Wright writes.....

[Keith Turbutt]

3 hours ago, Kier Hardy said:

 

However, one thing that I do find irritating is the constant views expressed by Tony in relation to what makes a model railway, or if you prefer, a model of a railway. We all have our preferences (it would be a boring world if we didn't), but to keep mentioning every couple of pages or so that a train set based on a fictional scene (such as your Pendons, ***** / insert name) are inferior to train sets based on a particular prototype. 

I really liked your photos and I have seen this layout at exhibitions which I found very entertaining. However I was disapointed by your comments which I consider were harsh and unfair. We are all entitled to our opinions, including Tony, and his opinions are well known. I believe he has also said that there is more work in creating a good fictional layout than making a model pf a prototype.

 

I think that the recent posts referring  to quite a number of very good fictional layouts have  already made the case that there is a place for both types of layout.

 

There is no compulsion to read this thread and if you don't like it stay away. As you have said, this is one of the most populare threads which is hosted by Tony and who spends a lot of time responding to posts and providing advice.

 

I'm sure Tony is perfectly capable of responding to your comments which in my opinion are bordering on offensive

Edited August 27 by Keith Turbutt
grammar

[grahame]

3 hours ago, 4630 said:

I had to look really closely at the image of the class 74 (E6107) to convince myself that you hadn't slipped in a photo from the ‘real’ railway.

 

I’ve always enjoyed your various layouts @Kier Hardy

 

Yep, that's a great pic.

 

[Tony Wright]

3 hours ago, Kier Hardy said:

As I've mentioned previously, I read this WW thread on RMweb because occasionally there's some interesting topics discussed by modellers for modellers. If you like green steamy things then you're in luck - my preference is to fast-scroll through most of the images until I see something more engaging to me. That's not to say it isn't of interest to others, and long may the content continue. The popularity of this thread speaks for itself, and on most visits to the forum it may be the only one I click on.

 

However, one thing that I do find irritating is the constant views expressed by Tony in relation to what makes a model railway, or if you prefer, a model of a railway. We all have our preferences (it would be a boring world if we didn't), but to keep mentioning every couple of pages or so that a train set based on a fictional scene (such as your Pendons, ***** / insert name) are inferior to train sets based on a particular prototype. That's almost like saying television dramas are not proper programs, but documentaries are. These opinions are valuable on forums, but when it's thrust down your throat as often as it is, there are many that find it tiresome.

 

Observation of the real railway mixed with a pinch of imagination can produce something that's believable and entertaining, based on historical facts and backed up by professionals in the railway industry, to ensure prototype practice, track formations and signalling is portrayed correctly. Equally others may be just as happy with their table top circle of track, shiny plastic models and signals in the wrong place. I watched a video recently that featured a 40 year old Hornby Class 47 that had been repainted from green into blue livery, leaving in place the heavily moulded horizontal guide lines along the bodyside. To me, the thing that was most satisfying was his enjoyment of doing something for himself, despite his naivety. 

 

I spend many hours every week helping other modellers with practical support, advice and constructive criticism, helping to make the hobby satisfying and enjoyable for the most, so you can imagine how infuriating it can be to see certain 'well respected' modellers carrying on with their own projects with little regard to the observation of finer detail (do fence wires, particularly barbed really get threaded through the holes in the posts?). I get immense pleasure from building and playing with my layout based on a fictional location, so good luck to those who model historical clones from the real world without being too opinionated.

 

The following pictures were taken at Hornsey Broadway, Wibdenshaw & Shenston Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's brilliant modelling Kier,

 

Thanks for showing us. 

 

I'm not sure that I express the opinion (and it is an opinion) about modelling real locations in 'preference' to made-up ones every two pages or so. 

 

If folk find my views 'irritating', then good. As you suggest, it would be a dull old world if we all saw things the same way. Robust debate is good for the hobby. Are we going down the 'dangerous' path where views which contradict those of others are 'not aired'? 

 

I've never stated that layouts not based on actual prototypes are 'inferior' (how could Pendon be described as 'inferior' to anything?) to those based on actual places. Damn it all, how many times do I have to reiterate how much the likes of Borchester, Buckingham and what have you have influenced me, and made me strive to do better in my own modelling? Every couple of pages? What I have said is that a model of an actual prototype can be measured against that actual prototype; using evidence, from photographs and drawings of the actual location. We do that if building a model of an actual locomotive/carriage/wagon, don't we? 

 

Of course, the choice is out there. If folk find Wright writes tiresome, then don't look at it. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Edited August 27 by Tony Wright
clumsy grammar

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, John Isherwood said:

 

I have to say that, to my eyes, I can see

 nothing whatsoever out-of-kilter with the loco.

 

John Isherwood.

Good evening John,

 

May I suggest that you strike a line from the cab eaves and the top of the tender and see if they reach the same vanishing point. Or a line from the top horizontal handrail on the cab and a line from the bottom horizontal lining on the tender. Basic geometry should suggest that they all reach the same vanishing point in perspective if all were parallel (which, in a perfect world, they should be). They don't. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

21 minutes ago, Keith Turbutt said:

I really liked your photos and I have seen this layout at exhibitions which I found very entertaining. However I was disapointed by your comments which I consider were harsh and unfair. We are all entitled to our opinions, including Tony, and his opinions are well known. I believe he has also said that there is more work in creating a good fictional layout than making a model pf a prototype.

 

I think that the recent posts referring  to quite a number of very good fictional layouts have  already made the case that there is a place for both types of layout.

 

There is no compulsion to read this thread and if you don't like it stay away. As you have said, this is one of the most populare threads which is hosted by Tony and who spends a lot of time responding to posts and providing advice.

 

I'm sure Tony is perfectly capable of responding to your comments which in my opinion are bordering on offensive

Thanks Keith,

 

I don't find Kier's comments in any way offensive; in fact, I find them stimulating. 

 

Here's a challenge (a tongue in cheek one to be fair). 

 

I'll find prototype pictures of Little Bytham and try and replicate them in model form (without making excuses, 'exact' replication is impossible because of simple physics). The two will be posted side by side. Viewers can then decide how 'accurate' the team's model-making is (in the same way that, say, pictures of model A4s can be 'tested' against pictures of the full-sized thing). They might well (probably will) fall short. Now do the same for a made-up layout. Yes, individual buildings can be placed in made-up locations, but as an overall scene?

 

I await the results...............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[t-b-g]

3 hours ago, Kier Hardy said:

As I've mentioned previously, I read this WW thread on RMweb because occasionally there's some interesting topics discussed by modellers for modellers. If you like green steamy things then you're in luck - my preference is to fast-scroll through most of the images until I see something more engaging to me. That's not to say it isn't of interest to others, and long may the content continue. The popularity of this thread speaks for itself, and on most visits to the forum it may be the only one I click on.

 

However, one thing that I do find irritating is the constant views expressed by Tony in relation to what makes a model railway, or if you prefer, a model of a railway. We all have our preferences (it would be a boring world if we didn't), but to keep mentioning every couple of pages or so that a train set based on a fictional scene (such as your Pendons, ***** / insert name) are inferior to train sets based on a particular prototype. That's almost like saying television dramas are not proper programs, but documentaries are. These opinions are valuable on forums, but when it's thrust down your throat as often as it is, there are many that find it tiresome.

 

Observation of the real railway mixed with a pinch of imagination can produce something that's believable and entertaining, based on historical facts and backed up by professionals in the railway industry, to ensure prototype practice, track formations and signalling is portrayed correctly. Equally others may be just as happy with their table top circle of track, shiny plastic models and signals in the wrong place. I watched a video recently that featured a 40 year old Hornby Class 47 that had been repainted from green into blue livery, leaving in place the heavily moulded horizontal guide lines along the bodyside. To me, the thing that was most satisfying was his enjoyment of doing something for himself, despite his naivety. 

 

I spend many hours every week helping other modellers with practical support, advice and constructive criticism, helping to make the hobby satisfying and enjoyable for the most, so you can imagine how infuriating it can be to see certain 'well respected' modellers carrying on with their own projects with little regard to the observation of finer detail (do fence wires, particularly barbed really get threaded through the holes in the posts?). I get immense pleasure from building and playing with my layout based on a fictional location, so good luck to those who model historical clones from the real world without being too opinionated.

 

The following pictures were taken at Hornsey Broadway, Wibdenshaw & Shenston Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried to write something similar a few times but found it difficult to articulate my thoughts so gave up.

 

The analogy of documentary films and feature films is one I have used myself.

 

A good friend of mine, who is building a model of a real place, once said to me that he wished he had the imagination to create a believable fictional scene but he didn't have any imagination at all so he would stick to building real places.

