Three questions for James

By Chris Mears on June 21, 2021 • ( 0 )

When I first started writing this, some time ago, we were talking about ways that our blogs could themselves talk to each other. I have really enjoyed previous examples of this like when Eric, Steve, and I collaborated on the My Railfan Five series or in Steve’s superbly enjoyable 10 Questions series. In our own transatlantic collaboration style James and I have been talking about layout planning and design and, lately, his project to model the Englewood Railway in N scale. Back when I sent him my three questions, for him, we were much earlier into that conversation but I still think it was fascinating to ask such a richly accomplished modelmaker as James how he’ll approach N.

Your style of working in OO9 excites my imagination when I think about what you’re capable in N scale. The gauge of the track and the attributes of the typical rolling stock items is really not going to be much different. What are the lessons from your rich experience as an OO9 modeller will translate into N scale?

I’m going to start by asking and answering a different question ‘Why do I find 009 so comfortable?’ I think the answer is as simple as it’s still 1:76, a scale that I’m confident with in terms of detail, colour, texture, techniques and overall presentation. I.e. I know I can take a prototype, and evoke the emotional connection in a neat* and well balanced scene when working in 1:76. More recently I’ve begun working in 1:87 again and this was a gamble, however I’ve realised it’s close enough so that the same techniques and methods can be just as successful.
Reflecting more closely on your question and preamble, the narrow gauge 009 models often use N gauge mechanisms, the trucks and coaches are a similar mass, the track typically of a similar standard – so the physical rather than scale modelling aspects of N scale are of no real concern – as in I know how to get it to work and run well… however, the scale reduction has traditionally been a bridge to far, I’m concerned I won’t get on with the reduction in detail level combined with the difficultly in achieving a fine and neat finish in the smaller scale. In the past this has put me off even trying, now it’s the reason I’m happy to have an experiment. I have hopes for what N can offer me, but no problem to declare it ‘not for me’ if I don’t get on with it…
* why neat? Getting a model tidy, and neat means no gaps around structures, straight lines when they should be, tidy ballast with no stray grains, no static grass fibres stuck to tree trunks! These things, when neglected, kill an atmosphere and are strongly in my mind with this experiment.

How can the choice of colours and textures be more closely integrated to tell a cohesive story about what happens in this place and what that train is doing here? We talked about this before but in N scale does the size of the models temper our colour and texture choices?

I feel a common modelling trap is to generally over weather rolling stock yet not weather the layout. I suspect this will be the same key to working in N gauge, but I shall need a lighter touch with some of the washes. This weathering has he effect of blending a layout together with same general ‘tone’.
Texture is something I’m keen to explore in N scale, both in model finishes and scenery. For example, is fine ballast of scale size as important as a neat and consistent well observed colour. Is texture scalable, or does it need to be? Will static grass be used in the same way? Can I build bushes and undergrowth in the same manner? Will brush painting be smooth enough on structures, or will they need airbrushing?
Back to colour, my natural preference is warmer, pastel shades giving a muted hazy ‘summers day’ look to my models and layouts. I tried with P-y-d to give more of a greener feel with more verdant scenery, which was only partially successful as somehow it still shares the same palette! Therefore I suspect the same will happen with whatever to try in N. A summery feel to the woods of northern Vancouver Island…

I’m such a fan of your Pont-y-dulais layout. In that same space with that same number of turnouts how would the layout change if built in N scale?

I don’t believe I would build Pont-y-Dulais in N scale. I’m beginning to form the opinion that each prototype, combined with layout location and physical space constraints naturally lead to a choice in scale and viewing height. P-y-d suits a cameo style where the locomotives are well detailed, viewed up close and at eye level so the layout itself, whilst detailed enough to match, doesn’t detract from these actors. It is an effective wall paper if you like. In 009 I’d probably build a small yard or workshop area, I’ve wanted to do a modern image 009 layout too – there were a few late prototypes in the UK. However, N is a different proposition, I suppose I’d ponder based on my earlier point, if I had the same space, what prototype might demand N?
Kinross in N wouldn’t work, but along the same lines I wonder perhaps a grain elevator scene might look neat, and two points would allow two loops alongside the main to be shown, with perhaps just a lonely N gauge Intermountain cylindrical grain hopper, occasionally a CN or CP (or shortline) Geep arrives and switches it out for a fresh one… still, I think the size of layout suits the scale (1:76) whilst the location in my workshop dictates a high setting and near eye level viewing – part of what makes P-y-d successful.
Previously I’ve discussed how you need to marry a prototype and the space available to create a successful layout. In recent discussion with yourself, I think I’d now add a further too considerations, how this marriage needs also to consider the best scale to represent a particular prototype and location, and as a result the viewing height. Balancing all these considerations will result in success, too much compromise or neglect of this balance will ensure a layout falls short. However, that feels like another discussion…

We keep on thinking that “model railroading is art” is a reaction to the thing we make and I disagree. That “thing” is just the product of a process. That process isn’t the art either nor do I think it’s the artist. That the art in this hobby is found in the interaction between the artist, their process, and their product. That what distinguishes this thing from the one that falls off an assembly line in the factory is that record of human experience developed during and stored within the thing–a moment’s history that can be felt by the viewer but not repeated.

Part of why I asked James about N scale was because I have my own relationship with the scale that I question; frustrations are themselves not absolutes just reactions to obstacles in the creative process. I’m learning that often where I’m going wrong is not a technical script but a bullshit narrative of my own making that I can’t correct myself out of. Learning to talk about these with friends who already know the language is practice I can’t get enough of and even though I could not possibly be further from being any kind of productive modeller I think I’m a healthier human for the understanding.

Part of why I asked James about N scale was because I really enjoy working on our Hilton & Mears collaborations and, these days, the distance between all of us is so great that those conversations we should be having in person can’t be left to wait. Learning to talk to each other about our experiences makes us all richer people. Even if I never build another N scale model railroad I feel like learning about it helps me to more honestly appreciate it as a toolset.

The full HIlton & Mears series lives on by category in both our blogs: