Modelling prototype places.

[toplink@()1989))((]

Just wondering what the general consensus is regarding building a model of a real railway. It seems to me that it is perfectly acceptable to compress a station or other location to fit into an available space, but what about changing the track layout to one that looks similar but has different components, eg; slips instead of two or three points, 3 way points instead of two points? Would it be acceptable to keep the layouts name the same as the prototype? Am I just being pedantic? or paranoid?

 

I am just curious, I am going to build the layout anyway, I may name it "inspired by"

 

 

Just thought I'd ask.  

 

 

Pete. 

[KalKat]

Well........ I intend building a layout of Haywards Heath (Southern Region ex LBSCR), although due to spatial difficulties, it will have to be curved. As this is not how the real location is - I shall be calling it Waywards Heath

 

 

 

Emma

['CHARD]

You are no doubt aware of Jim Smith-Wright's famed P4 New Street, a veritable work of art and labour of love.

 

http://www.p4newstreet.com/plans

 

What you may be less aware of is the elephant in that particular public realm.  Namely the absence of one entire island platform in an otherwise faithful scale replica of the iconic station.  Still convinces the viewer though!  

[The Johnster]

FWIW, I would say that if you have captured the essential feel and look of the location, if you think it would be instantly recognisable to anyone who knew the place before they realise that there are differences, then there is little to worry about.  There is little to worry about anyway as it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks unless we are talking about an exhibition layout.  

 

My own blt is an 'inspired by' setup, but does not claim to be a model of the place that inspires it and has the name of a different geographical location, one that never actually had a railway at all.  I found that this approach gave me the escape I needed from the discipline of modelling an actual location, but allowed me to retain the actual location's general appearance as a guide, retaining some of it's distinctive atmosphere which I would otherwise have lost, and so to avoid making a 'generic' model railway that looked like hundreds of others, not that there's anything wrong with doing that, it just isn't what I wanted to do.  It also enabled me to construct a back story for the named actual location's non existent railway, something I rather enjoyed doing!

 

I have been involved in club layouts of actual locations in the past, and it is a very satisfying thing to do, but my current layout has to fit into an extremely restricted space, and a credible scale representation of any practical real location that would sustain my interest in operation is not possible.  For me, prototypical operation is the most important aspect of any layout.  The real location layouts I have been previously involved in were pretty seriously compressed, but we considered that the actual track layouts had to be reproduced, along with the signalling, so that railwaymen who had worked them in reality would recognise them.  Buildings were however built to HO scale in order to compress them, a dodge I can recommend as nobody ever noticed!

 

So, IMHO, a dramatic amount of linear compression can be got away with, as can some compression of width (certainly a location that had, say, 6 sidings would not be seriously compromised as a model with 4 or 5), but the replacement of single turnouts with slips or 3-ways would be unacceptable, at least to me, but I would not consider that my views should be imposed on anyone else, just giving my 5 penn'orth.  Maybe some 3-ways in sidings...  I would find turnouts of smaller than scale radius acceptable, however, provided the general proportions of the place are respected and the prototypical operational movements can be properly recreated.  But Rule 1 is the first rule because it is the most important one, and all of this is merely intended as general comment and advice.

 

Good luck with the layout anyway, Pete, whatever you decide about the name; if you enjoy building it and operating it, you will be able to call it a success!

[Chris M]

Compression and the addition of tunnels is almost inevitable. For me its about trying to create the character of the place. Changing points may change the way the layout is operated, if it did then that would detract from the character. Its all down to what works for you.

Looking at real locations the track plan is often very different to a typical model railway track plan - the use of trap points, more single and double slips, fewer facing points etc etc. Studying real locations and how they were worked helps to make a better model.

Its down to individuals but I like trying to capture the essence of a real location; I find it more satisfying. I have built two layouts of this type and taken them to exhibitions. People do like seeing a recognisable place even if a few liberties have been taken. I've only heard people being enthusiastic about these layouts showing a real location and never criticism because the model isn't an exact copy of the real thing.

 

This is my OO Bodmin Road layout from the 1980s

 

And this my current N gauge layout which I call Little Aller Junction as I have added tunnels and dropped the goods loop and sidings that were just past the junction. 

 

 

Seems my taste in locos hasn't changed much over the years.

