Which layouts have really inspired you?

[Guest jim s-w]

The thing that makes these layouts stand out (IMHO) is that were not inspired at all by other models. Who inspired the 'old masters?'

 

Prototype, prototype, prototype!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Neil]

The thing that makes these layouts stand out (IMHO) is that were not inspired at all by other models. Who inspired the 'old masters?'

 

Prototype, prototype, prototype!

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

That strikes me as a bit of a large assumption to make Jim, given that John Ahern, Edward Beal, Peter Denny and John Allen aren't around to question. The 'at all' part is a particularly sweeping assertion. However principally I do wonder if we have a different view of what inspiration is or can be? I find your model of New Street inspires; it shows that it's possible to contemplate a huge project at the highest standards solo, that's inspiring, the exquisite ordinariness of some of the structures you've built for it demonstrate that character can come from the mundane as well as the spectacular and that's inspiring too. Does this mean that I'm going to create my own wishy washy copy of a masterpiece? No, my interests lie eighty odd miles away on Cardigan Bay, but your and many other layouts inspire me to do better, to see possibilities and to be creative.

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Neil

 

I kind of agree with you and I did say in my opinion. However when you really look at the real railway you start to get an understanding of it. I am in no way saying my own understanding of it is anywhere near as good as the people we are talking about but it's enough to see that thier models are based on the real railway first and foremost, thus my opinion. It might very well be wrong.

 

There are layouts on here (and it wouldn't be fair to name them) that are technically brilliant but the link to the real world is very obviously missing, the understanding just isn't there and it's clear to see. However they are very popular, bring a lot of pleasure to the builders and their viewers so they are not wrong, just not my cup of tea

 

(thanks for the kind comments by the way, that word - ordinariness - is exactly the reaction I want, any old day in 1986!)

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Neil]

I wholeheartedly agree that the real railway makes the best primary reference point; even for might have beens or the wildly freelance it's better to be railway-like than model railway-like. Still enjoy looking at other peoples model railways though.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Without doubt the real thing is the overarching inspiration. But what is the "real thing" when it no longer exists?

 

Obviously we can't all experience what we want to model, either time wise or location wise (or indeed both), at first hand. So we rely on those who went before us and recorded the scene through their eyes.

 

And then a lot depended on chance. Would the Midland & Great Northern (a single track cross-country line) have had a bigger following if someone like Ivo Peters had lived in that area and photographed it, rather than residing in Bath and taking pictures of the Somerset & Dorset (another largely single-track cross-country line)?

 

And the sun didn't always shine in steam days, but due the film speeds, many photographers (with notable exceptions) only ventured out when the weather was clement.

 

So what we have recorded from the past might be wrong, or might be right, or maybe a bit of both.

 

It's how we interpret it. And part of this interpretation may receive inspiration from other modellers' efforts.

 

When I was younger (so much younger than today...)I always thought toy trains just went round and round and round. Then one day at an exhibition in Derby I saw for the first time (and I can clearly remember this) a layout which was end-to-end. It made me think about models in a completely different way.

 

So yes, the prototype is key. But other modellers' efforts and how they perceive and interpret the real thing does provide inspiration too.

 

Thank you.

 

Peter

[Guest jim s-w]

Hi Peter

 

History is always distorted. In the last days of steam, if you look at pictures you would believe that nearly everything was steam hauled, occasional diesels and never a DMU. Why would anyone waste film on those? Even now with digital cameras, while people will more likely photograph everything they will only publish the more interesting stuff.

 

Realistically any reasonably large layout set in the last half century should be predominantly multiple unit based with occasional 'interesting' stuff. Only wibdenshaw has (for me) got anywhere near getting the balance right but then historically people weren't interested in masses of dmu's at the time, would they be now?

