Real location compromise

[grahame]

Here's one for the team.

 

Is it possible to model a real location, with lashings of simplification, compression and compromise, but still capture character, atmosphere and the essence of the location?

 

I'm in the process of building a layout based on a real location but the models I make for it (currently mostly buildings) are not exact accurate replicas (although they're not really planned to be due to the usual constraints - space, budget, ability, etc.). And now I'm getting a little concerned about the overall balance and look.

 

 

[TheQ]

I couldn't do it, But then 34ft of station into 8ft was pushing it a bit..

[Chris M]

My model of Aller Junction had some compromises so I called it Little Aller Junction.

[Waverley West]

1 hour ago, grahame said:

Is it possible to model a real location, with lashings of simplification, compression and compromise, but still capture character, atmosphere and the essence of the location?

 

 

I think so. Just don't measure anything! Decide what you consider to be the most important/characteristic features you want to include and their relative/proportional dimensions and then model them. Work out whether you can use photographic backscenes to model large buildings or scenery. That can save a huge amount of space.

 

If you do that right, the balance and overall look will hopefully follow.

 

You'll also need a dose of realism and an acceptance that the dimensions are far from perfect. On the flip side, hopefully you'll be carried away by a feeling of "being there".

 

I've modelled the west end of Edinburgh Waverley station, the second-largest station in the country, in a space measuring no more than 2 x 1 metres...

 

 

Don't give up, you'll get there! I originally omitted The Mound from my layout. Only after I had completed the basic scenery did I realise there was something far too important missing. After a deep breath, I ripped out what I had done and added a representation of The Mound and the national gallery using a backscene made from a photograph. Result - a very large building modelled in no more than the thickness of a piece of plywood. 

 

Hope that helps!

 

Cheers

Dave

 

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

There are many things you can do.

Rule #1 It is your layout. You make the rules.

Maybe you can capture the look & feel of a location with some key features. You don't need to get everything right. It could be the station building which has unusual features which you could retain but shrink it a little. It could be a bridge which you simply move a little closer.

 

I am modelling a real location (link to my layout in my signature. I have made several compromises:

There is a line passing almost at right angles across the top. This disappears into tunnels at each end which are set back from the cutting may layout depicts. I don't have enough room to set them back as far, so I have moved them a lot closer.

The retaining wall for the lower level has a big recess near a tunnel mouth. I don't have room for this so I have not modelled it. It is not a key feature so I don't really miss it.

The retaining wall next to the recess has arches each with an alcove. I don't have space to model the alcoves, so I have modelled the arches with flat walls behind them.

The same retaining wall was built in 2 styles. 1 with very deep stanchions & the other shallow. The way the line curves means I don't have room for the deep stanchions where they should be deep, but I have a little spare room where they should be shallow. I have therefore swapped these around.

The line passes into a tunnel at 1 end then under a road bridge at the other. Instead of re-appearing, I will distort the scenery around onto this part. There should be a roundabout in the operating well, but I will model this at the far side of the road bridge instead.

 

I hope you now have some more to think about. Hopefully you can twist some ideas & principles used by myself & Waverley?

[grahame]

Thanks for the comments.

 

I appreciate that as builder/owner of the layout I'm the final arbiter of what is included and over things like compression and compromise. But what I'd like, not withstanding the issues such as limited space, budget, skills, etc.,) is to end up with something that is reminiscent and recognisable as the real location.

 

Fortunately the way we remember and notice places isn't fool-proof for both the builder and viewer. And sometimes there are views and places (even in areas we know) where we haven't actually been. No doubt many have walked along St Thomas Street or Borough High Street (part of the layout I'm building) or maybe travelled through on a bus or seen things from the train on a viaduct. But how many will have actually been in the small courtyard between Telephone House and the old hospital block (as below)? And we often only have a very fleeting or cursory sight of things and quite a poor memory for detail. Hopefully, this plays to the modellers advantage.

 

 

None of the buildings (above) are to scale or accurate replicas (and they're N/2mm scale). And none are actually finished, still requiring details to be made and added. It's a very much a compressed and compromised scene and I'm hoping I've got away with the deception but have still captured the look, character and atmosphere.

 

 

[DCB]

You can get the feel of some locations by selective compression but many layouts are crippled operationally by slavish copying of track plans without proper consideration of how the trains will operate.  Big straight Arched roof, St Pancreas, two X + Kings X.   Big wooden overall roof, one platform and one other road under cover, shouts Ashburton, add a goods shed its Moretonhampstead, lose the shed and add an end wall its Wick, mirror image its Thurso.    As long as any distinctive buildings and rolling stock are pretty much right and you can operate trains then it will probably pass as the station it purports to represent.

