So I'm in the process of using the long weekend, in part, to dismantle "Somewhere in the West Country". My modelling has improved to a point where that layouts flaws irritate me.

But this got me thinking. Do layouts that tell a story prove more durable? Whether it's recreating a specific place and time, or else creating a fantasy setting of sorts with events that only happen in your imagination, some of the best layouts seem to be ones that tell stories.

I'm thinking, for example, of Cant Cove and Claverdon, two layouts that seem rich with narrative. Does the fact the creators of these layouts create (and share) stories about them make them more engaging as long-term projects? Indeed, these sorts of layouts are very much in the tradition of the Madder Valley Railway, pieces of "fan fiction" as much as modelling.

In other words: if I create a story that will draw me into my new layout, will I be less quickly bored by it regardless of its modelling quality? Or do well made layouts with realistic modelling inspire stories by suspending disbelief?

Perhaps you don't think narrative matters at all? Is it all down to the modelling, and the more accurate, the better, and never mind what you imagine the trains are doing as they're whizzing round the track!?

Cheers, NeMo

I think a good narrative will inspire you.

I reckon good layouts at least know where they are and why the traffic is as it is, rather than just running a random selection of stock.

I would compare it to stumbling across a railway line whilst on holiday - the trains don't look quite like they do at home, and you are intrigued about where the trains are going.  Even though you don't know it, there definitely is a reason.

An extensive narrative is optional, but can be interesting.  I would like to know it after viewing the layout rather than before....and it seems it can almost become a hobby in itself.

Cheers  Jon 

Thank you for the praise for Cant Cove (and Penamayne). However, they were / are inspired by Port Perran and, now, Trepol Bay and Descanso Farm, in Cornwall, and Brian (Mito's) layout in Somerset all of which also have a narrative with named local businesses and people. For Brian, the Somerset coalfield was more extensive and provided best steaming coal and the S&D Joint stayed open. (I have also helped other NGF members with alternative histories which are still believable.)

The narrative grew after I did a lot of research on the railways in North Cornwall and decided that, post 1962, a realistic and believable alternative history was required to keep the lines open beyond 1964. That, in turn, necessitated a more in-depth back story to better explain the background to the fictitious people and events of the great "Use It or Lose It" conference held at Trevelver Castle in 1962.

With Martin's agreement and then Jon's, a whole involved alternative history of the railways (including maps) was then developed for North Cornwall. One of the problems was that the railways came too late to North Cornwall so I moved the dates back to allow longer for economic development and to explain a more developed network to incorporate Martin and Jon's layouts.

Given this alternative history, the operating details for all the participating layouts become far more realistic and, IMHO, enjoyable. Associated with this are more Private Owner wagons and local locomotive preservation societies to keep steam locos. running much longer than they did in Cornwall.

It certainly can, almost, become a hobby in itself but then my first degree is in history! However, just like a fiction writer, some of the characters, e.g., Sylvia of Trevelver Castle, develop a 'life' of their own! 8-)

They say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so a narrative is not essential for everyone. It depends on you, if you feel it would help, fine . If not then why bother. Some of us like to model a real place, others prefer somewhere fictional. That's one of the joys of this hobby/addiction you make it the way you want and to heck with other peoples preferences.

I'd say a narrative, or backstory, or raison d'etre or whatever is useful as it give you something to focus on, especially when confronted with the infinite number of ways it's possible to develop a layout. There's nothing stopping the narrative from being very fanciful, of course, reality is what you make it and Rule 1 can be invoked at any time 

Hi there,

Interesting question.

It seems to me that, broadly speaking, there are four approaches to layout building:

1)  Depict a real location, at a specified time, with scenics and stock as close to the prototype as you can manage.

2)  Depict an interpretation of a real location, perhaps with elements drawn from that area but combined in a way that suits you, and run trains that are appropriate, but perhaps with some modellers' licence.

3)  Create a fictional but believable location with your own version of history.

4)  Run the trains you want on a layout that isn't based on any prototype - perhaps following a track-plan from a modelling book - that might not even have any scenery or buildings.

Of these, only the third really requires you to create a complete history for the layout; but when I have attended shows and admired other layouts I think that those of type (3) that have such a history tend to draw you in more.

I suspect this is because in creating the history the builder has had to spend time considering how geological features/human infuences/buildings/roads etc would have evolved, and this lends an air of authenticity to the finished layout.

cheers

Ben A.