 

To me, if a scene can be created that could very well have been real, then that requires a combination of good technical modelling, combined with good observation of the prototype and the compositional skills needed to make a scene that is both pleasing to the eye and realistic.

 

Your layouts have succeeded in all those aspects.

[Jack P]

13 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

I'll find prototype pictures of Little Bytham and try and replicate them in model form (without making excuses, 'exact' replication is impossible because of simple physics). The two will be posted side by side. Viewers can then decide how 'accurate' the team's model-making is (in the same way that, say, pictures of model A4s can be 'tested' against pictures of the full-sized thing). They might well (probably will) fall short. Now do the same for a made-up layout. Yes, individual buildings can be placed in made-up locations, but as an overall scene?

 

But....Tony.... Isn't this exactly what Kier was talking about?

 

You may not mean it as such, but there's definitely a whiff of 'one is better than the other', and it seems to be the one you can compare real photos to.

Edited August 27 by Jack P

[PupCam]

If I may be so bold ........

 

59 minutes ago, Keith Turbutt said:

 

I used Kodachrome II, which had a very low ASA, from August 1965 and scanned my slides a couple of years ago. The transparencies were stored in good boxes and there had been no deterioration in quality. The simple scanner enabled 6 slides to be scanned in one pass.

 

A couple of examples are attached. Unfortunately a number of my photos were under exposed due to using a light meter which gave me the ambient light. It took a while for me to realise that I needed to go down a couple of stops to adjust for the light off the subject! I once attended a talk from the man from Colourail and it was amazing what he could achieve with under exposed photos. Sadly I dont have those skills.

 

Fiirst we have 60009 leaving Stirling in August 1965 on an up Aberdeen - Glasgow 3hr service which was the primary reason for going to Scotland.

 

Then, on the same visit  we went to Bathgate to see the last remaining J36s. The story behind the photo is that we went with a shed permit and got talking to the friendly shed staff. The only J36s on shed were inside the dark shed but when we explained the purpose of our visit the offer was very kindly made to pull them out to allow us to photograph them. The weather was very dull and as explained above my photo was under exposed so I didn't do it justice after such a kind offer.

 

A simple, single 2 minute edit in a "Photoshop like" package (but far more sensibly priced for a cheapskate like me) called Affinity Photo.

 

Simply increasing the exposure does improve it but burns out the cloud detail.      A simple "Curves" edit of the Master channel is much better as it is selective (The "Curves" tool is selected, the Master channel is already selected by default and then drag the initially straight line in to a curve that provides the desired change in exposure effects then save the image.    A Curves edit is the equivalent of old fashioned "Dodging and Burning" in traditional printing but far more comprehensive, controllable and faster.    The tools are very, very capable and what you can do is limited only by your skill and imagination but to do something like this is really simple (it must be as I managed it 🤣).   I think I paid £24.99 for my copy a few years ago.  It's more expensive now (£68 I think) but they often have a 50% off promotion so if you are interested it might be worth keeping an eye out.

 

.

And here's the tool:     The Master curve (white) has been dragged up slightly in the middle section.      That's it .....

 

 

I'm not suggesting that my edit of your image is  the definitive version, far from it.      Although I'd love to develop my photo editing skills and become anexpert (no pun intended) colour blindness rather stymies that idea!   My aim is to simply illustrate that it is exceedingly simple to improve / enhance an image digitally now.    In this context the "Digital manipulation degrades from the purity of the image" argument is nonsense.   The image wasn't perfect (in this case under-exposed)  when it left the camera so any enhancement is just fine in my opinion and as previously mentioned images were manipulated all of the time in the old days just using inferior tools and processes.    Slight under exposure of your original is probably an advantage anyway as it means that more detail is available in the lighter areas.      If you want to see what really skilled image manipulation can do take a look at some of the wonderful astronomical images on the net.    In many cases you can see nothing at all in the source images.

 

I hope that is of interest and apologies with taking liberties with your image.

 

Alan

 

 

[1471SirFrederickBanbury]

1 hour ago, Keith Turbutt said:

 

I used Kodachrome II, which had a very low ASA, from August 1965 and scanned my slides a couple of years ago. The transparencies were stored in good boxes and there had been no deterioration in quality. The simple scanner enabled 6 slides to be scanned in one pass.

