Lack of contemporary layouts on the exhibition circuit

[newbryford]

. You are never going to convert the opinion of those that simply do not see beyond kettles and those of the opposite camp who hate the sight of them.

 

Absolutely!

 

I must admit to seeing some pretty polarised views in the above posts and I respect those opinions. As long as no-one tries to change my mind

 

After all it's only model trains that we're playing with.

 

As the OP, I asked why there were so few contemporary layouts and Ian Pennine MC summed it up perfectly well way back in post#102

Cheers,

Mick

[beast66606]

<snip>

 

Maybe now you've had your say we can actually move on ? (I'm not even going to point out the changes to your comments)

[newbryford]

 

 

My 'office' overlooks a railway line and theres very few short, three to five vehicle trains, as opposed to the regular Merry Go Round coal services behind the ubiquitous class 66, to my mind the equivalent of Monty Pythons 'Gondola' sketch, 'here we are in the midlands, theres a coal train, and its another ####### 66!' The plan we came up with in 'N' meant good length coal trains, protoypical shunting and a prototype location, which wasn't cliche'd but has the potential for really interesting scenery. I wonder if the layouts that we see in the future, particularly those which show scale length or close to, contemporary trains, will utilise N gauge more than 4mm? Using N gauge to replicate a scale length train operation seemed to be a very practical solution to achieve that visual impact where 4mm would have been far more space consuming.

 

Admittedly N lends itself to the large block trains that dominate today's freight scene, but let's not forget that long trains were also a feature of steam days. How many short freight trains would there be on a "normal" mainline? Probably not that many. Branch lines, yes.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, with a few exceptions, passenger trains have particularly decreased in length in the modern era.

 

If I was starting out again, I would probably go down the N route as the availability of modern stock (of a decent quality) in recent years has improved more than the 00 equivalent IMO.

 

We have a trick that works on New Bryford - the visible length of a train is about 11 feet, so a block train only needs to be 12' or so and it gives the visual impression of a much longer train.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[beast66606]

but let's not forget that long trains were also a feature of steam days. How many short freight trains would there be on a "normal" mainline? Probably not that many. Branch lines, yes.

As mentioned elsewhere, with a few exceptions, passenger trains have particularly decreased in length in the modern era.

 

Exactly, which fits in with the rose tinted glasses mentioned by Black Hat - the added thing with steam period layouts is, for the vast majority, the trains would set back into the yard, so you actually need at least double the length (and in reality probably at least 4 times for obvious reasons) of the pick up of the to accommodate them without them vanishing off the scene, so even a short train of say 20 wagons would actually need a layout capable of taking 80 wagons to look good, or we use modellers licence... (which is apparently frowned upon for the modern scene)

[Edwin_m]

His first post is still the most 'repected/liked/appreceiated' in the whole thread, which indicates his peers feel he has contributed something useful to the debate regardless of what you may think.

 

As you've now made this particular point three times I think, I suppose you are expecting an answer.

 

It is noted and accepted that contemporary is a minority interest in the hobby and many people aren't interested. However some people clearly are interested otherwise there wouldn't be constructive posts on this thread from more than a handful. I have to say this continual mention of numbers smacks of trying to suppress the discussion.

 

I realise I've said some of this at least once already but it doesn't seem to have registered.

[Edwin_m]

Whilst researching and preparing a writing project one of the themes I looked at was trying to build a convincing model in a reasonable 6ft x 2ft space using contemporary rail equipment. To get the visual impact of the contemporary scene meant that N gauge was the prefered scale...

 

I'd like to offer my genuine thanks for making a constructive contribution to the topic. Can we bury the hatchet now?

[beast66606]

Whilst researching and preparing a writing project one of the themes I looked at was trying to build a convincing model in a reasonable 6ft x 2ft space using contemporary rail equipment. To get the visual impact of the contemporary scene meant that N gauge was the prefered scale,

 

Sorry to disagree Paul but 6 X 2 is not a reasonable space for a model, it may be all a lot of people (myself included) have, but to make a decent model of virtually anything requires more than that, be it DBS, or L&M (decent meaning in length not in quality)

 

because you could get the feeling of a long block train, even if selectively compressed, far easier than with 4mm.

