Jump to content


Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

Head above the parapet





  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:00

Hi

Although I argued against the provision of this topic, I'm satisfied that Jim has put the necessary safeguards in place to prevent this turning into the public humiliation that (IMO) it had the potential to become.

I, therefore, wish Jim and his venture every success.

While I'm here............

What do you think of this:

30061115.jpg 30061101.jpg 30061102.jpg 30061105.jpg 26061115.jpg

This is loosely based on Newton Poppleford station which once stood on the ex LSWR line between Sidmouth Junction and Exmouth http://www.disused-s...ord/index.shtml

I'm thinking of using it as a station building or waiting room on an LSWR based layout I'm constructing, but not quite sure whether it cuts the mustard.

Your opinions are gratefully requested.

Please be brutally frank.

Jonte

PS......apologies for quality of shots; there were several others in close up, but just can't get the focus right. Jonte.

Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.

#2 Penlan

Penlan

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,481 posts
  • LocationOn the very edge of Europe - west Cornwall

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:35

OK, toe in the water........

Well, I think these pictures show the merits of cropping photo's.

No apologies needed for the quality of the photo's though.

One is reminded of the old tailor's saying, 'never mind the quality, just feel the width'.

I think the building may well cut the mustard, but the Chilli crop looks promising too.
  • Like x 1

#3 Oldddudders

Oldddudders

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,312 posts
  • LocationLe Mans, France

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:37

The positives are that the verticals all look to be pretty much in agreement, which is a great start. The sunlight has produced (predictably) strong shadows, which limit the detail on the walls beneath the canopy roof, but that's not a negative for the model. The design looks a little "minimalist" but that may be true to NP. I guess it lacks presence, but again, if accurately modelled, that is not a carp.

We stopped in NP in August 1963, to order a potter's wheel for Dad. The car - a secondhand 1960 Austin A40, 662 AXK - clocked up 50,000 miles as we left.

#4 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:44

OK, toe in the water........

........ but the Chilli crop looks promising too.......



Very good, Penlan :lol:

Should have taken time to clear the table - not to mention the washing line - before I took these, but the sun rarely shines in these parts so had to act quickly before it went in again.

Grateful for your opinion.

Best wishes,

Jonte

#5 Brinkly

Brinkly

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationDevon

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:48

Hi Jonte,First of all I think it is really nice. Posted Image

Just one think I have noticed (please don't think I'm being nasty!) are you able to bed the right hand chimney on the bottom left hand corner in a bit as there is a slight gap. Failing that, could you put a tiny bit of filler there to represent cement? Because that would bug me! Posted Image

Other wise a lovely model and something I would be very proud to own.

Best wishes,

Nick

#6 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 20:59

The positives are that the verticals all look to be pretty much in agreement, which is a great start. The sunlight has produced (predictably) strong shadows, which limit the detail on the walls beneath the canopy roof, but that's not a negative for the model. The design looks a little "minimalist" but that may be true to NP. I guess it lacks presence, but again, if accurately modelled, that is not a carp.

We stopped in NP in August 1963, to order a potter's wheel for Dad. The car - a secondhand 1960 Austin A40, 662 AXK - clocked up 50,000 miles as we left.


Thanks, Ian.

The design, I suppose, was a little agricultural, however, to be fair to the original, the model is not a replica, plus (as mentioned in my main thread for Harpford) its still bereft of a number of details. Weathering is still required to the tiles on the gables and also the chimnies, plus one of the chimney's has yet to be permanently fixed to the roof.

I hope the added photo of the front elevation to my original post helps to 'shed some light' on that area for you!

Enjoyed the little anecdote BTW.

Jonte

#7 Captain Kernow

Captain Kernow

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,508 posts
  • LocationWhere did you say that we were?

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:00

I think it is really nice.

I certainly agree with that sentiment. An interesting design too, not that common IMO to have a canopy with guttering along the outside edge.


are you able to bed the right hand chimney on the bottom left hand corner in a bit as there is a slight gap. Failing that, could you put a tiny bit of filler there to represent cement?

