Prototype Railway Modelling - an article by Tony Wright

[t-b-g]

Think I'd rather string the telegraph poles than do the point rodding......

 

I will tell Roy that you have volunteered in writing........... you fool!

[pete55]

I will tell Roy that you have volunteered in writing........... you fool!

 

Notice I said to string them..........not make them!!

[Guest jim s-w]

Stuck for words Andy - the trackwork in Tony's second model photo is nigh on perfect.

Except that the prototype picture shows flatbottom rail and the model bullhead. I'm not saying the track doesnt look nice but its a fair way from 'nigh on perfect' i'm afraid.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[APOLLO]

Except that the prototype picture shows flatbottom rail and the model bullhead. I'm not saying the track doesnt look nice but its a fair way from 'nigh on perfect' i'm afraid.

 

Perhaps Tony chose to model the period just prior to prototype track renewals !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Perhaps perfect was the wrong term for me to use - nowt is perfect, not even the prototype. Even so - its b****y good.

 

Brit15

[Guest stuartp]

Big difference between building something incorrect and not having got round to building it yet.

 

Edit: This post made a lot more sense before the post to which it was a response was removed. I was having a dig, but not at Tony Wright or his track.

[Andy Y]

Perhaps Tony chose to model the period just prior to prototype track renewals !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Perhaps perfect was the wrong term for me to use - nowt is perfect, not even the prototype. Even so - its b****y good.

 

Brit15

 

I don't know what date if any saw any relevant track replacements but I do know there's a few years difference between the year portrayed and the prototype shot.

[S.A.C Martin]

I've had a go on a small scale. Compare...

 

Copley Hill, David Hey Collection

 

...to...

 

 

So many things wrong with it. The carriage works were totally wrong (aside from the material depicted, wrong shape really and far too tall and thin compared with wide and short), the trackwork was all wrong, the shed on closer inspection is actually red brick at the bottom, with yellow sandstone coloured brick used for the upper section where the roof was replaced...

 

...I did enjoy having a go. I dismantled Copley Hill last year, but I'll never forget how much fun it was having a go at trying to make a little corner of Leeds on a 6x2. I'll have another, better go one day when I have the space and have improved on my skills.

[AngryMeerkat]

After mulling this topic over for a while, and re-reading TWs article again, I'd like to ask the $64,000 question......

 

What area would suit being modelled that would allow for 'interesting' stock movements but would fit on a 6'x2' board (not including fiddle yard).

 

I've looked at the Allerton/Speke area of Liverpool, and there is no way that would fit. Although the wheel lathe at Allerton TMD did have some interesting visitors, there is no way to condense the track plan.

 

The Bournemouth station/depot area is similar, and adding 3rd rail might be a bit of an ask for a novice.

 

What elements should we as modellers be looking for when we ask this question? Is modelling an 'ultra detailed' single track line with some original local cameos on a par with TWs own model, or is the station and track layout complexity what makes TWs layout stand out as exceptional prototype modelling? Is it the prototype buildings being modelled correctly? Just what is it that creates that 'atmosphere'? And how do you justify what to leave out or condense or alter when making a prototype fit the space available? At what point does an 'altered prototype' become a fictional location with delusions of being 'X Station'?

 

Maybe if those of us who are 'fictional' modellers could understand these points better, we could maybe move to a more prototype way of modelling without losing the fun which fiction allows so freely.

 

Mark

[Andy Y]

 

Jim Smith Wright is, of course, quite right to point out the incorrect nature of Little Bytham's track, at least on the fast lines. The 'perfect' trackwork was laid by Norman Solomon (as part of a DVD) and for him to have made dozens of yards of flat-bottom trackwork would have taken the project way over-budget. But, by 1958, it should have been. My thanks to Apollo for his support, but it's wrong. 

            

Just by way of redressing the balance, please look at the shots of Wolverhampton MRC's Charwelton. Only OO, I know, but since we made all our own track, the opportunity was taken to make it 'properly'. Thus, as appropriate, where flat-bottom was needed (including some points) it was made and laid, and where bullhead was required this was installed. In one shot, you can even see where one type changes to the other. Amazingly, flat-bottom track was being laid at this (real) location as late as 1964. Just a couple of years before complete closure!