[Guest]

I am going to build the layout anyway, I may name it "inspired by"

 

That is by far the best attitude. Just build it and tweak it as much as you need to. There are those in the modelling world that would no doubt "tut" that we've had to shorten something, build something on a curve, add a tunnel where there never was a tunnel etc etc. Who cares? Critics of that nature are usually the ones who have never built anything.

For peace of mind, stick as closely to the prototype features as you can, but when compromise forces your hand, don't let it bother you too much/at all.

Best of all, enjoy. Good luck.

[jamie92208]

I have always found it easier to model a real location rather than an imaginary one.  As you say though there are always compromises to fit the real world.   My current layout Lancaster (Green Ayre) is a case in point.  To test it I had to make it fir into my church, it does this with an inch to spare.  To make a continuous run via a fiddle yard  curves had to be introduced at the east end which have altered the geometry and geography of that area.   Also I had to lose 10' from the Goods yard and loco shed area, along with 5 spans on the river bridge.  Depth constraints meant losing a siding near the shed and a range of buildings along the front of the shed have not been modelled.   One of the most surprising areas was in operation.   The yards were designed for horse shunting with very short headshunts that only took one wagon.  I've had to lengthen them to allow for a loco to do the work as I can't motorise model shunting horses. 

 

In the areas where there has been compression we have had some very interesting discussions about how large buildings should be and if all of them should be modelled.   The Goods shed has only got 2 bays instead of three and a couple of buildings in the goods yard have been omitted.   Scenic breaks can be difficult so what I've done is to move real over bridges nearer to the area that I've modelled, thus the railway goes through models of real structures. However I feel that we've managed to capture the essence of the station. 

 

Jamie

[Chris M]

As I recall the double slip in the Bodmin Road photo should have been two points back to back but the double slip was the only way to get it all in.

 

Can't believe I was running Enterprise in desert sand (1962-64) at the same time as a Brush 4. The Brushes didn't get that far South West until 1966.

[phil_sutters]

I have just spent the last year on building the first phase of a diorama based on the SDJR's Highbridge Wharf, which I used to live near. As I calculated I would need 10m x 3m to build the whole wharf complex with all its railway and commercial structures and have only got about 2m x 1m, I decided to call it Old Brue Quay, as it stands on the original path of the River Brue.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/album/4186-the-highbridge-wharf-project/

I have to admit I am a bit intolerant of layouts named after locations, or with the same name as locations, I know and that are substantially different from or totally unlike the real thing. Seaford's single platform station name was used for a more complex layout elsewhere in the country. Catford seems to have been relocated to Bath, because the builder's wife likes cats. Dulwich Vale is out in the green country way to the south of the Dulwich in south London. I suppose my grumpiness arises from the disappointment of seeing something, posted on the front of a magazine, that I can relate to and then finding it is nothing or very little like the place I know. As I have been told in this site before, it is up to the modellers to make their choices, so I try to behave and not complain about specific ones in the related threads, but this thread has given me the opportunity to explain why I am a grumpy old man. So thanks for that!

[The Johnster]

Nothing wrong with being a grumpy old man, Phil, I've been doing it for years.  You've got to have a back up hobby for when you are away from your layout...

 

Cwmdimbath, my South Wales blt, is 'based on', 'inspired by' or whatever you prefer to describe it as, Abergwynfi, though it is in no way a scale model of this station, having proprietary buildings (albeit modified a bit) and two extra sidings, and not having the Avon colliery branch.  The real Cwmdimbath is a remote and isolated valley of a tributary stream to the Ogwr Fach that comes in just above Blackmill, farmed in it's lower reaches and forested in the trackless wilderness of it's upper reaches, where it is very steep and narrow.  It never had a railway, despite being located in one of the most exploited parts of the coalfield; there is coal beneath it all right but it is undermined, literally, by pits in Gilfach Goch, Clydach Vale, and the Ogwr Fawr valley.  It is a vestige of the sylvan loveliness that must have characterised all of the Glamorgan valleys in the days before the industrial revolution, but on my model is reimagined with a railway, off-scene colliery, village, and the bare mountainsides of a mining valley where all the trees are long ago felled for pit props.  Not sure I've done it any favours by showing it in it's imagined 50s industrial semi-dereliction, but I haven't harmed the real place!  The bare mountainside and a few trespassing sheep define it as South Wales before a coal wagon even appears!

