How close to accurate do you need to be?

[Bungus the Fogeyman]

Just to add to this debate, George Woodcock and John Norton use the 'almost but not quite' naming effect. In this months Toddeler is Framplington, which is Framlingham in all but name. Also Fenchurch St Peters is Middle Drove by the same methodology. George has also produced Falworth (Lapford) and Bedlam Heath (Lenham) on his own. All have featured in the model railway press, when George gives a plausible and well-reasoned explanation for the change in nomenclature.....this also gives an opportunity to deviate away from the rigid confines of slavishly operating as per prototype. 

Has it diminished the quality of the layouts? Ask the many people who cluster round all of the above layouts (or did when they were on the circuit) in great numbers and you'll find the answer is a resounding NO! Top quality stuff every time!

Go for it and damn the naysayers!

 

Disgusting of Market Harborough

 

[Regularity]

On 29/12/2019 at 14:33, Compound2632 said:

Define "need".

Define “accurate”.

Operationally: all the correct moves can be made, but it might involve the use of set track, with some work arounds to create anything beyond a turnout of a diamond crossing. This would still enable the prototype operations to be performed. Even more accurate with signals.

Representationally: the main features of the prototype are retained, including the relative positions of buildings, but due to selective compression, some facets are altered, for example the introduction of three-way/tandem turnouts and slips, which enable close operational fidelity in less space. Even more representational, but less accurate, if curves are made sharper/introduced instead of straight lines.

Dimensionally: every piece of track, every building, every item of rolling stock, every signal, etc, is modelled precisely to scale (or as near enough as engineering tolerances will allow).

 

No one else can decide what your definition of accuracy is, neither can they understand your personal needs.

 

If it walks like a duck, dives like a duck, swims and flies like a duck, then it’s either a duck or an incredibly well made decoy...

 

If someone can look at the layout and say, “Ah, that’s Spalding, or based on Spalding,” or wherever, then you have achieved your purpose. Ultimately, we get to a simple question: for whom are you building this layout, and for what purpose?

 

If you are building for a museum, then you may have to get as close to dimensional accuracy as possible, but even then, not necessarily so. Otherwise, if people who know the prototype can recognise it in your layout, and it serves whatever you want, then you have been successful.

[Compound2632]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

If someone can look at the layout and say, “Ah, that’s Spalding, or based on Spalding,” or wherever, then you have achieved your purpose.

 

Or, indeed, look at it and say: "Great Northern" (or whatever) without it being a representation of a specific actual location.

[Colin_McLeod]

21 hours ago, Regularity said:

If someone can look at the layout and say, “Ah, that’s Spalding, or based on Spalding,” or wherever, then you have achieved your purpose.

 

Agreed.

If it looks right, it is right.

Edited August 18, 2020 by Colin_McLeod

[Compound2632]

33 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Agreed.

If it looks right, it is right.

 

Ah but that depends on the observer having a good knowledge of the prototype, or of prototype practice. What looks right to one person may have a screaming anachronism leaping out at another.

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Ah but that depends on the observer having a good knowledge of the prototype, or of prototype practice. What looks right to one person may have a screaming anachronism leaping out at another.

Which is why it’s all personal, and down to taste and choice. I look for consistency. That and an acknowledgment of what the definition of accuracy is for the individual. 
 

It’s actually a fundamental question, but I would phrase it more along the lines of, “How am I going to balance the competing needs of different kinds of accuracy against my available resources, such that I enjoy both the process and the outcome?”

 

I know what my answers would be, but my needs and resources are not the same as anyone else.

[Compound2632]

Indeed. It boils down to the question of, what is going to provide me with the greatest pleasure? 

 

Unless, of course, you have committed yourself to putting before the paying public an accurate representation of Much Agonising on 16 June 1904, in which case, it's hair shirt time... 

[Chris M]

I really don’t like layouts that are given the name of a real station but look nothing like it.  There will almost always be a need for compromise .  A model of a real place should try to come as close as possible to the track plan. More importantly it should capture the character and feel of the place. This is far more important than total accuracy.

 

There is something rather special when someone Instantly recognises your location. I have found visitors to exhibitions are almost invariably very supportive of all efforts to model a real place, so long as it is recognisable.

[Les1952]

There are limits to what you can achieve, mostly because most of us don't have the luxury of a hundred-odd feet of length to play with.  Or for that matter the luxury of being able to have fifty-foot radius curves....

 

Given the compression needed it becomes a question of which is more important-

 

a.  to get a small part of the location 100% right   - or

 

b.  to get enough right to get the feel and character of the place?

 

Given that I will only ever have eight feet of scenic length to play with if I'm to make an exhibition layout that I can transport and which show managers can afford I tend to the second.  All four of my exhibition layouts have been recognised by people from the location, despite the fact that only one purports to be a model of the actual place, and even that is only accurate within the station confines.  For the others I've used an actual location with a fictional history to give an impression of an area, which seems to work.

 

There isn't a set answer to the question.  What suits some will be anathema to others.  However we should have room in the hobby for ALL points of view.

