Due to some other recent changes on the layout, I suddenly found myself with access to cleared lot near the Rio Grande station in Silverton. I decided since this was in approximately the proper spot where the old Silverton Northern depot still stands, I would learn more and see if I could make this work.
With a little selective compression, I almost was able to build it small enough to tuck between the wall and the siding it served. At a little over 2" wide, it seemed it was small enough, except it wasn't. Its width meant it would stick out far past where the D&RGW depot did in its alignment with the street.
What to do? Given the angled lot and the small size of the building, cutting a chunk out of the back that rested against the backdrop seemed to be the way to go. Some would say I took the wrong approach entirely and that I should have measured and built the building to conform to the space I needed to fill. That might make a lot of sense with a large building. This one wasn't that.
For many small buildings, it's easiest to just build, then cut where needed. That's what's going on in the next pic, with a board cemented in that follows the chosen angle.
Then it was time to cut. I used a razor saw and made cuts just past the inner ends of the board.
I used CA to fasten the angled wall against the existing wall at both ends after the cuts, with a small reinforcing block added to further strengthen things. Then I cut through the floor and removed the material needed to remove the angled cut to cozy against the building flats.
I then cut and fitted the non-angled part of the roof.
Next was cutting to fit the back, angled part of the roof.
Now the building can nestle up cloesly to the building flats behind it, tucked back suitably behind the Rio Grande depot.
I've since added some old school Walthers printed shingles, lighting, and a dispatcher's desk and chair, with the dispatcher sitting in it. Couldn't really get a good pic through the windows.
The building is now signed as being the "Silverton Union RR HQ and Yard Office."
What's particularly useful about such structures is how they add depth to a scne and breakup the all too flat nature iof buildibng flats located behind them.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
That's neat Mike! Very creative!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Dave,
Thanks! I wrote it up in part because I'm going to present it as a mini-clinic during our division's Zoom meeting on Saturday. Figured I might as well present it here as an example of how the NMRA continues to serve its members despite the pandemic.
Nicely done, Mike.
I "discovered" that when I did my elevated benchwork for track in the town of Dunnville on my layout, that it wasn't exactly parallel to the backdrop (the wall of the room). As a result, the structures intended to be placed between that track and the backdrop needed to be altered during construction, to accommodate my carelessness.
Here's an over-all view of the area...
...and the structures built-to-fit...
The station was scratchbuilt...
...with its depth at this end the deepest at 10.5", and only 9" at the far end...
The factory at the far end (built using most of the wall sections from two Walthers "Waterfront Warehouse kits) is similar...
...with its depth 5.75" at the near end, and 4" at the other...
I recently added some scratchbuilt covered platforms between the two tracks, and discovered that the tracks aren't exactly parallel, either...
but finally got the tracks ballasted and some groundcover on the adjacent areas...
Wayne
Necessity, as the saying goes, being the mother of invention.
And I have been reading these Forums a long time and I do believe this is the first use I've seen of "nuzzle" in a topic heading.
Some years ago there was some back and forth in an issue of, I think, Model Railroad Planning magazine about which was better, to have the very peak of a roof be touching (nuzzling) the backdrop or flat, or have at least some portion of the downward slope part of the roof be cut off to touch/nuzzle to give a further illusion of depth. It might have been a Paul Dolkos article. I think his conclusion is that cutting at the peak of the roof looks too cliched and too obvious that it is just half a building.
The other question is (assuming you have the space to have the choice) whether it is better to touch/nuzzle so the structure does not crowd the track in an unrealistic way, or is it better to leave a gap, even if slight, between structure and flat or backdrop because of course there would be space between the buildings.
Dave Nelson
Wayne,
Thanks for the neat review of doing this on a "larger scale."
dknelsonSome years ago there was some back and forth in an issue of, I think, Model Railroad Planning magazine about which was better, to have the very peak of a roof be touching (nuzzling) the backdrop or flat, or have at least some portion of the downward slope part of the roof be cut off to touch/nuzzle to give a further illusion of depth. It might have been a Paul Dolkos article. I think his conclusion is that cutting at the peak of the roof looks too cliched and too obvious that it is just half a building.
I'm definitely on the side of cutting it behind the peak, rather than at the apex.
dknelsonThe other question is (assuming you have the space to have the choice) whether it is better to touch/nuzzle so the structure does not crowd the track in an unrealistic way, or is it better to leave a gap, even if slight, between structure and flat or backdrop because of course there would be space between the buildings.
I'm pro-gap whenever possible. The impact of the gap tends to be less as the layout height approachs eyeball height, though.
I had a different situation, a layout edge against a 45 degree roofline. I trimmed several buildings to squeeze them into the angle between the layout and the roofline. It let me put small structures behind the rearmost rails.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
mlehman dknelson Some years ago there was some back and forth in an issue of, I think, Model Railroad Planning magazine about which was better, to have the very peak of a roof be touching (nuzzling) the backdrop or flat, or have at least some portion of the downward slope part of the roof be cut off to touch/nuzzle to give a further illusion of depth. It might have been a Paul Dolkos article. I think his conclusion is that cutting at the peak of the roof looks too cliched and too obvious that it is just half a building. I'm definitely on the side of cutting it behind the peak, rather than at the apex.
I agree, but depending on the viewing angle, it can look pretty good...
...and sometimes, not so good...
...especially in places where the layout isn't all that deep...just over 30" for the scenes shown above, and not much in the way of other structures to block end-views.