A question of balance

[Anglian]

I often find myself pondering about layout design and have recently found myself spending increasing amounts of time on You Tube watching the trains trundle down through the cutting on the ex GWR section Pete Waterman's Leamington Spa layout. In doing so a thought struck me: that in spite of my great appreciation of landscape modelling and all that that entails the layouts that probably resonate most strongly to me are those where the 'railway' sits quite high in the mix.

 

Such layouts tend to be defined by the fact that although there is most definitely scenery somehow it doesn't over power the railway no matter how extensive. For example, one area of Retford has huge expanses of open grassland but they don't overpower the visual of the railway. More contentious and not to denigrate anybody's work but two classic 2mm layouts: Chiltern Green and Coppenhagen Fields both model four track mainlines in very extensive scenery and yet one resonates very much more strongly for me because the railway is visually most dominant.

 

Another layout, Ashdon and Midport had very little modelling beyond the boundary fence but possibly because of this, the layout felt so railway like. Perhaps even Buckingham GC falls in this group as well – of course there is scenic modelling all over that layout and yet the railway manages to dominate to great effect.

 

Do you have any thoughts on this? Is it a consideration for you when designing?

 

[Londontram]

This is a very good thought provoking question that I to have often pondered. I've always thought "The Far North" built by fellow member Ben Alder strikes the righ balance with the back scene ending at the boundry fence in some places and then using buildings and panaramic back scenes to add deph where needed, at all times your focus seems to be drawn to the railway which never seems to overpower the scene. Here's a link to his site 

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/album/2256-the-far-north-line/

[Anglian]

LT

 

Thanks for posting that link. I'd not come across 'far-north' before. A classic example of feeling as if your close enough to smell them and what a fantastic back scene that adds a whole new dimension to what is a quite contained layout.

 

Perhaps great railway modelling is a case of 'doing less, better'?

[Londontram]

This is a good topic for discussion I thought it would get more responce than this.....strange

[Satan's Goldfish]

IMHO, everyone has their own personal preference on the scenery scale. At one end you've got people that want a small amount of track with the occasional train going through a very detailed and intricate scenic area with lots for those less interested in the trains to find. At the other end of the scale is the layout that shows nothing beyond the tracks and the boards are filled with rail. i know when i look at a model at a show i'm looking at the trains and the track, when i design layouts the key feature is the track and any scenery is left to fall into any gaps that remain. A big scene setter though is getting the background for the layout right, even if there's nothing else scenically on the layout the backscene could make or break it.

[Rivercider]

Perhaps the thread might attract more attention if the title was 'A Question of Balance - Railway v Scenery' ?

 

For my own layout I have very much concentrated on within the railway fence, and only have other scenery in the unusable corners.

I just use walls and fences to frame the action on my shunting plank.

I do have a bus garage on top of my hidden fiddle yard though.

 

At an exhibition I spend more time at layouts that seem to me to have the right atmosphere.

That can include layouts with little other non railway scenery, or preodominantly scenic ones, my favourite non-railway scenery though is urban grot.

 

cheers

[rob D2]

Some are preoccupied with railway and the scenery is just a by product.

Some are building a scene, with the railway just a part of the overall picture.

 

I am a railway modeller - I model railways, I'm not overly worried about scenery

[Kenton]

For some it is enough of a challenge getting the railway to look right following the inevitable compression that even attempting scenery is simply too daunting.

 

I can think of very few (if any) layouts where the scenery looks realistic enough to my eye. Cuttings rarely appear long enough and deep enough. Bridges spring out of nowhere and as for trees usually spotted in odd places appearing more like some weird abomination cross between a Xmas tree and loo brush.

 

I also think part of the problem, other than adequate space, is that we tend not to look at the real thing before we make up the fiction to stick on the layout as an afterthought. We just cram as much track on as possible then squeeze in a bit of infrastructure (signal,station building, shed, etc), then pack on as many trains as pleases us - what you wanted an embankment and 250ft of hillside as well?

[Pete 75C]

Sadly, I do have to agree with the above. Whilst I have never fallen victim to the "too much track" pitfall, I've always stood back and looked at my own scenery and thought "Damnit - that wasn't what I'd pictured". I have yet to create anything that, in own eye, passes for "realistic". The one lesson that I thought I had learned is to try and improve with each layout but I still end up cutting corners and regretting it. Some things work and some others most definitely don't. Frustration aside, I do still find this a very therapeutic way to spend an hour or two.

[TheQ]

As I am modelling a real location fairly accurately, where I put trees and buildings is fairly well defined. However I would love to add more of the Village the line is based around and more farm land surrounding the line but there just isn't the room.

 The Q

[westerner]

I designed Wencombe with both in mind following the precepts of Messrs Rice and Norman. A sort of holistic approach.