 

Les

 

 

[TravisM]

I’m now building two layouts, one is portable and is a representation of Elton, Cambridgeshire station set between 2018/19, had it remained open and the Peterborough - Northampton line kept.  I can be quite liberal with my ideas and hopefully it will look the business.

 

My other layout is based on Heckington, again set 2018/19 which is permanent but has a big drawback as the platform will be curved against the prototype’s straight platform.  I’m getting round this by raising the layout to chest height which will hopefully trick the eyes into thinking that the platform is straighter than it is.

Edited August 27, 2020 by jools1959
Typo

[Fenman]

The novelist Borges wrote a short story about a culture which was obsessed with accurate mapping. Ultimately, they decided their only option if they were to achieve complete accuracy was a map at a scale of 1:1. They moved to a "total mapping economy", diverting as much resource as they could to this grand project but, unfortunately, they were dissatisfied with the outcome. They felt it did not capture with total accuracy the territory that was being mapped. So, with huge ambition and a sense of "one last heave", they embarked on a new project: a map at a scale of 2:1. Only by doing this were they confident they could achieve real accuracy. Everything was put behind this great effort. But, ultimately, so great was the effort required that the entire country collapsed before the project could be completed. A few years later all that was left were a few torn scraps of map-paper, blowing in the wind.

 

Borges tells a beautiful story but it's also a cautionary tale. You only have to read some of the threads on here which descend into "gauge wars" to know how passionate some people are about "accuracy"; but, to me as an outsider, it feels a bit odd.

 

My last model was an expaned 00 Minories but, since moving house a few years ago, I've just been daydreaming. The most persistent dream has been the long-lost terminus at Norwich City, a long, thin station with four platforms, the two outermost roughly 600' long, the two inner bays roughly 300'. In shifting to 0 gauge, and imaging a world after the closure of the bombed-out original in the early 1960s, even though I have a big attic I can see that a compression of the platforms to the equivalent of 300'/150' would probably be visually acceptable, still leaving a sense of space if it used, as I suspect it would, mostly 2 or 3 car DMUs, or a loco with a few BGs or GUVs. They would still feel like smaller late-60s-ish trains in a run-down "make-do-and-mend" setting that was originally designed for much bigger trains. The "feel" of it would be right, for me. But since the whole thing is anyway a fantasy and it will never leave my attic, I'm not sure any of that matters terribly much.

 

The most important thing is that it gives me pleasure. Which is why I have no qualms about pre-ordering a Heljan Clayton to join in the party...

 

Paul

[Compound2632]

It's a sure sign of a high-class discussion when a South American novelist is cited.

[eastworld]

On ‎24‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 15:46, Compound2632 said:

It's a sure sign of a high-class discussion when a South American novelist is cited.

Unless you're in South America. Or you are South American.

 

Stu

[Tallpaul69]

On ‎16‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 16:53, Bungus the Fogeyman said:

Just to add to this debate, George Woodcock and John Norton use the 'almost but not quite' naming effect. In this months Toddeler is Framplington, which is Framlingham in all but name. Also Fenchurch St Peters is Middle Drove by the same methodology. George has also produced Falworth (Lapford) and Bedlam Heath (Lenham) on his own. All have featured in the model railway press, when George gives a plausible and well-reasoned explanation for the change in nomenclature.....this also gives an opportunity to deviate away from the rigid confines of slavishly operating as per prototype. 

Has it diminished the quality of the layouts? Ask the many people who cluster round all of the above layouts (or did when they were on the circuit) in great numbers and you'll find the answer is a resounding NO! Top quality stuff every time!

Go for it and damn the naysayers!

 

Disgusting of Market Harborough

 

My way round this problem is to name the layout in such a way that it tells you the general region without using a station name:-

So my 12ft x 8ft round and round layout is called "Lower Thames Yard". It is as best I can get in the space an impression of the west end of Maidenhead Station, the High Wycombe branch junction and a few 100 yards of the branch plus the relief lines of the Reading to Slough line c1960. There are no Mains with expresses dashing through.

Maidenhead Yard is compressed leaving just the up loop and the coal sidings (which disappear behind houses). The Goods Shed has been moved to the town side of the Branch and sits on a siding off the branch Carriage siding so is dead end rather than accurately through.

 

This will allow me to run the trains that interest me most:-

The branch trains will run accurately ,although the goods and Paddington commuter trains will be shortened, and I will infiltrate a few of the main line expresses into an accurate relief line working timetable.

 

So it will give me the type of operation I want. On occasions, when I feel like it, I can let a couple of expresses circle round and round, or a couple of class 9 freights slowly clank round , while I do a bit of shunting, work on the scenic, or just let the world go by!

 

The layout will never be exhibited, so I can sidestep a lot of the silly questions, but if anyone sees it who knows the area, I hope it will speak for itself, if only to say WR out of Paddington in the 1960s.

 

My advice is that only a few elements of "accuracy" are really important in saying where the layout is, so don't get hung up on what you haven't room for or what others will think!

