Real location compromise

[Methuselah]

     Returning to railway modelling, this was, broadly speaking, something I wrestled with at some length, as I was focussed upon building a real location as accurately as reasonably possible - and running scale-length trains. For simplicity I broke it all down into three very broad categories ;-

1. 100% accurate in dimensions and form.
2. Some reduction of (1) above - yet not enough to be noticeable.
3. Altered in size and form such to make this immediately noticeable. Really - a compromise too far.

     I had a large space available - of apx' 20' x 30'. As an example, Lapworth really needed around 60' to get it right, and bending it through even one right-angle would have destroyed the appearance. Railways are, by and large, essentially linear in nature.... Keen as I was, I just couldn't see it looking right shrunk down and twisted out of all recognition. Compromises can be odious things........

 

     Thus I cast around and and plumped for a more modest branch-line station that I knew was more feasible. Tenbury was the focus of my attention. The problem then was that the range of traffic would be very very limited. As it happened, close by, the branch had a junction with the old H&S main line at Woofferton...... Thus I planned to have the branch one side of the room, and the main line and junction on the other. That wasn't really a bad plan. Unfortunately, I then decided to include the (Relatively short.) goods loops just north of the mainline junction to add some simple operational interest......

      Now I was back to a length that was simply not compressible to anything that would have looked right and still fit into the room. Having become attached to the locations in question - the only alternative was to build a dedicated building to house it.

 

     If (1) cannot be achieved, (2) is the default. If even (2) cannot be achieved, I came to the conclusion that I was obvious that I was looking at a totally unsuitable prototype. Building a dedicated building is not always an option. Fortunately I have the space. Even so, some compromise has crept in. The trackwork where the branch diverges will be truncated, as the new shed simply can't be made wide enough. However, the sections of mainline itself and the branch stations etc will all be correct in length and form, but strictly, the diorama will fit into (2), and I hope that when it's all complete, this won't detract too much.

 

     The irony is that, the overall length of the mainline is now approaching what was necessary for Lapworth..... Ah well - too late now....😬

 

 

 

[Tallpaul69]

As someone said in an earlier post, its your layout, so Rule 1 is the key!

Also, unless a lot of very knowledgeable folk are going to see the layout (for instance if you exhibit it), you are the only one who has to accept and live with compromises.

I started out with a room 12ft x 8ft and a plan for the two slow lines and the High Wycombe branch junction at Maidenhead, and a line down to a lower level with a big fiddle yard to enable me to run near length trains in the right configurations and quantities.

 

Then Covid came along and the company building the layout for me said that they were only going to build simple layouts that could be built quickly as they did not want to get stuck mid way through a complex project.

 

So they offered me a simple plan which I tweaked and looking around for a suitable prototype found Thame (I am a GWR/WR man).

Then I realised the traffic pattern was not what I wanted, it was too simple, I needed a mainline.

After a lot of fiddling around I came up with the notion of Bradenham, a village beside the GW&GC north of High Wycombe that never had a station. My model world turned this into a wartime relief station and yard for High Wycombe and gave it a small MPD which High Wycombe never had despite having a WR shunter out stationed there and ER light engines running there to power suburban trains to Marylebone!

 

This location had a lot of trains that were Tank engine powered which suited my compresses layout.

 

So, I am happy with the compromises, the layout is fun, and I have no knowledgeable visitors, so rule ! works fine!

 

Hope this helps?

 

Cheers

Paul 

[Methuselah]

Tallpaul69 ;- Some small compromises are OK - and inevitable. The problem is that all modelling is about compromise - or we'd make everything 1:1......  Most of use use OO - and that's a compromise we are broadly stuck with. Even 'simple' real stations and junctions etc, swallow up a LOT of space. If space is restricted - and it invariably is - then one does what one can.

 

Equally, many people who do have a fair bit of space, don't bother to model a real location. That's OK - we don't have 'rules' to follow. We set the bar where it suits us - and whatever space allows - this being the usual cause of compromise..

 

That being said, for me, I take the view that what I'm building is first and foremost a historical diorama, and it therefore follows from that, that every deviation degrades what one is setting out to achieve. In my case, the stations and the actual trackplan will fit the space I have - juuuuust about. The main compromise is that where the branch leaves the main line, I simply cannot fit it in at the correct angle and length - that arm  will be reduced by around 50%. Bummer, but I'm stuck with that compromise.

 

It may be that no one every sees the end result, and I certainly couldn't be arsed to exhibit it, but I know from my other activities restoring historic machines, that every compromise offends my eye - it's just a question of what you can live with.  Of course, it's all rather anal and obsessive - but then all modelling tends to be - it obviously appeals to some facet of the human psyche we are all afflicted by.....🙂

 

I'm reasonably happy with my plan now - just as well - as I've run out of space.....!

 

Some compromises are a given. Scenic-breaks are a good example - but are totally unavoidable - so it's Hobsons.