Gill Head: Kirkby Luneside's neighbour

[Physicsman]

Update....

 

I thought it was about time I provided an update on what's been going on in the corner of the layout, wherein lies the overbridge.

 

This type of bridge is often referred to as an "Occupation Bridge" as it provides a way for locals, including farmers, to cross the railway in safety, The first pic, which was shown in the first post on this thread, shows the bridge at Kirkby Stephen, positioned about 200 metres north of the station platforms. I used a series of photos of this particular bridge to draw-up the plans for the model and the basic structure was built in May, before I got sidetracked onto something else!

 

 

The next 4 pics show the view towards the bridge, gradually zooming in.

 

 

 

 

 

The last 2 pics show the bridge, sat in place - not fixed - with some cow hooves and the first coating of side grass alongside the mud. I realise that some overbridges had road surfaces on them. Not this one - it will be populated with a herd of cows and the farmer, at a later stage.

 

 

 

There is a LOT still to do on here. The embankment adjacent to the bridge (front and rear) has just had a base coat of 2mm fibres - it'll take at least a day at the current Bunker temperature before I can add the deeper stuff. The embankment also needs further vegetation and a few bushes. The wall at the left side needs extending down to the end of the bridge and both approaches to the bridge need a "mud" coating, complete with hooves, to match the bridge.

 

The bridge can then be bedded in. I've checked the clearances for locos - they are ok. By coincidence, the location of the bridge coincides with the sharpest track radius on the layout - between 28 and 30" here. Elsewhere I've tried to keep to at least 36", preferably more.

 

The embankment and bridge modifications (I re-did the arch rings with individual voussoir stones, along with new arch liners) in this corner  has taken ten days so far. With the cooler weather I think I'll get the vegetation etc completed by the end of the week. NO POINT RUSHING this. It's fun and it needs to be done carefully.

 

Jeff

 

 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Physicsman
Typos

[Rowsley17D]

I like that bridge very much, Jeff. Very typically Midland and S&C.

[Physicsman]

50 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

Hello Jeff,

 

When your name is actually Wolf, you tend to beat everyone to the punch line and make the most of it.

I certainly have over the years 

 

I too like the idea of basing my layout on an actual place. Although the place in question never got its proposed railway, I have made a point of making the landscape recognisable as the actual location, even down to the geological makeup of the river bed. 

It's a lot easier when you can simply go to your chosen location and take a stack of photographs.

The buildings are all based upon prototypes from the area and the traffic is based on local industry and agriculture.

The river I had some concerns about, for the same reasons that you give for hanging back with completing the beck. 

Having found how tricky it was to work around the rather low bridge when creating the river bed I modelled the shallow water as soon as the landscaping was done (and keep the board covered now.) The main reason for this is the fact that the river Clun is bordered by a lot of overhanging trees which would doubtless cause all manner of frustrations had I installed them first.

I'm actually quite looking forward to that part of the construction, but there is an awful lot of other work to do first.

 

I have to ask, what are the origins of "Physicsman"?

 

Mr(Robert)Wolf.

 

 

 

 

Hi Rob, and thanks for the low-down on your modelling rationale.

 

I couldn't agree more re. prototypes. It's only in the last ten years that I've taken any notice of the number of modellers who kept telling me to "stop making it up and base your model on a real place". The Settle and Carlisle line has always been my dominant love, almost entirely because of the scenery and structures. Those familiar with my threads know that the actual railway is only an excuse for me to model the landscape. The running of locos and trains comes a very distant second to constructing the environment. The landscape shaped the railway, not the other way round.

 

As for "Physicsman". My primary academic interests at school were Physics and Chemistry, and the fact that Astronomy is my primary hobby (railway modelling started 25 years later) led me to take a Physics degree. At the time I'd planned to go into research - which I did for 7 years, including completing a PhD in the nuclear physics area. Disillusioned with the narrow area of research I was working in, I switched to teaching - Physics with as much astronomy and Chemistry as I could "wangle" in!

