Older Inspirational Layouts

[t-b-g]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There are or have been a few around, but the trouble with most real places modelled exactly is that they have a tendency to loose their inspirational quality by looking too spread out; they include all the bits of reality that the brain edits out. I recall Port Victoria, and that location was quirky enough to retain interest when modelled, but not many do.

 

I got quite a way forward with a scale sized EM model of The Dyke, baseboards done, track laid etc., but then lost interest because it was simply rather uninspiring. It ended its life as an experiment in the durability of plywood baseboards, spending c25 years in an un-heated and somewhat draughty shed, acting as overwintering quarters for field-mice, before going to recycling as solid and warp-free as the day it was built.

 

The really, really inspiring layouts seem to be those that contain the distilled essences of reality, a bit like paintings as opposed to photos.

 

This discussion has been done to death elsewhere but I agree with you completely. To me, a model of a real place can be a superb model but it is more of a record of a place and doesn't have the element of creativity that building a fictional location has. The arrangement of buildings, track and scenery into a scene that is both pleasing to the eye and believable is much harder to "pull off" than copying a real place, where all the arranging is done for you.

 

There are very few real places that have the right combination of visual interest, operational interest, variety of locos and stock and be in a suitable setting with appropriate scenic breaks etc. Those that do combine all those factors are often, as you say, so spread out, or so large, that a model of them always looks like a poor use of a given space.

 

That is why, in my view, most of the layouts that are discussed as being inspirational are based on fictional locations. 

[Mark C]

On 29/12/2022 at 23:45, BWsTrains said:

My inspiration comes from a series of layouts crated by the late John Flann,  who in turn credited Rev Peter Denny for his inspiration. John's work I know of started with Dunnock Edge Branch (1960s??), via Owlcombe to Little Hintock. Someone more familiar with John's earlier work may be able to help with the dates but John describes Owlcombe as winning the "Young Award" at the 1973 Manchester Model Railway show.

 

Its final form, Hintock Junction was how I came to learn of his work and being 12000km from the UK Model Show scene it was the nearest I came to discovering an inspirational piece of railway modelling. Fortunately John was meticulous in his documentation both through the various journals but also on line. He set up his own website which is still maintained (by his son I believe) and he posted much useful documentation about operations on the branch. I'm deeply indebted to the legacy he left and was fortunate to communicate with him here during his final year.

 

Sadly all his photos on here are lost but can be found if you're keen enough! For anyone interested I think I know where to find copies of articles on his first two layouts which he shared with me.

 

 

I very well remember Owlcombe in one of its' original forms - I still have an article from Model Trains(?)(mid-70s?).  It was simple (in a good way) in concept but extremely well-observed and effective.  Many years later, and just before his passing, I corresponded with John to say that I intended to build a layout based on it, but with some additions, and remember just how helpful and supportive he was.

 

Mark

 

 

[33C]

Does anyone remember a layout called "Brookfield" or "Brookhurst", something like that. 8x1, Minories style, with the hinges in the middle raised up and disguised by an Airfix girder bridge. Nice, simple layout with a single fiddle siding. Always liked the way that it was set in a brick cutting and had a Liverpool Street vibe.

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Very nice indeed.

 

One of my difficulties with the idea is that I am a bit of a track nerd and usually build my own. So if I want to swap my layout from GNR to GCR or Midland, I would know that the track was wrong. 99.9% of others would never tell so my dilemma is wondering whether I build a layout with generic track so it would be wrong for all my interests, or build it so it is right for one interest and wrong for the others. If I am building generic track, do I bother making my own or do I use flexible ready made track and the EMGS points now available even though in pre-grouping times the sleepers should be 9ft long?

 

Faced with deeply philosophical choices like that, my default response is to shelve the idea and do something else while I think about it!

