Poll: To What Extent Do You Model Real Locations?

[fender]

Just out of curiosity, I thought I'd post this poll. I did look at previous polls and could not find one similar, but if I have erred in this regard then I apologise.

 

anyway, it's just a bit of fun.

 

it is multiple choice, so select all that apply.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect to any type of layout, and fully appreciate that an Island of Sodor layout can be brilliant, while a model of an exact location may leave a lot to be desired, so please don't take this as some kind of hierarchy of modelling or something.

 

I'm just curious to see to what extent people torture themselves to fit reality into their modelling lives (as I'm finding it very difficult!)

Edited June 3, 2013 by fender

[Gwiwer]

It's hard for me to tick just one box.  I suspect the same will be true for many others.   Our modelling projects may broadly fit into one category or another but mine certainly cross the boundaries.  

 

The current layout for example is closely based on several real locations but is itself comprised of entirely made-up locations and while I can run a perfectly prototypical timetable with the correct trains I also enjoy the element of sometimes running what I like.

 

The new layout will be a real location but one where the modelled railway never existed so again will contain an element of being made up and therefore running what I like - though many workings will be true to the area and timeframe.

 

I currently have two (arguably three) diorama projects taking shape extremely slowly; three because one is a double-sided piece with two entirely different scenes and a central divider placed almost diagonally across the board.  One side of that will replicate an actual location as accurately as I can manage from photographs and using prototypical items of rolling stock; the other side and the other project are entirely fictitious.  One is intended for use as a test-bed for untried (by me) techniques where failure won't matter and the other will be a static display for my Australian rolling stock which currently looks very out of place on a UK-themed layout!  Both of those are based on prototypes very closely however.

 

May I tick a little of all four boxes?  

[fender]

Gwiwer, you can tick all four as it's multiple selection. I made it that way as I knew there'd be a lot in your situation. btw, I was having a look at your Penhayle layout today. some cracking stuff. I especially liked the beach. looks perfectly Cornish.

 

I suppose when I say, 'based on prototypical practice', I mean the physical layout itself. I know we all might occasionally run a Eurostar into a Newham Goods terminus if we had the opportunity for a bit of fun.

 

Mickey, I see your point, but for some reason I have this irrational obsession with creating exactly that, a tiny model of what is actually there. the only trouble is I know I don't have the skill of a Jim SW, for example, and so whatever I create would be open to criticism from those 'in-the-know'. on the other hand, if I make somewhere real that no one else knows, like some obscure crossing with a siding somewhere, then there's almost no point in making it as no one will recognise what I was trying to achieve. bit of a catch 22!

 

then again, I suppose making up a fake place and developing a long history behind it to justify everything, while basing it all on what might have been, is all part of the fun of designing a layout.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...a model of an exact location may leave a lot to be desired ...I'm just curious to see to what extent people torture themselves to fit reality into their modelling lives ...

 A 1960s luminary of the hobby - cannot remember whom annoyingly - made the observation that a true scale representation of all but the smallest section of the prototype is often not perceived as very realistic. He suggested that a better representation of what we perceive is usually obtained by selective compression, applied increasingly as one moves away from the usual viewpoint.

 

If that is acceptable, then the torture quotient is potentially reduced. A correct track plan in terms of the topology may be produced, with the linear distances - how the real thing sprawls - curtailed.

[Stubby47]

The Shepherds layouts tick boxes 2 & 3; my boxfiles probably tick box 4, as does anything else I may have modelled in the past..

[fender]

 A 1960s luminary of the hobby - cannot remember whom annoyingly - made the observation that a true scale representation of all but the smallest section of the prototype is often not perceived as very realistic. He suggested that a better representation of what we perceive is usually obtained by selective compression, applied increasingly as one moves away from the usual viewpoint.

 

If that is acceptable, then the torture quotient is potentially reduced. A correct track plan in terms of the topology may be produced, with the linear distances - how the real thing sprawls - curtailed.

 

I think that's true, but probably because of the difference in perspective. viewed from above, a true scale layout of a real place looks like a model, but so does the real thing viewed from a plane. conversely, perhaps the low-angle view of a camera at platform-height would make the layout look more realistic.

 

I appreciate your attempt to alleviate the torture though. I am looking at how to compress various ideas I have.

[298]

I clicked the second option, I was itching towards the first with my current layout but had to make too many compromises to call it exact scale.

 

The full results will be interesting, I'd say you're going to find an accurate depiction amongst exhibition layouts but taking an average count from a number of show guides (as I've been doing for a long time now), and you'll find just 15% of entries don't start with "imaginary" or "ficticious". You'd think this figure might have improved over the years, but I have a theory that a more artistic and eye-catching layout can be created by using the modeller's own artistic skills, instead of studiously following a prototype.