 

Photographs are only one source of information. The trick is patching all sources together and sometimes that might include another model if you have no choice but even then it would be better to try and see their research rather than their interpretation of it. Having access to don jones research may have made my own efforts easier but I would still have done my own anyway. The research part is just as enjoyable at the end of the day.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited September 18, 2011 by jim s-w

[Guest oldlugger]

Unfortunately model railways all lose that "link to the real world" however close to the prototype they may be; how many real BR lines use fiddle yards and go nowhere? How many steam locos use 12 volts to power them? How many stations in UK would be squashed into 4 X 2? We create an imaginary world in our heads that we hope others will "see" as well. Inspiration can come from many sources and what really counts is "originality" and artistry, with more than a hint of atmosphere. There have been many famous layouts over the years in magazines that have inspired others which bear little resemblance to any prototype (I wish I could remember their names) but still have loads of clout. Artists and musicians are always aware of each other and are inspired/motivated by what they see/hear. Many classical composers used the works of others to produce something else; Bach was one major example. I don't think any of us could say that we haven't used a bit of another modeller's layout in our own; our brains are picking up this type of info all the time and the sub conscious will be at work. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and that's what really matters.

 

Cheers

Simon

Edited September 18, 2011 by oldlugger

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Jim,

Can't disagree with a word you say.

 

Prototype research is vital, as what is left out of a photo can be as important as what appears in it.

 

I think I understand what I just wrote...........!

 

Thouugh come on Jim, you MUST realise your layout is an inspiration.

 

Regards,

Peter

[shortliner]

"Inversneckie and Drambuie" by RWG Bryant. Maurice Dean who designed many layouts that appeared in the Raiway Modeller in its early years, and Derek Naylors "Aire Valley Railway" would be three more early influences

[Guest jim s-w]

how many real BR lines use fiddle yards

 

 

As in a large yard where trains are formed and reformed? Think about it...

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest oldlugger]

 

As in a large yard where trains are formed and reformed? Think about it...

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

With a whopping great hand appearing out of the sky to marshall a class 86 and its train? I think the BR powers that used to be might have had a word or two to say about that...

 

All the best

Simon

[Guest jim s-w]

Not all fiddle yards are hands on though are they Simon? All have some sort of human involvement though, real or model. The point still stands.

 

the hand of god arguement has got to be one of the oldest, tiredest and most pointless/boring ones out there. I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at all if I am honest. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else modelling a place that goes somewhere with a fiddleyard that is a model of a real marshalling yard if you want too.

 

Is your arguement really that as we have to make compromises with our models we shouldn't try to follow the real thing if we want too? Really?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited September 18, 2011 by jim s-w

[Guest jim s-w]

 

I think I understand what I just wrote...........!

 

 

Absolutely

 

 

Thouugh come on Jim, you MUST realise your layout is an inspiration.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Perhaps it is to some. Id rather they were inspired by my approach though (as neil pointed out) if I could be picky. As in chose a place and copy it.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[coachmann]

'You must model the prototype' was the party line in the twee world I inhabited for many years. The fact that I didnt build any layouts from 1964-2006 didn't change my thinking. It was perpetually strengthened through David Jenkinsons articles and personal conversations, and the thought of building something freelance never entered my head.....It wasnt allowed to! So when I did eventually get around to laying some track, the only stations that came to mind were two in the West Riding of Yorkshire that I'd known in my earlier years, plus the trains that ran through them.

 

I cannot deny DJ's influence, which is not entirely suprising seeing as I was involved with his locos and stock, and these days I find my mind wandering off to stations on the Settle & Carlilse, despite never having been near the place!

 

So if track ever is laid again, I visualise a Lazonby-Garsdale layout, masquerading as Greenfield in the Pennines, influenced by the RMweb-school of 'It's your layout' in order to justify trains I like, running where they didnt, but could have done with a bit of licence!

 

If I end up producing a dogs dinner, feel free to tell me...

[Guest oldlugger]

Not all fiddle yards are hands on though are they Simon? All have some sort of human involvement though, real or model. The point still stands.

 

the hand of god arguement has got to be one of the oldest, tiredest and most pointless/boring ones out there. I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at all if I am honest. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else modelling a place that goes somewhere with a fiddleyard that is a model of a real marshalling yard if you want too.

