At what point does a layout become a diorama? (and vice versa)

[forest2807]

We see many small layouts, urban terminii, SLTs, TMDs, inglenook shunting puzzles, complete (or not) to a wide range of standards, and they all have their place; modellers more often than not do not have unlimited space or even the enthusiasm for a larger set-up. Some modellers enjoy a quick build of a small model and then move on to another, such is their prolific construction rate. Others simply do not want to bite off more than they can chew, or are perhaps using a smaller layout as a test-bed for skills with a view to building something larger at a more appropriate time in their modelling life.

But at what point do you draw the distinction between something that is clearly a layout and what is better described as a diorama that is best suited for displaying models? What criteria do we use to discriminate? Is a layout/diorama simply defined by the intentions of its creator, ie, 'I say it is a layout, I set out from the beginning to build what I see as a layout, so therefore it is a layout'. Is it whether models/locos can actually move under their own power? Where do the boundaries blur? Does size actually matter, as a diorama is unlimited in maximum size, so why should a layout be defined by a minimum size?

I suspect I am overthinking this, and I have begun to answer some of my own questions! What are the thoughts of the forum?

[Torr Giffard LSWR 1951-71]

....maybe a diorama is static Adrian, whereas a layout suggests motion.

 

Dave

[rodshaw]

I think the word 'layout' includes dioramas. But for a layout not to be a diorama, it has to have play value. I regarded my latest layout, Yorkford PA, as pretty much a diorama, even though it was fully wired and working, until I'd added a fiddle yard so trains could come and go according to an operating sequence instead of just pointlessly shuttling back and forth.

[aac]

We see many small layouts, urban terminii, SLTs, TMDs, inglenook shunting puzzles, complete (or not) to a wide range of standards, and they all have their place; modellers more often than not do not have unlimited space or even the enthusiasm for a larger set-up. Some modellers enjoy a quick build of a small model and then move on to another, such is their prolific construction rate. Others simply do not want to bite off more than they can chew, or are perhaps using a smaller layout as a test-bed for skills with a view to building something larger at a more appropriate time in their modelling life.

But at what point do you draw the distinction between something that is clearly a layout and what is better described as a diorama that is best suited for displaying models? What criteria do we use to discriminate? Is a layout/diorama simply defined by the intentions of its creator, ie, 'I say it is a layout, I set out from the beginning to build what I see as a layout, so therefore it is a layout'. Is it whether models/locos can actually move under their own power? Where do the boundaries blur? Does size actually matter, as a diorama is unlimited in maximum size, so why should a layout be defined by a minimum size?

I suspect I am overthinking this, and I have begun to answer some of my own questions! What are the thoughts of the forum?

I'd go for static too, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's dead. You could have a loco sitting there with the sound unit running, smoke and fumes rising, various lights shining, maybe even playing the recordings of voices, station announcments, vehicles, doors slamming: the list goes on. But it's a great question! 

[FiveandNine]

I'd have to join the 'size doesn't matter crowd'. A few years back (try 30+) my local model shop had a diorama of a Battle of Britain squadron dispersal area - 8 Hurricanes with ground crew and huts on a base board that must have been at least 4 feet on each side. Big, but still a diorama.

 

I'd initially thought that a railway scene without a fiddle yard and/or points would be a diorama but that then includes a trainset oval on a 6x4 board. Guess I'd too go with 'static' where static means unable to travel more than a train's length. One of my current projects is a 4mm standard gauge harbour scene where the scenic section is 3x1 foot, with a quarter of this taken up by a car ferry. It'll still have four points, three sidings, a platform, loco fuelling facility and a fiddle yard, so in my mind at least, its a layout, but the whole point was something quick and small so I didn't have to junk the ferry from an older project, so is it a ship diorama...?

 

Al

[Kenton]

 

....maybe a diorama is static Adrian, whereas a layout suggests motion.

 

Dave

But ... a diorama might have movement. For example a crane unloading a ship in a dock, or a crane against a rising high-rise block of flats, or an example of a planners' housing estate with a bus/cars/tram moving through the road network.

 

For me a layout just has to have moving trains a from-to scene even if the destination is a FY off scene - in other words the movement of trains has to have purpose - and hopefully a little variety (not the same loco on a station shuttle).

[WardRail]

Barry ("barmy") Norman once said on a model railway video that "A model railway layout if done properly is a diorama through which the trains run" or words to that effect. Going from that, if trains move on it, its a layout, if there's no trains or their presence is suggested in some way (track or wagons/coaches/locos that are purely static models) then its a diorama. Of course nothing says a diorama can't have other things that move (cranes, conveyor belts and a plethora of other things)

 

Just my thoughts, no offence intended

 

Best

Matthew

[gazmanjack]

Would a diorama possibly be a smallish landscaped/sceniced board that is used solely for photographing a variety of locos, rollingstock or lineside items (ie, signals, levers, signs buildings etc) on ? It wouldn't have to be powered, just static, or could be powered as the modeller may want to photograph his/her dcc equipped models with headlights/marker lights/firebox glow/interior lighting (coaches), signals, lamps etc on.

 

There is John Wiffen's diorama for his Scalescenes models - http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=8116&forum_id=21

[47137]

I'd like to think of a diorama as a model which is complete without needing meaningful operation, and probably without allowing much operation either. This might be because the track is too short to move a train, or the model is created in perspective (tapering tracks) or the track is a simple circle like a pizza or train set. I'd be reluctant to use the criteria of 'not having a fiddle yard' because a model of a whole railway (typically a narrow gauge one) could exist happily without one. Some small layouts I have built, which are technically micro layouts, seem to become dioramas after I loose interest in operating them ... this tends to reinforce the idea of a layout needing to have sufficient operating potential.

 

This thread reminds me of when I tried to define a micro layout on these pages a couple of years ago - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/52681-what-is-a-micro-layout/ ... I would like to see rules or definitions, but somehow I merely end up knowing whether a model is a layout or micro or diorama when I see it ...

 

- Richard.