Poll: To What Extent Do You Model Real Locations?

[Chris M]

I find modelling a real location is much more interesting. You can research the place and then run stock which is correct for the

location/period. If people just want to play trains and run whatever they fancy then that is fine and just as relevant to the hobby as a whole.

[Pete the Elaner]

When I started modelling a location, I thought it would be a bit limiting, but I actually find the reverse.

It is a slow process though. Tunnel mouths, retaining walls, houses & platforms all have to be scratchbuilt because what it out there does not look quite right.

Building a direct replica & getting it right gives me much more satisfaction than creating something which looks 'similar'.

[GreenGiraffe22]

Mine is somewhere between option two and three I think, it's somewhere between Brighton and Eastbourne not entirely made up but not an exact location either...

[Zomboid]

I'm currently building a somewhat modified version of a real place. In order to fit it into the space I've got, I had to take liberties with the track plan and significantly squish the main industry, but hopefully when it's done it will capture the feel of the place, even though a local probably won't immediately recognise it.

[Headstock]

If I may comment please,

 

I have a slight problem with the link between real locations and prototypical practice in the poll. Dose the poll assume that a model of an exact prototype location automatically equates with the exact use of prototypical practice? For example, I have seen layouts that exactly mirror a real location but do not use prototypical practice, or perhaps use it in part. I would also comment, based on my own experience of attending and exhibiting at model railway exhibitions, about five to ten percent of layouts may use anything like prototypical practice, if you are lucky. Yet, the poll would seem to suggest that about 87% of people are dedicated to this, I wish we could see more of it at exhibitions. I belong to a group that dose model a real location, yet compressed. A group that dose use real timetables, freight workings, train formations, signalling etc, yet I would be foolish to claim that it was all 100% prototypical. Is there not two polls that should be separated out here, with regard to the degree of prototypical practice and the fidelity to a real location?

[Legend]

I think it's good to look at real life locations for inspiration and try to follow as much as you can , but often space and skill level don't permit .

[grahame]

I'm currently building a somewhat modified version of a real place. In order to fit it into the space I've got, I had to take liberties with the track plan and significantly squish the main industry, but hopefully when it's done it will capture the feel of the place, even though a local probably won't immediately recognise it.

Yep, I'm in the same position (place? But obviously a different location). To model a real place does mean compression and simplification (unless one has unlimited space and time) but as pointed out there is also the fun and interest in undertaking the necessary research.

 

And even if one intends to run appropriate stock there is still the opportunity to run whatever one chooses in occasional operating sessions. That means you have the choice of prototypal operation or fanciful running. So modelling a real location doesn't have to mean prototypical operation but it does give the option.

 

G

[Andy Hayter]

I have to say I am having more than a little problem with the poll.  Fun though it is.

 

I am modelling a real location that never had a railway and I am superimposing the railway on the location - so where does that fit?   I put myself in  the third group.

I have to say that I am surprised by the responses and clearly a lot of RMwebbers have a lot of space available - or different interpretations of the poll definitions to mine.  Possibly their idea of a bit of compression is different to mine.  I suppose you could take a mainline station, knock out 4 platform faces plus two bays and call it York and still think that you are in group 2.  Personally I would not use that definition, but that's just me.

 

I worry even more when we start to talk about prototype operation. The poll stated quite clearly location and made no mention of operation.  Frankly prototypical operation means nothing happening at all for a lot of the time.

[Pete the Elaner]

I have to say I am having more than a little problem with the poll.  Fun though it is.

 

The poll stated quite clearly location and made no mention of operation.  Frankly prototypical operation means nothing happening at all for a lot of the time.

Maybe I should hang my head in shame then.

I am modelling a location in 1930s (as close to scale as I can make it) & to make my ballasting sessions more enjoyable, I am running ballast trains.....Seacows hauled by 31s & 37s all in dutch livery.

[Norm81]

Ficticious location and track plan, but recognisable in terms of geographical location and era, is the plan. If I ever complete it and it's recognisable as North East in the 1980's I'll have succeeded.

[davefromacrossthepond]

Currently I'm working on an HO layout based on the industrial locations "north" of Philadelphia's 34th St. Station.  At what many would consider the other extreme, I'm in the midst of planning a small OO effort that hopefully will include something that looks "British" lol.  My final effort is a cameo layout that includes a maintenance depot for X-wing fighters.  After many years in the hobby, I've realized that I often  "run out of steam" when staying in one "mode" for too long of a time.  Switching projects allows me to "recharge" and get excited again.

[Zomboid]

Frankly prototypical operation means nothing happening at all for a lot of the time.

Depends what you're modelling. You'd expect a lot of action if you were representing the eastern approach to London Bridge...

My current project is a US shortline, which operationally could have been described as "mixed train daily" (though I love black widow paint, so it'll actually be SP most of the time), so multiple trains on the layout would be ridiculous.

[Pete the Elaner]

Depends what you're modelling. You'd expect a lot of action if you were representing the eastern approach to London Bridge...

 

Agreed. I am modelling the WCML, 1 stop away from Euston.

6 tracks in 7' x3' scenic with minimal compression.

Quite a busy location.

[vitalspark]

We have tried to follow exact prototype and largely succeeded with our current offering Alloa with all track work signals and buildings built from drawings and photographs.

 

It's often unavoidable though when the viewing part of a layout meets the fiddle and some foreshortening is required however the main part and the subject can remain faithful to the prototype.

 

Alloa is 34 ft long which is the downside of protypical modelling as even a small country station will take up more space than you think.

 

The new layout being constructed is Larbert circa 1962 and with really only the station and approaches modelled it is still over 40ft.

 

Its the best way to build a model imo if you have space because it takes all the decisions out of what goes where and track layout etc and if executed well immensely satisfying to see the scene recreated.

 

It has to be something that is practical to build of course and just as important allow decent scope for operation as this is still a hobby and the layout is there to provide entertainment not to set impossible challenges.

 

 

 

Dave.

 

 

 

[Chris M]

If I may comment please,

 

I have a slight problem with the link between real locations and prototypical practice in the poll. Dose the poll assume that a model of an exact prototype location automatically equates with the exact use of prototypical practice? For example, I have seen layouts that exactly mirror a real location but do not use prototypical practice, or perhaps use it in part. I would also comment, based on my own experience of attending and exhibiting at model railway exhibitions, about five to ten percent of layouts may use anything like prototypical practice, if you are lucky. Yet, the poll would seem to suggest that about 87% of people are dedicated to this, I wish we could see more of it at exhibitions. I belong to a group that dose model a real location, yet compressed. A group that dose use real timetables, freight workings, train formations, signalling etc, yet I would be foolish to claim that it was all 100% prototypical. Is there not two polls that should be separated out here, with regard to the degree of prototypical practice and the fidelity to a real location?

The interpretation of following prototype practice can vary. I run trains that fit into the location and era of my layout. They are not exact in that the trains are too short I.e. My express passenger trains are only eight coaches long. Also the frequency of trains is somewhat higher than the real thing. I do call mine a caricature of the place rather than an exact model.

I agree that too many layouts at exhibitions completely ignore prototype practice but where do you draw the line? For instance every siding and loop have a trap point? I don't think we should be too pedantic but it's good to see layouts where it is obvious that the real thing has been studied and the feel of a place and time captured.