[southern42]

I ticked box 2 for Great West Road.  I've chosen a real location to give me a layout that will, hopefully, be interesting to operate. I also want something that stretches my imagination and modelling skills.  If it ultimately 'says' Southall, albeit much reduced / compressed, I'll be over the moon regardless of how accurate or otherwise it turns out to be.  The essence is what I'm going for but for that I'm beginning with the real thing, whether it's a track diagram, an architect's drawing in a book, a photo, a video, biography or a visit to a railway.

 

Re the vote, I think it's helpful to see what other people are doing.  As you say, there are many ways of doing and interpreting things.

I also think it's useful to remember that the prototype was designed by someone and built by many.  A lot of us don't or didn't have that opportunity but it's brilliant that we have the chance to do it in our chosen gauge/scale; company/livery; era, etc along with having the choice or combination of kits, scratch building and ready to run/plant. 

 

And the best bit?  Lots of help and encouragement - and friendship - on places like this.

 

Polly

[bodmin16]

Just out of curiosity, I thought I'd post this poll. I did look at previous polls and could not find one similar, but if I have erred in this regard then I apologise.

 

anyway, it's just a bit of fun.

 

it is multiple choice, so select all that apply.

 

I mean absolutely no disrespect to any type of layout, and fully appreciate that an Island of Sodor layout can be brilliant, while a model of an exact location may leave a lot to be desired, so please don't take this as some kind of hierarchy of modelling or something.

 

I'm just curious to see to what extent people torture themselves to fit reality into their modelling lives (as I'm finding it very difficult!)

Where do I tick? I am modelling am actual location where there was a railway, however I have re-written history. Is this a popular option amongst modellers?

I'm too am interested in the final results.

[AngryMeerkat]

While I'm modelling Poole station and sidings as they are now, and many details are/will be 100% accurate, I just didn't have the 20ft+ length required to do everything exactly. So I've ticked option 2, as I've halved the length but kept the same track plan and local buildings.

 

Having seen the results so far I have to say I'm very surprised.

 

Mark

[Removed a/c]

Mine is a made up location (named after my Nans address and an area she lived in). It is set somewhere in Yorkshire, so while it is not prototypical it will incorporate aspects of Yorkshire eg. I have a set of city walls ala York My buses have Yorkshire destinations as do my DMUs 

 

It is more of a 1980s Yorkshire feel that I am after more than anything else. 

[peach james]

I'm currently as close as reasonably practical with Long Marton to being accurate- the end result is going to be some Y compression (about 20-30% or so) in order to put houses into the scene.  Otherwise, the whole lot ends up with only the station and signalbox for buildings.    There are 2 other freelanced models of mine in OO, as well- a 1x6' shunting layout, and a 5x5 layout that had been my Thomas the tank engine layout and is now really translated to being my sons layout.

 

James

[jamie92208]

I ticked box 2 for Lancaster Green Ayre.   The station itself is exact but selective compression has shorted the good yard. The loco shed has had a road removed and the goods shed altered to 2 bays from 3 to fit available space. Also the curvature has been altered to fit into a practical exhibition layout.  Overall the dimensions are constrained by the size of my church where I put the whole layout up for testing.  Three real bridges are beibng used for the scenic breaks but all moved to a greater or lesser extent.  However we must be doing something right as one visitor at a show who saw part of the incomplete layout said "I grew up there." pointing to a blank area of backscene.

 

Jamie

[fender]

Where do I tick? I am modelling am actual location where there was a railway, however I have re-written history. Is this a popular option amongst modellers?

I'm too am interested in the final results.

 

hmmm...I would say it depends on what has been rewritten. the poll is really about use of space and how much we are willing to compromise in order to model reality vs have a layout we would like to operate. so if you're operating a station closed in 1920 with modern DMUs, but the track plan is all original for space etc, then I would say option 1, even though it's not technically prototypical.

 

on the other hand, if you've modelled a real location but have changed the track plan so much that it is no longer recognisable in any form from the real thing, then it would be option 3.

 

I would say that modelling a real location but shortening the layout, reducing the number of sidings, and moving a bridge slightly for a scenic break, as others have mentioned, would still count as option 2, as overall it would probably be recognisable enough.

 

I suppose having an accurate track plan but adding more things, such as having a small engine shed/turntable where there wasn't one, would be more difficult to answer using this poll. I hadn't really thought of that! I'd say option 2 in that case.

 

I've often seen layouts with names that are almost correct for reality, thus suggesting the location but at once recognising it is not meant to be exact. one of the many ideas I have batting around in my head is to do a model of Looe Quay and call it Looesly.

 

----------------------

 

I must say I'm surprised at the number of option 1s. I would have thought there would be hardly any, if any, there. it's great to see how the choice varies among different modellers.

[Xerces Fobe2]

I ticked the second box too as my Croxley Wiggenhall Road depot layout is based on elements of the former Croxley Green branch which have been compressed with large elements of modellers license as well. My Croxley West station is based on elements of 3 stations. - Croxley Green, Watford West. & Rickmansworth Church Street so I am stretching the second box somewhat!

