Castle Aching

[Compound2632]

That barrow is not going to roll away as it has two feet on the ground. It does, though, look as if the platform surface slopes towards the rails, so they need to be careful with any four-wheeled trollies. The accident your are thinking of is presumably that at Wellingborough in 1898. 

[Nearholmer]

Some 40 years ago, the train I was commuting to work on hit a string of trolleys on a barrow crossing. Passing through station at c60mph, derailed the first two of four cars, which keeled over at about 30 degrees and narrowly missed the pier of a bridge just beyond the station. All a of a ‘but for the grace of God’ incident, in that we didn’t hit the heavy tow-tractor, or the bridge, and although foul of the opposite road nothing approached before the line could be blocked.

 

There were a lot of railway staff on the train, including the Regional CCE, who had us organised in moments, lines blocked, passengers evacuated, fast lines reopened to traffic under speed restriction etc.

 

The guard was very shaken, and lost his glasses, but no other injuries. I was deputed to meet the emergency services and brief them, and the fire brigade created a great risk to themselves by piling onto the track needlessly without checking the block or the isolation, not waiting for orders from their officer, who I’d briefed that they weren’t actually needed. Brave, and dead-keen to do their bit, but a tad adrenaline-driven!

[Edwardian]

12 hours ago, Annie said:

I have at various times tried to represent scenes from Peter Barnfield's cards, but so far have been largely unsuccessful.

 

 

I love those pictures.  Somewhere I recall the background to them was explained?

 

That looks for all the world like a Beyer of the 'Ilfracombe Goods' ilk..  Lovely. 

 

9 hours ago, sem34090 said:

We have two of those at Medstead & Four Marks Station playing the part of the archetypal country station cat (They're located in different positions). Sometimes people think they're real and can be most alarmed -at first- when I knock on its back and it sounds hollow. Or pick it up as one unit and bash it against the fire extinguisher cabinet which one of them sits on...

 

We're dreadfully professional, really! But occasional silliness doesn't go amiss, provided it doesn't affect the safety of ourselves, passengers, anyone else or the trains.

 

So for those wanting railway content I provide a shot from Medstead & Four Marks and some from my more recent volunteering activities;

(Not my photo, but I am in it!)

Oh and this is, it would seem, my next project, although it's yet to be officially confirmed;

 

More magical pictures, Sem. For which, thanks. That be-caped uniform you carry off rather well.

 

12 hours ago, Schooner said:

Any excuse to practise  Treated as a quick planning exercise, no pride involved so please feel equally free to ignore/discard/tear to pieces but perhaps it will spark something useful. All thoughts welcome.

 

 

Not much artifice involved and erring on the side of caution for lengths: 90mm per wagon, 5 wagons per train, >2 spots per siding, >2 wagons per spot (although filling to capacity would look off). 120mm allowed for loco, which I assume will be a W4 and so no longer than a wagon, to give an element of future-proofing

 

On wagon turntables, they needn't preclude locomotive shunting and have scenic value that could merit their inclusion. If need be I'm sure a narrative reason for their being strong enough to run a locomotive over could be found, and turning them into fully working bits of kit could always be done later... On the docks I've found them a handy excuse for running usefully long headshunts into places they really don't belong  

 

@Annie Those are just glorious, thank you!

 

 

 

Very helpful food for thought.  A number incorporate Webbcompound's very helpful suggestion of connecting the shed road to the loop, I notice.  Thank you very much for that.

 

I will, when I have a spare moment, dig out some Peco turnout templates and play around.

 

Except for the plain track on the field-side exit, all the track will be inset.  This lends itself to using Peco Code 75 'OO/HO' chaired flat-bottom rail as all the problematic aspects of that will be hidden. A feck of a lot easier than CA's track!

[Annie]

11 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

I love those pictures.  Somewhere I recall the background to them was explained?

 

That looks for all the world like a Beyer of the 'Ilfracombe Goods' ilk..  Lovely. 

 

Yes that was my thought too that the engine looked very like an 'Ilfracombe Goods'.

 

The description from the card.

 

M11 RAGWORT ROAD - East Whimshire Railway

A visitor from London has got off the train from Whimchester at Ragwort Road, expecting the station to be alongside said road, with a choice of hansom cabs outside waiting to take him on to his destination. This wayside station is however unstaffed, although the helpful train guard is pointing out the muddy track that eventually leads to the road, actually a stony track, which after a couple of rather tedious miles brings you to the hamlet of Ragwort. From the look of the theatening sky, the visitor is in for a soggy tramp.

[NeilHB]

Peter Barnfield’s Whimshire series of illustrations are truly delightful. There’s a selection of them on the Titfield Thunderbolt bookshop site for perusal:

 

https://www.titfield.co.uk/Barnfield/PB_main.htm

 

And a few more on Peter’s own website:

 

https://www.peterbarnfield.co.uk/whimshire.htm
 

This one in particular made me think of Edwardian’s latest musings on the biscuit factory:

https://www.titfield.co.uk/Barnfield/Find_card.php?xfer_text=W61&xfer_type=W&xfer_page=1

 

 

[Edwardian]

Back to biscuit factories!

