A Borchester Market layout appreciation topic

[janner]

My imagination was certainly fired by seeing Borchester at the Central Hall back in the '60s.  It was (is) a stunning layout.

[martin_wynne]

Did anyone really combine both things fully before Pendon?

 

Two come to mind -- Charford by John Charman, and the Berrow Branch by Mac Pyrke.

[johnarcher]

Two come to mind -- Charford by John Charman, and the Berrow Branch by Mac Pyrke.

I remember them both fondly (along with Torpoint) , but really remember both (although I may mis-remember) as basically a station with some scenery around the edges, not a scenic setting comparable in area to the railway - like the townscenes or landscape on Madder Valley or Ravensbourne. Pendon, and later Petherick, Chee Tor, Axford etc. Basically the difference between a railway with some scenery edging it and a railway set in a modelled scene/landscape.

No criticism of Borchester or these two, all were beautifully done, it's just a different approach, that I suppose started with Ahern and Stokes.

Edited December 10, 2014 by johnarcher

[Horsetan]

Were any of the Borchesters at the MRJ exhibition at Central Hall in 1990?

Only Hardwicke Grange, I think.

[dunwurken]

Two come to mind -- Charford by John Charman, and the Berrow Branch by Mac Pyrke.

I too remember them both fondly but like Johnarcher I really remember both as basically a station with some scenery around the edges. Both inspired me as a young modeller. Out of interest both PD Hancock and John Charman were members of the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC in the 1950's and knew each other and their work quite well.

Malcolm

Edited December 12, 2014 by dunwurken

[St Enodoc]

I too remember them both fondly but like Johnarcher I really remember both as basically a station with some scenery around the edges. Both were inspired me as a young modeller.   Out of interest both PD Hancock and John Charman were members of the Edinburgh & Lothians MRC in the 1950's and knew each other and their work quite well.

Malcolm

Ken Northwood and Don Rowland as well of course.

[St Enodoc]

"there's little scenic interest in Dyer or Denny"

Ouch! That's a bit unfair. Buckingham's landscape setting was (and still is, in the custody of t-b-g of this parish) exquisite, as was Borchester's, although each was quite different from the other. For me, Borchester Town was one of the finest evocations of a dreary grey Midlands town there has ever been.

[jwealleans]

there's little scenic interest in Dyer or Denny

I don't have any pictures of Frank Dyer's work, but I'd have said the two shots of Leighton Buzzard below rather contradict that statement:

 

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by jwealleans

[johnarcher]

I did say 'a bit more in Buckingham', but I hope I said that I wasn't talking about the quality of the scenic work (those pictures show that nicely that that was great), they were both beautifully made, but just the amount of it. Whether it is primarily a railway with scenery added, or scene and railway are of more equal priority. Not a matter of quality, just preference.

I think there was a general tendency then to make everything more realistic (stock, scenery, track), so some scenery was added to the 'mainstream' layouts, and when done by modellers of the calibre of Denny or Dyer it was done beautifully (as above), but it's not trying to be 'railway in a landscape (or townscape)' like the ones I mentioned.

That's not a criticism, just a different approach.

As, I think, P. D. Hancock said in his book - if he had a really large space he would still model a narrow-gauge single line, but passing through hills, over rivers, by lonely farms etc. I suppose that approach  starts with Ahern and Stokes, and leads to Pendon and the others I mentioned above.

Edited December 11, 2014 by johnarcher

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

basically a station with some scenery around the edges. 

 

My kind of model railway!  

[Godders]

My kind of model railway!  

 Mine also, I get a little bit tired of people on here talking about a model RAILWAY when they mean diorama. I see no interest in a layout composed of 1ft (300mm) of track with no turnouts, no signals, no possibility of any meaningful operation but 60,000,000 blades of grass, 8,000 trees and a beautiful waterfall with families frollicking in the  river with a perfect scale model of a car next to them.

 

Bah Humbug, what next, turkey for Christmas dinner

 

Cheers Godders

[johnarcher]

Surely it's a diorama if nothing moves, if there is a railway there but someone chooses to make it a small part of the whole, maybe in recognition of the fact that railways were very much part of the landscape and the community they served, so the surroundings are part of the character of the railway (or just because they enjoy making buildings and trees as well as railway things), I don't think that makes it a diorama, or humbug, or particularly tiring.

Why is 'meaningful operation' so essential, maybe you just like watching trains run through countryside, isn't that also an aspect of railways?

