Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

My personal opinion is that the tunnel opening is visually too tall (almost twice the height of the coach) 

 

So I’m going to cut an inch off the bottom, I’m also going to look at making the first curve a 4th radius curve instead of 2nd and see how it would look with the tunnel entrance on that curve....it might look poo but it’s worth a try before I permanently glue down the track

 

Edited by chuffinghell
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with you there. A good number of tunnels on minor lines were notoriously tight. The example I showed you at Glenfield (built 1832) was so small that British Railways had to keep a pair of ancient Midland Railway Johnson 2F tender locos running to operate the line, something that has been cited as contributing to its closure. Apparently the inaugural train through the tunnel, hauled by a Stephenson locomotive, knocked its chimney off when it struck the roof. 

Saw away with confidence say I.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 minutes ago, Nile said:

Ideally you want a gradual transition from straight to 2nd radius.


Agreed although I’ve designed the layout so no curves are visible as I don’t have the space for realistic sweeping curves

 

If having the tunnel on the curve does look poo (as I suspect it will) Having a 4th radius curve may still allow me to move the tunnel further back to give a slightly longer straight section.

 

I’ve positioned the tunnel entrance to give enough ‘straight’ for a loco to miss the point without entering the tunnel so if it doesn’t work it’s not a problem 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
15 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

I would have to agree with you there. A good number of tunnels on minor lines were notoriously tight. The example I showed you at Glenfield (built 1832) was so small that British Railways had to keep a pair of ancient Midland Railway Johnson 2F tender locos running to operate the line, something that has been cited as contributing to its closure. Apparently the inaugural train through the tunnel, hauled by a Stephenson locomotive, knocked its chimney off when it struck the roof. 

Saw away with confidence say I.


The photo of the tunnel mouth on Gaugemaster adds actually shows it shorter (if you look at it in relation to the retaining walls)
 

730B7914-3842-452A-93FB-CB650731FAE5.jpeg.1d33b71516b5ecfde0bb77c5cf8e979d.jpeg

 

76DCFDEA-D36C-461D-8EBE-A00E6CB34B0C.jpeg.cb2ff9d83c7d828f46a788203cccc2e8.jpeg

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, perhaps the designers or toolmakers realised that the moulding would appeal to more buyers if it was tall enough to accept overhead line equipment and that enterprising individuals would no doubt take a saw to it for a claustrophobic steam era tunnel?

  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
59 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Interesting, perhaps the designers or toolmakers realised that the moulding would appeal to more buyers if it was tall enough to accept overhead line equipment and that enterprising individuals would no doubt take a saw to it for a claustrophobic steam era tunnel?


It’s just a thought at the moment as I don’t really want to lose too much of the ‘horse shoe‘ shape

 

Maybe just 1/2” off the bottom would look better?

 

 

Edited by chuffinghell
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not losing the horseshoe will involve a bit of clever surgery. I don't know if it would work without having the moulding in front of me, but I would try this by using the tunnel mouth as a template to make a card test piece to experiment on and work to the sketch below.

IMG_20200917_210131.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 minute ago, MrWolf said:

Not losing the horseshoe will involve a bit of clever surgery. I don't know if it would work without having the moulding in front of me, but I would try this by using the tunnel mouth as a template to make a card test piece to experiment on and work to the sketch below.

IMG_20200917_210131.jpg


Agreed, although to be quite honest I didn’t really want to perform major surgery, It might look different with a tunnel liner.

 

As always I’ll give it some thought

 

Great sketch, very explanatory 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may well be better off lopping half an inch off the bottom as you suggested, but the more I thought about it, I had to get it on paper because of the changing radius of an elliptical tunnel, I can't think of another way of doing it. The tunnel mouth would also end up proportionally narrowed in line with the reduction in height. 

A good combination of OCD, literally waiting for a painting to dry, zilch on TV and 'er indoors being curled up like a cat (It's not wise or safe to wake a sleeping female is it?) means that I have shared the idea in case it does work for someone.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

My intention is to make it appear that the track exits the tunnel straight, however due to space (or lack there of) I’ve had to compromise.

 

example:

 

If the tunnel mouth is too far back it becomes clear that the line curves on entering/exiting the tunnel


43260023-4DB9-4DE7-9218-FD41114AACFA.jpeg.2b4d3ca3a9958aeb7eece63127b6a660.jpeg

 

Moving the tunnel mouth four inches towards the black line lessens this effect

 

0DA9E392-1CEA-4264-A25C-147456818A8D.jpeg.008ae35e81d3541ce6bdb6f65f61bfb8.jpeg

 

However I cannot move the tunnel mouth any further away from the curve otherwise my longest loco would enter the tunnel on the runaround loop

 

6412B65B-4377-4A90-A543-98CC66EEE082.jpeg.aa2040c48d8a5cb2390e1ed5ccbd06b4.jpeg

 

Only just fits

 

  • Like 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Position two also creates a problem with the structurally effective angle of the tunnel wing walls and the potential for a convincing land from around the sidings to the right. Altering the transition curve if possible may help move the tunnel mouth back to position one, as might fitting around six inches of the tunnel lining and painting it a very dark colour. There are plenty of tunnels on curves or partly curved.

Edited by MrWolf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
49 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Position two also creates a problem with the structurally effective angle of the tunnel wing walls and the potential for a convincing land from around the sidings to the right.


I’ve already decided that If it looks crap Sarah gets her dining room back and there will be a lot of model railway stuff appearing on eBay

 

51 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Altering the transition curve if possible may help move the tunnel mouth back to position one


I’ve tried it and it actually makes matters worse because a larger radIus curve means reducing the straight

 

52 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

There are plenty of tunnels on curves or partly curved.

 

In my personal opinion even a 4th radius would be too tight for a tunnel on the curve

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are other solutions, if the tunnel mouth moves to position two, a new wing / retaining wall can be created that is curved backwards. That would then take the landform more naturally back and around the sidings area, giving the impression that although the railway was forced to dig out a tunnel in rock, it accessed a natural flat area. There are dozens of possibilities. I rather like what KNP has done with disguising the fact that his main line doesn't continue. I'm a big fan of using view blockers both in 2d and 3d. Your main challenge I assume is that curve, no choice but to put it in there because of the size restrictions. The intention is to make it look as though the line goes straight on?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just put the low retaining walls in to define the edge, a cut rock face would be a great way of showing how the railway builders had squared up a convenient existing bit of flat ground. It was more the curved wing wall I wanted to show. The buttresses aren't exactly necessary if you are modelling a rock outcrop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
17 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

I just put the low retaining walls in to define the edge, a cut rock face would be a great way of showing how the railway builders had squared up a convenient existing bit of flat ground. It was more the curved wing wall I wanted to show. The buttresses aren't exactly necessary if you are modelling a rock outcrop.


Not sure how to achieve the curved retaining wall, is there not a way in which the walls that come with the tunnel mouth could be used?

 

Like this?

 

6CF6759A-3B05-4A78-A2CB-23E28DA810FB.jpeg.ef91942b878909e4eba2425b849a180f.jpeg

 

Edited by chuffinghell
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, chuffinghell said:


100% stolen off the interweb 

 

Well done. 

My theory about pictures on the internet is if you share them with the web, you shouldn't get all butthurt about someone else using them, unless it's for personal gain. 

I like the rock form, it also helps the fact that you don't have the room for the left hand wing wall. The top looks a little low in my opinion, but otherwise, it works.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...