 

So my background is predominantly Physics. Rather than an image of a Physics-related subject (such as a telescope or nuclear bomb (!)), my avatar remains that of my beloved cat who passed away a few years back. Because of my ("slightly" over-engineered constructions, including my garage conversions) background, the layout room was christened the "Bunker" a number of years back by the (great bunch of) wags on here!! So there you have it!

 

Jeff

Edited December 19, 2021 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

2 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said:

I like that bridge very much, Jeff. Very typically Midland and S&C.

 

Glad you like it! Steve Gibbons (Ramrig), whose opinion I also greatly value, made a similar comment.

 

Much appreciated.

[MrWolf]

That bridge reminded me instantly of this one:

 

 

 

 

All that remains of Scout Green crossing:

 

 

This is the front wall of the crossing keepers house, it's been the back wall of a corrugated iron garage for the last fifty years or so.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Jeff, I think you're right about lack of drainage covers. Looked through many photos of the S & C but only found a few, and most of these came from the later diesel-era.

So stick with what you've done.

 

Regards as ever.

[Physicsman]

Rob, interesting images of the WCML. I must have passed close to that bridge hundreds of times as Tebay was next to my route from the M6 via Kirkby Stephen to Teesside, where I used to live.

[Physicsman]

29 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Jeff, I think you're right about lack of drainage covers. Looked through many photos of the S & C but only found a few, and most of these came from the later diesel-era.

So stick with what you've done.

 

Regards as ever.

 

Peter, thanks for raising the issue and having a look at the photos for me.

 

I'm not a "rivet counter" - or even a "drain cover counter", but anything overtly missing from my cuttings would be corrected, if pointed out! 

[Peter Kazmierczak]

You could always include the odd concrete ballast bin or two. The LMS had quite a distinctive design, which would further help to "place" the layout. Easy to make out of a few bits of card and paint with Humbrol concrete-coloured paint.

[SouthernRegionSteam]

4 minutes ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

You could always include the odd concrete ballast bin or two. The LMS had quite a distinctive design, which would further help to "place" the layout. Easy to make out of a few bits of card and paint with Humbrol concrete-coloured paint.

What, no DAS air drying clay?! 
Seriously though Jeff, that vegetation looks so good, as does the occupation bridge. I love the muddy cow hooves prints; makes me think about my grandad's farm and getting my wellies stuck whenever there was the slightest hint of rain...

I must admit, it can't wait to see some trains traverse under it and negotiate the reverse curves.

[Physicsman]

1 hour ago, SouthernRegionSteam said:

What, no DAS air drying clay?! 
Seriously though Jeff, that vegetation looks so good, as does the occupation bridge. I love the muddy cow hooves prints; makes me think about my grandad's farm and getting my wellies stuck whenever there was the slightest hint of rain...

I must admit, it can't wait to see some trains traverse under it and negotiate the reverse curves.

 

Thanks Jam. 

 

As a lot of you will know, one of my pet hates is the "cult of the sycophant". Yes, here we go - Jeff is "off on one" AGAIN.... HOWEVER, I think the people who've stuck with this thread have the same general attitude as me. If not, why are you still reading this?

 

The small number of layouts (I think we're now at around 3) I look at are being built by conscientious modellers who value positive feedback and constructive criticism. Have a look at Jay's Llanyblod/CHPR threads, AlG's CHPR and Rob (Mr Wolf's) Clun, the latter having only recently come to my attention. On these threads the input from a group of fellow layout-builders is first class. Banter, good humour, advice exchanged in a positive way and NO ar5e-licking. What's the point of "disciples" telling you that what you are doing is good when, to anyone with any decent vision - and perspective - it's crap!? Producing crap gets you nowhere. MUCH better to be told it's rubbish and do something about it - it raises your standards. Who wants mediocrity?

 

At risk of recalling a story that some of you will be familiar with - my first attempt at a cutting, adjacent to the newly-built viaduct on the original KL thread (around 2012). Jason Thomas, one of the best modellers in the UK, wasn't mincing his words...."it's sh1te, get rid of it"....he was correct. The cutting was changed - for the better....

