Jump to content

Gill Head: Kirkby Luneside's neighbour


Physicsman
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, DeadRinger said:

Looks better every time.  But i have question, which I could google of course.  What are the spandrels?  I keep reading about them in your posts and assumed I would realise once they were fitted, however I am still not sure.

 

Felling ignorant,

DeadRinger

 

I was about to ask the same question today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
31 minutes ago, DeadRinger said:

Looks better every time.  But i have question, which I could google of course.  What are the spandrels?  I keep reading about them in your posts and assumed I would realise once they were fitted, however I am still not sure.

 

Felling ignorant,

DeadRinger

 

 

Spandrels are the "triangular" areas between the arch tops.

 

I'm lost for adjectives as to how good this build is looking, Jeff. Must get out the thesaurus.

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than reply individually, can I thank you all for your positive comments to the latest batch of pics.

 

And for saving me having to explain about the spandrels. I have to admit it was a new word to me until December, when John Wardle (Old Gringo) enlightened me in response to my question "what are these bits called?"

 

 Another 400 stones on, so far today. I'll post some more pics when the walling around the top road deck is about complete on West and East sides.

 

A bit like the Forth bridge, this job. As I'm working on one thing I'm spotting this, that and the other that needs doing....

 

Keep the comments coming (for good or bad!)

 

Jeff

Edited by Physicsman
Typo
  • Like 5
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than dip in daily I like to leave a day or two more then when I do look it's Wow! look at the progress.  I can see it must be a bit of a plod but frankly it is worth all the effort.

 

Don

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Evening Jeff,

Well I keep popping in and thought I cannot keep posting "Looks great, carry on!" everytime, so I decided to shut up (rare I know) but having seen the latest batch of images I do feel I must take this opportunity, on behalf of all of us watching, to lodge an official complaint. You need to stop working on this project immediately and remove all trace of it from the World Wide Web ... why I hear you ask? Well your making us all look slow and amateur at the scenics on our own layouts!!!

 

Seriously, the level of detail that you have achieved on the viaduct by working stone by stone is amazing, it really does give it a proper 3D feel that you would not get from stone sheet, as well some individualism to the various bricks.  I have said it before, and really do mean it, your modelling is inspirational to everyone.  It shows what can be done if you are committed to a project and want to see it through.  No disrespect to you or your skill Jeff, but what is at a very basic level sticking DAS clay onto wood, should be achievable by anyone regardless of skill level, but your determination and eye for detail really does shine and consequently, the end product is stunning.  

 

I really do hope you are intending to document this viaduct build for one of the magazines when your finished, because the viaduct deserves a wider audience and you deserve the recognition.

 

Truly stunning modelling and long may it continue....

 

Rich

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening Rich.

 

Interesting - you're about the fourth or fifth person to suggest that I produce a magazine article based on the viaduct build. I quite like the idea - I can supply text and photos - and will contact an appropriate person when the viaduct is painted. If I get rebuffed I'll try elsewhere.

 

I appreciate your continued positive comments. I think I just enjoy getting immersed into a project that keeps me busy and satisfied long term. I'm always wanting to improve my skill level and I'm game for a challenge. Ten years ago I'd have run a mile if someone suggested even the simplest scratchbuild. But my guru Al (Schubert on this forum) gave me an important piece of advice - always break even the most complicated structure down into simple building blocks. Work on each bit and put them together....

 

His advice seems to work.

 

Jeff

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Physicsman said:

... always break even the most complicated structure down into simple building blocks.

 

I think you have taken his advice far too literally Jeff.

  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neilgue said:

 

I think you have taken his advice far too literally Jeff.

 

Neil, just be grateful that, as a physicist, I didn't reduce the block size down to the atomic level.

 

Might have taken me a few more weeks....

 

As I said to someone in an email last night, "never again".

 

I think I've said that before.

 

Jeff

Edited by Physicsman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2021 at 22:22, Physicsman said:

 

I appreciate your continued positive comments. I think I just enjoy getting immersed into a project that keeps me busy and satisfied long term. I'm always wanting to improve my skill level and I'm game for a challenge. Ten years ago I'd have run a mile if someone suggested even the simplest scratchbuild. But my guru Al (Schubert on this forum) gave me an important piece of advice - always break even the most complicated structure down into simple building blocks. Work on each bit and put them together....

 

His advice seems to work.

 

Jeff

 

Errr, I've never been called a Guru before, other short names beginning with a 'G' but never a Guru!

 

When i first visited your original layout and saw what you had completed yourself it was easy to see you already had a good level of skill, I merely 'dropped a few spanners in your works' and made a couple of suggestions to try and nudge you to develop further. At that point I didn't expect it to be the first step on a journey into prototypical locations and a gradual descent into the murky world of EM! 

