Annie's Virtual Pre-Grouping, Grouping and BR Layouts & Workbench

[Annie]

20 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

Yet again you have created a place I want to visit!

Thank you very much James.  I think my Norfolk layout succeeds because I build it like it's a place i really would want to visit.  I do know what you mean though, - at Beaky's Hill the road winding up the hill between the hedgerows positively invites you to walk up it and explore.  And as for the path leading away from the stile near the signal box once I'd completed it and had a look at what I'd done the urge to find my old hiking boots was very strong.

[Northroader]

Query the red discs on the level crossing gates, certainly GWR practice back in days of yore was to have the disc on the rail side of the gate, and treated as a stop signal, with the crossing keeper in a small cabin with two levers for a distant in each direction, and repeater bells for the block section. (About the last application of the “edge on” broad gauge disc signal idea) Only horse and carts approached on the road side at slow speeds, so didn’t need a warning stop signal. It was only the appearance of Mr. Toad and his car that red discs began to appear on the road side of the gates. And then a bridge over a stream, some trees, and a pub, please.

[Annie]

The problem as always Mr Northroader is the lack of suitable crossing gate models.  About the only pre-grouping set of interactive gates available is for the M&GNJR.  Everything else is very post-grouping GWR influenced.

I suppose if I made my layout very horse and cartish and used only static 1910s car models instead of having animated mobile traffic I could use fixed non-interactive gates which, (a) would be properly closed to traffic which the interactive ones aren't, - and (b) would be a lot simpler to make and possibly even me with my limited 3D modelling skills could manage that.

 

[Annie]

Clerestory testing across the still WIP countryside surrounding Foxhollow.  We needed to know what kind of resource hit the latest 3rd class clerestories would have as they've been fitted with 3D modelled commode handles and as small as they are individually their poly count is high.  Put several coaches worth of these in the same train and it could cause pausing and glitching if the resource load is too high.  Fortunately though all is well and the rest of the coaches are going to be updated with these commode handles as well.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Annie
fumble brain

[Annie]

What on earth is going on? - A GWR 'Aberdare' at Moxbury!  Yes I know it would be very odd for an almost new GWR goods engine developed specifically for hauling coal to Swindon to be at Moxbury, but I've owned this locomotive for a while now and I've not had an opportunity to give it a run.  It's the very first digital locomotive model made by a young man who is starting up his own cottage industry making engines and rolling stock for Trainz.  Even though I couldn't really justify it I bought one, - or actually three since the models come in a pack and are all from different time periods in the working lives of the 'Aberdare' class; - by way of helping to offer encouragement to a young creator who plainly has talent.

Moxbury does have the potential to have GWR trains arriving via the line to Bunbury* and the mysterious north west represented by the three track hidden loop at World's End, but I haven't really developed that idea yet.  Though if a GWR engine did turn up from time to time at Moxbury goods yard it would be a Dean Goods and not an 'Aberdare'.

 

EDIT:  * Bunbury in this context is an alternative Bunbury not in anyway related to the real world Bunbury. 

 

 

This is a model that runs superbly well and its brakes function in a realistic manner which is always a big plus for me.  My only complaint is the amount of smoke it produces which makes it difficult to see anything and it doesn't have an interactive cab driving position which would go a long way towards dodging the smoke.  The new updated version of TRS19 has had an upgrade to smoke physics and while this is really great for my older engines that were a bit weedy in this department, when it comes to engines that didn't really need any further encouragement to start with they are a bit too much on the enthusiastic side of things now.

I have got an interactive cab model that I can fit to this engine fortunately so that should make things better in future.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Annie
can't spell for toffee

[Edwardian]

Is the alternative Bunbury the real Bunbury that has gone off Bunburying?

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Is the alternative Bunbury the real Bunbury that has gone off Bunburying?

 

Sounds to be a Banbury story to me!

[Annie]

6 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Is the alternative Bunbury the real Bunbury that has gone off Bunburying?

 

I genuinely thought 'Bunbury' was a fictitious name dreamed up by Oscar Wilde and therefore safe to 'borrow'.  It was shortly after I posted the first Bunbury screenshots that a member of the Parish Council pointed out to my horror and surprise that there really was a town named 'Bunbury'.

Having already done all the running in boards and schedules for Bunbury I stubbornly made up my mind that I wasn't going change the name and Reality (TM) could just put up with it.

 

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Annie said:

I genuinely thought 'Bunbury' was a fictitious name dreamed up by Oscar Wilde and therefore safe to 'borrow'.  It was shortly after I posted the first Bunbury screenshots that a member of the Parish Council pointed out to my horror and surprise that there really was a town named 'Bunbury'.

