Quite, but that isn't what makes the whole thing so unusually good is it?
That's where the composition comes in - the whole thing has been composed to replicate the workings of a railway.
And lots of layouts that are put together with care and craft nonetheless end up being more than a bit pants in the "we are modelling a railway and what it was built to do" department......
Don't disagree. Not at all. I hate sterile model railways that are (scale) inch perfect.
For example, the P4 Bodmin layout of the North London Group doesn't do a lot for me, excellent though it is, wheres St. Merryn, also P4 and also set in Cornwall, ticks all of my boxes.
I find the latter to be warmer. Others may disagree - personal feeling, that's all.
Care and craft are good, but not the be all and end all. I've argued, am arguing, will argue that it's art which gives a layout the wow factor.
Yes, but all good artists will tell you that care and craft are essential to art, too - particularly in composition.
Here's where the soul of the layout resides. Give 100 competent modellers the same ingredients used in the Chapeltown Loop and tell them to build a layout using them and I'd be willing to bet that 5 will make a bit of an arse of some aspect of the construction ("I'm not a track/building/scenery man") the remaining 95 will make a good tidy job of assembling the component parts into a layout. I'd also be willing to bet that few would be able to see what the builder of the Chapeltown Loop in the real railway and express it in model form using the available materials.
Oh, I agree with your general principle, but not the numbers - surely 1 of the 95 would produce something exceptional, or do you think that fewer than one in 200 could do so?
What I saw was a layout built by someone with a good understanding of prototype operations, using available commercial components with care and precision, to create an outstanding layout.
Since I don't see "standards" as the be-all and end-all of finescale, (I see it as moving closer to the prototype) then unlike your OP, I don't diss "scratchbuilt finescale" in comparison to this layout: rather, I wish more such layouts had a warmth and charm about them - something which people like Trevor Nunn, Jas Millham, Barry Norman and the Gravetts have achieved. I know that is where you wanted the remark to go, but the point would be equally well-made if you had said, "it has more of the real railway about it than many an effort, regardless of track and wheel standards". There are very few largely scratchbuilt layouts out there, and proportionately far more of them achieve a feel of the real railway than others.
As far as I am concerned, the layout
is finescale: it attempts to move operations to being closer to the prototype. In choosing to use Peco track, the builder has not then adopted a slapdash approach to laying it. In choosing to use card structure kits, he has not skimped on time when it came to assembling them. Might not be scratchbuilt, but the attitude is very much finescale in my book.
The analogy which most readily springs to mind is that of photography where many can take technically competent photographs, very few can capture spirit, soul and emotion.
Good analogy, which rather proves the point I am making. An exceptional photograph requires the technique, added to composition and a sense of when to press the shutter trigger - this comes more naturally to some, very naturally to a gifted few, but can be achieved through hard graft, a lot of patience and a touch of luck* by most (sadly, not by all).
The best photos of model railways I have seen are produced by Chris Nevard of this parish, who trained professionally and uses this training to spend time on lighting and composition, rather than shooting off reams of photos prior to selecting a few for editing and photo-shopping. He might use digital cameras, which allow anyone to be technically proficient with little effort, but his approach is very much that of the master artisan user of film. He also uses that in designing his layouts, which might be 00 and a touch compressed, but nevertheless capture the essence of the look and operations of a real railway.
I have said it before, if someone has a true appreciation of their prototype, and cherishes it - warts and all - then that love of the subject matter shines through. You have shown, and continue to show, this with your various flights of whimsy and particularly with Morfa, and I see that in Simon's slowly developing garden line. In both cases you are taking things steadily, and are prepared to back track and re-do things which you feel are not good enough. Similarly, Steve Cook's build of the best British 4-6-0 has not been a blind "out-of-the-box" production. We all know just how technically good Steve is, but as with everything he does, there is that bit more - sometimes just a simple thing such as using metal black on shiny metal components to tone done the bright-work and make the model look more like the prototype. These are just three more examples of finescale modelling, despite the fact that you have too-tight curves on under-gauged (EM) track, Simon's "scenery" is 32 times larger than it should be, and the wheels on Steve's Castle are somewhat over scale in the flange department.
However, the fact that we are having this discussion highlights how rare it is, considering the number of layouts built, for a "Universal 00" layout to reach such standards, which is sad.
For the record, at the risk of repetition, I am not saying (and did not say) that care and craft are the be-all and end-all of a good layout, but without them, everything else is downgraded. A good, thorough even, understanding of the prototype is essential to composition of a model and a feeling of warmth.
*Famous golfing quote about luck and regular practising, anyone?