 

 

 

 

[2ManySpams]

I think Tony's post proves that everyone has time and cost compromises to make....

[LNER4479]

Stuck for words Andy - the trackwork in Tony's second model photo is nigh on perfect. That Retford comparison is also beyond criticism, state of the art modelling in both cases.

 

Of course we can't all do that - but we can aspire to, and improve what we do as a consequence.

 

Brit15

 

I'm with Apollo all the way here - the 2nd of Tony's pictures is superb (I'll retrain from using the work 'perfect'!). Clearly the difference in track type is an obvious difference but, you know what? that's not what my eye was drawn to. I'm looking at the orientation of the track alignment, the configuration of the pointwork, the perspective of the train, the positioning of the signals... in other words the overal impression. That's what works for me.

 

Looks like it's 'open season' for model vs prototype pictures - I'll have to work on something!

[Mikkel]

Is modelling an 'ultra detailed' single track line with some original local cameos on a par with TWs own model, or is the station and track layout complexity what makes TWs layout stand out as exceptional prototype modelling? Is it the prototype buildings being modelled correctly? Just what is it that creates that 'atmosphere'? 

 

 

Maybe if those of us who are 'fictional' modellers could understand these points better, we could maybe move to a more prototype way of modelling without losing the fun which fiction allows so freely.

 

I think what makes the work of Tony W stand out is first and foremost that he and his mates are bl**dy good modellers :-)

 

I would be concerned if the issues of modelling quality and standards got mixed up with a discussion about prototype vs fictional layouts. Prototype layouts are not necessarily more advanced, educated or realistic than fictional layouts. Many of the good prototype layouts involve lots of compromises (OO track being a case in point), and I think most prototype modellers would agree with that. 

 

I don't see this as a discussion about the standards and quality of modelling, which is  a very subjective issue anyway. I understand it as a pitch for modelling prototype locations as a way of developing your skills and achieving satisfaction.

 

Whether you agree and choose to follow that road or prefer to stick with fictional modelling is then a choice that you and you alone can make.

[Douglas G]

A lot of the discussion here about the size required to reproduce a prototype location seems to assume 4mm scale.

But don't forget N gauge or 2mm scale - it is quite possible to reproduce even quite large stations in a reasonable space, and show the railway in the landscape as it really is.

Douglas

[Clive Mortimore]

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.

 

Hi Andy

 

Whoops, I think I might have been partially responsible for the loco shed trend. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62823-pig-lane-or-should-it-be-i-am-sorry/

 

As for a small space layout NOT based on a portotype but is very realistic, Westerner's Wencombe http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/2386-wencombe-windscreen-wipers/ Alan has made a wonderful model, and it keeps on improving.

[Clive Mortimore]

I think that is an important point - capturing the prototype feel of the railway, what it looks like and how it works.  Some find it easiest to do that by copying a particular location, others can do it (eg Treneglos, or BCB - and many others) by capturing the essence of railway and not bottling it but building it as a layout that looks as if it had copyied a real place.

 

I think the problem with the currently over-worked diesel depot layout theme is that many of them don't do that - they are 'reproducing' something which doesn't exist in a way that doesn't make railway sense.  Now folk are perfectly entitled to do that, of course they are because it's their railway etc.  But once you've seen one diesel depot that's getting it wrong you might not be too enamoured of seeing another.  In contrast look at a couple of steam depots - another emerging theme but with both, say, Haymarket Cross (fictional location) and York (real location but only a tiny part of it modelled) there is an air of believability in the way thing are laid out and can be seen to be capable of being worked.  A lot of the diesel depots simply don't have that air of believability about them I'm afraid - and over the years I worked at several, and they've all closed apart from one which will be going soon.

 

Hi Mike

 

I fully agree, when I built Hanging Hill and Pig Lane the prototypical operation dictated the track plan. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/61979-hanging-hill/

 

Not only are there bad diesel depots but also bad steam ones as well. locomotive comes on shed, coal and water is replenished, ashpan cleaned out and then depending on why the locomotive is on shed where it is parked afterwards. The coal stage, water cranes and ash pits are the heart of a loco depot not the shed building and the sidings to line up the nice looking engines. I have seen steam shed models without a water tower.

[Bezzy Oppo]

I'd been mulling the idea of starting railway modelling for some time; a good two years worth of reading various books and taking all (yes all) the magazines on a monthly basis and visiting a few of the larger shows. My wife thinks I'm mad, having gone from her 'globetrotting adventurer' to 'choo choo fanatic' in one fell swoop at the age of 41. The tipping point was watching (several times) Tony Wright's Little Bytham freebie DVD. On the back of this I watched Norman's track work DVD and so on. 

 

Intertwined with my journey of enlightenment and enchantment was the (surprising to me given the hobby) ever-pervasive odour of the modelling evangelical; the exhibition tutters and the on-line snipers and sock puppets (which is why I rarely join forums). Having worked in the Political media arena I just can't be bothered.

 

An established modeller friend asked me recently what I wanted from the hobby; I struggled to answer this basic yet obvious question. Until now. This thread has sparked some synapses and I'm coming up with why I'm drawn to the hobby. You see it's not about locos and trains per se. It's more everything else: the beauty of track work and P-way, line side architecture, the politics of the Beeching era, seeing trains in the landscape, and wanting to capture those elements as accurately as possible for my personal pleasure. Both for the aesthetic and the modelling journey; the learning and self development and the association with like minded, intelligent people. I want to be one of Tony Wright's 'chums' as it were.

 

The route, for me, is via the prototype. That's how it was or is. And that's how I think it should be. But that's purely personal preference. That's what floats my boat, pushes my buttons, however you want to phrase it. It's got to look right - foreshortening and compression I view as necessary evils - I want, but can't necessarily have. It would be just too unwieldy and with lots of nothing (relatively) between sections of interest. 

 

I'm starting with my local disused station on the Thirsk Malton line. Because structurally it's still all there in the main and with the aid of research and photographs, I can't really get it wrong. It's a manageable project for me to be as pedantic as I can in regard to accuracy and truth to prototype. Conjuring up a fictitious subject would I suggest push be out of my perceived comfort zone; even if I pulled it off it wouldn't have the cognitive association for me. But I can appreciate someone wanting to do it especially the 'hybrid scenario' like 'The Railway Children' or 'The Titfield Thunderbolt'. An ECML subject? In due course - I have a rather large shed to empty first.

 

Now, I wonder if I can lost wax cast some more convincing locomotive headlamps...

[Kenton]

I have seen steam shed models without a water tower.

Actually prototypical.

 

There is a long list of sheds, albeit mostly small 1 track sheds not the large MPDs of post grouping days, that had no obvious watering facility. That is in addition to those where watering was provided by a tank within the roof structure (a few roundhouses) or on the platforms of the local station. Much the same comment can be made of coaling and ash plants (the latter quite rare) and where a pile of coal or dumped ash was the only facility. So just because you have a shed does not mean that you must have a water tower to please those who think there must be one and still remain prototypical.

[great northern]

Having finally found my way back to this thread, I suppose that as a prototype modeller I should say something. First, TW will always write in such a way as to encourage debate, and why not? It has certainly succeeded on this thread. I just hope that people have taken the trouble to read the article before commenting.

 

I am now building my first ever layout based on a prototype. Why has it taken me so long? Have I only now "seen the light"? Not at all, it is because for the first time I have the good fortune to have the space to do it. Like TW, I am hopelessly addicted to the ECML in the 1950's, and foolishly I decided years ago that nothing else would do. The result was that I did nothing for years, much potential time enjoying my hobby completely wasted. You simply cannot make a prototype model of almost any ECML station in steam days in 4mm scale without compression, and in most cases that compression would be so great as to remove all resemblance to the real thing. I have tried to model the old Peterborough North, which incidentally despite its many failings, and in sharp contrast to the present sterile set up, had plenty of character. At the end of a 49 year working life, at last I have 25ft by 10ft to work with. That was certainly not the case for the vast majority of my modelling life, and for many people probably such space will never be available.

 

My reaction, and I did not know TW at that time, was to make a few attempts at ECML in spare rooms, which unsurprisingly didn't work, and then to retreat to my armchair endlessly to work out paper schemes which would never get built. My counsel of perfection- prototype or nothing, resulted in nothing. If everyone took that stance, there would be an awful lot of nothing, and probably no model railway hobby. Of course there are smaller prototypes, though the vast majority of those in 4mm would still require more space than most people have got, that's why there were so many fictional terminus to fiddle yard layouts, and latterly TMD's. The people who built those did a lot better than I did, that's for sure.