 

I think (if one wants to go down this road) that one has to take a broad-brush approach and accept that some details will never be right. I run my S&D layout with GWR lower quadrant signals and just pretend that they're Midland or LSWR ones. The signals are all removable with simple servo connections but I'd still need time to make the correct ones, not to mention reprogramming the servo board, so for the time being I just squint at them and get on with playing trains. It's definitely not an approach for the purist, but since it's just me at home and the odd photo on RMweb, I can live with it as it allows me to have much more fun.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Barry Ten

[Donw]

3 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Very nice indeed.

 

One of my difficulties with the idea is that I am a bit of a track nerd and usually build my own. So if I want to swap my layout from GNR to GCR or Midland, I would know that the track was wrong. 99.9% of others would never tell so my dilemma is wondering whether I build a layout with generic track so it would be wrong for all my interests, or build it so it is right for one interest and wrong for the others. If I am building generic track, do I bother making my own or do I use flexible ready made track and the EMGS points now available even though in pre-grouping times the sleepers should be 9ft long?

 

Faced with deeply philosophical choices like that, my default response is to shelve the idea and do something else while I think about it!

 

My response too. I do wonder whether I overthink things sometimes often it is just a simple matter of choice either choice means you gain somewhere and lose somewhere. Try tossing a coin if you dont like the answer it the other choice that is more to your taste.

 

Don  

[Izzy]

7 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I am glad to hear that the constantly evolving layout is alive and well. I just don't seem to have seen many around. Most people seem to decide what to build and then build it. The idea of "I can add xyz there" or "If I move that from there I can do this" once the layout is substantially completed doesn't seem to feature very much.

 

I've a layout that is just that. It's purely for home use and started off as a P4 test track which then got a bit of scenery and evolved from there. I think, not sure, it's been re-built 4 times so far. This has involved lengths being added at one end, taken off the other, as well as the track being taken up in sections and replaced or altered. A separate fiddle yard board was added, then two exits to it, then back to one with a revised track layout. It also went from manual point operation to hacked servos which was more involved than it sounds and needing almost a complete re-wire. All done in the quest to get the most in operational interest out of it in it's extremely limited size. 

 

I think that's what drove the changes Peter Denny made wasn't it? Adding sections, re-making others, rather than starting off again from scratch.  It was seeing what he did that gave me the courage to try it myself over the years, alter and change things if your not happy with them. If it all goes belly up then it's no worse than starting from scratch again which you can still do.

 

Bob

[PaulRhB]

4 hours ago, t-b-g said:

To me, a model of a real place can be a superb model but it is more of a record of a place and doesn't have the element of creativity that building a fictional location has. The arrangement of buildings, track and scenery into a scene that is both pleasing to the eye and believable is much harder to "pull off" than copying a real place, where all the arranging is done for you.

I think that is the thing, we are looking it as an art in composition, even if others don’t see it as such, nipping bits here and there to make it perfect in our eyes. Many masterpieces of art are similarly selective with at the minimum trees etc tweaked, moved or removed. 
Inspiration suggests it won’t be a copy in many ways and we are looking at techniques, operation as well as composition so you can take it from some or all on each influence. 
 

I changed periods on Lulworth with vehicles, a couple of signs and changing a building. 

 

 

Sometimes like Al I made more changes in my head so the SR lattice signal became a Scottish one!

 

Then other changes it more to Metropolis 😆

Edited December 31, 2022 by PaulRhB
All the right words, not necessarily in the right order . .

[t-b-g]

35 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I think that is the thing, we are looking it as an art in composition, even if others don’t see it as such, nipping bits here and there to make it perfect in our eyes. Many masterpieces of art are similarly selective with at the minimum trees etc tweaked, moved or removed. 
Inspiration suggests it won’t be a copy in many ways and we are looking at techniques, operation as well as composition so you can take it from some or all on each influence. 
 

I changed periods on Lulworth with vehicles, a couple of signs and changing a building. 

 

 

Sometimes like Al I made more changes in my head so the SR lattice signal became a Scottish one!

 

Then other changes more it to Metropolis 😆

 

That is a lovely bit of layout design and building. There is a balance to it that works really well.

