Jump to content
 

GWR + MR Rural Canal Wharf, c.1900


Schooner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Morning all,

 

As you may remember from my previous ramblings here, I'm not short of grand plans but have no time in which to progress them. However, I might get a window this Winter in which to do some actual modelling. This being so, I'd like to do all possible planning for a little layout ahead of time, so that if there is a chance I can get straight into it and hopefully achieve something before the window closes! If I may, I'd like to offer the plan so far to seek advice from m'learned RMWebbers.

 

Desires:

  • An achievable, workable layout. My personal balance of enjoyment sits in the 'model railway' area - trainsets are fun, dioramas are pretty - I would be aiming for something between the two.
  • By achievable I mean perhaps 100hrs or so to an up and running, scenic'd ('tho maybe not detailed and definately not 'finished'!) layout. If the planning is good enough, this could be exclusive of time spent on buildings.
  • By workable, I mean the layout is to have purpose - locomotives should have a job to do, and the operator is to act the loco-driver and do it. It shouldn't rely on a traverser for fundamental moves.
  • The two mean, I think, a goods/industrial setting. Ideally some light/rural industry around the turn of the (last) century in the South West somewhere, with some water involved somehow. Personal taste which won't suit all, but I've a weakness for that sort of carry on :) 

 

Assumptions:

  • c. <1500mm x <500mm ? Space is not a particular concern, but time is. This seems enough space for a slice of 'model railway' without giving too much scope for mission-creep.
  • Inglenook... - for play value. Specifically @Harlequin's take on it, which allows a very smooth looking layout, using PECO long points, in a modest space. Open to suggestions.
  • ...with an excuse - a shunting puzzle is great for playing, but how to disguise it to make for a convincing model? How to tell a story with it? I thought a canal wharf of the edge of a growing ex-market town might provide an answer:

 

775481817_InglefordWharf.jpg.abeb2d029c21a7d4b013596d61fe7979.jpg

 

Squares = 305mm; 1400mm x 500mm total.

 

The boat shed footprint is generous, but is the building too dominant? The idea is that it splits the layout into the 'old feel', declining and run down, half on the left - a more traditional canal wharf, albeit with siding - from the 'modern feel', new and developing, on the right with it's rail-served transhipment depot. I'm not wild about it being square with the baseboard edge, but rotating it leads to too much space being taken up with water. I suppose angling the baseboard edge provides the ';third way'...?

 

The inglenook puzzle can be played 'properly' (random), to sort wagons into the three sidings by load (? full - empty - special), or to specific locations by type.

 

Inspiration comes particularly from the wharves at Hungerford, Bradford on Avon and Tavistock for feel and specific buildings - this sort of thing:

phoca_thumb_l_18750000%20ws%20parry%20cdphoca_thumb_l_1896%20hungerford%20wharf. wharf1905.jpg?cb=4b3a189b45061aa7b2aa131 

 

...but with plenty of license. It'd be nice if the canal reflected the Kennet and Avon - I've ties to it, and the barges are distinctive :) The depot is a bit of a stretch, and I've yet to find anything much in 12":1' but it looks and 'works' better than plain sidings. I thought depot rather than industry to allow for greater wagon variety, but I'd welcome other options.

 

Again, open to alternative suggestions on all the but that's the layout plan so far.

 

Construction:

  • A layout this size, although intended only for home use and not exhibitions, must in my mind be portable. Lightweight and rigid will be the watchwords
  • Baseboard - foamboard. Shalfleet Quay has me convinced by the pros of 5mm; Farthing stables of 10mm. Either way, it seems quick and easy (comparatively) to work, and the end result looks up to scratch. What are the cons that I don't know about?
  • Neoprene underlay for the lot, as I'll have just made a sounding box. On which, Copydex rather than PVA-water-dishsoap for any ballasting etc, to avoid rigidity and sound transmission, right?
  • Peco Bullhead, code 75, trackwork. Long electrofrog points.
  • Modelling compound (eg sculptamold) for landforming, on top of XPS if required.
  • DAS for surfacing, probably including the setts of the depot yard...unless I do the setts in foam ahead of time. Either way, with about a square foot to cover I'll be trying both roller and the paintbrush-ferule techniques. 
  • Buildings will, I think, have to be easily removable to keep storage flexibility. The footprint would be set into the DAS surfacing to help locate the building and help it look set into, rather than placed on top of, the ground. I was wonder about a thin bead of a butyl bedding compound, or similar, to act as adhesive and fill any small gaps between DAS and building. Has anyone ever tried similar? 
  • I think the headshunt/wharf siding should be inset in some way to suggest cart traffic used to be heavy. Inside rail etc would be too much, looking like a larger more modern facility, but perhaps dirt infill behind timber baulks (no inside rail) would strike the right balance? Or just earth infill up above chair height?
  • Ash ballast for the Depot side, up to sleeper height...although I like the look of inset track with the four-foot exposed, so might investigate options in that direction.
  • Lane over the bridge on the LHS to be unmetalled to contrast with the road on the RHS - I'll have to refresh myself on some of the available techniques for each.
  • Water - most likely one of the Noch epoxy products,  painted underwater details (eg. weeds, might inset a cheeky fish or two), then topped with PVA for texture and allow a barge to be convincingy set 'into' rather than 'onto' the water.

 

Wiring, controls etc

  • Although keen to explore DCC, for this layout it would seem to add a lot of cost for little benefit. A fair assumption? Also, the one loco I own is DC and the tiny industrials I've got an eye on don't exactly come DCC-fitted. 
  • With only five sections of track and three points, and with smooth reliable shunting a major requirement, I'd be looking to feed power to each section.
  • Point motors...Tortoise seem pretty ubiquitous, but little experience of them or alternatives and advice would be appreciated. See the final point.
  • I do have a Gaugemaster DS tucked away from my last layout years ago. Assuming it's in working order (it's been boxed in the warm and dry, so I'm hopeful), this should be enough for all intended power needs. Well, it's massively overkill for intended power needs!
  • I can't see there's much need for signalling etc - the road crossing will be protected by flag, given the period - or switch panel so I think that's it...?
  • On switches, I love the idea of having mechanical point levers (best demonstrated, to my knowledge, at Plumpton Correction: the mechanical levers on Plumpton Green operate Tortoise motors) but assume it would add to rather than reduce workload, even for a simple layout like this?

