RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 8, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 4 hours ago, Neilgue said: Yes, I must admit that I though so too, not in the size of the blocks but in the texture of the face of the walls. I appreciate that the walls are not finished or painted, but some of the stones do seem to stick out a bit. Given that the camera tends to cruelly exaggerate things, how do the pictures compare to the naked eye Jeff? Hi Neil. The "chunkiness" is entirely deliberate. It would have been easy to build the whole thing using stones of the same thickness. Have a look at the first image in the first post of this thread. You will see that there is a lot of variation in the surface texture, with a substantial number of blocks hitting out from the general surface average. The structure looks very similar to the eye as it does in the images. Adding mortar reduces the variation, but maintaining the chunkiness is exactly what I intend to do. Jeff 2 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 3rd Rail Exile Posted January 8, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 9 minutes ago, Physicsman said: Hi Neil. The "chunkiness" is entirely deliberate. It would have been easy to build the whole thing using stones of the same thickness. Have a look at the first image in the first post of this thread. You will see that there is a lot of variation in the surface texture, with a substantial number of blocks hitting out from the general surface average. The structure looks very similar to the eye as it does in the images. Adding mortar reduces the variation, but maintaining the chunkiness is exactly what I intend to do. Jeff It's a feature I hadn't noticed until you started modelling it. At first, I also thought it looked strange in model form, so I went back to your images of the real thing (as you now suggest) and was duly impressed both with the detailed nature of your observation and the reproduction of it in model form. This really is a wonderful piece of modelling! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambiedg Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 I also thought that the stone work was rather chunky, but only in the early stages. As the cladding reaches completion it looks more and more convincing. I suspect mortaring and painting will further enhance the appearance. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 8, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 Interesting comments. I'll be posting a couple of interesting images of the prototype tomorrow, to go along with the current work I'm doing. Not pics I've shown before. It may surprise people how chunky the viaduct actually is. It would have taken a lot less time, with less thought required, if I'd been able to build the viaduct with near-flat surfaces. Keep the discussion going, lads. Always great to hear people's opinions. Jeff 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 8, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 (edited) No further comments.... Here are 3 pics of Arten Gill from my (now rather large) collection. The problem with many images is that they were taken when the sun was full-on, so there's no shadow to bring out the detail. These 3 show the ruggedness of the piers and spandrels (the sections in between the arch rings and string course). I will admit that my piers are probably a bit more rugged than these photos show. But that's a consequence of the discrete difference between the 3mm and 4mm thick blocks used for the stonework. It gradually gets toned down with mortaring, but the emphasis of "chunkiness" is really important, as it characterises this structure as against many other (smooth-faced) viaducts. Still on schedule for more model viaduct pics tomorrow - however far I get! DO NOT expect anything dramatic!! Jeff Edited January 8, 2021 by Physicsman MORE system spell-checks. I may pre-write post on Word in future!! 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 36 minutes ago, Physicsman said: No further comments.... Give us a break Jeff, don’t forget that some of us are on the other side of the world 11 hours out of phase. I’ve only just got up... Surface textures are one of those aspects that don’t scale very well. A printed brick wall is closer to actual scale than a plasticard brick sheet. But when we look at a model in real life, our eyes will think the plasticard looks closer to reality. However looking at a photograph of a model is not the same. We notice the details more. How often have you heard about the cruel camera lens. It’s an interesting phenomenon. An yes, you have captured the spirit of the stonework beautifully, even before it has been painted. 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 8, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, Neilgue said: Give us a break Jeff, don’t forget that some of us are on the other side of the world 11 hours out of phase. I’ve only just got up... Surface textures are one of those aspects that don’t scale very well. A printed brick wall is closer to actual scale than a plasticard brick sheet. But when we look at a model in real life, our eyes will think the plasticard looks closer to reality. However looking at a photograph of a model is not the same. We notice the details more. How often have you heard about the cruel camera lens. It’s an interesting phenomenon. An yes, you have captured the spirit of the stonework beautifully, even before it has been painted. You've summed it up nicely there, Neil. That's my intention. And with you background in photography, you're well aware of how things can be distorted, depending on conditions and perceptions. And - JUST got up!? It must be 9am in Melbourne and one of the other Melbourne residents that posts on here says it's been very warm - too warm to sleep? Keep posting, my man! Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 I don’t think that the fact that I am a lazy sod is really relevant to the conversation Jeff... (It was a warm night, but not as unpleasant as it will be all too soon. Sleep is never easy when it gets too hot.