The Burford Branch

Tell us about your layout, where you put it, how you built it, how you operate it.
User avatar
Paul Townsend
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby Paul Townsend » Tue May 12, 2015 7:01 pm

martin goodall wrote:
Tim V wrote:I agree with Martin(!).


Twice in the space of a single week ??!! (What is the world coming to?)

It ended last Thursday :(

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Tue May 12, 2015 9:37 pm

Yes, I think it did.

I watched it happening all night. Unbelievable!

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Tue May 12, 2015 9:59 pm

Andrew Ullyott wrote:Very nice photos Martin. As others have said, quite inspirational.
How many hours did you say it had taken.
Cheddar's going to take a long time I think!


I think Andrew may recall my having admitted that it has taken 800+ hours of model-making time so far. (And it still isn't finished!).

It wasn't a difficult model to build, just very time consuming. But I have spread construction over a very long period - I started work on the model in 1995, but it has only been worked on intermittently - a bad habit that delays the completion of all my models, as I turn from one thing to another, not to mention periods of 'modeller's block' (or whatever the excuse is for doing no modelling at all for weeks at a time).

I have very much enjoyed building this model, although slating the roof has proved to be unbelievably tedious, which is why it is still only half done (the back half, which is less conspicuous).

I have always wanted to model a GWR timber train shed, but I am not sure I would want to do it again, knowing now how much time it involves. But then I can think of some equally time-consuming models being built by friends (one of whom, for instance, has been working on a 1/64-scale Nelsonian warship for the past 5 and a half years, as well as modelling the GWR in P4 in between times).

One thing I meant to mention earlier - this model would have been impossible to build without the styrene strip and 'siding' sheet supplied by Evergreen Models. The whole building was assembled almost exclusively from these materials, and this has greatly contributed to its finished appearance.

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:40 pm

Work in progress

It is some time since I last posted photos of the Burford Branch here, but the layout is continuing to make steady (if rather slow) progress. At the beginning of this year, I decided that I would not touch a single item of rolling stock throughout the year, but would concentrate instead on buildings for the layout, starting with the brewery buildings behind the station.

These photos were taken in the course of carrying out the work and, at the time of writing, this group of buildings is still incomplete. Architectural model-making (even when you are trying to keep the detail down to an absolute minimum) is a time-consuming process.

The first shot below shows the location of the buildings that have been worked on, replacing the card mock-ups seen earlier. These buildings form part of the brewery behind the station. The buildings as seen here are in the form of styrene shells, with the beginnings of their roof structures, but still at a fairly early stage of construction.

219 - select.JPG


I decided to pencil in the windows, rather than cutting them out and fitting the etched windows frames that I had originally intended to use. The intention is that these rearmost buildings should be seen as, in effect, a three-dimensional extension of the backscene. (In this next view, the brewery loading platform had yet to receive its canopy.)

215 - select.JPG


Having built the shells of the buildings around the brewery yard, I set about building up the ground surface around them, starting with the (dummy) wagon turntable, followed by paving of the inset track.

002 (2).JPG


The rearmost buildings are plain styrene sheet. The rest are built from Wills scenic sheet, intended by the manufacturer to represent lime-washed stone, but when painted they are ideal for portraying Cotswold stone. The buildings were painted with artists’ acrylics, using the same colours as on the backscene (a combination of raw sienna, cobalt blue and titanium white) so as to produce what I hoped would be a seamless transition from the flat backscene to the 3D models.

028.JPG


The roof of the brewery loading dock is tiled with self-adhesive laser-cut card strips of Welsh slate from CD3D Models. York Modelmaking produce a similar product. As supplied, the grey slate colour is too dark, but is easily modified by repainting. Some lighter replacement slates were painted in, plus some black staining produced by brushing with dry poster powder.

029.JPG


030.JPG


031.JPG


An outside staircase has been provided to give access to the upper floor of the brewery Bottling Hall at the back of the brewery yard. The two flights of stairs were adapted from mouldings from Ratio signal box kits, and the landings were scratch-built from Evergreen styrene strip and Evergreen planked sheet.

118.JPG


115.JPG


Meanwhile some further work has been done on other buildings adjoining the backscene. The Blanket Mill and its adjoining office building have now acquired stairs up to the doors. (I am not satisfied with the building in front of the mill, which was adapted from the original card mock-up, and this will be replaced.)

131 - select.JPG


A small cottage has been provided for the mill foreman, and to the right of this there will be a builder’s yard, accessed through gates from the street beyond.