 

Is your arguement really that as we have to make compromises with our models we shouldn't try to follow the real thing if we want too? Really?

 

Cheers

 

Jim

 

It depends how seriously you take yourself Jim... the hand from the sky was a joke.

 

For you, the prototype is king, for others, a layout which might have no link to the real world but brings pleasure and a sense of achievement is equally important. Many modellers just don't have the time, space or money to model prototypes. If you can honestly say that no other layout or modeller has inspired you and a part of your magnum opus then you must be unique. As I've mentioned before on this forum, these are just model railways; a hobby (for most) and a way of escaping the harsh realities of the real world. We all get inspired by things which is great, no less so for model railways. Personally I get inspired just as much by other layouts as I do by the prototype. Neither of these is right or wrong just a fact of life for most.

 

All the best

Simon

Edited September 18, 2011 by oldlugger

[t-b-g]

It just goes to show that there are many forms of inspiration and each of us should be allowed to draw our own from whichever source we choose. When you look at the ratio of models representing real places compared to fictitious ones, the real places are in a massive minority.

 

Perhaps more of us would model real places if there we could find something that interests us, has all the features we wish to create and most importantly, will fit the space available.

 

In my case, I usually take a certain feature of a real place, usually seen in a photograph and I think "That is crying out to be modelled" and I will then start doodling schemes that could include one or more such features. A new project under starting orders at the moment combines a photo taken of the multilevel bridges at Chesterfield, combined with the lovely building from Chesterfield Market Place. I don't have the room or the desire to model that station fully as the passenger service was very limited and the goods yard sticks out at right angles but I can lift the design of the building and canopies and use them on a track plan of my own.

 

If I were interested in modelling a scene more recent than pregrouping, I would look at a place like Birmingham (which I used to go to in the late 70s early 80s) and think "A concrete hole in the ground with most of the platforms hidden - I wouldn't consider that something I would ever want to model!" Yet Jim was inspired enough by the real thing to build it and in turn has clearly inspired others with his project. As far as I am concerned, the more different inspirations we have, the more varied and interesting the hobby becomes.

 

It goes to show how diverse our hobby can be, from the chap who has a Dean Single "Lord of the Isles" running round a circle with a Deltic and two carriages going round the other way, up to the chap who won't allow a particular loco on his strict prototype layout because on the date the model is set, that particular loco was in shops for repairs.

 

Neither is wrong, they are just different.

[jcm@gwr]

Lots of interesting comments and [differing] view points, all of which are correct [for that person].

Personally, I think one of the most inspiring layouts I have seen is Pendon, and although it's only

loosely based on a prototype, it has that 'feel' about it.

Buckingham Central, for it's operational factor, and I think if it had been finished, Little Long Drag

would have been sensational.

Cheers, Jeff

[coachmann]

I think one of the most inspiring layouts I have seen is Pendon, and although it's only

loosely based on a prototype, it has that 'feel' about it.

Do you know, in all my years I hadn't thought of it as being loosely based on a prototype.

[jcm@gwr]

Well, I hope nobody took that the wrong way! But they [Pendon] are the first to admit that although

the buildings are 'spot on' scale models of exact originals, they are not in the same place or groups

as the originals. A bit like Constable used to do with his composition of his landscape paintings!

i.e. they both shuffled things around to make it more attractive to the eye, but that doesn't

detract from the quality of the workmanship.

Cheers, Jeff

[coachmann]

Well, I hope nobody took that the wrong way!

I hadnt taken it the wrong way. On the contrary, your remark provided me with food for thought. Knowing Pendons high specification when commisioning models, I hadn't really considered whether the layout was based on a specific location or not.....It had just never entered my head. I just felt it was real. Of all the Big Four railway companies, the GWR was different and I submit it would not be possible to build an LMS, LNER or SR style "Pendon".