 

In the end does it really matter what category a layout is in, as long as the owner gets enjoyment out of it and when it is exhibited visitors also show an interest!

 

So happy modelling to everyone whatever you layout is based on.

 

XF

[Sasquatch]

So far both layouts are as close as I could get them to fit the layout location.

Having said that both Dunster and Goathland had to be compressed and most scenics outside railway property are of my own creativity.

If you want to model a real location first decide at which points to start and end, this usually takes in the track plan. If there isn't the space available the next decision is train length. This governs where compression comes into play ie: a reduction in platform length etc. I used google earth!  

I modeled the incline through Goathland which meant I had to model a decent from the otherside of the road over bridge so decided on a fictitious viaduct.The platforms on this layout are at least a coach too short but you really can't tell. Page two below!

 

One chap at an exhibition stood watching Dunster for about 3/4 of an hour at which point he told me that he'd rode a 14 coach train through there once, which sort of put things into perspective!

 

Edit: Forgot it was a pool.     Check all boxes!

Edited June 4, 2013 by Sasquatch

[bodmin16]

 

I've often seen layouts with names that are almost correct for reality, thus suggesting the location but at once recognising it is not meant to be exact. one of the many ideas I have batting around in my head is to do a model of Looe Quay and call

 

I thinks my layout is a bit of all of the suggestions, so I think I'll tick option 2, and perhaps I'll have to show my layout on here and let the rmwebbers decide?

[Satan's Goldfish]

While i've not fully built a railway for quite a while, i've ticked 3 and 4. Everything i've built in the past has been 100% fictional. My current thoughts and plans always have a rough geographic location to help look a little more realistic with what stock is run and a lot of my layout planning uses track formations from the real thing that appeal to me. The finished results may still be completely ficticious but at least real locations will have had an influence to make operations more believable.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Satan's Goldfish

[fender]

well, at 92 votes, that's a pretty good survey I think. 45% of the layouts voted for are modelled on a real location (whether exact or not). I'd say that's more than I expected.

 

thanks to everyone who participated.

[buffalo]

It's a little better than that, 92 members have cast 111 votes (at current count), but I'm not convinced it's a representative sample. There are, after all, about 1864 topics in the 'Layouts' area, though some are repeats and some are not even about layouts. As always, the problem with surveys and polls is that the answer is highly determined by the question and how it is asked. Given the topic title, I'd expect many more folk who are interested in real locations to read it than those whose interest is solely in imaginary locations. Perhaps we should have a couple more polls asking exactly the same questions, but with titles "To what extent do you model imaginary locations?" and "To what extent do you model prototype practice in made-up locations?". An alternative for someone with time on their hands would be to go through all the layout topics, blogs, etc. and actually count the numbers in each category. I'd not be at all surprised if each gave very different results.

 

But then, as you said at the start, "it's just a bit of fun".

 

Nick

[Kris]

Modelling a real location tends to mean compromises. My existing layout, Avonwick, is modelled with no compression. The complete station fits in a length of less than 6ft but operationally it's somewhat limited. 

The replacement for Avonwick, which I have just started to build has a scenic length of just under 6ft, again I have not needed to compress any details to make it fit, the scale curves are there as is the gradient, however in this case I have not modelled a station so again I have compromised on this to get a prototype that I can fit in the space I have. I do get operational interest from the range of trains that ran over the location that I am modelling, with everything from crack expresses to auto coaches.

In return for the compromises I can run scale length trains (unless I get very clever with the fiddle yard on the new layout the longest trains will be about 12 coaches). 

[MarkC]

2 and 3 here. For 2, I'm presently working up to building a model of Scalby, albeit bringing an overbridge south of the viaduct closer to act as a scenic break. For 3, that's my Midland Railway layouts over the years - real enough places but imaginary branches to them, but following MR practice.

 

Mark

[Mark Wilts]

I'm normally in 2&3, but often with a semi-realistic service, like 4. For example, I might look at Ribblehead Station, and then move further down the valley Ribblehead is into Chapel-Le-Dale and run it as a terminus that would have realistic or semi-realistic trains (Mixed LMS would be fine, but not 'A 4-6-0 would have to have a banker, and would not have come down on a 3-coach loco' sort of thing.

[whart57]

I have ticked two boxes. I am selecting real locations for my scenic treatment, including the railway infrastructure, but they could be several miles apart. The creative bit will be making it seem they all belong together.

 

My station is also an amalgam. One of the real ones I am basing the layout on has no freight service any more, the other is on a freight only branch. Putting the two together lets me combine both passenger and freight. Again the challenge will be to make it seem natural

[Pete the Elaner]

Mine is a real location modelled as closely as possible, but I have had to change some retaining walls & distort some of the surrounding area to fit.