 

Which is where the part station (e.g. Micks Blackmill) / part yard (e.g. my proposed Wilderspool Causeway) come into play, it means people can model in a small space something which gives the impression of a larger train, Yourshire Pullman used to do this all the time, I think he even made a main line terminal (impression) in a box file at one stage.

 

Earlier in the thread sombody made a costing comment that a 3m long train 66+coal wagons would cost similar to a steam era loco + 16t'ers. The costing may well be true, but prototypically its easier to make a short plausible everyday steam service ,(particularly transition era), than it is to do the same with contemporary equipement. To a degree this can make steam and up to and including sectorisation easier to model especially if you're modelling whole trains.

 

Using the part of a ... means that the expenditure in 4mm can actually be less than 2mm (loco + 2 wagons vs loco + 5 wagons) but of course the train is actually significantly shorter and uses smoke and mirrors to give impressions rather than actual, even in 2mm a full length modern train could be over 6' at scale length so it's still using modellers licence.

 

The plan we came up with in 'N' meant good length coal trains, protoypical shunting and a prototype location, which wasn't cliche'd but has the potential for really interesting scenery.

 

I'm sure we modern modellers are all keen to see this.

 

I wonder if the layouts that we see in the future, particularly those which show scale length or close to, contemporary trains, will utilise N gauge more than 4mm? Using N gauge to replicate a scale length train operation seemed to be a very practical solution to achieve that visual impact where 4mm would have been far more space consuming.

 

Only as much as 1950s or 1960s or 1970s or 1930s layouts use 2mm more than 4mm - the trains were often significantly longer in those periods than their modern equivalent but the ability to make them more "in the scenery / townscape" may well win on all era (where 2mm is available to the masses, i.e ready to ruN)

 

Note - I have used 2mm as a synonym for N gauge for ease

[Edwin_m]

PMP makes a good point that short freight trains are much more difficult to believe in a contemporary context. A Pannier or whatever on three wagons is credible. To justify a 66 on three wagons is pretty difficult unless you are modelling a TMD or wagon repair works, which many people would say were the typical cliched modern layouts, or make heavy use of Dave's smoke and mirrors.

 

On the other hand a minimum-space passenger station could be smaller as a contemporary layout than as an older era, because you wouldn't need a run-round. However such a station would be no more than a siding, so zero operational interest!

 

All this is the sort of reason why I and probably some others believe that contemporary layouts are more likely to use a smaller scale, but still be towards the large end of the range in actual dimensions for exhibition layouts. To take things to an extreme in the UK context, Network Rail is looking to run 775m freight trains on the main intermodal routes, which would be about 5 metres long in 2mm scales and getting on for 2 metres in T gauge. Should we be expecting to see an exhibition layout of Daventry freight terminal in T?

 

Anyone planning to model a main line in North America has this problem even worse.

 

Just a googly for any exhibition managers who may still be reading. Like its prototype the contemporary layout ought to be less labour-intensive than one set in previous eras. While the layout itself is big, cutting out all that shunting may mean there are fewer operators!

[Glorious NSE]

Anyone planning to model a main line in North America has this problem even worse.

 

Quite, which is why so many are shortline/shunty planks. We've used the same definition of 'long train' as Mick BTW, a long train is one that you can't see the ends of...our lengths are different, but the concept works.

 

And there are *some* short freights out there, if you know where to look. DRS runs most of them, but there are some others.

[Edwin_m]

Indeed so Martyn, but I think most of the opportunities to have a believable short freight and no long freights involve nuke flask traffic. Maybe Bachmann were pretty astute in modelling the flask wagon - anyone for Sellafield?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Sometimes I think a pre-grouping layout would be nice.

Sometimes I think modelling one of the Big Four would be good.

Sometimes I think green diesels are ace.

Sometimes I think BR blue is cool.

Sometimes I think Cl.66s, Cl.70s and units are interesting.

 

Each period or era has advantages and disadvantages. None is inherently better or worse than any other. Some periods may have more of what you're personally interested in recreating, they might bring back specific memories or they might just have something that paticularly appeals.

 

As long as we model the contemporary scene and all the periods/scenes/images predating it,then that creates a balance of railway layouts which will form an enjoyable model show.

 

Thank you.

Peter

[coachmann]

Edwin M :

To justify a 66 on three wagons is pretty difficult unless you are modelling a TMD or wagon repair works,

Oh I don't know. Trains for all seasons....

 

7F cattle train...

Photo by Jim Davenport. B.Green collection.