 

But Wilde rather consistently used real place-names for his characters. An Ideal Husband prophetically uses names from round about Reading: Caversham, Goring, Chiltern (which Trollope had already used), Chieveley, Basildon... whereas Lady Windermere's Fan is firmly north-country.

[Edwardian]

Yes, well, he had an occasional thing for naming characters after places.  Lord Goring and Lady Windermere and the other lords, ladies, earls etc are a little different, given the territorial nature of English titles, but we have: 

 

Mrs Cheveley (Cambridgeshire)

 

Sir Robert Chiltern (hills and a district of Buckinghamshire)

 

John Worthing is intentionally named after the place, however.

 

 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

Mrs Cheveley (Cambridgeshire)

 

Maybe, but given the naming of the other characters, I suspect he had Chieveley (Berks) in mind.

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Maybe, but given the naming of the other characters, I suspect he had Chieveley (Berks) in mind.

 

Yes, that makes sense, as, incluing the aristos, they are a local cluster.

 

The Lady Windermere characters, as you say, northern, e.g. Lord Darlington

[Hroth]

2 hours ago, Annie said:

 

I genuinely thought 'Bunbury' was a fictitious name dreamed up by Oscar Wilde and therefore safe to 'borrow'.  It was shortly after I posted the first Bunbury screenshots that a member of the Parish Council pointed out to my horror and surprise that there really was a town named 'Bunbury'.

Having already done all the running in boards and schedules for Bunbury I stubbornly made up my mind that I wasn't going change the name and Reality (TM) could just put up with it.

 

 

Didn't we discuss Bunbury a while ago?

 

Here's a nice, moody, atmospheric view of the Bunbury staircase locks. It might interest you that these too are "broad gauge", being 14' wide rather than the "midland" 7'.

 

Picture taken by me. I've got the negs somewhere. So there!

 

The buildings at the top were for stabling towing horses and were later used for building narrowboats for leisure use.

 

The railway that marches across the canal below the locks is the main line between Chester and Crewe. Its not a very interesting railway.

 

My parents almost bought a house overlooking the canal at Tilstone Bank. Luckily sanity prevailed!

 

[Annie]

4 minutes ago, Hroth said:

Didn't we discuss Bunbury a while ago?

Yes we did back in....... um....... page xx

 

It's one of those perennial subjects that wants to resprout every so often.

 

Nice photo by the way.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Annie

[Annie]

Morning Broad Gauge cheer up picture.  B&ER No.58 built by Rothwell & Co of Bolton circa 1859.  Later became GWR No. 2057.

 

[Annie]

With the shorter wheelbase 6 wheel GER reskin coaches being retired now that I have proper GER 6 wheel coaches at last I found myself wondering what to do about suitable 4 wheel coaches to take over from the short wheelbase 6 wheel reskinned coaches.  My nice new GER 6 wheelers would not be happy running over the Windweather Tramway so something had to be done.

 

The Hopewood Tramway has owned some ex-Barry Railway 4 wheel coaches right from the day I first started laying track so I decided to take a closer look at them.  I'd converted one of them to varnished teak for use on the Mulling on the Hill branch on the Eastlingwold & Great Mulling and that hadn't turned out too badly; - so I thought that perhaps I should convert some more. 

 

The Barry Railway coaches that I have are old models for Trainz and they are a fudge in that they are all the same except for having 'First', Second' or 'Third' on their doors, different seat cushions and mirrors in the First and Second class compartments.  The brake 3rd is the same as well except for having a couple of window blanked off and a pair of windows in the end of the guard's compartment.  As basic as they are they don't look too bad though.

 

The astute among you will have noticed that these coaches have the vacuum brake and electric lighting, - so they can't really carry off being genuine GER coaches.  They would be fine as absorbed Affiliated (Imaginary) Railway Companies coaches though.  The Affiliated Companies have always been vacuum brake lines, but where they found the money for electric lighting I wouldn't know.

 

 

 

[Annie]

Supplementary Broad Gauge wake up picture.

 

In 1888 the last of the 'Rover' class were built, but at the same time three of the older members of the class were fitted with new boilers and these were the largest boilers to be ever fitted to a GWR Broad Gauge locomotive.  4ft 4 in X 5ft 4in X 6ft 4in high.  5ft 6in over boiler casing.  EDIT. In answer to my query concerning boiler dimensions I have been told that those are the enlarged firebox measurements and the boiler length remained the same at about 12 feet.

It's enough to giver lesser engines boiler envy.  It makes you wonder what might have been achieved if the Broad Gauge hadn't been destroyed and cast out by lesser men. 