Edited December 11, 2014 by johnarcher

[Godders]

Johnarcher, I agree with you, that to watch trains running through countryside is pleasurable but definitely borderline on my scale. However, I described a much more restricted model. I would answer your other point about meaningful operation as follows; in general, people who build these layouts with wonderful scenery usually only concentrate on the landscape. They don't put the same effort into the trains. They leave the great big ugly couplings showing, they have great big gaps between coaches. This is not an aspect of railways, it is an aspect of countryside modelling. So they should call it, "Model Countrysiding". 

[johnarcher]

Johnarcher, I agree with you, that to watch trains running through countryside is pleasurable but definitely borderline on my scale. However, I described a much more restricted model. I would answer your other point about meaningful operation as follows; in general, people who build these layouts with wonderful scenery usually only concentrate on the landscape. They don't put the same effort into the trains. They leave the great big ugly couplings showing, they have great big gaps between coaches. This is not an aspect of railways, it is an aspect of countryside modelling. So they should call it, "Model Countrysiding". 

I'm glad to find we're actually in agreement. I don't see the point of putting the enthusiasm into the landscape (or the livery, or weathering or whatever) and then spoil the picture with the big gaps, or the code 100 rail, or the ugly couplings (which is why the thing in the picture on the left has fiddly manual chopper couplings).

Maybe if all the effort is in modelling the landscape I'd agree with your last point, but if railway and landscape are both modelled to a good standard, it's just a matter of how much there is of each. Maybe it's 'railway in countryside modelling'?  The setting is an aspect of a railway (Pendon? Petherick?)

Edited December 12, 2014 by johnarcher

[DLT]

Thanks guys, a fascinating thread that I have only just found, but I wil be contributing to before long.

Dave.

[t-b-g]

Once again I risk hijacking the Borchester thread but I couldn't really let the comment about the lack of scenery on Buckingham pass me by!

 

Both Borchester and Buckingham are primarily operational layouts and as such, the scenic work is there to frame the working railway.

 

More scenic layouts, like Chee Tor or Pendon are really superb 3D pictures with added moving trains.

 

However, once Buckingham had been moved to Truro, the larger railway room did allow some scenic development and I would venture to suggest that Buckingham has more scenery on it than many a layout, both of the town scene and landscape variety.

 

Here are a few quick snaps taken to illustrate the point......

 

They also show how much needs to be done before I can say that the restoration is completed!

Edited December 21, 2014 by t-b-g

[Pacific231G]

 Mine also, I get a little bit tired of people on here talking about a model RAILWAY when they mean diorama. I see no interest in a layout composed of 1ft (300mm) of track with no turnouts, no signals, no possibility of any meaningful operation but 60,000,000 blades of grass, 8,000 trees and a beautiful waterfall with families frollicking in the  river with a perfect scale model of a car next to them.

 

Bah Humbug, what next, turkey for Christmas dinner

 

Cheers Godders

The great thing about the model railway hobby is that it is such a broad church and encompasses everything from a beautifully modelled piece of countryside with a railway running through it to a Bradfield Gloucester Road with barely a blade of grass to be seen. In what other hobby could you have the paint brushes out one evening, a soldering iron the next and be studying everything from timetabling to typefaces used for street signs and all for a model that's a couple of metres long (plus fiddle yard)   

[martin_wynne]

More scenic layouts, like Chee Tor or Pendon are really superb 3D pictures with added moving trains.

 

Whenever I see those layouts I'm puzzled what purpose the moving trains serve? They would be equally attractive models with static trains.

 

When the trains move, it simply highlights the fact that nothing else moves. The canal boat doesn't move, the horse and cart doesn't move, no wind rustles through the leaves, the drinkers outside the pub never lift their pints...

 

If you are primarily modelling the scenery that's all rather a let-down -- unless you are representing a single instant in time, in which case the trains should be static too.

 

Whereas on a model of a railway it doesn't matter if none of that moves because it is not the primary purpose of the model -- it is just there to look nicer than green hardboard.

 

Martin.

[johnarcher]

Relating to two posts, firstly with regard to Buckingham I can only apologise, I was going by my memories of articles long ago, and really talking of the Buckingham of the '50's and early '60's. I hadn't seen those views, which only increase my admiration for Peter Denny's work. When were those additions made?

