Schooner's (Mostly Maritime) Layouts

[Schooner]

53 minutes ago, Northroader said:

(1933)

 

When, sorry? Is this our dinner reservation?!

 

The useful bits from the 1877-8 surveys are here (overview) and here (throat detail). 

 

Any model of mine would be focused on the terminal and the dock network, making use of the real change in elevation (significant) but probably messing with alignment. The 'nice to have's being a scenic run, a nod to Truro as junction, and the 'would like' would be Penryn, which used to have a more interesting kickback layout, if not operation, than nowadays.

 

:)

[St Enodoc]

5 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

When, sorry? Is this our dinner reservation?!

 

The useful bits from the 1877-8 surveys are here (overview) and here (throat detail). 

 

Any model of mine would be focused on the terminal and the dock network, making use of the real change in elevation (significant) but probably messing with alignment. The 'nice to have's being a scenic run, a nod to Truro as junction, and the 'would like' would be Penryn, which used to have a more interesting kickback layout, if not operation, than nowadays.

 

:)

If I were modelling Falmouth I think I'd let the line to the docks drop down out of sight behind the station and leave it at that, with the docks themselves in low relief and on the backscene. Viewing would of course be from the landward side.

[stevel]

14 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

When, sorry? Is this our dinner reservation?!

 

The useful bits from the 1877-8 surveys are here (overview) and here (throat detail). 

 

Any model of mine would be focused on the terminal and the dock network, making use of the real change in elevation (significant) but probably messing with alignment. The 'nice to have's being a scenic run, a nod to Truro as junction, and the 'would like' would be Penryn, which used to have a more interesting kickback layout, if not operation, than nowadays.

 

:)

Penryn is the station I intend to build, with the Brunel viaduct on the approach, once I have the space. 

 

Stephen 

[Schooner]

A quick lunchtime poke at FH suggests something recognisable, if a little condensed, is possible with Peco (and a couple British Finescale B7s, cos yum):

 

I'll start iterating next SCARM session, but all input invited and most welcome :)

 

[Northroader]

The line sinking down to the docks behind the back of the station with a Brunel trainshed, replicates at Swansea High Street, and Plymouth Millbay.

[Annie]

7 hours ago, Schooner said:

A quick lunchtime poke at FH suggests something recognisable, if a little condensed, is possible with Peco

Does Peco do Broad Gauge track then?

 

Sinking the line down to the docks neatly away behind the station and using a backscene is a clever idea.  I pretty much gave up on Falmouth because the thought of doing the docks was too horrible to contemplate.

Edited May 22 by Annie
More words needed.

[Schooner]

On 22/05/2024 at 16:58, Northroader said:

 Plymouth Millbay

Another fave. In fact there's not much of Plymouth's 1900ish rail network that is not a) fascinating b) modelable c) worth modelling :)

 

On 22/05/2024 at 20:12, Annie said:

Does Peco do Broad Gauge track then?

Oh no! Busted 🤣

 

I thought maybe the docks line could disappear down behind the station...

 

...and then loop around to then descend again into a second scene on the other side of the room. This would have the station and train shed as high-level backscene, exchange siding (?) in front, the the docks line descending in front of that. Assuming similar available length, a sort of splayed V format with East and West sections of the dock railway on either side, with the Southern ends of the graving docks providing the apex. Wouldn't be totally accurate, but could, I think, be usefully representative.

 

This level could perhaps be below a storage yard for the Branch Line services. Leaves Penryn out in the cold, but then it's Penryn and many would suggest that's the best place for it 😇

Edited May 24 by Schooner
A little drop of 'Rynner-love

[magmouse]

@Schooner - you've previously mentioned that the Panart 'La Rose' schooner kit would make a good basis for a 7mm scale ship model (the kit is 1:47 scale, but with a few tweaks might be adapted OK). Would you be able to share any further thoughts on this? I am in the early stages of planning a small-ish version of my Netherport concept (more on that soon), and a quayside with ship is - literally - central to the plan. I'd like to do something that would pass muster as a vessel in a Dorset coast port c.1908, but I am starting from a position of minimal nautical knowledge...

