What is the ''OFFICIAL'' length of the 1701?

[Whorfin]

Okay, I'm a little bit less confused now. Is it absolutely set-in-stone canon that the TOS-era Enterprise has to be 947 feet in length?

Per Vance's previous observation ( http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4577856&postcount=29 ) it appears that "The Enterprise Incident" supplies us with a canon answer of 947', at least within the limits of potential readability, and the appropriateness of using off-screen versions of the diagram to know with certainty what should be visible on the diagram. That the designer notes this in published references would appear to indicate that even if we ignore the onscreen reference, that this was the intended length. My own feelings are that designer's off-screen 'comments' about their own designs tend to trump everything else, including latter-day franchise revisionism, unless there is a darn good reason to think they are wrong. But that's just my attitude, not canon "factuality". I "believe" that during production, for whatever reason, this was MJ's figure for the length of the ship and that's what available evidence shows.

Cary Brown's findings seem to point to this running roughshod over some details. Brown's conjecture is definitely not "official" (what does that mean, anyway?) and naturally it is also open to criticism, but he makes an interesting case that canon points to a length of 1,067 feet.

Several well versed, well respected, and very meticulous researchers have at times commented upon or illustrated the problems of inserting various full scale sets into the a full-size version of the studio model. Either they have to move things around from where we expect them to be, resize or revise the sets, change the number and placement of decks, or scale up the ship somewhat. None of which ever seems to end up feeling very satisfactory. We expect inherent consistency in MJ's designs at all scales and (if only at a subconscious level) we know something is very wrong when we uncover contradictions.

My own, largely uneducated conclusion (since I haven't done the fine-scale comparisons myself) based on the efforts of others is that the ship probably was scaled somewhat larger during the early design stages (perhaps 1080'), and then at some point was scaled down to 947' -- despite the fact that this would cause conflict with the scale of the studio sets. Its possible that this was an executive, rather than designer, decision made at an inopportune time. And it might be possible that the person making the decision wasn't fully aware of the consequences of this revision. And, it may be said, that there may not have been a whole lot of concern on anyone's part over contradictions and revisionism since it was a television show in an era where display resolution was somewhat lacking and where VCRs were non-existent (and therefore any contradictions were largely indiscernible).

My working hypothesis is that from pre-production on "The Cage" until MJ's final work on "Phase II" the characteristics of the ship were much more in flux than most researchers realize, and that the ship was always being revised and not just in fine details. And I also believe that some of these design changes ended up coming from the executive level rather than designer.

I don't know if there are enough facts available to construct an "air tight" case for this theory. I do believe that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion that this hypothesis explains the bulk of the discrepancies that people have noted over the years. But as mentioned, its not a very satisfactory conclusion, and in an absolute sense there ends up being no one "correct" design just a series of revisions.

For what its worth...

 

[Wingsley]

Ah, I see...

So, the notion of an "official" length for the good ship Enterprise is more ballpark rhetorical than set-in-stone?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Well, the big sticking point is this sucker...

Besides being included in the "The Making of Star Trek" in 1968, it had been sent out in promotional materials since the show went on the air in 1966, so for all intents and purposes, those are the official dimensions of the Enterprise.

The only thing missing is a line of dialogue or a crystal clear on-screen diagram stating emphatically that the Enterprise is 947' long. The closest we got was that comparison drawing of the Enterprise and the Klingon D-7, with the scale, in "The Enterprise Incident", a drawing that was also available in "The Making of Star Trek", printed the previous year.

Something I find interesting is that our esteemed Mr. Shaw has found, in his preliminary findings, that the model seems to scale out somewhat shorter than 947'. Not sure how he's getting to this conclusion, but from my perspective, it only makes things easier for fitting the innards inside that hull; just inflate the sucker to 947' and there shouldn't be any conflict at all.

 

[blssdwlf]

As I've been "virtually" re-constructing the TOS sets into a 947' hull there hasn't been a reason to upscale the ship as far as I can tell (unlike the TMP version). What TOS sets don't fit?

 

[Warped9]

Warped9, has anyone looked into the technical details of TOS saucer reentry?

