[Graham Plowman]

QUOTE (kristopher1805 @ 22 Apr 2020, 05:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Confession time, I admitted and severely shocked MMD back along with owning a diesel, a Double class 8 before they were class 8's, anyway the only one I owned until now! My narrow gauge has now also a Roco 0-6-0 small diesel, wants some Gardner logos really a nice 3LW engine would be just the thing really but thought it could work the quay at Minehead.

Anyway here it is, surely one of the cheapest locos you can buy
....

It may be one of the cheapest locos you can buy, but if yours is anything like mine, it is also one of the best, smooth running locos you can buy!

 

[Graham Plowman]

Kris, just out of curiosity, what is the provenance of all those country buildings ? (the ones that look like castings, not the Superquick ones)

 

[Graham Plowman]

There are several issues here as I see it:

1) The backscene has presumably been mounted higher on the wall so that the buildings printed on it appear 'behind' the foreground buildings (that's ok)
2) The railway track going behind the foreground buildings is preventing sensible solutions!
3) Some form of sensible visual perspective needs to be maintained (which is what we want)

Possible solutions:

1) If it wasn't for the railway track behind the foreground buildings, I'd probably be inclined to just continue the row of foreground buildings - the effect of the background behind them would be the same
2) On the left hand end:
- I think you could get away with putting trees/bushes behind the railway track and in front of the backscene. It only needs to be high enough to hide the bottom of the backscene and it needs to be thick enough not to be seen through
- An embankment with some bushes on it would work
- A retaining wall along the back of the railway with the ground on top just level with the 'picture' and bushes on the ground above it
3) On the right hand end:
- Remove the 'road' (it doesn't add any realism) and fill the whole area in front and behind the back railway track with dense bush and trees, not too high, but high enough to hide the bottom of the back scene

General comments:

1) You've painted yourself into a corner with this one!
2) This is a classic situation which can be avoided by 'designing' the surroundings/countryside first and then fitting the railway into it - which is what happens in real life. When this approach is applied, you'll get a much more natural appearance than the 'fit the countryside around the railway' approach and you'll find that you won't have 'difficult' areas to deal with

 

[Graham Plowman]

I think those 'steel' coaches which Bachmann has introduced for British 009 are really just re-paints of Lilliput coaches which have been available for European narrow gauge for decades ie they are nothing new!

 

[Graham Plowman]

Kris,

May I make a suggestion regarding those buildings ?

I have to say that I really like them. They have a perspective that goes really well with the settings you are using them in, however, the one thing that spoils them for me is that they look 'planted' on the layout. Maybe this is temporary, I don't know.

Is there a way that you could create plaster-based land around them so that they sit in 'holes' like a foundation ? ie remove the 'flat baseboard' effect and create some land contours ?
If you could do this and hide the 'bases', I think you would have a really good result.

Keep up the good work!

 

[Graham Plowman]

Kris,

No problem. Take your picture in message #223 above as an example.
The positioning is fine, but the buildings all look like they are sitting on 'raised islands' - because they are.
What I'm suggesting it that you create some raised terrain (multiple ways to do that - plaster/supported chicken wire/mod roc/polystyrene etc) and 'sink' the buildings into it by the height of their island bases. They look to have different base heights to me, so the depth you 'sink' them into a surface terrain will vary for each building.
The idea is that the ground around the buildings matches and flows into the ground level which each building is built on. Makes them look like they are part of the overall picture instead of islands plonked on it. Also creates the effect of contours which makes the whole thing look a lot more natural and not a 'flat board' layout.

Does that make sense ?

As an example, here is my station master's house which has been 'embedded' in a sloping terrain: Modelling a Station Master's House - Model Railways On-Line
It actually sits on a plank of wood and the ground around it is shaped fibre board supports with chicken wire and plaster over the top.

This image shows the effect better with the building in the right hand background:

 

[Graham Plowman]

'Pic of the day is this shot of Porlock with part of the station and weed clearing going on, I quite like this one;

http://imgur.com/ffJSYyT

Platform a bit narrow there mate!
Platforms are required to have 6 foot minimum from the edge with no obstructions. A back to back platform such as this would need to be 12 foot wide, 48mm in 4mm scale.
Sorry to be pedantic, but a lot of people make this mistake on their layouts!

 

[Graham Plowman]

This is a Col Stevens Railway and narrow gauge to boot so it'll have to do and if it don't then the railway gets closed down, true though it is narrow but space as you can see is at a premium.

OK so pic of the day today looking to wards the town gate, I quite like this one too.

http://imgur.com/qxsfU5g

I think there is a popular belief that Col Stevens railways weren't subject to any rules, but I think you'll find that some rules did still apply and that platform widths were one of them!
Have a look at the stations on the Kent and East Sussex Railway as an example.

 

[Graham Plowman]

Hi Kristopher,

Thanks for the background narrative. This is always a good idea to have when a layout is started because it explains the whole purpose and justification for the layout being built if it was in real life, so absolutely on track there - your story is good.

Many real railways evolved in some way over time with connections being added or removed or layout adjustments being necessary due to increased traffic or new operational requirements and this often necessitated changes to track layouts - as your narrative describes.
In reality, the overseeing design engineer would be presented with surveys of a location and details of new operational requirements (among other information) and their task would be to design a layout within the confines of the available space that met the operational requirements.

At the risk of overstaying my welcome on this topic, such changes would all be subject to regulations, so for example, if the original layout was a single track and a platform through a cutting and the requirement was to put another track through the cutting and have an island platform, the island platform width was still subject to requirements, so if the width of the cutting was insufficient to permit two tracks and an island platform with a minimum width of 12 feet, the platform would not be allowed to be built or it would be single-side only with a fence on one side.

Unfortunately, a narrative wasn't able to override design regulations!

 

[Graham Plowman]

The scale width of the platform above is 6 foot 3 inches by the way.

So to make that legal, you would need to put a fence along the back of the platform ie against the loco in the above pic.

This in turn, highlights a further issue about access and egress to the island platform. The platform isn't wide enough for a footbridge or underpass, so the only way passengers can reach it is by walking across the track - which also needs to be part of the design engineer's remit, because it is a safety issue requiring a crossing. The track layout also separates the platform from the station building which adds to the complication.

Have a look at our gallery of Welsh Narrow Gauge: Gallery Places of Interest - Model Railways On-Line
Select the 'Narrow Gauge' folder.
There's plenty of pictures which might give you ideas, but I think the main takeaway from all of them is that in most cases, designs tried to avoid any need for passengers to cross a line where at all possible.

Portmadoc has multiple loops, but only the one against the station building actually serves passengers. The rest of the line tended to be just track in the dirt - but it originated for industrial purposes, not passengers.
The Talyllyn was all on one side anyway - IIRC many rolling stock items were only built with doors on one side.
The L&B was a bit of an exception because, apart from being built for passengers, many of their stations were twin platforms, but you will notice crossings as the official way to cross the line.
Devil's Bridge had multiple sidings but only one was for passenger access.

I think your layout is somewhat more complicated (Pilton Yard being the exception) than what existed in reality, but I guess that's the fun of it!