Was persuaded by number one son (actually number two..but the other one is 33 years old, so wont mind!} to take a stroll around the NRM on Monday .
Amongst the delights of the wharehouse I found the layout of R Bryant.....''Inversneckie and Drambuie''
although stored and in bits, I was delighted by the whole ensemble.
Being in OOO gauge, built as a truly portable layout, I marvelled at its simplicity.
Incredibly, it makes N gauge look somewhat akin to Lionel Hi-rail in comparison.
I have no idea what 'code' the rail was..or even if it IS rail.....even the fact that the sleeper spacing was a bit ...spacious...didn't detract from the model.
but to me, its appeal didn't lie in the obvious 'watchmaker' engineering skills used to make it work...but in the fact that, looking at the layout as a whole, not one item stood out from the others.
Everything, from the track to the scenery to the stock to the detail, everything was on the same level of detail.
so everything blended in with everything else.
This is what I feel goes 'wrong' with so many layouts..especially mine.
some element or another stands out either as a 'super-detailed' masterpiece, or a 'straight from the box' mediocrity.
Usually, some obviously Peco trackwork, or 'obviously stuck straight on' Kadee coupler?
or a shiny new piece of highly detailed rolling stock......which outshines in 'authenticity', the field which sits behind it?
my point being, I suppose, why bother with a multi hundred pound loco, exact in detail to the Nth degree, if the hedges alongside the track it runs on, are, and look like, rubberised horsehair?
All these new items from the trade may well be 'jewels', but how are we mortals supposed to create the surroundings fit for them to be seen in....where they 'blend' in?
Amongst the delights of the wharehouse I found the layout of R Bryant.....''Inversneckie and Drambuie''
although stored and in bits, I was delighted by the whole ensemble.
Being in OOO gauge, built as a truly portable layout, I marvelled at its simplicity.
Incredibly, it makes N gauge look somewhat akin to Lionel Hi-rail in comparison.
I have no idea what 'code' the rail was..or even if it IS rail.....even the fact that the sleeper spacing was a bit ...spacious...didn't detract from the model.
but to me, its appeal didn't lie in the obvious 'watchmaker' engineering skills used to make it work...but in the fact that, looking at the layout as a whole, not one item stood out from the others.
Everything, from the track to the scenery to the stock to the detail, everything was on the same level of detail.
so everything blended in with everything else.
This is what I feel goes 'wrong' with so many layouts..especially mine.
some element or another stands out either as a 'super-detailed' masterpiece, or a 'straight from the box' mediocrity.
Usually, some obviously Peco trackwork, or 'obviously stuck straight on' Kadee coupler?
or a shiny new piece of highly detailed rolling stock......which outshines in 'authenticity', the field which sits behind it?
my point being, I suppose, why bother with a multi hundred pound loco, exact in detail to the Nth degree, if the hedges alongside the track it runs on, are, and look like, rubberised horsehair?
All these new items from the trade may well be 'jewels', but how are we mortals supposed to create the surroundings fit for them to be seen in....where they 'blend' in?
