Edwardian

17 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Since I've taken to 3D printing of buildings I'm constantly surprised at the size of the finished models. Unlike card or styrene modelling where you get to have an idea of how big it will be from the  moment you draw up the sides on a bit of card, using CAD I have no idea until I have drawn it all up and  produced the print file and then find it is too big to fit on the printer in one piece. 

 

Keeping with the church theme, this one just down the road from me is a small building.

 

 

But even  in HO scale it is 6 inches long. If I hadn't measured the original with a tape I'd have assumed I had made a mistake, but no, it IS that big.

 

 

 

Conversely, I have found the opposite with cars. Lacking Australian outline cars in HO scale I've taken to designing them in Blender and  3D printing them, and there the opposite occurs - the resulting models  seem much smaller than expected and I have to recheck the scaling. Perhaps that is due to many HO  layouts here using OO scale cars or even Matchbox due to a general  lack of HO cars and I'm used to the larger sizes. 

 

Once I put them against a building though, they all match ok though in my mind taken individually  these are  undersized  cars in front of an oversized building!

 

 

 

 

I elected for craftsman clever as a testament to the skill and work involved, but also interesting, informative,  thought provoking etc.

5 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

This would not be an RM thread without posts about leaking shed roofs. What is it with all this felt and bitumen and thatch etc?   Is there an advantage in using all this stuff  in the 21st  century instead of say metal?

 

Here you wont find a shed that doesn't have a  zincalume or colourbond roof.

 

Colorbond is multicoated zincalume, which is a zinc/aluminium alloy. This is coated in a corrosion resistant layer, then an adhesive primer, then an oven baked finish in a range of colours. This is toppped with a UV and heat-resistant reflective coating made of ceramic and titanium dioxide particles, then a clear acrylic glaze.

 

The panels will last 70 years, and if the correct cyclone rated fastenings are used it can withstand winds of 275km/hr. 

 

I've never heard anyone complain about a leak in their shed roof here, unless a tree falls on it.

 

UK parishioners seem to think I need something called coraline ....!

3 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

...but usually Rivergum or Monument.

You fascinate me strangely with such talk.

Sorry to bang on, but this whole tiny building scam annoys me. I've just been reminded of how much these wretched things usually cost and it just makes me cross!

The reason I was attracted by the Bachmann model was not just the design, but the fact that the design implied that this was a larger structure than the minimalist designs offered by Hornby and Wills.

As a model of a larger prototype, I naturally expected a larger model , and one that could sit, front of baseboard, on the non-conformist outskirts of Castle Aching.

I should have known that I should stick to scratch-building as instead I ended with a uselessly tiny ill-proportioned tin elephant that now needs to be set carefully at a distance. Sizewise it's actually something like 2.6mm to a foot compared with the structure on which it is evidently based, though detail on the model is more like the claimed 4mm, making it a misshapen Frankenkirche that will need to be set carefully in a 3mm scale zone if I am to get away with it. 

So, it will be recalled that I only succombed to Bachmann's tabernacle because it was on sale at £9 something.  Even so, I was disappointed because it proved to be comically under-scale and therefore unfit for purpose at any price. The price I paid just meant I'd wasted less money that I might have. Today I received news of a discount now offered by a retailer, but look at the full list price for this thing!  If i'd paid anything close to that, I'd  be suing Bachmann by now!

1 hour ago, Northroader said:

James and Kevin, speaking as an old git who had to downsize last year, and was far too infirm to do any of it himself, I’m sure your filial efforts were very much appreciated by the parties involved. 

Sadly, I don't think the Aged Ps even remember the house they left 18 months ago, such is dementia. I now dread that fate.  

29 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Reduce to 58%!

Or is it 57%, I can never remember!

32 minutes ago, ChrisN said:

 

Don,

Thank you.  The diagrams in the book are all to 7mm as well.

Reduce to 58%!

