Wenlock's Blog

Yep , I can see that would help. Extending the embankment beyond the bridge would lose the big white space seen through the rh arch. 

 

But of course you will end up making it scenic, then you will need another scenic break, and er, another scenic section..... 

Dave,

 

An interesting idea, which would appear to solve most of your problems. I just wondered how this area would be screened from public view at the front. If it's open to the audience there, the problem is simply transferred from one hole in the backscene to another. I'm therefore guessing that the only public view would be through the bridge, in which case this bit of scenery could almost be fully enclosed in a box. You would have to experiment a bit with lighting, and you would need to have an additional mask across the end of the fiddle yard. It really depends on the viewing angle for punters. Your photos seem to be taken from over the layout, rather than behind an imaginary barrier line, which might be confusing me.

 

Anyway, in my view - go for it!

 

Geraint

Sounds like a good idea to me.  Assuming that the new board is not visible from the front and what you are proposing to add can only been seen through the bridge, then you won't need much in the way of scenery beyond continuing the cutting to the rear and ballasting the track, since that's about all someone will be able to see. 

 

Therefore, in my view go for it, especially since it reduced the number of times you need to move the fiddle yard when operating. 

I do like a cunning plan, and assuming the viewer is able to get a hint from the front without the backscene causing any illusional problem then yes Dave.

 

( Received my MRJ a couple of days ago and an excellent write up ).

 

G

Sounds like a good idea Dave. To avoid the issues discussed above, I wonder if something like this could be done, i.e. provide an angled view that does not allow us to look into the fiddle yard but still offers a peak at the new scenic section.

 

 

You would have to decorate the rear side of the overbridge, but I'm guessing you would do that anyway as it would look odd for the operator with a scenic section with an unfinished bridge.

 

PS: My real agenda here is that I'd like to see you build an indication of the village of Sherton Abbas, which we have never in fact seen!  So the divide between the scenic and hidden section on the new board could be a structure, e.g. the maltings, or a hint of the village. 

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Mikkel

Or......keep the fiddle yard and paint it black, as done very successfully by Giles Flavell (and others). The eye automatically assumes black is off stage. His is very open to the elements but the illusion works. 

Possible a strip curtain made from black bin liners, suitable arranged a little behind the bridge.

 

something like this but much smaller, and black!

 

 

this would save you having to paint your fingers...

 

hth

Simon

Edited May 1, 2020 by Simond

Sounds an excellent idea to me

I like the idea of being able to see the line continuing somewhere off-stage, but on the negative side at exhibitions you operate from the front of the layout by the fiddle yard from where you can easily talk to the viewers watching the action on the scenic boards. With the proposed extension in place you will be more remote from those viewers, and also remote from the action you are controlling in the station area. Would this be a problem?

A drop down painted  back scene board for each bridge arch would be a solution.  Or as some one said paint it black and.... 

 

Black mamba rubber gloves 

 

One of the James Bond films includes a shot of a train emerging from a tunnel, which was actually filmed at the Cherry Wood overbridge on the NVR (Yarwell tunnel, under the A1, being deemed unsuitable). 

 

The overbridge was fitted with a temporary canopy on the “offstage” side. This was painted black inside, and combined with the exhaust from the emerging locomotive this created a quite sufficient illusion. 

 

 

From your description of the fiddle yard operations, it sounds as though you require a traverser, or sector plate...

Edited May 1, 2020 by rockershovel

 

A good idea which solves the initial problem, but you've now got far more fiddleyard than layout, just seems a tad unbalanced IMHO, and as you stated you're short of space to set it up in its extended form.

Personally, I'd just move the locking mechanism to a position where it doesn't show, it's only for alignment purposes so it's ultimate position doesn't matter.

 

Mike.

Dave,

Whilst I can see the logic for adding the intermediate board (from an operational point of view more than a visual one), I for one never consider what goes (or be seen) on in a fiddle yard as a distraction of the layout as a whole.  From a viewing perspective, the time taken during the action of realigning the fiddle yard roads is probably realistic as stock would have to clear the point, a signal made to the signalman to indicate that it was safe to throw the points (which would have a FPL on them too so not a single lever action) before the shunting move could continue.

 

Originally, the fiddle yards boards on Modbury were painted white (I thought it would help being able to see things in a sometimes dark exhibition hall).  What I soon realised was that being white (or light coloured) drew attention to them when viewed through the mouse-holes on the scenic section (especially on photographs).  I therefore repainted them in a dark grey and they instantly became less obvious.  Clearly my mouse-holes for 2mm scale are considerably smaller than your 7mm scale ones, so that "solution" may not suit Sherton Abbas.

