Finally gettiing out of my system.

[user=711]col.stephens[/user] wrote:

I seem to remember that the Mainline J72 was a nice model for its time.  It would probably still hold its own against some of today's offerings.  Shame it was owned by the LNER!

Anyway, here are two of the three buffer stops in situ on the, as yet, undeveloped goods yard end of the layout.

Regards to all,

Terry

Super!!

Michael

Thank you all.



Peter.  The weathering is a mix of grey and brown acrylic paint dry brushed with a large brush.  I was using the paint to cover parts of the goods yard surface and thought I would ' kill two birds with one stone'.  I am trying to restrict myself to a limited palette to give the layout some visual cohesion.



Doug.  Thanks for posting the link to Lambourn.  It looks to me that Beale may well have based his drawing on this goods shed.  Does the same style of shed appear elsewhere on the GW system?  Interestingly, in the book he doesn't attribute the drawing to any particular railway company, which gives the impression that he has made freelance changes, such as three doors on the trackside elevation.  Most other drawings in the book are attributed to particular locations. 

In order to give some visual cohesion with the station building at the other end of the layout, I am toying with the idea of making a brick plinth from ground level up to the bottom of the loading doors, and using clapperboard for the rest of the building. This might give the impression visually of reducing the height of the building.  I don't want the goods shed to dominate the layout.



Regarding the paint schemes. Referring to my copy of 'Station Colours' by Peter Smith (available on Amazon), he states that 'some wooden goods sheds were not painted' (which infers that others were painted), 'but the wood was finished with a preservative such as creosote which gave a black shade when newly applied, which weathered to a mid-grey over time.  Doors and windows, etc., were still painted in the usual way.' Apparently, interior walls were painted white.  Generally, the GW used two shades of stone colour, available from Precision paints as P21 GWR Light Stone and P22 GWR Dark Stone.  As you rightly say, cream and brown for BR Western Region although no particular reference to goods sheds is made in the book.  Apparently, this paint scheme may well have been started by the GW in 1947 and possibly was just continued by BR.  The new colour scheme quickly spread and few stations survived in GW colours beyond the mid-1950's.  I hope this helps in some way.

Regarding the portable fences shown in the photos of Lambourn shed.  As the picture is taken from within the cattle dock, I assume that the fences are for use in loading/unloading the livestock vehicles.  Like you I have never seen this feature modelled.  One for the memory banks.



Nick.  Thanks for the compliment but I would never presume to challenge 'The Master'.



Best wishes to all.



Terry

"Beale may well have based his drawing on this goods shed.  Does the same style of shed appear elsewhere on the GW system?"


That's a question I'll have to look at, get all the branch line books out again!






"…finished with a preservative  such as creosote which gave a black shade when newly applied, which  weathered to a mid-grey over time…"


That seems to point towards Scalescenes TX35 PLain Clapboard as an excellent choice, with, say cream windows and brown doors. Thanks for that info.

Douglas
 

Hi Terry,

Lambourn goods shed is not a GWR design. It was the original built by the LVR in 1898. I used the plans in Great Western Branch Line Termini when I built a model of it. The canopy arch on the track side has the dimensions of a loading gauge apparently. 

Nigel

It's to be hoped any goods in the goods shed was well packaged if the cladding was treated with creosote. 

It has a fabulous smell but taints everything within smelling distance ………………in spite of that, it's probably the best wood preservative known to man - and as such, they ban it !!!!   :twisted:

Thanks Nigel.  I hope Doug isn't spending hours looking through his books for the answer!


Peter, rather like removing the lead from solder.


Regards,


Terry

[user=711]col.stephens[/user] wrote:

……………………………………………………

 Peter, rather like removing the lead from solder

Absolutely Terry.  If they got rid of humans, nothing would be dangerous anymore………………………

[user=711]col.stephens[/user] wrote:

Thanks Nigel.  I hope Doug isn't spending hours looking through his books for the answer!


Peter, rather like removing the lead from solder.


Regards,


Terry

No problem, Terry, Paul Karau's excellent branch lines book gave me the answer yesterday. Lambourne Valley Railway. But why can't a shed designed by the same team exist elsewhere? [IMMR}

Doug

[user=401]pnwood[/user] wrote:

Amazing how many people can't spell Lambourn correctly  ;-)

Looking forward to seeing how two excellent modellers face off against each other in the Goods Shed Challenge  :lol:

Sorry Woodye, I missed this…

D

[user=312]Chubber[/user] wrote:

[user=401]pnwood[/user] wrote:

Amazing how many people can't spell Lambourn correctly  ;-)

Looking forward to seeing how two excellent modellers face off against each other in the Goods Shed Challenge  :lol:

Sorry Woodye, I missed this…

D

So did I. Of course, if the shed at Lambourne , Essex, is being modeled…If it's a shed at a halt, should that be halte? I used to live at 32 The Bourne, so I always throw in an e just to be sure. You never know.

