Should we model buildings exactly to scale or slightly smaller?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I'm in a bit of a quandary.
I'm just about to construct some buildings for my Shardlow layout (see topics thread to get a background on all this). I thought I'd start with the old salt warehouse. Looking at old maps, satellite images, photos etc, the building appears to be 75ft x 26ft - say 12" x 4" in 4mm scale. This might over-dominate things.

I seem to recall that the late great Peter Denny built some buildings to HO. 
So, do of you build some structures smaller than to exact scale? 

[spamcan61]

Big structures in particular tend to look too big to me when constructed to scale. IIRC one of the well known layouts on here has buildings but to HO scale. Personally I'd mock the buildings up in cereal packet card or whatever and see how they look before building a proper model.

[The Johnster]

I built a model back 30 years ago, with the aid of a club I was a member of at the time, of Cardiff's Clarence Road dockland terminus, which is surrounded by industrial buildings, some of them pretty big ones.  With the usual space limitations and compromises we built the structures, except for the station canopy and signal box, and laid the trackplan to H0.  It looked ok (to me, anyway, but I'm biased), and nobody at exhibitions ever noticed the dodge, which we did not highight.  This was of course inspired by Peter Denny, and I'd say it worked pretty well, though obviously you have to watch for clearances at factory loading bays and entrances; ours were all big enough to get away with!  I use H0 building kits on Cwmdimbath and the only place they look a little odd (to me, anyway, but I'm biased) is where there are small doorways and handrails.

 

I gave consideration to using a Walther's Cornerstone building for my colliery pithead baths and canteen, but have settled on a Dapol Kitmaster 'modern shop and flat' to be butchered to get the look I want.  Walther's are good at big industrial buildings, helped by the big US loading gauge, and I'd say their coal mines, steelworks, strip mill, coke oven, cement works, and gravel/quarry buildings, and some of the other big buildings are cleverly thought out for footprint size and suitable for 4mm modelling (steelworks, strip mills, and coke ovens look pretty much the same everywhere), though replacing handrails and doorways might benefit them.

 

4mm is really too large for very big buildings, ships, and dockside cranes; everybody uses the Dapol KM 'dockside' crane which is far too small and is really a dockyard crane for loading machinery on to ships being repaired.  It has nowhere near the luffing reach or SWL to manage commercial cargo handling, nor is it high enough to clear the side of an average sized ocean going ship, say 6 or 7 thousand tons displacement.

 

A frequent harbour scene on models is the Clyde Puffer doing duty as a coaster, about the only sort of vessel small enough to fit on most layouts, but these are very small, designed for the Crinan Canal and use in the sheltered waters of the Firth of Forth and the lee of the inner islands.  A proper coaster, even the 'Dutch Barge' type, is about twice the length and beam, capable of working on exposed routes in reasonable weather.

 

Even a Flower Class Corvette, frequently seen in the 50s mothballed in small ports, is two coaches long.  Ships, even small ones, are big, but don't look right in 1:100 unless  they are in the background as perspective models on the other side of the dock...

 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by The Johnster

[Wheatley]

It works well with larger buildings. 

 

With smaller ones you need to be  a bit more careful, especially if the have to be functional. My loco shed should be 440mm long if I scale it up off the LMS ratings plan, but that didn't quite fit and the cardboard mock-up overpowered the scene. However, if I counted bricks and transferred those numbers directly to a sheet of Slaters embossed brick plasticard it came out at about 80% of that, it still fitted two 0-6-0s  end to end and they still fitted through the doors, so I went for that. It still functions as it should  and it's not so much smaller that you'd notice.  

[Paul H Vigor]

6 hours ago, spamcan61 said:

Big structures in particular tend to look too big to me when constructed to scale. IIRC one of the well known layouts on here has buildings but to HO scale. Personally I'd mock the buildings up in cereal packet card or whatever and see how they look before building a proper model.

Furthermore, 4mm scale trees always look far to big!

[Bernard Lamb]

Experience tells me that if you build a tall factory chimney to a scale height it tends to look rather odd.

Bernard 

[Karhedron]

There isn't really a hard and fast rule for this. It is common practice to compress features on layouts, particularly platform lengths so there is nothing wrong with compressing other elements to avoid them dominating the scene (unless that is the intention).

 

There are a couple of ways to do this, you could simply reduce the linear dimensions but this runs into the problem that doors and windows can quickly become too small. You can leave off parts of the building such as reducing the number of floors (for height) or number of windows (for length). The last option is to model the building up against the backscene in some way to give the impression that it continues "off-stage". The most appropriate approach will probably depend on the type of building and where it sits in the layout.

 

Generally speaking I agree with the above comment that many buildings would actually be quite overpowering if modelled to scale so creating something that gives the right impression rather than being strictly to scale is often good enough. The dairy on my N Gauge layout was modelled in low relief and forms part of the backscene to solve this exact problem. Even so the linear dimensions are probably a bit on the small side compared to the real thing.