[Snow White]

And there can be few shorter passenger trains than this one in any era - 31ft long

 

This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons

[t-b-g]

Just a little note to publicly thank those who have voiced there support. You know who you are. Not for supporting my views on modern railways (which I will not repeat here) but for supporting my right to express my views on why we don't see many modern layouts at shows (which I won't repeat here either).

 

I also won't draw attention to the pro modern layout postings, which repeat previous postings because that would be petty.

 

Is trying to illustrate the appeal of modern railway models by having a photo of a 66 on yet another great long, unmodelable (to most people), freightliner post modern humour or just ironic? It certainly made me smile .

[Pennine MC]

 

I'm not dismissive of steam at all, but i'd point out the argument that diesels are 'just boxes' only works if you take a broad enough view that the majority of steam is also looks pretty much the same shape...this thread isn't a 'steam vs diesel' argument, so no need to make it one?

 

From somewhere in't middle of the timeline, and (hopefully) seeing all sides - I could easily say (and sometimes do) that all 'old cars' look the same to me, whereas you'll often hear others say that all 'modern cars' look the same. Given that there are only so many variations on a theme, it's just a case of familiarity; I could tell a Focus from an Astra, just as some could tell an Austin 7 from a Morris 8. It doesnt prove or disprove the generalisation, it only shows that you naturally know more about what you favour.

 

 

As the OP, I asked why there were so few contemporary layouts and Ian Pennine MC summed it up perfectly well way back in post#102

 

Thanks for that Mick, without being too self-indulgent I'm not sure why that hasnt attracted any comment (whether positive or negative); TBH I half expected a bit of both as it formed the basis of an MRJ editorial a few years ago - does nobody have an opinion on it, or has it been overshadowed by other 'issues'?

[newbryford]

 

I also won't draw attention to the pro modern layout postings, which repeat previous postings because that would be petty.

 

And I won't draw attention to the anti modern layout postings either, which also have a repeat feature............

 

Sorry for (almost) repeating a previous posting.

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

[newbryford]

 

Thanks for that Mick, without being too self-indulgent I'm not sure why that hasnt attracted any comment (whether positive or negative);

 

[mutual appreciation mode on] Probably no need for comment as your original post was pretty much spot-on.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Andy Y]

 

 

 

I also won't draw attention to the pro modern layout postings, which repeat previous postings because that would be petty.

 

 

And I won't draw attention to the anti modern layout postings either, which also have a repeat feature............

 

Sorry for (almost) repeating a previous posting.

 

 

Cheers,

Mick

 

I think that's a fair point to come in at and ask that there are no more postings along the 'my era's better than yours' line. I'm happy for constructive or analytical postings relating to Mick's OP to continue though.

[kevpeo]

Following on from Andy's cooling off post! Still on topic, but so far not mentioned is insurance cost. A lot of the ''contemporary'' layouts mentioned (in 4mm at least) have something in common, DCC sound! I've become increasingly aware of Coppell's ever climbing insurance value since the soundbug bit!

In days of yore when Lima was ''cheap tat'' a loco was worth 20 to 40 quid, remember those days! Now if you buy a Hornby 31, fit it with Howes sound and a bass reflex speaker, not much change from £250!!!!! Add in base stations, laptops, smartphones and all the other paraphernalia of this DCC age, is this what is causing the drop in invites? Over to the show managers – kev.

[Guest dilbert]

Thanks for that Mick, without being too self-indulgent I'm not sure why that hasnt attracted any comment (whether positive or negative); TBH I half expected a bit of both as it formed the basis of an MRJ editorial a few years ago - does nobody have an opinion on it, or has it been overshadowed by other 'issues'?

 

Post #177 as an extension to your second paragraph... dilbert

[kevpeo]

But the original post asks about ''large'' layouts. While agreed that a kit built steamer would quickly climb way above a RTR ''box'' in value. There are not that many large steam layouts with rosters above 100 kit built locos around (our ex manager would love to find some, but again, those that are, are v expensive to bring, same problem!) As for adding builders time into the equation, don't go there!!!!! kev.

[Glorious NSE]

I suspect the insurance cost for bringing a large layout to a show (irrespective of era!) pales into insignificance to the transport and staffing related costs.