 

WHY am I banging on about this? Because I appreciate the comments, and the attached specifics, made about some of the stuff I'm building. I know that next time I build a similar type of overbridge - for the Ais Gill-based "plank" (thread starting later) - I can make it better. It's good to know that the current one passes muster, but behind-the-scenes discussions and a bit of thinking should make some improvements. Just too easy to say "that's brilliant". As modellers - me certainly included - it is fantastic to hear this, but constructive suggestions to (possibly) improve things are like gold dust.

 

Of course, I'm probably talking to the converted here and there are some who wouldn't budge if you stuck an atomic bomb up their derrieres. Their loss, I'm afraid.

 

So, folks, please continue to offer your opinions. I may not agree with some of them, but it often needs a bit of lateral thinking from someone "outside the box" to generate new ideas and make things better.

 

Thanks, again, Jam. Our little email interchanges are already reaping rewards for my planned dioramas!

 

Oh, btw - almost incidental - 2 more pics of the overbridge attached. Yesterday's PVA is barely set, and there's a lot of vegetation needed to build up the depth. We'll get there.

 

 

 

Jeff

[SouthernRegionSteam]

Hi Jeff,

I do agree that it is incredibly important not just to receive praise (as rewarding as it is), but also to note anything that perhaps the OP hasn't noticed, or that you think could be done in a different/'better' way. I'm not a widespread poster, but if I'm posting in a topic there will be a good reason for it; usually because I feel the "like" or other buttons are not quite enough to show my appreciation or awe. Sometimes it's also because I've noticed something that would be simple thing to 'fix' or improve, and can give gentle words of advice to that effect.

I am acutely aware that I do spend more time praising peoples' efforts than I do critiquing, and I often wonder if I'm just holding back just to make sure I don't upset someone! It's a tricky balance. I therefore appreciate your no-nonsense approach...OK, so there is some nonsense, but that's the banter aspect we all know and love!

 

When I see things modelled that are rare like the hoof prints on the overbridge, it transports me back; and like I'm forever saying during my diorama builds, that's the MOST important thing to me when making a model. As I stated during the recent WoR virtual exhibition scenic detail panel, you absolutely need constructive feedback to improve your own modelling ability. Of course, you have to find the balance between constructive and destructive, but it's usually fairly clear-cut who to trust and who's just being a 'negative Nancy'!

 

Going briefly back to the hooves (I don't think I've ever said that before!), the only thing I could suggest would be to add a wash of a slightly darker brown into the prints themselves to add some shadow and emphasis their depth? What I did with my farm diorama was to roll some flock into a muddy brown wash and brush it into the holes to give some more texture.

 

Above all, this hobby is all about experimentation and observation!

[Physicsman]

20 minutes ago, SouthernRegionSteam said:

Hi Jeff,

 

Going briefly back to the hooves (I don't think I've ever said that before!), the only thing I could suggest would be to add a wash of a slightly darker brown into the prints themselves to add some shadow and emphasis their depth? What I did with my farm diorama was to roll some flock into a muddy brown wash and brush it into the holes to give some more texture.

 

Above all, this hobby is all about experimentation and observation!

 

Exactly the kind of thing that's needed - input based on experience. I hadn't realised that your earlier years had shaped your knowledge of mud to the extent they have..... So far the "mud" area on the bridge has only had 2 coats of a brown emulsion. I'll have a go with some Woodland Scenics Fine Earth flock and add more texture. Thinking about it, the mud will have a lot of bits of broken down grass and vegetation - there's also the issue of some cow pats.... I will also have to continue the hoof prints to either side of the bridge - it'll get done (and the observant people on here will make sure it is, won't you?!)

 

As for your last sentence, TOTALLY agree!

[Neilgue]

Quote

... anything overtly missing from my cuttings would be corrected, if pointed out! 

 

There is something I was wondering about. In some of the last lot of real life pics you posted it looks like there is a small retaining wall at the foot of the cutting. Am I seeing things properly?

 

Its not like you to miss the chance to do some stonework.