[Donw]

That postcard puts me in mind of Ronaldsway Station on the Isle of Man. It was a while back returning from a business trip. I declined an offer of a lift to the airport determined instead to get another ride on the train. I seem to remember just a platform with fields to the far side through a gate as as you walk you travel on a short walk but easily 100 years or more from a Victorian/Edwardian railway to a modern airport. I should have turned back really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronaldsway_railway_station

 

they seem to have smartened it up a bit.

 

Don

[Nearholmer]

It was simply a station name board and a gap in a tall hedge until upgraded to have an actual platform. I found it weird passing through the hole in the hedge, emerging into a field of cabbages, on the other side of which was the airport terminal building. It had been raining, and it felt odd arriving at an airport with muddy shoes too.

[Edwardian]

Castles in the air ....

 

Well, this one I've had for a while, so a build is in the offing ....

 

 

More a folly, I fancy.

 

Stephen has Metcalfe's factory range of buildings.  Today, in the latest RM, I saw another very attractive Metcalfe series, the component parts of which can similarly combined in interesting ways ....

 

 

These Metcalfe castle sections, and the new Town End Ccottage (https://www.metcalfemodels.com/), have a rather inspired-by-Alan-Downes look to my eyes. 

 

 

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

More a folly, I fancy.

Just the thing for a retro 1960s GWR layout to hide an awkward corner in the backscene.

 

It's a pity they don't do any 'O' gauge kits, but I suppose there wouldn't be much demand for them.

 

 

[Donw]

6 hours ago, Annie said:

Just the thing for a retro 1960s GWR layout to hide an awkward corner in the backscene.

 

It's a pity they don't do any 'O' gauge kits, but I suppose there wouldn't be much demand for them.

 

 

 

It may be the card would not be strong enough for 0 gauge and would need to be fixed onto some backing. That may have been problematic for them. Also the lack of texture may be seen as a problem. 

However Purple Bob seems to do 7mm well.

 

Don

[Annie]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

However Purple Bob seems to do 7mm well.

Yes he does.

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Donw said:

It may be the card would not be strong enough for 0 gauge

 

Their 0 scale kits had multi-layered construction and seemed to be pretty solid - I've got a goods shed stashed, ready to make, but decided I preferred painted wood to printed card. There is something about Metcalfe's printed bricks that I don't like when compared with old-style card kits, possibly to do with the use of computer graphics rather than hand-painting of the masters.

 

My reading is that they dropped 0 because the volume sales weren't there, although now I have a feeling that if they opted for small buildings, suitable for shunting plank layouts, it might be, given how r-t-r plastic ) has taken-off in the past five years.

[Annie]

11 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

There is something about Metcalfe's printed bricks that I don't like when compared with old-style card kits, possibly to do with the use of computer graphics rather than hand-painting of the masters.

When I'm doing texture work I avoid using computer generated materials and surfaces because they are always disappointing.  I mostly use photos as a reference, but not to use directly as a texture as I draw all over them by hand to make them how i want.

[Edwardian]

I suspect that Annie was referring to the Scalescenes Folly/Castle.

 

 

 

If so, there is both good news and (very slightly) bad.

 

The good news is that this is a down-loadable kit for home printing and can be scaled to O. 

 

Provided that you have an A3 printer*,  or access to a local print shop, printing off an enlarged version for O gauge should not be a problem. 

 

What you do is buy the OO kit and, for O scale (British 1:43 ), enlarge to 176% of the original.

 

If in a back corner as proposed, however, I suggest that the O gauge modeller, while probably wanting a size larger than the OO kit, need not necessary want full size for their scale.  A bit of forced perspective sometimes helps.  For instance, Castle Aching's Norman keep scales out at around TT/3mm scale. 

 

The slightly bad news is that the kit is designed to work with certain thicknesses of card (upon which the paper 'cover layers' are glued).  Those tend to be, in OO, 1mm and 2mm thicknesses.  As I work with 1.5mm thick mount board, whenever I've tried a straight build of a Scalescenes kit, I've found that a problem.  Usually I'm just hi-jacking kit textures for some bodge effort, so not a problem, but I had to buy some 1mm sheets to make the kits go together better.  My point is that you would want some trial and error to find the best thickness to use in 7mm scale**. 

 

With some kits, you can build in more relief features, particularly for larger scales. I'm not sure the Folly/Castle needs it.  I love the look of Purple Bob kits; they seem to look fine, and, remember, both Peter Smith (Saltdean, amongst other triumphs) and esteemed brother Northroader, use printed 'texture' sheets to stunning effect in O.

 

Let card buildings into your life! 

 

*Scalescenes advise that their sheets are closer to A2 when scaled up to O.

 

** On this point, I note Scalescenes advise: 

 

You'll also need to roughly double the recommended card thickness which may require you to print some of the base layers twice. Another alternative would be to use foam core board which is usually available in about 4mm and would be much easier to cut out.

[Annie]

I have done some small 'O' card kits in the past by reinforcing them with 1mm ply and I did some printed card buildings for wargaming using the same method.   It makes for a lightweight, but very strong building, - which in the case of wargaming buildings that get tossed into boxes and carried off to club meetings every fortnight as mine did was a definite advantage.