[newbryford]

 

An Alan Gibson 4mm J15 GE/LNER 0-6-6 kit will cost just in parts approx £200. Add DCC to it and or sound and you'll be way north of a RTR 'sound loco, steam or diesel, then if you include the assembly time for someone to put it together as in new for old you'd easily be at £4-£500+ a loco. A recent thread indicated an etched 4mm coach kit assembled in a non complex livery would reasonably be £200'ish' each.

 

This is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. If you put r-t-r steam and r-t-r diesel then that's a more realistic comparison. I would go so far as to say that there are probably more diesel DCC sound layouts than their equivalent steam counterpart. And that's even taking into account that there are less diesel layouts full stop.

 

At our last exhibition,the most expensive layout for insurance was 009...........

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Xerces Fobe2]

As we get older we all look back with in what we perceive as the good memories and good times and this can distort our view of the present.

 

My liking for Class 501's and the NLL is an example as much as I have fond memories the reality is these unit gave not the vest of rides were not as good as the Oerlikons (in terms of comfort) as the Oerlikons they replaced. The NLL lines were run down in a very poor state at this time. If you look at the Overground now how much better these stations are and even though the Class 378's have fewer seats they do provide a clean, fast and modern mode of transport.

 

Maybe my next layout should be based on the Overground!

 

XF

[t-b-g]

Hopefully we are all sitting calmly now and can continue with this rather interesting debate. The insurance cost comments bring to mind a further possible factor to take into account. The apples and oranges comment brings to mind a possible difference between modelling the current scene in 2011 and comparing it with modelling the current scene as it was in, say, 1975. This is the dramatic improvement in RTR locos and stock, not just for up to date prototypes but for models of all periods.

 

In 1975, if you wanted to have a good model of a current diesel, you had the choice of purchasing a dodgy Hornby/Lima loco, or an equally dodgy kit. With a degree of skill and effort, you could usually create a decent representation of the real loco and layouts where somedody had flush glazed, detailed and weathered a rake of Mark 11 stock, or an HST set, when they came out, really stood out from the crowd.

 

I still remember being awestruck by the HST set and the Deltic that ran around High Dyke and I thought that they were even more impressive than the slow trundling O2s on the iron ore trains. They looked like the trains I went out and saw on "Donny" station. The Deltic still turns heads around Retford 30 plus years on.

 

Nowadays, everybody can have a brilliant model just by opening a box. I am going to give another personal view now (so I hope that I get away with it) but when I go to a show, I prefer to see models that people have made, or at least had to put some personal effort into, rather than something that they have bought and is so good they don't need to do anything to it. I can go to a model shop if I want to see that. I don't have to pay to get in there!

 

Looking around Wakefield show today, it struck me that there are a number of very attractive layouts (from various periods and parts of the world) running pretty much all RTR locos and stock. However, pretty much all the layouts where locos and stock have been built are from the steam era and British steam at that.

 

This could mean that the stock (bought RTR) on one modern layout can be fairly similar to the stock on another modern layout and it may influence exhibition managers in their choice of how many such layouts to invite.

 

The same could also apply to the stock on a steam layout. But in that era, right through the blue diesel period, most regions had their own distinctive loco and stock types, so a Deltic meant ECML, a Western meant ex GWR and a 33 or Electrodiesel meant Southern etc. So you could have three blue diesel period layouts, or more, each with quite distinctive stock, creating a sense of place.

 

I wonder if it becomes harder to create a sense of place, perhaps atmosphere, through the stock on a truly modern layout. Even many things like signals, fences, buildings etc that gave away the original geography of the place have been replaced by standard items that appear all over the country. I know that ECML trains are not the same as WCML trains etc, but when you get off the main lines onto the freight workings, they really don't seem to vary very much from one part of the country to another.

 

I hope that I haven't trodden on anybody's toes (and I apologise in advance if I have) but I have just tried to put forward a thought on why creating a truly modern layout that excites the imagination of others, including exibition managers, might not be as easy as opening the latest Bachmann/Hornby boxes and running them on Peco track (because they do it with concrete sleepers).

 

That combination could easily create a truly satisfying layout for any particular individual and would save many hours/weeks/months/years of modelling time in any era/scale or gauge. Having an excess of such layouts at an exhibition possibly won't inspire folk like me, who prefer to see things that people have made.

 

Anybody got a photo of a scratchbuilt Class 66 to show us? I would consider myself a born again modern era convert!