Kirkby Luneside (Original): End of the line....

[Physicsman]

Evening Jim. The boards can now be screwed down permanently onto the risers. I was going to lay the track and Cobalts then lift the sections onto the risers. However, I thought it best to put the risers in first, fit the boards and then do the track/motors. Much less chance of damage!

 

I've got one small board to make, now I know how the viaducts will go in. I'll make that tomorrow, put it in place and then I can spend the weekend fitting track.

 

Lovely smell of wood in the bunker!

 

Jeff

Edited October 4, 2012 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

Still dark outside, but I've already paid the first visit to the bunker - to switch the heater on! (It'll soon warm up once the lights are on). I was thinking it's a good job nobody round here has a strong electromagnet. With the number of screws in the "structure", they'd probably lift my garage off the drive.

 

And guess what? I've almost run out of screws to use!!!

 

Anyway, more wood cutting and drilling to start with. Unfortunately, since it's only 6am, I'm going to have to wait. Don't think the neighbours would take too kindly to a screaming circular saw at this hour! In the meantime, more RMweb to look at.

 

Jeff

[Rowsley17D]

Jeff, re your enquiry about plasticard rivets on Baccup. They are Slaters. There is a pdf download, to scale, on their site of all the textures they do.

[Physicsman]

Jeff, re your enquiry about plasticard rivets on Baccup. They are Slaters. There is a pdf download, to scale, on their site of all the textures they do.

 

That's useful to know. I'm continually coming across new things (to me) like that - each one makes a future task easier. Thanks Jonathan.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Update: Risers and board sections fitted round to the viaducts. Photos enclosed.

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Here's a side view - may give a better idea of how the viaducts "interact" with the main boards.

 

Jeff

[CWJ]

I hope you don't mind a cheeky suggestion, Jeff, if it isn't too late to whip out the jigsaw...

 

Unless in very steep terrain, most viaducts have an embankment on the approach (cheaper than building a longer viaduct), as in my rather poor photo below. This would also enable your slopes either side of the structure to be more gradual. Hope this makes sense, if not please ask and I'll draw a sketch of what I mean!

 

 

Cheers,

 

Will

[Physicsman]

Thanks for the suggestion Will. Unfortunately I don't have the space for an embankment either side of the viaducts. The radii of the tracks (42" on Branch, about 54" on Main) - though large - only just allow me to swing the track round to give a sensible Fiddle Yard arrangement. So the 2 structures basically straddle a mini-ravine! It would be great to build a layout with just one main structure, embankments and a fiddle yard at each end, with the viaduct the central theme. A bit like Dukedog's Cambrian layout, but along one wall, maybe 20 feet including an S&C viaduct. Dream on...

 

I hope the compromise that I've got will be good enough. In many ways I wish I hadn't included a branch line, as the main viaduct is going to be severely obscured. But the Branch adds a lot to the operational interest so, yet again, another compromise!

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Having seen Larry (Coachmann) undecided on SMP/Peco, Jason (Sandside) undecided on whether his latest scratchbuild was correct and GordonS worrying about losing his mojo, I have to come clean and admit to having my own major doubt about one aspect of my layout. This doubt has been festering for about 2 months and something has to be sorted.

 

I'm going out into the bunker in a minute to review the situation. I think I already know the decision. Wow! Is this suspenseful? Anybody care to guess what the hell I'm on about - I will reveal all, later.

 

Jeff

[Jason T]

From the previous post, has it anything to do with the branch line?

[Physicsman]

From the previous post, has it anything to do with the branch line?

 

Well done Jason. Yep, I'm scrapping the branch line so I don't have the branch viaduct in the way. I've hated seeing my mainline viaduct - which took so long to build - obscured by the other one. So I'll fit a point from the mainline to the branch platform.

 

Feel so much better for deciding this. Been thinking about it for weeks.

 

Jeff

[aberdare]

Hi Jeff

 

When I saw the two viaducts together I thought the branch one obscured the larger one particularly in the first photo in post 830 which I thought was a shame and maybe should have been reversed. However it is good to see you have made a decision and the one on its own will be a striking feature anyway.

 

I know Iv'e chopped, changed and scrapped a few things since I started, even though that was down to my poor modelling to start with more than anything.

 

Jim.

[coachmann]

I too think you've made the right decision for the reasons mentioned. I didn't desire a branchline, in fact I wished it had joined the mainline before Greenfield if only to eliminate the double junction. But traffic on the branch is major. I dont know anything about your branch but if you have dropped the idea then maybe it didn't provide much of added interest?

Edited October 5, 2012 by coachmann

[Physicsman]

I too think you've made the right decision for the reasons mentioned. I didn't desire a branchline, in fact I wished it had joined the mainline before Greenfield if only to eliminate the double junction. But traffic on the branch is major. I dont know anything about your branch but if you have dropped the idea then maybe it didn't provide much of added interest?

 

Evening Larry. I was quite happy to have a branch line, but it never occurred to me that the branch viaduct would be sizeable in comparison with the main one and would end up in such close proximity. Since the viaducts were completed in August I've been looking at the two and thinking it just didn't look right. Also, the larger viaduct is much more spectacular than the branch and it seemed ridiculous to basically "hide it away". Today's photos hammered the points home...

 

So I've spent the last hour re-designing the link between the branch platform and the main (easy with a curved point) and the new river course and surroundings. I'll build the risers and fit the board on the left side of the main viaduct tomorrow - so it'll give a good indication of what the final thing will look like.

 

It's a case of "less is more", and I'm now much happier about the whole thing!