 

You might be intolerant of this, as is your right, especially if you were familiar with the real Cwmdimbath, but I doubt you are, there are people in Tondu only 3 miles away who've never heard of it.  I have, in a way, told two lies with my layout; it isn't Abergwynfi, though it looks a bit like it from some angles, and it isn't Cwmdimbath either, not looking anything like that from any angle, but I can live with myself...

[HillsideDepot]

Leaving out a siding or two, or compressing two points into a double slip are probably the sorts of compromise most people think of when modelling a real place. But I did it by leaving out almost all of the station!

 

Although only partly completed on this shot (I really must get the layout out of store and in front of the camera) it should hopefully be recognisable as the the loco stabling sidings which once stood in the middle of London's Liverpool Street station. The sidings themselves are pretty much to scale (it seems BR used Peco Streamline!), but in reality the station continued all around the little bit I've modelled. I wanted to make it a Western Region location, so the electrification gantries were ignored, but I think I've captured the essence of the place, even if people do a double take when they see hydraulics on the Great Eastern!

 

And the name? London Liverpool Street became London Road Stabling Sidings as a nod to the inspiration.

[Kris]

Nothing wrong with compression / selective removal of certain elements, so long as you are honest about it. It bugs me when something is claiming to something else and it certainly isn't. 

[toplink@()1989))((]

Well as the consensus so far is basically, get on with it, I will, (I was anyway) so a brief description, it will be an exhibition layout, I don't have room for a fixed O scale layout, it  will be a branch terminus, (not GWR, done to death) of Great Eastern origin, based post war, the basic layout of the station will be as was, but compressed and narrowed, the buildings will match those built so anyone familiar with it should recognise it. I will start a separate thread in Layout topics when I have the bare bones started. Thank you all for your replies, being a grumpy old man myself, I also love to pick fault with everything, (it drives my missus mad) but would never dream of sharing my opinion if it caused offence, but I did ask, so thanks again.

 

Cheers, Pete.   

[The Johnster]

You're welcome, mate.  Keep us posted to how it progresses!

[Clive Mortimore]

Leaving out a siding or two, or compressing two points into a double slip are probably the sorts of compromise most people think of when modelling a real place. But I did it by leaving out almost all of the station!

DSC_0425b.jpg

 

Although only partly completed on this shot (I really must get the layout out of store and in front of the camera) it should hopefully be recognisable as the the loco stabling sidings which once stood in the middle of London's Liverpool Street station. The sidings themselves are pretty much to scale (it seems BR used Peco Streamline!), but in reality the station continued all around the little bit I've modelled. I wanted to make it a Western Region location, so the electrification gantries were ignored, but I think I've captured the essence of the place, even if people do a double take when they see hydraulics on the Great Eastern!

 

And the name? London Liverpool Street became London Road Stabling Sidings as a nod to the inspiration.

Hi Adrian

 

Liverpool Street, western built and full of oil. It is the closest I could get.

 

 

It was actually being shunted but a photo does show that well.

[HillsideDepot]

Thanks Clive.

 

I have got a Lima milk tank repainted (although I think Lima did actually produce the livery). I've not done the lettering, and the big overhead warning flash is superfluous on the Western (no comments about "our" electrification project, please!), but it does sometimes rest against the blocks on the model. Certainly its appearance in many photos and the availability of a model helped with the sizes for layout planning.

[rob D2]

Leaving out a siding or two, or compressing two points into a double slip are probably the sorts of compromise most people think of when modelling a real place. But I did it by leaving out almost all of the station!

 

DSC_0425b.jpg

 

Although only partly completed on this shot (I really must get the layout out of store and in front of the camera) it should hopefully be recognisable as the the loco stabling sidings which once stood in the middle of London's Liverpool Street station. The sidings themselves are pretty much to scale (it seems BR used Peco Streamline!), but in reality the station continued all around the little bit I've modelled. I wanted to make it a Western Region location, so the electrification gantries were ignored, but I think I've captured the essence of the place, even if people do a double take when they see hydraulics on the Great Eastern!

 

And the name? London Liverpool Street became London Road Stabling Sidings as a nod to the inspiration.

 

I like that. Instantly recognisable if you've seen a picture of the stabling there and a good way to get round the space of a big terminus.

 

I like to take real aspects and fuse them to make my ideal location, as nothing really exists that has everything I want

I'm thing at the present about a stabling point like the one near penzance station but importing the single road diesel shed from Exeter.