 

How I wish I had built something through all those wasted years. It wouldn't have been to prototype, but now belatedly I see that really doesn't matter. Before Peterborough North came a large layout also called Peterborough, and based on an alternatve universe imagination of how the real thing might have developed. I enjoyed building that, though it never quite satisfied me. It was though a more difficult and thought provoking exercise than this one has been. Now "all" I have to do is to look at the real thing and try to reproduce it. What would the signalling have been like at PN? Look at photos and signal box diagrams. How would my alternative have been signalled? That required research, and a need to understand how the real railway worked, nowhere near as easy. Of course research, and plenty of it, is needed for a prototype model, but my view is that those who succeed in producing a freelance model that is immediately evocative of the real thing have achieved a more difficult end result. In saying that, I do not intend to decry for example Jim S-W's magnum opus. To build a prototype of such magnitude and complexity single handed in P4 is about as difficult as it gets I reckon.

 

I'm not going to post comparison photos of my layout here, as I don't think they stand up to close scrutiny. The compression I have had to accept to get the whole thing into 25 ft means that the angles are all wrong, and photos show that all too clearly. Even with this large space then, I can't correctly model a prototype, so what hope do most people have?

 

Time to stop rambling. Here's how I sum it up. If the necessary space is available, modelling a prototype is in my personal opinion the way to go. If it isnt, do something!  We tend to start out with small spaces, portable layouts, or something in the spare room or similar. That's no bad thing, learning is best done on a layout that is not too demanding in terms of expense or experience. I admit I do worry when people announce a very large and complex scheme for their first foray into the hobby. As experience grows, hopefully people raise the bar somewhat and try to improve, but that isn't obligatory either. The hobby is what the individual wants it to be, no more, no less.

[Joseph_Pestell]

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

 

I would not regard Pempoul as freelance. It is a representation of a typical Reseau Breton station (typical, that is, of the western extension).

 

I agree with others that pure freelance is quite difficult to get right. You really need to create some history - perhaps starting from the many proposed railway projects that never made it past Parliament. LNW to South Wales via High Wycombe and Oxford???

 

And then there are railways that might have been taken over by a different company than they were. H&B tank engines in Midland livery???

[Joseph_Pestell]

I have not read the TW article but I would be surprised if he has been so deprecating as to put off aspiring members of the hobby. He has often written to provoke thought. And why not? So have other fine modellers. And Andy should be allowed to as well. He was careful to separate a personal opinion from the RMWeb official position.

 

TMD layouts don't really float my boat - especially if too many seen at once at an exhibition. But we should all be grateful to their owners - and to those who are running setrack "train sets" at home. It is these guys that create the volume market that makes it possible for the manufacturers to supply us with the super r-t-r products (including ECML Pacifics) that are available these days.

[Clive Mortimore]

Actually prototypical.

 

There is a long list of sheds, albeit mostly small 1 track sheds not the large MPDs of post grouping days, that had no obvious watering facility. That is in addition to those where watering was provided by a tank within the roof structure (a few roundhouses) or on the platforms of the local station. Much the same comment can be made of coaling and ash plants (the latter quite rare) and where a pile of coal or dumped ash was the only facility. So just because you have a shed does not mean that you must have a water tower to please those who think there must be one and still remain prototypical.

A steam locomotive shed without a means of refilling the water tanks of a tank loco or the tender on a tender loco serves no purpose. Just like a diesel depot with no fuel tanks. Roof tank and on the platforms equates to a water supply. Most depots were built close to source, the water tower, the tank in the roof or on the platform was a means of storing this water as and when needed.

 

Please could you share this long list of depots with no water?

[Chubber]

 

.  In contrast look at a couple of steam depots - another emerging theme but with both, say, Haymarket Cross (fictional location) and York (real location but only a tiny part of it modelled) there is an air of believability in the way thing are laid out and can be seen to be capable of being worked.  A lot of the diesel depots simply don't have that air of believability about them I'm afraid - and over the years I worked at several, and they've all closed apart from one which will be going soon.