Can't see that, personally. The thin dark line in the photo just looks like shadow on the join between the flashing and the slates.

You seem to have done some effective weathering on the building as well, particularly the vertical surfaces.

One point about the ridge tiles - you seem to have taken a lot of trouble to apply each tile individually. I'd hazard an observation here, that generally on buildings like this, the ridge tiles are applied sufficiently well by the original builders that you wouldn't really notice variations in height between each ridge tile, certainly not at this viewing distance, so paradoxically you may get a more effective result by making them up from a single strip of material next time.

The open window under the canopy is a nice touch, too.

#8 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:04

Hi Jonte,First of all I think it is really nice. Posted Image

Just one think I have noticed (please don't think I'm being nasty!) are you able to bed the right hand chimney on the bottom left hand corner in a bit as there is a slight gap. Failing that, could you put a tiny bit of filler there to represent cement? Because that would bug me! Posted Image

Other wise a lovely model and something I would be very proud to own.

Best wishes,

Nick


Hi Nick and many thanks for your critique!

I'm flattered!

You're right, of course, that chimney does need sorting and I'm tired of it falling of every time I pick it up :lol:

I must admit I hadn't considered the cement; an excellent idea. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Jonte

#9 Brinkly

Brinkly

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationDevon

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:05

If you look at the chimney closely the lead flashing (or paper) has a dip in the middle, now this is correct as lead flashing on old buildings does certainly do that, but the gab is too much and in reality lots of smoke would escape from that part, with water getting in. Hence the comment about putting some filler. Perhaps it's just my interpretation.

#10 Brinkly

Brinkly

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationDevon

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:07

I must admit I hadn't considered the cement; an excellent idea. Thank you.


No problem! Having lived in many Victorian homes the cement was a quick fix, getting another couple of years out of it before it would need replacing. (I used to watch Dad doing it when we lived in an old house many years ago! Used to be quite interesting with us acting as 'runners' into mum to tell her that smoke was/wasn't coming out any more!) All great fun!

#11 Captain Kernow

Captain Kernow

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,508 posts
  • LocationWhere did you say that we were?

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:11

roof.JPG

Don't really get the bit about smoke escaping, because that assumes that the structural integrity of the actual chimney is compromised. Rain getting in is fair comment, but that requires a decent seal on the sides of the chimney more than on the sloping pitch on the front of it.

Also, didn't Jonte say that one of the chimneys wasn't permanently attached yet?

#12 Brinkly

Brinkly

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationDevon

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:14

Looking at that photo Tim it looks fine! Posted Image If you look at the second photo from the bottom, it is completely different!

If the flashing wasn't dealt with quickly, one hard frost would crack the cement under the flashing as water wouldn't evaporate properly! (How do I know this, by listening to an angry Dad on the phone to the builder!)

#13 Captain Kernow

Captain Kernow

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,508 posts
  • LocationWhere did you say that we were?

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:19

Looking at that photo Tim it looks fine! Posted Image If you look at the second photo from the bottom, it is completely different!


plus one of the chimney's has yet to be permanently fixed to the roof


I'm wondering if this is the chimney?

Anyway, Jonte, looking closely at the other photo that Nick mentioned, I'm thinking that you do need a little more flashing on the surface area of the tiles as well, around that particular chimney.

Just noticed the lichen (?) on the brickwork - also nicely observed.

#14 Brinkly

Brinkly

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,668 posts
  • LocationDevon

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:21

Just noticed the lichen (?) on the brickwork - also nicely observed.


I know it's belting, the more you look the more you see! (Do you fancy a bit of commission work!) Posted Image

#15 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:26

I certainly agree with that sentiment. An interesting design too, not that common IMO to have a canopy with guttering along the outside edge.



Can't see that, personally. The thin dark line in the photo just looks like shadow on the join between the flashing and the slates.

You seem to have done some effective weathering on the building as well, particularly the vertical surfaces.

