Accuracy or aesthetically pleasing?

[Dagworth]

One part of my Ipswich layout has a terrace of houses which are slightly angled to the edge of the baseboard. If built accurately to the prototype they will end up with part of the terrace half off the edge of the board. Should I build them in the right place with half houses or should I change the angle so that the whole terrace stays just on the baseboard?

 

The photo shows the position of the terrace if I stick to prototype position 

 

Andi

  

Edited February 16 by Dagworth
Add photo

[The Johnster]

Accurate to the prototype within reason.  You'll never be entirely happy with something you know is not as accurate to the prototype as you could have made it, it'll niggle and fester in your conscience until it eventually drives you insane and hearing voices...

[Mol_PMB]

I assume this is the back edge of the board?

I'd be tempted to shorten the gardens slightly so that you get at least to the roof ridge of all the houses.

[Dagworth]

1 minute ago, Mol_PMB said:

I assume this is the back edge of the board?

I'd be tempted to shorten the gardens slightly so that you get at least to the roof ridge of all the houses.

There is no back edge, the layout is viewable from both sides.

 

Andi

[Mol_PMB]

1 minute ago, Dagworth said:

There is no back edge, the layout is viewable from both sides.

 

Andi

In that case, you need at least the entirety of each house. It would look extremely odd to slice through the rooms at a strange angle.

If you want to keep the curve of the terrace, then I'd shorten the gardens so that they all fit on the board.

[Neil]

I'd shorten the terrace, crop the gardens so that you can maintain the correct angle relative to the tracks (which will look more pleasing)  and keep the houses whole rather than sliced at an angle.

[BluenGreyAnorak]

Add on a little bit of baseboard to accommodate the whole of the houses?

[Wheatley]

7 minutes ago, BluenGreyAnorak said:

Add on a little bit of baseboard to accommodate the whole of the houses?

That, and a bit of the road to give them some protection from stray sleeves and elbows brushing past. It doesn't need to be the full ply construction, something lightweight cantilevered off the existing board will do. 

 

If that doesn't work/fit then I'd shorten the gardens as that to me would be the least unacceptable compromise. But then I've managed to get a 28 ft long formation into a 14 foot garage by bending it in half, so your mileage may vary ! 

[Paul H Vigor]

3 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Accurate to the prototype within reason.  You'll never be entirely happy with something you know is not as accurate to the prototype as you could have made it, it'll niggle and fester in your conscience until it eventually drives you insane and hearing voices...

Sounds like the voice of experience - followed by years of therapy?

[KeithHC]

At the end of the day the majority of layouts are a compromise. At the moment I am into brick counting from published photos. All the buildings I hope to model in the main do not exist. So they will all be to an extent acceptable rather than accurate. I look at them on the basis of rule 1.

 

Keith

[Boris]

You care enough to blow Google maps up to the correct scale to get the model right, go with the prototype

[Dagworth]

I like the idea of adding a fillet on the side of the layout to support the full terrace. It would be a lot easier to model the houses that way. The plan is that there will be a two foot walkway either side of the layout for the operators so that fillet shouldn’t get in the way if it is shaped to the line of the house fronts or the road edge. 
 

Andi

[Kris]

The fillet idea is the best I have heard as I feel altering the angles would change the whole feel of the model. 

[Wheatley]

I confess to being well practised on the fillet idea as the result of being hopeless at accurate layout planning, and having to add bits as I go along ! 

 

The Google Maps idea is genius. 

Edited February 16 by Wheatley

[BachelorBoy]

10 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

In that case, you need at least the entirety of each house. It would look extremely odd to slice through the rooms at a strange angle.

 

But it could be a great opportunity for internal detailing that may make viewers go "wow" if you can model the rooms with the right furniture, decoration, etc. Perhaps you cover the cross-section of houses in black card, and then impress people with a flamboyant voila! when you remove it for the viewers to see.

 

(But of course to remain true to the prototype then, you'd have to contact all the people who lived in the houses during the period you model, and ask them what the rooms looked. 

[DCB]

I wouldn't bother, They hide the trains, make  access difficult, I would just build the gardens.   Was the terrace on the same level as the tracks?    Few were.     The angle not following the tracks is good, terraces did exist parallel to tracks but very many more were at an angle and almost none were the same level. 
An inch or so above or below datum would bring it to life, especially if either terrace or tracks were on a gradient, Houses were ether there before the railway or fitted in afterwards and tended to be built straight . Streets there before railways make the more interesting models...  