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 8, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 8, 2021 4 minutes ago, Neilgue said: I don’t think that the fact that I am a lazy sod is really relevant to the conversation Jeff... (It was a warm night, but not as unpleasant as it will be all too soon. Sleep is never easy when it gets too hot.) I'm just jealous that it's in the high 20sC in Oz and it's about 0C here. Nevermind, it'll soon be summer in the wastelands of the deep Northern Hemisphere. I did mean to ask, but keep forgetting, do you have a modelling project on the go, or is it other things that interest you on here? Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Physicsman said: do you have a modelling project on the go I have had modelling projects on the go for many years, but they never amount to much. Some background. My family came to Australia from Scotland in 1969 when I was about to turn twelve. For the three years before we came here I woke to a view of the Forth Bridges from my bedroom window so I have always been interested in railways, from both a historical and engineering perspective. Railway modelling in Australia in the 1970s was a very expensive hobby. Hornby and Mainline models were available at twice the UK price, but American outline models dominated the scene. Australian outline was only for scratch builders. A sense of nostalgia demanded that I model something from Scotland, but I have never been able to work out what I wanted to model. Time and money have always been a problem, but really I have never had a clear vision of what I wanted to achieve. My family originated in Kirkcaldy (once the linoleum capital of the world) and there was plenty of railway activity there to provide inspiration. Not only that, You go over a nice viaduct just as you enter the town. I only saw it for the first time a couple of years ago. You cannot see it when you are going across it. I’ll look out some pics. There is a great Kirkcaldy thread here on RM which is worth a look. Anyway, to return to the question you asked. Wide ranging interests coupled with a wandering mind and self imposed impossibly high standards has meant that I have little to show for the last 50 years of pottering around. The last thing I started was an industrial inglenook. I like making card buildings and here are some that I started but never finished. The one on the left is from Scalescenes, the other is of my own design. Edited January 8, 2021 by Neilgue Proofread before you post... 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post Physicsman Posted January 9, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted January 9, 2021 As promised, some pics. I won't include any construction details and simply point out key aspects of the images. The first pic is a cropped section of an image I posted last night. The original - not taken by me - comes in at around 25Mb, so stands a fair bit of enlargement (unlike the files that get resized onto here). The crop shows the spandrel areas around the arch rings - they are built up with all sorts of stuff, from 2' x 1' bricks, to 8" wide stone blocks, to a few bits of block that were obviously left over from the piers. I've just tried to represent the general content and appearance - each (roughly triangular) spandrel area has 130-150 stones in it. More detail IS possible, but with 16 of these to build, not for me! The string course rail, modelled for 4' x 1' blocks, has been fitted and juts out around a scale 9 inches above the spandrels. The rest of the pics show the state of play at around 7pm. The arch ring - spandrel area has had a first dose of mortar. Not a lot, more to come when I can see which gaps the DAS filled! Jeff 9 10 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
67A Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Hi Jeff, Apologies for the enforced absence, just had a quick catch-up and WoW what a viaduct! You really put yourself through it mate but it looks fabulous. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 9, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, 67A said: Hi Jeff, Apologies for the enforced absence, just had a quick catch-up and WoW what a viaduct! You really put yourself through it mate but it looks fabulous. Mike, very good to hear from you. I assume your posting on here indicates your leg problems are sorted/much improved. Hope so, then you can get back to work on -or playing with - Dent. Thanks for noting my continued insanity! Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Popular Post Physicsman Posted January 9, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Popular Post Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) Just one more picture-post, then it'll probably be Tuesday or Wednesday before anything significantly different - "hey, it's that viaduct again! " - get's posted. Though I'll happily woffle on, to all asunder, as is my usual way... Ok, well, here's THAT picture from post 1 of this thread, cropped to be comparable to one of today's pics. When things are nearer completion I'll try and get the angle exactly right, proper background and lighting etc., but this will do for now. It's getting there - I think... Jeff PS. Please feel free to discuss any issues relating to this build. It is the input that makes me think and helps improve things. EDIT - my pic was taken from much closer (scale-wise) than the real thing. I know the thing is correct to scale - as on the original plan - but the model looks much more robust than the slender prototype. Interestingly, the dimension ratios for real and model are the same - and I just measured the pics to convince myself that was the case. Edited January 9, 2021 by Physicsman Pratting around with scales 12 6 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted January 9, 2021 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 9, 2021 I'm afraid this has slipped my mind for a while, that's one impressive viaduct. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Jeff, I think you just need to move back a bit if you can to get the right perspective. The piers on the second pic are angled in more than the first. Did you use a wide angle lens? That would account for the different perspective and the robust appearance of the model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 10, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Neilgue said: Jeff, I think you just need to move back a bit if you can to get the right perspective. The piers on the second pic are angled in more than the first. Did you use a wide angle lens? That would account for the different perspective and the robust appearance of the model. You are right, Neil - problem at the moment is that I can't move back any further because of the junk under one of the baseboards (a dis-assembled exercise bike!) The comparison was just an opportunist use of one of tonight's pics - when the viaduct is correctly positioned I'll have plenty of room. ANY excuse to get that view - it is wonderful, and - hopefully - I'll get my own version of the prototype later in the year. J. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 10, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2021 Oh, btw - Canon EOS 18-55mm lens set at the wide angle end. You are correct about the distortion. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Sorry Jeff, but I couldn't resist. I hope you don't mind, but I had a play with Photoshop to adjust the perspective of your photo. Of course you can distort any photo to fit any other photo, but very little was needed to match the perspective. The only thing that was slightly dodgy was to remove the curve along the top of the viaduct, but I think that's valid as the curve of the viaduct is the only bit of the model that's not to scale. Also, your picture was taken a little bit to the left of the original. I didn't correct for that, but as you can see, the model still fits over the original quite nicely. 6 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 10, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2021 Neil - good stuff - and you are correct about the curve. The real Arten Gill has a curve, but would come in at about 1500cm (600 inches) to scale - my version is 100" ( 250cm). I think the curve is elegant, and it needed to fit the layout. I like the way you enjoy a photographic challenge. I have, and will be, spending hundreds of hours playing with the downloaded files from my planetary cameras. All goes to (just about) show that seeing isn't believing with digital processes. Thanks for that pic. J. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilgue Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 Here are some pics of Inverteil viaduct on the outskirts of Kirkcaldy. In the scheme of things just another viaduct ordinaire, but it is one that I have traversed many times without even realising it. You are distracted because you are just got on or are about to get off and you can't see it from the train anyway. Not only that, it's hidden away and not really visible unless you are right next to it. I wonder how many people have crossed Gill Head without realising it? 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 10, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 10, 2021 Yes, familiarity breeds contempt. Kirkby Stephen station is on the top of a hill about a mile outside the village that bears its name. I must have driven past it several hundred times in the last 30 years. Aside from the obvious landmarks nearby, I'd struggle to describe the surroundings. Total autopilot. I think we take a lot for granted and switch it off. That viaduct at Kircaldy is a very fine structure, but to most people it has always been there and will be virtually ignored. As for Arten Gill, I think it's more spectacular standing in its shadow looking up from the valley below. I suspect many on the S&C will be visitors to the area, so will give it due notice as they pass over a succession of spectacular structures (Dent Head, almost as "pretty" is less than a mile away).I If you think of any other relevant points, post them on here. I'd better go to bed - a hard day's stoning tomorrow! Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 11, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 11, 2021 Update (no pics). The viaduct now has all 8 arch liners, and all 8 arch rings on the West face. I'll complete the West face spandrels tomorrow, along with the remaining stones on pier 9. Abutments will then be fitted at either end (West face first) and stones can start to go onto those from Thursday. You've seen the different sections as they developed: Viaduct skeleton Pier cladding Arch liners Arch rings Spandrels and Spring course I will put some more pics up when the West fascia is looking to be nearly complete - probably Saturday. No point in showing more and more of the same.... I do welcome comments and discussion. I've spent around 6 hours a day on the viaduct for the last 70 days. But it's nice to discuss related issues - as, for example, with Neil re. photography etc in the evening after I've had my fill for the day. It's quite possible GH will be moved onto the back-stage for a while when the viaduct is completed. I'd like to build up the scenery around it, but the astrophotography bug is starting to assert itself again. Jeff 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 This is a really impressive build Jeff, I wish I had the room for an O Gauge equivalent. I could commission you to do it for me, how about I rent a warehouse and stick a caravan outside for you to kip in whilst down here? 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted January 12, 2021 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 12, 2021 24 minutes ago, Andrew P said: This is a really impressive build Jeff, I wish I had the room for an O Gauge equivalent. I could commission you to do it for me, how about I rent a warehouse and stick a caravan outside for you to kip in whilst down here? Andy, I'd love to build something on that scale. Might take over 1000 hours if I built it with individual bricks. Mind you, the stones would be bigger, but think of all the DAS needed! I've used nearly 10 packs so far. Even accounting for 25% wastage, that's still over 7kg of stones (1 stone 3 pounds in old money) on the structure. Probably reach 2 stone by the end. So your 6 arch O gauge viaduct comes in at 12 feet long, 4 foot high, weighs 15 stone. But think of all the wood, glue and hours of fun we could have. If I win the lottery I'll sort something for you..... Jeff 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now