Retro / impressionistic modelling - a new modelling philosophy?

[Nearholmer]

10 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

I built this 'typical' 1961 Table Top layout

Which I have to say is rather brilliant. If it wasn’t disrespectful to his memory, and offensive to his surviving family, I’d be tempted to suggest a taxidermised CJF to sit contemplating it.

[Hroth]

57 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Which I have to say is rather brilliant. If it wasn’t disrespectful to his memory, and offensive to his surviving family, I’d be tempted to suggest a taxidermised CJF to sit contemplating it.

 

How about a generic early 60s dad with a cardigan and a pipe?  He could be "live", a sort of Ancient Mariner ready to regale passers by with his views on the merits of Triang TT...

 

[Pacific231G]

I do see a distinction between "retro" and "impressionistic" modelling. Retro seems to mean using older proprietary models to create the sort of developed train-set layout that were in truth the majority of actual layouts when such equipment was in the shops (and in their modern guise still are). An impressionist  layout might also make use of such products but esssentially focuses on creating an overall scene rather than on highly detailed individual models. It is likely to require just as much skill and artistry as a hyper realistic  layout but applied in a different way and with different priorities. 

 

You'll not be surprised if I quote the difference between the Madder Valley and the Vale scene at Pendon as an excellent example of this. The Vale scene is the superb result of over half a century of incredibly fine scale modelling by a team of dedicated modellers while the Madder Valley represents no more than a dozen years of work (probably rather less) by one equally artistically gifted man who used much broader brushstrokes (brickpaper rather than individually painted bricks for example) to create an overall impression  of a world that seems totally believable. 

Equally, Frank Dyer was content to use ordinary 00 standards to create layouts (Borchester Market in particular) that gave a wonderful and again very convincing impression of a full size railway in everyday operation.

 

I think there is a question about how important it is for all the modelling in a layout to be of a consistent standard - does a super-detailed piece of almost show-case rolling stock for examply look right within an impressionistic  scene- or is it OK for the layout to simply be the background in which to show off  such models of trains? John Ahern and Peter Denny both built almost everything themselves and did so to a very consistent standard and the result just seemed to work. 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

If there is an “issue” with MRJ-type modern finescale, it is the time that even a practised practitioner takes to produce a layout, even quite a small one, as opposed to individual items of stock, a building, or whatever.
 

Setting aside skills for a moment, and making the slight leap of faith that anyone can acquire them if they put in enough time and effort, not everyone wants, or has the patience, or the mono-maniacal focus to to spend “forever” building one modest layout, even if the end result is jaw-droppingly finely executed, it’s just not the way everyone wants to do the hobby.

 

As with most things, the 80:20 “rule” applies, so that by using a judicious mix of commercial material and personal skill, most diligent modellers can get to a very creditable result,  certainly something that is good to operate and worthy of public display if they want, in 20% of the time it would take to get to “vale scene” standard, and if the individual concerned has an artistic eye for colour and composition the result can actually be more interesting than “dead scale”, because they know which boring bits to omit.

[dunwurken]

On 21/12/2023 at 15:13, Pacific231G said:

The Madder Valley was indeed extremely well designed for operation.  We run it about four times a year and though, to keep things moving for the public, we don't operate it to its full potential which would require a lor more shunting, it can still hold my interest for a full day (preferably operating Maddeport) There aren't many layouts I've operated that I could say that of.  It's interesting how many later layouts were closely based on it including Derek Naylor's  Aire Valley and Giles Barnabe's 00n3 layout. Curiously though, while Ahern wrote extensively about every aspect of the railway, including its control systems and two-rail electrification scheme, he never did write about its operation. Like many home layouts, I suspect it wasn't actualy operated all that often though running an occasional train up and down the valley would have been entirely possible and enjoyable on his own. I do rather wonder if that was also true of the West Midland Railway. The WMR was clearly designed for intensive operation with a set of standard routes, as described in "West Midland, a railway in miniature", but did Edward Beal actually have regular operating sessions with a group of people as Peter Denny, Frank Dyer and John Allen did? 

 

The MVR wasn't the first model railway to include a world beyond the railway corridor. Aldo Cosomati's 3.5mm scale Alheeba State Railway (MRN Dec 1933 & Jan 1934)  also did this and though nothing like as well developed as the MVR ten years later, it was one of John Ahern's main inspirations. John Ahern's layout was though the first to fully develop the idea of a railway within a believable world and I would love to be able to actually visit Madderport and Gammon Magna and to have tea in the Monraker's Inn. I would say that the balance between creating a believabl world in miniature and including a very operationally sound model railway in that world has rarely been achieved as well.

Very succinctly put. 

