How much would you ‘bend’ reality?

[Guest Jack Benson]

When the layout was started it was intended to be Downton, a small station, on the edge of Wiltshire on the old SDJR however the space available precluded the sidings on both ends of the station and I baulked at the fence. Despite this setback, all the station buildings were created and they are still in use on the current layout albeit not in correct placing.

 

Similarly, almost all the stock was based on whatever ran on the SDJR in the early years of the BR or rather whatever was available to the shedmasters at Salisbury and Bournemouth, the exception is the M7 and its P+P. 

 

All the ancillary items are suitable for Downton even the Southern National L5G has a Wilts and Dorset L5G in the ‘roundtoit’ drawer and the West Country thatched cottage has a Victorian brick villa waiting in the wings. 

 

However are the incongruities too incongruous, how much compression is too much because in reality I would be replacing a plausible fiction with a compressed actuality ……..

 

StaySafe
 

 

 

 

[Hector Lawn]

Hi Jack, 

 

It’s your railway so you should be able to do what you like! You can only fit it in the space you have available. However, if you’re worried what others will think I suppose you’ve got to ask yourself if someone was to view your railway as you plan to build it are they still likely to recognise it as the prototype?

 

I’ve had to compress my N-gauge model of Charwelton. I’ve had to compress the distance between the southern end of Catesby tunnel up to bridge 489 by 1/3, however, the layout still has all the essential elements that make it instantly recognisable to anyone who knows the station and it’s setting.

 

I hope this helps somewhat.

Regards

Hector

[mike morley]

If you aren't happy with it - and the fact that you are asking the question indicates you aren't - then stop now and build something that you are happy with.

 

My first foray in EM was intended to be a model of Dinas Mawddwy, in the upper reaches of the Dyfi Valley.  The prototype was long and straight, but I didnt have room for long and straight I so made it long and curved.  To accommodate the curve I had to move a siding from one side of the running line to the other.  Then I realised that the layout would fit the available space a whole lot better if I made it a mirror-image.

I built the baseboards and track, laid, wired and tested it and was about to start ballasting when I realised that the layout had evolved too far to still be regarded as a model of Dinas Mawddwy.  I lived with it for about six months more, using it regularly and enjoying doing so, but unable to shake off the feeling that what I was building was not what I wanted.  At that point I scrapped the layout and have never once since felt I made a mistake by doing so.

[wombatofludham]

You only have one critic to satisfy - yourself.

When I started "Wednesford" I'd already decided that the constraints of the shed meant I had to go fictional, but a lack of proper planning on my part (a sad admission for a retired Town Planner) has meant I'm now on rebuild 3 since the first "Wednesford" was started in Lockdown v1.0.  I've still made compromises (using a type of OHLE not used extensively in the Midlands is a relatively minor one, but tighter than ideal curves still makes my teeth itch, but doesn't look too bad with trains running slowly) but I'm happy-ish with the compromises, I can live with them, and it satisfies me.

Unless you have a model railway room the size of a village hall, compromise will always have to be made.  The key is to plan the compromises in a way that you are happy with and can live with.  We all have our own level of what is acceptable and what isn't.  For me, ready to plant Mk3 OHLE was fine, but the wrong coloured stonework on buildings was a no-no!

So, set your tolerances and go for it.

[Kris]

I asked a similar question a few months ago as I was struggling with one part of my Coombe Viaduct layout. In the end I could not accept the mistakes that I had made in the construction of the goods yard section so I started that part again. I have only just got to the point where the replacement baseboards are coming together. So far I feel far happier with that. 

[john new]

6 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

When the layout was started it was intended to be Downton, a small station, on the edge of Wiltshire on the old SDJR however the space available precluded the sidings on both ends of the station and I baulked at the fence. Despite this setback, all the station buildings were created and they are still in use on the current layout albeit not in correct placing.

 

Similarly, almost all the stock was based on whatever ran on the SDJR in the early years of the BR or rather whatever was available to the shedmasters at Salisbury and Bournemouth, the exception is the M7 and its P+P. 

 

All the ancillary items are suitable for Downton even the Southern National L5G has a Wilts and Dorset L5G in the ‘roundtoit’ drawer and the West Country thatched cottage has a Victorian brick villa waiting in the wings. 

 

However are the incongruities too incongruous, how much compression is too much because in reality I would be replacing a plausible fiction with a compressed actuality ……..

 

StaySafe

 

I think you end up with having to set your own must haves. For you obviously the desire appears to be an SDJR layout* as that's what you have typed, but it (the SDJR) didn't get anywhere near the LSWR station you are modelling so you have already bent your reality in that sense. For the moment therefore I am assuming that's an error and you meant a line with the feel of the Downton area, so my suggestion is stick with the geographic location and route but build a revised station that fits your site with a revised name - Avonbridge and Redlynch or Avonbridge for Redlynch perhaps.