 

This (break it down into smaller pieces) was one of the two main pieces of advice I would give to anyone starting scratch-building, the other would be 'look to see, and model what you see, not what you remember seeing'. I didn't think this last one applied to you as you already appeared to do that!

 

Your viaduct is a great example of both of these points and shows what can be achieved with patience (by the bucket load!) and observation. I look forward to visiting and seeing it in the flesh once compete and in place. I may even bring something over to run if i ever get round to converting anything to EM!  I do have some track, jigs and back to back gauges in EM but keep getting interested in other things instead, currently 1/35 armour and 3D printing.

 

I'm going now before I bring this thread into disrepute with mention of non railway based activities!

 

Cheers

 

Al

  • Like 7
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Al.

 

I wouldn't have thought anyone would use an alternative "g" word with you - you're so big you'd thump them!

 

I'd forgotten "Al's second law" about observing the prototype. Jason drummed that one into me as well: use primary source material and NEVER model a model.

 

I think both of you also made the point that the railways have been around so long that in building their structures they (probably) ironed out most of the potential design flaws. So what is the point in inventing a bridge, viaduct, tunnel etc scenario when the real thing is out there, somewhere. And when your own "invention" is probably full of the mistakes the Midland, NER etc solved over a hundred years back.

 

Using the prototype and not filling the room with track, fictitious track arrangement, facing crossovers etc was another thing it took a while to understand. I mean, layout 16 (might have been 17) of the 1981 Hornby Track Plans (5th edition) was a "dream" - I bet you couldn't even get in the room for all the track!

 

So the simple rules provided are indeed sensible and make a lot of difference.

 

Jeff

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

Some good points Jeff, and from Shubert, but as much as I appreciate the best of your Modelling, and that of anyone who models a prototype. I cant do prototype modelling but still get great pleasure from what I do. I tried getting near to a prototype with Bitton and had far to many people telling me that this, and that were wrong, even though I said it was only based on Bitton, so I walked away from any future ideas of modelling a prototype in any form.

I do like my Layouts to look as near as I can to a prototype, be it a Depot, a Yard or a Station, and then get as realistic a Track flow as I can. 

There are those that can, and and those that can't.

But as one who cant, it doesn't stop me greatly admiring the work of those that can.

 

Great work as always young Jeff, more pics soon I hope.

  • Like 2
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Ramrig said:

Well look what's on this weeks email from World of Railways

 

image.png.a5772dd75e6a45431af10f79c347ed89.png

 

What?

 

Where did that come from?! Someone has obviously been watching what I'm doing.

 

News to me, Steve, thanks for pointing it out.

 

Jeff

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Physicsman said:

 

What?

 

Where did that come from?! Someone has obviously been watching what I'm doing.

 

News to me, Steve, thanks for pointing it out.

 

Jeff

 

Its the weekly newsletter from Warners Publishing, Owners of RMWeb ;). You are obviously making an impression with that construction you are undertaking.

 

If they named a Class 37 "Concrete Bob" for Glenfinnan Viaduct. It will be "DAS Jeff" next on a Class 66  for Gill Head Viaduct :lol:

  • Like 5
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Andrew P said:

Some good points Jeff, and from Shubert, but as much as I appreciate the best of your Modelling, and that of anyone who models a prototype. I cant do prototype modelling but still get great pleasure from what I do. I tried getting near to a prototype with Bitton and had far to many people telling me that this, and that were wrong, even though I said it was only based on Bitton, so I walked away from any future ideas of modelling a prototype in any form.

I do like my Layouts to look as near as I can to a prototype, be it a Depot, a Yard or a Station, and then get as realistic a Track flow as I can. 

There are those that can, and and those that can't.

But as one who cant, it doesn't stop me greatly admiring the work of those that can.

 

Great work as always young Jeff, more pics soon I hope.

 

Very good points, Andy. At the end of the day this is only a hobby to be enjoyed, in whatever way we can.

 

I think the advice was more relevant to someone like me, who hasn't got the background in railways that others have. My attempts to create something "realistic" and "prototypical" were really NOT good at all. Hence my being guided to look at the real thing.

 

As it happens, as you know, the railway is almost incidental in my layouts as I just use the track and structures to "play" scenics. 

 

I also emphasise that my structures are "in the style of", and if the sticklers and rivet-counters want to take me to task, they're welcome to it. I don't care and they'll get short shrift. I'm fully amenable to my errors being highlighted. I remember the time on KL2 where I fully intended to use a bridge structure as a tunnel portal. No!!! Or tiling on slate rooves - not bothered about getting the number of rows correct, but the style should be ok.

 

I don't have an appreciation of track layouts like you do. You play the role of railway engineer approaching the layout design as if the area was a blank canvas, as in the mid 1800s. That's fine. Someone had to come up with the plans, learn by mistakes etc. I can't do that - well, I could, but my interest lie elsewhere. Mod-roc, DAS, static grass!!