Nigel

Hi Terry,

Further to our emails, herewith the relevant pages from 'Modellers' Guide to the GWR'

Reproduced by kind permission of SLP and Trevor Booth.













They do seem to offer a compact solution to goods handling for compact layouts, making the point that a station might have started with a small building such as that in the lower half of the upper picture, and a 'store' added later. A nice bit of variety. I think I would have the goods shed on a two-three brick [or stone] plinth if I wanted to tie it in a little with other buildings.

The wooden trestle supports look like a good exercise in matchstick modelling…..

Doug

Very interesting buildings.  Thanks for posting Doug.




Re the Edward Beale drawing.  I notice that in the text he says that the drawing 'is an actual instance' so maybe it's not based on Lambourn as it has three doors trackside as opposed to Lambourn's one door, and a small exterior platform.




Best wishes,





Terry

I don't know whether to go for a 'shrunk' Beale or an 'expanded' Lambourn [no 'e'] each either with or without a Pain's barn shed……

I think more red laughing water is needed.

D

Look here….

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/uploads/7/6/8/3/7683812/lyme-regis-1961-copyirght-steve-richards-copy_orig.jpg

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lyme_regis/lyme(1903)regis60.jpg
 
 Interesting?

 
D

…and there is more…

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lyme_regis/lyme%20regis_phill_tatt(8.1963)8.jpg



Doug

Perhaps we ought to delete this one [the photo] as I don't know the copyright status…

Most of not all small goods shed (and this applies to engine sheds and signal cabins) on branch lines that we consider as "GWR" are not. They were built by whatever underfunded company was responsible for being foolish enough to get a government charter in the hope they would be bought out by the GWR for a profit. Hence the wide variety of sheds. The bigger mergers and takeovers of mainline companies also resulted in new styles coming in.

Perusing Great Western Branch Line Termini (volumes 1 or 2) reinforces this. The only real standards were those set by Brunel. My "line", the BCDR, had at least 4 different styles, depending on who built what, where, and when. The section from Banbury to Hook Norton had identical designs, Chipping Norton was different, being built by another company, Kingham didn't have one (it had an extensive goods platform), onward to Cheltenham there were another 2 different styles. The Fairford Branch Line, originally the EGR, was built in 2 sections by different contractors at different times. The engine shed at Fairford was however a Brunel designed wood affair, brought in from elsewhere following the gauge change.


The GWR was collecting branchlines for less than 50% of the original cost of building them in the latter half of the 19th century (as many as 6-11 a year), the only thing common after that was the paint.


Nigel

[user=312]Chubber[/user] wrote:

…and there is more…

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/l/lyme_regis/lyme%20regis_phill_tatt(8.1963)8.jpg



Doug

Perhaps we ought to delete this one [the photo] as I don't know the copyright status…

If you have done your best effort, acknowledged where it same from,  and it is in the interests of research and education, you should be OK.

Nigel

I have used such information as is available [I work on the principle that if someone wants to be asked for permissions, then they should provide a path therefore…] as I did many years ago for the permissions I have from the inheritors of JS Ahern's rights,[Two years research]  WB McKay [building construction] etc, but with this last picture, the path ends in a 404, so I am content to post it.

There is an accepted line of thought amongst practitioners of copyright law [an ex member here was one such, we corresponded severally and often] that if small parts of a work were used [a stated case involved three sentences from a paragraph of nine sentences] then as long as the copyright holder loses no  credibility and ? and ? (I forget the details) and the publisher seeks nor seeks to receive a  pecuniary advantage then no injury exists.

So, it all comes down to the decision of the person who will ultimately get it in the neck if  Messrs Hackem, Choke and Strangle LLB Calcutta [Failed] have a hissy fit, i.e. Spurno, and to him I leave the final word. Olé!

Poop-poop!

Cor, what a waste of electrons..

Douglas

Doug, that last coloured picture of Lyme Regis goods shed also shows the signal box.  In a mad moment I made a 2mm scale version from styrene sheet when I was dabbling with 2mm Fine Scale.  I wanted to see if it was possible to use the same construction methods as 7mm scale from which I had just departed.  If I can find it I'll post a picture or two if anyone is interested in seeing it.  It has nothing to do with this thread, other than being on the Southern.


Regards,


Terry