Does something get lost as the scale gets bigger?

[Baby Deltic]

To me its the opposite way round. I find 2mm scale layouts sterile because the detail is so tiny you can't always see it. I like 4mm because you can add full interiors to buildings that are easier to see. With something as big a O gauge you can add a mass of detail, but a lot of O gauge layouts seem to have more enthesis placed on the detail of the stock and not so much on the buildings, and this is where a lot of them fall short of the mark.

[PhilH]

I'm starting to get worried. If this was in fact true then what about the 12 inch to 1 foot scale?

 

I think, Mike, that in 12"/ft scale the world doesn't abruptly end so you can appreciate the scale of what you are looking at in the vastness of the rest of the landscape, be it rural or urban - maybe I've answered my own question there.

 

Also nature is the weatherer more often than not,so most of it is pretty much spot on....

[skipepsi]

I think that presentation of the layout is part of the problem the Soo line layout with American diesels was organised so the viewpoint was constrained and it was a very effective layout IMHO. The other aspect is the miss match between exquisite locos polished fit for a Royal train and the rest of the layout. Part of this could be 'here is a chance to showcase my loco's' approach to building a layout.

[Kenton]

Also nature is the weatherer more often than not,so most of it is pretty much spot on....

 

and the realistic sound of the approaching/departing train - not some tinny through the speaker adaptation ...

and the thunderous vibration of a heavy locomotive seeking traction on slippery rails with that unmistakeable vibration from the power contained within ...

and that oily rag and unmistakable smell that lingers from steam and burning coal ...

and the soot in your eye ...

 

All things evocative and memorable of the experience as a whole that makes me wonder why we even bother modeling in any scale when so little can be effectively reproduced.

[PaulRhB]

There are some excellent layouts with soul in 7mm, my personal favourites on the circuit at present would be Hospital Gates and Pempoul, and the secret I think is in the observation of detail in what are usually far more restricted areas modelled. In the larger scales all the little things like rubbish lying around and small details are far more obvious when omitted as you don't have the landscape around to divert your attention. If you blew my HO layout up on a 3D photocopier then I'd want to address quite a bit of extra detail.

Many 7mm layouts would be considered tiny micros in 2 or 4mm and it's the lack of detail to occupy you that leaves many of these as a little cold to me. As with anything though if there is that extra detail then any size layout, in any scale can really work and capture the elusive soul.

Maybe because many move up to larger scales as they get older because they find small bits hard to see means they effectively produce a 4mm layout enlarged, as if on a photocopier, because it still allows them to enjoy the hobby? Should that stop them? I'd say no, as with anything it's up to an exhibition manager or magazine editor to make the judgement on whether it's a good enough layout to show.

[PLD]

It may be a different way of looking at the same issue, but I have always thought that different scales had different strengths and weaknesses. In 2mm scale, for the same amount of real estate, you can include an awful lot more of the surrounding countryside. In 7mm scale, you can include a much greater level of detail and some of the weathering effects survive much closer scrutiny. It is a continuum on which you can pick the point at which you (and your eyesight and your hamfistedness) feel most comfortable. Like most things in life, there is a tradeoff and, for me, 4mm provides the right balance of detail, with a manageable amount of background, in a space that I can accommodate. With appropriate amounts of time, space and money, is there any reason why a large sale layout should be any less atmospheric?

For me, it's the frequent need to heavily compress the railway as well to as lose most of the outside world that spoils it for me with 7mm and above. Very cramped station layouts with overly short sidings, platforms & run round loops featuring Class 40s, Black 5s or whatever on 2 coach trains, no matter how superbly modelled, just don't look right to me. Pete Waterman's layout very obviously gets away from this, but then again he has the resources most of us can only dream of.

 

Honourable exceptions to this rather sweeping generalisation (IMHO) that come immediately to mind are "Ditchling Green" and the various Ian Futers layouts, where short trains really do look dead right.

Those two posts sum up a lot of my thoughts. It's not necessarily about the scale itself but how you use it, and that (mainly because of space limitations) different scales tend to different outcomes. Because of the size, I think larger scales need more thought at the design stage and more careful section of prototypes that can be realistically modelled in the available space.

 

To model the same location that measures 8" x 2" in N gauge would take 28" x 7" in O gauge, so rather than use that rather impractical size, most O-gauge modellers will reduce the scenery outside the railway boundary to reduce the board width (to say 3-4 ft) and compress the length (to say 16-20 ft). The result is more managable but does lose the sense of purpose for the railway being there and reduced train lengths (in number of vehicles) which just doesn't give the same impression of the size/strength/bulk of the train.