One point about the ridge tiles - you seem to have taken a lot of trouble to apply each tile individually. I'd hazard an observation here, that generally on buildings like this, the ridge tiles are applied sufficiently well by the original builders that you wouldn't really notice variations in height between each ridge tile, certainly not at this viewing distance, so paradoxically you may get a more effective result by making them up from a single strip of material next time.

The open window under the canopy is a nice touch, too.


Thank you, Captain Kernow, for your very kind comments and glad you like it too.

Interesting to note that we all seem to view things differently as in the case of the chimney region, although Nick does have a point; just haven't got round to addressing it yet!!!

I wholly agree about the ridge tiles, too. I've often felt it looks too quaint and redolent of a 17th/18th Century cottage than a turn of the century commercial building. I think it's on a par with the over weathering of one's stock, although I intend to go to town on at least one or two bits and pieces before completion - and for that I shall just employ modeller's license :lol: Not sure though how I can rectify that now, but it's a lesson learnt.

As for the windows.......now there's another thing!

Best wishes,

Jonte

#16 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:43

I'm wondering if this is the chimney?

Anyway, Jonte, looking closely at the other photo that Nick mentioned, I'm thinking that you do need a little more flashing on the surface area of the tiles as well, around that particular chimney.

Just noticed the lichen (?) on the brickwork - also nicely observed.


Hi again Captain Kernow.

Yes, sir, this is indeed the chimey stack concerned that still requires fixing to the roof; in hindsight, perhaps I should have completed the project before asking for views, to make your task a darned sight easier.

I see what you mean too about the extra flashing required to this area - to make it like the other one :lol: I shall address that next.

Thanks for your positive comment about the lichen; on the original, the roof apears to be covered in it, however, to replicate this on the model might appear as overdoing things, so have toned it down.

Jonte

#17 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 21:58

I know it's belting, the more you look the more you see! (Do you fancy a bit of commission work!) Posted Image


Oh Nick, I'm simply not worthy!

Just glad the shots of the rear elevation were out of focus; the less said about this the better.

Best wishes,

Jonte.

#18 Buckjumper

Buckjumper

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • LocationThe planet Marzipan

Posted 08 July 2011 - 22:05

Jonte,

First of all, nice model! Much of what I'd comment on has already been addressed above, so here's something coming from a different angle.

What provision have you made for attaching the building to the layout? From the bottom of the downpipe, the door and one or two other areas it looks as though it would simply rest upon the platform, so without some vegetation around the base you may find parts hovering which is a realism killer. Perhaps next time consider extending the brickwork below the datum so you can plug buildings into prepared holes in the scenery and avoid a foundation-less building. Of course without seeing your intentions for placement, the foregoing might be rendered completely null and void...

#19 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 08 July 2011 - 22:46

Jonte,

First of all, nice model! Much of what I'd comment on has already been addressed above, so here's something coming from a different angle.

What provision have you made for attaching the building to the layout? From the bottom of the downpipe, the door and one or two other areas it looks as though it would simply rest upon the platform, so without some vegetation around the base you may find parts hovering which is a realism killer. Perhaps next time consider extending the brickwork below the datum so you can plug buildings into prepared holes in the scenery and avoid a foundation-less building. Of course without seeing your intentions for placement, the foregoing might be rendered completely null and void...


Thanks Adrian and good to hear from you.

The black line syndrome is something I'm trying to avoid like the plague (along with a right angled corners in the backscene) so I thank you for pointing this out. From memory (built this back in 2002 whilst recuperating) the intention was to draw the outline of the building onto the sub surface of the platform and then cut Wills stone slabs to surround the outline and than use an ash type ballast to surface the rest of the platform, in this way, the building would be sunk into the base formed by its slab perimeter, thus avoiding the dreaded black line. Having not inspected it since, I'm sure that I allowed sufficient depth for the thickness of the slabs to prevent the door from being obstructed. I'll need to check it again.

Thanks for your input.