 

Scenics

  • I've yet to find any ready-to-place buildings that match what I have in mind - pointers would be most welcome - so I'm expecting to bash and scratch most of the structures. If I get the planning stage down this could be done ahead of time, to some extent at least, which is why feedback will be so important to making a success of this :) 
  • Backscenes - I was thinking just a very neutral skyscape. Maybe greater sense of place could be achieved with a painted backscene...a village off to the left, beyond the the bridge, the warehouses fleshed out back left, a distant factory back right, and the depot fleshed out to the right...? This is also something that could be worked on before layout-construction proper...or as a seperate little project at a later date.
  • In terms of setting, I'd like to keep it fairly loose to be able to run industrial, GWR and LSWR without things looking too jarring. Period we've mentioned, c.1900; perhaps a bright Spring morning - it's rained overnight and there are still puddles, but it's now sunny, the trees are coming into leaf and the first wildflowers are starting to bloom. Should make it an uplifting place to spend some time during the Winter!

 

Operation and stock

  • Erm...it's a classic 5-3-3 Inglenook!
  • All I need is a loco and eight trucks, for which there's space on the layout so no fiddling required. I already have a locomotive (LSWR 0-6-0ST, perhaps not ideal but I couldn't resist), so that just leaves the trucks... Ha! As the roster inevitably expands, I'll stretch to three PECO locolifts as cassettes (one for each siding if need be), then expect to make up some 500mm cassettes to take a whole train of wagons. Any pitfalls to look out for?

 

I think those are the answers to the questions I know about. What else do I need to come up with answers for?

 

Thanks for your time, and your help. Really hoping this one comes to something, so all input will be much appreciated and much valued.

 

Schooner

Edited by Schooner
Spelling! Correction re Plumpton Green. Title change attempt...
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to get home for the weekend, which enabled a (very rough and very rushed) mock up to be smashed together. Now, it's not beautiful and to be honest I'm embarrassed to post it...but if it's here then I'll always be able to check it and continue to use it to guide the plan. It's already resulted in some changes, so was a useful exercise. Enjoyable too, in a mad-couple-of-hours-to-get-something-to-photograph kind of way :)

 

20201122_175833.jpg.dc02e01ebb2b1a067bfc38d27d481323.jpg

 

20201122_180518.jpg.218aecc756af5c4693d1bfb8682e4a19.jpg

 

20201122_180113.jpg.be4404c39ce8db47d26b00a2d5a4802d.jpg

 

Another look at real wharves against the mock up lead to some changes in building placement:

101048837_Screenshot2020-11-24182903.jpg.419f108902a0fe6a35fd4867ce2c1e86.jpg

 

1427088912_Screenshot2020-11-24184439.jpg.4e9827c98dba95b55fc9b5c82d4e6477.jpg

 

1881282150_Screenshot2020-11-24183109.jpg.2c62ee6a99996463bd4ff452185bf3fa.jpg

 

Which I think feels better, as best I can tell from the images. Building footprints are now based on some available models for the Warehouse (these two), Stables and Pub. Not ideal on many levels, but it's good getting some real dimensions to work from. 

 

The hunt for boat shed and depot examples on which to base model is still on-going, but

 1782949942_phoca_thumb_l_18750000wsparrycdvcanalandwharf.jpg.b53c05eece51c6346072c51fa8dba863.jpg and Canal_Warehouse_by_the_Calder_and_Hebble_Navigation_(8221979192).jpg.0dc302c684100734d3888eb0ccf7b925.jpg

is prime for the boat shed. They're a bit big though. Dimensions can be got from the period 25" OS map (timber shed, first pic), hosted by the NLS. Although this might be an interesting alternative: 

image.jpg.145d753b87b3cb8bb0fb2c3175be3d5e.jpg 

 

...or even sack it off entirely, and have a wharfside warehouse, thus:

824125201_Canal_Warehouse_off_Cooper_Bridge_Road_Clifton_-_geograph_org.uk_-_316891.jpg.deb23892b261c99c3e28379e664489fc.jpg

 

For the bridge, I'm thinking along the lines of the distant bridge for the amount of 'hump':

gw-13-2_med.jpeg.50536c8fa0cefb1fa91644e7de5ce9cc.jpeg

 

I've been having another quick look at electronics, and now think I might go to DCC Concepts wholesale (Cobalt motors, S-levers etc) but there's plenty more to learn there.

 

Plenty more to learn everywhere, if you've anything to add I'd love to hear it.

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
35 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Another look at real wharves against the mock up lead to some changes in building placement:

101048837_Screenshot2020-11-24182903.jpg.419f108902a0fe6a35fd4867ce2c1e86.jpg

 

I like the track layout and the general setting, but many of the elements look very straight and square.  This tends to emphasise the edges of the layout rather than suggesting the rest of the world.  Perhaps print out the track plan only and try sketching the other features freehand?

 

I would suggest moving the boat shed to the left and slightly back and then playing with its orientation and the line of the canal (which again doesn't need to be straight) to get a pleasing effect.  The shed is too dominant in its current central position imo.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I like the plan......

 

Is the access from the left or right or both sides ?
 

I would agree that moving the building to the left and perhaps use a scenic block.

 

It will save having a bridge (with a bus on) 

 

Terry 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2020 at 19:47, Flying Pig said:

...but many of the elements look very straight and square.

I shouldn't have been lazy and posted in a rush. Thanks for identifying the problem, the reason and a fix - it was a very helpful response :) 

 

On 25/11/2020 at 22:10, ELTEL said:

Is the access from the left or right or both sides ?

