Beginners OO 1950's Banff

[St Enodoc]

1 hour ago, aardvark said:

Should I flatten the pitch of the roof?

In my opinion, no. Doing that would alter the whole appearance of the building (for the worse).

[ianathompson]

Unfortunately the goods shed appears to be a one -off.

 

The GNoSR had a standard design with usually two or three windows in the wall opposite the loading platform.

It is reasonably easy to estimate their size and I think one or two survive, still.

There might even be a kit for one, as I recall, but not in N gauge.

I must get around to making a replacement for my layout.

I made one and then damaged it,.

 

Ian T 

[Ben Alder]

Remind me again of the length of the visible bit of the layout, please. You might be able to compress the station building a bit if it is going to overwhelm the scene and the engine could shrink a bit. Its all a question of overall balance and it might be an idea to do quick paper or cardboard mock ups of different compromises to see how they fit in. That is what I did when designing the current layout. HTH.

 

[aardvark]

On 07/02/2022 at 12:42, Ben Alder said:

HTH.

 

Thanks Richard: all your input helps.

 

The overall layout is 4.8m long, so not short of space, plus some sort of fiddle yard (one day).  I made some card mock-ups of the major buildings a while ago.

 

I currently have two baseboards up in the garage - the "business" end which comprises the station building, and goods and engine sheds.  This is half the layout at 2.4x0.8m. One day there might be a gas works at the far end, but I haven't given that any thought other than to leave some space for it.

 

Here's some pics:

 

 

 

 

 

The other two boards don't have much in the way of buildings - just the Scotstoun cottages.

 

It looks ok to me, which is all I need for rule 1, but I admit to knowing nothing, so this statement doesn't count for much.  Having taken these photos, my one thought is to move the track behind the goods shed back a little bit.  I think I'll build the station building and its associated platforms, before doing anything rash.

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[26power]

Is the track, land etc. a scale copy of the real thing?  If so would seem sensible that the buildings are as well.  
 

Do I take it from the aerial picture with your drawing of the station building overlaid that your drawing, and therefore your mock up, of the station building “match” the size in the aerial photo?  If so it would seem logical that the goods shed also matches.  
 

Perhaps in the first instance post a message with that aerial photo and a shot of the model that tries to replicate it, perhaps just the middle of your three pictures above, so they can be compared side by side, so to speak.

 

Another option would be to do an alternative goods shed mock-up and try that in place and see which option you are happier with.  Especially if you just leave it there for a while and get accustomed to it.

 

In your first picture in your above message the goods shed in the distance looks small!

 

Hope this makes some sense, and helps!

[lmsforever]

I think the station building is overpowering the layout  the goods shed is okay have look a look at the stations on the many scottish layouts on here. Inspiration can be gained from the Pop Up Models website I use thier kits and find them to be excellent as models or a basis for scratch building,

[aardvark]

Thanks to everyone that responded or reacted.  A few questions to answer ...

 

  

19 hours ago, 26power said:

Is the track, land etc. a scale copy of the real thing?  If so would seem sensible that the buildings are as well.  
 

Do I take it from the aerial picture with your drawing of the station building overlaid that your drawing, and therefore your mock up, of the station building “match” the size in the aerial photo?  If so it would seem logical that the goods shed also matches. 

 

Yes, lacking experience or imagination, that's where I started.  I wound up reducing the distance between the station and the engine shed to create space for the gasworks, but otherwise, it's largely to scale.  Unfortunately, I lacked a decent image of the long side of the goods shed until a few days ago, so it was difficult to estimate it's length.

 

  

19 hours ago, 26power said:

Perhaps in the first instance post a message with that aerial photo and a shot of the model that tries to replicate it, perhaps just the middle of your three pictures above, so they can be compared side by side, so to speak.

 

Another option would be to do an alternative goods shed mock-up and try that in place and see which option you are happier with.  Especially if you just leave it there for a while and get accustomed to it.

  

All very good ideas.  Making a mock-up of the full-sized goods shed is do-able. I find that taking a photo that replicates an historic photo to be fiddly, but patience and practice will get me there.  I'll take photos of both the full-length and shorten versions and post them.

 

  

19 hours ago, 26power said:

In your first picture in your above message the goods shed in the distance looks small!

 

Yes, and the station building looks small too. Perhaps I should make them bigger

 

 

14 hours ago, lmsforever said:

I think the station building is overpowering the layout  the goods shed is okay.