[trisonic]

Interesting thought except there are plenty of long, thin 4mm scale layouts too (or short and thin, come to that, micro-layouts) and sometimes because of the use of vignetting they are very successful. I was looking at Over Peover yesterday which is successful as a very long and thin 7mm Scale (not much outside of the railway).

 

As there are so many different answers to this question maybe it is a case of "T'ain't what you do but the way that you do it"?

 

Best, Pete.

[Poggy1165]

Depends what you want to model, really. If you want to do extensive scenery, railway in a landscape sort of thing, 2mm is your friend. If you want to focus on the trains themselves, to have a lineside view, 7mm is unbeatable.

 

Obviously, in 7mm it's helpful to own a larger house, but it is possible to have an effective 7mm layout in a small space, just as it's possible to have an effective 2mm layout in a huge room.

 

Some things are lost as the scale gets bigger, but equally something is lost as the scale gets smaller. It depends what you want. My available space is a tiny room (for 7mm that is) but I favour pregrouping days and my planned layout can accommodate 5 coach trains of six wheelers or 10 wagons. Behind a smallish loco these still look effective. I could probably have a main line layout in P4 in the same space, but it isn't what I want to do.

 

I differ from many modellers in that I do what I do purely for myself, so 'how it would look at an exhibition' is neither here nor there to me.

[woodyfox]

Interesting. Maybe it's all purely down to the fact that the vast majority of 7mm modellers cut their teeth in 4 or 2 mil? The direct transfer of skills learned in the smaller scales to 7mm or larger may not work. Maybe we need to re-learn how to create minature worlds in a larger format?

 

Just a thought.

[Tom J]

There is something about the larger scales which I think does make it harder to take in a scene, but the main issue to my mind is that I don't think that the level of detail which is possible in 7mm and larger is sustainable for the layout builder given the size of layouts it produces with full-length trains and turnouts.

 

When I think of 7mm layouts that have made an impression, they are detailed but small, (and mainly by Ian Futers!), the exception being the old classic 'Holiday Haunts' which was a behemoth of a layout and neither very deep nor very complex from a topographical perspective, but which you could stand back from and admire the scale of, if the crowd in the exhibition hall let you.

 

To my mind, things should be just as fiddly in every scale - but the 'things' should be different!

[AndyH]

New to these things, i agree with how the mind reads the scene before it, but I always think about it like looking at the earth while flying:

Smaller scales, higher altitudes, broad brushstrokes and a quick understanding of character and life below. Many moving ants and busyness caught by the scanning eye.

Larger scales, low level and slow speed. Like others if detail is lacking the eye cannot fill in the gaps and rings the alarms.

Being a new o gauge modeller, after a nearly 30year gap, I am beginning to understand the problem!

Andy

[Edwin_m]

I'm starting to get worried. If this was in fact true then what about the 12 inch to 1 foot scale?

 

Is this actually the same problem that many people perceive with preserved railways?

[Kenton]

Is this actually the same problem that many people perceive with preserved railways?

 

Could be, or a variant thereof. With the preserved railways the biggest problem I have is often the people. The costumes are so out of balance with what in my mind is a set period. I "know" steam ended in the mid sixties (I remember that well) but we have cars in the station car park, modern dress of the passengers with mobile phones glued to their ears, and men dressed in bright orange walking the tracks - it just doesn't look right ... just as it wouldn't look right to have these errors on our model railways.

[PLD]

To my mind, things should be just as fiddly in every scale - but the 'things' should be different!

It is often the case that modellers move up to the so called 'Senior Scale' O gauge from 2mm/4mm 'because of failing eye-sight and things are now too fiddly' but I think in fact the smallest component in a kit or the smallest detail modelled should be about the same physical size. In 2mm you just need a passenger in the coach. In 4mm you need to include the newspaper he's reading. In 7mm you have to be able to read the Headline!

[Pugsley]

Having studied the photos of Apethorn Junction in MI5, I'm starting to develop my theory, and it almost certainly revolves around colour and a lack of detail and texture. This isn't a criticism of what is an impressive layout, but it just so happens that Andy has included the photographs of it in MI 5 and they're perfect for illustrating my point.