 

I am suitably encouraged to investigate the idea further.

[JohnR]

3 hours ago, 33C said:

Does anyone remember a layout called "Brookfield" or "Brookhurst", something like that. 8x1, Minories style, with the hinges in the middle raised up and disguised by an Airfix girder bridge. Nice, simple layout with a single fiddle siding. Always liked the way that it was set in a brick cutting and had a Liverpool Street vibe.

 

First appeared in RM June 1979, built by Justin Adams. with his father, Nigel Adams. It had appeared at Central Hall at Easter that year. 

[Not Jeremy]

Quote

I think (if one wants to go down this road) that one has to take a broad-brush approach and accept that some details will never be right. I run my S&D layout with GWR lower quadrant signals and just pretend that they're Midland or LSWR ones

 

Whilst absolutely not "worrying" about it, that sounds pretty correct to me, as the WR did replace quite a few signals on the S&D with "their" style, and might well have done more.

 

I think what you have done is pretty inspired myself, it all looks great and you are  actually running trains rather than just thinking about the trains you might run, as so many of us do.

 

Which is the neatest "trick" of all.

 

Happy New Year, and let's hope your line avoids the bean counters and keeps going! 

 

And going back to the thread, it was an absolute joy to have had John Flann as a contributor to RMweb before he passed away, I too was very inspired by all his layouts.

 

Just fantastic.

 

[Gilbert]

12 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

I think what you have done is pretty inspired myself, it all looks great and you are  actually running trains rather than just thinking about the trains you might run, as so many of us do.

 

Which is the neatest "trick" of all.

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more...

Chris H

[t-b-g]

15 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

I think that is the thing, we are looking it as an art in composition, even if others don’t see it as such, nipping bits here and there to make it perfect in our eyes. Many masterpieces of art are similarly selective with at the minimum trees etc tweaked, moved or removed. 
Inspiration suggests it won’t be a copy in many ways and we are looking at techniques, operation as well as composition so you can take it from some or all on each influence. 
 

I changed periods on Lulworth with vehicles, a couple of signs and changing a building. 

 

 

Sometimes like Al I made more changes in my head so the SR lattice signal became a Scottish one!

 

Then other changes it more to Metropolis 😆

 

I have been thinking about your lovely layout since you posted those photos and I was wondering if you had any thoughts of the current Leighton Buzzard when you were planning it. The overbridge at the scenic exit, the goods yard behind the platforms, the siding going off scene at the front (to the Gasworks on LB) and the siding in front of the platform that has no visible purpose but is useful to store vehicles are all very reminiscent of LB.

 

Whether by coincidence or not, the similarities brought home why I liked your design so much. It has the same sort of overall design and layout as one of my all time favourites.

[PaulRhB]

2 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I have been thinking about your lovely layout since you posted those photos and I was wondering if you had any thoughts of the current Leighton Buzzard when you were planning it. The overbridge at the scenic exit, the goods yard behind the platforms, the siding going off scene at the front (to the Gasworks on LB) and the siding in front of the platform that has no visible purpose but is useful to store vehicles are all very reminiscent of LB.

 

Whether by coincidence or not, the similarities brought home why I liked your design so much. It has the same sort of overall design and layout as one of my all time favourites.

Swanage was the inspiration to be honest but condensed assuming it had been built as a light railway influenced by the LSWR branch it connected to. I used what is the loco shed line as the goods branch. 

[t-b-g]

Just now, PaulRhB said:

Swanage was the inspiration to be honest but condensed assuming it had been built as a light railway influenced by the LSWR branch it connected to. I used what is the loco shed line as the goods branch. 

 

I can see that influence. It is a good example of basing a model loosely on a real place but adapting it to fit the available space. 

[Barry Ten]

2 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

 

And going back to the thread, it was an absolute joy to have had John Flann as a contributor to RMweb before he passed away, I too was very inspired by all his layouts.

 

Just fantastic.