 

I agree, but that's how Banff was.  The original station building, built in 1860 and extended several times, was to be the headquarters of the Banff, Portsoy & Strathisla Railway, and was to be a grand and impressive edifice.

 

Fortunately, the BP&SR illuminati saw fit to locate the station building at the back of my layout.

 

 

14 hours ago, lmsforever said:

have look a look at the stations on the many scottish layouts on here. Inspiration can be gained from the Pop Up Models website

 

Pop Up Designs has some products that are somewhat like the Banff prototypes.  Their Goods shed with sliding doors at 55'x 28' is somewhat like the Banff original, but lacking the double loading doors.  Moreover, their Highland villa has a passing resemblance to one end of the station building.

 

 

[26power]

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

Yes, and the station building looks small too. Perhaps I should make them bigger

 

[26power]

12 hours ago, aardvark said:

Yes, lacking experience or imagination, that's where I started.  I wound up reducing the distance between the station and the engine shed to create space for the gasworks, but otherwise, it's largely to scale.  Unfortunately, I lacked a decent image of the long side of the goods shed until a few days ago, so it was difficult to estimate it's length.

 

All very good ideas.  Making a mock-up of the full-sized goods shed is do-able. I find that taking a photo that replicates an historic photo to be fiddly, but patience and practice will get me there.  I'll take photos of both the full-length and shorten versions and post them.

 

Nothing wrong with your layout being pretty much a scale representation of the real thing.  It perhaps helps put the train size into context with surroundings.  It’s just an alternative to a layout where, say the train emerges from the fiddle yard/off scene area and immediately enters a station and stops.

 

Your current mock-ups look like a good start on making the actual buildings, so perhaps not time wasted.  It might be more frustrating/annoying etc. to get the goods shed well on “properly” only to then think it’s too small.  Or too big!

[aardvark]

31 minutes ago, 26power said:

Nothing wrong with your layout being pretty much a scale representation of the real thing.  It perhaps helps put the train size into context with surroundings.  It’s just an alternative to a layout where, say the train emerges from the fiddle yard/off scene area and immediately enters a station and stops.

  

Thanks, as I said, lack of experience and imagination: others would have done otherwise.  The other two boards are more "train in context", being largely without buildings. I've also had thoughts of a 5th board to give that fabled "train in landscape" thing, but am trying to focus myself to get something finished sometime before my dotage.  The fiddle-yard is in the same category.

 

Recently, it took me two days to cut, lay and paint 600x3mm of cork in-fill.  That's 900sqmm/day, which, given the size of the existing layout, means I should be finished in about 9½ years. Yeah, that feels about right

 

[aardvark]

Because it was quick to do and matched my attention span, here's the comparative photos with the short goods shed.

 

 

 

The alignment is spot-on, but perhaps you get the picture(s).

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[St Enodoc]

10 minutes ago, aardvark said:

Because it was quick to do and matched my attentions span, here's the comparative photos with the short good shed.

 

 

 

The alignment is spot-on, but perhaps you get the picture(s).

 

 

The goods shed and the station building seem to be pretty well in proportion to each other. Perhaps the absence of platforms is deceiving the eye.

[26power]

1 hour ago, aardvark said:

Because it was quick to do and matched my attention span, here's the comparative photos with the short goods shed.

 

 

 

The alignment is spot-on, but perhaps you get the picture(s).

 

 

The horizontal roof ridge of the model goods shed looks shorter than the real one.  On the real one it looks longer than the length where the roof is sloping down to the end wall.

 

The height of the model goods shed looks greater than the real one, or perhaps more the relationship with the station building height.  Somehow the station building looks proportionately taller in the real picture than the model one.  But the goods shed height is dictated by the need to get rail vehicles in, so that cannot be any less than you have it, I don't think?  Presumably, going by the road doors, the ground level needs to be built up in front of the good shed, so that could be misleading me.

 

You're seeing it in the flesh so can judge far better.  Probably one of those things you look at over a few days!

[26power]

2 hours ago, aardvark said:

  

Thanks, as I said, lack of experience and imagination: others would have done otherwise.  The other two boards are more "train in context", being largely without buildings. I've also had thoughts of a 5th board to give that fabled "train in landscape" thing, but am trying to focus myself to get something finished sometime before my dotage.  The fiddle-yard is in the same category.