 

https://premiershipmodels.co.uk/product/la-rose-schooner-1835-panart-749/

 

Nick.

[Pacific231G]

Hi Nick 

Are you looking specifically at a sailing ship or would a steam coaster also be relevant. Also are you looking for a kit or to scratch build?  

I could be wrong but I think that by c1906 the bulk of coastal shipping probably was steam powered though smaller sailing vessels were still in wide use especially for shorter estuarial journeys (such as those made by Thames sailing barges and those with low value, especially agricultural cargos where speed wasn't important)    

 

Edited June 5 by Pacific231G

[fulton]

1 hour ago, Pacific231G said:

(such as those made by Thames sailing barges and those with low value, especially agricultural cargos where speed wasn't important)    

 

My 4mm model of the Medway Sailing Barge "RENOWN" built at Halling, on the River Medway 1886, lasted until the 1920s.

[magmouse]

Hi David - thanks for your input. I am looking for a sailing ship, motivated by the visual impact of masts, rigging, etc. as much as historical accuracy. I also need something relatively small - the 64cm length of the La Rose kit is as much as I can fit in. Assuming the date is accurate, this photo shows plenty of sailing ships in Poole harbour in my period:

 

https://www.francisfrith.com/poole/poole-barges-and-the-quay-1908_61171

 

I have a fairly strong preference for a kit - in time, I could probably scratch-build something from drawings, but - attractive as ship-modelling is - I really don't need to start another hobby....

 

Nick.

[magmouse]

I mentioned my developing plans for a layout based on my Netherport concept a few posts back. For those interested in quayside layouts (and who amongst us is not?), please see these blog posts:

 

 

 

And this thread:

 

 

Nick.

 

[Schooner]

On 05/06/2024 at 08:49, magmouse said:

a quayside with ship is - literally - central to the plan.

 

Ooh look, so it is!

 

Bullet points for brevity, sweeping generalisations a-go-go:

• pre-WW1 you'd be more likely to see a sailing coaster than steamer - the photos don't lie. So that's a tick :)
• Sailing coasters 1900-1910 = ketch of c.75-95' LoD; topsail schooner 85'-125' LoD, likely 'reduced' from two to three masts if at the larger end of the spectrum
• If doing anything other than scratch building to plans, this is a game of 'near enough is good enough' - you'll have to judge what that means for you!
• Hulls scale pretty well; rigs too. In a model railway context the latter are more likely to give the game away re build nation/port, and so are more likely to benefit from alteration.
• To bring to scale, adjust human-related stuff - hatch sizes, ratline and lacing spacings, wheel spoke diameter and handle length etc
• Don't worry too much about the boat-only stuff - big boats have big gear! - and assuming a decent kit then scantlings should be about right:
• 

ie that lot should be in proportion, including the visible bits above deck/through hatches etc!

 

So, of more practical utility, the best options I've found to date for 'O gauge' kits for

(West Country) Trading Ketch:

https://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/acatalog/krick_karl.html

• Changes: lose the davits, deck furniture to taste/scale, sort the rig out
  • booms lower, increase the length of the mainsail somehow (main mast fwd? mizzen mast aft? bit of both?) and reduce its height, fit proper topmasts and rigging for a flying jib.
• Reference boat/pics: Bessie Ellen
• See also: Gardlandstone, Irene

Topsail Schooner:

https://www.cornwallmodelboats.co.uk/acatalog/mantua_la_rose.html#SID=56

 