 

'Courier' at Bristol, built 1878.  (Broad Gauge Society)

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Annie
More information

[AdamsRadial]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

It makes you wonder what might have been achieved if the Broad Gauge hadn't been destroyed and cast out by lesser men. 

Somewhere in the multitude of worlds that exist due to the forking quantum events (excuse me, madam), there may well be such a world where a damsel in distress could hide safely in between the rails, entertainment is provided via betamax, and 00 gauge is 28mm (28.0833-recurring if you're a P4 modeller.)

 

But I think you're ascribing far too much credit to the lesser men. Somewhere in my house (a location for every book of mine I own and need to reference) I have the early GWR history which is the recollections of Charles Sanders. Twice or thrice a month he would meet with Brunel to discuss the latest incidents, and Brunel would invariably offer his resignation as a way out of the difficulties, though it was never accepted. Much of the hard work in bringing down the Broad Gauge was set in motion by Brunel and Co at the very outset  (If for example there hadn't been the atmospheric fiasco, or the original baulk road not such a damagingly hard ride more time could have been spent on the myriad other problems that the lesser men were able to seize upon to make their dubious case.)

 

But don't feel too bad about it, the Western Region had their revenge on the lesser men when they finally got to grips with the MSWJR, the SDJR, and the DNSR.

Edited June 17, 2021 by AdamsRadial

[Annie]

Brunel was a genius, but while he made mistakes it's important to remember that back then he was doing the equivalent of putting a small survey vehicle on Mars.  Nobody had done it before so he was very much having to figure it all out as he went along.  People forget his successes such as the complete in every way 'flat pack' kitset hospitals that he designed to be sent to the Crimea and the incredible bridges he designed that are still standing today and are carrying loads that are considerably more than they did in the 19th Century.  Even his wooden viaducts that were very much a stopgap measure to save the initial expense of more substantial bridges were amazing pieces of design work that allowed for the replacement on individual timbers without having to close the line to traffic.

 

Yes he was a failure at locomotive design and he was very lucky to have Gooch arrive in time to sort out the mess and design good and reliable locomotives, - some of which lasted until that fateful weekend in 1892.  The atmospheric railway was a mistake, - brilliant on paper, but not remotely practical with the technology of the time. The iconic Baulk Road was flawed even I as an enthusiast for the Broad Gauge have to admit that (Heresy!).  The fact that there are surviving photos (which I now can't find, - grrrrr) that show that parts of the Broad Gauge network had been relayed with cross sleepers in some locations would tend to indicate that all was not happiness and light.

 

I'm still not giving up on the Broad Gauge though.  When my children were in their teens they found a Betamax player complete with a small library of tapes for a cheap price at the local farmers market and carried it home in triumph.  Definitely better in every way than that other system whatever it was.

[AdamsRadial]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

The fact that there are surviving photos (which I now can't find, - grrrrr) that show that parts of the Broad Gauge network had been relayed with cross sleepers in some locations would tend to indicate that all was not happiness and light.

The flaw was actually one of maintenance: with transverse sleepers you could pack up one or two individual sleepers, and the pair of rails rode on all the sleepers which themselves floated to an extent on the ballast. The baulk road had vertical piles driven down into the ground onto which the longitudinals were rigidly attached, and the bridge rails sat on these, with transverse pieces solely to maintain the gauge. The problem then was that the baulks couldn't settle properly because off the vertical piles beneath them, and thus couldn't float. There was no damping effect that the transverse sleepered-system gave, so oscillations in the baulk-road carriages became quite exaggerated at certain speeds. Brunel was trying everything he could such as varying the carriage springs, and even trying rubber, to find a solution before realising the problem was one of permanent-way inflexibility.

 

As you say, Brunel was effectively starting from scratch and it was all in his imagination, whereas Stephenson was refining already well-established plateway and tramway practices, he didn't need to work it all out in his head. I saw a similar instance in 1985 with the Sinclair C5s around London: a brilliant concept that foundered on some practicalities.

 

I'm still not sure from my reading who was playing who, was Brunel challenging Sanders by saying "If you think you can get somebody to do it better then go ahead", or was Sanders flattering Brunel by not accepting any resignation offers and encouraging him to find a solution?

[Annie]

Book Corner:

 

 

I decided that if I'm going to keep on with trying to make simple 3D models using software that my brain can vaguely understand then it might be a good idea to get a book about it.  The physical copy of this book was published over a decade ago and the chances of finding a copy would be slim, but it is available as an e.book.  I got my copy from Booktopia and you'll need the KOBO desktop reader to be able to view it.  I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer at the best of times, but I found setting up the KOBO software and getting it to recognise my purchase to be totally frustrating and the KOBO on-line help to be a perfectly devised way to send me down endless rabbit holes and tell me how to largely do nothing that would help me to find the book I'd just purchased.  Your experience may vary of course.