132 - select.JPG


I will post more photos when things are a little more advanced.

[P.S. All these photos were taken on an i-Phone under the layout’s normal lighting. I don’t recall turning the camera upside down when taking any of these shots, so hopefully nobody will find them being displayed upside down.]
Last edited by martin goodall on Tue Nov 15, 2016 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Andrew Ullyott
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:31 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby Andrew Ullyott » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:09 pm

Very nicely done Martin.
Looking forward to seeing it in the flesh at some point!

RichardS
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:51 am

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby RichardS » Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:06 pm

Very nice indeed. Instantly recongisable as Cotswolds.

(My first ever post on Scalefour Forum.)
Kind regards
Richard

I'm not always a railway modelling heretic

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jim s-w » Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:19 am

Hi martin

Are you able to take a video of the backscene at all? I'm interested in trying your non vanishing point technique but would appreciate seeing how it works from a viewpoint that's moving. Could you video the backscene from the ground rising up and panning left and right?

Cheers

Jim

User avatar
RobM
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby RobM » Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:28 pm

jim s-w wrote:Hi martin

Are you able to take a video of the backscene at all? I'm interested in trying your non vanishing point technique but would appreciate seeing how it works from a viewpoint that's moving. Could you video the backscene from the ground rising up and panning left and right?

Cheers

Jim


Jim, I have used the 'non vanishing point' (actually multiple vanishing points for each building(s) on the horizontal) on Manston and Woodville, totally alien to my day job. Moving through the scene does alter the perspective but mainly in just one dimension which is better than with a true vanishing point which alters in two dimensions. However, you do need to think things through to minimise the illusion but I find that it is a good compromise.
Rob
http://www.robmilliken.co.uk
Updated December 2016

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jim s-w » Thu Mar 02, 2017 5:36 pm

Hi Rob

Like you I find it quite difficult not to use perspective. It's very alien as you say

Cheers

Jim

User avatar
RobM
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby RobM » Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:21 pm

Perspective is rather a difficult subject without going into a full blown discussion (where is the yawn emoticon)........so much has to be considered.....in the 3rd image from the top of http://robmilliken.co.uk/gallery/railway-subjects/ with linear perspective it has also to be applied to elipses and there are formulae.......but back to the scenery which I think works well..........(sorry Martin)......."non vanishing point' works better......
Rob
http://www.robmilliken.co.uk
Updated December 2016

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:16 pm

Sorry for my slight delay in responding to the latest posts; I've only just seen these latest additions to the thread.

What I used in painting my backscene was not "multiple vanishing points". As explained in my articles in MRJ 220 and 221, what I used was "parallel" perspective. This means that all horizontal lines are parallel with the horizon. So there are no vanishing points. (As someone who has drawn and painted in perspective since about the age of 7, I find that it requires enormous self-discipline not to draw in perspective!)

I included a drawing in the article contrasting the two types of perspective ("proper" perspective on the one hand, and "parallel" perspective on the other). Unfortunately the captions got transposed when the article was printed, but I trust that no-one was confused by this.

There wouldn't be any point in taking a video of the backscene as Jim suggests, because you would see no change in the perspective as the camera moves (whereas the perspective does change as you move in real life). I think if Jim and anyone else who is interested were to re-read the two article in MRJ, all would become clear.

The point is that if you paint the backscene using 'proper' perspective, it will only look right (possibly) from one viewpoint, when it coincides with the perspective of the three-dimensional models on the layout as seen from that point of view; but as soon as you move, the perspective of the backscene will clash with the changed perspective of the 3D models. As I mentioned in the article, this is why cutting out photos from calendars and sticking them on the backscene rarely, if ever, works. The multiplicity of perspectives will clash horribly with each other and with the 3D models.

While writing, I would just add a quick update about progress on the layout. I have managed to spend more time working on the layout in the last 15 months than at any time previously. The only trouble is that architectural model-making (even when one is keeping the detail to an absolute minimum) seems to take an inordinate amount of time. I have been working on the same group of buildings now for nearly a year, and I suspect it will take until at least the end of this month (maybe longer) before they are finally finished. I will post some more pictures here shortly, but I want to get the roofs on before pointing the camera at these models again.

User avatar
RobM
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby RobM » Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:06 pm

Hi Martin,
The point I am making is that there would be multiple horizons therefore multiple vanishing points relative to the various horizons. I fully agree that for back scenes using multiple horizons is the best way as it reduces the illusion by eliminating one dimension..... i.e. the horizontal. The second dimension, the vertical, is more acceptable to being narrowed or widened as the viewer moves position.
Rob
http://www.robmilliken.co.uk
Updated December 2016

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Sat Mar 04, 2017 8:10 pm

When I first read Rob's note just now I didn't understand at first what he meant, but I think I do now see the point he is making. With no vanishing points, there are in effect multiple horizons.

