Scotland Street Diorama

[Dunalastair]

No, not a play on McCall Smith's 44 Scotland Street book series, but rather the start of a build project building on the 'Prototype Questions' thread at 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/182230-scotland-street-passenger-station-building-edinburgh-c1850/#comment-5318527

 

After my 'Canal Street' diorama, Scotland Street is at the other end of the rope worked tunnel, on the railway which linked Central Edinburgh with the Forth ferry port, until the NBR built a more circuitous but easier-to-work locomotive line and closed the station to passenger traffic in 1868. 

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

 

This is how the station was laid out in 1853, as recorded by the Ordnance Survey in an early town plan. By the time of the next edition in the 1870s, the site was recorded as an NBR goods station.

 

 

 

The goods yard layout looks rather strange, so here is my much simplified version as a 3D design render at 1:300 scale to fit on an A4 size footprint - the original is about 300' from tunnel to tunnel. Early days yet, but I hope the render shows that the idea is feasible as a static diorama.

 

It was the station building which I was looking for more information on, sadly without success. But at this scale, and knowing the footprint and that it would likely have a hipped roof, the main question is whether it would have been one storey or two. I am currently betting on one storey, like Trinity, but by contrast to the Canal Street terminal. If it had been two storeys, it might have made more sense to have had a first floor exit to street level, as at Canal Street.

 

 

 

[JimRead]

Hello Alistair,

 

There was a guy from Leamington MRC who made a layout of this, I met him at the show we both exhibited at that was at the Warwick/Leamington showground. I recall that he'd done lots of research and had pics on the layout as well. But alas I can't recall his name.

 

Cheers - Jim

 

 

[Wheatley]

The Leamington guy was Dave Elbourne, sadly the late Dave Elbourne apparently:

 

I can't work out whether it's Leander who's the custodian or he's quoting someone else. If Leamington & Warwick club still exists they may know what happened to Dave's research.  

 

His layout was in an 80s RM, I saw it at York show and it was stunning. I'm really looking forward to seeing Dunalistair's version  

[Dunalastair]

Yes, thankyou, I have come across references to that fine model, set a century later than I am thinking of. This photograph (not embeddable) shows the layout, which I gather was a combination of elements from Scotland Street (in the far centre of the image) and St Leonards on the south side of the city. 

 

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_edin_t/0_edinburgh_transport_railways_scotland_streetmodel_railway_layout_1400.jpg

at

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_edin_t/0_edinburgh_transport_railways_dy_scotland_street_coal_yard.htm

which also has another photograph of the coal yard.

 

On David's version, the passenger platform has a shelter on the east side. I am looking at a time when there was apparently a station building on the opposite (west) side. But he does represent those stairs down from the road.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Dunalastair

[Dunalastair]

A little more development of the 3D model, with a perspective render this time. The steps at the ends of the platforms represent early era practice - the BoT would not have been happy in later years. Another siding has been added, and the levels / perimeter developed a little further. Trinity was the model for the mysterious station building, albeit with one gable rather than two. 

 

 

I will need to start thinking about how I will partition this for printing, and indeed how much will be printed and how much will be modelled more conventionally,

[Dunalastair]

Still ducking the 'partition' question, I have scaled down the 1:148 carriages from Canal Street to suit the 1:300 Scotland Street scale. This has meant simplification and coarsening features and adding an underframe, but I'm still not sure if these will resolve.

 

 

This is the point at which the renders start to look more like a simulation than the basis of a 3D print.

[Dunalastair]

A very light edit of the smaller scale representation of a 'Planet' designed for my Edge Hill diorama (another rope worked incline) has produced a very crude 2-2-2 hopefully printable at 1:300 for Scotland Street. The chimney will need to be reduced in height to compensate for me having raised the boiler / smokebox assembly. Even then, the loco looks tall compared to the carriages, but at this period carriage heights were often much lower than the modern loading gauge.

 

 

The interesting and useful website Threadedinburgh which proved useful for my Canal Street model has just (25th October) produced a page on the Granton railway accident in 1860 which illustrates an early EL&GR loco in a familiar but useful print.

 

 

A second image of a train at Granton dates from twenty years later, though the equipment looks earlier:

 

 

https://threadinburgh.scot/2023/10/25/the-thread-about-the-granton-railway-disaster-of-1860-which-left-four-dead-and-a-family-bereft/

 

Digging into the accident report, the author provides the useful information that fly shunting was used to release the train engine at Granton. Despite the double crossovers, it seems likely that the same approach might have been taken at Scotland Street.

[Dunalastair]

More grossly simplified 1:300 rolling stock for Scotland Street. A modified version of the 1:148 brake wagons may stretch the limits of printability - some experiments may be needed. This in turn spawned a simple open wagon. The brake wagon showed that the carriages were sitting too low (no wheels!) so this has now been corrected, and the platforms raised a mm - always accepting that platform heights were lower in the early days.