 

That apart this is written in the first page in the book.

 

 

That sounds very much like my kind of 3D software.

It's not been for lack of trying that I've had little success with learning how to use 3D software.  So far I've concluded that learning Blender requires one to make a pact with demons, - and learning to use 3D Crafter is only possible if you're on LSD.  TinkerCAD was brilliant, but I don't think it's possible to make Trainz models with it.

 

Sketchup 8 is still free to download, but as a part of the agreement with Trimble who now own Sketchup Google had to delete all the on-line help and asset libraries for Sketchup 8.  This isn't that big a problem actually.  

You can buy the latest version of Sketchup from Trimble, but it's horribly expensive and you have to pay a subscription every year to keep using it.  They do offer a month's free trial though which is marginally better than a poke in the eye.

 

I will mention that there are a few free copies of 'Sketchup 8 for Dummies' in PDF format about on the internet, but most of them are hosted on some very dodgy sites indeed and even if you do locate a copy on a website that isn't going to steal your identity or empty your bank account there is the question of copyright to consider.

 

 

And as a final word there are some on the Trainz forums who will tell you that anything made with Sketchup will turn your computer into a pile of blazing wreckage due to Sketchup models having very high polygon counts.  This isn't really true and with care Sketchup models can be made to be as modest in their polygon counts as anything else made with other kinds of 3D software.  I've made some basic models that are now on N3V's Trainz DLS and nobody has told me that there's any problem with them, - in fact those who have been in touch have thanked me for making them.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by Annie
can't spell for toffee

[AdamsRadial]

11 hours ago, Annie said:

So far I've concluded that learning Blender requires one to make a pact with demons, - and learning to use 3D Crafter is only possible if you're on LSD. 

I share your sentiments, and I too am re-learning Sketchup both for the 3D-printing and laser-cutting model work and also for SecondLife and Opensim. Those last two might well explain why you and I and some others loathe and detest Blender/3D-crafter/Gmax. I think it's to do with the viewport.

 

Building in Sketchup is very similar to SecondLife, you have a wide open space, the view stretches away and nothing occludes it. The feeling is one of being as free as a bird.

 

In Blender et al you are looking into viewports, it's as if you are making a model inside a cardboard box peering into a tiny window to try and see what's going on. It reminds me of keyhole surgery, or of the scene in The Diamond Age when Hackworth watches Demetrius Cotton painstakingly assembling nano-technology with manipulator gloves.

 

 

Are you using TMix for the export from Sketchup to Trainz?

Edited June 18, 2021 by AdamsRadial

[Annie]

43 minutes ago, AdamsRadial said:

Are you using TMix for the export from Sketchup to Trainz?

Yes I am Adam and it works well and does exactly what it says on the tin.  Even I have trouble messing it up.

 

I can understand why Trainz folk who have just discovered Sketchup get upset when they get told by the 'experts' on the Trainz forum that they can't use Sketchup and they have to use this horrible and awkward to use 3D software instead.  The GER coaches that have been turning up in odd posts of mine lately have been made in Sketchup 8 and during testing I've been running them about all over my Norfolk layout without any problems whatsoever.  My Trainz computer is a very ordinary i5 machine with a decidedly average video card and there's been no issues whatsoever.

 

And as for the supposed issue with high poly counts there's more than a few Trainz models out there that were made with the 'approved' software that bristle with excessive polygons.  With the new PBR materials & etc that are being used now in TRS19 some of the latest Trainz models could rival anything Sketchup could do with gobbling up computer resources. 

[AdamsRadial]

If you hunt round on the web you can still find places to download Sketchup15, which does add some extra functionality not present in 8. I've got 8, 14 and 15 running on a 32-bit XP machine quite happily. Some of the more useful plugins might not work in 8, although you won't be needing the stl and dxf export ones, unless you decide to 3D-print some of your creations.

 

You can also load in a surprising amount of models to Sketchup if you can get them in DAE or 3DS format. 

Edited June 18, 2021 by AdamsRadial

[Annie]

Thanks for that Adam.  I didn't know that anything other than Sketchup 8 was still available outside of Trimble's domain.

I have a very basic 3D printer still unpacked in its box since it arrived at about the same time that narcolepsy really started to bite into me, so it's not likely that I'd want to do any 3D printing.  Doing virtual modelling suits me fine even though everything takes me age to do and I make lots of mistakes.  At least with virtual modelling there's no messes to cleanup if anything goes wrong.

 

Yes I'd heard about DAE and 3DS format models being compatible with Sketchup.  I haven't tried investigating that yet, but it's something to bear in mind.