Gill Head: Kirkby Luneside's neighbour

[Physicsman]

55 minutes ago, sjp23480 said:

Jeff,

 

Not sure if you have seen these prints on the Network Rail website - given your penchant for viaducts I thought they might interest you:  https://nr.printstoreonline.com/dmcs-search.html?find=settle

 

Steve

 

Thanks for the info.

 

It's amazing what's available these days. The "marketing men" must have a field day as they try to hit the niche markets.

 

Jeff

 

 

[Donw]

Going great Jeff really like the curves. On the subjet of ballasting I found with 0 gauge adding the glue to ballasted track it didn't always get down to the base and I have lumps drop out of an exhibition layout. So I now put the pva onto th bae between the tracks and add ballast. However being deeper I will also and some diluted glue on top once the ballast had been added.

 

On the subject of the pinwheel galaxy I cannot see it with my naked eyes. However in 2011 one star in that Galaxy went super nova and I could see it every night walking the dogs. A single star outshining a whole galaxy of trillions of stars.  Now I  aid in 2011 but since the Pinwheel Galaxy is some 20million light years away the Super Nova happened long before humans had developed.  Yet we were the first ones to be able to see it.

 

Don  

[Physicsman]

Some more pics, showing the state of affairs after 4 hours ballasting. I quite enjoyed myself!

 

The "6 foot" will receive a lighter coating of ballast at some stage in the future. See KL2 page 155-ish for similar work done previously.

 

Jeff

 

 

[Brian D]

I just love the curvy track plan. Have you applied some cant to increase the realism? 

[Physicsman]

2 hours ago, Brian D said:

I just love the curvy track plan. Have you applied some cant to increase the realism? 

 

Hi Brian.

 

I've never been a fan of canting or "super-elevation" in model railways. At the prototypical speeds of a freight or local service on the S&C it would hardly be necessary.

 

I agree about curves. There's something very satisfying about watching a loco travel round a long curve or S-bend, especially with a snaking rake of wagons behind.

 

When Andy P and Jason visited the original Kirkby Luneside we had over 40 wagons hauled by a 9F. Quite a sight!!

 

Jeff

[Andrew P]

7 hours ago, Physicsman said:

 

Hi Brian.

 

I've never been a fan of canting or "super-elevation" in model railways. At the prototypical speeds of a freight or local service on the S&C it would hardly be necessary.

 

I agree about curves. There's something very satisfying about watching a loco travel round a long curve or S-bend, especially with a snaking rake of wagons behind.

 

When Andy P and Jason visited the original Kirkby Luneside we had over 40 wagons hauled by a 9F. Quite a sight!!

 

Jeff

2011? and the 9F is still in recovery mode.

[Physicsman]

Here you are, Andy. A not-very-good photo from November 25, 2013 - with you admiring the 9F and a 12 foot long rake of wagons!

 

Oh, happy days!

 

Jeff

 

 

[Donw]

On the subject of cant, I am sure that when the Midland built the line it was aimed for Scottish expresses as well as local traffic so I reckon there would have been some super elevation. However this may well have been reduced in LMS or LMR days.  Somewhere in my mind  is the figure 30mph as the speed when the need for it would start but it also depends on radius. There also needs to be a transistion from the flat to the superelevated so it would only be noticeable in the middle of any curve. It was also used because it reduced wear on the track. With flat track the flanges get forced against the outer rail causing increasing wear. 

Don

[Joseph_Pestell]

9 minutes ago, Donw said:

On the subject of cant, I am sure that when the Midland built the line it was aimed for Scottish expresses as well as local traffic so I reckon there would have been some super elevation. However this may well have been reduced in LMS or LMR days.  Somewhere in my mind  is the figure 30mph as the speed when the need for it would start but it also depends on radius. There also needs to be a transistion from the flat to the superelevated so it would only be noticeable in the middle of any curve. It was also used because it reduced wear on the track. With flat track the flanges get forced against the outer rail causing increasing wear. 

Don

 

This is a classic dilemma in railway modelling. Do we model what is right or what looks right? We are used to looking at the railway through the lens of a camera. That distorts our perception of what curves should look like.

 

Scaled up 76.2, Jeff's curves are very tight and would probably have a 20mph limit. But they look right.

[Brian D]

3 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

Scaled up 76.2, Jeff's curves are very tight and would probably have a 20mph limit.

 

... and check rails. 

[Donw]

5 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This is a classic dilemma in railway modelling. Do we model what is right or what looks right? We are used to looking at the railway through the lens of a camera. That distorts our perception of what curves should look like.

 

Scaled up 76.2, Jeff's curves are very tight and would probably have a 20mph limit. But they look right.

 

Just now, Brian D said:

 

... and check rails. 

 

Back in the 60s I was on an enthusiasts special visting all the branches between Paddington and Reading at one point we had to traverse the Slough West Curve just over 4 chains I think. we did it dead slow . 4 chains would be 264ft so 1136mm in 4mm scale. 20mph would probably be reckless on such a curve check rails or not. 

Our models are a compromise but our eyes accept the compromises. However if you do have the space done properly it can be effective see here on Lawrie Adams 2mm model of yeovil town  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iff1MxMsEPA . It also shows how much space scale curves would need. There is also an impressive video of shunting with a tractor at Yeovil Town  in 2mm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB2OLLPVCIM

 

Jeff has had to compress those curves to fit it in the space. It is an excellent layout with superb modelling. Jeff doesn't make that many compromises as the viaduct shows.