[Fair Oak Junction]

Aesthetically pleasing and/or practical I'd always say is more important than accuracy for things like this.

[TheQ]

If the layout is portable I'd hook on a extra removable board section , the buildings would then hide the jojn. . If it's fixed I'd add a fixed section.

[Hal Nail]

I think you will get as many opinions as answers here!

 

I would avoid having the terrace in a straight line along a straight edge of a board personally - curves or angles add visual interest.

 

I'd probably only model the back half (or even just the rear extensions) angling away from a protective facia running up to the roofline.

[whart57]

You can probably shorten the gardens by up to 30% without it jarring. Don't forget that you are looking at the model differently than in real life - unless like Rishi Sunak you go everywhere by helicopter 😁 - so full length gardens might look wrong anyway.

 

You may need to rotate the whole terrace a bit so that there is less reduction needed on the shorter gardens at the top.

[BoD]

On 16/02/2024 at 21:14, Dagworth said:

The plan is that there will be a two foot walkway either side of the layout for the operators so that fillet shouldn’t get in the way

I suppose it depends on the girth of the operators - aesthetically pleasing or otherwise.
 

Me?  I’d need shortened gardens, houses truncated and a wider walkway anyway.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited February 17 by BoD

[TangoOscarMike]

The whole hobby is made of compromises:

• The popular 00 models have the wrong gauge track
• The overwhelming majority of models have moving trains but static people, animals, vehicles and clouds in the backdrop
• Backdrops themselves are a place where an entire dimension is discarded - but this is generally preferable to the jarring alternative of wallpaper, or a workbench, or some other domestic scene in 1:1
• Scenes are compacted and trains are shortened (for many people, an accurate length train would be longer than their layout) - I expect it's very rare for a layout with two stations to have an accurate distance between them
• Accurate operations at a remote rural station could be very dull viewing indeed, with only 4 trains a day

I could go on (and often do).

 

So accuracy or aesthetically pleasing isn't actually a choice you get to make. I suggest an alternative question - "how shall I balance accuracy against the various constraints, such as the available space, in order to produce a pleasing result?". And in answering this question, you could take a film-maker or theatre director's view - you could try to avoid breaking the viewers' suspension of disbelief (viewers including you).

 

This isn't necessarily an easier question to answer, especially since different people have different priorities - for some people, tension lock couplings ruin a model. Other people might tolerate a cricket game of statues or a horse frozen in mid-leap, but not an anachronism of just a few weeks (that bridge was pulled down two days before that livery was introduced).

 

And maybe an "error" can help with the suspension of disbelief - perhaps some fine clothing that would never really be seen in your setting, but which really helps to establish the time period.

 

Since it's impossible to satisfy everyone's preferences, it makes sense to prioritise your own.

 

On re-reading, this all looks pretty pompous, and doesn't actually address your question. I've used a lot of words to say "it isn't actually either-or". But I've written it, so I might as well submit it.

[Steven B]

+1 vote for shortening the gardens to maintain the angle of the houses to the railway.

[Chiltern Junction]

Personally, I would bring the terrace closer to the rail line by 5-10 cm by shortening the gardens. If this was at the back of the layout you could get away with some of the houses in low relief, but I don't think this particular scene would work in full relief. You could always move the buildings back to their 'correct' position later if you aren't happy with it, though you may need to compress the terrace by a house or two to fit in closer to the rail line so that is something to think about.

 

I find in such cases I have to keep reminding myself to not let 'perfect' be the enemy of 'good'. You'll never get 100% accuracy to the real buildings, you have to accept some compromises when scaling down.

[TangoOscarMike]

Now that I've looked at Google maps (and feeling slightly ashamed of my pontificating), I want to change my answer.

 

I agree with the shorten-the-gardens-and-flatten-the-angle-a-little-bit camp. The angle, houses and gardens are distinctive but the precise lengths and the precise angle are not. If the gardens end up too short and stubby, you could subtly alter all the dimensions enough to insert another house, this preserving the proportions.

 

And I think that you need to do enough fudging to allow for some road on other other side of the houses, as a delimiter.