Hi all, I thought I'd dig out the buildings in an attempt to rationalise things, if only storage.  Here's all the buildings needed for Lantern Yard. Those at the back are slightly smaller scale to give some sense of depth to the finished set-piece.

Then there's Southwold, still needing boats and general rubbish, more signage, lobster pots, rusty winches, etc. The paradox is that the coach body would never have been used on the railway that went behind it as the Southwold was, of course, 3 foot gauge and the coach is a Great Eastern 6 wheeler cut in half.


And finally, oldest of the lot (35 years!) is Upwell Riverside…Tony Moss's garage (still there, only just) and a made up motorbike shop on the opposite corner.


Most made in card, some in Foamex. Brick is Slater's and South Eastern Finecast.  Corrugated asbestos and iron, made in my own press. The trick with brick is to file/sand it back to within an ace of its life to avoid the cobble look to moulded bricks.  The doors on Tony's office (which he still uses!) really are that drooped and rotten! And they were 35 years ago when I made this model.  Back then I made it from offcuts of CS10 lineboard as I was a technical illustrator. Recently a single sheet of CS10 went on ebay for £120!!

Everything here is 7mm scale.

Cheers,
Martin

Take it  your Southwold buildings are for the harbour branch Martin,.

Did you build a layout for them to go on, or is that a plan for the future (you've probably said, but I may have missed it).

Also in general, do you work from published scale drawings for buildings?

This is my attempt at an engine shed (very) loosely based on the timber engine shed at Southwold.

I've just guesstimated dimensions and I'm not entirely happy with using paper wall coverings in this scale, as everything is very flat. Might be better with embossed plastic sheets.

http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=15341&forum_id=93&page=2#p281439



Ed

Hi Ed,
yes the Southwold buildings are all harbour branch. Being a boat fan that's the only bit that appeals to me.  I just drew the buildings straight onto the Foamex that I now use for buildings, instead of card.  I rarely do actual drawings for anything. I have an idea in my head what I want and draw direct to the materials. There won't be a layout as I don't have the space and the moment anything moves on a model railway I feel the image is ruined so layouts don't appeal to me.
Your first attempt at a building is fine, although I think the under scale clap boarding could do with being upped in size as the planks make the building look bigger than it is.  Brick papers can look fine, but really textured stuff needs to be modelled I feel. You can just cut strips of card and stick down overlapping to get the scale texture, then paint dark grey (black is very rare).
But it's a very good start and will prove to you that scratch built buildings are really simple.  
Great job and keep it going.

Cheers,
Martin

Thanks Martin.

I've just been working on a low relief warehouse which I covered with brick paper and that doesn't look right either, especially as I sprayed it with matt varnish and overdid it a bit, resulting in the paper becoming bleached  :sad:



Ed

I'd give the moulded brick a go. South Eastern Finecast is good stuff, but file/sand it down so the bricks are flatter and less cobble like, then cut it and glue on.  OR…if you use Foamex, you can impress the bricks on with the back of a craft knife blade or a fine scriber.  I think brick paper works well on 4mm scale, but not sure of 7mm.

Martin

[user=2084]Mr.Tin[/user] wrote:

I think brick paper works well on 4mm scale, but not sure of 7mm.

Thanks again Martin, think you've "hit the nail on the head"  :thumbs



Ed

Ed, in fairness to those who do such an impressive job with brick papers I haven't tried 7mm brick papers. I no longer have a printer, so I'm unlikely to try it, but would still be interested to see what people do with it.  I do think the slabbery of a warehouse or factory, especially in the back of the layout lend themselves better to brick papers, than a cottage in the foreground, but as I don't have a layout, only set-pieces, I can't have an opinion, only an assumption, for what that's worth.

Cheers,
Martin

Hi Martin,

Scaling back. How do you calculate how much? Perspective/vanishing point? And from where? Most boards have a depth of 2'. I have a long-standing argument with a fellow modeler about this, and he is in 1:22.5 (and indoors as well). I usually do not bother, as my boards are 15" deep and meant to be viewed from both sides

Brick. Same question. Mortar joints come in many varieties (at least 8). 0.25" deep or even less with engineering brick.  Concave is common for exterior work (actual radius of a jointing tool is usually 0.5"). In 1:43 that's about 0.006". Even in O scale paper prints of bricks  work fine. 

4" scale corrugated comes down to about 0 .1". 

Nigel

Hi Martin,


 One quick look at the math behind perspective and vanishing point depth sent me scurrying for the ruler and the MK-1 eyeball.