Compress the track plan so there is only room to run round one coach and it will look pretty stupid.  Actually some stations didn't have room for tender engines beyond the loop points bso they could not run round their trains, (Faringdon Wilts) so that in itself is a distinctive feature.

That said its also fun to design a completely fictional station based on actual topography, Northleach?  (GWR Andoversford - Witney)  or maybe Kyleakin on the Isle of Skye.  Build ficttional locos as well. Great Fun. Really wind up the rivet counters.

[Chris M]

I think you are using a sensible approach. For me trying to make a model of an actual place, albeit with compromises, is far more satisfying than making a totally fictitious layout. Although that doesn't mean I don't like fictitious layouts built by others - everyone should do what they want so long as they enjoy themselves and get a sense of achievement from it.

 

I posted a photo of my new project under construction and was dead pleased that some folk recognised it even in its very early stages.

[grahame]

17 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

That said its also fun to design a completely fictional station based on actual topography, Northleach?  (GWR Andoversford - Witney)  or maybe Kyleakin on the Isle of Skye.  Build ficttional locos as well. Great Fun. Really wind up the rivet counters.

 

I'm not looking to wind up rivet counters or anyone else. And I get more fun and enjoyment from the building/modelling activity rather than the operation/playing.

 

That said my prototype location of London Bridge should allow for operational variety as it is two stations in one: a through station and a terminus. And with the majority of trains being EMUs there are no concerns about releasing and turning locos and running round. For the period being modelled the loco hauled trains are mainly electro-diesel and diesel operated parcels/newspapers and a few engineers trains. 

 

[Zunnan]

When I planned Bournville, in order to fit the footprint we had available I had to squeeze the entire layout into 14ft frontage which included the return curves to the fiddle yard. At the time the decision was to keep the engine shed track layout absolutely true to prototype, but it very soon became clear that fitting it all in would take up more like 14ft and more, without adding in the return curves. The solution was to compress the engine shed and its approach into 8ft, including the disused junction with the Lifford loop line, which results in the signal box being completely the wrong end of the shed building and the approach road being 2ft too short. Not only that, I also completely deleted Lifford Junction and put the whole main line on the return curve, and omitted entirely Bournville station rather than squeezing a dead straight 8 coach platform onto a 3ft radius curve. But you know what? Even people who remember the real location don't really point out its compromises, except for one chap who used to gain access to the shed roof in order to have his lunch and used to chat to the signalman on the opposite side of the main line...

 

I'm doing the same thing with a WIP exhibition layout, compressing a real location into around half the space it really needs. As long as the landmark features are present and recognisable, you can get away with quite a lot of other compromises.

[37114]

My layout "Parsons Vale" is a big compression of the Malago Vale carriage sidings near Bristol, the biggest challenge as the OP says is getting a balance. I used models of the real buildings, with some of the real stock, and road vehicles seen at the location but then left out some houses. I will let others judge if I have been successful....

[TravisM]

I also asked a very similar question on this thread about “how close to accurate do you have to be” as I’m trying to make a representation of Spalding but with the space constraints I have, getting it right will be difficult.

 

As others have said, it’s your layout and if it looks right to you, then you have succeeded.

[Rivercider]

1 hour ago, 37114 said:

My layout "Parsons Vale" is a big compression of the Malago Vale carriage sidings near Bristol, the biggest challenge as the OP says is getting a balance. I used models of the real buildings, with some of the real stock, and road vehicles seen at the location but then left out some houses. I will let others judge if I have been successful....

Parsons Vale certainly looks the part, I hope to see it for real some day.

And to me Peafore Yard definitely captured the atmosphere of run-down urban Bristol, even though it was not an exact copy.

 

cheers 

[Rivercider]

2 hours ago, grahame said:

 

I'm not looking to wind up rivet counters or anyone else. And I get more fun and enjoyment from the building/modelling activity rather than the operation/playing.

 

 

 

If you are happy with your efforts, then that is the most important thing.

 

I think capturing the atmosphere of a location (even a fictional one)  is as much art as science. I suspect what is important to make it happen will be slightly different. for each of us. At exhibitions that is what I really enjoy, with certain layouts, when the magic happens and I can enter another world for a short while,

 

cheers

[Oldddudders]

Key structures are a good start, and the OP's willingness to extend those well beyond the boundary fence make it even more convincing. I have indeed walked around London Bridge Station's environs many times - not least en route to and from the George Inn for evening team meetings! - but there are buildings he has copied which I didn't know. But if making models is more satisfying than running trains - a view shared by many on RMweb, I know - then keep going. 

