Jump to content
We are aware of the intermittent site speed issues at the moment. Please be patient and don't repeatedly click things as that compounds the issue.

BEIJIAO - a large Chinese HO exhibition layout set in the 21st century


TEAMYAKIMA
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

1. Cutting up the two chassis and make one with two rear axles - the extra axle to the rear of the existing one.

or

2. As above, but moving both axles further back.

or

3. Leave it with a single rear axle, but move it further back.

 

 

 

3.

 

I don't think a liquid tanker would be heavy enough to need a double axle at the back (though I am happy to be convinced otherwise!)

 

Luke

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

3.

 

I don't think a liquid tanker would be heavy enough to need a double axle at the back (though I am happy to be convinced otherwise!)

 

Luke

You're kidding, right? A cubic metre of water weighs a metric ton. The payload of a UK 2-axle 17-tonner might be around the 9 or 10 ton mark; that's not a very big tank for liquids.

A quick google of "HGV rigid tankers" shows that rigid trucks with a tank the length of that model will generally have 2 rear axles, so the best option is to combine the two chassis, to have two axles (edit - the first one where it is, 2nd behind) and be at least as long as the tank. There might well be equipment fitted at the rear, or an access ladder if the tank has top hatches (2nd edit, as per on the model already)

Hope that helps. :good:  Don't forget the wipers & rear view mirrors :jester:

 

(Sprinting for exit......)

Edited by F-UnitMad
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

You're kidding, right? A cubic metre of water weighs a metric ton. The payload of a UK 2-axle 17-tonner might be around the 9 or 10 ton mark; that's not a very big tank for liquids.

A quick google of "HGV rigid tankers" shows that rigid trucks with a tank the length of that model will generally have 2 rear axles, so the best option is to combine the two chassis, to have two axles (edit - the first one where it is, 2nd behind) and be at least as long as the tank. There might well be equipment fitted at the rear, or an access ladder if the tank has top hatches (2nd edit, as per on the model already)

Hope that helps. :good:  Don't forget the wipers & rear view mirrors :jester:

 

(Sprinting for exit......)

That seems to be a very long-winded way of saying "1" - with which I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I have been thinking that the original idea for a tanker is too big for the truck stop, it tends to dominate the scene. I have another option, but I would have to shorten the chassis on this one. Again are there any obvious issues with this idea. Have I gone from too big to too small? IMG_20211022_112929.jpg.b01d1491c39215bbc82ab15b0432068a.jpg

Edited by TEAMYAKIMA
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/10/2021 at 09:11, TEAMYAKIMA said:

TBH I have been thinking that the original idea for a tanker is too big for the truck stop, it tends to dominate the scene. I have another option, but I would have to shorten the chassis on this one. Again are there any obvious issues with this idea. Have I gone from too big to too small? 

 

Not what you were asking, but now you have shortened the tank itself, it's highlighted an aspect of the whole thing, that struck me originally.  My gut feeling is that the tanks on such vehicles tend to be taller than the cab roof height of the truck itself , whereas yours looks a little diminutive on that chassis (with that cab).  Are we sure that the truck and the tank are of the same scale?  Just my two cents (not trying to be funny or 'difficult').

 

EDIT: Looking again, comparing the truck with the panel van in the background, if the van is HO (1:87) is it that the truck is a slightly larger scale, making the tank seem small?

 

 

Steve N

 

Edited by steveNCB7754
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, steveNCB7754 said:

 

Not what you were asking, but now you have shortened the tank itself, it's highlighted an aspect of the whole thing, that struck me originally.  My gut feeling is that the tanks on such vehicles tend to be taller than the cab roof height of the truck itself , whereas yours looks a little diminutive on that chassis (with that cab).  Are we sure that the truck and the tank are of the same scale?  Just my two cents (not trying to be funny or 'difficult').

 

EDIT: Looking again, comparing the truck with the panel van in the background, if the van is HO (1:87) is it that the truck is a slightly larger scale, making the tank seem small?

 

 

Steve N

 

 

There's a prototype for everything.

 

image.png.70fa90055aaae617058fd1e0efaa6ac4.png

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al. said:

 

There's a prototype for everything.

 

image.png.70fa90055aaae617058fd1e0efaa6ac4.png

 

 

 

Ha!  OK, I stand corrected (LOL).  Hardly seems worth the bother of fitting it though!

 

Interesting -  are those nozzles under the front bumper and thus it's just water for street cleaning?

 

Steve N

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, steveNCB7754 said:

 

Ha!  OK, I stand corrected (LOL).  Hardly seems worth the bother of fitting it though!

 

Interesting -  are those nozzles under the front bumper and thus it's just water for street cleaning?