Free standing, but I think of it with the 'front' at the bottom of the screencaps although even in SCARM it's fun to check out viewing angles from the other sides :) I like the bridge as a way of framing the scene, and helping to give the layout a sense of place - with no 'off stage' to hide, I'm feeling fairly ambivalent about view blockers. The depot on the right is there to disguise the Inglenook trackplan more than anything!

 

Looking at foamboard, it seems 30" x 40" (762mm x 1016mm) would be the way to go. This would suggest a board size of 20" x 60" (508mm x 1524mm), which enables a litle more room to br eath:

 

619773397_Screenshot2020-11-27023300.jpg.9d743070fc96285aacfae05927b4d813.jpg

(I would aim to soften that long straight edge of the wharf with a different edging where the setts start, and perhaps a section under repair to break the monotony up a bit)

 

A useful prototype for the trans-shed can be found at Marple: 

43_B02_Canal_Warehouse_Macc_Canal.jpg.fc3703c8ec861900830017a810510113.jpg

 

Taking it's footprint from the c.1900 OS Map, I find that the LCUT Warehouse isn't too far off - c.20mm too narrow, length pretty good - and might form a useful base for the building.

 

For the goods depot, this In The Greenwood kit is really very close to what I had in mind. I'd need to double it by using both ends to make it double-track etc, but again a very useful base.

 

The Weighing Machine is of no fixed provenance, but dimensions were taken from the Wills (possibly) kit. 

 

The extra space also allowed a quick look at an alternative approach...

2086046963_Screenshot2020-11-27023359.jpg.735649687ccf243d05bd7831b30d53dc.jpg...where the scene  isn't split, but is an open view of the whole wharf. Interest now comes from the Gauging Dock, based on that at Bradford on Avon. Scratch, or is there a barn model (or two) that could be bashed into an approximation?

img_2192.jpg.337d5b930ccf5bee6418d9c43e272910.jpg

 

Although much more open, each view of the layout (old vs. new) is sub-framed by a wharf crane, based on the restored model at Burbage perhaps:

11_burbage-wharf-side-on_0f1906ed.jpg

 

Still the bridge to work out, but some nice inspiration came up in the net from tonight's trawl of the internet:

Brimscombe_bridge.jpg.ec76c05d6b0190f1f9f9292c53d329fd.jpg

 

Layout design by Google search, sure I'm not the only one...!

 

Thanks for stopping by,

 

Schooner

 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea.

 

The final one of the pictures you show above illustrates something that seems to me fundamental in capturing the character of earlier canal work: the ‘organic’, curvaceous nature of the structures, and the use of soft local materials.

 

These early canals were drawing on real vernacular tradition, as in farm buildings, rather than being ‘mechanised industrial’, so they are distinctively different from the slightly later ‘all straight lines and hard engineering brick’ canals that often crop-up on model railways.

 

A possible excuse-scenario is to assume that your railway has its roots in a tram road, converted to an edge railway, rather than being a purely new railway, something like the Shipston on Stour branch , which I cite because it makes the point that such things weren’t confined to the north of the country. The local branch line where I live now had a fascinating goods yard at the terminus, because the yard was a canal basin filled-in, again all very organic and vernacular looking. Stratford Upon Avon even now, after a century of gentrification, is a cracking place to see the lovely ‘hobbity’ character of the structures at a canal-tram road interface. Look at this for a characterful scene https://www.warwickshirerailways.com/gwr/gwrmt3114.htm

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 25/11/2020 at 22:10, ELTEL said:

I like the plan......

 

Is the access from the left or right or both sides ?
 

I would agree that moving the building to the left and perhaps use a scenic block.

 

It will save having a bridge (with a bus on) 

 

Terry 

 

 

Hello again.

 

What I meant by access from left or right was ?
 

Is access to the fiddle yard under the proposed bridge on the left or from the right over the road ?
 

I very much like the latest plan.

 

Terry 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a good project with lots of potential, I shall watch with interest.

 

Foamboard is an interesting material to work with, you definitely need to clad it in some sort of Ply if you're planning on moving the layout through around, as it's not very knock resistant. Make sure you use PVA and a hot glue gun for the joints, I've gone back in a few places where I just used hot glue during construction to add a bit more strength to the joints.

 

Also be mindful of if you're going to have an integral backscene or not, on Shalfleet Quay I've only got a backscene on two sides, which means they layout doesn't really act like a 'box' when lifting or moving it, so I had to go back and put a few more supports in some areas underneath to reduce deflection. The stuff is very easy to work with, so there's no need to scrimp on under-baseboard supports and bracing. I'd probably use 10mm stuff if I was to do it again, purely because it's so light, and you might as well use a material that's thicker and stronger to start with, but 5mm was totally fine for Shalfleet Quay. 

 

I would also consider putting down some sort of base for the track bed, possibly ply or something that wouldn't warp as this would add more strength and give something less shock absorbing for SEEP point motors to mount to, if you're using them. This would also mean that it would be easier to take up and put down track should your plans change halfway through. Having said this, I don't think it's essential to do this at all. 

Chris Nevard's photos on constructing Catcott Burtle are also very useful for baseboard construction. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Hi Schooner,

 

Canals and Railways - a magical combination!

 

It would be great to see my take on the Inglenook come to life in this form - but whatever trackplan you use will be wonderful.

 

Since you say that space is not a limiting factor but you've chosen a size that is "do-able", how about increasing the space very slightly to allow the plan to breathe a bit more?

 

To expand: Most people are limited by space and that imposes the biggest compromise on their layout designs, frequently with trackwork very close to the boundaries making it difficult to disguise the edges of the scene. You have the luxury of space and you could, if you wanted, add some space to the ends while leaving the railway plan the same size, so that the scene is no longer defined by the railway - it becomes a more naturally framed scene with a railway in it. You would have more room for road vehicles to turn and move around the yard, more room for buildings at the sides to be fully realised, more opportunity to hide the FY exit. And the extra cost on your time and effort shouldn't be that great - some of the increased area would just be more earth texture and more setts.

