Popular Post Jintyman Posted August 8, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2016 Jinty 36 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 9, 2016 This being the 'How realistic are your models' thread I had assumed it was a model taken outdoors. Apologies if I posted it in the wrong topic. I thought it would be obvious from the link what it was, but the lack of any "funnies" in the responses means that I failed. Sorry. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruston Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Tally 126.jpg Jinty That would be quite realistic if it wasn't for the rod between the end stanchions being bent, and one of the diagonal rods being broken and showing bare unpainted plastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 9, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 9, 2016 That would be quite realistic if it wasn't for the rod between the end stanchions being bent, and one of the diagonal rods being broken and showing bare unpainted plastic. Maybe that's why it's in a siding - stopped for examination/repair? 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jintyman Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 That would be quite realistic if it wasn't for the rod between the end stanchions being bent, and one of the diagonal rods being broken and showing bare unpainted plastic. Thank you for pointing that out, the Lionheart tanks come with a 'curved' rod between the stantions (Both of mine are the same), and the broken diagonal bracing rod, I will attend to that in due course, thanks again for bringing it to my attention as I hadn't noticed. It may well of been in the siding for repair, just as Mike describes Jinty 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitalspark Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 Tally 126.jpg Jinty Brilliant shot and taken from an eye level view adds to the realism. Theres nothing more to say about this wagon other than its probably the real thing and the broken tie rod was photoshopped in to fool us into thinking its a model…nice try. D. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightengine Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 I just thought that the diagonal rod had suffered metal fatigue and as a result the horizontal road was sagging. How expert an eye to spot that it was plastic! Nice photo and as said previously, helped by a low viewpoint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Gloucester Road Posted August 9, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 9, 2016 47474 leads a few wagons along the mainline. stephen 20 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitalspark Posted August 9, 2016 Share Posted August 9, 2016 47474 leads a few wagons along the mainline. stack-125-1.jpg stephen Fabulous image this thread just gets better and better. Have a soft spot for 47474 as sat in the second mans seat Carlisle to Glasgow via the Sou West many years back…also was hauled by same Inverness to Aberdeen again some time back. The palindromic number sticks in the mind which helps in remembering such occasions. A few more pics would be good. Dave. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gloucester Road Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Thank you. There are a few more on my diorama thread, didn't think they were worthy. Edited August 10, 2016 by Gloucester Road 13 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vitalspark Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 Thank you. There are a few more on my diorama thread, didn't think they were worthy. stack-138-1.jpg They are very convincing indeed. The grass and bushes look like the real thing and the lighting is spot on..is it taken outdo The canal shots in your thread with the156 are equally impressive..water looks real..or is it? Well done. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ruston Posted August 10, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted August 10, 2016 I've had to be very careful to ensure there is nothing broken before posting these. Lord Nelson on shed. ...and at work. 23 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Popular Post gwrrob Posted August 12, 2016 RMweb Gold Popular Post Share Posted August 12, 2016 The excellent signal build work of Stephen Freeman. 25 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRman Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 M7 0-4-4T 30051 leads a train of modified ex-LSWR coaches and a van C, all in BR carmine livery, out of Newton Broadway LT station. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 The excellent signal build work of Stephen Freeman. DSCN9208(1).jpg A nice bit of work, but your signal is too close to the X Over, a train stood at it would foul the other line, move it a few yards to the rear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2016 A nice bit of work, but your signal is too close to the X Over, a train stood at it would foul the other line, move it a few yards to the rear. Compromise Mick.The prototype signal was right by that bridge and served as a platform starter.The crossover was further along but space constraints on my layout puts it there.I can live with it although technically incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 4069 Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 13, 2016 The arm is also too near the top of the post, making the proportions of the signal wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2016 A nice bit of work, but your signal is too close to the X Over, a train stood at it would foul the other line, move it a few yards to the rear. Compromise Mick.The prototype signal was right by that bridge and served as a platform starter.The crossover was further along but space constraints on my layout puts it there.I can live with it although technically incorrect. A compression problem alas. The signal is in the right place but the crossover is in the wrong place and the best way to keep the prototype appearance is to place the signal as Rob did - most folk don't then notice the crossover (unless they happen to know about such things). The only time it will really look wrong is with the wrong photo angle when a train is standing at the platform and something is crossing through the crossover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkeNd Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Guess the gauge. The front coupling on the Class 14 gives it away. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2016 A compression problem alas. The signal is in the right place but the crossover is in the wrong place and the best way to keep the prototype appearance is to place the signal as Rob did - most folk don't then notice the crossover (unless they happen to know about such things). The only time it will really look wrong is with the wrong photo angle when a train is standing at the platform and something is crossing through the crossover. I disagree. It just looks completely un-railwaylike as it is. If the crossover has to be moved, then the only logical thing is to move its protecting signal. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium PhilJ W Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 13, 2016 Before anyone criticises anything on this thread lets see their models first. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2016 I disagree. It just looks completely un-railwaylike as it is. If the crossover has to be moved, then the only logical thing is to move its protecting signal. regards, Martin. One question - although not absolutely relevant in this case - is how do we know that it is the signal protecting the crossover? In reality of course Brent had Great Western locking (no surprise as it was a Reading designed and built frame) so two successive Up Main Line stop signals locked (and were locked by) that crossover - this one, the Starter, locked it and the Inner Home, 344 yards in rear of the Starter, also locked it. In other words if that crossover was standing reverse an Up train couldn't even be signalled to approach that signal (however the crossover could of course be reversed if an Up train was standing at the signal with the signal at danger) Now we come to a critical thing - it all depends what one is trying to model and don't forget that Rob's layout is 'a nod to Brent' - in other words he is trying to create an impression and that impression centres around the station (he does, like many of us, have limited space). Yes, the signal should be a bit further back but then it would be in the wrong place in relation to the bridge and would definitely look out of place when creating the impression of Brent (station). Those of us who understand signalling can see that as a signal immediately protecting that crossover it should be further back but Rob has a choice and it really depends on how he wants to create the impression of the place. In sheer signalling terms it isn't right but he is also creating something other than an exact model and - let's face it - there were similarly placed (and thus in some respects equally 'useless') signals in real life in the middle of pointwork which one might otherwise expect to have been placed to immediately protect it. Best answer is obviously to move the crossover but space and curvature no doubt preclude that, standing aside any difficulty in actually doing it. And in view of the amount of horrendously incorrect signalling visible on many layouts - including several aspiring/claiming to be 'fine scale' - there seems to be an awful lot of fuss about this one. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micknich2003 Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 Before anyone criticises anything on this thread lets see their models first. Here's one I made earlier, Sallyfield Junction, H&BRly Up Homes signal bridge. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted August 13, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 13, 2016 Before anyone criticises anything on this thread let's see their models first. I said I disagree. That's not criticising, it's expressing an opinion. The inability of many folks to understand the difference is the cause of much argument on RMweb. Rob said his preference is to represent the appearance of the prototype, with the signal in front of the bridge. My preference is to represent the function of the prototype, with signals placed according to the track layout, because signals look daft otherwise. Both views are equally valid. It's a matter of opinion, but Rob's approach is really quite recent in the the history of the hobby. The aim and intention of railway modelling has shifted over the years. The traditional writings on the subject clearly tend towards representing prototype practice rather than strict prototype appearance. regards, Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porcy Mane Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I said I disagree. That's not criticising, it's expressing an opinion. It's all a matter of perspective. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now