Beautiful British Narrow Gauge layout

[DaKra]

I really enjoyed browsing this

http://www.009.cd2.com/index.htm

Great website, too, includes .pdf files with the technical drawings of some interesting rolling stock. 

[RoughboyModelworks]

Agreed... a beautiful piece of work and well documented by the web site. The same high-standard in presentation is evident throughout the layout and the site. The British seem to be able to achieve the right balance between the modelled environment and the railroad that runs through it.

Paul

[finescalerr]

Superior. -- Russ

[marc_reusser]

Beautiful. I recall seeing this before..but always a joy. Thanks.  It sounds like this layout was at the Warley show as well as one or two others of sim quality. If that's true, thbetween Jacqs and these, it really puts to shame the layout quality we see at the NNGC.


Marc

[LeOn3]

I've seen this layout last year in Genk (Belgium). It stood in the same room as my own layout. Lucky me...it stood not beside me. Some times it was so crowded with spectators that his neighbours almost had to move to make more space. 
But it really is a nice layout.

Leon

[Ray Dunakin]

Stunning! The scenery, with its lush foliage, is especially well done.

[shropshire lad]

Marc ,

  County Gate was at Warley last year . The owner and builder live less than 20 miles from me . There have been thousands of hours put into its construction and it is certainly one of Britain's better layouts . However , I wouldn't labour under the illusion that British layouts in general are of a better quality than seen in the US . Because , believe me , there are some real crap ones over here . There are many layouts where the builder(s) have gone to great lengths to achieve prototypical accuracy in their buildings , locos , signalling system ( yawn) or what ever and then ruin the whole effect by liberally putting shiny metal cars and poorly painted figures all over the place . And most of them can't do weathering properly . I rarely find anything much at these shows that inspire me . Having said that , I have no interest in British standard gauge railways whatsoever . So you can imagine what a joy it was to be part ( albeit a very small part) of a pair of layouts ( Jacq's and Marcel's) that really are special . And what is more , I got to drive Marcel's loco for 5 minutes . It makes living all worth while !
 The layout that won best in show was , ironically , an American logging layout . The modelling wasn't particularly good but the builder , a young chap who you would never imagine would be into modelling ,was very proud of it , and it gave the audience what it wanted , lots to look at .

 Nick

[DaKra]

I feel there is a lot of respect in UK/Europe for prototype, even in a freelance model like this.   Respect for history, for engineering and for the real people who once lived and toiled on railroads.    You can see it in the care this modeler took with this work, making it believable and showing conditions as they might have been, and presenting it beautifully.    I'm a little uncomfortable with the typical American style caricature, because it usually doesn't convey much respect for the subject matter.  

Dave

[chester]

  There are many layouts where the builder(s) have gone to great lengths to achieve prototypical accuracy in their buildings , locos , signalling system ( yawn) or what ever and then ruin the whole effect by liberally putting shiny metal cars and poorly painted figures all over the place . And most of them can't do weathering properly .

 Nick

The same is prevalent here in the U.S. and Canada. Why is it that so much concern is given to the rail, scenery and structure elements while shiny, toy like and sometimes even out of scale vehicles are acceptable?

[JohnP]

Some of the best foliage I have ever seen. That is an aspect to modeling that is an afterthought on so many layouts. Everything in a diorama or scene needs to be to scale, and the terrain must be thought out. This arrangement looks quite natural.

Poorly painted people and few decent scale automobiles are all that are available. They would take yet more effort to match equipment and structures. I was looking at slides just yesterday of an N-scale layout I made. It looks pretty good except the horrible plastic cars. I knew it at the time but I had my special good-enough glasses on. Now they look like crap. That was all that was available.

I focus on the bridges. That is certainly another overlooked area- not much available and little notice of critical details. The information is there but the mainstream press focuses on equipment, structures and "operation".

Anyway, this is an excellent example of what can happen when all the elements are in balance with the same attention to scale and detail. Thanks Dave!

John

[finescalerr]

We all know this but it bears repeating:

Most people in the train hobby (regardless of nationality) want to see choo-choos go around and around. The more sophisticated of them enjoy a game called "operation". Those folks are not modelers. For them, modeling is a necessary evil and they only do it if they can't get what they want ready-to-run or -install.

A minuscule fraction of those people also happen to like modeling and research. When a guy with that outlook builds a layout it is more likely to reflect what we like.

Each of us on this forum is a modeler. Some of us specializing in railroad related subjects don't even want a layout. Others build cars, military vehicles, ships, or fantasy subjects. Our focus is on creating a plausible replica -- except for FichtenFoo and JESTER who have completely lost their minds. Either way, because all of us are modelers first, of course we find unsophisticated, toylike, or crude layouts almost offensive.