 

If you do decide to go ahead with the additional board, could it be better to use a Y point configuration?  That should require less length and provide the two angled diverging roads to meet the existing scenic trackwork?

 

Ian

It’s a reasonable idea but for all the effort it would involve I’d rather just see more fantastic layout! Quite like the curtain idea though.

I've used a black 'rip stop' type material cut into very thing strips bit like the warehouse door above......like a very floppy tooth comb.

 

The top strip is affixed above the yard entrance/ exit with double sided tape and the material adjusted so it's just BELOW rail height.

 

It works fine in 4mm so I can't see 7 being a problem.

 

Ive addd an extra layer now, and another under the overbridge.

You’ve taken pictures to show the problem by placing your camera above the tracks, not the normal viewpoint. Idle bystanders would be further over at more of an angle, and not so aware of your pinkies. If you placed some form of screening on the layout side in front of the bridge, such as a few more trees, the view would be even less obvious.

18 minutes ago, Northroader said:

not so aware of your pinkies

 

Have you seen the size of Dave's fingers ! 

3 hours ago, Simond said:

Possible a strip curtain made from black bin liners, suitable arranged a little behind the bridge.

 

something like this but much smaller, and black!

 

 

this would save you having to paint your fingers...

 

hth

Simon

Saw that done in the 70s. It is partially effective, because of the lack of mass in the bin liner material.

As one of the SA operators I have to concur with Dave that the faff of moving the sector plate becomes quite noticeable after a few hours of shunting! Ones fingers soon become fed up of sliding bolts in and out and heaving the board into alignment. So I for one welcome our new 3 foot baseboard addition although I accept that it will increase the setup/tear down time somewhat! That said, we are now a well-oiled military unit compared to the Laurel and Hardy-like performance of the first few outings.

I took the liberty of sketching on top of one your pictures - a skew bridge in the new 3' section would "throttle down" the view to a mere hint of a fiddle yard (off scene Y juntion in the road dropping down to the station?).  The goods yard might need a spur or a trap point so I added one of those as well.  The natural lie of the existing trackwork suggests that the handing of the B6 point might flip to a B6 right hand - but depends on the geometry and fiddle yard entry.  Just a thought... hope it might be helpful in resolving the question.  I look forward to seeing Sherton Abbas "IRL" when better times return.

Kit PW

Hello Dave, I have been looking back at a few photographs of your wonderful layout, that I took at Telford last Autumn, and I have to say that, in my opinion, while your 3' addition may improve your ease of operation, I do not believe that it will either add or detract to the visual appeal of the layout.

Your masterpiece, like any great novel, painting or motion picture, still requires the audience to use their little grey matter in order to interpret the overall image. We have to shut out or suspend our reality in order to enter the 'reality' of the model. I include two of my photographs which show the bridge as seen by an exhibition viewer, albeit one who is somewhat shorter than yourself, which show, I believe, that your extension is unnecessary visually especially compared to such things as the ceiling of the hall - about which you can do nothing. 

 

All that being said, if the extension improves operation then why not?

Edited May 1, 2020 by Quasimodo

Dave

Is there a specific reason for choosing 3ft? If it is not to be used in your workshop could you make it longer and would that allow you to incorporate an engine shed on a siding from the mainline towards the front of the board? This could be a stand alone scenic diorama and would add extra operating interest to the layout with engines staying overnight and loco coal in / out.

Ralph

Fantastic layout, again I saw this at Telford last year and had the pleasure of meeting you.

 

*Your main concerns seems to be what can be viewed by the public, who unless they stand at an angle wont notice / or deliberately want to notice....fiddle yards are interesting!

 

To increase the illusion would the new baseboard have the line going through a cutting with both sides of the cutting included?

 

* Or you are just bored in lockdown  

3 hours ago, One32 said:

Dave

Is there a specific reason for choosing 3ft? If it is not to be used in your workshop could you make it longer and would that allow you to incorporate an engine shed on a siding from the mainline towards the front of the board? This could be a stand alone scenic diorama and would add extra operating interest to the layout with engines staying overnight and loco coal in / out.

Ralph

 

I thought an engine shed board had been the plan anyway?

4 hours ago, One32 said:

Dave

Is there a specific reason for choosing 3ft? If it is not to be used in your workshop could you make it longer and would that allow you to incorporate an engine shed on a siding from the mainline towards the front of the board? This could be a stand alone scenic diorama and would add extra operating interest to the layout with engines staying overnight and loco coal in / out.

Ralph

 

13 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I thought an engine shed board had been the plan anyway?

 

If only I had thought of suggesting something like that years ago...