 

 

Me too, in more ways than one. When I was casting around for a name for my layout in its GWR guise, I found an online list of Thomas Hardy's fictional locations, together with their real-world counterparts. When I saw King's Hintock I felt that it sounded very GWR and immediately adopted it for my statiion. It was only later that the penny dropped that John had got there first and my subconscious GWR association was entirely due to his own modelling. By then I felt I'd gone too far to change it (a mate had even put a sign to King's Hintock on his own similarly-Hardy-inspired layout) but I always felt slightly awkward about presenting it on RMweb in case it looked as if I was being disrespectful of John's legacy.

 

I was very touched by the photo posted on RMweb by - I think - one of his sons, showing his modelling glasses still in place on his workbench after he'd passed away, as if he'd just stepped out of the room for a minute.

 

 

[Donw]

I was unpacking some railway books today following a house move and chanced upon Peter Denny's Wild Swan book. I checked on Tingewick

 

The first Buckingham layout which was exhibited in 1948 had a scissors crossover just outside Buckingham where the tracks diverged one going to Tingewick a passing station and thence to the storage sidings, the other going to Stony Stratford a terminus. Stony Stratford had the layout used for the later articles although the approach was slightly curved. The legend was that the line from Buckingham passed through Tingewick and joined the GCR main line at Finmere.

 

Buckingham two was reduced as Peter had married. Stony Straford was gone and Tingewick was now a branch terminus with the storage sidings behind.

 

About 1950 with the birth of a son Buckingham was revised and Tingewick became a small station with sidings but no loop on the line before the storage sidings.

 

In 1952 Peter moved to Harrowbarrow and Buckingham was further reduced Tingewick was gone. The layout so dominated the room when erected it was only put up for visitors.  In 1956 he moved to a large vicarage and the classic layout.

 

With three different versions of Tingewick no wonder there was confusion. Actually the most imressive thing was the sheer amount of modelling Peter did over those years. Very little from commercial sources yet he achieved a lot in those years.

 

Don

[NHY 581]

On 01/01/2023 at 09:16, Not Jeremy said:

 

Whilst absolutely not "worrying" about it, that sounds pretty correct to me, as the WR did replace quite a few signals on the S&D with "their" style, and might well have done more.

 

I think what you have done is pretty inspired myself, it all looks great and you are  actually running trains rather than just thinking about the trains you might run, as so many of us do.

 

Which is the neatest "trick" of all.

 

Happy New Year, and let's hope your line avoids the bean counters and keeps going! 

 

And going back to the thread, it was an absolute joy to have had John Flann as a contributor to RMweb before he passed away, I too was very inspired by all his layouts.

 

Just fantastic.

 

 

On 01/01/2023 at 12:03, Barry Ten said:

 

Me too, in more ways than one. When I was casting around for a name for my layout in its GWR guise, I found an online list of Thomas Hardy's fictional locations, together with their real-world counterparts. When I saw King's Hintock I felt that it sounded very GWR and immediately adopted it for my statiion. It was only later that the penny dropped that John had got there first and my subconscious GWR association was entirely due to his own modelling. By then I felt I'd gone too far to change it (a mate had even put a sign to King's Hintock on his own similarly-Hardy-inspired layout) but I always felt slightly awkward about presenting it on RMweb in case it looked as if I was being disrespectful of John's legacy.

 

I was very touched by the photo posted on RMweb by - I think - one of his sons, showing his modelling glasses still in place on his workbench after he'd passed away, as if he'd just stepped out of the room for a minute.

 

 

 

 

John's layouts continue to inspire. 

 

For those who might not be aware, here's a link to the website. 

 

https://www.hintockbranch.com/

 

 

Enjoy, 

 

Rob. 

[t-b-g]

9 hours ago, Donw said:

I was unpacking some railway books today following a house move and chanced upon Peter Denny's Wild Swan book. I checked on Tingewick

 

The first Buckingham layout which was exhibited in 1948 had a scissors crossover just outside Buckingham where the tracks diverged one going to Tingewick a passing station and thence to the storage sidings, the other going to Stony Stratford a terminus. Stony Stratford had the layout used for the later articles although the approach was slightly curved. The legend was that the line from Buckingham passed through Tingewick and joined the GCR main line at Finmere.