 

Take the photo on page MI65, of the Standard tank and the 47 as a starting point. On first impression, it's a very believable scene, but almost instantly you realise that it's a model. Why could this be? My eye is first drawn to the track, it's all the same colour, rails and ballast - such uniformity doesn't generally happen on the prototype. After noticing this, other examples of uniformity spring out, such as the brick pillars and also the weathering on the stock to a certain extent.

 

The next photo, of the 20 in the station, is also another good one for the purpose of this thread. The nicely photoshopped background adds a nice sense of space and reality to the photo, so you can remove the abrupt ending of the landscape from the list of possible reasons. Again, the track stands out to me because of the uniformity, but that's about it. The platform surface, with the colour variation on the flags works very nicely and, if I shift the image on the screen until the track isn't visible, it looks really realistic in my eyes.

 

There's nothing much in the next photo to give it away (page MI67), the car looks particularly good although part of me thinks that it might be a real one photoshopped in, I can't quite make my mind up about that one! The building in the background has more texture and variation in colour than that in the earlier pictures, which helps with the effect. The yard area also looks really good - there's nothing that looks out of place to draw the eye in, even when looking intently at the picture.

 

So, in short, I think the absence of 'soul' in some 7mm layouts is entirely related to missing detail and variation in colour that the eye is expecting to see on something of that size. Things that you can get away with in 4mm scale, and definitely in 2mm scale. As woodyfox writes above, perhaps we need to re-visit how miniature landscapes are created in the larger scales.

[Michael Delamar]

I dont know if it is nostalgia but I often remember the O gauge layouts that where exhibited at our club show in Liverpool Albert dock in the late 80s early 90s where of a higher standard. scratchbuilt pre-grouping stock and backscenes that dont look like a toddler group have painted them.

[Warspite]

I’m finding this a fascinating discussion. Like others, I have been influenced by what I have seen at model railway exhibitions over many years – some very good and, sadly, some rather poor layouts, all in a variety of scales.

 

As someone who had modelled for many years in 4mm, but not very well, I gave 7mm a try to see what it was like. One Peco mineral wagon was all it took to get me hooked. After one abortive attempt at a 7mm layout, I set myself a number of objectives in starting a new 7mm layout, although in a very limited space. These were:

• Provide some variation in scenic levels
  
• Keep everything simple, especially the trackplan - “less is more”
  
• Try and show that the landscape was there before the railway
  
• Put as much effort into weathering roads and paths as rolling stock
  
• Try and replicate the texture and 'feel' of the real world based on observation of what we see every day
  
• Ensure the viewing angle is as it would be if we were trackside in ‘the real world’
  

For me, the last objective is the key to modelling in a limited space, as well as one of the fundamental advantages of modelling in 7mm. Chris Nevard consistently demonstrates that trackside level photos of 4mm layouts can be incredibly realistic but again, for me, the larger the scale, the easier it is to achieve a prototypical perspective. The low level angle helps to disguise the lack of space, particularly depth, as Mark Smith’s Poynton Sneer so well demonstrates. The bottom of my current layout is 4’ 9” from the ground and the track is 5’ from the ground and this enables me to both operate and take photographs of the layout that try and reflect that ‘real world’ view. I do appreciate that the height of exhibition layouts are generally constrained by what is ‘acceptable’ to the viewing public so a degree of compromise is necessary.

 

Some people will find ‘minimum space’ layouts operationally inadequate, boring or repetitive …… or quite possibly all of these! However, all any of us can do is to create a model of the real world, past or present, within the constraints of time, money, space, skill, imagination ………. If we don’t succeed, we have to be our own critics, unless RM Web does it for us!

 

Stephen

[Stubby47]

Pugsley

What you aee in those photos, with the photoshopped backgrounds and exhause fumes, is not what you'd see when looking at the layout for real. My experimental diorama From a Carriage Window seeked to prove that the camera can give a false view.

 

Here's a thought - maybe we should look at all model layouts with only one eye ?

[RandyWales]

Here's a thought - maybe we should look at all model layouts with only one eye ?

 

Or close-focus binoculars?

I'll get my coat

Randall

[RandyWales]

• Provide some variation in scenic levels
  
• Keep everything simple, especially the trackplan - “less is more”
  
• Try and show that the landscape was there before the railway
  
• Put as much effort into weathering roads and paths as rolling stock
  
• Try and replicate the texture and 'feel' of the real world based on observation of what we see every day
  
• Ensure the viewing angle is as it would be if we were trackside in ‘the real world’
  

Succinctly put....those were my objectives for Maenol Mine...