 

A couple of examples are attached. Unfortunately a number of my photos were under exposed due to using a light meter which gave me the ambient light. It took a while for me to realise that I needed to go down a couple of stops to adjust for the light off the subject! I once attended a talk from the man from Colourail and it was amazing what he could achieve with under exposed photos. Sadly I dont have those skills.

 

Fiirst we have 60009 leaving Stirling in August 1965 on an up Aberdeen - Glasgow 3hr service which was the primary reason for going to Scotland.

 

Then, on the same visit  we went to Bathgate to see the last remaining J36s. The story behind the photo is that we went with a shed permit and got talking to the friendly shed staff. The only J36s on shed were inside the dark shed but when we explained the purpose of our visit the offer was very kindly made to pull them out to allow us to photograph them. The weather was very dull and as explained above my photo was under exposed so I didn't do it justice after such a kind offer. 

Ah well, at least it prompts happy memories of our visit. I think I my have shown some other photos of this trip in earlier posts.

The problem does not arise now with digital photography on my mobile phone camera !

I must say, despite the flaws of these photos, and having to see digital reproductions on a phone screen instead of their original beauty, these are absolutely brilliant!  They have a serene quality that I just can’t put into words.  I’m now in the process of moving to film from digital, as I’ve have run out of patience for digital cameras working against me to get decent colour reproduction without too much work after to justify it.  Provia looks better than anything digital I’ve seen anyways.

[Keith Turbutt]

33 minutes ago, PupCam said:

If I may be so bold ........

 

 

A simple, single 2 minute edit in a "Photoshop like" package (but far more sensibly priced for a cheapskate like me) called Affinity Photo.

 

Simply increasing the exposure does improve it but burns out the cloud detail.      A simple "Curves" edit of the Master channel is much better as it is selective (The "Curves" tool is selected, the Master channel is already selected by default and then drag the initially straight line in to a curve that provides the desired change in exposure effects then save the image.    A Curves edit is the equivalent of old fashioned "Dodging and Burning" in traditional printing but far more comprehensive, controllable and faster.    The tools are very, very capable and what you can do is limited only by your skill and imagination but to do something like this is really simple (it must be as I managed it 🤣).   I think I paid £24.99 for my copy a few years ago.  It's more expensive now (£68 I think) but they often have a 50% off promotion so if you are interested it might be worth keeping an eye out.

 

.

And here's the tool:     The Master curve (white) has been dragged up slightly in the middle section.      That's it .....

 

 

I'm not suggesting that my edit of your image is  the definitive version, far from it.      Although I'd love to develop my photo editing skills and become anexpert (no pun intended) colour blindness rather stymies that idea!   My aim is to simply illustrate that it is exceedingly simple to improve / enhance an image digitally now.    In this context the "Digital manipulation degrades from the purity of the image" argument is nonsense.   The image wasn't perfect (in this case under-exposed)  when it left the camera so any enhancement is just fine in my opinion and as previously mentioned images were manipulated all of the time in the old days just using inferior tools and processes.    Slight under exposure of your original is probably an advantage anyway as it means that more detail is available in the lighter areas.      If you want to see what really skilled image manipulation can do take a look at some of the wonderful astronomical images on the net.    In many cases you can see nothing at all in the source images.

 

I hope that is of interest and apologies with taking liberties with your image.

 

Alan

 

 

Hi Alan,

 

Many thanks for your posting and advice.

You're very welcome to tinker with my photos. I posted them for anyone to make use of as they wish.

 

It's a bit late to study your advice tonight but I will read it again in the morning!

 

Thanks again

Keith 

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, Kier Hardy said:

 

Thanks for that. It's particularly interesting for me, having grown up in Mill Hill East. Highly plausible, too.

[St Enodoc]

2 hours ago, Keith Turbutt said:

 

I used Kodachrome II, which had a very low ASA, from August 1965 and scanned my slides a couple of years ago. The transparencies were stored in good boxes and there had been no deterioration in quality. The simple scanner enabled 6 slides to be scanned in one pass.

 

A couple of examples are attached. Unfortunately a number of my photos were under exposed due to using a light meter which gave me the ambient light. It took a while for me to realise that I needed to go down a couple of stops to adjust for the light off the subject! I once attended a talk from the man from Colourail and it was amazing what he could achieve with under exposed photos. Sadly I dont have those skills.