• Changes: Hull - too shallow but okay; rig - too French, but okay, deck - distinctly average.
  • Keep the 'boaty' hardware (windlass etc); replace everything else with something a little more scale/suitable. The kennel thing under the fore is odd, would not reinstate no matter how scale! Open up the hold opening from a fish hatch to a proper cargo hatch. The cabin skylight/binnacle/tiller arrangement is a bit meh.
  • Basically it's everything tricky from the kit, and then just making the deck fit for purpose, as you would do anyway to bring it to 1:43ish, so really nothing lost :)
• Reference boat/pics: Ermmm Basil Greenhill's Merchant Schooners for a start!
• See also: Kathleen and May I guess, there might be something useful across the ditch in Frogland but if so it'd be news to me. However, there were c.1000 registered in trade about your period, so there are plenty of useful pics available through Google :) Combine with the modern pics from Bessie etc for a useful resource. For example, have a quick watch of K&M's last commercial trip in the '60s. Not as easy as 'model this', but not unuseful :)

 

 

Honourable mentions:

Option the Third, with which I'm currently toying, is to go with this hull and plan set from Sarik. This gets the tricky bit out of the way, and it floats! Given the decks and rigs of all the kits would benefit from some TLC, I thought I might have a go at knocking those up myself. After all, if I can do it in 12":1', what could possibly possibly go wrong?!

 

A bit of perspective:

There are decent kits for Scottish Maid in 1/50 (too small for a sneaky rescale, pity) and an old kit for Rhoda Mary in 1/60 (hull good, deck good, spars too heavy by half - but easily turned down to a smaller diameter).

 

FWIW

I'm going to have a quick check of domestic finances tomorrow, and likely pull the trigger on one of the above. The ketch or the hull-only are the best fits for Vicky Quay, so we shall see what happens...!

 

Edited June 10 by Schooner

[magmouse]

Wow, thank you, Louis - this is super-helpful. Lots to chew over, especially as I hadn't considered the Karl und Marie kit, though I suspect it is too big (as a model) for the space I have. If I stick with La Rose, I can leave it as a French vessel, given my south coast location and idea that Netherport is developing cross-channel trade.

 

Nick.

 

 

[Schooner]

@magmouse I think I'm coming down towards the ketch! I've spotted another couple of helpful but simple changes, and I think overall it'd be pretty doable and give a workable end result.

 

Like you, a kit appeals at this stage (it's likely still a couple hundred hours start to finish) and realistically I haven't got the brainspace for much scratch-building atm anyway. I can quite see the ketch, though scaling out almost perfectly, is a bit big for your needs. She does fit on VQ though...just not at the same time as anything else! That's kinda fine, assuming my little tabletop turns into my layout-of-a-lifetime, as Plan A is to use different ship models for different cargos, needing different handling and railway forwarding options. There are also some beautifully evocative pics of Garlandstone up at Fremington too, which would be nice to reference.

 

Anyway, that means the Sarik schooner hull and La Rose are very much still on the cards for the future. La Rose would be nice in time (propped up against the wooden jetty for a bit of false perspective?), but through no fault of her own is now looking like the last on the list, due to the Sarik schooner hull's easier fit into the existing scene. The 1:48 steam coaster currently on the model is defs a little shy in scale terms, but overall works well. This means I either need to lean into the false perspective aspect and set up the scene accordingly, or do a little remodelling so she can sit alongside more convincingly.

 

A slightly different tack would be to simply allow c.800mm of quayside at Basuto (to take <700mm of boat), and wait to see how the scene develops. It might be that a barge or lighter alongside the quay (seen as masts only) would give depth for some heavier forced perspective, allowing La Rose or even Scottish Maid (similar model length despite smaller scale) to be used out of the box. Dunno, just if there was something perfect then it'd be easy to go with that and build the scene around it, but as there aren't any I think there's probably a useful amount of flexibility available.

 

Annnnnnnnnyway, trains...!

[Schooner]

Trains.

 

Remeasured the available bit of loft, not to the nearest mm but probably alright to the nearest inch or so:

 

Black = wall*

Grey = Peco O Gauge Set track curves, 18" short straights and 6' long straights; track nearer the middle is doable, track nearer the top/bottom edges in way of the beams is not.