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 27/11/2020 at 08:49, Nearholmer said:

 

These early canals were drawing on real vernacular tradition, as in farm buildings, rather than being ‘mechanised industrial’, so they are distinctively different from the slightly later ‘all straight lines and hard engineering brick’ canals that often crop-up on model railways

Exactly this @Nearholmer, exactly this. I think that contrast would give the layout a little story to tell...in fact, it is the same little story of a slightly larger plan, which will be, I think, familar to you:

Screenshot 2020-11-01 150437.jpg

 

c. 1810: Bucolic bliss in the area of Ingleford (obviously) village disrupted by the construction of canal linking industrial hinterland with tidal river and city. Road access to local market town now via humpback bridge [scenic break to traverser]

c.1850: Canal bought by the GWR, siding put in on short spur from hub town [to the left on the layout]. Broad gauge.

c.1880: Canal run into the ground, extra sidings built on the wharf for stock storage [kickback sidings, standard gauge, original spur siding still baulk]. Main line extended and doubled to the growing manufacturing town [to the right on the layout] that Ingleford has now become.

c.1890: All the real-world pressures that lead to the real Brentford dock are at play, and a new dock with direct river access is built by the GWR [top half of layout]. Symbiotic relationship sees Ingleford boom.

c.1910: The scene as modelled: Canal good for building materials and the occasional coal load only; wharf now an empty stock storage yard for the nearby dock; sense of a lost way of life, empty stables, derelict warehouse, rotting barge etc. The access is a facing connection off the busy commuter line, itself running under a brand-new rail extension [lower left scenic break], probably on an embankment, from the rapidly growing town (and large rail yards) nearby. To contrast with the new dock [top of the layout], which is all trackwork and mod-cons, powered cranes and transhipment sheds.

 

...stepping-stone two...

 

:)

 

On 27/11/2020 at 09:10, ELTEL said:

Is access to the fiddle yard under the proposed bridge on the left or from the right over the road ?

Ah, I see, sorry! No fiddle yard, so no fiddle yard access, as such - the idea would be to use Peco loco lifts (initially, expanding to full-train cassettes as stock increases) fed on to the track on the right, over the road.

 

On 27/11/2020 at 09:22, LBSC123 said:

I'd probably use 10mm stuff if I was to do it again...

Thanks for the excellent info, that's really good to know and all noted, thank you. I had almost pulled the trigger on the order before posting before - glad I waited :)

 

On 27/11/2020 at 10:58, Harlequin said:

...a more naturally framed scene with a railway in it.

A worthy aim! Neophyte attempts, but I would love to be able to capture that feel.

 

I'm really wary of mission-creep with this little project...maximum space for location flexibility is c.1800mm x 1000mm...trying c.1500mm x 600mm, which doesn't bring a sea-change but does help I think...?

1995262806_Screenshot2020-11-30205751.jpg.4368489a3129348d6a79f634ffb3f2b7.jpg or

1830965505_Screenshot2020-11-30205947.jpg.195df46c8d3e6492ac3ee2a852f1b0c8.jpg

(I'm still not sure which approach I prefer)

 

Perhaps an alternative is to mock up a larger area, and then work out where to 'draw' the baseboard edges...?

377294281_Screenshot2020-11-30175223.jpg.634cdf6352841eb7c3cf471b18dcb1d1.jpg

 

Excuse the clumisness, done in a hurry!

 

Thank you all for the insights so far, all helpful and much appreciated :)

 

Schooner

 

ps. Foamboard and track ordered; electrics and wiring almost ready to pull the trigger; shortlist for 8 LSWR wagons being worked on

 

pps. The reason for this bizarre approach is that I work at sea, so the usual (and beneficial) slow and steady approach, learning as I go, isn't an option. To be able to achieve something in the month-or-so's leave I should have coming up, I'll need to have everything in place and ready to go. Tricky for a (to all intents) first timer, so the support and expertise of RMWeb will be essential to make a success of it :) Thanks again.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
36 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Perhaps an alternative is to mock up a larger area, and then work out where to 'draw' the baseboard edges...?

 

Nice, but I still feel you're limited by the abilities of the software you are using - too many straight lines.  Some of the edges, particularly the older roads and bits of the canal away from wharfs and docks, should be free to curve and meander.  This is part of the hobbityness @Nearholmer was referring to.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Canals? Don’t talk to me about canals they’re a right pain in the ar$e (mainly because I haven’t got a clue what I’m doing :lol:)

 

I’m not qualified to offer any advice but personally I like this one

 

1 hour ago, Schooner said:

 

1995262806_Screenshot2020-11-30205751.jpg.4368489a3129348d6a79f634ffb3f2b7.jpg 

 


I don’t know why, maybe it’s the simplicity (less is more kinda thing)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/11/2020 at 21:59, Flying Pig said:

Some of the edges, particularly the older roads and bits of the canal away from wharfs and docks, should be free to curve and meander.

 

Yup, absolutely (within the bounds imposed by baseboard size). Thanks for blaming the software! You'll have to indulge me and soften the curves in your minds eye until SCARM applies spline logic to its scenery tools as well as it does flex-track... :) 

 

On 30/11/2020 at 22:52, chuffinghell said:

I’m not qualified to offer any advice...

Few more so I'm afraid, Chuffers - your layout build (and indeed, you) has provided constant inspiration since your project began. I often cross-check my thinking against how you tackled problems on Warren (start here for anyone that might have missed it), knowing full well your approach is far better than my own would be if left to my own devices!

 

Your thoughts are much appreciated and much valued...not least because I agree :) Following your canalage with glee!