 

The track plan for London Bridge is pretty ambitious, even in 2mm, with 16 platforms even after the reductions on the South London side of the station in the early '70s, although I have a feeling there was no platform 5 in those days.   It is, as Grahame says, both terminus and through station, but separating those two is the Low Level - terminating platforms outside the trainshed. How you compress that lot into a feasible model I know not - but look forward to learning more in due course. 

 

 

[37114]

51 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Parsons Vale certainly looks the part, I hope to see it for real some day.

And to me Peafore Yard definitely captured the atmosphere of run-down urban Bristol, even though it was not an exact copy.

 

cheers 

Thanks Kevin, it will be out at Larkrail and a rescheduled Trainwest this year. 

 

To elaborate on my earlier point, Malago Vale was an area I liked from a modelling subject but to model it in 00 would have been 30' long with a fiddle yard at each end or make it a roundy roundy. I had 8ft which precludes the mainline element but still wanted to model most of the scene in this link:

 

https://geeceesfotts.smugmug.com/Trains/CLASS-33/i-QTzHhD2

 

I managed to build this which while most definitely not a direct copy still gives the atmosphere but without the mainline and with some selective compression:

 

 

As Waverley West has ably demonstrated with some creativity and selective compression you can still create something that absolutely screams real location.

[njee20]

We had a similar thread a month or so back (with the same contributors, we're consistent :-) ), I think if you can convey the essence of a place then actual scale dimensions, omissions of features, inclusion of ficticious ones quickly become superfluous.

 

I walk along St Thomas street and out onto Borough High Street every day (well I did until WFH-ageddon), but as you rightly say I've never really paid too much attention to the buildings aside from those at ground level.

 

I'm planning a new layout of a station on the WCML, in roughly 50% of the length. Key compromises will be exaggerating the curve it's on, shorten the platforms, and shorten the distance between the station and the junction at the northern end, but I still reckon I can make a reasonable go of it! I'm quite looking forward to the challenge frankly!

[grahame]

1 hour ago, Oldddudders said:

The track plan for London Bridge is pretty ambitious, even in 2mm, with 16 platforms even after the reductions on the South London side of the station in the early '70s, although I have a feeling there was no platform 5 in those days.  

 

 

Part of the compression and compromise will be reducing the number of platforms and simplifying trackwork. The challenge is in making it look recognisable and authentic looking, despite all the necessary deceptions. But I do have plans for the lower level terminus trainshed.

 

One of the issues is the two tall 60/70s tower blocks: New London Bridge House and Southwark Towers (both demolished now) but even in N/2mm need to be around 2ft high (thankfully the period I'm trying to reflect is before the Shard which scales out at over 7ft tall in N/2mm). It's not possible to reduce storey height (and consequently doorways) by much before they look silly and obvious that someone would have to stoop or duck to get through them and inside. Losing a bay of windows and reducing footprint length is far easier and acceptable.

 

But, of course, the issue is will it all still have character and atmosphere, and look the part.

[bmthtrains - David]

This is similar topic to discussions I have countless times a year with modelmaking students. The issue is what is a model actually a model of?

 

Architectural models, for example, are not (in a professional context) models of buildings, but of ideas and designs. Architects tend to prefer more abstract models because of this, allowing the essence of the design concept to come through rather than just a literal likeness of a proposed building.

 

There is a hard to find but excellent book by James King called Remaking the World that looks at why people model railways, aircraft, dolls houses etc, and again the emphasis is on modelling an essence or idea rather than reality.

 

With model railways, exact replicas can often look less ‘real’ than more creative interpretations, as character and sense of place comes from unreliable memories and perceptions that are much more subjective. Capturing the period is just as important as capturing the location.

 

I have no doubt that your London Bridge model will ‘be’ London Bridge no matter how much it deviates from reality given how superbly you captured the feel of South London on your previous layouts.

 

David

[Tallpaul69]

Hi Grahame

If the layout is for your benefit and will not be exhibited, then the only person that needs to be happy with it is YOU!!

 

I, for instance, am more concerned with being able to operate a reasonable representation of the trains that operated around Maidenhead in 1960/2 than I am with the scenic side being a slavish copy of the original.

 

So in my layout "Lower Thames Yard", in a 12x8 room I only have room for the Relief Lines and High Wycombe branch- the Mains have gone!

But I am more interested in the Goods, Parcels and local passenger trains than the expresses, so no problem for me. The buildings of the station are used as scenic divides and there are no visible platforms. Other buildings in the area a reduced in size, moved, or omitted. So the goods shed has moved from the yard to adjacent and in front of the Branch platform overall roof. But what is important for me is that it can still be operated in a similar manner to the original .

 

Currently, for instance, I am trying to finalise the position of the signal box. This in reality moved in 1963 from the station end of the yard to between the branch platform and up relief platform lines. My problem is lack of space between the two lines so the signal box may have to stay where it was at the near end of the yard, despite my having bought forward the change from semaphores to colour lights, which was the reason for the box moving (and its design changing!) from 1963 to 1962.

Only I will know about this, so I am not worrying about it.

 

So really, I am saying, don't let your compromises spoil your enjoyment of the layout, provided it is built and operated in reasonable accordance with UK railway and building construction and operation norms.

 

Good luck,

Best regards

Paul

 

[Wingman Mothergoose]

On 18/03/2020 at 10:16, grahame said:

Here's one for the team.

 

Is it possible to model a real location, with lashings of simplification, compression and compromise, but still capture character, atmosphere and the essence of the location?

 

I'm in the process of building a layout based on a real location but the models I make for it (currently mostly buildings) are not exact accurate replicas (although they're not really planned to be due to the usual constraints - space, budget, ability, etc.). And now I'm getting a little concerned about the overall balance and look.

 

 

 

Hi Grahame,

It's definitely possible! I'm building Richmond in North Yorkshire, based around a model of the station buildings I bought nearly 2 years ago. I'm having to compress the station track layout slightly, to take account of the space I have and the curves I have to put in to get the layout around the walls of my garage. Don't think that I've simplified the layout much as it was pretty simple to begin with, but I have had to omit at least 2 sidings as a compromise to fit the layout on my baseboards(which were built with a different location in mind!) and I can't fit in the coal drops either. 

It will however, have the feel and look of the real Richmond(I hope!), when its complete....

 

Chris G

 

[Bochi]

Iain Rice is always writing about "Layout Design Elements" which are characteristic reference points to fix the layout in a time and place. I do think it's possible to make a list of such things whether or not you're modelling a real location or a "might have been" and create an overall effect from them.

I certainly hope it's possible to capture atmosphere in spite of compromises! I am currently beginning a layout depicting Newton Stewart in Galloway. My feeling is that as long as the layout plan can be operated prototypically then compression, thinning out sidings (perhaps so the rest become more accessible) and the exact positioning of some elements is not so important. 

[TerryD1471]

I can only respond based on my own experience, having decided many years ago to build a model of Hest Bank in 4mm. The plan required some selective compression at the south end,  the run of the main line to be bent the wrong way and (most importantly) that I would not try and build exact replicas of the buildings that formed the backdrop. Not enough lifetimes! This latter aspect was sorted by ensuring that the buildings were all the right general type in the right order i.e. where there was a bungalow or a semi-detached house on the prototype, there would be one on the model. Much use made of Airfix/Dapol kits and resin cast. Also the terrain was the right general configuration.

 

Those who have seen the layout and know the area say that it reminds them very much of the location and that's good enough for me. Add in the right locos and stock and you have achieved a result.

[Chris M]

Luckily for me the local road is just too far from the station for the houses to be included on my layout. 

I took the pragmatic (well cheap and easy) approach. I grabbed photos of the houses in the road at the back of my layout from street view. I then modified them to look more like the back of the house than the front and made them about the right size. I then dropped them onto a backscene I had made in paint.net from my own photos and got the whole lot printed. I now have all the houses from the road and in the correct order. I'm quite pleased with the results. It's a shame I will be putting up a line of trees between the end of the gardens and the station which will obscure the view.

 

What surprised me was that, when I drew things up to scale all the houses were over a foot from the station even in N gauge.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Chris M

[TheQ]

I admire Waverly's work, that station and area are instantly recognisable,, the  compression is not that noticable..

 

When I tried previous versions of Ludgershall, I found compression didn't work, because the impressions of the station in real life were of somewhere wide open and windswept. If you compress the platforms it just becomes a small country station as it was pre 1905..

Off station some buildings will have to come a bit closer, to get the equivalent row of bungalows as shown above, but  in Astor Crescent overlooking the railway, I need about 240mm, but I've only got about half that amount of space..