Wright writes.....

[grahame]

For those who are interested in the issue and effect of horizontal vs vertical compression, here's a high(ish) level view from what will be the back of the layout. It shows just how steep Duke Street Hill really is which is a little comforting that my 'cheats' to disguise it appear to have worked in the earlier photo. Fortunately this is a view that won't be able to be seen on the layout (assuming it gets completed):

 

 

The cardboard track deck and bridge sides are just temporarily rested in place. And the details facing the camera (curved shop front and abutment walls have only basic rough details added as they won't be ale to be seen from the usual viewing position (Allen Dawes often said don't model what can't be seen). But there's plenty more work to be done . . . .  

G

[Tony Wright]

One of the noticeable features in those layouts is the track work, particularly the N gauge work. It just does not look 'too small' as in some of that scale/gauge.Maybe ity is the better angle of the compositions in that they are not helicopter shots?

Phil (the other one.......)

Little Salkeld is laid with Code 40 rail, Phil, with hand-made pointwork. 

 

I don't know what size Clifton and Lowther's trackwork is, but it certainly looks 'scale'. 

 

The late, great Andy Calvert was a great exponent at disguising over-scale N Gauge trackwork.

[Tony Wright]

I didn't realise there was quite so much compression on CF, but then that's the skill of the builders in achieving that without it being obvious and still retaining the atmosphere, realism and overall look.

 

The point about spot heights is quite relevant and something I'm finding out on my own attempts at compression and compromise. It's easy enough to shorten things and accommodate in a plan (horizontal) plane but heights can't be so readily be hacked. Doorways, bridge clearances and building heights have a limit to the amount of reduction otherwise they look ridiculous and become unworkable. And when reducing the horizonal by more then the vertical, slopes become rather much steeper and more difficult to accommodate.

 

I'm already having to deal with this on my rather (much poorer attempt) at an urban London scene. For example in this pic (which is far from finished):

 

DSC_7105.JPG

 

Duke Street Hill (bottom right with the tanker lorry on) is far too steep, as it the way it swings around right to London Bridge (past the white top B20 DMS bus). Also so to is the slope down Borough High Street (past the front of Southwark Cathedral) to the left. I've tried to mitigate with various cheats (bending the pavement down, paint effects, flattening the walkway ramp, and so on) but I'm at the stage where I'll have to live with it - especially thinking about the other parts of the layout with different level and interconnecting roads that will need to be modelled.

 

G

No matter that things aren't 'dead right', Grahame,

 

What you're modelling is exceptionally well done. Selective compression (subtle alteration?) at its best.

 

Thanks for posting. 

[Manxcat]

What escalates an excellent layout to iconic status? Indeed is it a given that a layout has to be excellent to also be iconic?

[chris p bacon]

Returning to the theme of 'taking things out' in photographs, here are a few more examples...................

 

Little Salkeld 14.jpg

 

Last week, I photographed Paul Moss' beautiful N Gauge depiction of a bit of the S&C, Little Salkeld. It's going in the RM next year, so, please, look out for it. It really is exceptional modelling. 

 

It's in the 'hobby room', with the usual things one might find all around.

 

Little Salkeld 14 complete.jpg

 

Taking out the 'clutter', by cloning a piece of the background's sky and extending it, immediately draws the attention to the model. The lines go on/off scene via means of a 'hole in the sky' (on the straight!), and I've just removed this. In fairness, from ordinary (exhibition) viewing angle, it's invisible.

 

I like the way you've called it "The Hobby Room' Tony, Pauls wife Linda calls it 'The Art Studio' but I've said that all the artists I've seen work outside, thereby freeing up the room in its entirety.

I made a few items for Paul (waiting room and some components for the buildings) and it convinced me that 2mm was not for me!

[Tony Wright]

What escalates an excellent layout to iconic status? Indeed is it a given that a layout has to be excellent to also be iconic?

Archie,

 

I wonder whether 'iconic' is one of those words which has changed in meaning down the decades. Its roots are in the description of sacred images.

 

I wonder how many layouts, excellent though they might be, will be looked upon as sacred artifacts in years to come; maybe even relics!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Tony Wright

[grahame]

What escalates an excellent layout to iconic status? Indeed is it a given that a layout has to be excellent to also be iconic?

 

To me 'iconic' seems to be one of those over-used (and perhaps cliched) words these days. Reporters on TV and radio seem to use it a lot to describe things. It is often used for things that are simply widely recognised and popular (as in commonplace) rather than as in representative of an icon - something very special and worthy of veneration.

 

G. 

[Lecorbusier]

Archie,

 

I wonder whether 'iconic' is one of those words which has changed in meaning down the decades. Its roots are in the description of sacred images.

 

I wonder how many layouts, excellent though they might be, will be looked upon as sacred artifacts in years to come; maybe even relics!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Iconic I submit as a 'contemporary' definition could be seen as something which has stood the test of time ...as being inspirational and of the highest quality, such that people will make a secular pilgrimage to see or visit it.

[CF MRC]

‘Iconic’ & ‘unique’ are two words that are greatly overused these days, methinks.

 

Tim

[St Enodoc]

Iconic I submit as a 'contemporary' definition could be seen as something which has stood the test of time ...as being inspirational and of the highest quality, such that people will make a secular pilgrimage to see or visit it.

I regard the Madder Valley as "iconic" but with the best will in the world it would be hard to say that it was of the highest quality. Inspirational - yes, that works better.

[t-b-g]

Iconic. Unique. Buckingham!

[AndyID]

‘Iconic’ & ‘unique’ are two words that are greatly overused these days, methinks.

 

Tim

 

Brilliant!

[petrovich]

Returning to the theme of 'taking things out' in photographs, here are a few more examples...................

 

Little Salkeld 14.jpg

 

Last week, I photographed Paul Moss' beautiful N Gauge depiction of a bit of the S&C, Little Salkeld. It's going in the RM next year, so, please, look out for it. It really is exceptional modelling. 

 

It's in the 'hobby room', with the usual things one might find all around.

 

Little Salkeld 14 complete.jpg

 

Taking out the 'clutter', by cloning a piece of the background's sky and extending it, immediately draws the attention to the model. The lines go on/off scene via means of a 'hole in the sky' (on the straight!), and I've just removed this. In fairness, from ordinary (exhibition) viewing angle, it's invisible.

 

Clifton and Lowther 15.jpg

 

Clifton and Lowther 16.jpg

 

Another, equally-impressive N Gauge layout is Eric Farragher's Clifton and Lowther. Eric, too, takes his lines on/off scene via straights, under bridges. Again, from exhibition angles the subsequent sharp curves beyond cannot be seen, but the camera found them. I don't think filling in with dark grey is a 'cheat'. I also extended upwards Eric's sky background.

 

In next Month's RM, there'll be an update on Carlisle in EM.

 

Carlisle 40B.jpg

 

The walls of the (vast) room in which Carlisle is housed are draped in black. I used this to my advantage in this nocturne, merely copying the overall tone.

 

A black sky would not have worked in the picture below, so I've substituted a neutral, warm grey.

 

In none of the pictures above has the modelling been altered. I think that's very important. 

Hi Tony, all of these look excellent layouts something to strive for.

 

Peter

[Lecorbusier]

I regard the Madder Valley as "iconic" but with the best will in the world it would be hard to say that it was of the highest quality. Inspirational - yes, that works better.

Interesting .... I would say the same for model railways. Given the period in which it was constructed and the materials available I would suggest that in many ways it could be defined as the 'highest quality' on many levels. Definitions are always tricky and people always interpret and nuance according to their own meanings ... so lets drop 'highest quality' ...... I would suggest that in motoring the beetle could lay claim to being iconic ...

[Clem]

Agreed almost totally, however the Midland did just disable the GC in the east midlands (especially in Notts and Leicestershire), and south Yorkshire just because they wanted to. It was a slow death by not very well disguised stealth (that seems a strange description but you may get what I'm saying there?) Stuffing the LNER/?GC loco fleet and dropping in a lot of LMS loco's, the Scots for example were knackered, ensured the GC/ER staff decided to call it a day in many cases. The 'eight freights' were ok, the inherited 9Fs were tolerated and the few Black 5s proved their worth on the final London Branch passenger turns.

