Pencarrow: nothing to see, move along please.

[2ManySpams]

I wonder if the four roof panel which appear to have been replaced indicate a change of use of the building. Do you think it might once have had flues or vents for something?

 

Or perhaps covering over the clear plastic corrugated rooflight panels? Other buildings nearby also have similar coloured panels at regular spacings.

[DonB]

Had a look at concrete block sizes - haven't yet found anything saying how big they were in the 50s but I'm assuming about the same as the modern ones c9" tall and 18" long??

 

The roof panels look about 2' wide and 6' long??

 

Any thoughts?

 

I purchased some unused "Breeze Blocks" from a factory closing down in 1983/4 , they are nominally  9" x 18" and 5.5" thick. They are a Concrete-grey colour , I think they were made from Power Station clinker and have a rough surface similar to pebble-dash. Intended for single-block-thickness industrial walls ??

My house  (built 1960) has solid internal walls which are from 9"x 18" x 4.5" blocks. (revealed during an extension build). (9" x 18" approximates to brickwork 3 high x 2 long ) 

 

It would seem a fair bet that 9" x 18" was the standard size for building blocks but that uninsulated  factory / shed / workshop walls were of the thicker blocks resulting in deeper openings in the walls for windows and doors which may need representing in a model. 

The 18" x 9" dimension seems to include the mortar joint (based on the ones in my house and garden) .

[2ManySpams]

I purchased some unused "Breeze Blocks" from a factory closing down in 1983/4 , they are nominally 9" x 18" and 5.5" thick. They are a Concrete-grey colour , I think they were made from Power Station clinker and have a rough surface similar to pebble-dash. Intended for single-block-thickness industrial walls ??

My house (built 1960) has solid internal walls which are from 9"x 18" x 4.5" blocks. (revealed during an extension build). (9" x 18" approximates to brickwork 3 high x 2 long )

 

It would seem a fair bet that 9" x 18" was the standard size for building blocks but that uninsulated factory / shed / workshop walls were of the thicker blocks resulting in deeper openings in the walls for windows and doors which may need representing in a model.

The 18" x 9" dimension seems to include the mortar joint (based on the ones in my house and garden) .

Thanks for the confirmation Don. That also tallies with the roof panels as the are 4x 18" blocks to 3x 24" roof panels.

 

The board depth i have will fit a 30' long building which is 15x 2' roof panels, over 2/3 the real building length.

[Worsdell forever]

All 18 x 9, there's 9" hollow, 6" hollow, 6" solid and 4" solid. 9" usually used for industrial/agricultural use especially when the wall needs reinforcing with vertical rods and filling with concrete, a very strong wall. 6" solids regularly laid flat for foundations and heavy load bearing. 4" for inner cavity and interior domestic walls.

[wagonbasher]

Had a look at concrete block sizes - haven't yet found anything saying how big they were in the 50s but I'm assuming about the same as the modern ones c9" tall and 18" long??

 

The roof panels look about 2' wide and 6' long??

 

Any thoughts?

Just to be precise. Modern concrete blocks are 215mm high, 440mm wide and they vary in depth but 100mm is the most common.

 

I only know because I work for Tarmac and we make huge numbers from multiple sites around the UK.

 

Andy

[2ManySpams]

Just to be precise. Modern concrete blocks are 215mm high, 440mm wide and they vary in depth but 100mm is the most common.

I only know because I work for Tarmac and we make huge numbers from multiple sites around the UK.

Andy

I knew modern blocks were about 10mm shy of 9" x 18" and assumed old period blocks were the same but I've been burnt before making assumptions so had to ask.

[Worsdell forever]

I knew modern blocks were about 10mm shy of 9" x 18" and assumed old period blocks were the same but I've been burnt before making assumptions so had to ask.

 

9" x 18" includes the mortar joint.

[2ManySpams]

Just to be precise. Modern concrete blocks are 215mm high, 440mm wide and they vary in depth but 100mm is the most common.

I only know because I work for Tarmac and we make huge numbers from multiple sites around the UK.

Andy

Andy, yours must be new blocks as they are metric...The rest of us are still using imperial dimensions. ;-p

[Stubby47]

Your mockup building is up against the track board edge. I'm guessing in reality there would be some form of embankment, and the building would not be any closer than the foot of this. This will restrict the length, which may compromise the overall look.

[2ManySpams]

Your mockup building is up against the track board edge. I'm guessing in reality there would be some form of embankment, and the building would not be any closer than the foot of this. This will restrict the length, which may compromise the overall look.