 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Neilgue
Added a pic

[Physicsman]

Neil, I think you are right. I did have a reason for not including it - or was it just an oversight (or laziness?!)

 

I think I wasn't sure how far it extended, so took the easy way out!

 

Jeff

[John Besley]

I was going to suggest something along the same lines as Jam re the cattle hooves, definitely need slimy green puddles added and cow pats

 

Your comments about positive or negative remarks do help in a major way as if others can judge constructively it makes us better at what we do, I must admit while the usual thumbs us etc. are OK some actual comments go a long way ... but how to get anyone to comment (join in) is a puzzle my Exhill Works thread all I get are thumbs up etc. 

 

Dont get me wrong they are appreciated But coments one way or another really do help shape / focus the worlds we are creating

[Physicsman]

4 minutes ago, John Besley said:

I was going to suggest something along the same lines as Jam re the cattle hooves, definitely need slimy green puddles added and cow pats

 

Your comments about positive or negative remarks do help in a major way as if others can judge constructively it makes us better at what we do, I must admit while the usual thumbs us etc. are OK some actual comments go a long way ... but how to get anyone to comment (join in) is a puzzle my Exhill Works thread all I get are thumbs up etc. 

 

Dont get me wrong they are appreciated But coments one way or another really do help shape / focus the worlds we are creating

 

Welcome to the club of what REAL modellers - WHATEVER THEIR SKILL LEVEL - would really LIKE (pun intended) on here.

 

Comments like "great work", "more please", "coming on nicely", " lovely progress" etc are VERY much appreciated, as well as the thumbs up you refer to. And I KNOW that not everyone has the time, or knowledge - or inclination - to want to offer a comment. Fair enough.

 

But critical input - for example, a couple of posts up, where Neil has set me thinking - are just as, or maybe of more use.

 

One problem I've increasingly found in this Forum is the "knee jerk" reaction from the disciples to pictures posted, NO MATTER how good or crap the work is. It's very irritating when someone has put a lot of work in and virtually gets ignored.

 

On the subject of which, I really ought to start looking at your thread. The attention to detail you are putting in deserves plenty of plaudits.

 

Folks, it's a real-world forum, nothing is going to change. But I'm damned if I'm going to say nothing, on my own thread.

 

20 likes for a loco straight out of the box. 5 likes for a scratchbuilt crane in a goods shed. Bl**dy ridiculous.

 

J.

[Physicsman]

3 hours ago, Neilgue said:

 

There is something I was wondering about. In some of the last lot of real life pics you posted it looks like there is a small retaining wall at the foot of the cutting. Am I seeing things properly?

 

Its not like you to miss the chance to do some stonework.

 

 

I'll see what I can do, even if it's only 3 bricks high. Oh, dear!!

[MrWolf]

20 minutes ago, Physicsman said:

 

I'll see what I can do, even if it's only 3 bricks high. Oh, dear!!

 

I had a similar problem on a part of my layout, (I'd forgotten to allow enough room for a part of the railway infrastructure is the honest answer) where the bank met the baseboard needed moving back around 15mm.

I cut a straight line down through the scenery to the baseboard with a Stanley knife and then peeled off the unwanted section with a sharp scraper. This left about a 6mm step in the landform which I then made a piece of wall to fit. It was a lot easier than making the wall first and having to pretty much guess how much landscape to cut away.

[Dave John]

I tend to agree with your philosophy Physicsman, The point of a thread, or blog in my case, is to stimulate informed debate. I too welcome observed criticism, my fellow modellers often spot things I really should address. 

 

The bridge itself is fine, but I would observe that embankment vegetation is inhibited by the arches of the bridge . Up at the top it would just be muddy, tapering to sparse grass toward the lower piers. Railwaymen would tend to walk round the piers , perhaps stopping for a chat and a smoke. Again a muddy path on the lower embankment sides. 

 

Mind you , it is all looking good so far. 

[Physicsman]

10 minutes ago, MrWolf said:

 

I had a similar problem on a part of my layout, (I'd forgotten to allow enough room for a part of the railway infrastructure is the honest answer) where the bank met the baseboard needed moving back around 15mm.