I long ago realized I am one of a tiny minority of hobbyists and stopped retching at typical layouts. I was able to do that because I stopped visiting them and stopped looking at articles about them and stopped thinking about them as anything other than a curiosity. About fifteen years ago, after a conversation with the great modeler, Richard Christ, I realized I am a dioramist who usually models railroad related subjects. When I build the latter, I am a railroad modeler, not a "model railroader". The distinction is important because there is a world of difference between the two approaches.

So let's focus on only those layouts where the builder does some research and has good modeling skills. Let's forget the rest and relegate them to the Domain of the Great Unwashed. They are irrelevant to our interests no matter how ubiquitous they may be. We will be happier if we stop wondering what motivates their creation and why they are so common.

Russ

[RoughboyModelworks]

I second that Russ... unless of course there are thong-clad cuties operating trains, and then, who cares about the trains anyway...

Paul

[Frederic Testard]

You're so right, Paul and Russ, despite the broad range of opinions you emit.
Russ, it's something I often try to do, avoid looking were you know you won't like what you see.
This may be the reason why I feel unhappy when I read certain comments on this forum about models that are really not in the same planet as the one we, members of here, live in. I don't see what it gives us to say they are not good. I prefer by far being introduced to a great model (be this a railroad or a diorama - I may even have a glance at some military thing... ) like the one Dave showed us here (and on another thread too).
Dave, I liked your comment about having respect to the people implicitely included in our models (even if I'm not sure many european modellers have really this in mind). Reading books about real mining or logging railroads has given me opportunities to understand better the way these people lived, for instance. As for the reason why Europeans would focus on this more than Americans (which, again, I think would deserve some serious examination), it might be that we don't have the great landscapes you have (although there are some impressive places here too, and some are - or were - even crossed by trains) so that we have to focus more on the simple things of ordinary life, the one with the people.

[Malachi Constant]

We all know this but it bears repeating:

Most people in the train hobby (regardless of nationality) want to see choo-choos go around and around. The more sophisticated of them enjoy a game called "operation". Those folks are not modelers. For them, modeling is a necessary evil and they only do it if they can't get what they want ready-to-run or -install.

Ha-ha!  I will say without shame that I get a simple-minded pleasure out of watching trains go round-n-round.  Spend many hours during the week sitting at a table and packaging kits ... there's an unfinished layout with a loop of track across the room ... it's somehow quite relaxing (to me) to have a train running roundy-round over there.  Kinda like fish in an aquarium.  (But no pesky sound units please, rather have a musical sound "track")

Each of us on this forum is a modeler. Some of us specializing in railroad related subjects don't even want a layout ....

About fifteen years ago, after a conversation with the great modeler, Richard Christ, I realized I am a dioramist who usually models railroad related subjects. When I build the latter, I am a railroad modeler, not a "model railroader". The distinction is important because there is a world of difference between the two approaches.

I'm starting to think that I'm some of each ... dioramas are just a little too "static" for me, but I think I'm inherently NOT a layout-builder.

A couple of the local guys have done some neat things with "Free Mo" (free-form) modules.  One of them has become quite adept at building frames for very free-form frames with all sorts of organic shapes and end plates that might be 30 or 60 degrees off the perpendicular, etc.

The 1/35 repair shop under construction now is sitting on the corner of that unfinished layout ... but I worry that the overall "plan" for that little layout might not prove ultimately satisfying ... yet, I do want some potential "animation" ... ie, a train running thru the scene occasionally.

I'm thinking that my best compromise might be to build a few little individual "dioramas" that satisfy the individual building urges that I get ... but still have the potential to be linked together to allow a train to run around hands free.  So, building dioramas as free-form modules might be a solution that will work for me.  (Like to see the trains in motion, but I'll never be one of those intensely focused point-to-point operators.)

So let's focus on only those layouts where the builder does some research and has good modeling skills. Let's forget the rest and relegate them to the Domain of the Great Unwashed. They are irrelevant to our interests no matter how ubiquitous they may be. We will be happier if we stop wondering what motivates their creation and why they are so common.

Russ

When I first read your post last night, I had the impression you were canning the whole idea of posting any layout references here.  Now, it looks different to me.  There ARE at least a handful of members here who are building or aspiring to some sort of layout ...

AND ... any particular layout that a member of this forum finds interesting or inspiring has the same potential interest for at least some other members .  So, maybe an "interesting layouts" thread (along the lines of "photo of the day") would be a good place to deposit those notes, links and discussions.

Cheers,
Dallas

[finescalerr]

Actually, Dallas, in response to some previous posts I was just suggesting that none of us should get upset at the generally poor quality of layouts and modeling we so often see in magazines and online. Please don't infer any more than that. The rest of the babbling was only to put that idea into context. -- Russ