 

Don

[Physicsman]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

This is a classic dilemma in railway modelling. Do we model what is right or what looks right? We are used to looking at the railway through the lens of a camera. That distorts our perception of what curves should look like.

 

Scaled up 76.2, Jeff's curves are very tight and would probably have a 20mph limit. But they look right.

 

Hi Joseph.

 

You are correct about the tight curves, as a result of the usual lack of space.

 

I really prefer to keep my radii above 3 feet and aside from the return curve to the station at the reverse curve end, this has been achieved. I just wish I could have modelled the whole thing at the 100 inch radius of the viaduct!I

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

2 hours ago, Brian D said:

 

... and check rails. 

 

There's a limit to the level of detail I'll model  and definitely no check rails....

 

As said in my previous post, given the space I would increase the radii by at least a factor of two. This would still be way below the prototype.

 

HOWEVER, the consequences of having that space and those radii would be the hugely increased area of landscape in the model. The landscape, and NOT the railway, is my main reason for this project, but the prospect of spending ten years building it is too much, even for a nutter like me.

 

But.....I could have had a viaduct AND a Fell. Or even TWO viaducts!!!

 

Jeff

Edited April 25, 2021 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

I've spent another 2 hours ballasting today. As well as a couple of hours adding new DAS shoulders at the north (clock) end of the viaduct. If I can get that area grimed and ballasted then I'll be able to fix the cutting hillock nearest that end of the viaduct permanently in place.

 

Speaking of which, the pics show the cutting at the reverse curve end. Since the track there is now ballasted, and access is straightforward, I've fixed the right-side cutting piece in place. It needs more work....eventually.

 

With all of the ballasting etc, the underbridge has been totally neglected and the moon pics still haven't appeared. Another 75Gb last night, with more to come tonight. So that's the entire hard drive capacity of my new laptop in data acquisition in the last week. Thank heavens for SSDs (I await witty comments).

 

Jeff

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Physicsman
Modifying sentence content

[Rowsley17D]

For a relatively slow, but very neat, way of ballasting you've achieved a fair length of work, Jeff. Just the 6 foot to do eh?

[Physicsman]

10 hours ago, Rowsley17D said:

For a relatively slow, but very neat, way of ballasting you've achieved a fair length of work, Jeff. Just the 6 foot to do eh?

 

Yes, it's surprising what a bit of time achieves. It has taken about 7 hours so far, and about 12 feet on each line has been done. 

 

It IS slow, but - and I guess this is nuts - I've quite enjoyed myself.

 

If I'm honest, I'd really like to be working on the underbridge, but that's something to look forward to.

 

The 6 feet is easy - just PVA onto the gap and a sprinkling of ballast. But I'll be carrying on literally going round the bend at the clock end, as I want that area finished asap.

 

J.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Physicsman
Correcting gobbledegook

[Physicsman]

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Physicsman

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Something astronomical for Jeff at 5.45am this morning...

[Physicsman]

Thanks Peter. Nice pic and good to see you're an early riser!

 

But don't get me started on all this American malarkey of named full moons and supermoons....

 

NOTHING special about any of them, no deep significance and we lived for centuries without the media headlines hyping things up.

 

Jeff

 

[jukebox]

Pink Supermoon:

 

 

 

Happy Wednesday, everyone!

 

Scott

[Physicsman]

6 hours ago, jukebox said:

Pink Supermoon:

 

 

 

Happy Wednesday, everyone!

 

Scott

 

Yuk!

 

That's not YOU, btw....in your psychedelic days?

 

Rather that than Hef plus bunnies or Mankini man (long time posters will understand)

 

J.

[Physicsman]

Ballasting has now been completed from the point nearest to the camera in pic 1, round to the clock at the far end. It's taken about 10 hours, which I think is not too bad. No further ballasting at the moment as the clock marks the start of the point rodding zone. I may actually fit the point rodding in the immediate future, then the job is done.

 

The second pic shows a view along the back of the viaduct toward the little corner hillock I've just fitted in, at right. A small, removable backscene board can go in there at some stage.

 

The cess has taken a bit of a crapping up in the last couple of days, so I'll sort that. I also intend to coat the valley in brown paint, once my brother has pinched it out of my dad's garage.

 

Jeff

[jacko]

I can't see any clocks Jeff.

 

Graeme

[Physicsman]

2 minutes ago, jacko said:

I can't see any clocks Jeff.

 

Graeme

 

You're not looking hard enough, Graeme.

 

Clue....look at post prior to Peter's moon pic, first pic.

 

Now, look at the last post. If you look REALLY carefully, the clock is just rising behind the hillock, at 11 o'clock to the left of the display cabinet! 

 

Honest.

 

Btw, I'm still slogging through moon data. Story to tell about the appalling seeing (beautiful clear skies, usual British situation) - I'll email you about it in a few days. Do I have your normal (non RMweb) email? If not, please PM me and I'll send pics when done.

 

Jeff

 

 

[Physicsman]

The snow around the viaduct has "melted" to reveal fresh earth - in most places.

 

Who knows, there may even be a coating of base flock onto the surface in the near future. But the "proper" vegetation, with static grass, will have to wait.

 

Jeff