 

About 10 years ago I thought there was going to be an increase in interest in historical model railways as Borchester, Buckingham, Craig and Mertonford etc. appeared to be re-emerging from the shadows however the 're-birth seems to have been short lived though happily all three layouts have secure homes.  I have heard that the Manchester Club for their 100th anniversary in 2025 propose devoting part of their annual exhibition to the history of railway modelling.   Hopefully this might inspire more retro and historical modelling.

 

Malcolm

[john new]

On 26/12/2023 at 10:14, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

I must admit that I have not read every post on this thread, but I hope this layout may have some relevance to this discussion.

 

 

My Club was formed in 1961 and for our 50th anniversary I built this 'typical' 1961 Table Top layout. It represents a typical kitchen table layout which got dismantled every day because 'mother needs the table back'

 

Except for the two trains which run clockwise and anti-clockwise and the tea cup, everything else is glued down permanently in place - YES, the de-railed tanker, the track plans, the Railway Modeller, the pencil etc are all superglued in position

 

There is usually a half-eaten biscuit in the tea cup's saucer and at one show a visitor complained bitterly that I should not have included the ashtray and (toy) cigarette as it would encourage his 3 year-old son to take up smoking.

Yes. I ran a Hornby-Dublo layout for several years loosely based on dealer display layouts. Only recently scrapped as it became too big to easily handle for exhibitions, plus the trailer I shifted it in became unroadworthy. See https://www.island-publishing.co.uk/dublo2.htm

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

As with most things, the 80:20 “rule” applies, so that by using a judicious mix of commercial material and personal skill, most diligent modellers can get to a very creditable result,  certainly something that is good to operate and worthy of public display if they want, in 20% of the time it would take to get to “vale scene” standard, and if the individual concerned has an artistic eye for colour and composition the result can actually be more interesting than “dead scale”, because they know which boring bits to omit.

Whether we admit to it or not, all modellers do the bits they are good at/enjoy and "sub-contract" what they aren't/don't.

 

We can all be guilty (I'm owning up here too) of sometimes looking down on model railways consisting entirely of RTR and RTP, dismissing them as not really modelling.  I suspect that in the days before model railway equipment became affordable and widely available, there were actually very few model railways.  Some/many of those RTR/RTP modellers will make a few kits and scenery and some will develop into the master modellers of the future who will scratch-build an 1890s LSWR BLT in S-gauge.  But without some RTR to get them interested in the first place, they would probably never have started.

[john new]

7 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

Whether we admit to it or not, all modellers do the bits they are good at/enjoy and "sub-contract" what they aren't/don't.

 

We can all be guilty (I'm owning up here too) of sometimes looking down on model railways consisting entirely of RTR and RTP, dismissing them as not really modelling.  I suspect that in the days before model railway equipment became affordable and widely available, there were actually very few model railways.  Some/many of those RTR/RTP modellers will make a few kits and scenery and some will develop into the master modellers of the future who will scratch-build an 1890s LSWR BLT in S-gauge.  But without some RTR to get them interested in the first place, they would probably never have started.

Some parts of advancing beyond just a train set, however small that step is, come from wanting to be more prototypical. As examples as even on my dealer style layout I used a green base, as green was used by Hornby, and there are no facing points other than for entering the slow lines, where there are the loops. The track plan for the goods area would be close to prototypical were it to be transposed to being a scenic layout.
 

The difference, for me, between a scenic train set and a basic intro level model railway starts with observation and application of ideas from the prototype. That can be either operational or through advanced modelling and scenery. The preserved (ex-L&Y?) signalling layout in the NRM is undoubtedly a model railway as is the Gainsborough club layout. Several suburb scenic layouts, therefore undoubtedly good models of a railway, are run just as roundy-roundy tail chasers.  We are such a disparate church there is room for both.

[Nearholmer]

I think Harlequin is right that there is a distinction between retro and impressionistic (BTW, all modelling is impressionistic to some degree, even “vale scene” or architect’s models). When I’m in “retro” mode, I’m far less concerned about prototype practice than I am about modelling practice c1935-55, because that’s what I’m trying to emulate. The end result should, if I get it right one day, look as real or unreal as a mainstream layout built at that date. If the OP is aiming for 1980s style, their ultimate layout should fit right into the pages of Railway Modeller in that period (which actually leaves very wide latitude, because people were doing all sorts of things then!).

[melmerby]

Model (Noun) :

"a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original."

 

(My underline)

[Pacific231G]

18 hours ago, melmerby said:

Model (Noun) :

"a three-dimensional representation of a person or thing or of a proposed structure, typically on a smaller scale than the original."