 

Fiirst we have 60009 leaving Stirling in August 1965 on an up Aberdeen - Glasgow 3hr service which was the primary reason for going to Scotland.

 

Then, on the same visit  we went to Bathgate to see the last remaining J36s. The story behind the photo is that we went with a shed permit and got talking to the friendly shed staff. The only J36s on shed were inside the dark shed but when we explained the purpose of our visit the offer was very kindly made to pull them out to allow us to photograph them. The weather was very dull and as explained above my photo was under exposed so I didn't do it justice after such a kind offer. 

Ah well, at least it prompts happy memories of our visit. I think I my have shown some other photos of this trip in earlier posts.

The problem does not arise now with digital photography on my mobile phone camera !

Your photos show only too well the limitations of 25 ASA Kodachrome II, which Dad used in the early 60s. He later changed to 64 ASA Kodachrome-X (so did I, in my Instamatic 50) which of course worked in a much wider range of ambient light conditions. I don't remember either of us using Kodachrome 200.

 

To my eyes, because I grew up with it, the colour palette of Kodachrome is just perfect. I wonder whether there's a way to replicate that with a setting on a digital camera or phone?

[tjf4375]

52 minutes ago, Jack P said:

 

But....Tony.... Isn't this exactly what Kier was talking about?

 

You may not mean it as such, but there's definitely a whiff of 'one is better than the other', and it seems to be the one you can compare real photos to.

I think it comes down to what we're each striving for in our own layouts. Some modellers, like Tony, enjoy the historical research element of the hobby and are motivated by trying to recreate a scene as accurately and faithfully as possible. I can understand the appeal of that. Others want to work more with their imagination and create all sorts of dioramas and scenes, using different stock and scenery. And then a lot of modellers fall somewhere in-between, building a layout that is based on a real-life location but with artistic licence. I chose to model a real location but it's definitely in the third category and far from being a faithful replica - what it has done is helped to 'reign me in' when I see all these amazing scenic products, trains and buildings coming onto the market and would otherwise be tempted to buy far too much. That said, I won't pretend I haven't scoured youtube on many occasions, just trying to find video evidence of a particular loco visiting Sevenoaks, just so I can justify buying it 😂

[CF MRC]

Our original 1983 sketches for the MRC’s new 2mm scale London layout were made up scenes. We then found Belle Isle and environs: frankly an area so complicated you couldn’t make it up, bearing some similarities to the old Fleischmann exhibition layouts that appeared at London shows in the ‘70s.  Even in 2mm scale, slavishly copying a prototype soon exhausts the available space - that is when artistry and imagination come in to play, knowing what to include & what to miss out. 
 

Tim

[Jesse Sim]

3 hours ago, Jack P said:

 

But....Tony.... Isn't this exactly what Kier was talking about?

 

You may not mean it as such, but there's definitely a whiff of 'one is better than the other', and it seems to be the one you can compare real photos to.

Correct, because that’s what Tony prefers. He prefers models of real locations. He doesn’t hate fictitious layouts, but of course he will be swayed towards a prototype location. 

[Jack P]

4 minutes ago, Jesse Sim said:

Correct, because that’s what Tony prefers. He prefers models of real locations. He doesn’t hate fictitious layouts, but of course he will be swayed towards a prototype location. 

 

I hear you, and that's all good, but preference is subjective, and when it's presented as objective, it can rub people the wrong way. 

[Jesse Sim]

28 minutes ago, Jack P said:

 

I hear you, and that's all good, but preference is subjective, and when it's presented as objective, it can rub people the wrong way. 

But why can’t it be subjective? It’s his personal preference… 

 

I think some people get very upset when other people disagree with their own views. We see it on the Facebook group we are admins of. 
 

I’m just going to add; this might cause a stir…. I think, my own personal opinion, is that some people spend far too much time on railway forums and railway facebook groups complaining about a comment a modeller has made than actually doing any modelling! 
 

 

Edited August 28 by Jesse Sim

[Jack P]

3 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

But why can’t it be subjective? It’s his personal preference… 

 

I think some people get very upset when other people disagree with their own views. We see it on the Facebook group we are admins of. 
 

I’m just going to add; this might cause a stir…. I think, my own personal opinion, is that some people spend far too much time on railway forums and railway facebook groups complaining about a comment a modeller has made than actually doing any modelling! 

 

I daresay it is subjective if it's his personal preference. 