As to the last post, on a railway​ as you put it, if the surroundings don't matter why have them?, I think non-moving  surroundings, traffic, sea or the static flag-waving guard for instance look just as odd on a mainly railway layout, if they are there at all.

All one can do, in either case, is to have figures in naturally static poses, cars parked, calm water etc., so that the effect is less marked.

Edited December 21, 2014 by johnarcher

[Pacific231G]

On 09/12/2014 at 16:58, johnarcher said:

It seems to me there were two strands in that move out of the dark ages -  

1 More realistic actual railway models, and more realistic operation - Dyer and Denny especially, and

2 The placing of the railway in the landscape setting (where that is more than a bit of scenery around the edge of the railway) - Hancock, but more so Ahern and Iliffe Stokes. (the latter, I think, isn't listed often enough in this company).

Whether you find one group more inspiring is a matter of taste I suppose (for me - 2.)

Did anyone really combine both things fully before Pendon?

Your point about the challenges of modelling at that time applies to them all I think, though.

Hi John

I'm not sure that the pre-Second World War model railway world was in such a "dark age" as many people think. It wasn't so unusual to find layouts where scale model locos and trains were operated prototypically to a strict timetable (with block bells and even interlocked lever frames)  though with 0 scale far more common than 00 these tended to be outdoors where scale scenery wasn't really an option. In the hands of modellers like Edward Beal (West Midland 00) and Bill Banwell & Frank Applegate (Maybank 0) realistic operation of indoor scale models was also well established while the development of scenery for the smaller scales was starting to get underway well before John Ahern's first writings about it. It is true that realistically operated layouts were far less common than the roundy-round layout designed primarily to give the trains a run but that's still true today.

 

The development of new small scale layouts came to a grinding halt during the Second World War but John Ahern somehow managed to keep going and to write prolifically about his efforts through the war and the austerity era that followed it. His early writings in MRN were though mostly about loco and rolling stock construction, buildings and scenery came later. 

 

In the early years of the post war hobby there were rather more modellers combining realistic operation of scale models with the railway in a landscape setting than seems to be generally realised so I think your two strands were always well braided. An early example that comes to mind is Maurice Deane's Culm Valley and, though we tend to be familiar with those who were good writers as well as modellers, there were others.

 

Now  that the team at Pendon have got it into full operation again after a long period of very limited running. it is also possible to appreciate the Madder Valley's virtues as a railway designed for operation as well as for landscape and townscape. Though AFAIK John Ahern never wrote a timetable for the Madder Valley (if he did he never wrote about it) there's nothing about the layout that would have prevented that and Madderport in particular is still well worth studying.  It seems very clear that the design of Madderport strongly influenced P.D. Hancock's first Craig but, judging by the design of Dundreich, his interest in operation clearly came much later. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Pacific231G
new information

[t-b-g]

Relating to two posts, firstly with regard to Buckingham I can only apologise, I was going by my memories of articles long ago, and really talking of the Buckingham of the '50's and early '60's. I hadn't seen those views, which only increase my admiration for Peter Denny's work. When were those additions made?

As to the last post, on a railway​ as you put it, if the surroundings don't matter why have them?, I think non-moving  surroundings, traffic, sea or the static flag-waving guard for instance look just as odd on a mainly railway layout, if they are there at all.

All one can do, in either case, is to have figures in naturally static poses, cars parked, calm water etc., so that the effect is less marked.

 

You are quite right about the earlier versions. They pretty much had a grass bank an inch or so wide either side of the railway and very little else.

 

Like most things "Buckingham" the question about when they were made has several answers. The double track section over the river was on Grandborough from the start but only as far as a line behind the "Manor House" the section including the single track viaduct was added when Peter moved to Truro, as was the hunting scene by the pub.

 

The market scene at Buckingham was also a much altered feature. Originally there was a small lifting section to clear the entrance door but in Truro the entrance was in a different wall and so the scene was fixed and extended.

 

They were the last major changes to the layout and without digging out books and articles to confirm, I recall that they were probably all completed by around 30 years ago.

 

Tony

[johnarcher]

Hi John

I'm not sure that the pre-Second World War model railway world was in such a "dark age" as you suggest. It wasn't so unusual to find layouts where scale model locos and trains were operated prototypically to a strict timetable (with block bells and even interlocked lever frames)  though with 0 scale far more common than 00 these tended to be outdoors where scale scenery wasn't really an option. In the hands of modellers like Edward Beal (West Midland 00) and Bill Banwell & Frank Applegate (Maybank 0) realistic operation of indoor scale models was also well established while the development of scenery for the smaller scales was starting to get underway well before John Ahern's first writings about it. It is true that realistically operated layouts were far less common than the roundy-round layout designed primarily to give the trains a run but that's still true today.

