Beginners OO 1950's Banff

[aardvark]

15 hours ago, Ian Smeeton said:

Hunting around, as you do, I came across this:

 

http://www.bluebell-railway-museum.co.uk/archive/photos/jjs/b01/1-3-1.htm

 

Not sure if you have seen it before. This is from a collection of photos I have not seen before.

 

Regards

 

Ian

 

Many thanks for bringing this to my attention, Ian.  Whilst I have a few photos from this viewpoint, I hadn't seen  this collection before.  I might even have to buy a copy just to see what the sign on the partition on the right says.  Something about passenger services.

 

cheers!

[Signaller69]

Your baseboard set-up looks really good, plenty of scope for the scenic treatment of the non railway areas too. It is hard to see how you could convincingly recreate the look of a railway approach with a road, rocks and the sea inlet below, in less width; particularly when it is a copy of the prototype arrangement so I hope you can find a way to work around the weight issues you mentioned without too much inconvenience? 

 

I guess the answer lies in the age old modelling conundrum of how often it is necessary to assemble and dismantle the layout and what help you can call on, versus how far you are prepared to compromise on what you are modelling?

 

I hope you are able to keep moving forward in any case.

 

All the best,

Martyn.

 

[aardvark]

Many thanks for the support, Martyn.

 

There is progress, but not at any great rate.  The legs are done, and the fascia on.  I was also set to start laying some track, but I had forgotten that I would need somewhere to store the baseboards first.  After consideration, I settled on some of that metal bracket shelving in the garage: the type where the bracket bearing the shelf slots into a vertical piece.  In my case, there is no need for a shelf: the baseboards sit directly in the bracket.  Here they are amongst the normal garage clutter:

 

 

Of course, getting them up and down is a bit of a task, so I've taken yet another detour to add a bit more wood to the undersides to give me something to actually hang on to while swinging them around.

 

 

There will be further delays while we're off on holidays for the next 5 weeks, including a train tour of Switzerland.  If I have any money left at the end, then perhaps I can get some track down.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[aardvark]

I'm still on "holiday", but we're in the UK, and I picked up a copy of the June 2019 Model Rail.  This mag includes an article by Paul Lunn titled "Make a 3D prototype", which suggests that a trackplan should be tested by making a 3D prototype.

 

What a brilliant idea!!  Albeit a tad late, since I've already built the baseboards.  Nevertheless, this approach makes sense to me, so I'll have a go at mocking up the major buildings when I get home.  There is probably little leeway to move things around much length-wise, given the per-existence of shaped baseboards, but it seems like a worthwhile exercise.

 

So tracklaying will be delayed, yet again, but arguably for a good reason.

 

I was also delighted to see something Scottish appear in the press: a somewhat uncommon occurrence.  Apparently the April and May issues do as well.

[Dzine]

Hi aardvark,  Many thanks for your kind comments, hope everything works out well with the 3D mock-up.  Kind regards Paul

[aardvark]

I made a goods shed.

 

 

It's just a mock-up, but I'm pretty impressed with myself.  I guess it's a good goods shed.  First thing I've made since wearing short pants, and that's been a while.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[aardvark]

Next mockup is the engine shed.  I like to draw things up in SketchUp: I think that this particularly pays off if I'm going to make two versions of each building (mockup and real), separated by months ... or more likely years.  At this stage, I haven't bothered with details such as windows and doors - just the openings for them.

 

The drawing:

 

 

The prototype:

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[aardvark]

Should there be anyone out there following these meagre offerings: I have to commend the work of Des Byrne to produce print-it-yourself kits of some GNSR buildings.  In Des' words:

• Drummuir station , signal boxes,  veranda and goods shed same as many others

• Blacksboat station and goods shed. This is the same as many other small granite stations.

• Oldmeldrum / Crathes / Milltimber station

• Kennethmont  same as 3 others

• Macduff Peterhead Fraserburgh Alford engine shed.

• St combs / Cairnbulg station plus grounded van shelter.

Despite rarely going there, I stumbled over a reference to Des' work in a Facebook post by Alan Sangster.  Upon hearing of my interest in modelling Banff, Des produced a kit for the (apparently) unique single-road Banff engine shed for me, complete with bothy.  I presume that this kit can now be added to the list above.