There was a discussion around here (I think or it may have been on Hobbytalk) that was talking about the rationale for that concave underside. I think it was an offshoot of another discussion. Anyway someone raised the notion that perhaps the concave was there deliberately to facilitate a potential atmospheric entry and flight for the purpose of an emergency landing should the rest of the ship be irreparably damaged or destroyed. Similar to what happened to the 1701D in GEN but as a controlled landing. I don't recall any definitive consensus being reached, but it was a favorably received notion.

Now on the subject of the TOS E's size allow me my two cents influenced by my pursuit of an integrated TOS shuttlecraft, which I think suffered from greater scale discrepancies than the Enterprise.

Onscreen we heard one reference to the shuttlecraft's size: 24 ft. We also saw how big the shuttlecraft looked on the flight deck, we saw what the exterior looked like (scale wise) in relation to the characters and we saw the interior. In all three cases they were inconsistent with each other and inconsistent with what the craft was supposed to be. In trying to integrate everything we saw and knew about the craft it was inevitable that compromises had to be made to have an integrated whole. Now the shuttlecraft's upper defining limit in exterior size was that it had to be accommodated within the Enterprise's hangar facilities. It's lower defining limit was that it had to be able to have an interior at least passably recognizable to what we saw onscreen. I also picked up on visual clues in how the exterior mockup was designed and built and how the interior set was used. The exterior mockup was built with forced perspective as a consideration and in such a way as to perhaps suggest a slightly larger vehicle. Note that the mockup was only 20-22ft. long and thus definately shorter than the onscreen reference of 24ft. And note also that Kirk merely says, "...a twenty-four foot shuttlecraft." but he doesn't specify what that 24ft. means (I know it's nitpicking, but was it length, wingspan, cabin length, what???) and now the interior set showed us a standing room interior yet why were the seats and control consoles set so low to the deck? Why did many of the characters walk about in something of a stooped manner? It's as if they were trying to convey the idea of smaller, more cramped interior. These were all clues that made me wonder the the actual size of the shuttlecraft was in the middle somewhere: smaller than what the interior set showed us and larger than the exterior mockup appeared. And so it became a juggling act to get everything to fit together as one integrated design that looked pretty much exactly like what we saw onscreen. Note that I could have fit the interior we saw onscreen into the shuttlecraft if I'd been willing to accept a 32ft. exterior, and I wasn't because that would be too big to properly accommodate with the ship's hangar and the step-up height for entry and exit for the shuttlecraft would have been too high (because with greater length everything else gets sized up). The final result was a vehicle near exactly 26ft in L.O.A. (damn close to 24ft) and with an interior where anyone over 5'-7" would have to stoop inside. AND it just so happened (by happy accident) that the length of the main hull without nacelles and aft landing gear is near exactly 24ft!

It's not official, it isn't definitively recognized, but it works.

Now with the TOS E. The 947ft. figure has never been verbalized or clearly seen onscreen. So for me I'd use that figure as a starting point. I would do exactly what others like aridas and CRA and Cary L. Brown and others have done: try to get the sets we saw onscreen to fit into a 947ft. hull. If that doesn't work then I'd begin playing to see what it takes to get it to work. On this point, though, is where people will diverge.

I would do what others have suggested: I'd first determine the actual size those interior sets have to be as a starting point to have a better idea how much the ship's exterior has to be resized. I think the two most important set sizes needed are the bridge and the hangar deck. And note that I think the hangar deck's size is subject to some flexibility. If the ship gets larger by whatever factor then it only helps the hangar deck. And so I think the size of the bridge is a determining factor. It's the starting point.

Now once the size of the bridge has been determined then it's a matter of what you do with it. Do you accept an offset bridge? Does it have to fit properly into the bulge atop the B/C deck teardrop superstructure or are you willing to drop it down partially into the next deck, and consequently lose some usable Deck 2 working space? I think once you determine that then you can rescale the rest of the ship.

I liked what aridas did in assuming that not all deck levels have the same ceiling height. It feels more real and more credible that way. I'm personally not fond of dropping the bridge down into Deck 2 to make it fit. And while I'd prefer a forward facing bridge if it really comes down to getting everything to fit more properly than with the 23rd century's advanced tech in regard to inertial dampeners I can accept an offset bridge.

Candidly I rather like Cary L. Brown's 1067ft. figure. It just seems to make a lot of sense to me, and 1067 is an interesting number that sounds more real than 1080. I know it's fiction, but there it is. I also like that he manages to get 11 decks into the saucer consistent with the description of the deck layout in TMoST.

With all due respect to Matt Jefferies it's entirely possible that a mistake or two in scaling could have been made with the pressure to get things nailed down and in front of the camera. And so I wouldn't treat the 947 figure as gospel except as a starting point simply because we've never had it referenced definitively onscreen. Offscreen references can only be given weight when consistent with onscreen evidence. Without consistency then I give the nod to what is onscreen and what they're trying to show us.

In like manner we don't accept the 11ft. filming miniature as is to be exactly what the fullsize "real" Enterprise is supposed to look like. The filming miniature is only an incomplete representation of what the "real" ship is supposed to look like. Beyond that the details need to be filled in.

 

[Wingsley]

Well, the big sticking point is this sucker...

Besides being included in the "The Making of Star Trek" in 1968, it had been sent out in promotional materials since the show went on the air in 1966, so for all intents and purposes, those are the official dimensions of the Enterprise.

The only thing missing is a line of dialogue or a crystal clear on-screen diagram stating emphatically that the Enterprise is 947' long. The closest we got was that comparison drawing of the Enterprise and the Klingon D-7, with the scale, in "The Enterprise Incident", a drawing that was also available in "The Making of Star Trek", printed the previous year.

Something I find interesting is that our esteemed Mr. Shaw has found, in his preliminary findings, that the model seems to scale out somewhat shorter than 947'. Not sure how he's getting to this conclusion, but from my perspective, it only makes things easier for fitting the innards inside that hull; just inflate the sucker to 947' and there shouldn't be any conflict at all.

As Arte Johnson's German soldier might say...

Verrrrry, verrrry eeeeeeeeinterestink!

Does this "Enterprise Incident" / "Making of Star Trek" image bear close resemblance to any of the show's Enterprise models? If so, which one? Are there discrepancies?

I noticed the nomenclature: "SPACE CRUISER... STAR SHIP CLASS", and specific diameter of the saucer, as well as the length of the secondary hull and nacelles, and even a centerline distance between the nacelles. All apparently in English-system feet instead of meters, no less.

Anan 7 referred to the Enterprise as a "star cruiser", a moniker later used in TMP blueprints to describe a Klingon K'T'inga, if I'm not mistaken. Memories like this sometimes pop out on me. The only "space cruiser" mentioned in TOS was the Aurora that the space hippies creatively acquired.

I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my inquiries in this thread, especially Warped 9 and Captain Robert April. Very interesting and indeed fascinating points of view. I'm not really partisan about this subject. My curiosity would tend toward wondering if there would be a way to reconcile the sets of both the TOS and TMP Enterprise with the ship's exterior shape, considering the possibility that the ship's size and shape may or may not have changed significantly as a result of the TMP refit. (Talk about a tall order!) Maybe I should be glad I totally lack the mechanical design ability and CAD technology that might get me buried under a mountain of trouble if I tried to tackle that whopper of a challenge.

Seriously, though, I can see where making the Enterprise bigger could make things easier to do. On an enclosed vessel of any kind, you can never have too much interior volume, can you? But I am definitely not a fan of the idea of making the Enterprise into a Galactica-sized monster.

Oh, one more thing I noticed: check out the phaser placement on that "Incident" / "Making" image. The phasers look to be pretty high up on the lower vortex of the saucer. Nowhere near the dome...

 

[Captain Robert April]

In the interests of full disclosure, here are the diagrams we saw in "The Enterprise Incident":

Obviously, with the words "Star Trek" removed.

 

[Captain Rob]

The concavity of the underside of the primary hull. There's no real need for it.

Don't be too hasty. I believe I recall a discussion around here a couple of years back that discuss the issue of the saucer hull separating and then entering the atmosphere of a planet to land, as a life boat issue if the rest of the ship were destroyed. In that event the concavity of the lower part of the saucer might contribute to aerodynamics of the saucer much like the shape of a frisbee.

I think it has been previously mentioned in other threads that it was Matt Jeffries' idea that the concavity would aid with the aerodynamics of reentry in case of an emergency saucer landing. I would think with our later understanding of how shields work that they could be configured to aid aerodynamics. My main issue with the concavity is that it wipes out alot of useful space on the lower deck of the primary hull. I'd prefer the extra space that's utilized all of the time than a hull design feature that's only used in an emergency landing scenario. Sort of like making everyone on today's commercial airliners wear parachutes just in case. And losing all of that extra seating capacity.

Just had to add that Warped9 and CRA really know their stuff.
As for sets fitting into the ship. Since we've all seen comparisons of Starfleet to the Navy and it's starships compared to naval vessels (nooklear wessels or otherwise). Naval vessels are fairly cramped with small crew spaces and low overheads. Couldn't the sets be meant to represent smaller spaces in reality? I know that the corridors were built as wide as they were to accomodate the large television cameras of the time. Also we see in Kirk's quarters a curved ceiling structural member with the wall apparently extending upward above it. Shouldn't there be a low curved ceiling similar to what Archer's quarters or ready room had? I bet if we scaled down the rooms to a 7.5 or 7 foot ceiling height that we could fit alot more in.

 

[Shaw]

Something I find interesting is that our esteemed Mr. Shaw has found, in his preliminary findings, that the model seems to scale out somewhat shorter than 947'. Not sure how he's getting to this conclusion, but from my perspective, it only makes things easier for fitting the innards inside that hull; just inflate the sucker to 947' and there shouldn't be any conflict at all.

The problem with the Enterprise is that it isn't one single component. It is made up of four major components (primary hull, secondary hull, and two nacelles). And while the component dimensions stay quite consistent from the original plans to both models and finally the drawings by Jefferies for the series, some aspects of their final arrangement in each of those cases are quite different.

For example, lets look at my model of the 33 inch Enterprise miniature. I wasn't building a representation of the fictional starship Enterprise, I was building a 2/3 scale replica of a model used in the production of TOS. As such, the original model was all that mattered during the research and building of my model.

My model is 22.5 inches long and 10 inches wide (or 2/3 the original model's 33.75 inch long length and 15 inch width). If we look at the component dimensions, like the diameter of the primary hull, my model is about 1/500 scale (10"/5004"). But because the components of my model are arranged similar to the original model, I don't get 947 feet for an over all length... which would be about 22.73 inches in length at my model's scale.

Could I have made my model 22.73 inches long? Sure. If I had moved the dorsal slightly forward on the secondary hull and the attachment points of the supports slightly forward on the nacelles, I could have gotten that extra quarter inch.

But here is something to keep in mind... once you correct the distortion in the TMoST drawing, if you use either the nacelle length or the primary hull diameter, the drawing represents a 940 foot ship... not 947. And the elements between the original plans and the TMoST drawing line up quite nicely...

What does all this mean?

Well, that mistakes were made... this was a time without calculators, and with everything drawn by hand. It wasn't rocket science, and nobody's life was at risk if the mistakes weren't caught.

Should we focus on the mistakes?

Well, people will do what people do... they will rationalize to get what they want. But from an analytical point of view, I'd say the consistency of most of the figures I've seen by Jefferies from 1964 through 1969 out weigh the few inconsistencies that pop up every so often.

I'm not wed to the 947 foot length because I believe it was a mistake that was just never caught. And there seems to be more elements (drawings and models) pointing towards an approximate 940 foot length, so I think that is closer to what was originally intended.

But I doubt anyone else will give up on the 947 foot length that has been around for more than 40 years.

... and even a centerline distance between the nacelles.

It is funny that Jefferies really wanted the nacelles to be a certain distance apart... because the models have their nacelles much closer together.

Either Jefferies didn't know the model makers made that change or he didn't care.

This is one of those inconsistencies between the models and the drawings that I find interesting. What I think happened was that Datin swapped the port and starboard nacelles, moving the attachment point further under the nacelles... and bringing them closer together.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'd guess the swap was for weight distribution reasons. Those nacelles ain't lightweights.

 

[Shaw]

While I agree that the Jefferies attachment points would make it harder to support the nacelles (specially as the model increased in size), one other aspect comes to light when making a comparison... the inner channel on the nacelles.

Jefferies attachment point would just about hit that channel.

I have wondered if the inner channel was originally facing downwards on the original plans. I think the drawings would have shown this attachment point-channel position issue, and it seems like the channel would have most likely been added at the same time that the attachment point was cut into the 33 inch model's nacelles. Swapping the nacelles' sides would have rotated the channel to the inner sides, and the only modification that would have been needed would have been a shortening of the supports (to keep the nacelles at the same height).