 

(My underline)

So is Tornado a full size working model of an LNER A1 Pacific or an actual Peppercorn Pacific? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2P2mFT_ac

[ian]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

So is Tornado a full size working model of an LNER A1 Pacific or an actual Peppercorn Pacific? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_2P2mFT_ac

Neither. I think 'reproduction' is probably the right term. It isn't an original but it has been constructed, as far as possible, from the same materials and design as the original and is capable of doing the same things. cf. reproduction furniture

[Nearholmer]

I pondered the definition given by Melmerby, and looked-up definitions of “representation”, only to discover that one is. “a model”, which helped a lot.

[Captain Slough]

the New Model Army was still an army, as the Royalists found to their cost... I think model has dual meaning as *metaphor* in both cases

[fezza]

On 27/12/2023 at 17:15, Nearholmer said:

I think Harlequin is right that there is a distinction between retro and impressionistic (BTW, all modelling is impressionistic to some degree, even “vale scene” or architect’s models). When I’m in “retro” mode, I’m far less concerned about prototype practice than I am about modelling practice c1935-55, because that’s what I’m trying to emulate. The end result should, if I get it right one day, look as real or unreal as a mainstream layout built at that date. If the OP is aiming for 1980s style, their ultimate layout should fit right into the pages of Railway Modeller in that period (which actually leaves very wide latitude, because people were doing all sorts of things then!).

 

Yes, I suppose I was suggesting combining two separate approaches:

 

(1) Retro modelling (making use of older "good enough" stock that itself has a history) to help model (2) a more impressionistic sense of place and time (using restrained colour palettes and simple materials to create the feel of a place and time, rather than worry about getting every tiny detail correct).

 

At least that's what I'll be attempting in 2024... A retro impressionistic approach to model Birmingham's GWR lines in the early 1970s, with the assumption that the Birkenhead to Paddington services survived - just an excuse really to run my Hornby Hymeks, Mainline Warships, Lima Westerns, Replica Peaks, and 116/7 DMUs in a run-down urban setting.

 

Now I really need to start putting it all together!

 

Happy new year everyone!

 

 

[ian]

17 hours ago, fezza said:

At least that's what I'll be attempting in 2024... A retro impressionistic approach to model Birmingham's GWR lines in the early 1970s, with the assumption that the Birkenhead to Paddington services survived - just an excuse really to run my Hornby Hymeks, Mainline Warships, Lima Westerns, Replica Peaks, and 116/7 DMUs in a run-down urban setting.

That sounds like a wonderful basis for a layout. Please do keep us informed of progress.

[Pacific231G]

On 31/12/2023 at 20:08, fezza said:

 

Yes, I suppose I was suggesting combining two separate approaches:

 

(1) Retro modelling (making use of older "good enough" stock that itself has a history) to help model (2) a more impressionistic sense of place and time (using restrained colour palettes and simple materials to create the feel of a place and time, rather than worry about getting every tiny detail correct).

 

At least that's what I'll be attempting in 2024... A retro impressionistic approach to model Birmingham's GWR lines in the early 1970s, with the assumption that the Birkenhead to Paddington services survived - just an excuse really to run my Hornby Hymeks, Mainline Warships, Lima Westerns, Replica Peaks, and 116/7 DMUs in a run-down urban setting.

 

Now I really need to start putting it all together!

 

Happy new year everyone!

 

 

That sounds like an excellent project, will it be an impression of a station or simply a stretch of mainline in a typically Brummie urban setting? 

 

I do see a difference between fully "Retro" modelling which does seem to be about emulating model railways of a past age such as HD and simply using whatever feels appropriate to create the look and feel of a real scene (there was nothing "retro" about Monet and Manet!), and if a model feels and looks right, whatever its level of detailing, then it is right. What for me spoils a model at typical viewing distances isn't lack of detail but far more things like deep flanges, excessively wide tyres and large gaps between the corridor connections of coaches.

 

Though ths may be a controversial view in some circles I actually find that an absolutely to scale model of a real location never feels right as a modelled scene. I think this has a lot to do with the size and viewing angles of models versus the real thing and how our eyes and brain interpret what they are seeing and edit out the spaces between the interesting bits.

We are used to seeing the real thing  from close to ground level and from as close as three or four metres but, dependin on scale, we typically look at a modelled scene from the equivalent of perhaps forty metres away.  For the same reason I find that aerial photos of railways  (unless the secenry is the point of the photograph) are rarely as attractive as those taken from closer up. With a model of a railway I think what we are doing is trying to give the impression of a lineside view but from a different viewpoint so a lot of our foreshortening  and using much tighter (up to a point) pointwork than protypical is actually artistically desirable.  

Edited January 2 by Pacific231G

[CF MRC]

Perhaps Copenhagen Fields contradicts that last paragraph, David? (Not that it is all to dead scale, though - tunnels aren’t that exciting).