 

I agree that some people can get really worked up about someone disagreeing with them, but we're all on the same team here right? If you enjoy the hobby slightly less because of a comment I make, it doesn't make me enjoy it more. I think more often than not, it's about how something is said, vs what you're saying - which presents a unique challenge on the internet.

 

For any number of reasons, some people don't get much model railway engagement outside of forums, and so the connections they have here/online are doubly important. I think people deserve to have their veiws and opinions heard. 

 

Lets just go back to harassing @Dylan Sanderson because his baseboards aren't made out of brass.

[Dunsignalling]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Your photos show only too well the limitations of 25 ASA Kodachrome II, which Dad used in the early 60s. He later changed to 64 ASA Kodachrome-X (so did I, in my Instamatic 50) which of course worked in a much wider range of ambient light conditions. I don't remember either of us using Kodachrome 200.

 

To my eyes, because I grew up with it, the colour palette of Kodachrome is just perfect. I wonder whether there's a way to replicate that with a setting on a digital camera or phone?

 

Wasn't the "fast" version "Kodachrome 160"?

 

Some CSC's incorporate a "film simulation" facility, I think. 

[Izzy]

18 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

To my eyes, because I grew up with it, the colour palette of Kodachrome is just perfect. I wonder whether there's a way to replicate that with a setting on a digital camera or phone?

Kodachrome has an inherently strong magenta cast. I was told by my late father-in-law who worked for Kodak at the time it first arrived and tested it before general release that it was down to it’s unique chemistry, normal slide films being of course E-6, which it isn’t. This is at times quite noticeable in the slower ISO’s, 25 & 64, and more muted in the 200. I’m sure it could be reproduced either in camera in some cases, or in post processing in such as Photoshop. 
 

Bob

[Jesse Sim]

1 hour ago, Jack P said:

 

I daresay it is subjective if it's his personal preference. 

 

I agree that some people can get really worked up about someone disagreeing with them, but we're all on the same team here right? If you enjoy the hobby slightly less because of a comment I make, it doesn't make me enjoy it more. I think more often than not, it's about how something is said, vs what you're saying - which presents a unique challenge on the internet.

 

For any number of reasons, some people don't get much model railway engagement outside of forums, and so the connections they have here/online are doubly important. I think people deserve to have their veiws and opinions heard. 

 

Lets just go back to harassing @Dylan Sanderson because his baseboards aren't made out of brass.

I completely agree.

 

I should have taken into account that some people rely on the forums and facebook groups, look at us… convicts, many miles away from constant shows, open days, etc. Sometimes our only or main connection to the hobby is the internet. 
 

@Dylan Sanderson  has been  copping it from me all day and he’s only just waking up 🤣

[Dunsignalling]

13 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Kodachrome has an inherently strong magenta cast. I was told by my late father-in-law who worked for Kodak at the time it first arrived and tested it before general release that it was down to it’s unique chemistry, normal slide films being of course E-6, which it isn’t. This is at times quite noticeable in the slower ISO’s, 25 & 64, and more muted in the 200. I’m sure it could be reproduced either in camera in some cases, or in post processing in such as Photoshop. 
 

Bob

 

Interesting. You have somehow managed to credit me with St. Enodoc's post....😕

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Correct, because that’s what Tony prefers. He prefers models of real locations. He doesn’t hate fictitious layouts, but of course he will be swayed towards a prototype location. 

 

But the fundamental point is that the vast majority of modellers don't have the space (or the resources or the time) to model a prototype location, certainly not to scale. That's where, I'm afraid, I find Tony's stated preference unsatisfactory, because he seems to be saying that any layout not built in the sort of space he is so fortunate to have at his disposal must on principle be second-rate.

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

 

Interesting. You have somehow managed to credit me with St. Enodoc's post....😕

Oh sorry, things sometimes/often move so fast in this thread that you can get mesmerised !

 

Bob

[grahame]

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But the fundamental point is that the vast majority of modellers don't have the space (or the resources or the time) to model a prototype location, certainly not to scale.

 

. . . and/or they need to incorporate extensive compression and compromise when attempting to model a prototype location (as with my efforts to model London Bridge) that it is not, and can never be, an accurate scale replica. My only hope is that my efforts, at least, are vaguely representative of the location and convey the atmosphere, look and feel for the period, and with a glimmer of recognition. Fortunately I've still got a long way to go . . . 

 

 

Edited August 28 by grahame