 

Buckingham two was reduced as Peter had married. Stony Straford was gone and Tingewick was now a branch terminus with the storage sidings behind.

 

About 1950 with the birth of a son Buckingham was revised and Tingewick became a small station with sidings but no loop on the line before the storage sidings.

 

In 1952 Peter moved to Harrowbarrow and Buckingham was further reduced Tingewick was gone. The layout so dominated the room when erected it was only put up for visitors.  In 1956 he moved to a large vicarage and the classic layout.

 

With three different versions of Tingewick no wonder there was confusion. Actually the most imressive thing was the sheer amount of modelling Peter did over those years. Very little from commercial sources yet he achieved a lot in those years.

 

Don

 

One of the lovely things about having Buckingham is that I have a layout that has probably had its history recorded better than just about any other layout and it is complex history that has many twists and turns.

 

I still come across variations or items on the layout that were never written up or illustrated, or descriptions of arrangements that may never have actually existed.

 

The layout has a proper "story" and picking your way through all the published information to get to the truth of how and why things happened is a fascinating part of having the layout.

[Enterprisingwestern]

12 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

The layout has a proper "story" and picking your way through all the published information to get to the truth of how and why things happened is a fascinating part of having the layout.

 

An old relic with an old relic?!!

 

Mike.

[t-b-g]

1 minute ago, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

An old relic with an old relic?!!

 

Mike.

 

If I keep modelling as long as Peter Denny managed, then I have nearly 30 years left in the tank and the layout was started around 15 years before I was born, so I am still a youngster really.

[Pacific231G]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

If I keep modelling as long as Peter Denny managed, then I have nearly 30 years left in the tank and the layout was started around 15 years before I was born, so I am still a youngster really.

Quite. My GP told me, the last time I saw him, that we are now regarded by the medical profession as being middle-aged till at least 75. I do wonder what modellers like John Allen and John Ahern would also have achieved had they not died so relatively young. (at 60 and 58 respectively)

Edited January 3, 2023 by Pacific231G

[dunwurken]

15 hours ago, Donw said:

 

With three different versions of Tingewick no wonder there was confusion. Actually the most imressive thing was the sheer amount of modelling Peter did over those years. Very little from commercial sources yet he achieved a lot in those years.

 

Don

This may appear to be a rather simplistic observation  but I do think, despite longer working hours, they had more time to devote to their hobby because, in those days, they did not have the distractions caused by TV and social media.  Just think how much more time you could devote to your layout if you switched off your TV, computer & phone.

 

5 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

One of the lovely things about having Buckingham is that I have a layout that has probably had its history recorded better than just about any other layout and it is complex history that has many twists and turns.

 

I still come across variations or items on the layout that were never written up or illustrated, or descriptions of arrangements that may never have actually existed.

 

The layout has a proper "story" and picking your way through all the published information to get to the truth of how and why things happened is a fascinating part of having the layout.

I agree with you 100%. The most fascinating part of my work with Craigshire was all the research and attempting to make sense of sometimes conflicting stories connected with Lord Craig and the CMR especially as PDH seemed quite capable of making it all up as he went along.   What appears in Narrow Gauge Adventure does not always agree with what appeared in the RM articles despite the book largely being a cut and paste of earlier RM articles!  You do of course realise the two PDs 😇😇are sitting up there looking down on us and having a good laugh at our expense.

 

PDH was just short of 60 when the 4mm scale Craigshire was dismantled. In the following 20 or so years he moved onto the never completed 7mm Craigshire and developed an extensive garden railway.  He had lost interest in the 4mm version and although sections were stored in his loft they were merely used as a source of spare parts for the 7mm layout.  (I am currently repairing the 4mm Craig Castle.   One distinctive feature of the castle found in use as a lighthouse on the 7mm layout.  It currently lies in the castle courtyard awaiting its restoration on the gatehouse tower.)