 

Steve N

 

 

 

They're road washing bowsers. Used for dust suppression and road and pavement washing.

 

image.png.c236de93db45bf3651848f1ef1357561.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The writing on the side of the Tank says: -

 

"sa shui cher"

 

which means: -

 

"spray water car".

 

 

That example looks in pretty good condition.

Although if it was to carry something explosive then I think the manufacturers name, (pronounce it in a cockney accent), would be quite apt!

 

 

Kev.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anyone reading this who lives in Glasgow and would like to be a guest operator at Scot-Rail next February?

 

I am pleased to announce that we have been invited to Scot-Rail in Glasgow next February 25/26/27 setting up on the 24th. We have the absolute minimum staffing to run the layout, but we do have a  vacancy for someone living near-by who would like to be our 'extra' operator just to make life a bit easier - and allow us to have a look at the other layouts.

 

Please send me a PM if you can help out.

 

Thanks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/10/2021 at 08:43, richard i said:

It will definitely stand out. How about the star in yellow to make it look like the flag?

Richard 

 

The original version..................

 

IMG_20211015_171856.jpg.1c82a8c946d90d7a12b63e628237dfb5.jpg

 

New version - great improvement, good idea - thanks! I swapped the two displays around to give more space for the stars and a by-product of that is that the descriptive text will be much easier to read - no more bending down! There are still a few minor tweaks, maybe move things a fraction of an inch to the left or the right, but pretty much sorted now.

 

IMG_20211028_150228.jpg.ce551f90130492b5739eb5e2f6ea4f8f.jpg

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

<snip> a by-product of that is that the descriptive text will be much easier to read - no more bending down! </snip>

 

Are you sure it's at the right level? Average UK Male eye level 1630mm (5' 4"), Average UK Female eye level 1505mm (4' 11")  so the middle of the text should be at 1567mm (5' 2")

 

What height is it now?

 

Luke

 

Ref https://www.firstinarchitecture.co.uk/average-male-and-female-dimensions/

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

 

Are you sure it's at the right level? Average UK Male eye level 1630mm (5' 4"), Average UK Female eye level 1505mm (4' 11")  so the middle of the text should be at 1567mm (5' 2")

 

What height is it now?

 

Luke,

 

Everything on this layout is, to an extent, a compromise and 'yes' the text has moved from being too low for tall people to being too high for short people, but, in my opinion, the overall dramatic impact of the flag concept outweighs those other issues.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One 'issue' that has been brought up several times was the lack of interest at the front of the layout. I have been dealing with that in the last two years by gradually adding detail at the front. Another related issue was the large amount of detail in the open air market which was originally half hidden at the back of the layout.

 

                                                      1373338916_oldmarket.jpg.e3d5531a2e87194f4e5b3902eb6cdf7d.jpg

 

About half of that detail had already been moved to a far more prominent part of the layout, still at the back, but no longer half hidden.

 

IMG_20211027_185912.jpg.010a06d771d66867d5478ee758daa32a.jpg

 

That still left quite a bit of detail with nowhere to go. I was pondering this, but now, at the suggestion of team member Gordon, I am putting the remaining stalls right at the front of the layout. This was the end of the parking area by the freight shed last week..................

 

DSC_1645.JPG.d81559675a0bbb869c58188885d6ef85.JPG

 

Now, in the first stage of the new thinking, I have slightly increased the tarmac area and changed things a bit .....

 

IMG_20211028_185914.jpg.f3f11e12fe6d431204e1c534abe3b3c4.jpg

 

And it looks like Ruth isn't talking to Al anymore, she's come down to talk to the stall holder - sorry Al!

 

IMG_20211028_185850.jpg.7290ed7afbff6a2377a6c9c9fc8520ed.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, richard i said:

I do not think looking up will be as big an issue as might be thought. We read signs above shop fronts and street names high up on walls. Menus behind the counter at  fast food restaurants. Us short people, we’ve got this.

richard

 

TBH, as a tall person myself (6ft 3inches),  I didn't want to say that, but I think you're exactly right. It is easy for anyone to look up slightly, but in the original arrangement tall people would actually have had to bend down to have been able to read it and that would have been a major disincentive.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, luke_stevens said:

Are you sure it's at the right level? Average UK Male eye level 1630mm (5' 4"), Average UK Female eye level 1505mm (4' 11")  so the middle of the text should be at 1567mm (5' 2"). What height is it now?

Luke

 

I have just checked and the middle of the text is 5ft 6inches - I may still have to stoop to read the bottom line.

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

And it looks like Ruth isn't talking to Al anymore, she's come down to talk to the stall holder - sorry Al!

 

 

Can't say I'm surprised. Always know I was punching above my weight there...

  • Friendly/supportive 1
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...