 

 

I also tweaked the chimneys on the station building - now narrower and with mouldings. But perhaps they should be taller. It must soon be time for some trial prints ...

 

My main interest is narrow gauge, but the qualities of very early standard gauge before rolling stock and stations got bigger have much the same appeal.

[Dunalastair]

As a relief from all those 3D renders, here are some prints, fresh off the (filament) printer and yet to be cleaned up. Pound coin included for scale. This is a cruel shot, showing just how simplified these models have to be at this scale, but gives an idea of where I am.

 

 

At 1:300 these are small - but not quite as small as rolling stock for a previous 1:600 diorama, which were challenging to paint. Doubtless these will not be easy ...

[Dunalastair]

So, to go with the 1:300 rolling stock, here are the initial parts for the station, simply placed, corresponding to the renders shown earlier. Printed in six sections, with a seventh (the Scotland Street Tunnel portal) yet to come. The darker colour for the retaining wall / bank at the back corresponds to a change of filament reel having finished the previous material. 

 

 

As usual, I can see infelicities in the design, but it does mostly seem to be heading in the direction I had envisaged. It is more than a cenury and a half since this scene could have been witnessed at 1:1 scale.

[Dunalastair]

I wonder what colours EP&DR rolling stock was painted? Green seems the most likely for most early locomotives. The E&GR and the SCR had green locos - the latter a lighter green, with green carriages. 

 

 

Even the CR, famous for blue passenger engines, painted their goods locos green until Drummond changed that to black, according to Nock. The NBR, which took over the EP&DR stock, later used the well known brown-green but whether this was the original livery I'm not sure - the experts can presumably advise.

 

Unless somebody advises otherwise, then I'll probably settle for green. The wagons (and brake wagons) might well have been brown - but what about the carriages? Varnished wood? Maroon? Green?

 

The much simplified 2-2-2 modelled bears some resemblance to the Hawthorns 14-17 built for the E&NR. While some prints show a 2-2-2 on the Granton run, the SLS tome suggests that a more varied selection of early locos ran from Canal Street - more likely an 0-4-2 or even an 0-4-0 (tender) e.g. No 30. 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Dunalastair

[Dunalastair]

Following some discussion on the prototype thread, the next stage will be to paint the locos a default green. But before that, some colour has been applied to the diorama print assembly. Texture for the grass on the rear bank has been provided using sandpaper, while the small trees at the left are from a batch left over from the Loch nan Uamh diorama. The logic is that the station is not long built, so trees planted as a screen would not have grown very high. I have given the 'ballast' (over the sleepers in period style) a greenish tinge to distinguish it from the masonry. I don't know where the material would have bene quarried. By contrast, the paved areas have a brownsih tinge, like some Edinburgh setts (cobbles) in use even today. The OS map marks the platform extensions as 'wooden platforms', hence the contrast in surface finish.

 

Inevitably, the join lines between the segments are still visible despite efforts to mask them - the PVA used as a filler rather disappeared into the gaps. 

 

 

The scene at the 1:300 Scotland Street currently looks rather stark - hopefully it will begin to fill out when I have painted the rolling stock.

[Dunalastair]

I have just been comparing the Threaddinburgh account of the 1860 accident to the SLS 'Locomotives of the North British Railway 1846-1882' listings. I link the engraving image here once again. 

 

 

https://threadinburgh.scot/2023/10/25/the-thread-about-the-granton-railway-disaster-of-1860-which-left-four-dead-and-a-family-bereft/#

 

I had wondered about the wheel arrangement on that partly submerged machine. Threaddinburgh usefully identifies it as number 32. On page 33, the SLS book tells us that 32 was built as an 0-4-0 with 4' coupled wheels by Hawthorn of Leith in 1847 for the Granton section. Tellingly, it was rebuilt in 1860 as an 0-4-2 at Burntisland, presumably as a result of the accident damage. Confusingly, the Cowlairs records show it being rebuilt as an 0-6-0. Either way (or both) it was withdrawn in 1875 and sold for colliery work.

 

No 30 was a similar Hawthorn 0-4-0 used on the Granton section. No 31 was (possibly) an earlier 0-4-2 Granton section loco, possibly intended for goods work. So it may well be that I should have gone for 0-4-0 locos rather than 2-2-2s, but I'll stick with what I have printed. 

 

One minor mystery is that Threaddinburgh says that before 'disaster struck' "No. 32 now left Granton to return the way it had come to wait in the engine shed at Scotland Street Station". The early OS map does not seem to show an engine shed at Scotland Street. While Granton might have seemed a more logical place for an engine shed, given that the train ferries were berthed there, there was an 'early morning swimmers train' from Canal Street to the Forth, so it might have made sense to stable at least one loco at Scotland Street for that first train of the day as it came off the tunnel rope.