 

* Corrected with apologies to the OP for my numpty assumption error. It was, of course on the Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway not the Somerset & Dorset. My suggestion revision and renaming option point though remains otherwise valid.

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by john new
Correcting an error.

[The Johnster]

Firstly, it is my long-considered opinion that reality is bent anyway…

 

Secondly, only you yourself can answer the question, as it is yourself that must be able to accept the inevitable compromises.  If it is a model of a real place, then my opinion, worth exactly what you are paying me for it, is that, irrespective of how many compromises have been made, you have to be able to suspend your disbelief and convince yourself that you are looking at the real place, only small and in the 1950s or whenever. 
 

The extent to which this can be done is sometimes surprising when you think about it; we happily tolerate backdrops to scenes consisting of, apparently, enormous room or shed interiors, insanely sharp curves, steam engines that produce highly unrealistic exhaust (if we bother at all; most of us don’t), and the majority of us cheerfully use track that is too narrow in gauge by about 20%, a factor of error we would not accept in any other aspect of our modelling.  We are capable of mentally filtering out some quite blatant anomalies and of imagining detail we cannot provide in reality. 
 

I repeat, reality is bent; it is the prototype that is inaccurate…

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by The Johnster

[Neil]

I bend stuff to breaking point and beyond.

 

[john new]

56 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

John,

 

I presume that your knowledge does not extend to the Salisbury and Dorset Junction Railway, a mistake often made by those who know a little about Dorset railways but not a lot. Moreover a working link was provided within the initial posting to prevent such mistakes, here it is again Downton

 

Thank you and StaySafe

Of it yes, but had forgotten the name and the map I checked only showed it as LSWR, sorry for my mistake. Same point though, make it smaller to fit and rename to a suitable alternative.

[DCB]

Deleted

Edited June 8, 2022 by DCB

[Chris M]

All models of a real location will have some comprise; this has to be accepted. I found the best way was to decide what was important to me to make a model of a place right. I then work out whether these important things can be fitted into a layout plan. If I can then I go ahead and build it, if I can’t then I won’t. 
For instance on my model of Aller Junction I decided the actual Junction and the occupation bridge were essential but I could live without the loop for banking. Because of the compromises I called it Little Aller Junction. I took it to a fair few exhibitions and whilst some visitors said it was a shame a few items were missed and a couple of tunnel entrances had to be added everyone seemed to enjoy it. There were a lot of people who were complimentary and I can’t recall anyone being critical of the compromises I had made.

 

I spend a lot of time thinking and planning before starting to build. Sometimes I get to a point where I have a good plan but then decide not to go ahead. Some years ago I had track laid and working before I decided the layout wasn’t going to work for me and abandoned the project. I invested 9 months planning time before starting my current layout. For me, modelling a real location is by far the most satisfying branch of layout building and well worth the effort and the compromises. I just love watching the trains run through my Dawlish Warren layout as it was in the 1960s. 

 

I hope you can find a plan to build your layout in a way that you will find satisfying to you. 

[Captain Kernow]

23 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

When the layout was started it was intended to be Downton, a small station, on the edge of Wiltshire on the old SDJR however the space available precluded the sidings on both ends of the station and I baulked at the fence. Despite this setback, all the station buildings were created and they are still in use on the current layout albeit not in correct placing.

 

Similarly, almost all the stock was based on whatever ran on the SDJR in the early years of the BR or rather whatever was available to the shedmasters at Salisbury and Bournemouth, the exception is the M7 and its P+P. 

 

All the ancillary items are suitable for Downton even the Southern National L5G has a Wilts and Dorset L5G in the ‘roundtoit’ drawer and the West Country thatched cottage has a Victorian brick villa waiting in the wings. 

 

However are the incongruities too incongruous, how much compression is too much because in reality I would be replacing a plausible fiction with a compressed actuality

From what you say, Jack, I wouldn't have thought that the compression you have described need necessarily be considered as a 'show stopper'.

 

If the space for the actual sidings isn't available, could they be somehow 'suggested', perhaps by a scenic sleight-of-hand? Perhaps you could argue that they are 'off-scene?'

 

Failing that, maybe history took a slightly different turn and this isn't the actual Downton station, but one very much based on it, perhaps a mile or so up the line. 'Downton Road' perhaps?

 

You seem to have captured the atmosphere of the old Salisbury & Dorset well, so those elements of the real Downton that you already have in model form, are certainly doing their job.

 

 

[Pete the Elaner]

I made top-down list of the things important to me. At some point, I had to draw a line, but some of the features beneath it could still make it.

 

I built a replica of a real location but had to make the following compromises:

I only modelled the section between tunnels & a road bridge.

The track beyond the road bridge is (er will be) hidden below roads, buildings etc.

The tracks should diverge towards the tunnels. I had to reduce this because they should diverge further than I had space for.