 

The castle/folly kit appealed to me from having seen something much the same in the corner of various layouts featured in 1950s era copies of RM.  Usually they were GWR layouts, but not always.

 

I'm not really ready to start making anything as yet though.

[CKPR]

On 14/11/2020 at 00:08, Annie said:

I have at various times tried to represent scenes from Peter Barnfield's cards, but so far have been largely unsuccessful.

 

 

There's more than a touch of the Bishops Castle Rly in these paintings - said line is just over the hills from our house in lovely Richards Castle and you may have noticed some BCR rolling stock on my old work bench over on the 'Mealsgate' thread. That was before we moved down here and realised that 'Hobbiton' aka Bishops Castle is a very strange and rather unsettling place and my enthusiasm for modelling the BCR quickly disappeared. Good job job we never bought that Grade II listed and dry rot ridden house opposite the town hall...

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by CKPR

[Compound2632]

13 hours ago, Edwardian said:

These Metcalfe castle sections, and the new Town End Ccottage (https://www.metcalfemodels.com/), have a rather inspired-by-Alan-Downes look to my eyes. 

 

 

I've detected creeping Pecoisation of the Metcalfe range* - not so true to their Yorkshire roots as once they were (with some very Midlandish buildings several of which are sadly no longer in the catalogue). There's even some blatant Great Western stuff - pandering to the benighted masses. Is it possible to be moved by a card kit? I was by Nick Metcalfe's write up for the village school which is based on the school in Airton where the teacher encouraged his love of drawing and design.

 

As James noted re. my factory buildings, the drawback with these die-cut kits, like the good old Superquick kits, is the exposed corners which not only reveal bare card but also lack the sharpness of a real building corner. The former can be dealt with moderately effectively with a felt pen - works well for brickwork (also around window and door openings); less satisfactory on stonework. I'm not ashamed to say that I've built a good few Metcalfe kits; they're relaxing to do and are reasonably presentable but I'm not really such a one for scenery as James.

 

*They did reach a distribution deal a while back, I believe.

[rocor]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

 

 

What you do is buy the OO kit and, for O scale (British 1:43 ), enlarge to 176% of the original.

 

 

 

I have been struggling to prevent myself succumbing to this act of pedantry, but now find myself overcome (sigh!).

 

British O scale at 7mm to the foot, defined as the ratio of an irrational number, it is usually rounded to 1:43.5. Therefore 175% would be a more appropriate enlargement of the original.

 

Sorry.

[Edwardian]

6 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

I have been struggling to prevent myself succumbing to this act of pedantry, but now find myself overcome (sigh!).

 

British O scale at 7mm to the foot, defined as the ratio of an irrational number, it is usually rounded to 1:43.5. Therefore 175% would be a more appropriate enlargement of the original.

 

Sorry.

 

Not a scale I model in, or am, therefore, familiar with, so happy to learn!

[Nearholmer]

It’s British 0, not O.

 

Pedantic enough?

[rocor]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It’s British 0, not O.

 

Pedantic enough?

 

f course it is, as historically it is gauge 'Zero'.  Bearing that in mind, it is quite entertaining to visit the 'Gauge O Guild' website.

[Compound2632]

I've never understood why anybody bothers to quote the dimensionless ratios, since these usually introduce error* (4 mm/ft, usually given as 1:76, is exactly 1:76.2 but as mentioned, 7 mm/ft is 1: 43.542 857 ...). The conversion factors (which are of course just ratios in disguise) are what one uses in practice. 

 

*Pace @Regularity and other S scale enthusiasts - but which is more useful in practice: 1:64 or ³⁄₁₆ in/ft?

[Caley Jim]

And 2FS is 1:152.4.  The ratios are very handy if you can get the prototype dimensions in metric, as was given to me for the formerly Dunblane (now bridge of Dun) footbridge I recently built.   I recall an article in MRJ a few years back on detailing some GWR (sorry, I'll go and wash my mouth out) loco where the author had asked Didcot Museum to take some measurements for him off their preserved example.  These they gave him in metric, which he then converted to imperial before converting in turn to 4mm scale!  Why??    Dividing them by 76.2 in the first place would have been so much simpler.

 

Jim

[rocor]

19 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

I've never understood why anybody bothers to quote the dimensionless ratios, since these usually introduce error* (4 mm/ft, usually given as 1:76, is exactly 1:76.2 but as mentioned, 7 mm/ft is 1: 43.542 857 ...). The conversion factors (which are of course just ratios in disguise) are what one uses in practice. 

 

*Pace @Regularity and other S scale enthusiasts - but which is more useful in practice: 1:64 or ³⁄₁₆ in/ft?

 

Model railways are unusual in comparison to many other genre of model making in that many of the common scales are using units from totally different measuring systems for the prototype and the model. This results in scale ratios where the consequent is not a natural number. Definitive answers to how this strange state came to be, seem to be lost in the mist of time. The use of ratios to specify a scale seem natural in the sense, that although you have been building your model at 3/16" to the foot, if asked what scale it is, your reply of 1/64th, immediately tells the enquirer that is the fraction of the full size prototype it is.