Again... it was just one of those interesting things that has popped up in my studies of the Enterprise.

 

[Vance]

As I've been "virtually" re-constructing the TOS sets into a 947' hull there hasn't been a reason to upscale the ship as far as I can tell (unlike the TMP version). What TOS sets don't fit?

There are really only two sticking points for the TOS sets when you really look at them. The first is the 'big one', which is the rotation of the turbolift/viewscreen which either has the bridge at an odd angle, or the turbolift emptying into deep space. This is a 'hollywood' issue, though. (One that TMP and on rectified by having mouse-ear lifts...)

The second sticking point is the deck height, which is due to the set wall rigging being way taller than a deck height naturally would be. Of course, this was to allow booms, lights, and corridor shots to be had without showing all that pesky studio stuff... The 'real' (to use the term very loosely) deck heights wouldn't be nearly as high as what we see in the series.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I have wondered if the inner channel was originally facing downwards on the original plans.

Oddly enough, swapping the nacelles one of the most common construction errors with the AMT 18" model. It'd be pretty ironic if it was that sort of error that resulted in the nacelles being positioned the way they are in the first place.

As for the above mentioned sticking points, the deck height is an easy workaround; just ignore it. There aren't a whole lot of areas where the height of the deck is going to cause a major argument amongst any but the terminally anal.

The bridge is the briar patch, where many a good man has gone in, only to come out scourged. The crux of the conflict boils down to this: Either the bridge is pointed off to port for no good reason, or it's not as high up in that dome as the conventional wisdom dictates.

I prefer the later, with the following design sequence:

1) While the bridge dome of production version of the ship isn't large enough to accommodate a forward facing bridge, the pilot version is. So, no conflict at this point of the ship's history. Also, keep in mind that the only time we're given direct indications of just where the bridge is located is that zoom-in shot in "The Cage". So, for the rest of the series, it's open for debate. After all, the ship has clearly been altered significantly between the pilots and regular production, so who's to say the bridge stayed precisely where it was shown in "The Cage"?

2) When transitioning from pilot version to production version, don't think of the bridge dome being cut in half; rather, think of it being lowered halfway down inside the teardrop superstructure. The bridge within the dome doesn't change position. It's the entire bridge dome that shifts position. And all we lose is, in all likelihood, that round briefing room directly below.

I think it's a lovely solution, and still can't really understand the resistance to it. The only reason I can fathom is some intense sense of devotion to how FJ showed it to us when we were kids. Trying to get them to accept the notion that the bridge doesn't face thirty-odd degrees to port is like trying to tell five-year olds that there's no Santa Claus.

 

[Warped9]

I will say that there is a practical aspect to lowering the bridge to some extant. You simply get more hull between you and incoming weapons fire. Also I rather like that the cylinder at the back end of the dome could be something else (subspace array?) other than just an elevator housing.

 

[Timo]

...OTOH, the cylinder could well be the upper end of a turboshaft that is mounted logically on ship centerline - just as logically as the "lift stop" along that shaft is mounted off-centerline, so as not to impede traffic along the shaft.

If the bridge sits lower than the very top of the dome, then the lift might in fact continue its merry way to a deck above the bridge. Or if there is no such deck, the cylinder could represent a docking system that allows the ship's turbolifts to operate inside a starbase's turboshaft network when the ship is properly docked.

Protruding or otherwise visible tops of turboshafts are something of a feature of starship bridges from ST:TMP on, and the idea of starbase interconnect is first mentioned in connection with the E-D. The TOS ship could be part of the continuum there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[SicOne]

Guys, I say this not in a mean or condescending way but rather in an admirable way, you all have put a great amount of thought into this!

I came here thinking I could add some value, but I got nothin' that hasn't already been touched upon. When you get done debating the "official" length of the original 1701, bend those intellects towards other thorny issues like the Excelsior/Excelsior-refit and Ambassador lengths, and other ships that are having sizing and scaling issues. It's been a long time since I've seen a noteworthy thread on ship sizing.

Good work, gentlemen. As you were.

 

[Vance]

I will say that there is a practical aspect to lowering the bridge to some extant. You simply get more hull between you and incoming weapons fire. Also I rather like that the cylinder at the back end of the dome could be something else (subspace array?) other than just an elevator housing.