 

[Barclay]

Buildings, like trees, can be surprisingly large - this warehouse, copied in terms of design and size from an American laser cut kit, is actually to 3.5mm/foot, and I'm so glad I didn't make it in 4mm!

 

[TheQ]

The problem is we almost always have to shrink the actual track plan to fit in the space available, if you don't shrink the larger  buildings it won't look right.

For instance on one layout I've got a pier.. if I built it to full length it would be the length of the layout...

On another layout the genuine station platform scales to  only 4ft long so it's built to scale, so shrinking the buildings on that station would look wrong,... Though it's main siding scales to 18ft which is another problem..

 

I did see a layout where there was a transmitter mast of around 3 ft tall which seemed Huge... But the owner pointed out if built to scale it would have gone through the ceiling...

The shrinking effect applies to other things as well. many are happy with printed buildings, I find the walls too smooth in appearance.. But actually they are more correct than most plasticard brick effects..

 

 

In this hobby getting the appearance and feel correct is often more important than pure scale.

[Wheatley]

Something else which works better on long buildings with a repeating pattern is to miss a bay or two out. I don't know how long the real 'A' Shop at Swindon Works was, but I bet if you built it with a few windows missing no-one would notice because it's the repeating pattern which sticks in the memory, not the absolute number. 

 

Likewise viaducts, rows of terraced houses etc ...

Edited November 1, 2022 by Wheatley

[Steamport Southport]

17 hours ago, Paul H Vigor said:

Furthermore, 4mm scale trees always look far to big!

 

I always think they are far too small!

 

The amount of trees I see on model railways that are barely higher than an engine can look very strange. Little more than saplings when you consider a loco is about 12 to 13 feet high.

 

 

Jason

[Gwiwer]

Modelling is a hobby of compromises.  Size, scale, colour, sound and the lot.  

 

I have great respect for the small number of modellers who take huge amounts of time and display no small degree of skill in re-creating true-to-scale everything they do.  They are, to my mind, in a significant but honourable minority.

 

Somewhere at another end of the scale is, perhaps, the opening of basic boxed train sets, slotting together an oval of track on the dining table or even the lounge carpet (!!) and plugging a controller in to run a small train with little need to be aware of the scale (which can be quite coarse) at that level.  

 

We all started somewhere in this hobby - many of us probably with that oval or, as in my case, with something even older.  For me it was Hornby tinplate O-gauge; I still have some of those items though they are very much "playworn" and a lot didn't survive.  So it is probably disingenuous to criticise the train-set oval because from that many a professional and exhibiting modeller has developed and honed their skills.  

 

There is a place for a careful blend of scales.  Combining 1:72 (usually for aircraft and marine kits), 1:76 (for most British OO railways and now road models) and 1:87 (the world-wide HO standard) can be done successfully with care.  Forced perspective has its place and not all manufacturers seem to adhere to the same sense of scale.  Stand a Hornby 1:76 person next to a Bachmann one for example and the Hornby will look bigger in many cases.  I know we are all individuals but the size difference persists across the ranges.  I use some 1:87 figures to represent younger people; there seems to be a gap in the OO ranges between adult and child.  If you want teens there are plenty to be had in the European HO ranges but they can look too small against OO scenery, trains and other people if one is not careful.  

 

Vegetation is another area where scale seems to be a bit nominal.  Trees and shrubs come in many sizes in real life as well as models but I find some ready-made trees are far too large yet others much too small.  I could build my own but it's not one of the area I choose to concentrate on so I buy them ready to plant.  I have found, often as not, that lesser-known manufacturers offer better tree products than the obvious names.  I have happily used Heki as one example.

 

I don't slavishly copy originals if they will not comfortably fit the scene being built.  If it's too big it will never look right but if it's the right size few people will ever notice if it isn't a direct copy of an original.  

 

Ultimately it's a rule of thumb thing.  Place things first before fixing and adjust if necessary.  It won't work with ready-to-use buildings but they can sometimes be re-positioned to give a better overall impression.  If it looks wrong to you chances are it will look wrong to others but at the very least you will always know it feels wrong.  The urge  to change once something is firmly in place can be tempered by the potential to damage your work and create a much bigger problem.  

 

And, as it always does, Rule 1 applies.  

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

The star players in a model railway are the trains themselves. Trains are actually quite small things compared to buildings, trees, platforms etc which is probably why they can be overwhelmed if these things are made to full scale size. Our normal 

viewpoint of around 5ft from the ground gives a different picture from a scale 150ft that we view a layout from.

 

Even relatively small buildings such as houses can look very large when built to full scale. Scale height lamposts can look very strange.

 

To answer the question in the thread title, I think slightly smaller than scale is appropriate in many cases.