[Dunalastair]

4 hours ago, Dunalastair said:

 

So it may well be that I should have gone for 0-4-0 locos rather than 2-2-2s, but I'll stick with what I have printed. 

 

 

I thought that I had printed two 2-2-2s, but realised that it was the render which had two, not reality. I'll disappear into a 3D design one of these days ...

 

So I took the opportunity to modify the 2-2-2 design into an approximation of 0-4-0s numbers 30 and 32. Very simplified, but this is 1:300 and at the limit of filament printer resolution.

 

The design has now been printed and the result is in the paintshop. The 3D printing approach at least allows fast turnarounds!

 

Many years later, Scotland was one of the last bastions in the UK of the main line 0-4-0 tender locomotive so beloved by Hornby tinplate, with examples continuing into the grouping years. The short wheelbase reportedly got them into tight colliery sidings, while the tender gave more range than their tank equivalents.

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/locomotives-of-the-n-b-r-wheatley-designs.1235919/

 

[Dunalastair]

5 hours ago, Dunalastair said:

One minor mystery is that Threaddinburgh says that before 'disaster struck' "No. 32 now left Granton to return the way it had come to wait in the engine shed at Scotland Street Station". The early OS map does not seem to show an engine shed at Scotland Street. While Granton might have seemed a more logical place for an engine shed, given that the train ferries were berthed there, there was an 'early morning swimmers train' from Canal Street to the Forth, so it might have made sense to stable at least one loco at Scotland Street for that first train of the day as it came off the tunnel rope.

 

The most relevant maps are on NLS - for Granton this is Edinburgh - Sheet Sheet 04. Surveyed: 1852, Published: 1853.

https://maps.nls.uk/view/74415375

This does show an 'engine house', but looking more closely this is alongside the ferry slip and probably housed a stationary engine for moving the ferry platforms as the tides changed. However, as well as what might be an E-W aligned goods shed, with a through road, there is a two-road N-S aligned building by the custom house which might be a candidate, albeit the ?wagon turntables at the entrance might suggest otherwise.

 

I think that is the building on this rather fine 1856 view, which I had not seen before. It looks less like a loco shed there - no vents and only part walls.

 

https://www.rct.uk/collection/2932740/granton-pier-near-edinburgh 

 

The equivalent Scotland Street sheet is at

https://maps.nls.uk/view/74415432

Eight years before the 1860 accident, this shows no sign 

 

By 1876 (https://maps.nls.uk/view/74415648), when Scotland Street was an NBR goods station, there was still no sign of a building which might have been a loco shed - unless it had been built and demolished between surveys, which is not impossible if it was a simple wooden structure.

 

[Dunalastair]

So, bringing the station (now a little further developed) and the rolling stock together we get these, remembering that this is all static 1:300. Firstly looking towards Canal Street ...

 

 

... then looking towards Trinity, Leith and Granton ...

 

 

... and finally a more general view from above where the 'Victorian Gym' would have been

 

 

I wonder whether any of the users in the 1850s would recognise the model if it was put through a time machine? It would be interesting to hear their comments.

[JimRead]

Hello Alastair,

 

Wonderfully done until I read the text I had no idea that it was 1:300, fair play to you.

 

Not only would they recognised it but been astonished at how it was made. Hmmmm some though like Joseph Paxton (aged 21.3/4) would have grasped the technique straightaway scaled it up and made another Crystal Palace.

 

Cheers - Jim

Edited November 15, 2023 by JimRead
speeling

[Dunalastair]

5 hours ago, JimRead said:

 

Not only would they recognised it but been astonished at how it was made. 

 

 

 

Thankyou for the kind words. I think the Victorian might have recognised the concept of a filament printer. The printing is essentially just cake icing on a smaller scale, and the movements by leadscrews and drive belts would have been familiar. While automatic control of machines might be OK (the Jacquard loom patent was in 1804) computer control would probably appear as magic ...

Edited November 15, 2023 by Dunalastair

[simonmcp]

Hi Alistair, sorry if I missed it but what printer and filament are you using? Your prints are incredibly fine with great detail.

[Dunalastair]

25 minutes ago, simonmcp said:

Hi Alistair, sorry if I missed it but what printer and filament are you using? Your prints are incredibly fine with great detail.

 

It is an Monoprice MP10 Mini, which I believe is a near-clone of a better-known design. I use whichever PLA filament I can get cheaply from ebay. I have previously used other Monoprice filament printers - this gives comparable results but on a larger buildplate.

 

 

I do also have a resin printer, but had trouble commissioning it and have stuck with filament since. Conventional wisdom is that you need to go to resin to get anything better than 'plastiscene tube' models, but I have had reasonable results from filament printers, I like to think.