 

Buildings

The trackplan is now set, and track ordered. Baseboard size is down to a margin narrow enough to have ordered materials. Aesthetic is settling down, although I'm still on the hunt for prototypes that really 'click'. This being so, I've spent a bit of time looking up buildings again. Although not perfect by any mean I think I've now got to a useful shortlist of good-enough buildings. I'd love to be able to commit to more kit-bashing and scratch-building, but don't feel confident in my ability to do a better job than the list below in the time I'll have (from left to right):

 

179396695_Screenshot2020-12-02004421.jpg.4d408014188b2779df01902f1fcadda7.jpg

 

The bridge (scatch, starting from the Scalescenes canal bridge as a nice templating tool but as a guide only) ending in the Bachmann Pendon Barn (with the cart doors open towards the top of the layout, windows looking out over the wharf), taking inspiration from the bridge photo posted previously.

s-l1600.jpg

 

'Old Wharf' warehouses: two or three of the various Bachmann Scenecraft Water Mills, something like...

315020169_Screenshot2020-12-01211003.jpg.551349d1f8988a21d95872bf566db127.jpg

...that. Thematically they should be as above, oldest on the left as you look at the layout, but I think they may fit better if reversed. They would need repainted (and brickwork replaced with stone*) to blend them all together, which would help.

 

*I like the look of the Slater's stone courses, but would welcome recommendations.

 

Boat shed/waterside warehouse: scratch based on 

 

Canal_Warehouse_off_Cooper_Bridge_Road,_Clifton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_316891.jpg

which I like because it's a) small, b) obviously 'old' by its proportions, and so belongs to the 'old wharf', but c) is brick so  [no it isn't!] leads on to the right-hand side 'new wharf' buildings [this still holds true]. I would also borrow the idea of a low canal-edge on one side (old), higher on the other (new). The ground would slope up gently from the low edge to the level of the railway siding, 6mm or so. See also the previous bridge photo for canal side height.

 

Stables: The Westbury Stables kit, from Timber Tracks

stableblock_12.jpg

I'm not a fan of the price, but it's a good fit for the sort of thing I have in mind, and the very Railway (GWR in this case) style immediately signs the different feel of the 'new wharf'.

 

New Warehouses: JSModel's Small Low Relief Stone Mill/Warehosue and the Scenecraft Grain Warehouse.

597166514_Screenshot2020-12-01215954.jpg.3c7e9a6523b9fd018938759fb1d9a5e8.jpg

Although the above looks weird, the building on the left is, apparently, 175mm high and the one on the right only 138mm high. I would aim to reduce the dominance of the left building by cutting away a floor from the JSM kit if need be. 

 

Finally, in the back corner would be a pub (can't have a wharf without one!), in this case the low-relief offering from (again) Scenecraft:

1565896559442863.jpg

 

In front of which is the depot itself, to be built from a butchered In the Greenwood GS001 Goods Shed

GS001.jpg 

Suitably chopped about to give twin-track entry. There would be a canopy between this and the back wall of the site, to help mask The Edge of the World!

 

The other current plan, with boathouse:

255921727_Screenshot2020-12-02004552.jpg.cde4bfd8e85c982f4b4e019ad7055d9f.jpg

With your eyes half-closed, can you see the buildings in place? What do you reckon?

 

Although there's more on the board, I think it looks more like a real wharf which someone's driven a railway into - it's certainly bigger than many-real world wharves, which I think helps suggest it belongs to a town big enough to support the rail depot...? Another 50mm depth to push the 'old warehouses' back from the siding, or another 100mm more length on the right would be helpful, but not essential.

 

I'm thinking of it with the warehouse rather than boatshed as the trans-ship shed purely because it would be easier to cut more of the wharf away to make a dock than it would be to rebuild it, so I can start from here and see how it looks for real. It was also more common, and I know one shouldn't model the exception to the rule...

 

It's worth noting that the barges are not narrowboats - a more typical 75'ish x 12'ish - to support the sense of place. There would also only be one or two on the layout**, I think, the above is just to show the three distinct quays are all long enough to take a boat :) 

 

**At a time, that is. I'm starting to think that changing the barges (and their condition) would be a good way to shift the layout in space and time for stock variety...!

 

Thanks for stopping by, please let me know what your experience says about it all - I'm relying on it...

 

Cheers and gone, 

 

Schooner

 

ps. @ELTEL No bus, I promise...

GainhamShireHorses52015-2-1140x665.jpg

 

:)

 

pps. Ground signals, from Wizard

gs001.jpg

 

pps. A reminder to look into Whaley Bridge  re operations. Also, the mills-as-warehouses and the grain warehouses behind, in LSWR territory, is making me think the Wey Navigation would be a good place to look for inspiration.

Edited by Schooner
There's always something
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't made the connection with the Brentford Plan - dim!

 

The building selection looks very promising, although I do wonder if you risk mixing vernaculars that reflect different geologies in one or two cases.

 

The location of the tranship shed: might you consider moving it left or right, off the centre-line and onto a 'third', for compositional reasons?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/12/2020 at 10:22, Nearholmer said:

A: The building selection looks very promising, although I do wonder if you risk mixing vernaculars that reflect different geologies in one or two cases.

 

B: The location of the tranship shed: might you consider moving it left or right, off the centre-line and onto a 'third', for compositional reasons?

A: Thank you for the vote of confidence :) You're quite right, definitely more promising than perfect. It's a risk I'm hoping to be able to mitigate with paint brush and stone/brick sheets...within the realms of possibility, or asking to much of the models and my fledgling modelling? Very open to suggestions for alternatives (either models or approaches!)

 

B: Considered, and indeed carried out...but I keep running into the conflict at the centre (ha!) of the layout's premise: it is two scenes in one location. To move the shed into a more pleasing position when viewing the layout as a whole is to upset the balance of the two scenes. Every time I try to find the shed a new home I get a funny feeling...

f145c26eaa373dc2cfb66b628d35c6a3.png

...which suggests there's a more fundamental issue with the layout concept...?

