Mike Cougill’s recent post on the positive impact of removing track from his layout has led to some interesting debate, as well as a stunning photo. It has, as usual, got me thinking, and thinking about the opportunities different scales offer for different types of authenticity. I may be repeating some of several previous posts, but the threads are drawing together, and who knows, I may spend less time thinking and more time modelling soon?

The late Don Boreham, who was an inveterate and excellent narrow gauge modeller as well as long time secretary to the Model Railway Club in London, wrote in his book on Narrow Gauge Modelling that “perhaps the best scale to use is the largest one has space for”.

I like that phrase as it is rather subtle. Does it mean we should all work in 1:32, for example?

Not at all, but it does suggest that 1:32 is great for modellers who are interested in modelling items of rolling stock, rather than operations. Similarly, if one is driven to recreate the impression of trains in the landscape, then a smaller scale is indicated. In the first case, a coach or locomotive is the defining feature of modelling. In the latter case, the defining feature is train, or perhaps even train-in-landscape.

I personally find smaller scale layouts more impressive if they are placed in a relatively large space. It’s not that I am not impressed nor interested in the quality of fine detail and engineering in N gauge, for example, it’s simply that what impresses me is a train moving smoothly and deliberately through the scene: without quality engineering applied to mechanisms, there is no realism.

With larger scales, the individual models become the focus and there may not even be a scenic setting – being pulled by a model steam engine on an outdoor elevated track, the realism is about the authenticity of the motive power, the smell, the sounds, and the engineering. But again, a well engineered model will run well and be more authentic. Sorry to some of the “live steam” guys, but slip-eccentric valve gear requiring a manual push to set it doesn’t really do a lot for me.

I personally think that 1:32 is about as small as the “model engineering” approach can go, and also about as large as the “modeller” can go. In between, we have a continuum from Z scale up to 1 scale, maybe even larger for narrow gauge (15mm scale on 45mm gauge track, for example). Anyone with a large basement and an inclination to replicating operations will obviously find 00/H0 or possibly N ideally suited to their needs, as they require a large number and variety of robust models. The realism here is about authentically replicating a number of “railroad jobs”.

I think S possibly chose me, rather than the other way round, but it is the largest scale I can fit into my available space, and I like making things, so it suits me very well. (I have tried other scales, but always return to S.) Mike has a bit more space than I, and obviously derives great enjoyment from modelling the fine details, so 1:48 suits him well. If I had more space, maybe I would model in a larger scale, too: what I want is to build models to a high level of detail, and then to move them about in a purposeful manner, replicating real railway movements and operations. I need sufficient space for a layout of a station or a yard, tempered with the largest size models I can get into that space.

The interesting thing, of course, is that to be effective, all of these approaches require reliable engineering as anything else destroys the realism, but as the scale gets bigger (in terms of the model size, rather than the number used!) the focus begins to shift from quantity of operation to quality of operation. This does not make either of these “better” than the other, merely reflects the preferences of the individual. Rather than work against a sped-up clock to get a train rapidly sorted and on its way, I want to concentrate on the individual stages involved in coupling up: approach slowly, stop short, inch up, connect pipes (if required), pull back and place with other vehicles. I wouldn’t have time to model these niceties if working a large sorting yard against the clock: maximum use would be made of automatic coupling facilities: engines would still approach carefully, but they would not stop in advance of coupling up, nor would they pause for pipe connections to be made and (if necessary) automatic brakes tested. I am more interested in the operation of a train, than operating trains. Others differ – and wouldn’t life be boring if they didn’t?

Where anyone sits, is entirely up to them, as is where they judge the competing aims and advantages of different scale to meet and overlap, but I put it to you that unless you have the right balance and blend, you will be unhappy in your modelling.

If you are, then very good.

As some of you will know, I have become a regular contributor to discussions on Trevor Marshall’s Port Rowan blog and Mike Cougill’s OST Publications blog. Both of these can be found via my links section (to the right for most computers, but to the bottom on tablets).

It was stumbling across the thought processes which led to Trevor’s Port Rowan layout, via the S Scale SIG forum (I am active there, too, but you need to register as a member to read it) that got me out of my modelling doldrums and frankly gave me the slap across the face that I needed to make me realise that it is possible to combine something like the ramshackle emptiness of the Bishop’s Castle Railway with North American prototypes. This re-awakened my long-standing interest in the short lines owned by the Central of Georgia, which has been further strengthened by reading around the subject, and making contact with Steve Flanigan, who models the Louisville and Wadley in H0 in a small space and has shared the fruits of his personal research with me. But then, he is North American, and what are North Americans for, if not generosity?

What Trevor has really done, though, is to take operations in a slightly different direction from what seems to be the norm in North America, based on magazines and websites.

Instead of trying to run as many trains as possible over a large basement empire with multiple stations, based on use of waybills and timetable and train orders (TTO) and a dispatcher, etc., he has concentrated on the individual operations around running the daily mixed train. This includes pausing to pump up the air, align couplers, connect hoses, etc. An out-and-back turn can take up a couple of hours, after which there seems to be a visit to a local hostelry for good food and decent beer. OK, this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but it is my pint of ale!

On top of this, we get superb modelling (on a par with Barry Norman and Maggie and Gordon Gravett) and a generous sharing of ideas and techniques. Well, he is Canadian, and what are Canadians for, if not politeness?

Mike’s forum is subtly different.

The same basic theme is there, that you don’t actually need a lot of layout to have a lot of fun. You get the fun by trying to model everything as faithfully as you can – the joy is in the detail.

Mike has published some booklets and books and also “The Missing Conversation”, which will form the subject of another post, but he also makes a though provoking post each week on various aspects of the hobby. He has also been editor of O Scale Trains, and a regular columnist on finescale matters in that magazine. What I like about Mike, or to be more accurate one of the many things I like about Mike, is that he has taken a stand on behalf of Proto: modelling. I have always hinted at this (and not very covertly), but knowing that I am not a lone voice means I take that stand too – albeit feeling slightly ashamed for not having taken it more clearly sooner. Well, I am English, and what are Englishman for, if not self-deprecation?

More importantly, Mike has generously provided, via his blog, a forum for intelligent, thoughtful conversation. My experience of Americans has always been positive and I wish some of their modern politicians were more careful about the impression they create on the world stage (but then, they are politicians, and what are politicians for if not promoting their own importance?)

I realise that for many people, a hobby is about getting away from thinking, but I am not mindless and I enjoy having my thoughts provoked. In the case of these three gentlemen, it has been to open my mind to what was lurking away at the back of it, and get me more interested in modelling than I have been for some time.

Thanks, guys!

If you have been planning to, well, go on then.