 

In other words, one could build a GWR layout and it could be anywhere in the country on the GWR system. Okay, in South Wales one could introduce a pregroup 0-6-2T to show the model is based on the Rhymney or whatever, and a Cambrian 0-6-0 would show the line was based on the Cambrian Coast. But it was nothing like the SR, LMS or LNER where pregroup structures, signals, locos, coaches and wagons denoted a specific area of the British Isles.

[10800]

Unfortunately model railways all lose that "link to the real world" however close to the prototype they may be; how many real BR lines use fiddle yards and go nowhere? How many steam locos use 12 volts to power them? How many stations in UK would be squashed into 4 X 2?

 

I don't think that's the point Simon - we all know the constraints in a model of space, mode of power etc but that's different to the transfer and interpretations of the real thing into model form. We can be inspired by the modelling of others, whether it is technical or in their means of interpreting reality, but ultimately it is the prototype, directly or indirectly, that inspires.

 

 

For you, the prototype is king, for others, a layout which might have no link to the real world but brings pleasure and a sense of achievement is equally important. Many modellers just don't have the time, space or money to model prototypes.

 

It doesn't matter, I think there is some confusion here between 'the prototype' (as in 'reality') and the modelling of a 'real prototype location'. You can have a real place or a might-have-been or something completely fictitious, or a mix of all three - but the success of that model will still depend on observation of the prototype, for me anyway. Other criteria for inspiration may apply to other modellers of course.

[Guest oldlugger]

Hello 10800,

 

I've not missed the point at all. I was being facetious using these old modelling chestnuts to amplify my point of view in answer to Jim SW's argument. He says he doesn't use other layouts as inspiration, only prototype, prototype, because following the real world somehow has more cred than following fiction. With such an acute stance, one has to therefore question the relative other things that make up the "prototype" model which to a member of the non model railway world might seem comical and questionable and far from the real world (hands from the sky uncoupling trains; cars on busy roads that don't move, etc, etc). These things are just as out of place and not connected to reality as are turnouts without stretcher bars or an A4 shunting a coal mine layout. The point is, none of it could matter less; whatever one's approach to layouts is, it brings a sense of achievement to the builder. The question was "which layouts have really inspired you?" It's a very fair question and the answers equally so, because I think most of us have been inspired by others work and most of us probably aren't losing sleep or hair worrying about whether the 10.15am from Paddington to Shrewsbury only ever had six coaches in its consist except once when George Best came to town in 1968. I just think that to say you don't get inspired by others work is a bit er....

 

Cheers

Simon

[Guest jim s-w]

More cred Simon?

 

I never said that at all. I have often said that modelling a real place is easier than making one up as you don't need an understanding of what you are modelling, just copy what you see.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Edited September 20, 2011 by jim s-w

[ozzyo]

Come on boys, put your toys back in the play pen, and get back to what OP asked about, what layouts have inspired you. As I said in my reply David Jenkinson's Garsdale Road was one. It was not a real place but it was the M.R. on the S&C, the type of track plan was correct, the building were about right, that was what it had going for it. It was not a big layout IIRC about 10' X 12' but the trains were a good representation of what you may see on that line and that worked for me.

 

OzzyO.

[coachmann]

Actually I found that building a real location was not easy, and wasn't simply a case of copying what was there. I had to search out details of buildings that had been demolished years ago, plus I also needed to acquire an understanding of the location, its topography and the changes that had taken place over the years. Greenfield was a lesson in how a railway company set about constructing the facilities it required within the confines of a narrow ledge cut into a mountain hillside. It started out as a wayside station but becoming a junction must have tested the minds of surveyors when a bay for branch trains plus run round facilities had to be incorporated on a shelf that could not be expanded. I had never bothered my head about how shunting took place without a headshunt until building the layout. I had to find out! It took place using the mainline under the watchful eye of the signalman and wagons were moved around a few at a time because of the severe gradient. Grist for the mill if one is really keen, but I can't help thinking how much easier a fictitious station would have been had I designed it to suit me!