 

The development of new small scale layouts came to a grinding halt during the Second World War but John Ahern somehow managed to keep going and to write prolifically about his efforts through the war and the austerity era that followed it. His early writings in MRN were though mostly about loco and rolling stock construction, buildings and scenery came later. 

 

In the early years of the post war hobby there were rather more modellers combining realistic operation of scale models with the railway in a landscape setting than seems to be generally realised so I think your two strands were always well braided. The example that comes to mind is Maurice Deane's Culm Valley and, though we tend to be familiar with those who were good writers as well as modellers, there were others.

 

Now  that the team at Pendon have got it into occasional operation again after several decades as a static display it's also possible to appreciate the Madder Valley's virtues as a railway designed for operation as well as for scenery and townscape. Though AFAIK John Ahern never wrote a timetable for the Madder Valley (if he did he never wrote about it) there's nothing about the layout that would have prevented that and Madderport in particular is still well worth studying.  It seems very clear that the design of Madderport strongly influenced P.D. Hancock's first Craig but, judging by the design of Dundreich, his interest in operation clearly came much later. 

Thank you, I'm always open to correction. I am just going by my memories of being a young lad in the late '50's, early '60's and reading magazines (RM mainly then), and not getting much to such exhibitions as there were. I do recall having the impression that layouts like Buckingham (then), Borchester, Charford, Berrow etc. were largely railway with a bit of border, and people like Ahern and Stokes were doing something rather different - a matter of emphasis rather than an absolute difference, a greater level of interest in the whole scene rather than just the railway bit. Something like Ynys Gwyntog was small, no vast area of scenery, but the builder was just as interested in that as in the railway, he knew who lived in each house.

I recall Maurice Deane's work being praised but I don't think I ever saw it, if anyone has any photos?

As you say much pre-war was 0 gauge, before my memories of course, but, as for 4mm, I do recall some pictures of the West Midland, which seemed pretty thoroughly unscenic and, I thought, less accurate as to stock than Borchester (for instance) was later. I'll take your word for its operation, what I felt was new after the war was combining operation with greater realism (in stock, track - the end of 3-rail, then early EM, and scenery),  most did that while keeping the main emphasis on the railway, while some went more to the 'whole scene' approach.

As I say, that is largely based on impressions gained as a lad at the time, from magazines, so is quite likely not the whole story.

Edited December 21, 2014 by johnarcher

[DLT]

I see that this tthread has metamorphosed into a Borchester AND Buckingham appreciation topic, so I feel better able to join in.

I may have seen the original Borchester, but I don't remember it.  I certainly saw Borchester Market at a couple of shows (was Imrex one of them?)

 

However my aquaintance with Buckingham was long and enduring, Peter Denny was President of our club and twice a year we made the pilgramage to Buckingham for an intensive operating session.  My first few visits were to the Newlyn Vicarage, but more to the bungullow in Truro.

 

The big scenic expansion took place on the move to Truro when the layout was installed in a purpose built room that was considerably larger than previously.  As well as extra space for scenic development, (and not having the Leighton Buzzard branch dissapearing through the wall) there was more room for the operators to move around.  Previously, your operating position was determined by the order in which you entered the room, as once in in was virtually impossible to change places.  One of our members, Jim, always seemed over polite, "After you, after you" but being last one in made sure that he got the relatively simple Leighton Buzzard to operate.

 

After operating Grandborough Junction on one occasion I always opted for the main panel at Buckingham, that dealt with all the main line passenger movements.  Another of our regulars, Ted, was an expert on Grandborough Junction, and with others on the goods yards, the whole thing ran like a dream.  Apart from struggling with 3-link couplings, I found Buckingham a joy.  It operated like a real railway, everything was displayed on a large clear signalbox diagram above the layout, and if you pulled off the right points and signals it worked.  I found the controls intuitive and logically layed out, and I couldnt understand why some others found it so difficult.  Yes there were a few quirks mainly for historical reasons, the turntable controls for instance caught people out on occasions.

 

Tony,

Ted and I spoke to you at Railwells last year about our Buckingham experiences, and after reading your article in Finescale Review I'm very glad that the layout is in in such good hands.  Will we be seeing the continuing story unfolding in the new magazine?