Interesting stuff. I must do this properly with the tripod and get the equations for differing viewing heights. Lower of course will mean higher scale ratios. More in a bit in a separate post.

 Nigel

Nigel,
me?  Calculate?  Nah, just guess.
To be more serious about it, it's not much. The bigger buildings are probably reduced by a small amount, like the corrugated roofed ex Nissen hut, but then it was only meant to fit a small space so was cut down when the move from the army base was made to the yard.  My set-piece is a wedge shape, about 20" one end and 15" tother. The wood sizes I had at the time.  I guess the buildings are not much reduced as I always start with a 6-6 x 2-6 door. Standard stuff for a smaller house.  
I have made a much more studied diorama for my slot cars.  That has to be viewed from one point only (a true diorama), although to get a side view you can shoot between two buildings.  It's the start line of Shelseley Walsh hillclimb and the buildings by the start are very noticeably wedge shaped in side view and the road tapers strongly from the start at about 5" to the background at about 2 1/2". Finding differing people to stand at the hedges/fences was not easy. Currently that's put away, so no pictures. I'll check through the pics in my pootah folders.

Martin

Hi Martin,
I suspect guesswork with a hefty dose of technical illustration experience . A quick "ruler in the sky" and a bit of paper on the (conveniently) 24" deep kitchen counter last night showed that O scale at the front was about "OO" at the back. Which is leading me to the conclusion that forced perspective is a subtle beastie best dealt with at an angle. Or completely ignored.

Nigel

To be a good modelmaker, you need a good eye, for sure. I'm told I have one by old customers, so I make sure to use it when I can.
I think that forced perspective must be either gentle if it's all the back level, or bold if seen from one place. I was lucky to belong to Jack Nelson's Ilford Junior Model Railway Club as a young teenager and I used to sit right next to his famous Runcorn diorama.  3 1/2" gauge in the foreground, HO in the back, yet it looked perfectly realistic.  The HO then went off round his loft and came back in to the next scene.  I believe these are now in a museum in Bettws-y-Coed in Wales. I'm not sure why and frankly fear for their safety.  Jack was an authority on the LNWR, The Premier Line and a fine modelmaker.  Listening to his tales of research and modelmaking whilst drinking a cocoa actually leaning on that famous diorama is an abiding memory.  Jack gave me 7-6d to start me on scratchbuilding and I bought my first sheet of nickel silver with it from Kings Cross models in York Way.  I still have a small piece of it!

Cheers,
Martin

Hi Martin,
Small world, lived on Cortland Ave for a few years in the 1970's. As you say, a good eye and subtlety. I was actually surprised at the reduction in scale over just 24"

Nigel

I Jack's Runcorn diorama was only about 3 feet front to back, but viewing it from just one spot makde all the difference.
If I recall aright, Jack was in Sth. Park Avenue.  Upstairs flat.  It's more than 50 years ago now.

Martin

Tried to find something on google, but it's all Yank stuff on there.
Martin

Aha, this looks useful:-
RAILWAY MODELLER INDEX                          



Issue/ Year /Volume / Number/ Pages/ Subject/ Author /Comments



April 1962 13 138 82-84 A railway in perspective J.K. Nelson



March 1967 18 197 78-79 Runcorn bridge J.K. Nelson



April 1968 19 210 112-15 L.N.W.R. Signals Jack Nelson General description - with plans /diags - Edge No1 Home Signals



April 1970 21 234 106-107 Bascule Bridge J.K.Nelson Plans (1mm-1 foot) of Scherzer rolling lift bridge Barking Creek



July 1971 22 249 218-22 Edgware Street bridge Jack Nelson Plans Scale - 1:152  2mm - 1 foot and photos



October 1973 24 276 307-09 Modelling the LNWR: Museum Models Jack Nelson Plans Scale - 1:152 2mm - 1 foot - Widnes Viaduct section



June 1978 29 332 164 Portraying the LNWR Jack Nelson   February 1979 30 340 58 LNWR in miniature Jack Nelson



June 1979 30 344 194-95 LNWR in miniature Jack Nelson

Hi Martin,

Very small world. Courtland Ave. is a 5 minute walk from the park. Lived in the area from 1968-1975.

I think I should use a new topic to discuss my thoughts on perspective as this is your thread. 

Nigel

No, don't worry, Nigel, I only post to promote discussions on technique, etc.  Too old and experienced to go seeking slaps on the back!  I know what I can do, nothing to prove, but lots to help with if anyone wants.

Cheers,
Martin