Jump to content

Schooner

Members
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

679 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

462 profile views
  1. Measure. There's a tool in the top right hand corner of the screen (on the georeferenced maps, at least) which is dead handy
  2. Yup, that's boats - you've understood perfectly! Even without the old 'there's a prototype for everything' (and there are plenty for a small industrial user on the same side as the towpath), I think you could go with whatever you fancied
  3. As I understand it (warning!), the low cabin height and counter stern with well are the giveaways. Or indeed a horse still:
  4. Ah, no, you said the right thing, I understood the wrong thing...more coffee required... To make up for it, these might be of use: I'm not able to watch them and can't remember the answer, but it's small. It certainly made me feel much happier about my proposed curves on a Docklands layout! Hope this is a bit more help than the previous effort! Schooner
  5. Grear idea! Who am I to give advice...but... 450mm radius is, I understand, still on the tight side for a fixed-radius flexitrack curve. Peco etc 2nd radius is 438mm, is that too small for the drum? Either way, the radius should be fine for your lovely little locos and wagons EDIT: Apologies, misread.
  6. A: Thank you for the vote of confidence You're quite right, definitely more promising than perfect. It's a risk I'm hoping to be able to mitigate with paint brush and stone/brick sheets...within the realms of possibility, or asking to much of the models and my fledgling modelling? Very open to suggestions for alternatives (either models or approaches!) B: Considered, and indeed carried out...but I keep running into the conflict at the centre (ha!) of the layout's premise: it is two scenes in one location. To move the shed into a more pleasing position when viewing the layout as a
  7. No hoss, no worries: ...using the quant-poles that is, sails is definitely cheating! https://www.alamy.com/crewman-using-a-quant-pole-to-manoeuvre-the-historic-norfolk-wherry-image69009369.html
  8. It wouldn't be RMWeb if a person asking for advice opinions wasn't given two directly conflicting answers responses, so... Absolutely nothing wrong with it, looks like a lovely model. Lots of things right about it, looks like a lovely bit of canal which you've modelled. Sorry EDIT: A second thought, a middle way perhaps...
  9. Understood. I think that could still work - if the embankment steepens and looks 'newer' where the yard and canal are closest (the wiggle) then it should look like the canal follows the contour of the land, but the rail yard is flattened from where the railway follows the contour of the land...? Nice diagram btw, I'm very jealous of those skills!
  10. Oh, not another bleeding narrowboat?! I jest - try manoeuvring an offcut c.300mmx55mm for a 'normal' barge through your canal and it'll be clear why there isn't much choice but narrowboats! ...although...if you're ever bored in the future and wanted to turn this by Langley (only 63ft don't panic!) into this (by the bargewrights of Honeystreet Wharf, Wiltshire, c.73ft), then that would be fun If you'll forgive my sticking an oar further in (I really am unqualified), perhaps try to suggest a basin opposite the pump house by wide
  11. A joy to catch up on the latest developments - entertaining, informative and unreasonably funny. I wish you joy of your table, sir!
  12. Yup, absolutely (within the bounds imposed by baseboard size). Thanks for blaming the software! You'll have to indulge me and soften the curves in your minds eye until SCARM applies spline logic to its scenery tools as well as it does flex-track... Few more so I'm afraid, Chuffers - your layout build (and indeed, you) has provided constant inspiration since your project began. I often cross-check my thinking against how you tackled problems on Warren (start here for anyone that might have missed it), knowing full well your approach is far better than my own would be if left to
  13. Exactly this @Nearholmer, exactly this. I think that contrast would give the layout a little story to tell...in fact, it is the same little story of a slightly larger plan, which will be, I think, familar to you: c. 1810: Bucolic bliss in the area of Ingleford (obviously) village disrupted by the construction of canal linking industrial hinterland with tidal river and city. Road access to local market town now via humpback bridge [scenic break to traverser] c.1850: Canal bought by the GWR, siding put in on short spur from hub town [to the left on the layout]. Broad gauge
  14. Is that ginger in use around the stable block? Brave...! Wonderful post Mikkel (yet again), thank you. Raised a smile at the end of a drear weekend. Can't wait till the next one
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.