 

Recently, it took me two days to cut, lay and paint 600x3mm of cork in-fill.  That's 900sqmm/day, which, given the size of the existing layout, means I should be finished in about 9½ years. Yeah, that feels about right

 

Your approach and available space, by the sounds of it, might help with emphasising the sparseness of the rural setting.  Different from a "busy" built up or urban area.  And your trains get a bit more of a run!

 

At least you are doing something constructive!

[westerhamstation]

Hi Aardvark, as 26power says, the Goods shed looks likes it needs to be a touch longer and a bit squatter. it is one of those things that only you can tell if its right. if it looks right for you it is right. All the the best Adrian.

[aardvark]

Well, I've spent a while looking at the photos too, and I'm not sure whether the model goods shed is too tall or not, not that there's anything I can do about it.  it's possible that there are a couple of several things distracting the eye:

• the lack of platform in front of the station building;
• the ground level in front of the goods shed;
• the dark colour* painted in the bottom of the goods shed; and
• the darkness of the closed and open doors.

The earlier model photos could have been taken from a higher angle, and using more telephoto, too.

 

And my model is probably wrong.

 

So here's photos of both the short and freshly-bodged long versions of the goods shed for comparison. I drew a second line on the goods shed marking where the dark colour* was painted to.

 

Short ...

 

 

... and long.

 

The long version is more like the photo, which is to be expected since it was dimensioned from the same photo, but I wonder how much difference it actually makes.  I doubt anyone seeing the layout with the small goods shed could say it was wrong without resorting to a photo.

 

* perhaps "dark brown" and not LNER Buckingham Green, based on the date of the photo (December 1928).

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by aardvark
manually restored lost images

[Tortuga]

Now I’ve seen it with the long goods shed and comparing it side by side with the short one and the photo, I’d say the long version looks better.

 

Having said that, the difference is only apparent when comparing the photo of the real thing and the short version. Without the photo of the real thing, I wouldn’t be able to tell you which version of the goods shed was used.

BUT

…you could say that about anything you didn’t have expert knowledge of. For example, if I showed you a model of LMS 4f 44399, would you know it had the wrong tender?

What are you trying to achieve? Are you trying for a “as-accurate-as-possible” model of Banff? If so and you’ve got space (which you have), I’d say go for the long version of the shed as it’s closest to the prototype. If not, then use whichever version you think fits the space best.

 

I think the “height difference” is due to the dark colour at the base of the shed: the eye registers the pale upper part as the building and ignores the darker bit as shadow, so it appears more squat than it is.

 

 

[Graham T]

I'd agree with everything that Tortuga said.  And I'd stress that it's your model, so do whichever version looks best to you!

[Graham T]

I'm applying lashings of Rule 1 at Chuffnell Regis

[westerhamstation]

Hi Aardvark, I think that your mock ups show a good deal of skill and that the finished buildings will be very good, its the old problem that we have of looking at one thing to long, and if you built either version in a few months you would not even notice whether it was to long to short or anything else. Best of luck with what ever version you decide on. All the best Adrian.

[scottystitch]

I think the long version is more correct. The height, for me looks right as well. Using the Vans in the photograph and on your mock-up as a reference, there appears to be no appreciable difference between the two building heights.

 

As others, and you, have suggested, it appears to be an optical delusion, based around the dark section of the goods shed wall.

 

Best

 

Scott.

[aardvark]

1 hour ago, Graham T said:

I'm applying lashings of Rule 1 at Chuffnell Regis

 

Many thanks for your comments. I've just started on your thread: I needed something new to read. 

[Graham T]

Well I hope you have a taste for ramblings and bodgery - Chuffnell Regis has plenty of both...

[Signaller69]

If it were me I would go with the long version of the Shed, on the grounds that, from previous experience, eventually it would irritate me knowing that it was too short, particularly when viewed with reference to the scale length Train Shed/Station Building behind, and having everything else scaled as accurately as possible, even if no-one else knew that it was short. It's the usual question of what you can live with? If you were tight on space it would be an understandable compromise, but if not I would say go long?

[26power]

As others have said, the longer version looks better.  Certainly to my eye, but that is partly basing it on comparison with the prototype picture.

 

As it's presumably neither here nor there which size you build I would go for the longer one.  Imagine the frustration if you had started building something and then a scale drawing turned up showing you were "out" in some dimension(s).

 

Hope the above and the discussion and input from others helps!