 

Des can be contacted through the GNSRA.

 

All proceeds go to the Maud Railway Museum.

Edited September 11, 2019 by aardvark
Fixed Des' name. Sorry, mate.

[desbrine]

Thanks for the shout out, Aaarvark. My name is actually Des Byrne but because everyone gets it wrong... So yes I'm accessible as info@friendsofmaud.org.uk by email.

 

The pdf prints use similar techniques to other download sites, print on 160 or 200gsm  paper and glue to 1mm mount board.

 

I have devised a way to create transparent windows using masking tape for the frames on acetate film. These can then be painted with a fine brush and steady hand helped by a magnifier or goggles. I stick tape onto film and then cut 1mm wide slices using a guillotine, but scissors can be used too. This then is peeled off the film and used to form the frames.

 

Here's a GNSR "Verandah" waiting room test piece with the trial windows out front. Inside are the alternative printed windows with acetate in front of them.

 

 

 

[aardvark]

I've spent more time on detailing the SketchUp drawing of the engine shed.  I said I wasn't going to bother just yet, but changed my mind when I realised details can help you judge whether you have bigger things right.

 

 

The photo of the prototype for comparison is a few posts back.

 

The drawing includes a 10mm foamboard "footing", which will sit directly on top of the baseboard plywood.  The footing mimics the prototype footing, thereby (I hope) avoiding that floating look that some models have.  The buildings will be removable to avoid damage when the baseboards are in transit or in storage, with the footing sloting into a foamboard socket on the baseboard. All hopefully disguised under model ground.

 

At least that's the plan.

 

I've heard that it's good to have a plan.  Then you know when you're deviating from it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by aardvark

[Signaller69]

On 19/08/2019 at 11:33, aardvark said:

 

At least that's the plan.

 

I've heard that it's good to have a plan.  Then you know when you're deviating from it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or, as in my case, you have a plan based on research, where you then find that a building had a different lean to, door or window layout, colour scheme, or wasn't there in the intervening 2 years between the prototype photo and when the layout is set, or replaced with something completely different! 

 

Yes, a plan is most surely a good idea though! 

 

The Sketchup drawing looks excellent, looking forward to seeing the model progress.

[aardvark]

1 hour ago, Signaller69 said:

 

Looking forward to seeing the model progress.

 

Me too

[aardvark]

The drive to revisit the engine shed drawing was caused by work on the Banff station building, where I discovered that I had windows in the wrong position only after I added the windows.

 

The station building is a wonderfully eccentric construction, having been modified several times over its lifetime. It's more a granite edifice grafted onto a wooden train shed than your stereotypical Skaledale building-on-a-platform.  Here's a couple of views of my work with their corresponding prototype photos.

 

From NE:

 

 

 

From NNW:

 

 

 

From WSW:

 

 

 

Some of you might be rolling your eyes at the effort invested.  I know that there are many with years of experience who could take this on with not much more than a sketch on the back of a napkin (the late Allan Downes for example).  I don't have that experience, and am happy to invest time here if that reduces the number of ways that I can screw things up later.

 

Think 3 times, measure twice, cut once.

 

As you can see, working in SketchUp allows me to easily rotate the drawing to different viewpoints to validate against photos.  It also means I should be able to cut complex parts without trial-and-error by transferring the dimensions from drawing to foamboard.

 

Here's one of the station building walls.

 

[aardvark]

Well, it's been a while - quite a while - but I've finally completed mockups of the major buildings at Banff, and am able to put them into situ on the baseboards and have a good hard look at the trackplan.

 

I took much more trouble in making the mockups than many would bother to.  I've not built anything like this before, not even when I was in short pants, so I took this as an opportunity to learn from my mistakes on something that I'm destined to throw away anyway.  During this process, I managed to pick up a second-hand copy of Paul Bason's Scratch Built Buildings (one of the BRM books), which I would highly recommend to anyone consider building their own. A highly education read.