I know little about op's but can't quite understand why the almost flat and crossingless (apart from one) GC route was not the preferred freight route to the smoke and not the Midland where Sharnbrook was a PITA and created timing issues. They even lost the 'strategic route' to the west' from Woodford H. Bonkers decisions.

 

Hey ho as they say in the Boys' Brigade.

Phil (the other one)

 

Hi Phil. I agree with your sentiments with regard to the GC.  Just one slight amendment here. The 9Fs came to the GC in 1956/7 before the LM takeover and were absolutely loved by the Annesley men by all accounts. They came from March or new and were the Eastern Region version with the BR1F tenders. They certainly preferred O1s to 8Fs and but were forced to withdraw the remaining O1s at Annesley in November 1962 one of which had just returned from Gorton, fresh from a general overhaul.

[Enterprisingwestern]

‘Iconic’ & ‘unique’ are two words that are greatly overused these days, methinks.

 

Tim

 

Almost constantly.

 

Mike.

[Chamby]

‘Iconic’ & ‘unique’ are two words that are greatly overused these days, methinks.

Tim

The judges on Saturday evening TV singing and dancing competitions certainly seem to have exhausted the entire contents of the OED’s superlatives, with excruciating repetitiveness of late and this seems to have transferred outside of that genre, unfortunately. The best example of superlative-itis has to be Donald Trump’s quote: “We are going to win bigly, believe me!”

 

Epic! (Oops...)

[Tony Wright]

What interesting comments regarding how one defines (or grades?) model railways.

 

I've probably said this before, but I almost had to go into hiding for not putting Pendon in my top ten of model railways of all time. The righteous indignation from those who thought I was committing heresy, or even apostasy came from all directions in the hobby. Why did I place the great museum-piece behind the likes of Retford? Because it's not a model of an actual prototype. Though there a prototypical elements on it (aren't all the buildings based on real ones?), the whole scene, though beautifully-modelled, is made-up. That's why no model railway which represents something which never existed (as a whole) will never be in my top ten (or 20, or 30...................) 'best layouts of all time'. 

 

That's not to say they're not influential. The likes of Buckingham, Borchester and the Madder Valley have had a great influence on modellers down the generations, and they should be applauded for this. But, in my view, they lack that essential element of being able to look at a prototype picture and then look at the same picture in model form. Though simple physics (if physics can ever be simple) mean that it's impossible to replicate the exact image, it is a very good yardstick for testing modelling accuracy. 

 

Though I'd never put Little Bytham in the same 'premier' league as the other layouts just mentioned, the prototype/model-type picture is something I can produce. Something impossible on made-up layouts, however good the modelling.

 

Apologies if some of these pictures have been seen before................

 

 

 

 

 

I'd never be so daft as to describe the model of Little Bytham as 'iconic' (how could I be involved with anything sacred?), but at least the 'acid test' of photography can be applied.

 

As for standards, those 'influential' layouts from years ago (let's not be so arrogant as to call them 'iconic') are (were) very much products of their time. 60-70-year old cardboard and balsa wood buildings/structures covered in brick paper are going to look exactly like what they are. Locos and rolling stock made from what-was-available-at-the-time materials are going to struggle to withstand the powerful digital imagery possible today. Yet, they do have a character, and, perhaps, that's their charm. 

 

Certainly, standards have improved across the whole range. Given better materials, methods, processes and procedures, then they should have. 

 

Take for instance, the images below showing models in O Gauge.

 

 

 

Given that this railway was built by top-professionals and the locos and stock were factory-produced in Korea, then a very high standard should be expected. It's certainly to a higher standard than anything I've ever made, and, I doubt, these standards will ever be bettered.

 

Thoughts, please. 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

Hello Tony

 

Most of us cannot afford the space to make a model of a real location except possibly Holywell Town (scale size 8 feet by 1 and bit feet) and that had a some very strange workings. Therefore to recreate a model which has the elements of reality we compromise (make one up) to fit the space. Some of us do it better than others.

 

Anyhow, hasn't there been enough electrons wasted on this forum about two models of prototype locations exhibited at the same show recently which lacked one of the fundamentals of a model railway (train set) and that is movement.