 

I think it's why my preference is for the boat-shed version. I think a quiet boat-shed can hold more visual interest than a busy warehouse, so I can maintain a fairly neutral tone but have a little diorama that can stand on its own and justify that central location. Work in progress!

 

And now, the news

Baseboard thoughts sketched out:

1324325681_Screenshot2020-12-03192605.jpg.00cec8ee3f689f9789cafe1de088a597.jpg

1573245881_Screenshot2020-12-03192447.jpg.f8aca022f9ddc5953e0585d4229761d8.jpg

1209156711_Screenshot2020-12-03192422.jpg.b965277b71e872a190d2b96474bb6b9d.jpg

 

All in 10mm foamboard. Overkill, or massively overkill?

 

I went for the doubled edges because the board (1016mm) is shorter than the layout (now c.1600mm), so will have to be joined. Doing a quick time:cost:quality calculation, this way I can just butt-join them (quick and easy) but have the joints at opposite ends for the 'inner' and 'outer' boards to avoid weak spots. The cost is in the extra material used and weight, but I think I can afford both, as it were. Proposed overall depth is 115mm, which should be enough for Cobalt point motors etc to be installed under the board.

 

Fully cross-braced for the same reasons really - it won't break the 'weight budget'; there's plenty of board (I think I'll need three, I've got ten :) ) and the more stable the structure the better...? The braces themselves would be webbed at the junction, but I couldn't find a tool to give me 3D triangles*!

 

I think the underlay, which will cover the whole board (apart from the canal!), would also sit inside the lip formed by the 'outer' edging...?

 

On the canal, the plan is simply to cut the edges and braces down c.20mm where relevant, and place a lower baseboard with the vertical gap edged in foamboard and modelling clay as required (see Shalfleet Quay).

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm slowly developing an opinion on control requirements, so there's no allowance for motors or wiring etc yet. Is it reasonable to plan for these to be attached directly to the underside of the baseboard (on a foamboard/ply pad if need be), with cutouts in the braces for wiring looms to pass through?

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

 

*This is the first 3D model I've knocked up, so unfamilar with what's available and how to best use it. Only using Paint 3D, and I didn't spend time fettling, but pleased to have turned out a useful result which I hope explains my thinking. Looking ahead, today I also downloaded Blender which will be essential to a future project...but first things first!

Edited by Schooner
Forgot to reply to Mr Nearholmer. Forgot to finish.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night I meant to make a start on the electronics. Component footprint and wiring needs to be worked out, so I can reality-check baseboard construction and place an order.

 

This happened instead:

424064751_Screenshot2020-12-08115040.jpg.c5156209c584c1884072530e0a987c4f.jpg

1600mmx610mm. Flipped for a change of perspective to check the design, and to work better in proposed space. Extra length at the LHS to give a cheeky bit of 'on scene' storage and mask the edge of the baseboard a little better.

 

3D:

2044185074_Screenshot2020-12-08120252.jpg.bfa268d4cf97be44f011b8b8913f009c.jpg

1780105363_Screenshot2020-12-08120316.jpg.d970498d5d6b484dca0b45af7e8d7675.jpg

 

Intended viewpoint:

1065578710_Screenshot2020-12-08120437.jpg.e1bfae9ea6a882043833a593dfda2123.jpg

1143803197_Screenshot2020-12-08120458.jpg.8c6f242aa003692580836e355ca97b81.jpg

 

 

Critique please!

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner

  • Like 1
  • Craftsmanship/clever 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good.

 

I always design layouts with FYs to have the FY on the left when viewed from the front, which feels natural to me, whereas a FY on the right feels wrong. I've often wondered whether left-handed people have the opposite bias/instinct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

302098189_Screenshot2020-12-16012007.jpg.4b499188ea049ef87c809bfdd475122e.jpg

 

Is the canal edge now too fussy? Is a lump of corrugated metal the size of the depot going to be too large?

 

The seed was planted at the very start of the project, by this photo:

https://www.alamy.com/manchester-road-canal-wharf-burnley-image234926402.html

 

with more direct inspiration for the dept coming from the Midland Railway depot at Victoria Dock, London

wide-variety-of-goods-were-shipped-from-

and the GNR's secondary depot at Poplar Dock, London

hydraulic-crane-in-the-great-northern-ra

 

there-were-many-warehouses-at-the-north-

...for which I have drawings.

 

Is it all a bit much? Is it too urban-industrial? Your thoughts would be appreciated. I like the idea because it breaks up the edge of the layout with the greater depth, excusing the lack of backscene to allow views through/within, and modelling the inside of the depot would be a good skills test...and...I just think that Midland shed is great (*spits three times, turns about widdershins*)

 

NB. Although the location matches that on the layout plan (unintentional, suggesting the plan has something going for it), I would not be modelling the crane outside the Midland shed. Not a suitable protoype, I feel.

 

I also came across this, which has too much valuable detail not to lodge here for safekeeping:

people-seating-on-canal-boats-london-lat

 

Th-th-th-that's all, folks!

Edited by Schooner
Forgot to say why I liked the idea in the first place. Added an NB
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Schooner said:

Is it too urban-industrial?

 

A danger, I'd say. 

 

Mind you, some expansion of trade must have occurred at your wharf, probably c1890, to justify the railway and that 'modern' stable block, so it does need  a c1890 warehouse, I guess.

 

If you can find pictures, the London end of the GUCC, and all the complex of canals and rivers around Watford might offer useful inspiration, because that continued to be developed until surprisingly recently - the mainline of the canal was heavily re-engineered in the 1920s, for instance.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/12/2020 at 08:40, Nearholmer said:

...which has to be a cliche...