 

Malcolm

 

 

[t-b-g]

25 minutes ago, dunwurken said:

This may appear to be a rather simplistic observation  but I do think, despite longer working hours, they had more time to devote to their hobby because, in those days, they did not have the distractions caused by TV and social media.  Just think how much more time you could devote to your layout if you switched off your TV, computer & phone.

 

I agree with you 100%. The most fascinating part of my work with Craigshire was all the research and attempting to make sense of sometimes conflicting stories connected with Lord Craig and the CMR especially as PDH seemed quite capable of making it all up as he went along.   What appears in Narrow Gauge Adventure does not always agree with what appeared in the RM articles despite the book largely being a cut and paste of earlier RM articles!  You do of course realise the two PDs 😇😇are sitting up there looking down on us and having a good laugh at our expense.

 

PDH was just short of 60 when the 4mm scale Craigshire was dismantled. In the following 20 or so years he moved onto the never completed 7mm Craigshire and developed an extensive garden railway.  He had lost interest in the 4mm version and although sections were stored in his loft they were merely used as a source of spare parts for the 7mm layout.  (I am currently repairing the 4mm Craig Castle.   One distinctive feature of the castle found in use as a lighthouse on the 7mm layout.  It currently lies in the castle courtyard awaiting its restoration on the gatehouse tower.)

 

Malcolm

 

 

 

There is no doubt that Peter Denny did work very quickly. He wrote about building a loco from scratch in a week and the whole current Buckingham station was built in 12 months. He also used to work into the small hours of the morning.

 

But you are quite right. I don't think he had other hobbies to distract him. If I cut out all the time I spent online or messing about with phones, tablets and computers, my modelling output would almost certainly improve dramatically.

 

Craigshire was another layout that always seemed to be altering and like Buckingham, had its own history of development and change.

 

I never knew with Buckingham whether it was because Peter Denny wasn't happy with what he had built, or whether he just got the urge to keep busy by making alterations. Even when there were not big changes going on, he was always building something, whether it be horse drawn vehicles, locos or trees.

 

One eminent modeller, on visiting the layout, said that he preferred Buckingham station a few stages back in its evolution, without the extra siding and loading dock at the front left hand end and with the simpler signalling. It also had much less "clutter" by way of people, vehicles etc.

 

I agreed with him and we had a discussion about whether it was appropriate or right for me to start undoing some of the later modifications but decided that it was best to leave it as it is now.

 

I guess you have a bit more leeway with Craigshire as you are putting much of it together from almost a kit of parts!   

[PaulRhB]

Much like we adapt bits of our own layouts very few have a definite plan of the eventual result unless modelling a real location in a set period. 
We look back at these as inspirational but their writings recorded their evolution rather than set points to a goal. Their inspiration and influences changed as time went on and maybe strayed from the earlier stuff that inspired others. 
Undoing their modifications is a bit like stripping back Rocket to its original form. You’re going to need to replace original stuff with modern fillers and is it really their vision or best version anymore? Rocket was a ground breaking amalgam of others ideas when built but had flaws probably from bringing those ideas together for the first time in a hurry. Model railways can develop like that too, we want to get going and then add detail,  modify things to work better or to work more like the prototype. 
So earlier versions can be groundbreaking but not necessarily the best and as with locomotives the viewpoint of others may differ or the use change. 
You don’t want to risk doing a Peppercorn A2/3 to it 😇

[Re6/6]

The first inspirational layout for me was P.D. Hancock's famous 'Craig and Mertonford', a great uplift from the HD trainset!

 

 

 

Then came Ken Payne's 'Castle Coombe with Tyling' which really did it! It started for me with two-railing an HD three rail Bristol Castle and then building track using 'Chairway' bullhead (somewhat overscale!) set in a fibre base from Alan Brett Cannon and I've never looked back since!

 

 

Images from RM Apr 68

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Re6/6