Thanks, Ben A. Cant Cove is 2) as will be Penmayne as they are real places on the River Camel Estuary but on a line which was never planned let alone built, from Wadebridge; whilst Fox Holes Halt, Port Perran, Trepol Bay and Weaver Cove combine elements of 2) and 3), although mainly 3) as they are all set in North Cornwall but fictional locations (although they are on our map). We all run trains which are appropriate for North Cornwall in the 1960s but with an individually greater or lesser degree of modellers' licence. Durscombe and Withy Junction are 3).

A story might help you get an article in 'Raiway Modeler'.

Best regards,

Joe

damn

I think I need a 'narrative' then lol


tim

My take on this is that railway modelling can be similar to directing a film.

When you go to the cinema the good films are those that capture your imagination and transport you into the mindset/vision of the director. The film has to distract you away from the here-and-now, and into the imagination of the director. It's called 'suspension of disbelief':

'Suspension of disbelief or willing suspension of disbelief is a term coined in 1817 by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.'

I think in all of our heads, when looking at our own layouts, to one degree or another, we imagine stuff that isn't there (perhaps the sound of wheels squeeling over tight curves / smoke coming out of a steam engine etc) ... or block-out things (the lack of a back-scene for eg)

---------------------

But for me the bigger question is how has the internet changed things?

In the pre-internet age, you just went off and quietly did your own thing in your own way, perhaps inspired by articles in magazines you picked up from the newsagaent once a month. Few people, if any, ever entered your little fantasy world. Your imagination could just 'free-float' as much or as little as you wished.

Now, if you go on a railway modelling internet forum, there's sort of an obligation to share your work with everyone in the world. Which in turn induces the need to come up with a narrative to explain your layout to other people (even if it's simply saying 'Rule 1 is your principle - your still having to explain yourself to others).

I wonder whether that on the one hand quashes the old freedom to just let imagination run riot in your head to your heart's content / and on the other hand makes modellers feel they have to 'sell a story' (narrative) to others?

Apologies if the above is a bit rambling ...

"My take on this is that railway modelling can be similar to directing a film." I fully agree and thanks for your very interesting post. I do, certainly, play out the scenes in my head and have been doing so ever since, first, the idea for Penmayne and then, second, for Cant Cove came into my head. Bothe were always designed as moving tableaux in which stories would be told. (Which is why I have an amazing number of different 'little people' for example and love other people's stories.)

Quote from: Southernboy on April 03, 2015, 09:41:24 PM
Now, if you go on a railway modelling internet forum, there's sort of an obligation to share your work with everyone in the world. Which in turn induces the need to come up with a narrative to explain your layout to other people (even if it's simply saying 'Rule 1 is your principle - your still having to explain yourself to others).

Hi Mark,

Good post.

In the past the only real route to sharing your work was at an exhibition, or by featuring in a magazine.  The internet offers a third option that in many ways is superior to both the others in that it can evolve in real time, invites feedback and can be accessed at the reader's convenience.

You're right, I think there is a bit of an expectation that if you join a forum you should try to contribute to it - and for many this means sharing some information about their layout - but for most I would say that it's a positive experience and the vast majority of comments are appreciative and  supportive.

cheers

Ben A.

Thanks Ben,

I totally agree about the positives

Looking at this purely academically, I suppose the question at the back of my mind is whether sharing our work on the internet makes us more 'self conscious' about what we do.

Previously one may have just made a model for self-satisfaction, no pressure, whereas now it's going to be subject to peer review. That inevitably adds a new dimension to how we approach things.

Either way, I still enjoy 'playing trains'

Well going back to NeMo's original post: I think ultimately it's subjective - so speaking for myself - narrative makes a difference. I love the 2mm Copenhagen Fields. The story there is about a historical location, the scope of the project draws you in, as do the many details you can chance upon and admire.

Equally a very simple (non) layout like Farthings
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/75/entry-10213-all-in-a-days-work-part-4-1914/
completely captures the imagination as good as any bed-time story your parents read to you as a kid.

In the case of my current layout, Fisherlea, the idea started as a way to partly remember some of the railway scene and memories of my youth in the Portsmouth area.
I also brought in a "what could have happened" scenario element if the Somerset & Dorset line had stayed open which had been one of my interests for some time, having briefly lived in the Bournemouth area.

Having some narrative has helped focus matters on the space allowed for the layout, and more crucially, budgeting, especially now with the rising cost of new models.