I have changed (will change) the surrounding road layout & some of the surrounding buildings.

The retaining walls should be more recessed at one end than another. They were more recessed at the end where the track diverge of course. I have swapped these around to narrow it slightly. There is also a large recess just before the tunnels, but I have ignored this on my model.

There is a line crossing above the main line. This heads into tunnels each side of the layout, but the tunnel mouths should be recessed by about 30cms. I would have to bore a hole in my wall to model this accurately, so I have moved them in.

 

What compromises you make will depend on which features you consider most important.

[DCB]

Deleted

Edited June 8, 2022 by DCB

[The Johnster]

Not familiar with this location beyond what I've read in this thread; what were the sidings used for and how important is correct operation?  If you are going to run anything based on an actual working timetable, and the sidings were in daily use by the pickup or a trip freight, then the lack of them compromises your model fairly seriously, but if you are simply going to recreate the station and run trains through it without any such shunting moves, then they can be dispensed with or suggested in some way without being modelled without causing much trouble.

 

In the final analysis, it comes down to what compromises you can live with, and how far you can compromise before you feel the need to have a 'based on/inspired by' layout with a different name as has been suggested.  My own layout is 'inspired by' other BLTs in that part of the world, and is set in a real place, albeit one that never had a railway, colliery, terminus station, or mining village.  It did at one time in the very distant past have a tramway leading to a water-powered forge, it's only actual railway connection.  But it is real to me, not a model but an actual railway, only small and in the 1950s, providing an outlet to the colliery, passenger service, and general merchandise goods to a real place that is small and in the 1950s.  I operate to a plausible WTT and to real time, and the 1955 British Railways Rule Book, as far as I can as if I am providing an actual railway service to a small mining community in the 1950s that never existed but is 76 times smaller than it would have been if it had, if that makes sense...

[DCB]

Deleted

Edited June 8, 2022 by DCB

[Nick Holliday]

Perhaps you can assuage your conscience by reverting to Downton’s earlier arrangement, from NLS OS maps from around 1888. Just one siding and a loop.

[cypherman]

Hi all,

I would bend reality until the knots squeaked and I was happy with it.

Edited June 8, 2022 by cypherman

[Compound2632]

Every curve we lay bends reality.

[DCB]

14 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Hi Guys and thanks,

 

The reality is simple, the layout already exists with an almost complete set of Downton buildings. This really awful sketch is Downton as it was, the down platform was out of use but still there.

This is the layout with both platforms

 

Just the loss of the sidings on the Southern end and some other omissions, their loss is mitigated by the scenic break.

 

A rather grand brick villa is awaiting use, it is similar to the 'estate' building that once stood adjacent to the station yard now utterly vanished and replaced by housing.

 

 

I think it will turn out as we originally itended.

 

Again, thanks to all StaySafe

 

It's a difficult situation. I wouldn't normally point this out  but the fact is your track  drawings cannot be right.  Neither of them. There are photographs clearly showing both platforms  in use and up line was straight through and the line curved into the down platform  as per the upper drawing. The lower drawing has  sidings on the wrong end, the loop the wrong side.   Thee upper has the East end sidings ( at the west end)  both coming off a s coming off a point beyond the loop, the only drawing I can find has the road nearer the platform coming off the loop and only the longer siding coming off the main line beyond the bridge,  See my drawing The hardest bit will be getting convincing levels and convincing scenic breaks modelling a station on an embankment, but turning the layout left to right and altering the loop direction is a step too far if you want to keep it as a model of an actual station.   You might just as well call it Downton  (Abbey) and stick it between Downton Tunnel and an a fictitious over bridge. 

[Guest Jack Benson]

On 07/06/2022 at 10:19, Captain Kernow said:

 

 

Failing that, maybe history took a slightly different turn and this isn't the actual Downton station, but one very much based on it, perhaps a mile or so up the line. 'Downton Road' perhaps?

 

 

 

Tim,

 

A week to think about and your suggestion is gaining traction, Downton Road as it isn’t quite Downton and after eleven years of Beaminster Road, the combination seems familiar. I had considered Hale or even Woodgreen for Hale but neither seemed appropriate. 
 

This is sitting on the bench awaiting paint, a 3D print of the Downton cabin but with the stairs on t’other side, another compromise.
 

StaySafe


 

 

[Captain Kernow]

That's a really superb printed building, wonderfully fine detail. Is that a one-off commission or is it something that is generally available from one of the suppliers?

 

[Guest Jack Benson]

Hi Tim,

 

This guy click here is a member of our Facebook group and was offering to make 3D prints if we supplied ideas. As a result he made Chandlers Ford and Romsey signal boxes and a very nice set of corrugated iron buildings.

 

StaySafe

[The Johnster]

He’s got some nice stuff at reasonable prices.  Don’t suppose he could be persuaded to have a go at GW auto trailer buffers in 4mm…