Masterplan: Micro mock-up
Aided by Gaugemaster’s range of ‘OO’ building kits, Paul A. Lunn mocks up a micro layout plan based on Dunster, on the West Somerset Railway.
Paul A. Lunn mocks up a micro layout plan based on Dunster.
Getting the best result from a mock-up comes from a combination of understanding prototype practice, limitations and opportunities available both in skill and materials – plus the capacity to arrange your work so it’s compositionally pleasing. For me, there’s a logical way to commence any layout build by identifying those things which are a ‘given’; baseboard size and particular prototype building are typical examples. In the next section I will show you my process and the logic behind it as I work through the stages of ‘dressing’ the mock-up.
Modelling wise I rarely have time to finish anything. If you factor in design, making improvements and, more importantly, making mistakes, anything ready-made or in kit form can only make our lot that bit easier.
Many structures are available from the trade, with those for Dunster, originally made by Pola for Hornby, dating back some time and now part of Gaugemaster’s Fordhampton range. Bachmann also used to sell a similar resin station building. Grouped with other accessories, it’s easy to get the Dunster feel.
Based on what I’ve said, the best place to start on this example is with the goods shed.
Line it up with the front left-hand end of the layout so that it effectively blocks the view of any access hole in the backscene. Also, there should be no exposed end section of backscene if you set the goods shed back from the front edge. Furthermore, it predicts exactly where the goods loop line will be.
Once the goods loop is determined, you can position the main line with a pair of Peco Setrack left-hand points. Note how the spacing of rigid track geometry creates a reasonable gap between the main line and the goods shed’s rear wall. From this step you can also accurately position where an aperture needs to be cut in the backscene to access a non-scenic section beyond.
With the main line in position, we can now predict the amount of space required for the platform and station building and, if modelled fully rather than in part-relief, these initial steps quantify minimum baseboard width, at a little over 325mm (13in), with a backscene immediately behind the station.
The next step is to plot length and there’s more opportunity for modest variation, both in overall baseboard (see minimum space plan at 1 metre long) and in structure positioning; goods shed could be modelled at half-length, station building placed anywhere on its base platform, provided in the kit, and although there is a centrally positioned oblong hole in the platform, this can easily be filled when the whole platform is recovered, for improved effect. You could also reduce platform length in the section between station building and signal box.
Once you’ve settled on linear position, you can start to think about detail and view blocking. Notice here how I’ve added prototypically correct trees near the platform’s left-hand end to distract from the backscene. Similarly, at the opposite end, I’ve added fictitious trees for the same purpose, with the level crossing scene acting as a distraction.
I completed this view by adding minor details. Note how careful use of smaller trees to the rear creates a greater sense of distance
It’s really important to check every possible viewing angle and to make sure that each one can be as effective as possible both in terms of the entire layout and in each individual cameo. I’ve particularly focused on a couple here – down the line from the level crossing and, in the final modelling, I’d strive to improve on this view, perhaps by moving trees a little further away from the line, adding a figure or two and making sure the far aperture to the non-scenic section (not shown) is masked as much as possible.
The image above, looking through the goods shed, could be very atmospheric. I might be tempted to use real glass in the windows so as not to obscure any view beyond.
ENTRY LEVEL
Entry level is a relative term, whether starting with your first train set, building a scale model, moving on to ‘EM’/‘P4’, scratchbuilding everything, and all points in between. Certainly, wherever you are along that line, and if my experience is anything to go by, you’ll want to improve things and be as realistic as possible. So, with this in mind, let’s have a look at principal structures, compare how they fair against scale drawings and prototype photographs, assessing any possible modifications or maybe justification to accept them as they are!
DUNSTER STATION GALLERY
Here you see a selection of prototype images, plus Gaugemaster’s GM401 (ex-hornby R418) Dunster Station, compared with Eric Ilett’s scale drawings from Ericplans – GWR & LMS Buildings and Structures (Peco Publications and Publicity Ltd, 1977, ISBN: 9780900586484). They show us that the model is fairly accurate, with a few minor issues such as roof and chimney height, angle and width of canopy and the lack of an external chimney breast at one end. I’d want to address the chimney issues, leaving everything else as very minor discrepancies.
SIGNAL BOX
Gaugemaster’s GM402 (ex-hornby R421) Signal Box and Level Crossing also compare very well with Eric Ilett’s scale drawings, save for one major fault: the shallow roof. If you feel comfortable building a new roof then go for that, otherwise leave it as it is. The building is a tad long and wide, but hardly noticeable.
The level crossing gates are virtually spot on. Please note the accompanying prototype photographs of the signal box were taken after it was moved to Minehead Station.
GOODS SHED
Hornby’s R8002 Goods Shed was never part of the Dunster range and, as such, is considerably different in size from the prototype. That said, its broad appearance is very similar, particularly the roof angles and, most important, the reduced size fits compositionally and proportionally better on such a limited micro baseboard.