 

 

If SM will pardon me quoting just part of his post.....

 

Oh! How I agree with the last paragraph. I give Maindee East as another example.

 

http://www.scalefour.org/layouts/exhibmaindee.html

 

Yes, it's Scalefour, a standard that many think of as 'difficult to do' or even 'exclusive', but the same layout would still produce a credible model in Peco Code 75. It's one of the layout that induced me to return to practical railway modelling after a near 40 year absence, knowing  I probably don't have years enough left to learn enough to get good enough to build anything near enough like it.

 

On the other hand, when I first saw, for instance, Jim S-W's slice of Brum in the flesh I was gob-smacked and remain deeply respectful of his skills, but readily admit being entertained and entranced by a tiny circular freelance NG layout in Bordeaux on which both locomotives were driven by rabbits! 

[Stormy Stan]

I am pretty new to this hobby and forum, my historical and technical knowledge of railways is very limited.

I built a 6x4 HO layout, really enjoyed it but but soon realised it wasn't what I wanted.

I've now moved to N Gauge and have a 6x2 which i'm about to extend to 12x2.

I managed to buy three DCC diesel loco's second hand from a great little shop in Eastbourne.

Should they run together, do i care?

Is it an accurate portrayal of a railway anywhere in the world? do i care?

So why do i bother?

I shut myself away from the world, love making the models, doing the landscaping and generally creating something, standing back and saying "I did that"

 

i think what I'm trying to say is that if I want to do something that someone else can criticise I'll go to work.

Having said that I do look in awe at some of your layouts.

[fender]

After mulling this topic over for a while, and re-reading TWs article again, I'd like to ask the $64,000 question......

 

What area would suit being modelled that would allow for 'interesting' stock movements but would fit on a 6'x2' board (not including fiddle yard).

 

I've looked at the Allerton/Speke area of Liverpool, and there is no way that would fit. Although the wheel lathe at Allerton TMD did have some interesting visitors, there is no way to condense the track plan.

 

The Bournemouth station/depot area is similar, and adding 3rd rail might be a bit of an ask for a novice.

 

What elements should we as modellers be looking for when we ask this question? Is modelling an 'ultra detailed' single track line with some original local cameos on a par with TWs own model, or is the station and track layout complexity what makes TWs layout stand out as exceptional prototype modelling? Is it the prototype buildings being modelled correctly? Just what is it that creates that 'atmosphere'? And how do you justify what to leave out or condense or alter when making a prototype fit the space available? At what point does an 'altered prototype' become a fictional location with delusions of being 'X Station'?

 

Maybe if those of us who are 'fictional' modellers could understand these points better, we could maybe move to a more prototype way of modelling without losing the fun which fiction allows so freely.

 

Mark

the thing is, it's one thing to be able to take great photos of a fantastic model but another to have the space to actually show an overview of a train in a prototypical landscape. with only 6ft in length, there aren't many trains that are going to look 'right', and in the 10ft I will have to model with the same applies. a 6-coach train is about 6 feet long, and so will take up the entire scenery of such a layout, not looking very typical, and main line trains are often, if not usually, longer than 6 coaches! I've grudgingly accepted that main-line prototypical modelling isn't possible unless you have a good 20-25ft-long scenic section, so I've gone the branch-line route. :-(

[Guest Phil]

I would not regard Pempoul as freelance. It is a representation of a typical Reseau Breton station (typical, that is, of the western extension).

 

I agree with others that pure freelance is quite difficult to get right. You really need to create some history - perhaps starting from the many proposed railway projects that never made it past Parliament. LNW to South Wales via High Wycombe and Oxford???

 

And then there are railways that might have been taken over by a different company than they were. H&B tank engines in Midland livery???

Sorry Joseph, but you cannot sit on the fence. Pempoul is either a model of a real station, or it is fictional. It really doesn't matter either way, because the workmanship (and workladyship !!) is absolutely stunning. Black Country Blues is in a similar vein, in that it is pretty much what would have been built, had it been built, but it is actually ficticious and there is nothing at all wrong with that.

 

My project will be massively compressed in order to get over a linear mile of track into a 12x12 loft, but it is loosely based on a real location. Maybe when I older and inherit a huge great barn, I might come up with something more scale, but there is no stigma to ficticious at all.