Morning Stu, if you have a look at the photo snippets you'll see that the gable end is tight up against the railway boundary. There's also a door at the railway end of the building indicating a lack of embankment. I'll be putting a retaining wall in between the siding and the lower stone yard. The wall and gable are just beyond the minimum distance boundary features can be from the track.

 

Edit: note in some of the photo extracts the gas works siding has been lifted, so the track doesn't look as close as it once was.

[2ManySpams]

New book for Southern folk arrived at Spam Towers yesterday. It's a monster at around 400 pages and is packed full of useful photos, drawings and sketches. There's lots of Exmouth Junction's concrete structures and items covered but also brick and steel stuff. Fascinating book:

[2ManySpams]

 

Typical content

 

 

Good value at less than £30 Inc postage.

[2ManySpams]

Morning Stu, if you have a look at the photo snippets you'll see that the gable end is tight up against the railway boundary. There's also a door at the railway end of the building indicating a lack of embankment. I'll be putting a retaining wall in between the siding and the lower stone yard. The wall and gable are just beyond the minimum distance boundary features can be from the track.

Edit: note in some of the photo extracts the gas works siding has been lifted, so the track doesn't look as close as it once was.

Gable wall is over 6' away from the closest rail.

[2ManySpams]

Anyway, in between apparently being jealous of a skipped layout and desperately seeking Ducky's airsmoothed casing, I've been making a jigsaw...

 

[Stubby47]

Is it a jigsaw of dogs playing poker ?

[2ManySpams]

A few strips of double-sided tape later and we have a mock up of the next building along. Bit of a tricky one when you start looking at photos as the real thing is neither square or level. The two end gables are different sizes and the building is bent in the middle. The new, more accurate mock-up enabled me to get a better idea of what was going on dimension wise. Conclusion: the pitch if the roof on the lhs of the building alters along its length.

 

Anyway, the purpose was mainly to work out what level the building should sit at - it's single storey at the rear and two storey at the front - and also to work out where it sits best along the length of the layout.

 

End result, probably here:

 

 

 

(Signal box is the next mock up to make as the current one is completely the wrong type)

[Worsdell forever]

Is that a cmock up of a 1366? 

[2ManySpams]

I mentioned previously that the next building to be mocked up was the Bodmin North signal box. Peter from Brazil is a member of the South Western Circle and he got me a copy when he ordered his. No they didn't go to Brazil but were collected in Telford...

 

Anyway, for some reason the box is drawn up at 12mm/ft which is massive, and had me wondering if the box would be too big for the layout. Finally got around to scanning the sections of the SWC drawing in and then reducing them down to 7mm/ft. The sections were then stuck to a card box I made up.

 

Although the box is much taller than the original mock-up, which was a layover from the original Wenford based version of Pencarrow, the footprint was only marginally longer which surprised me. It is a more imposing building which is good and i think it will fit the bill.

 

 

The reason for knocking it up...To see how the position of the buildings along the front affect views of the rear structures, oh, and the trains.

 

 

 

I should really knock up the goods shed too but, rather stupidly, didn't include it in my SWC drawing order. Muppet.

 

(No Muppets were harmed in writing this post. No persons real or imaginary were knocked up, knocked over or insulted in any way.)

[2ManySpams]

Too big for a cameo layout?...

 

[gwrrob]

Too big for a cameo layout?...

tmp_26697-rps20170423_192603-1922274625.jpg

I don't know whether that's a like, agree, funny or clever post...

[N15class]

I can photograph the drawings. I know not much use for scanning but i think there's enough measurements to do a mock up.

[Donw]

A lot depends on how you define Cameo. If you squeeze down too much in 7mm there would not be enough left for a decent layout. I suppose an cameo would be expected to be only a part of the station. You have managed to squeeze in the important bits although rather compressed. So I suspect it is more of a station than would expect in a cameo. Compact describes it nicely.

 

Don

[Stubby47]

According to Simon, there are no size restrictions. So BCB would qualify too...

[Mark Forrest]

According to Simon, there are no size restrictions. So BCB would qualify too...

Having carried it into and out of a van on several occasions and spent many hours getting it ready on Friday nights before a show, I can assure you that BCB does not meet the published definition of a cameo layout. It's not just about size...

[wagonbasher]

 It's not just about size...

That's just something said by people with small layouts...

 

 

Andy