Argh it's tempting! Thank you yet again for an interesting and useful suggestion. I've had a quick gander, but more study required as I keep getting distracted by old mills when I should be looking for new warehouses :) 

http://www.hertfordshire-genealogy.co.uk/images/!/b/berkhamsted/berkhamsted-the-mill-valentine-39155 medium.jpg 

 

Recent SCARMage leaves the plan largely untouched, but tries out the timber/corrugated metal shed:

944793475_Screenshot2020-12-21225419.jpg.f0adf48ab2330c83e8dd0a070f508026.jpg

651685771_Screenshot2020-12-21230803.jpg.0415f571e0ea814c4d944e3346656a82.jpg

I'm not totally sold, but will keep the option open (which, incidentally, the shed should also be at the 'back' as in the lower image - SCARM/operator limitations). The idea has legs, I just don't know if I'd be able to pull it off! Wierd geometry due to the offset with the basboard (see plan, below).

 

The building in the left foreground (upper pic) and centre background (lower pic) is now planned to be Petite Property's Blackberry Farm, rear aspect presented to the layout:

Blackberry_Farm_Made_Up_Painted_76th.jpg

There's room for it, it can be dolled up as the back of a pub (if that still appeals) opening on to an alley between it and the 'new' warehouses with which it would contrast. Worth pointing out that the finish is modeller's choice with Petite Properties kits, but I'd be aiming for something like the above. Does this conclude the building hunt? I'm not in love with the selection, but I've not come across anything more suitable. Work would be required to tie them all together to one geology and make the chronology clear, but I think that would be do-able. Opinions invited on building concept and selection before I start putting in purchase orders after Christmas :) 

 

To recap these buildings also include:

Bachmann Grain Warehouse

JSM Small Warehouse

Timber Tracks Stable

a mix of Bachmann (water) mills

and Pendon Barn

bridge and two foreground sheds/warehouses scratch-built, unless a viable kit-bash/RTP option is found. Prototypes to be confirmed

layed  out as in the below:

587712585_Screenshot2020-12-22001653.jpg.f129879e49ec5101ceb8689d1a743a2a.jpg

 

The extra length added to the LH of the layout is paying off - more room to mess about  breath, and it's nice to displace the trans-ship shed a bit. Others might find it a terrible waste of space, not even a loop to run around, but I think it will suit my aims nicely.

 

The white-boxed letters are a first stab at vehicle choices:

A: Water cart, driver talking to flagman

B: Farm wagon (semi-derelict and overgrown)

C: eg. Brewer's dray something nice and lofty, loaded and on the move

D: Timber carriage (empty)

E: Farmer's float (taking a break from loading sacks)

F: Dray (empty, unattended)

 

Horses for the brewer's dray C on the back road (x2), farmers float at the 'old wharf' warehouses (x1) and at the trough outside the wharf gate (x1) only. A quiet moment on a well-used but antiquated wharf. Changes anticipated, input very welcome.

 

Thanks to the kind assistance of RMWebbers here the general gist of the layout has been honed reflecting the very useful information shared.

 

Thanks to those helpful RMWebbers here, I've been able to put together a second-attempt wiring diagram and place an order for parts. It includes 3 x servos motors, driving dynamic scenery (yard rail gate, crane and warehouse windvane?) to give me a bit more wiring experience, liven the place up a bit, and act as point-set indicators...although as they are switched by S-Levers hopefully the points won't be a surprise! I like the idea in principle, but it is gimicky and runs the risk of being more trouble than it's worth. Advice sought, please.

 

I think that's it for now, thanks for stopping by

 

:) 

 

Edit: Ah, I've just realised that a) the barn is a very handed building and b) I've flipped the layout since placing it. Initial impulse is to keep the barn, rotate it so the doors open to the canal and turn it into a boathouse of some sort...slipway to one door, punt or rowing boat outside the other...something like that?

Edited by Schooner
Minor idiocy. Twice.
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

It's a lovely concept but the position of the trans-shipment shed is a worry...

 

Imagine you are a photographer of the period, setting up your huge mahogany camera on it's tripod and about to insert a glass plate. If your particular interest was trans-shipment sheds you might compose the scene like that. :wink_mini:

 

However, if you were interested in the railway, the canal, the people going about their business or the wider yard scene I think you would move the camera so that the trans-shipment shed did not dominate the centre of the photo.

 

How about replacing the corrugated depot with the trans-shipment shed? That would open up the scene to make all the other elements more visible, would give the scene a more homogeneous palette of materials and the more solid trans-shipment shed would be a better view blocker to hide the join between the model and the backscene on the left. (That assumes that the trans-shipment shed would become railway oriented.) Or maybe just remove the trans-shipment shed leaving the dock wall in place?

 

Maybe put a smaller structure in the foreground of the scene (not in the middle) for interest and to partially obscure railway movements - something made of corrugated iron?

 

(P.S. Is the loading bay siding long enough for 5 wagons?)

 

Edited by Harlequin
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get the easy bit out the way:

 

15 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Is the loading bay siding long enough for 5 wagons?

Long and short, yes, I think so :) 

 

More helpfully, the siding useful length is 555mm as it includes the 'branch line' points. This allows 90mm clearance from the frog of the 'headshunt' points. The bay straight is 340mm (290mm usable, allowing 90mm from the 'branch' points frog), so three wagons can stand alongside the platform there whilst the five wagons marshalled for the puzzle are taken off-stage*. For information, the middle siding is c.450mm useable length, lowest siding 460mm useable. Headshunt c.415mm. In puzzle mode, there's a five-wagon siding, in arrival/departure mode, there's a five-wagon headshunt. It really is a cunning take on the Inglenook, I'm glad you thought of it!

 

*Although if the loading bay were full of three wagons it would be a bit of a dance: 2 wagons pulled into headshunt and then propelled to branch road. Remaining 3 wagons pulled into headshunt and then propelled to couple with the previous 2. Train of 5 wagons pulled into headshunt to clear gate. Gate opens, train propels down the branch and away to glory  storage. This might end up being quite a rare occurance as there's no particular need to take stock on/off scene, and the train can be marshalled in the long bay siding in the first place!

 

Okay, on with the show. It's not going to be the most exciting, sorry, so I will try to be as concise as I can with subjects I find hard to articulate clearly. Thanks for coming with, here goes!