[MarkC]

 

Most of us cannot afford the space to make a model of a real location except possibly Holywell Town (scale size 8 feet by 1 and bit feet) and that had a some very strange workings. Therefore to recreate a model which has the elements of reality we compromise (make one up) to fit the space. Some of us do it better than others.

 

Damems station on the Worth Valley?

[APOLLO]

Though I'd never put Little Bytham in the same 'premier' league as the other layouts just mentioned, 

 

Thoughts, please. 

 

I do Tony, Little Bytham is in the top 5 as far as I'm concerned, based on (your) photographs as I've never seen it. A honest "work day" layout, as was my all time favourite(s) No 1 - The Borchester layouts of Frank Dyer.

 

Keep up the good work !!

 

Brit15

Edited December 3, 2018 by APOLLO

[t-b-g]

It is rather like the difference between a photo and a painting. The photographer records a scene. The painter can paint a real scene or they can create one from their imagination or they can go somewhere inbetween, using real items in an imagined composition.

 

Each approach has its merits. I would never suggest that simply copying a real place represents a lack of creativity and imagination because I know how much disciplined modelling is involved.

 

But for a modeller to build a good model of a scene that never existed is, to me, not something lacking but something extra, requiring artistry and imagination above and beyond the copy of a real place. Most real places don't actually make models that float my boat because they usually fall down on one or more criteria that matter to me. The number of real places with the visual appeal, variety of workings and operational interest, plus suitable scenic breaks, that can be modelled in the space that most of us have is tiny.

 

The majority of layouts based on real places are either tiny branch lines or big tailchasers. Neither appeal to me as a long term project and wouldn't maintain my interest as a "lifetime project" as Buckingham did for Peter Denny. I enjoy shunting, marshalling trains and running them. Buckingham gives me all that plus is very largely scratchbuilt all by one person.

Edited December 3, 2018 by t-b-g

[bbishop]

Bushampton by Freddy Bush - a regular at Central Hall.  Watching the Adams Jubilee sitting in the dock persuaded me into modelling the LSWR in O gauge.

 

Bill

[grahame]

 

Thoughts, please. 

 

It is certainly very rewarding and impressive to create a model railway that is a very close accurate miniature replica of the real thing. But unfortunately to do so means an almost inexhaustible supply of resources (time, space, money, etc.,) that many of us don't have. And some have it in very short supply indeed.

 

Consequently when trying to build a model of a real location there is usually much compromise and compression necessary, and to some extent its a matter of how much can be gotten away with without affecting the overall look and plan (and even operation). For me, what I'm trying to achieve is a model railway that looks like the location it is based on but still retains the appropriate atmosphere, period and style. The research is interesting and fun and I'd like the results to be recognisable but there are also my own limitations of modelling skills and so on, despite wanting it to be accurate and detailed.

 

Probably expecting the results to have fidelity and be obvious (as to the location) is somewhat too much and maybe they are more impressionistic, but then weren't some of the greatest artists impressionists? But perhaps trying (having a go at modelling) is probably the greatest reward and the first step to achieving success and creating a model that oozes finesse. And then, of course, there is what people choose as their priority in the hobby - to have a working railway they can operate, to just build models, to create an overall realistic scene, and, dare I say it, simply to collect RTR.

 

G.

[Mallard60022]

Hi Phil. I agree with your sentiments with regard to the GC.  Just one slight amendment here. The 9Fs came to the GC in 1956/7 before the LM takeover and were absolutely loved by the Annesley men by all accounts. They came from March or new and were the Eastern Region version with the BR1F tenders. They certainly preferred O1s to 8Fs and but were forced to withdraw the remaining O1s at Annesley in November 1962 one of which had just returned from Gorton, fresh from a general overhaul.

 

Oh yes of course Clem. I had forgotten about the 9Fs on the Runners. Thanks. A loco designed for just such work on that sort of railway and another waste of a superb resource IMO. Why did the authorities decide not to retain many of the 9Fs as oil burners at certain depots such as Thornaby, Immingahm and in the North West and use them on Oil, Ore and Stone, alongside diesels? By gad I'm getting angry now at the complete pig headedness of the many of the system management back then who were just bl##dy Accountants  .(Apologies to any Accountants reading this).

Fi Nancy

Edited December 3, 2018 by Mallard60022