 

Jeff

Edited October 5, 2012 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

Hi Jeff

 

When I saw the two viaducts together I thought the branch one obscured the larger one particularly in the first photo in post 830 which I thought was a shame and maybe should have been reversed. However it is good to see you have made a decision and the one on its own will be a striking feature anyway.

 

I know Iv'e chopped, changed and scrapped a few things since I started, even though that was down to my poor modelling to start with more than anything.

 

Jim.

 

Thanks Jim. If you read the post I've just sent to Larry you'll see my rationale. Either viaduct would have been nice, but the two together was too much. Especially with the degree of obscuration. I think the new scheme will be a lot better.

 

Btw, the scratchbuilding on your thread is superb. Keep the step-by-steps coming!

 

Jeff

[Jason T]

You've made the right decision Jeff; you have lost little and gained much by losing the branch in my opinion. As you do, I was thinking about it earlier and pondered why they would have built two very expensive viaducts when they could have split the junction off after the double track one instead.

 

If you imagined it to be off-scene with shared running over the viaduct into the station, you could still run branch traffic and possibly increase operational interest although personally I would go or just a two platform configuration and forget about the third altogether.

[Physicsman]

Morning Jason. Glad you agree with the decision! I'm undecided about the third platform. It is a very easy fix to link "platform 3" to the main line and would increase operational interest. It's quite amazing how something can be staring you in the face for weeks - and irritating you - before you realise what's wrong. I think cutting the boards around the viaducts prompted a "wake-up" call!

 

The river area will be hugely improved now. I will post some photos later showing the idea - I'm going to fix the risers in for the other side of the viaduct. I'm very pleased with my conceptual idea - I just hope it works.

 

Thanks for all your input. There are a few of you who do not shirk from bringing alternatives to my attention. Much appreciated.

 

Jeff

[coachmann]

One would have thought the original railway company would have formed a junction with the branch before the viaduct. Far less expensive than two viaducts side by side.

[Physicsman]

One would have thought the original railway company would have formed a junction with the branch before the viaduct. Far less expensive than two viaducts side by side.

 

Yes Larry. I'm not aiming to be 100% prototypical, but two huge (and expensive) structures side-by-side just isn't right. What is there now is so much more aesthetically pleasing - and that's the main criterion I've used to make my decision.

 

Jeff

[colin penfold]

I think you missed an opportunity to build the tension and anticipation to a massive crescendo over a period of days!

 

Nobody else seems to have picked up on one aspect of this decision - the bravery of not using an excellent model that you have spent days building. I can imagine that having put all that effort into building the branch viaduct, it must be hard not to have it on the layout. I admire the guts you have shown in overcoming that to do what you knew was right. It must be the right thing because your natural instinct must have been to keep it.

Edited October 6, 2012 by colin penfold

[Physicsman]

I think you missed an opportunity to build the tension and anticipation to a massive crescendo over a period of days!

 

Nobody else seems to have picked up on one aspect of this decision - the bravery of not using an excellent model that you have spent days building. I can imagine that having put all that effort into building the branch viaduct, it must be hard not to have it on the layout. I admire the guts you have shown in overcoming that to do what you knew was right. It must be the right thing because your natural instinct must have been to keep it.

 

Cheers Colin. Thanks for the comments re. the viaduct. The poor thing is now sat on the floor under the layout feeling very sorry for itself!! I think your last point is correct. My gut feeling is that the branch had to be sacrificed. It's a shame, but I think the sacrifice is worth it. It would have been easy to plod on and not change course. With the hindsight of 12 hours (!!) I can see that the result would have left me disappointed. I'll try and find somewhere to use the branch viaduct in future!

 

Jeff

[coachmann]

Can't you weld the two viaducts into one long 'un....Dead impressive!

[gordon s]

That would need a fair bit of work, Larry as one is single track, the other double, but knowing Jeff, nothing is impossible....

 

Saddened to read of your second thoughts, because breaking something up mid stream is always a tough call, but gladdened you have made the decision as carrying on and putting additional hours into something that doesn't satisfy is even worse. Taking one step backwards at this stage is still moving forward, but in the right direction.

 

Keep the updates coming Jeff as they are motivating. It's given me the urge to push on as spirits were flagging after soldering 100's of wires in place.

[Jason T]

Of course, if you were to put the single track viaduct on eBay, you may get some offers and some cash back. On another forum, I saw a layout where someone had bought an 8' long viaduct off eBay, incredibly well built and detailed, and had to plonk it diagonally across their 12' x 6' layout to fit it in somehow. The rest of the layout was Setrack and breaking out from beginners stage and to say the viaduct looked out of place was understatement of the century.

 

Still, it shows that you will have no real issues selling it, regardless of whether people can fit it in or not

[Physicsman]

Of course, if you were to put the single track viaduct on eBay, you may get some offers and some cash back. On another forum, I saw a layout where someone had bought an 8' long viaduct off eBay, incredibly well built and detailed, and had to plonk it diagonally across their 12' x 6' layout to fit it in somehow. The rest of the layout was Setrack and breaking out from beginners stage and to say the viaduct looked out of place was understatement of the century.

 

Still, it shows that you will have no real issues selling it, regardless of whether people can fit it in or not

 

That made me laugh! But I can understand the situation - it's easy NOT to see incongruities (what a horrid word, pun intended!) when building stuff. Even while I've been building KL I've come to realise that ready-to-plant structures would look a bit out-of-place. I will buy some of those Dapol LMS signals, though!

 

I'll hang onto the viaduct for a while. Believe it or not, I've a diorama in mind - using it to straddle a canal, canal barges, fishermen, few feet of line and a 3MT going over the top... now when will that get built?

 

Jeff