Jump to content
 

Eastwood Town - A tribute to Gordon's modelling.


gordon s
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

We all have to make compromises in our modelling. Trying to match the prototype of your youth is always an extra challenge, because the compromises "hurt". Whatever ET looks like in its final form, Gordon will not have compromised on track - which we have already seen will look delicious - and we can assume the trains will be gorgeous too. The structures and scenery may not be quite as important when you have ticked those two big boxes. And in the larger scales it is often track and trains that major, with limited scenery and fewer buildings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Gordon - don't worry too much about the context.

 

You have some wonderful track laid and I'm sure you have a preferred set of locos (for me on KL it's ex-LMS/BR standards). The "play" element in what you do will be sensational, with wonderful trains running on beautifully laid-out track. 

 

You've done the hard work! Then create something along the lines of the buildings and structures in earlier ET incarnations and you'll be on to a winner!

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Borchester was the very first layout that I could identify with. A length of eleven feet isn't much to play around with Gordon but, if you have the width to cut a corner, you could continue the scenic section around a shallow curve. Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy Cow! Gordon is preparing for more retaining walls! Praise be...................

 

Did the Paris type plan depart via the window? It was very elegant and would have looked even better with J15s trundling around.

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Holy Cow! Gordon is preparing for more retaining walls! Praise be...................

 

Did the Paris type plan depart via the window? It was very elegant and would have looked even better with J15s trundling around.

 

Best, Pete.

But it would have been something of an operational challenge Pete - probably best worked on a 'tidal(ish)' basis with a singleton operator and a challenge to use all that luscious looking terminus trackwork in the way its design demanded.  Great challenge building it I'm sure but I suspect Gordon might have got a little frustrated with it operationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Of course had I 35' to play with then Wood Green would certainly be on the drawing board. Sadly I don't so ET will have to do.

 

N Gauge? 00 Gauge in the garden? A new local club and clubroom?

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48342

 

 http://www.2mm.org.uk/events.html

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/72042-2mm-expofest-june-2223-at-wallingford/

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Gordon

 

Just to throw a spanner in the works, instead of a square or rectangle as you have now, have you thought about a triangle which would give a longer straight length on the hypotenuse and tighten the end radii up by hiding them in tunnels, plenty of them on the exit from the 'cross. some thing along the lines of the 'fields by the MRC.

 

SS 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Hi Gordon,

 

My present layout is the only one I have built that has come anywhere near completion, and over the years I have endured endless frustration and wasted a lot of time and money. More than once I have seriously considered giving up altogether. Why is PN so different? Because before I started anything I had a firm plan of action, had made up my mind exactly what I wanted, ensured it was feasible, and was as sure as I could be that this time there would be something that would give me lasting enjoyment. It is all too easy to get carried away by enthusiasm and begin building the next big scheme before having really evaluated it properly, then be brought down to earth with a bump when it either doesn't go as planned or fails to give the desired buzz.

 

I'm not suggesting you build a prototype, as that clearly isn't what you want, or at least what you think is feasible, but someone as gifted as yourself is capable of doing something that creates the illusion of reality. You mention our mutual and remarkable friend Mr Shakespeare, and really you could not ask for a better role model. Dave doesn't do prototype, but he does do something that absolutely yells out that it is a real railway in a real setting. I can't help feeling that in the long term just running an eclectic selection of stock won't satisfy you, because it matters so much to you for things to be right, as we've seen with your attention to detail with the minutiae of track and ballasting. Give it plenty of thought Gordon, it will pay off in the long term. Oh, and I agree with the idea of putting a station on the diagonal. David Jenkinson did some plans of that nature in Modelling Historic Railways , some of which I think were for spaces not dissimilar to what you have.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input guys.  I have looked at diagonals before and yes it can increase the available space, but there are a couple of drawbacks.  I've calculated that an 8' platform length really needs about a 13' run if you incorporate a bay or any fast/slow pointwork.  No problem within the length of the diagonal, but as you gain length by bowing the line away from the 45-60 degree diagonal, it introduces more curvature to the diagonal and that means curved platforms.  A shallow curve is fine, but reducing the radius can often mean 'mind the gap' with main line locos and coaching stock.  

 

The other issue main issue is to avoid 'duck unders' and it can be tempting to incorporate storage behind the station itself as that is the area of most length.  Invariably this will mean diving under the station board to access the storage and that's a definite no-no.

 

I'm happy with the modular plan I have put together.  It's now been kicking around since November when the last build ran into ballasting issues and the penny finally dropped that the whole plan was just too large for one man alone. 

 

Of course whilst Mrs S is watching TV, Templot will be kicked into life to look at diagonals again, but there are these two major stumbling blocks to overcome, plus a number of fixed obstacles to deal with.  I'm not writing it off, far from it, just letting you know there is far more to it than would appear at first thought.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent all morning looking at retaining walls as they are such a major part of ET.  Those of you who have followed the ups and downs of the past few years will know I have used Slaters 7mm Dressed Stone and Cotswold Stone sheets as the basis of all stone walling.  They have always struck me as slightly oversize but I feel it was an acceptable compromise as some of the walls on earlier versions of ET were pretty large.

 

One of the problems I have is really not knowing just how big stone blocks would be on walls that were perhaps 20-30' high.

 

I've followed Larry's Standedge thread for months now and know he went through similar things, so I ordered some Wills Coarse Stone sheets to play around.  This first attempt took a couple of hours to build and paint, but once all the sizes are set, I normally create a productions line to make 20 or so in one go to save time.  The Wills product is 4mm, but the downside is smaller sheets so butt joins have to be made vertically and there is a height mismatch that can be hidden with a string course that is actually lower than the next level up.  I don't feel this is a real issue as it's difficult to see both sides of the wall as they are just 6" or so from the back wall.

 

The upper level parapet wall is coming out around 4' tall, but again I have no idea what this height would be in real life.  Any ideas?

 

This version of ET has much lower walls with just 82mm height difference between the levels, so I believe the 4mm sheets are probably the way I shall go.  I'm going to play around with the pillars this afternoon and see how they pan out.

 

Any clues you can give about block sizes and parapet wall heights would be greatly appreciated.

 

post-6950-0-61522700-1371820133_thumb.jpg

 

post-6950-0-01089600-1371820153_thumb.jpg

 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wills stone walling has a repeat if the plastic mouldings are all placed the same way up. I cut the moulded edge off and butt the stone together with Mekpak using pressure so that the the softened plastic oozes out. Then I wipe it off and this can give an invisible joint. Corners and window edges are a doddle as the courses can be filed continuously around them. I used some slaters 0419 random stone recently but I don't consider there is enough 3-D relief and will probaby scrap the roadside walls already made.

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

  • RMweb Gold

A wall 4ft high sounds a bit low to me Gordon.  I know they were brick but thinking of many of the walls around the KX area, and at various other railway sites in London, there was no way I could leap up to see over them back in my mid-late teens, which suggests they were most likely 6ft or more in order to dissuade not just train  spotters but more importantly other trespassers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mike.  I'm inclined to agree with you.  Of course with a goods loop running at the higher level the purpose of the wall is not to keep out trainspotters, but more to try and prevent a derailed train going over the side and crashing to the main tracks bellow.  Of course in model form that's not an issue other than possible stock damage.  Would a six foot wall be considered man enough to do that on the real railway?  Would it have to be considerably reinforced or significantly thicker than normal?

 

Whatever the real railway did, I suspect I'm going to have to use some modelling licence....

 

The issue I'm stuck with at the lower level is that the Wills sheet is some 7mm smaller than the retaining wall itself.  I'm thinking of creating a sub footing to fill that gap.  Most of it would be hidden behind low scrub and weeds anyway.

 

post-6950-0-61579700-1371832166_thumb.jpg

 

Now I've got a pillar and wall together, I think I'll go down the Wills route.  It's not as economical as the Slaters route, but looks right against 4mm stock.

 

post-6950-0-28502400-1371832131_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

No wall on earth would keep a train at bay Gordon should it feel the need to demolish the wall - not quite the scene you have in mind but I remember Tom Rolt in 'Red For Danger' comparing the force of a 60 mph express train with that of a 16inch naval shell.  So most likely equal to one and a half or a couple of brick lengths, i.e. c.18 inches maximum but more important in my view on a layout to just get it looking right - I found that the Slaters' stone glued either side of a 5mm foamboard core doesn't look too bad but you might want something a bit thicker in that situation.

 

Addendum

 

And having written that I thought I'd have a look at 'the Requirements' 1950 edition which has gen for bridges which is a sort of similar situation and it says 'not less than 4ft 6 inches in height above the level of the walkway, and at least 18 inches thick up to a height of 12 inches above rail level ..'.  So not quite the same think but reasonable guidance maybe?

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

I found this photo of Bethnal Green. It is in the middle of the elevated section of mainline between Stratford and Liverpool Street.

Once outside the immediate environs of the station complex the wall is actually quite low.

You may well find a better photo.....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bethnal_Green_railway_stn_Great_Eastern_look_west.JPG

 

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent all morning looking at retaining walls as they are such a major part of ET.  Those of you who have followed the ups and downs of the past few years will know I have used Slaters 7mm Dressed Stone and Cotswold Stone sheets as the basis of all stone walling.  They have always struck me as slightly oversize but I feel it was an acceptable compromise as some of the walls on earlier versions of ET were pretty large.

 

One of the problems I have is really not knowing just how big stone blocks would be on walls that were perhaps 20-30' high.

 

I've followed Larry's Standedge thread for months now and know he went through similar things, so I ordered some Wills Coarse Stone sheets to play around.  This first attempt took a couple of hours to build and paint, but once all the sizes are set, I normally create a productions line to make 20 or so in one go to save time.  The Wills product is 4mm, but the downside is smaller sheets so butt joins have to be made vertically and there is a height mismatch that can be hidden with a string course that is actually lower than the next level up.  I don't feel this is a real issue as it's difficult to see both sides of the wall as they are just 6" or so from the back wall.

 

The upper level parapet wall is coming out around 4' tall, but again I have no idea what this height would be in real life.  Any ideas?

 

This version of ET has much lower walls with just 82mm height difference between the levels, so I believe the 4mm sheets are probably the way I shall go.  I'm going to play around with the pillars this afternoon and see how they pan out.

 

Any clues you can give about block sizes and parapet wall heights would be greatly appreciated.

 

attachicon.gifIMG_5288.jpg

 

attachicon.gifDSCF5074.jpg

Hello Gordon,

                       In 4mm scale `1 9" is equivelent to 7mm.Looking at some of the more massive railway construction,using stone courses at that size are not uncommon.It is not untill you get close up that you realise just how massive they are.Does the 7mm refer to 7mm scale or the equivilent scale size or has it become blurred over the years?.If one looks at ballast size the same sort of confusion  occurs between N OO and O guage ballast use on models.Most construction using stone have substantially smaller stone courses at the top.

trustytrev.

 

trustytrev.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies Trev, I may have misled you.  The Slaters Dressed Stone is made for 7mm scale.  A typical stone on the sheet is 16-18mm x 5-6mm, so in 4mm scale some 4' long x 18" wide.

 

Here's a scan of the two sheets, showing the significant difference between the two.  I'm really not saying there is anything wrong with the Slaters sheet at all as I've used it in the past based on the wonderful stonework I saw on Dave Shakespeare's Tetley Mills layout.  It can certainly look very effective, even when used on 00 layouts.

 

What I was trying to understand is whether or not blocks of that size (4' x 1'6") would be used on massive structures such as large retaining walls. 

 

post-6950-0-04395900-1371841601_thumb.jpg

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

I took this at the real Greenfield when measuring the walls. The Slaters embossed stone was well short on courses in height, as would be expected from 7mm scale stone. While Wills is random and not the same type of stonework, it did at least look in scale. The wall nearest the camera was of later construction and used larger height stone. The platform seats are a useful indicator (3 courses)........

 

post-6680-0-38685500-1371841639.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

 

Now I've got a pillar and wall together, I think I'll go down the Wills route.  It's not as economical as the Slaters route, but looks right against 4mm stock.

 

attachicon.gifDSCF5078.jpg

 

Gordon;

 

I like this chunky blockwork better, but for me, there's something note quite working visually with this arrangement.

 

I think it may be that I'd expect the string course to be at the same level as the roadbed of the upper track.

 

If you raised the whole lot by 10mm or so, you would 1/, get a higher retaining wall up top and 2/. get the string course where it should be.

 

You could do this by either adding a discrete later of terra to the base, covering it in ballast at the like, or adding it as a structural item in the form of some foundation blockwork.

 

Rough photoshop suggestion:

 

post-8688-0-59721700-1371860711_thumb.jpg

 

If you wanted to keep this style, that is one way forward.

 

Cheers

 

Scott

  • Like 2
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...