Jump to content
Users will currently see a stripped down version of the site until an advertising issue is fixed. If you are seeing any suspect adverts please go to the bottom of the page and click on Themes and select IPS Default. ×
RMweb
 

Your favourite scenic layout

Dicky W

By Dicky W
in Modelling musings & miscellany

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dicky W

Dicky W

Posted
Posted

We were having a bit of a chat in between the phone not ringing and emails not appearing about scenery. What makes a layout 'scenic'? Does it have to be as large as Totnes or The Gresley Beat to be considered so? I still remember Chee Tor, Chiltern Green and Tebay - they're extensively scenic (as in countryside) to me, although I'd have to say the same about Copenhagen Fields and Halifax King Cross, even though the scenery is 'different.

The Black Country Blues boys are going to a lot of effort to make sure the layout 'feels' right by incorporating a fair amount of scenery - is that necessary, or can the 'dressing' just be a particular building or structure that sums the area up? What are your favourite 'scenic' layouts and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coombe Barton

Coombe Barton

Posted
Posted (edited)
  • Peter Denny's Leighton Buzzard has a high track to board area ratio - but is still 'scenic' in my opinion.
  • If 'scenic' means 'set in a landscape, then Treneglos is scenic, as is Diesels in the Duchy, Once upon a time in the West and as BCB will be. Andy Y's Keyhaven was scenic - industrial scenic. (these are but examples)
  • So are the vast majority of layouts seen at exhibitions.
  • What's not scenic is the EMGS test track (a circle) seen at Expos
  • So you come back to the definition. Reading the original post, is this redefining ;'scenic' as 'countryside'. If so, that only applies one definition of the word (according to the shorter OED)
  • One of the OED definitions related to theatrical display, which is more like we're trying to achieve. See also http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scenichttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/scenic

[EDIT] one thing that I remembered I should have said just after pressing the 'post' button is the term Mise en Scene - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mise_en_sc%C3%A8ne which describes well what the majority of builders are seeking to achieve.

Edited by Coombe Barton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Stubby47

Stubby47

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted

Ones I've seen -Rowlands Castle, Orchard Road, Osney Town - all 'scenic' in their own right, in that you can immerse yourself in the layout if you ignore what's beyond the baseboard.

 

Ones not seen - the Stealth Bomber, Widnes Vines Yard, Pempoul, Hellingy Hospital (spelling?) , and lots more that capture the essence of their intended area.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
Neil

Neil

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

We were having a bit of a chat in between the phone not ringing and emails not appearing about scenery. What makes a layout 'scenic'? Does it have to be as large as Totnes or The Gresley Beat to be considered so? I still remember Chee Tor, Chiltern Green and Tebay ....

One man's idea of scenic may not be the same as the next. In my own order of things (and considering those layouts I've actually seen first hand) Chee Tor is very firmly in the scenic category whereas The Gresley Beat isn't. For me it's not about size, or the urban vs rural dimension it's to do with the setting dominating the trains/railway rather than the other way round. I get the impression from exhibitions, the internet and print media that most layouts place the railway centre stage, the setting having a lesser priority. I prefer layouts where the railway is almost incidental to the scene but I suspect that many would feel otherwise. I couldn't and wouldn't argue that one style is better than the other, but I would say that one is less usual.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anglian

Anglian

Posted
Posted (edited)

Chiltern Green and Chee Tor are still the two that spring to my mind however, I feel I'm increasingly drawn to layouts where there is more 'railway' and just open space. I don't mean more track but more of everything that says railway, somehow these layouts resonate most strongly with me. I still think of images of the unfinished Norris layout with those wonderful sweeping curves, great looking track and just lots of open space and it just does it for me, more so than the railway within a landscape. I sure this is an odd perspective and one I'm surprised that I have since I hugely admire the scenery modellers. I'm just far less interested in things beyond the railway boundary.

 

I've not seen Gresley Beat so can't comment but I loved Blea Moor in spite of the epic space beyond the railway boundary it was pretty open space and didn't detract my focus from the trains. I'd really like to see more UK winter based layouts. Perhaps some scenery just gets too fussy for my taste.

 

Whilst I admire Copenhagen Fields it doesn't resonate for me and I've no idea why, ditto Pete Watermans magnum opus.

Edited by Anglian
Link to comment
Share on other sites
298

298

Posted
Posted

Cliffhanger is pretty damn good, saw it for the first time at warley and it really had that wow factor for me

It should come with a health warning, as it gave me vertigo...

 

I'd have to agree with Crumley & Little Wickhill, as it shows how a railway fits into the landscape. You can almost picture it before the railway was built, with the Surveyors planning the route. I'm still a little confused by the question tho, as there are layouts with well modelled scenery that looks unnatural, and likewise those whose contours and vanishing points really seem to work, even when the quality isn't as good.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mjcampbell

mjcampbell

Posted
Posted

I may be biased, being a Narrow-Gauge enthusiast, but many of the best scenic layouts (IMHO) are NG. To be a "scenic" layout I think it has to show the railway in a natural setting, and (usually) not over-crowded with track in order to feature the scenery beyond the fence as much as (if not more than) the railway features. That often means a larger layout, and a "smaller" scale, but not always.