I had thought to erect it in the house, but if I can fit the test track layout, I will put that up in instead. My thoughts were (i) to get to a working layout, it's probably not more hassle than persuading the rescue layout to work, (ii) as the scenics on the rescue layout need renewing, again, the test track probably isn't much more work; and, (iii) the test track is a roundy roundy and with generous enough curves to run most things. A long way off any of this, but we'll see. 

In the meantime, I continue to be cheered by your pictures of a realised virtual railway world.

Lovely views with some wonderful equipment.

Funnily enough, I have a similar train!

Pechot Bourdon should really be a dog breed, not a locomotive, but it is looking magnificent. 

53 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

You are doing nothing here to help James overcome his fear of electrickery!

 

Myself, I think I'll have nightmares. It's not so much the three legs and two arms as what looks like a pair of pliers that it's carrying in its forward protrusion...

Yes, that is an Engine of Doom by anyone's standards.

Meanwhile... 

Status update. The last few months have been taken up with clearing out my parents' house. They are beyond independent living, you see.

This has been both time consuming and draining in every possible way. Finally, with everything packed, the pantechicon booked, and exchange and completion just days away, a pipe burst, the house flooded and the ceilings fell in. This was not ideal.

In the meantime, the shed intended for Castle Aching - the roof of which now leaks in several places - is crammed both with my kit and the contents of my parents' house, with the overspill filling our reception rooms. 

So, bear with.

Anyway, once the tide of life's flotsum and jettsom has receded from my living quarters, I think I might be able to shoe horn the test track into the little room off the sitting room. This could then be be finished, fulfilling its purpose of scenic test track and photo plank in both OO and OO9. We'll see. 

As electrickery is the stuff of nightmares, I might at that point have to submit the track plan and request a wiring diagram!

Now for something completely different...

From time to time I yearn for something simple and old school. Today I came across Briargate

It's a 3mm layout set firmly in Bilteezi Land, which alone is enough to commend it to me. Of course, the Bilteezi sheets are available in 4mm, so Briargate, given a board  not much longer than the traditional 6' x 4' it could easily be reralised in OO gauge. 

45 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

It doesn't need to know. Heat it is not readily transferred through a vacuum, therefore a hot liquid inside does not lose heat to the outside and a cold liquid inside does not gain heat from the outside.

 

Seemples Igor! 😁 

 

Jim 

Oh, you've spoilt it for me now!

Before we get into the whole territory of 'if-it-bothers-you-that-the-14XX-doesn't-have-an-ashpan-it's-your-fault-for-looking-at-it-from-the-wrong-angle', it is black, it's obviously black, in the flesh it looks black. Whether that is (a) inaccurate or (b) subjectively that noticeable for you or (c) bothers you, are three distinct issues!

I have said in the post above what appears to be the case to me, and what colour I'd expect it to be, while noting that one should not place too much reliance on how B&W pictures of the period appear to show colour differences.

The further point in favour of black lower doors seems not so easy to overcome. On the model the lower portion of the door is flush with the black edged gold beading. In such circumstances, there would indeed be no division between the black border and the lower panel. In painting the lower doors, Kernow has actually treated the subject consistently with the physical tooling. Logically, the lower doors would be black on this basis.

The problem is, of course, that the tooling here is wrong. There should be, and was on the prototype, the same step down from the beading line to the doors as there is on the lower body. The fact that the passenger doors are recessed does not change this, they are still treated as other doors and the sides in this regard. This can be seen on the drawings reproduced in Lewis and in numerous photographs, of Os and Rs and, indeed, all panelled standard diagrams of railmotor.  

The picture below is actually a Q, but I use it simply because it is a very clear view of the feature; the lower part of the double doors is not flush with the bottom of the waist beading. If one thinks of it in constructional terms, it is only to be expected that the lower doors would be flush with the waist panels above, not with the beading laid over it. On GWR panelled coaches, it's generally only in the case of oversheeting on ageing carriages where an area would become flush with the beading. As I say, a careful eye will reveal the passengers doors of the Os and Rs appear the same way, as do the official drawings. 