I was away from base when this was originally posted, and didn't have access to my PC. Keith Norgrove kindly edited this post by adding copies of the photos to which this post refers.

The first of these shots is the photo printed on page 4 of MRJ 220], the second is the photo printed on page 52 of MRJ 221], and the third photo was printed on page 54 of MRJ 221]. Each of these three shots shows a variety of buildings turned at various angles to the viewer, but their roof lines (and other lines, such as door and window heads, etc.) are consistently horizontal. The buildings are ranged up a hillside, and so each building, or group of buildings, in effect has its own horizon. But the fact remains that there are no vanishing points on any of those multiple horizons.

If you look carefully, I had difficulty in keeping all the roof lines absolutely horizontal, because of my natural habit of drawing in perspective, but I think they are near enough level as makes no appreciable difference.

[Thanks, Keith, for the edit. Much appreciated.
Last edited by martin goodall on Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jim s-w » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:07 am

Thanks Martin

I think I might end up trying a bit of both. There's a few areas where there is only one view point so I might go for traditional perspective there. Like you and Rob having drawn with perspective for as long as I can remember drawing without it is surprisingly difficult.

Cheers

Jim

User avatar
RobM
Posts: 911
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby RobM » Sun Mar 05, 2017 10:15 am

Just to simplify my last quote.
Perhaps vanishing points is the wrong term. In the diagram when a person is directly in front of say the gable end of a building they will see points A1 and B1. As they move sideways they will see points A2 and B2 or anywhere between as the vertical dimension decreases.

perspective.png
perspective.png (7.94 KiB) Viewed 2524 times


Hope that clarifies.
Rob
http://www.robmilliken.co.uk
Updated December 2016

Alan Turner
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:24 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby Alan Turner » Sun Mar 05, 2017 11:32 am

Parallel Projection (Parallel Perspective) is a general encompassing term to describe the view of an object as if viewed from an infinite distance. It does not have vanishing points, which are not applicable to this particular projection.

Two specific projections that fall under the general term "Parallel Projection" is isometric and oblique projection, which are specific projections at 30deg and 45deg.

They are sometimes referred to as "Engineering" projections - and you probably learnt how to do it at school!

However the artistry of Burford's back scene are the slight deviations from the strict adherence to the rules of the projection(as admitted by Martin) to give it life.

regards

Alan

martin goodall
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby martin goodall » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:03 pm

After saying that I would post further photos here when I have got the roofs on more of the buildings, it occurred to me that I already have some photos that I can download from the iPhone. These show the painting of the paving that I had laid in and around the brewery siding.

The buildings are held in place by that extremely reliable adhesive, gravity. So they were first removed from the layout to enable the paving to be painted with matt enamels – a light ‘stone’ grey using light grey and ‘fawn’, lightened with matt white (all from the Revell range, which I now prefer to Humbrol). When the enamel had dried thoroughly, I brushed over the paving with a sepia tint in watercolour, to pick out the joints between the stones, and also to modify slightly the surface colour of the paving. A little isopropyl alcohol helped the watercolour to flow over the painted enamel. Where I wasn’t satisfied with the result, I wiped over the paving with a damp cloth and had another go with the watercolour. In some areas where the watercolour seemed too wishy-washy, I just went over it again with anther brushful of watercolour.

IMG_2654.JPG


IMG_2652.JPG


The central area of the Brewery Yard is not paved (contrary to my original intention, but I decided that I did not want too great an expanse of paving). It has a surface of sand/gravel, and this was produced by a method I learnt from Gordon Gravett. Gloss enamel of a suitable colour (in this case a light buff) was generously brushed over the surface to be treated, immediately followed while it was still wet by sieving over it fine stone dust (from Meldon Quarry, I believe) mixed with finely sieved cat litter to give it a bit more texture. I later modified the colour of the yard surface by brushing it with poster colour, and suggested the passage of the brewery drays by painting in some lighter marks where these vehicles would have run into and out of the yard. (The dirty brown mark on the backscene is deliberate – it serves as a background behind the archway under the Bottling Hall. It looks fine when seen in context. Honest, guv.)