 

Anyway, the proof is in the photos.  I'm delighted with the result: the buildings seem to sit fine and don't overpopulate or overpower the scene; the station platform height looks right; the goods and engine shed openings look about right; and the truncated bothy behind the engine shed is not particularly noticeable.  Missing from the mockup are the signal box (SB), water tower (WT) a goods loading platform beside the 5-plank wagon in front of the engine shed, and hills at the back.

 

Others with more experience might see problems where I don't, so do let me know.

 

View from the street frontage (east) of the station, showing the station building and goods shed:

 

Wagons waiting to be unload in the goods shed, while a ex-LMS non-corridor composite awaits at the arrivals platform (not shown):

 

The western and highly photographed end of the station building, with a BR Standard Class 4 Tank 2-6-4T pulling a Thompson brake out of the departures platform ,heading for Tillynaught:

 

Westwards view from the end of the station platform (not shown), towards the engine shed. The signal box and goods loading platform would be on the right:

 

Helicopter view of the station area. The sweeping plywood area will (one day) be a road, while the lower plywood the north sea.  Must have been cold on the platforms:

 

Helicopter view of  the engine shed:

 

View of the engine shed from the west, with a Ivatt 2MT hanging around:

 

View from the western end of the goods loading platform (not shown), back towards the station building:

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[Signaller69]

Fantastic! I'm sure the mock-ups will pay dividends when it comes to building the full versions, especially the Station Building/ Train Shed with its unusual shape and roof line.

 

Martyn.

[aardvark]

3 hours ago, Signaller69 said:

Fantastic! I'm sure the mock-ups will pay dividends when it comes to building the full versions, especially the Station Building/ Train Shed with its unusual shape and roof line.

 

Martyn.

 

Thanks Martyn: I think so too. The practice of building the mockups has given me confidence to build the real thing, and in themselves will be happily take position on the layout until such time as it gets replaced.

 

As for the station building, it is unique.  I found nothing suitable in the Skaledale or Bilteezi ranges .  I suspect the station building was extended at least three times, a process that would have been hampered by the limited space.

[Signaller69]

6 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

As for the station building, it is unique.  I found nothing suitable in the Skaledale or Bilteezi ranges . 

 

Yes, I can see where that may have been an issue!

[aardvark]

The next phase will be laying track , and the first step is removing the gubbins from the Peco turnouts.

 

My heart was definitely in my throat as I laid into the first (expensive) turnout with a Stanley knife, but the results are well worthwhile.

 

 

The spring mechanism is staying in place, at least for now.  My plan is to use servos to (eventually) operate the points, and I've read somewhere that the spring is beneficial.  I forget exactly why - perhaps in allowing the servo to be de-energised after action.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[aardvark]

Step #2: removal of the factory-installed bond wires under the electrofrog turnouts, and installation of others to correctly power the switch rails from the corresponding stock rails.  This is well documented elsewhere.

 

I did a trial-assembly of the Banff yard crossover*, using two long unifrog turnouts and a length of C&L flexitrack.

 

 

It seems like I need to trim the end of the final diverging sleeper on the turnout to allow the first flexitrack sleeper to get anywhere near the fishplate#.  I was surprised by this, as I don't think I've seen this mentioned anywhere in my 4 years of reading.  Perhaps it's just "normal" and therefore not worthy of mention.

 

 

* It's not really a crossover in the true meaning of the word, but it does look and operate exactly like one.

 

# Delighted to find that SL114 fishplates fit C&L flexitrack. In fact, they're a little bit loose, but nothing a squeeze with pliers can't cure.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images.

[aardvark]

STOP PRESS:  I was mistaken there never was a good loop. See:

  

2 minutes ago, aardvark said:

Back in February, I thought I had a lightbulb moment, but I was wrong ...

 

 

I had a 4am lightbulb moment this morning.

 

The Banff trackplan has a “missing” turnout.  The OS maps all show a turnout in front of the signal box, but the photos all show no turnout.  Initially, I presumed that the maps showed what was intended to be built, while the photos showed what was built.  Eventually, I found one photo which showed the turnout in position, which meant that it had been removed at some point in time.  I was incredulous that anybody would be bothered with such a regressive change at such a minor terminus.  I now suppose that the turnout was the victim of the war effort for one of the world wars: even the backwater of Banff would not have escaped such austerities.

 

Without the turnout, operations could only have occurred using gravity shunting.  This can be modelled without particular difficulty using Black Beetle power bogies for the carriages and FlyShunters for wagons, thereby making all scheduled train services a consist movement.  I’m not allergic to this level of modelling, but it’s nowhere near the top of my to-do list.  In the meantime, almost every movement would be accompanied with a Hand of God movement to effect the gravity shunting.  Hardly attractive.

 

Restoring the turnout gives the trackplan a run-around loop.  I have no idea whether the loop was ever used for this purpose, but it sure would be add significantly to the “play” value of the model.

 

The lightbulb moment was that with the restoration of the turnout, I’d wind up with a shunting layout – albeit a large one - not unlike the Timesaver that was my initial choice for this first layout.

 

With that realization, I’m happy to add the turnout back into the layout, even though it wasn’t actually there in the 1950’s.  We all make compromises.  I’m happy with this one.

 

And, perhaps, in time, after I’ve had a chance to play with the Beetles and FlyShunters and gotten them to work, I can lift the extraneous turnout, just like in the prototype ...

Edited September 16, 2020 by aardvark
added STOP PRESS

[aardvark]

Step #3: droppers.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[aardvark]

Step #4: paint track

 

Actually, I've just painted the sleeper base - and only one half length of track at that in order to remind myself of the process.  What do you think of the resultant colour?

 

 

Since I have a portable layout on separate baseboards, my plan is to lay the track first, and later to paint the rail sides with the baseboard mounted on its side such that the rail sides are horizontal.

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[clachnaharry]

There are a couple of problems with restoring the missing point and using it to form a run round loop. It is in the goods yard and is of no real use for running round passenger trains, and using the majority of track length in the goods yard as a loop severly curtails the already limited siding space.

 

Re the arrival platform, although it was signalled as such, I don't think I have ever seen a picture of a passenger train arriving at it, although I have seen a picture of a loco in the train shed, suggesting that it had arrived at the "departure" platform.  I have seen picture of wagons in it, which suggested it was used as a goods loading or mileage siding.

Edited April 2, 2020 by clachnaharry

[aardvark]

On 02/04/2020 at 21:36, clachnaharry said:

There are a couple of problems with restoring the missing point and using it to form a run round loop. It is in the goods yard and is of no real use for running round passenger trains, and using the majority of track length in the goods yard as a loop severly curtails the already limited siding space.

 

Re the arrival platform, although it was signalled as such, I don't think I have ever seen a picture of a passenger train arriving at it, although I have seen a picture of a loco in the train shed, suggesting that it had arrived at the "departure" platform.  I have seen picture of wagons in it, which suggested it was used as a goods loading or mileage siding.

 

Many thanks for your input.  All of your points are correct.

• Restoration of the "missing" turnout does nothing for passenger trains.
• My photo collection includes a scant few where wagons appear to have been stored on the approach to the goods shed.  Since this would have blocked access to the goods shed itself, I can only presume that this would have been a temporary arrangement.  Adding the turnout won't make the operation of the model any worse, but will allow some additional variation.
• I've also searched my photos for any showing carriages on the northern platform, erroneously called "arrival" by me.  There is a platform there, but perhaps its existence harks back to when this siding ran through the station and down to the harbour for fish traffic.  It probably makes sense for the southern platform to be used for both passenger arrivals and departures as it would have afforded shelter to the passengers.

Interestingly, there is one photo suggesting a departing service from the northern platform: https://hmrs.org.uk/-abb256--2-cars-of-branch-train-leaving--end-view-locomotive-shed--thompson-suburban-coaches-in-lined-maroon-.html

 

Edited June 5, 2022 by aardvark
fixed HMRS link

[clachnaharry]

8 hours ago, aardvark said:

 

Interestingly, there is one photo suggesting a departing service from the northern platform: https://hmrs.org.uk/2-cars-of-branch-train-leaving-end-view-locomotive-shed-thompson-suburban-coaches-in-lined-maroon.html.

 

I wonder what the reason for that move was - points failure perhaps, or attaching a van to the rear of the train?