This tooling error is common to the double passenger doors on both the lined chocolate and cream No.61 and the all brown No. 63, and, I suspect, to the single passenger door on the lake No.85. The only difference is that the error does not create the same livery problem with all over brown and lake versions where the lining on the beading is not black.

It is only by having the model in my hands that I have spotted the tooling error that is the explanation for what is almost certainly a livery error in the case of No.61. 

The choice would seem to be between leaving it or trying to fix it. Either is a valid response, but "don't look upism" in saying it isn't actually wrong is not a response I have much sympathy with. 

If fixing it, the most accurate fix would be to drill out the black lower doors, paint them chocolate and recess them. The less traumatic visual fix is to add a gold line to mark the bottom of the waist beading line and paint chocolate beneath it. 

New arrival at Edwardian Towers today, and it only took nine years from its announcement!  At least it means the financial pain has long since faded from memory.

Ran very sweetly straight out of the box.

Edwardian innovation, the Class O steam railmotor of 1906, it makes a useful addition to the 'modern traction' department:

Though, at 70' it's very much the big brother.

There are some minor inaccuracies, but I think this is probably likely to be the most accurate of the pre-Grouping liveried versions offered by Kernow. The strange GWR monogram - the 'prize monogram' - was the winning entry to a design competion. It was applied new to the first Class Os in 1906, but did not last long and was soon replaced with the Garter on carriage stock, as seen on the carriages below. 

The very much overscale lamps are a bit of a pain, but here accuracy was sacrificed for gimmickry; they work. 

The lamps are fixed at both ends and show white for the leading end and red for the trailing end, which means the colour of the lamps changes with the direction the model is running.

As you all know, electricity is like unto magic for me, so this just puts me in mind of the themos flask; it keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, but how does it know?!? 

😊 Runs like a dream straight out of the box.

At last, some more GWR branch fodder! 

I love that Crampton, but why is it driven by Pablo Escobar?

"Your parcel from Kernow Model Rail Centre Ltd is due to be delivered:

Today, Thursday, 1 February 2024
Between

09:49am and 11:49am"

I will, naturally, be out during that slot, so.......

9 minutes ago, David Bigcheeseplant said:

I have noticed on all the fully lined chocolate and cream versions that the entrance doors are below waist level are painted black when they should be lined chocolate!

 

David

I'm not sure about the lining, because it does not look as if there is any beading on the lower part of the door, but, yes, I cannot see why it should not be painted chocolate.

Of course, the photograph record in B&W, but to my mind chocolate would have seemed the default assumption and, to my eyes, it does look odd in black.

It's always hard to judge such things, but on the official view below, I see no change in tone between the waist panel on the passenger doors and the lower part, whereas the black of the solebar (albeit no doubt to  different finish) is obviously a different tone.

2 hours ago, Schooner said:

Cheers all, and yes, it's been surreally simple. Handy, as it was only brought to market the day before I flew out to work, and so I've been conducting the entire process through the phone...lol.

 

And I think I've worked out how to fit Barbados in the back room!

 

Barbados in the Back Room

I will be very disappointed if that is not the layout topic title in due course!

1 minute ago, Penlan said:

I found a Keil Kraft kit in a local Charity shop for £2, this became a LNWR Omnibus 😎
Myself, via ModelU waiting to board....

 

How absolutely brilliant, in both conception and execution. Truly magnificent, sir!

A pity that the WNR of 1905 has yet to adopt the internal combustion engine.

9 hours ago, Dave John said:

Well, a lot of the kits and ready to plonk stuff I have looked at in the past is badly underscale. Dunno why, unless the makers think that it goes with the general trend of model railway compression. 

 

Perhaps some of it is down to the idea that the trains are to the front and buildings to the rear a bit smaller adds depth as forced perspective. Certainly my backscene is about 80% of true size. 