 

So some favourites that come to mind, and almost all I have seen:

 

Narrow Gauge:

Craig & Metonford (P D Hancock) - one of the first, and of course I never saw it, but know it from Narrow Gauge Adventure - a real inspiration when I was younger.

Dovey Valley (Dick Wyatt) - remember the Two Ronnies sketch?

Crumley & Little Wickhill (Hull MRS)

Pempoul (Gordon & Maggie Gravett) 

Caher Patrick and, more recently, St Etienne-en-Caux (both Charles Insey)

Garn, and previously, Wood End by Chris Ford

County Gate (John De Frayssinet), I've not seen Cliffhanger yet though

I'm sure  could think of several more, but moving on...

 

For Standard Gauge:

Rowlands Castle

Chee Tor

Totnes (John Birkett-Smith)

Overlord

Copenhagen Fields

Portchullin (Mark Tatlow)

 

I've never visited Pendon but I guess it has to be in the list somewhere too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PatB

PatB

Posted
Posted

Dovey Valley (Dick Wyatt) - remember the Two Ronnies sketch?

Is that the musical number along the lines of:

 

We drive the little trains of Wales

Up the hills and down the dales

We've overtaken lots of snails

But only when we go downhill

 

etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trisonic

trisonic

Posted
Posted

Too many to list, I like all the above mentioned.

 

Can I recommend that modellers deliberately look outside their own field?   Just to pick on two members of here look at the American layouts "Gulf, Atlanta and Eastern" and "Sweet Home Alabama".

 

Best, Pete.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PLD

PLD

Posted
Posted

One man's idea of scenic may not be the same as the next. In my own order of things (and considering those layouts I've actually seen first hand) Chee Tor is very firmly in the scenic category whereas The Gresley Beat isn't. For me it's not about size, or the urban vs rural dimension it's to do with the setting dominating the trains/railway rather than the other way round. I get the impression from exhibitions, the internet and print media that most layouts place the railway centre stage, the setting having a lesser priority. I prefer layouts where the railway is almost incidental to the scene but I suspect that many would feel otherwise. I couldn't and wouldn't argue that one style is better than the other, but I would say that one is less usual.

Have to agree with Neil's definition of what is a scenic layout.

 

Gresley Beat vs Copenhagen Fields is the perfect example. They both represent the same geographic setting in the same period. In one there is some of the highest quality architectural modelling to be found on any layout but it is dominated by the volume of trackwork and trains; whereas the other has some very nicely modelled rolling stock but it is almost incidental to the vast expanse of the landscape modelled...

 

Both are very impressive layouts but for different reasons and will appeal to different tastes...

 

Paul

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigAndy

BigAndy

Posted
Posted

I have seen some fantastically modelled, scenic layouts in my time, both protypical and also fictional locations.

 

Personally, I would echo the 'Chee Tor' shout as a prefect example of how a railway should work in perfect harmony with the scenery around it. 'Hospital Gates' is another that I can stand in front of for a long time, immersing myself in the atmosphere.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of modellers fall onto the trap of creating a trackplan, building it and then thinking about the scenery afterwards.

 

If you are modelling a prototype, there should really be no excuse for not getting it right. If I could offer any advice, it would be to imagine what the scenery would have been like had your layout not run through it, therefore design the location first, and then build the trackplan around it - as would have happened in reality.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkSG

MarkSG

Posted
Posted

As others have said, I think that what makes a layout "scenic" is mainly to do with how it places the railway in context rather than the total volume of stuff "outside the fence". But, having said that, a larger proportion of scenery to track does make that easier, and I'd echo the suggestions of Chee Tor, Totnes, Crumley & Little Wickhill and Rowlands Castle as exemplars of the genre. I'd also add Loch Tat and Penhallick to the list. By contrast, I wouldn't call Gresley Beat or Eaton Gomery scenic, even though they are extremely good layouts - rather, I think they demonstrate that being "scenic" per se isn't an essential part of railway modelling.

 

I do think that where any layout includes elements beyond the fence then those elements need to be appropriate and up to the same standard as the railway elements. But it's perfectly possible to have a layout which has very little outside the boundaries of the railway and still be very good indeed. What lets a layout down is not the absence of scenery outside the fence, but ill-thought out or shoddily presented scenery. I've seen too many exhibition layouts which have rivet-perfect locos and rolling stock running past fields and meadows containing plastic sheep and hi-viz grass. That, to me, is a far worse offence than the opposite - I'm perfectly prepared to put up with fairly coarse scale modelling provided that the setting is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...