 

As I said, it's a great hobby to be enjoyed in WHATEVER way we choose, and Rule 1 always applies! :)

 

Jeff

 

Ps. May get more pics on Sunday.

Edited by Physicsman
  • Like 4
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterling work and very inspirational. I am embarking on a far simpler effort (have neither the time or the commitment) using the Metcalfe Viaduct packs...I am now up to 1.8m long. They are a good enough impression for me and enjoyable to build which is half the battle I guess. One question...does your track rise up to this height or will you drop it into a scenic valley? I only ask as I have 2x sets of that Woodland Scenics riser and was thinking about using it. Cheers

  • Friendly/supportive 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reddo said:

Sterling work and very inspirational. I am embarking on a far simpler effort (have neither the time or the commitment) using the Metcalfe Viaduct packs...I am now up to 1.8m long. They are a good enough impression for me and enjoyable to build which is half the battle I guess. One question...does your track rise up to this height or will you drop it into a scenic valley? I only ask as I have 2x sets of that Woodland Scenics riser and was thinking about using it. Cheers

Jeff will no doubt answer anyway, but my advice would ALWAYS be, keep the Track as level as you can and loose the Viaduct into the Scenery . Yes there are gradients in the real world, but their severity would hardly be noticeable in Model form.  

A Metcalf one I did about 15 years ago, but never built the rest of the Layout.

490303916_KINGSMILL23MARCH06.JPG.29a297a6d85aa5b0e0647bb74881f0a3.JPG

 

And one I built in 2010 using Slaters Plasticard at the Gresley Model Railway Club.

1425507980_EasterOpenWeekend2014128.JPG.ec65d5b02277a113e15e97c2c6dd630a.JPG

 

1664461641_RMPhotoShoot077.JPG.1a0183067ef8058248a7638eaa6c540b.JPG

 

Neither of which can match that being done on here by young Jeff.

Edited by Andrew P
  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Round of applause 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A good model [railway] should create an impression of reality.  At the top of the league (in my humble opinion) must be Pendon museum.  www.pendonmuseum.com.  But many layouts can attract attention for various reasons.  I usually find RTR layouts, however extensive, rather uninteresting, but if the layout captures that 'look' I will look more closely.  Capturing the large landscapes is more difficult, something the N gauge is rather good at.. Take Copenhagen Fields for example.  But Geoff has already demonstrated how this can be achieved in a larger scale. 

 

I am rather looking forward to see how this layout pans out.

 

DeadRinger

 

PS.  In the dim distant past I demonstrated Hornby Zero-1 at several large exhibitions, with my co-demostrator, Brian Robinson.  He would often turn to me and mutter '"here comes another one!" referring to the anoraked unkempt man heading our way, knowing he was about to complain about some detail of a Hornby model he thought was incorrect! It was Brian that suggested a visit to Pendon would make you take up aero modelling!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reddo said:

Sterling work and very inspirational. I am embarking on a far simpler effort (have neither the time or the commitment) using the Metcalfe Viaduct packs...I am now up to 1.8m long. They are a good enough impression for me and enjoyable to build which is half the battle I guess. One question...does your track rise up to this height or will you drop it into a scenic valley? I only ask as I have 2x sets of that Woodland Scenics riser and was thinking about using it. Cheers

 

Morning!

 

Andy has beaten me to it, and I'll say very much the same thing.

 

The track is absolutely level EVERYWHERE in the layout - as far as I can practically build the frames and baseboard to achieve this.

 

The base height of the frame supporting the viaduct has been set so the track on the road deck at the top of the viaduct is level with the track on the baseboards on either side of it.

 

I've never been a fan of gradients and avoid them like the plague. Varying the surrounding scenery provides the illusion of any height variation, if needed.

 

Hope that's ok.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Very disappointed with your efforts Jeff; I was fully expecting the 1 in 100 up to Ais Gill to be accurately replicated. How standards are dropping nowadays.
 

Yours faithfully,

Mister disgusted, esquire, of Blea Moor

 

No worries, Peter....

 

I no longer model gradients as I took note of the disastrous effect they had on those layouts you built in the 70s and 80s. :o

 

One has to draw the line somewhere! :P

 

Nice to hear from you. I hope you've finished restoring that Midland door that was living in your conservatory by now. 

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Too cold for stripping (of the paint variety) in the summerhouse at the moment.

 

Had my first Covid jab yesterday; it was all quite a military operation. The jab itself was thankfully painless. I asked if there were any tea or biscuits afterwards, but got a polite "no".

 

Stay Safe as ever.

 

PS This might be of interest Jeff, with your scientific bent. Found it on one of the educational groups I'm in...

149298935_2605159099783586_6361815457317433485_n.jpg

Edited by Peter Kazmierczak
  • Funny 9
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...