Blue = indicative baseboard, with cutaways for corner access and structural timbers.

 

*'Tho lower left corner is not square, as below

 

 

Boards sat on top of roof beams, about shoulder-height when sat on the floor, so the 1000mm reach to the edge is doable but the 1300mm of the LHS would be pushing it. A 2'x3' cutout operating well for the LHS would be doable - perhaps to control some shunty scene, vs the main loop - but equally would not be neccessary.

 

 

So that's the space, with some bits drawn on as a rough guide.

 

What would you do with it? In what scale?

 

If you were me (and those repeat offenders who return to this thread probably know enough by now!) what would you do?

Edited June 10 by Schooner

[Schooner]

By way of a planning exercise, a Proper Little Railway in the garage:

 

and the spare room:

 

and, now, the loft:

 

Only a quick lunchtime pass, but critique welcome as ever. It's interesting to see what concessions in which areas must be made for the various locations. Bigger is simpler and 'best', but I couldn't say for sure it'd be worth the extra time and cost. 

 

[Annie]

I would think climbing over those rafters and banging your head on the roof beams in the loft would get old very fast.

 

The garage plan looks absolutely ideal at first glance, but how often would you go out there when it's pouring with rain or there's snow thick on the ground.

 

I think the spare room is the best option so long as you haven't got anybody in your life who wants to annex the room for another purpose.  The trackplan is interesting and allows for all kinds of traffic maneuverings without the whole thing being too large for one person to deal with or build.

[Compound2632]

18 hours ago, Annie said:

I would think climbing over those rafters and banging your head on the roof beams in the loft would get old very fast.

 

The best use for the loft is as a store for all the stuff you need to move out of the garage and spare room to make way for the railways. Anywhere that involves bending, crouching, or ducking under is not a long-term solution.

Edited August 14 by Compound2632

[magmouse]

I’m concerned that you seem to have drawn everything to 4/7ths of the correct size. Please make sure you fix this for the next iteration….

 

Seriously, though, my ‘big picture’ questions would be:

• What balance do you want between railway and context? These plans seem to be mainly railway, with some context - is that the balance you are looking for?
• You either have little/no fiddle yard space, or hoists to low level yards. This implies operation is mainly using the stock on the visible part of the layout for an operating session. Anything not on the layout has to be swapped in and out manually or via the hoists. How does this relate to your operating interests, and your modelling interests (if you especially like building stock, you might want more of it available for immediate use.
• some parts look like quite a stretch to reach to - what height are you thinking for these layouts? How practical are the deep corners?

I suspect you will already have thought about these things, but I’m having a little poke to bring that thinking into the open.

 

Nick.

[Schooner]

More words to follow by edit ASAP, but for now the latest iteration of a more likely approach, placed here for safekeeping:

 

 

So ummmmm yeah, a little tickle of this guy. I keep coming back to it - I quite like it and it makes fair use of the room most easily called 'spare'.

 

The big change in this version is the junction. It makes a lot of narrative sense, and means it's only little tank locos and short trains on the helices. In addition, it's quite fun to look at and to play with, the loops of the junction being long enough to hold and pass conflicting traffic.

 

In a bid for a place for all types of stock to live, the carriage siding is now at the apex which is alright I think?

 

All the trip/shunting stuff is now on the lower lever, which is both a visual and a practical improvement.

 

The idea for the low level is a very vanilla yard of storage loops to an end turntable under the BLT, the yard accessed by a single line to/from the hoist. 4 tracks should be enough, 5 should be long enough...so call it 6 loops of 6' each, giving 5 'national' trains (2xpax, 3xgoods) and run round with length to hold double headers if I want to run a Midland Railway excursion :)

 

Ummm, that'll do for now. Still to far off to really contemplate, but something along these lines may one day get built. Feel free to tear it to shreds so it, and I, can improve :) 

 

Edited September 1 by Schooner

[Schooner]

Er, right, so...

 

On 14/08/2024 at 21:31, magmouse said:

I’m concerned that you seem to have drawn everything to 4/7ths of the correct size. Please make sure you fix this for the next iteration….

Sorry, brain failure - come again?! Those three are all in 7mm'FS'. Tight, but even the smallest allows 4' of platform for a 3' train, and holds onto Peco Settrack for its minimum radius...

 

...are you saying I should focus on 4mm?! :)

 

On 14/08/2024 at 21:31, magmouse said:

These plans seem to be mainly railway, with some context - is that the balance you are looking for

To the best of my ability to date, it's the only context available to me in 7mm! I'm happy enough to have boards of 4' depth, as long as all turnouts are within c.3', and even then there's barely room for a loop in context!

 

I don't need Pendon, nor McKinley. I'd much rather aim for a full model of a small prototype than a super-compressed model of a large one, in part because the layout sort of becomes its own context - less signposting is needed because it makes more intuitive sense - and there is more space for all the set dec because the railway is fairly modest. I also tend to think a circuit/running line requires more scenic context to feel 'right' than an ops-focused slow-moving BLT where I find it perfectly acceptable to be well inside the fence, as Mr Rice would put it.

 

That three schemes all try to give the full suite of Railway Company facilities definitely makes them more cramped, and there is no setting justification for that (yet)...but hence the design challenge and (whisper it) fun!

 

 

 

On 14/08/2024 at 21:31, magmouse said:

This implies operation is mainly using the stock on the visible part of the layout for an operating session.

Correct. Dealing with 'offstage' isn't fun for me, so even my smallest schemes go for a Little Empire approach where no 'rest of the world' is required during a session*. If I can't lose half an hour to playing trains in the modelled world then I go back to the drawing board.

 

*'tho they all make use of various hands-off stock storage (mostly cassettes and vertical hoists to a low storage level) to get a train on/off scene. Until I find a bigger house that is...!

 

On 14/08/2024 at 21:31, magmouse said:

what height are you thinking for these layouts?

I tend to think of them with the operators' eyeline about 3 or 4 storeys up - in the treetops, or the roof line of larger buildings.

 

I tend to build (ignoring all other considerations) so this eyeline is achieved whilst sat in a swivel chair at its lowest! In practice this is just under 3' (c.34" if memory serves with current set up, both Ingleford and Victoria Quay). Pretty convenient for working on the layout, fine for regularly reaching c.2'6. Longer reaches are a concern, but if it's just for build/broad brush scenics to blend a backscene etc then I think it's fine to extend. People do manage! 

 

Track cleaning is the other thing which gets mentioned a lot, to which my learned response has become

• Use graphite and
• Use the layout!

This combo seems to work a treat.

 

Anyway, these are my current thoughts...

 

...If you don't like them...I have others :)

Edited September 1 by Schooner

[magmouse]

45 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Sorry, brain failure - come again?! Those three are all in 7mm'FS'. Tight, but even the smallest allows 4' of platform for a 3' train, and holds onto Peco Settrack for its minimum radius...

Not your brain failure - mine. I was thinking these plans were all 4mm scale - my eye thrown off by the large size of the garage, and the tight radii. I should have paid more attention to the scales.

 

Nick.

[Annie]

48 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Correct. Dealing with 'offstage' isn't fun for me, so even my smallest schemes go for a Little Empire approach where no 'rest of the world' is required during a session*. If I can't lose half an hour to playing trains in just the modelled world then I go back to the drawing board.

I have to confess that I like the 'Little Empire' approach to layout building as well.

[Schooner]

1 hour ago, magmouse said:

the large size of the garage, and the tight radii

Ahhh, the garage! What wonders it could've held! Sadly, since the move, it's probably a bit non to start building a layout in it...!

 

And yes, pretty tight radii - they're half those on Victoria Quay, a jumped up shunting plank! - but given a penchant for small Victorian locos and stock I think functional. Not pretty though.

Edited September 1 by Schooner