My dear Warped9, if you're taking a hit that's measured in the megatons on the top part of your saucer section, 3 meters of air and plasterform ain't going to do shit to save your life.

Protruding or otherwise visible tops of turboshafts are something of a feature of starship bridges from ST:TMP on, and the idea of starbase interconnect is first mentioned in connection with the E-D. The TOS ship could be part of the continuum there.

I think we know that that was the intent of that little bump all along, and the fact that it's expressly directly mapped on the uprating and on just reinforces the point to me. The first shown 'interconnect' is the uprated Enterprise's gangway on the port side of the ship. It's not shown used in that function (oddly, not even in spacedock), but that's what it's there for.

Ironically, the port side of the TOS ship is the side we almost never see... we could even assume that that detail should be there, but just isn't. Of course, that's stretching things a bit - but it doesn't prevent me from drawing the gangway hatch on my TOS designs anyway.

 

[Mytran]

Protruding or otherwise visible tops of turboshafts are something of a feature of starship bridges from ST:TMP on, and the idea of starbase interconnect is first mentioned in connection with the E-D. The TOS ship could be part of the continuum there.

I think we know that that was the intent of that little bump all along, and the fact that it's expressly directly mapped on the uprating and on just reinforces the point to me. The first shown 'interconnect' is the uprated Enterprise's gangway on the port side of the ship. It's not shown used in that function (oddly, not even in spacedock), but that's what it's there for.

The square gangway hatch was used in TMP:

Not sure where it went though!

 

[Vance]

Shows you how often that I watch TMP.

That part of the spacedock is a 'worker's area'... but it's pretty small to house a lot when you look at it. Certainly not much of a work-crew with all the supplies required.

 

[Whorfin]

There are really only two sticking points for the TOS sets when you really look at them. The first is the 'big one', which is the rotation of the turbolift/viewscreen which either has the bridge at an odd angle, or the turbolift emptying into deep space. This is a 'hollywood' issue, though. (One that TMP and on rectified by having mouse-ear lifts...)

I was under the impression that some well-informed people tend to believe that there are (a) issues with the overall size of the bridge set fitting in the dome even in the 'rotated' position and (b) issues with the turbolift alcove and/or turbolift position fitting. I can't off the top of my head remember all the people who have raised these issues, or the exact details, and I'm open to being corrected. But this is a much more serious issue than the "a priori" idea that the viewscreen must be facing forward. 'If the bridge doesn't fit, you must refit!' sums it up.

The second sticking point is the deck height, which is due to the set wall rigging being way taller than a deck height naturally would be. Of course, this was to allow booms, lights, and corridor shots to be had without showing all that pesky studio stuff... The 'real' (to use the term very loosely) deck heights wouldn't be nearly as high as what we see in the series.

There are two possible solutions to the problem: reduce the number of decks (which is a popular strategy) or resign oneself to the fact that all decks may not be the same height. I favor the latter, partly on the basis of my own reconstruction (which is not intended to be definitive, certainly not at this point) of the placement/number of decks intended for the studio model ( http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2694976&postcount=5 ). The decks would have been more satisfying with a 1080' ship, but if you've ever been on a real naval vessel they are still ridiculously spacious!

I guess the third possible solution is to remember "its just a TV show" and that the deck heights shown are more 'artistic' than 'realistic' (and "Hey, isn't that gadget on McCoy's bench an alien prop from two weeks ago???".

My other observation on these kinds of issues is that I find it less than helpful when any evidence contradicting one's position is labeled as a mistake on the part of the designer, whereas every scrap of data -- or even inference -- that support one's position is considered purely intentional and unassailable. There's a tendency for a "one way street" approach to these issues followed by tempers getting elevated that the 'obvious' solution to the problem isn't being automatically accepted. When such situations arise we must remember: infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

My own comment to both of the above 'scale' problems is that compromise can go both ways. One can slightly revise the ship model to reduce such contradictions to manageable levels, and one can slightly revise the sets to do so as well. Its just that we don't like to do either, or it brings out our personal bias about what takes precedence. I've come to a personal decision that if I ever get around to doing my own set of blueprints it will be a compromise between both the models and the sets, one one will not (in general) 'railroad' the other.