COMPRESSION BY DESIGN

We’ve been compressing layouts, for very obvious reasons, since the earliest days of railway modelling. It’s a finite method, restricted by your influencing prototype. Some locations are just too large to even consider as a micro layout, whereas others might allow for a small relevant section, conveniently ‘view-blocked’ at both ends. Clearly, the smaller your chosen prototype the better chance you have of squeezing a ‘quart into a pint pot’, even smaller if your subject lends itself to realistic reduction. While I’ve settled for Dunster, itself a minimum space prototype, in the accompanying plans you can compare reality, squeezed onto a 4ft long board and then again into a 3ft 3in long footprint.

This plan shows the prototype arrangement. Measurements, in feet, are approximate distance between real structures, those in millimetres show model length, at 4mm:1ft. Note there’s quite a gap between the goods shed and station building on the prototype.

This is my initial 4ft long take on Dunster station. Measurements are again for ‘OO’ gauge and I draw your attention to the closed-up position between Goods Shed and Station, all part of my grouping to view-block and distract the eye from any backscene aperture. By contrast, the platform from Station building to Signal Box is not far from prototype length. When it comes to building the layout I might be tempted to shuffle these about to create more of a balance… I suppose it will depend on how it looks, though I certainly don’t want them to be equal.

The first plan is based on the 4ft mock-up. For those tight on space there’s chance for further compression, in this case to 3ft 3in. If you choose to do so, there’s a visual limit on reducing a prototype – and on a fictitious model too – as to how close you can put things together before it becomes unrealistic.

One of the many benefits of arranging a mock-up is that you can assess what looks right for very little effort and cost. If you get it wrong, you can move things around. For me, the minimum reduction for Dunster is about 1m (3ft 3in) (see second plan). Clearly, reducing the goods shed to half-relief is one of the main space-saving devices. Although I don’t want to cut my goods shed in half, I’ve concocted the accompanying photo to look as such.

FINAL THOUGHTS

So, there you have it. A full-size mock-up is a great aid to ensuring that you end up with an attractive layout on a baseboard size that suits your design. You can check those all-important viewing angles and adjust scenic lengths or volumes. I’ve already spotted some improvements to be made with the height of a couple of trees and increasing baseboard width for a little bit of in-the-distance scenery. No doubt there’ll be more ‘finds’ when it comes to the actual build.

I am extremely grateful to Ben Arnold, managing director, at Peco for his assistance with this article.