Best wishes,

Jonte

#20 trisonic

trisonic

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,732 posts
  • LocationNoo Yawk, USA

Posted 09 July 2011 - 02:53

I think it is a nice little model. "Chimney falling off syndrome" can be cured by making then long enough to reach the "ground" through the roof just like a real chimney stack. My only other suggestion is tobuild proper foundations next time so when you set it in the layout you do not get ugly gaps at the bottom.

Cheers, Pete.

#21 Captain Kernow

Captain Kernow

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18,508 posts
  • LocationWhere did you say that we were?

Posted 09 July 2011 - 13:33

I think Jonte's idea to build up the slabs etc. around the building is the way forward with this. Clearly extending the brickwork down is good, as Adrian points out. I've done that myself, but you do need to be careful that you don't end up with a vertical black line, if you see what I mean, rather than one on the 'horizontal' elevation.

Gaps can easily be disguised with vegetation, passengers, luggage, platform trollies etc. etc.

#22 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2011 - 15:38

Here are a couple more for your 'dissection' :lol:

Tried to find the embossed plastic sheet from Wills but as is always the way, I found everything else but that. In lieu, I used a thin piece of card, admittedly thinner the Wills, but which hopefully addresses the gap problem. If I were to find the Wills paving sheet, I'd simply lay the building on some thin card to raise it slightly, then place the slabs around the edges as described, so as to provide enough clearance for downspouts and door.

Incidentally, the card started to warp and lift in the sun during photographing, hence the use of Blutac in an attempt to flatten it again.

Have also blown the dust from the roof so the colour below is more apparent (should have done that in the first place!).

Also included one of rear this time. Devoid of detail, it was intended for a micro that never saw the light of day. How on earth would those poor little clerks escape in the event of fire!! The join will employ the usual trick of using a strategically placed downspout to hide it.

Finally, have taken another of the front elevation, this time using a mirror to reflect some sunlight into the area below the canopy, hopefully to highlight it. Mirror held, rather reluctantly, by Mrs. Jonte for the photo shoot. Suppose I should be grateful for small mercies ;)

Best wishes,

09071101.jpg 09071102.jpg 09071103.jpg 09071104.jpg 09071105.jpg 09071107.jpg 09071108.jpg 09071109.jpg

#23 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2011 - 15:50

I think it is a nice little model. "Chimney falling off syndrome" can be cured by making then long enough to reach the "ground" through the roof just like a real chimney stack. My only other suggestion is tobuild proper foundations next time so when you set it in the layout you do not get ugly gaps at the bottom.

Cheers, Pete.


Hi Pete and hope you're well.

Your right, of course, in both respects. Hopefully, I've come up with a solution at least to the black line issue?

Best wishes amd thanks for your input.

Jonte

#24 Removed a/c_jonte

Removed a/c_jonte

  • Guests

Posted 09 July 2011 - 19:26

I think Jonte's idea to build up the slabs etc. around the building is the way forward with this. Clearly extending the brickwork down is good, as Adrian points out. I've done that myself, but you do need to be careful that you don't end up with a vertical black line, if you see what I mean, rather than one on the 'horizontal' elevation.

Gaps can easily be disguised with vegetation, passengers, luggage, platform trollies etc. etc.


Thanks, Captain Kernow.

Best wishes,

Jonte

#25 trisonic

trisonic

    Member


  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,732 posts
  • LocationNoo Yawk, USA

Posted 10 July 2011 - 07:47

Hi Pete and hope you're well.

Your right, of course, in both respects. Hopefully, I've come up with a solution at least to the black line issue?

Best wishes amd thanks for your input.

Jonte

Jonte, I was guilty of answering after reading your OP without reading the other postings - so it was a bit redundant! There is a very nice finescale 2mm layout on RMWeb where the beautiful station building always looks to me as if it was just plonked down on the platform...............I like having the extra depth, besides you'll need it with buildings set on slopes in order to retain true horizontal/vertical.

You're a good modeler!

Best, Pete.










Google Ads are only seen by non-members of RMweb - Create an RMweb account and you'll only receive modelling ads.