Cheers

Paul  

 

[Derekstuart]

My perspective on this, if it's any help:

I had planned a super-accurate representation of Whitby, with every piece of track worked out to the last detail (was that a B7.5 turnout or a 12ft 7.25 turnout with interlaced sleepers?)

The result? I set myself a challenge that could never be completed- hence my several started/ aborted threads.

 

Whilst I will copy 100% accurate the bits that I can see from pictures and engineering drawings, I now accept that I will have to guess on the rest of it.

 

The result? It's reasonably accurately planned (and no one will be able to say I'm wrong)- but it'll take my remaining lifetime to complete; others could compromise more and complete it far quicker.

The conclusion: Only YOU and YOU alone can decide where the compromise between accuracy, cost, time, robustness etc. Don't forget that there's already a huge compromise to start with- steam locos that run on motors, not steam, plastic to represent wooden sleepers and chairs... Good luck with what you decide.

[ikcdab]

It's a wonderful question and ultimately it's up to you. I always smile when I see statements such as "this is an accurate model of Blogsville, but I have turned the goods sidings round, added an engine shed and left out the milk depot"

It's your layout, do what you will. I have a friend who has a model of a local junction, which is nothing like the prototype in any form whatsoever. But he calls it by the prototype name and we have great fun operating it. 

 

[Chris M]

Just thought I would revive this topic after nearly a year.  Firstly I wonder how the OP is getting on with his projects?

 

I’ve pretty much finished my current project largely thanks to the spare time given to me by lockdown . Conversely one of the problems of the last year is that for most of it nobody was able to see what I have been working on and give feedback as to how they thought it was going. There’s always good and bad.

 

I’ve made my compromises but I think they have worked, well I’m happy. I’ve basically forced something that should be about 18ft long into 12ft. I’ve mainly

missed out what I considered to be a boring section and kept most but not all of the things that were important to me (basically the items stick in my memory). The platforms are scale length as far as I can work out and the track work is close but I have missed out a goods loop as it would have looked very wrong if I had squeezed it into the space I had available. It’s sometimes a rather heavy compromise that we have to make. I would recommend having a go at modelling a real location as it adds a tremendous amount of interest to a project.
 

I don’t plan to take my layout to many shows but it is booked to go to this year’s RailEx Taunton in October. As Taunton is only 45 miles away from the location of my layout I expect I will get some well informed comments. We shall see.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

Looks good on film, and came across very well in RM last month; I enjoyed your article. 

 

To me, your compromises seem few, and very well judged, the sort of compromises that hardly anyone notices until they are confessed to.

[Chris M]

Thanks. One big compromise is missing the Langstone Cliff Hotel. It’s a nice hotel (I’ve stayed there) and the main building is quite interesting but there just wasn’t room.

It will be interesting to see how the layout is received when seen “in the flesh”. 

[TravisM]

On 18/06/2021 at 14:55, Chris M said:

Just thought I would revive this topic after nearly a year.  Firstly I wonder how the OP is getting on with his projects?

 

I’ve pretty much finished my current project largely thanks to the spare time given to me by lockdown . Conversely one of the problems of the last year is that for most of it nobody was able to see what I have been working on and give feedback as to how they thought it was going. There’s always good and bad.

 

I’ve made my compromises but I think they have worked, well I’m happy. I’ve basically forced something that should be about 18ft long into 12ft. I’ve mainly

missed out what I considered to be a boring section and kept most but not all of the things that were important to me (basically the items stick in my memory). The platforms are scale length as far as I can work out and the track work is close but I have missed out a goods loop as it would have looked very wrong if I had squeezed it into the space I had available. It’s sometimes a rather heavy compromise that we have to make. I would recommend having a go at modelling a real location as it adds a tremendous amount of interest to a project.
 

I don’t plan to take my layout to many shows but it is booked to go to this year’s RailEx Taunton in October. As Taunton is only 45 miles away from the location of my layout I expect I will get some well informed comments. We shall see.

 

 

I thought I’d update how my projects are progressing, or rather floundering or just plain dead in the water.  My Elton layout has been abandoned and I’m now modelling Sleaford East Junction in the summer of 2019 using the former Elton boards.

 

Due to my own procrastination to which I’ll happily put my hands up to, and if we’re honest, we’re all guilty of from time to time.  I’ve decided to go for functionality within the space I have, rather than trying to represent somewhere that’s going to be squeezed in or altered to fit.  
 

As my wood butchery and electrics are at best dire, I’ve had the baseboards pre-cut and flat packed to me.  There’s a certain amount of confidence that your able to assemble these without gluing yourself to the boards or slicing fingers off.  Also the track laying and electrics are being done by someone who actually knows what there doing as there’s nothing worse than a nicely modelled layout that won’t run because of dodgy electrics.

[Chris M]

I'm sure most (if not all) of us have started a project and abandoned it. Its all part of learning about the hobby so in a way its a good thing to have done. I got this far in building a layout before I realised it wasn't going to do what I wanted. It was going to be a model of a real location - Le Hospitalet de L'Infant which was quite an interesting little place. I even bought a couple of trains that ran through there before it dawned on me that it wasn't going to be for me.