 

@Harlequin, @Nearholmer , thank you both. The point has been made consistently since the layout adopted this form and is well noted, honest! I suppose it's struck me less because from inception I've been thinking of the layout as two seperate scenes split by a central view-blocker. Old wharf to the right, with a siding for rail service; new wharf on the right  other right left with a true rail depot:

Angles.jpg.cc6d11b03920deae9b30bbe8947df7cb.jpg

Focused viewing angle of 60 degrees, flanked by 30 degrees of more peripheral vision either side. Not gospel, or even Google, just the numbers I've got in my head! I think I've been able to persist with this thinking because it's so easy to set up such a view when planning on a computer screen, making it correspondingly easy to forget about the presentation of the whole (despite the regular reminders!). 

 

Of course, this is not how it would work in reality and I shall make more of an effort to get my head out of the computer. Fault exposed and corrected!

 

To run a cross-check on how we got here, the assumptions that made me want a building of sort in that kind of place are as follows:

 

  •  It looks and feels right (well supported by pootling round old OS maps of canal networks I had in mind, biased towards the Kennet and Avon) to have a wharf of c.100ftx150ft, next to a bridge, and surrounded by warehousing or canal dependant industry and acomodation.
  • It would provide background to up-close 'detail' scenes, views and photos, particularly from the ends of the layout (eg from the bridge, where I think an elderly gent and maybe his grandson will be passing a minute or two watching the goings-on below) or through the rail depot.
  • That kind of boathouse, enclosing a dock, seemed to have more visual interest than another warehouse with several photos from accross the canal network showing various options.
  • In being a more interesting thing, it could justify a near-central position without lots of fuss being made over it (no cameos etc, no activity, maybe even no people visible); meaning that real thing of visual interest would be the shunting going on behind.

I stand by those in principle, but it may well be that I've started off down the wrong path. Coming up with related alternatives still feels like

f145c26eaa373dc2cfb66b628d35c6a3.png

which does suggest that I'm trying to find answers to the wrong question!

 

Regardless, some quick'n'dirty sketches for the central bit of the model:

 

A:

A1.jpg.98c39c9556bd1c2488d0c00e054056df.jpg

  A2.jpg.b587bf1ac3f1b7b75692a20b3031af63.jpg

 

No change, to set the baseline.

 

B:

B1.jpg.e791c85944b39890b0866531b00abfbd.jpgB2.jpg.8823c1b60831018acaa3d560af3148ed.jpg

Dock shortened to minimum that would take a full-length barge; auto-roof removed from the trans-shed (which gives huge eaves, thus mis-representing the footprint); trans-shed shifted to the RH end of the dock.

 

C:

E1.jpg.e0c389e76937c3f014dc2ca98ef426a4.jpgE2.jpg.8ba60ad905c9a1ba5cf4d56f0f0856c6.jpg

As before, but shed moved left.

 

Inspiration for the trans-shed in A, B and C: 

phoca_thumb_l_tl_2019-08-24_hx2a4068cr64 Canal_Warehouse_off_Cooper_Bridge_Road,_

The former for setting and general arrangement, the latter for details.

 

D:

C1.jpg.af887927f55f063ad41b5d864c025fd1.jpgC2.jpg.b4e93e48bf8eccff59b47a4476da2ae6.jpg

Shed rotated 90 degress (tho' not straight on to the viewer/operator.

 

Inspiration:

image.jpg6023033_88a20e85.jpg 

 

E:

D1.jpg.85ff0a8d598cc1cc66890a43995a0772.jpgD2.jpg.81f2d3e5065a2346257d1733a8845d27.jpg

Statement crane!

 

Inspiration

11_burbage-wharf-profile_c532275b.jpg 

There's another I now can't find, but it had a large timber operators shelter which would make it more substantial still. Worth mentioning that if not making a point about the crane then a standard goods yard crane is what I have in mind.

 

Feel free to pick a favourite or tear all the above to shreds. It's all valuable information that will improve the end result, and it's all much appreciated :)

 

In other news, I wasn't planning a backscene...a grave mistake? If I were to have one, I would go Northroader-style and fully envelope the scene. Lovely and very effective, but does rather interfere with views along the layout which I was hoping to make a bit of a feature. The other factors that seem relevant are practical: the layout is likely to mostly be operated against a plain white (near as damnit) wall, giving a neutral backdrop, in a well-lit room so a backscene is not needed to block out the real world behind. No fiddle yard to hide either, with the layout working perfectly well with all stock (all eight wagons and one loco) staying on scene till I fancy a change, when loco lifts (initially, whole-train cassettes are planned) can be used. It also is also likely to be moved from time to time, which would be hindered by a permanent (there's the answer...) backscene...although might be useful in the other locations. Anyway, that's where I'm at with that at the moment!

 

It's very good of you all to keep supporting this project, I hope it gives some entertainment or interest in return! 

 

Cheers,

 

Schooner.

 

ps. Something that perhaps should have been in the previous post, but before a tin rail depot was contemplated my plan was to use this:

1_66ebb83b-7f3f-443d-b957-aa8f420e881a%51_66ebb83b-7f3f-443d-b957-aa8f420e881a.j 

suitable butchered to allow for twin-track etc. This would give more solid end to the layout, but with a canopy over the loading platform between shed and the road wall it will still allow for views along the layout too. Very much still in the mix.

 

pps. Sorry... :)

G1.jpg.2bb717cbf430438901fc28e5afa0f831.jpgG2.jpg.9a4c30b1905907d406f8a5b68693bbcc.jpgF1.jpg.ea81054177f390fa5761a673fe65afdf.jpgF2.jpg.f53d292d223d52500c673ebc91f8728a.jpgH1.jpg.e990cb10e426902531fddda9571e3e19.jpg

H2.jpg.b8dd103fd932948ffdbacb14f663c8b4.jpg

 

 

Very very rough, and based off an old version anyway, but good enough to give an impression

Edited by Schooner
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...