I cut a straight line down through the scenery to the baseboard with a Stanley knife and then peeled off the unwanted section with a sharp scraper. This left about a 6mm step in the landform which I then made a piece of wall to fit. It was a lot easier than making the wall first and having to pretty much guess how much landscape to cut away.

 

Rob, I'll be doing something about the oversight. Not a problem as I have plenty of room in the cess, and the wall can be built onto a piece of 20thou plastikard, only about 12mm high and 8mm wide.

[Physicsman]

7 minutes ago, Dave John said:

I tend to agree with your philosophy Physicsman, The point of a thread, or blog in my case, is to stimulate informed debate. I too welcome observed criticism, my fellow modellers often spot things I really should address. 

 

The bridge itself is fine, but I would observe that embankment vegetation is inhibited by the arches of the bridge . Up at the top it would just be muddy, tapering to sparse grass toward the lower piers. Railwaymen would tend to walk round the piers , perhaps stopping for a chat and a smoke. Again a muddy path on the lower embankment sides. 

 

Mind you , it is all looking good so far. 

 

Dave, thanks for your comments. Exactly what is needed.

 

The bridge is just sat in place at the mo while the base grass layers are setting around it. I like the idea of a couple of farmers having a smoke, in proximity to the bridge - along with the sh1tty "path" frequent use would make. It all adds to the detail and credibility of the scene.

 

Jeff

[MrWolf]

That's quite fortunate that you have room to add the retaining wall,it's a bit nerve wracking cutting into areas that are to all intents and purposes complete. IIRC the wall I put in was about the same size.

I've been reading back through your recent posts (I am most flattered by the mention of my thread) and wanted to say that I agree entirely with the points raised. 

If I were only receiving positive comments or a simple thumbs up, I probably wouldn't have got as far as I have, I'm certain that I wouldn't be so happy with the finish or direction it's taking.

It's a confidence boost that people do like your work, but even more useful when someone says "have you thought of, or do you know about this method / product?", or whatever.

That is when I find that things progress apace.

Regarding @Dave Johns comment about the embankment under the bridge arches, I have to agree. Even long after the railway has gone the area under a bridge like that (unless tall enough to always catch the sunlight) is pretty much barren, soil ash and stones generally with a little scree slope of fallen material behind the piers.

As for the foul stinking water generally found in the bottom of cow hoof prints, I've found that a wash of thinned humbrol 91 black green mixed with a little gloss varnish makes for a suitably stagnant look.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by MrWolf
Stupid autocorrect

[John Besley]

21 hours ago, MrWolf said:

That's quite fortunate that you have room to add the retaining wall,it's a bit nerve wracking cutting into areas that are to all intents and purposes complete. IIRC the wall I put in was about the same size.

I've been reading back through your recent posts (I am most flattered by the mention of my thread) and wanted to say that I agree entirely with the points raised. 

If I were only receiving positive comments or a simple thumbs up, I probably wouldn't have got as far as I have, I'm certain that I wouldn't be so happy with the finish or direction it's taking.

It's a confidence boost that people do like your work, but even more useful when someone says "have you thought of, or do you know about this method / product?", or whatever.

That is when I find that things progress apace.

Regarding @Dave Johns comment about the embankment under the bridge arches, I have to agree. Even long after the railway has gone the area under a bridge like that (unless tall enough to always catch the sunlight) is pretty much barren, soil ash and stones generally with a little scree slope of fallen material behind the piers.

As for the foul stinking water generally found in the bottom of cow hoof prints, I've found that a wash of thinned humbrol 91 black green mixed with a little gloss varnish makes for a suitably stagnant look.

 

 

What's your topic link please so I can follow ....

[John Besley]

Just going back to your comment Jeff on the layouts you follow, how about Hornsey Broadway... found a whole bunch on YouTube and showed them to my wife who said "that's better than some of those videos of exhibitions I saw, I remember blue trains like that they look the real deal"...