 

All a case by case decision I guess. 

 

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I remember years ago that somebody made their own buildings to 1/100 scale for the main dimensions but with 1/76.2 doors, windows, etc.

Yes, I don't think it's a case of simply making buildings to a smaller scale than advertised. 

In some cases doors, for example the larger than domestic double doors of Bachmann's St Saviours, might be a little underscale, but in general features such as doors, windows, chimney pots, drain pipes and bricks themselves are likely to be scale or very close to it.

What manufacturers seem to have done, in what I can only see as an exercise of great art and skill egregiously misapplied, is somehow to shrink a building round such scale or near to scale features.

This renders them mere caricatures of real buildings, but the level of detail often lavished on kits and ready-to-plants helps to disguise just how toylike the proportions have become. These are often very charismatic models, yet one can sometimes be left with a vague sense that something does not look quite right. 

Why is this done? Well, I think it's train set thinking. If the expectation of the "average enthusiast" is that he jack-knives Mark I coaches round set-track on a 6'x4', he is going to need buildings that are similarly compromised, otherwise they will not fit and might snap the thin skein of illusion. 

While people will have views of the compromises of N or OO gauge track, I have seen less discussion on other immersion-breaking issues. For instance, arguably the worst problem with OO track is the  sleeper length and spacing of the traditional FB "OO/HO" track and the geometry that sets parallel tracks too far apart. This means that, even using generous radius curves and long turnouts, things will still look off. Then there is the fact that many figures sold for 4mm scale are too large, and then there is this issue of these trainset buildings. I suspect there are other pitfalls, resulting from some long-forgotten compromise, waiting out there to trap us!

Real tin tabernacles were sold as prefabs to standard sizes. William Cooper of the Old Kent Road, for instance, would bang them out at a variety of sizes starting at 30' x 20' and rising to 60' x 25'.  Judging from the catalogue for Humphrey's Iron Churches, a modest 3-bay church would have an interior measurement of 40' x 20'. 

So, what about the Bachmann effort? It's very much of this compromised, trainset, mentality.  The main body of the  church scales at 26'6" x 14'. While a tin tabernacle might be this small, I doubt St Saviour's is, or anything of such an appearance would be. In this case, the illusion is helped by keeping the window size reasonably proportionate to the reduced size of the building, and the doors a little underscale.  Also, Bachmann has lopped off a bay; the rear of the real St Saviours has 4 windows, not Bachmann's 3. 

EDIT: Thanks to the Honourable Member from Sydney, we do know how long the real St Saviour's main body is, about 40'.

It's hard to get an impression of size from a photograph, but in terms of overall size - dimensions and sense of mass - this "OO gauge" church looks like a 2mm scale model, mainly becaue the main body of the church looks so small.  Because the detailing is to a larger scale than 2mm, it cannot be used for that. Because it is absurdly small, it cannot be used as 4mm scale. I suspect that its best use is as part of carefully arranged forced perspective modelling, treated as 3mm or 1/100 scale.

EDIT: given we have the length measurement of the prototype, we can say that the model is two thirds the length it should be, suggesting that, although still smaller than that, 3mm scale is, indeed, the nearest we can get to a standard scale it might suit.

Other such compromised models will need different treatment, if they can be used at all.     

15 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Some tin churches are very tiny in reality, although maybe not that tiny.

 

 

You can attempt to use my son as a scale rule. This was a couple of years ago, and I reckon he was about 5’8” then. If you put a topper on him, I think he’d still get through the doorway.

Indeed, but I bet I could cross the threshold of that porch before needing to remove my topper!

The Bachmann model appears to be based on St Saviour's Church, Westhouses, Nottinghamshire, which is now apparently at Butterley museum. Thus it seems that Bachmann probably had access to the protoype and just decided to make it smaller!  If someone cares to take some measurements, we can see if I'm wrong and it was, in fact, built for a congregation of Oompa Loompas.  

