Lecorbusier

Interestingly I had another look at the right track dvd last night to refresh my memory and all was as I had remembered it .....Just shows how a single photo out of context can give the wrong impression ... In the link you posted I thought the tree in the foreground felt like a different season to the background, but of course when you pan out and see the whole in context this is a wholly erroneous impression.

Wasn't being serious Stephen ... just joshing - your original point still stands . I find it vaguely amusing that If Corb had been designing a station for the line in 1905 it is likely it would have complemented the Matlock Bath station rather well ... as you say not at all what one would have expected .... but then of course 1905 being the date, he had not yet gone to Paris or indeed adopted his nom-de-plume.

Interestingly that's why I prefer painted back scenes .... the model is manufactured and to match, the back scene should really be the same, with the same colour palette. I understand what you mean about the 'belly and can' but with this approach I find I struggle when the model depicts a line running through a landscape made to be viewed from a distance such as Little Bytham.

That's the one I was talking about ... though looking again the foreground trees do seem to be from a different season to the back scene?

..... Corb of course was fascinated by the classical, and sketched many examples. One could argue that a back scene is a sketch of what potentially or actually exists (and so would include such sketches)? ... it is the model that is the design. To take this tongue in cheek analogy further ... my own choice of location and period - ie the 'little Switzerland' of the Peak line ..... Matlock Bath Station circa 1903 Chimes rather well with Corb's output of the same period? Le Corbusier, Villa Fallet, 1905

This I think is a useful quote from Martin Goodall on the subject of perspective and back scenes ..... it again gives an interesting 'perspective' on the subject. For me the results are quite effective .... some of the back scene under discussion can be seen here https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1846&start=100 It seems to me that what Martin is describing is an elevational approach but with receding scale as it relates to distance, a tool we have used in the architectural profession for many years where it is the shadows which give form and depth. for example..

I still think Martin Goodall's back scene for 'The Burford Branch' is worth investigating (though you may already be very well versed and familiar with it). His theories on parallel perspective and I believe avoiding vanishing points are interesting ... and do seem to be born out by the townscape he has rendered, as on the face of it, it doesn't appear to suffer from the normal issues when viewed from the 'wrong' position. I thought them interesting anyway.

One way of looking at back scenes maybe to accept that any model is by nature an artificial construct to some extent .... it is trying to portray something it self evidently is not - unless we accept the vintage toy approach. This being the case we are always attempting to fool the eye, and to this extent we are more in the realm of the theatre and make believe than anywhere else. As such, devices of the theatre become rather important ... devices such as controlling the position and viewpoint of the audience, utilising strategic view blockers, cropping down the scene, manipulating the lighting etc etc. Further more there is a requirement on the audience member to join in the game .... always remembering that one's eye sees in sharp focus only a small section of ones over all field of vision, the rest being peripheral. Therefore, it is far easier for us to block out the extraneous in real life than it is say for a camera. So if one is focussing on the trains and the foreground, the hint of a back scene may work very effectively in real life, but when photographed it might well jar. Indeed it might be interesting to discuss to what extent our liking of specific back scenes might be based more upon the camera image than the actuality. I think Tony's technique of extending up the sky around Little Bytham is spot on, as I bet all the extraneous clutter present in the photos totally recedes if you are actually there and running trains. So his adjusted pictures give a far truer representation than the plain shot which displays the fact but not the truth. Personally I quite like the use of a proscenium to control the view complete with wing view blockers etc etc .... an approach if I recall rightly that was quite effectively illustrated on the 'Layout Planning and Design' Right Track DVD. The layout I think was Albion Yard.

Totally Agree. I can't stand people who draw what they think they see rather than observing and drawing what is there (though in good art there is always an element of selection and emphasis?) ... my point is that you will always make excuses to justify what you like. Think of it more as 'cup half full' as opposed to 'half empty' ... everything depends on ones perspective. There is much about the Edwardian world that is pretty ghastly, and I want in my layout to try and make my location as realistic and true as I possibly can .... but where as to many the period I have chosen will be definitely 'cup half empty' for a myriad of reasons - mine will happily be half full for a myriad of other reasons ... this is what I like to call rose tinted spectacles. After all, tinting does not materially change a view, it simply colours it differently, and we all have our own subconscious personal filters.

I quite like Iain Rice's solution (I think propounded in his chassis construction book but not certain) .... he rarely mechanically fixes his loco's to the chassis (and then only at one end). He advises a much gentler approach such as a lightly sprung locating tab. Indeed he tells that in many a loco surgery at exhibitions he has simply slackened or removed the locating screws occasionally substituting blue tac as a temporary measure, and the locos have then run smoothly.

For what its worth (given I am still at the start of my first 'real' layout) I think some sort of back scene is essential for my own enjoyment of a layout. It can be a simple sky or such like, but I find extraneous clutter within the eye line when concentrating on a layout a terrible distraction. Currently I am fascinated by the back scene being developed as part of 'The Burford Branch' ... Martin Goddall's Layout. https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1846 Whilst being quite detailed and complex, I think the recessive tones and the eschewing of any perspective works rather well.

Hmmmm! I think that unless you are trying to recreate a memory from youth, one has a tendency to model what appeals at a given period in time? .... for me that is turn of the century Midland and the works of Johnson et al. Interestingly the location is one from boyhood .... so perhaps the nostalgia of youth is still present in some form?

....... rose tinted spectacles are de-rigour aren't they? ... whatever era you model. I find it fascinating listening to Pete Waterman waxing lyrical about dirt, grime etc etc. much as I do about the pr-grouping Midland in its heyday

This will sound strange ... but I don't really have pet hates. I either like a layout or I don't. All but a few have aspects that I might wish were better or different, but if on balance I like a layout I enjoy spending time 'enjoying it'. If I don't I move on.

I'm Polite

I tend to agree Clive, Surely the problem is that we have far too many cars on the road at any one time and the way the world is currently set up means that many actually have little or no option. We like to think that the car is a wonderful freedom which gives us our own personalised space taking us door to door, where as public transport has to be shared (sometimes with the undesirable) and takes us where it wants to go. The reality of course is that if it were efficient, cheap and well networked many would now select the latter in preference - and perhaps be much healthier by so doing. I find being in central London I rarely use my car from day to day, and walk further than many in far more rural locations - but then we benefit from a pretty good public transport system even if it is expensive, whilst using a car for the same journey would be a nightmare.

I love the moustachioed driver through the spectacle plate window.

Ah .... but then you see I am an and/also rather than an either/or type of bloke ..... just need to make a little more money though - paying for five adds up pretty quickly

Ah Clive .... but you see I enjoy rock climbing and mountaineering as well - not to mention cycle touring ... so in that sense the camper might be regarded as luxury! .... sad I know

Tony, I drove down to Dartmoor over Christmas (not in the camper) to see the aged parents - they would regard you as a spring chicken! When not on the motorway it was crawling tail to bumper in traffic and not a van in site! We need to get more people on the railways so that the joy of motoring can re-emerge. For myself the whole thing about the van is to be off the beaten track away from other road users ... so either in the slow lane of the motorway to get somewhere (65mph) or on minor roads with hardly anyone else around and far too winding for chimera style hi-jinx! .... anyway I built myself a souped up mini cooper for that - Top speed not great but acceleration and road holding was great! I was looking at some of the documentaries made about Beeching over christmas and they really highlighted the miscalculation over the exponential rise in car usage!

Yikes! ..... message to self .... no more mentions of my beloved VW Bus but then - oh what the hell ..... the open road, adventure and exotic places - all at an affordable price .... plus, believe it or not, everyone (apart from Tony) smiling and waving at you.

I can't possibly agree with you hear Tony ....... though I agree with everything you have said. The camera never lies (unless of course you want it to) .... but unless you are extremely skilful and have a superb eye it also never tells the truth. How often do you see a picture of a friend/family member only to say 'that is nothing like you' .... same with pictures of places - you sift through for those which give a feel of what it was really like! ... and that's before we even get on to the fact that the prototype itself was regularly all over the place. Furthermore, while I think taking photos (particularly foreshortened photos) is a great aid to model making, I would hazard a guess that if our skills were such that we could actually achieve perfection when viewed by this means, the resultant model would look too perfect and strangely false/unrealistic. Thank the lord for the foibles and faults of the craftsman - Ruskin perhaps had a point?

I like the K's kits because they provide a good base for a build (same with Nucast) ... I almost always buy in other parts such as handrail knobs/brass domes and whistles/smoke box darts etc and will use .4 wire for handrails, etch off cut for lamp irons etc etc. I normally find I can source a suitable chassis using Comet/Perseverance/Southeastern Finecast etc etc with brakes, springs and rigging - along with Gibson wheels and an appropriate gear box. I find with sufficient care they can build into very nice locos and the all in price is competitive. I suppose I look on them (like with most kits) not so much as a product with a given outcome,but rather as a starting point to create a specific loco ... so adaptation and improvisation is always required. About half way down the page on this thread (not my work) https://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3805&start=225 is an interesting build of a K's Kirtley 0-6-0 goods which I think illustrates what can be achieved.

Relaxing after finishing for Christmas ... I came across this (originally broadcast in 2003) which I thoroughly enjoyed and seemed somehow apt for this thread. Happy Christmas to everyone.

I like to think the Great Eastern was a testing ground for development ... the Midland was the flowering of the full mature style. Style at the Midland fell away somewhat with the advent of Deeley.