 

Tim

[Pacific231G]

On 02/01/2024 at 14:24, CF MRC said:

Perhaps Copenhagen Fields contradicts that last paragraph, David? (Not that it is all to dead scale, though - tunnels aren’t that exciting).

 

Tim

 

Hi Tim

It wasn't intended to be a rule - when it comes to artistic impression and preference that would be absurd. Copenhagen Fields is an extraordinary piece of work (as too is the Vale Scene at Pendon though I know that some have reservations about it) and I wouldn't criticise it at all. (and I did enjoy seeing the new tube station complete with working lift at the MRC mini exhibition) N scale does also seem to lend itself to railway panoramas and a panorama, especially if it is very well detailed, is always fascinating. With Copenhagen Fields there is of course far more to look at than the railways themselves- London basically! However, I don't believe that a more typical railway scene modelled to exact scale is necessarily superior to a well observed impression making judicious use of compression and even simplification. One has only to think of the Buckingham Branch which is a surprisingly compact layout.   

 

Edited January 3 by Pacific231G
grammar etc

[fezza]

On 02/01/2024 at 13:03, Pacific231G said:

That sounds like an excellent project, will it be an impression of a station or simply a stretch of mainline in a typically Brummie urban setting? 

 

I do see a difference between fully "Retro" modelling which does seem to be about emulating model railways of a past age such as HD and simply using whatever feels appropriate to create the look and feel of a real scene (there was nothing "retro" about Monet and Manet!), and if a model feels and looks right, whatever its level of detailing, then it is right. What for me spoils a model at typical viewing distances isn't lack of detail but far more things like deep flanges, excessively wide tyres and large gaps between the corridor connections of coaches.

 

Though ths may be a controversial view in some circles I actually find that an absolutely to scale model of a real location never feels right as a modelled scene. I think this has a lot to do with the size and viewing angles of models versus the real thing and how our eyes and brain interpret what they are seeing and edit out the spaces between the interesting bits.

We are used to seeing the real thing  from close to ground level and from as close as three or four metres but, dependin on scale, we typically look at a modelled scene from the equivalent of perhaps forty metres away.  For the same reason I find that aerial photos of railways  (unless the secenry is the point of the photograph) are rarely as attractive as those taken from closer up. With a model of a railway I think what we are doing is trying to give the impression of a lineside view but from a different viewpoint so a lot of our foreshortening  and using much tighter (up to a point) pointwork than protypical is actually artistically desirable.  

 

Thanks. It will be compact urban station that takes inspiration from Wolverhampton Low Level and Snow Hill. There might also be a bit of High Wycombe and Leicester Midland influence  too (think blue brick retaining walls and tunnels drawing on "modern" 1890s/1900s railway practice).

 

Just don't be surprised if the odd Deltic and Calder Valley unit turns up! Deltics  were  trialled on the GWR Birkenhead line in the 1970s in an attempt to speed up through services. Calder Valley units appeared for similar reasons and due to a major DMU shortage in the Wolverhampton area... (Oh, and because I like them!)

Edited January 3 by fezza
My illiteracy.

[fezza]

Well they say man makes plans and God laughs....

 

My layout room is now under two feet of floodwater. Fortunately all the stock has been rescued but the boards and supporting legs are landfill. Unless I take up modelling boats I don't think the room is going to be in use for a while.

 

Looks like I might have to build a Minories style portable  folding layout for the time being (and keep it upstairs!). Not what I'd hoped to do but I suppose following one of Freezer's plans is fairly retro in itself...

 

Overall, it's not been the best few days of our lives but I know many people have suffered worse than we have. Most of our important stuff was moved before the floods arrived.

[Pacific231G]

14 hours ago, fezza said:

Well they say man makes plans and God laughs....

 

My layout room is now under two feet of floodwater. Fortunately all the stock has been rescued but the boards and supporting legs are landfill. Unless I take up modelling boats I don't think the room is going to be in use for a while.

 

Looks like I might have to build a Minories style portable  folding layout for the time being (and keep it upstairs!). Not what I'd hoped to do but I suppose following one of Freezer's plans is fairly retro in itself...

 

Overall, it's not been the best few days of our lives but I know many people have suffered worse than we have. Most of our important stuff was moved before the floods arrived.

What rotten luck Fezza. I'm guessing that layout building won't be your priority for a while and hope you can get your home back in shape without too much drama.

It's good to know that you're already looking at options and I'm minded to recall Cyril Freezer's suggested modular development of Minories with separate sections for a small urban MPD, goods yard, and sections of main line able to be put together in several permutations.   

 

Edited January 8 by Pacific231G