One of my favourite tin tabernacles of this ilk is Blackgang Mission Church, Chale, Isle of Wight. It is now holiday accommodation, I believe.

19 minutes ago, Caley Jim said:

Well, hat will make sure he takes his at off before he enters the sanctuary!  🙂

 

Jim

By that reckoning, Isambard must have been more high church.

16 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Bought...ummmm...5 Bachmann buildings for Ingleford (Ebay finds, from when the layoit was a 100hr start-to-finish winter project, and before I got carried away).

 

The second most expensive outlay, after locos, by some margin.

 

Unlike the locos, they were a total, utter, waste of money. Not one is usable, being hopelessly out of scale even for my diminutive little chunk of Gloucestershire*. They should be sold with both warning and 1:87 stickers prominent on the box. Sounds like you got off lightly!

Sounds like it. Poor you!

Of course there has traditionally been a tendency to make model railway buildings somewhat underscale or out of proportion to make them smaller, the better to fit layouts. I'd hoped we'd got past these architectural equivalents of Triang Shorty Coaches.

I was disappointed. If I'd paid anything like full price I'd be like Gerald the Gorilla, "wild? I was absolutely livid!" 

16 minutes ago, Schooner said:

 

Have you experience of the Petite Properties range?

 

 

Yes, they and Fair Price Models are well-worth mining. The ability to add  a covering/texture of one's choosing is a boon. 

14 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Wee Free Kirk?

Wee Reduced Price Kirk in my case! 

Ready to plant buildings ...

I have nothing against them, indeed, I often gaze admiringly at them. Nevertheless, there are many reasons why I do not buy them as a rule.

First, they cost a lot of money. I am not saying they are overpriced, but they are the most expensive way of creating the built environment on a model railway. Even now purse strings are a little looser than when I started, I have only finite resources to devote to the hobby and they are best applied elsewhere.

Second, they are, for someone like me, the least satisfying. I enjoy trying to model buildings. Third, the textured resin buildings are not a great match for my card and paper efforts. Fourth, most of what I want is a specific building, often a prototype, related to a specific location. Mostly this is West Norfolk! Lastly, there is the risk of just having the same buildings as everyone else, though this is less a concern with these resin models than with Metcalfe Land. 

Some months ago, however, Rails was flogging off a very nice looking Bachmann tin tabernacle for 9 squid something. It is well attested that I have an almost Betjemaniac weakness for such things. So, I indulged. 

Very attractive, though I need not have bothered. It's tiny. I had to triple check the box, yes, it purports to be "OO". Frankly, it would do better as 2mm scale model.

The doors could just about pass as 4mm scale, but here, pictured with one of Andrew Stadden's figures, which. as true scale people of the past, tend to be smaller than most figures sold as 1/76th, we see that it even the main door is pushing its luck with a 4mm scale gent. 

So, this building will sit on a distant hill, where it will not offend and where, frankly, any building not scratch-built belongs!

The experience was enough to make me swear off my ill-advised foray into ready-to-plant land, but then, for a similarly modest sum, I spotted something in the Hattons' Death Sale. Hornby this time, and a great example of how easy one makes life by just plonking these down, for example, here:

4 hours ago, rprodgers said:

Good choice I am pleased with mine.

A first time in r-t-r in this particular livery.
I’d just wondered if you might have been tempted by the other “Edwardian” the 1908 all over brown.

 

The brown lined version does look very good. I do ponder if this livery is not best applied to the version with the narrower window and side tank filler? Perhaps there is a picture of No.63 in this livery with the original window arrangement. I would hope so. But, with only Lewis to go on, the examples pictured in brown livery suggest the retrofitting of narrow windows and filler cap may have already taken place. 

1 hour ago, rprodgers said:

Which version have you ordered?

Why an Edwardian one of course!

The lined chocolate and cream with the prize monogram