[The Johnster]

Churches are another problem, even your typical urban Victorian tabernacle is overpowering to scale in 4mm, and Bonchurch, the protoype of the old Airfix, now Dapol KM, construction kit, is really only suitable for very small villages.  Even then, many villages in areas like the Cotswolds or on the Chalk Downs made a lot of money out of sheep and the wool trade back in the middle ages, and showed it off in impressive churches.  Medieval churches really need big spaces for the churchyards as well, but these can be inferred to be behind the model out of sight.  Metcalfe etc. look distinctly undernourished, because they are.  Another one is the Wills timber merchants, 4mm but better in N.  For trees, I find about 6 or 7 inches  to be a decent compromise, roughly around 40 feet, so they can 'loom' from behind buildings but not overpower visually, but 5 or so inches is fine in isolation or groups away from buildings, especially up slopes, less further up.

 

If it looks natural in it's setting, I'd agree that that is a priority consideration over dead scale.

 

The real Cwmdimbath at the site that the terminus that never existed is modelled at is a narrow steep sided valley, and the backdrop to the layout is in reality a mountainside of some 1,300 feet rising steeply and very directly from the steam bed.  It needs to overwhelm and dominate the layout, and to scale would go to the ceiling.  I've modelled it using scenic grass sheets, so it is about 30" above the baseboard with the top edge cut to represent the undulating skyline as seen from the imaginary viewpoint, about 150' above the valley floor on the mountain 'this' (western) side, which is suggested but not modelled.  It fills my field of vision from normal viewing positions, and thus does it's job, and  although it is more or less vertical (the real slope is about 70 degrees, and would be collapsing if the trees had really all been cut down for pitprops), foreshortening and forced perspective (2mm scale sheep on the upper slopes) means I sort of get away with it, though the shortcomings are apparent in photos.

 

I find 1:72 and 1:87 models of vehicles or aircraft to be too far out to get away with on a 1:76 layout, but am happy with 1:87 lamp posts and some buildings.  Lechyd Terrace on Cwmdimbath is an Ancorton 1:76 laser cut model and has to be positioned away from the Scale Model Scenery pub and post office which dwarf it, but all these buildings are to scale in 1:76.  1850s workers' cottages of this sort really were tiny; have a look at the Rhydycar Terrace brilliantly preserved at St.Fagan's museum, but they look odd next to more 'normal' sized buildings from the Edwardian era on the model.  Putting them where they look right is more important.

[Colin_McLeod]

Just throwing this in to the debate. You can just make out the railway at the bottom of the picture.

 

See Railhome BCN on Facebook for more pictures.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

That figure looks a tad out of scale to me...

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I've decided to go for 3.5mm/ft buildings on my "Shardlow" layout. Obviously, I'll make adjustments, if necessary for door sizes etc.

[Steamport Southport]

55 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

Just throwing this in to the debate. You can just make out the railway at the bottom of the picture.

 

See Railhome BCN on Facebook for more pictures.

 

Now make the noises.

 

We'll change you into Godzilla with CGI....

[whart57]

False perspective only works when the tracks don't go there. If your rails go right up to the back scene there is little scope for FP. An alternative is to choose smaller examples. 

 

On my Maenamburi layout I wanted a temple as a way of fixing the Thai location. It took a little while on Streetview and on my last trip to Bangkok to find a suitable prototype. 

 

Maenamburi is based on Bangkok 's Thonburi which has a loco depot. To get the loco shed to fit I made it three road instead of five. 

[Lacathedrale]

On 31/10/2022 at 22:54, Paul H Vigor said:

Furthermore, 4mm scale trees always look far to big!

 

Indeed, this LOOKS wrong even though it's probably more TO scale than out of scale:

 

[eastglosmog]

On 01/11/2022 at 16:16, Wheatley said:

Something else which works better on long buildings with a repeating pattern is to miss a bay or two out. I don't know how long the real 'A' Shop at Swindon Works was, but I bet if you built it with a few windows missing no-one would notice because it's the repeating pattern which sticks in the memory, not the absolute number. 

 

Likewise viaducts, rows of terraced houses etc ...

You are in good company.  Turner, left out a number of gunports in his paintings of ships of the line (only noticed by nerds who count them).

[Paul H Vigor]

4 hours ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

That figure looks a tad out of scale to me...

Kong King! 😲

[Paul H Vigor]

2 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

You are in good company.  Turner, left out a number of gunports in his paintings of ships of the line (only noticed by nerds who count them).

Artillery spotters, no less!

[kandc_au]

On 04/11/2022 at 01:19, Lacathedrale said:

 

Indeed, this LOOKS wrong even though it's probably more TO scale than out of scale:

 

I for one disagree!
I think it is a mindset we  have been used to for so long, we don't actually stop and look at the reality of the world around us.
Eg: We live IN the world, NOT look down on the world, as we do with a model railway!
From that perspective, I would suggest that you would find layouts have to few trees and trees that are to small, except in some circumstances like deserts etc.

Khris

Edited November 5, 2022 by kandc_au
Edit for spelling and added bits I forgot

[97406]

On 03/11/2022 at 15:19, Lacathedrale said:

 

Indeed, this LOOKS wrong even though it's probably more TO scale than out of scale:

 

 

I think the trees would sit in there better if or when a backscene image is added to give the impression of distance and balancing the height of the trees. Having the scenery stop at the back makes the trees stand out, even though they are of a correct size and nicely modeled.