 

All the best,

Dave.

Edited December 22, 2014 by DLT

[t-b-g]

I see that this tthread has metamorphosed into a Borchester AND Buckingham appreciation topic, so I feel better able to join in.

I may have seen the original Borchester, but I don't remember it.  I certainly saw Borchester Market at a couple of shows (was Imrex one of them?)

 

However my aquaintance with Buckingham was long and enduring, Peter Denny was President of our club and twice a year we made the pilgramage to Buckingham for an intensive operating session.  My first few visits were to the Newlyn Vicarage, but more to the bungullow in Truro.

 

The big scenic expansion took place on the move to Truro when the layout was installed in a purpose built room that was considerably larger than previously.  As well as extra space for scenic development, (and not having the Leighton Buzzard branch dissapearing through the wall) there was more room for the operators to move around.  Previously, your operating position was determined by the order in which you entered the room, as once in in was virtually impossible to change places.  One of our members, Jim, always seemed over polite, "After you, after you" but being last one in made sure that he got the relatively simple Leighton Buzzard to operate.

 

After operating Grandborough Junction on one occasion I always opted for the main panel at Buckingham, that dealt with all the main line passenger movements.  Another of our regulars, Ted, was an expert on Grandborough Junction, and with others on the goods yards, the whole thing ran like a dream.  Apart from struggling with 3-link couplings, I found Buckingham a joy.  It operated like a real railway, everything was displayed on a large clear signalbox diagram above the layout, and if you pulled off the right points and signals it worked.  I found the controls intuitive and logically layed out, and I couldnt understand why some others found it so difficult.  Yes there were a few quirks mainly for historical reasons, the turntable controls for instance caught people out on occasions.

 

Tony,

Ted and I spoke to you at Railwells last year about our Buckingham experiences, and after reading your article in Finescale Review I'm very glad that the layout is in in such good hands.  Will we be seeing the continuing story unfolding in the new magazine?

 

All the best,

Dave.

 

My first experience of Buckingham was exactly the same, although it took place after the extension. The extra 2ft width (the pub/hunt scene area) must have made a huge difference to the operators as the space is just enough now but must have been a bit restricted before.

 

Within a few minutes of sitting at the controls it all seemed so logical and well thought out that I couldn't understand why all layouts were not done like that!

 

There has been talk of possible further articles. It is a bit strange writing about a layout that somebody else not only built but wrote extensively about, so the old brainbox is being exercised to think of new things to say about the old layout.

 

Thanks for the "Buckingham" memories. It is good to hear from those with stories to tell about it.

 

Is it time for a separate Buckingham thread? I do feel a bit guilty posting about Buckingham on what should be a Borchester thread. Or would folk prefer to keep postings about older layouts together in one place and perhaps create a more general "Historic Layouts" thread?

 

Tony

 

Tony

Edited December 22, 2014 by t-b-g

[Pacific231G]

Thank you, I'm always open to correction. I am just going by my memories of being a young lad in the late '50's, early '60's and reading magazines (RM mainly then), and not getting much to such exhibitions as there were. I do recall having the impression that layouts like Buckingham (then), Borchester, Charford, Berrow etc. were largely railway with a bit of border, and people like Ahern and Stokes were doing something rather different - a matter of emphasis rather than an absolute difference, a greater level of interest in the whole scene rather than just the railway bit. Something like Ynys Gwyntog was small, no vast area of scenery, but the builder was just as interested in that as in the railway, he knew who lived in each house.

I recall Maurice Deane's work being praised but I don't think I ever saw it, if anyone has any photos?

Not a correction more an observations as these things are very subjective. The original Charford in its residential caravan form had no room for scenery at all and the front edge of the layout was literally the railway fence with walls and the backs of commercial premises forming the backdrop. There was some scenery in its enlarged permanent shed form but apart from one short section of open countryside it was as you say mostly the railway and its borders. Berrow was much the same though, as an L shaped layout, the corner provided a scenic gap between Berrow and East Brent

 

I've got Maurice Deane's original Railway Modeller articles on the Culm Valley branch and I'll PM a couple of photos of the layout. The first article is the result of his obviously thorough research on the branch and the second describes his model of it. After that his small scale modelling seems to have focused on smaller layouts but always based on a real location including The Wantage Tramway and the Rye and Camber but I think his main interest must have become his 0 gauge garden railway.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Pacific231G