of the box" road vehicles. They even all had the fiddle yard at the left hand end!

 

There are a couple of exceptionally well modelled diesel depot type layouts around and they are so good that they make the rest look exactly what they are, somebody very much taking the "quick and easy" route and deciding that they only way thay can have all their locos on a layout in a small space is to model a depot using off the shelf stuff.

 

As for operation, has anybody ever built a shed layout that was interesting to operate or to watch operating? OK, you can have an odd coal/fuel/ash wagon movement. I spent a deal of time at real sheds in the 70s and the operation was, well, boring. Light engine arrives, light engine leaves and after that you are struggling. At shows, you often see locos just being moved aimlessly from one siding to another, just to stave off total boredom.

 

So unless there is something exceptional in the quality of the modelling (which is unusual as they are usually all straight out of the box stuff), or the design or the presentation, such layouts usually leave me cold.

 

But each to their own, if that is what people want to build and others want to look at, good luck to them, just don't expect me to enthuse about them!

 

Tony