Randall

[Pugsley]

What you see in those photos, with the photoshopped backgrounds and exhause fumes, is not what you'd see when looking at the layout for real.

I appreciate that, but having the background there eliminates one of the reasons why something might be missing. So if it's not that, it must be something else.

[Southernboy]

Just a thought ...

 

For me, whatever scale you model in, the principle that applies is the same as that for film: "The suspension of belief".

 

EG. there's a wonderful tin-plate railway that regularly does the exhibition circuit that is a pleasure to behold despite it's old-fashioned clunkiness.. There's no scenery and little in the way of line-side accessories. Yet it has a certain 'wonderment' about it. Why? Because it captures our imagination ...

 

For me that is the essence of any model railway in any scale.

 

It's not so much about how good the weathering is or scale accuracy / signalling etc (although such things certainly count for a lot) - but more the story that is being told or the overall picture that is being presented.

 

As an example of this, I am not at all interested in shunting. It bores me. But when I saw the videos (with subtitled explanations) of the shunting on John Elliot's Bradfield Gloucester Square, I was totally drawn in by the authenticity and conviction applied to operations. It was like watching a proper TV documentary programme.

 

Perhaps I'm unusual in the way I view layouts ... but that's my tuppence worth on the subject

[Andy Y]

There's nothing much in the next photo to give it away (page MI67), the car looks particularly good although part of me thinks that it might be a real one photoshopped in, I can't quite make my mind up about that one!

 

I can honestly see why you've thought that way as it looked that way to me too as I 'processed' the image. It was there, honest! Why it looks 'real' in part is because of the reflection of natural light on the windscreen. A big part of our perceptions of model or reality are to do with light as much as modelling.

[chaz]

 

I go to a few exhibitions and one thing I've started to notice is that the larger the scale layouts are built in, to whatever standard they are built to, they seem to lose something in terms of, I don't know, let's call it 'soul'. The trackwork is immaculate, the stock is superb, the buildings are just so, but they seem almost dead as in you (I) don't seem to be sucked into the world they are trying to recreate......

 

......I don't know if part of this is the fact that a lot of o gauge layouts I've seen don't feature a backscene, so the world stops all too often in a rotund waistline.

 

As I say, very ethereal, difficult to explain and probably just me anyway.

 

No it's not just you Phil, I share your feelings, what you say rings true for many of the O gauge layouts I have seen. As a 7mm modeller myself I have a few observations....

 

I think the problem is partly the result of an historical legacy that O gauge has been slow to shake off. It wasn't that long ago that if you wanted to work in 7mm you either had to be very wealthy or very skillful. You had to scratchbuild pretty well everything (or pay someone else to do it for you) and this would necessarily make your focus the rolling stock. Even with the coming of etched brass kits things haven't changed that much - a lot of time and some skill is needed to get a working locomotive - and although there is some RTR around now the coverage is still very thin and patchy - unless you like diesels (thank you Heljan).

 

Next 7mm takes up an awful lot of space - this rules out the sort of layout that we have come to expect in 4mm or 2mm for most people. Of course within that space everything is that much bigger - this works in the modellers favour (or should!) you don't need as much and so can concentrate on making fewer items better. But it does mean that to have much operating scope a layout will tend to be crammed with track. With Dock Green I am trying to offset this by going upwards - lots of bridges and retaining walls.

 

I will stick my neck out (Dock Green has yet to go to its first show) and say that there's no excuse for poor running in O gauge. The greater mass of models and the bigger space inside locos for mechanisms should mean realistic operation is the norm.

 

I note your comment about backscenes. Setting a scene in a town or city is one way out, out in the sticks I would use masses of trees (and they can be big in 7mm) - if you're doing the Snape branch you have a problem.

 

....and "rotund waistline" - not me! (But I do recognise the label as applying quite widely)

 

Chaz

[F-UnitMad]

I think that presentation of the layout is part of the problem the Soo line layout with American diesels was organised so the viewpoint was constrained and it was a very effective layout IMHO.

Wahay!! Someone remembers my layout!!

(Cheap plug time - due to appear in the December 2012 Continental Modeller... )

 

I think much of the problem in the OP does relate to the available view, and the lack of backscene on many large-scale layouts doesn't help the illusion of reality. I also think that the modern trend for close-up, very 'cropped' pictures of layouts, both online and in print, also can lead to a measure of disappointment when one then sees the layout 'in the flesh'... a camera might not lie, but it can be quite economical with the truth....