IMG_2646.JPG


IMG_2643.JPG
Last edited by martin goodall on Sun Nov 25, 2018 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dal-t
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby dal-t » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:25 pm

I'm very impressed by the appearance of the wagon t/t, which looks very convincing. You've described it as a 'dummy', but by this do you mean that it doesn't revolve? I have two to build and I'm currently debating whether I can get away with having them fixed, with stock only traversing them in the direction they are set. But even that means at least one, perhaps both, will need to be 'live' for a loco to shunt across. I'm not clear whether you are expecting a loco to run beyond your table, or not?
David L-T

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jon price » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:17 pm

The loco will need to be quite light to get across the wagon turntable without destroying it. Turntables probably built to take a 10T wagon or van (with 6T+ tare makes just less than 17 tons fully loaded). An LNER Y7, or a Manning Wardle ClassH, or a Sentinel are pretty tiny and they weigh just more than 20 tons so they might get away with it, but anything bigger would wreck the mechanism

dal-t
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby dal-t » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:14 am

!'m aware of the (real world) weight issue, although this side of the Channel it seems there was rather less concern about the effect of trundling quite substantial locomotives across apparently puny pieces of track. But there are many trackplans that show it was at one time considered normal for entire trains to regularly traverse interconnecting wagon t/ts. My dilemma is that I'm modelling a configuration from that era, and I am really keen to allow accurate stock movement. So until the development of the 4mm shunting horse, my modelling compromise will involve an occasional loco venturing where it wouldn't really have gone (cue someone discovering a photo showing that actually it did). I probably could solve the issue with pullies and shunting ropes, but I do have a few more projects to complete before the next millenium, so I'm just interested in how others have approached wagon t/ts in this scale.
David L-T

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jon price » Tue Mar 07, 2017 9:58 am

This wasn't intended as a criticism, being fully aware of the compromises we all make which are necessary to run our model railways. There was also clearly a difference between the powered turntable/steam capstan arrangement seen in major goods yards, and the push it round by hand/shunt the wagon off by horse arrangement in most places. The former could be easily damaged by running over, the latter less so. but I think whilst you could have a loco running straight across the turntable it is unlikely to have ventured onto the diverging road. I'm lucky in that after the wagon turntables my prototype has a second parallel track for light mobile steam cranes. The only way in and out for the cranes would appear to have been using the turntables, but would only have been used for taking them off for servicing. I will probably attempt to move the wagons, which can only arrive singly after they execute a 90 degree turn, by long chains from the cranes. As far as the turntable itself goes I will make only a single track live and runnable. This will give a route onto the table from the siding, then a turn through 90 degrees onto the first parallel track, so the turntable will only ever go backwards and forwards through 90 degrees.

dal-t
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby dal-t » Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:47 am

Ah, that sounds interesting. Once wagons had doors both sides I guess every table only really needed to do a quarter turn. But I'll have a mix of older single-sided vans with more modern double-sided stock, so at least one and probably both of mine will need to do the full 360 if I'm going to get the door the right side for the loading bay. The loco, however, will only run 'straight through', and might be able to stop short of the second table. I'm still figuring out how to do the coupling/uncoupling and movement onto the 'stubs', but I suspect some mobile magnets will probably feature in the solution.
David L-T

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jon price » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:36 pm

I see your problem. My traffic is essentially a Victorian container port, with boxes loaded on a type of flat, Any vans would be on a different wharf.
wharf connahs quay.jpg

User avatar
Noel
Posts: 895
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby Noel » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:25 pm

Steam cranes were sometimes used for shunting in restricted areas with turntables, as were horses and, in the days of lots of staff, manpower. Inner city warehouses with multiple tracks and turntables commonly used hydraulic capstans and intermediate vertical rollers for changing the direction of pull, some of these systems lasting until closure by BR. Where BR built a modern equivalent it used electric capstans, again with intermediate rollers if necessary. Presumably the turntables were operated either by manually pushing round the wagon on it, or by hooking up a rope to the wagon, pinning down its brake and running the rope to a capstan via appropriate rollers to achieve the same effect?
Noel

User avatar
jon price
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: The Burford Branch

Postby jon price » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:55 pm

At Granary Square, just north of Kings Cross, outside the Grain Store restaurant, (you can guess what was dealt with in this goods yard) there is a wagon turntable whose decking is replaced by glass. It is visible on Google Earth. Below can be seen a mechanism, which I dimly recollect is the hydraulic gear which turned the capstans, but also the turntable. If anyone is around there perhaps they can check this and report back. Obviously the smaller scale yards were lower tech and relied on man or horsepower (or cranes see above) to do the turning.


Return to “Layouts and Operations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests