RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted August 1, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 1, 2012 Anyone with engineering / architecture background care to comment (bcnPete maybe)? Rich, hi As I was reading your description (and trying to get my head around it) I was thinking I would jump in before your prompt! Being a 'modernist' any stone detailing I have been involved with to date is generally cladding these days...detailed at the corners to look like huge blocks...despite being wafer thin In model terms I am a believer of 'if it looks right....' so the way I tackled Moorswater was to draw the viaduct in CAD in elevation (face on) and then cut out in card and positioned skewed as required across the tracks. Once spacers were set and fixed to determine the width the lining was added in card to give the profiled mock up...this was then clad in stone sheet (or stone paper) as required. Post 53 touches on this... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37906-moorswater-viaduct-2fs/page__st__50#entry435468 Does that help? (I like the Lapford Cross name... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted August 1, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 1, 2012 Cheers Pete - I think the angle of the skew means that I couldn't just use semi-circular arches, they would need some distortion & the way I described above would hopefully work (!). Alternatively, Mickey's curved road dodge might let me build the bridge straight across, which should be easier! I'll try mocking up with some card & see how it looks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crocodile414 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Hello, sorry I haven't posted for so long. The good news is, the backscene is now complete and has totally transformed the layout. I must add though it wasn't painted by me but a very talented member of the Barry and Penarth Model Railway Club There is still lots to do and there are several pieces missing from these pictures but hopefully it'll give you an idea of what it looks like. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 15, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 15, 2012 Looks good so far - it's worth starting your own thread really. I'll change the title on this one to avoid confusion! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted September 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 15, 2012 Any more progess Rich...apart from the name change?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 16, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 16, 2012 Hi Pete - you can probably guess the answer! I need to build new boards first & just don't seem to have the time at present If I do progress there will be a new thread in the layouts section... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted September 17, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 17, 2012 As and when Rich...we will be happy to see it. Appreciate that with young family and busy working life, modelling takes a back seat...but as the kids get older...the modelling begins to surface again...at least that's what my wife keeps telling me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 10, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 10, 2012 Another "tweak" - sorry for those still watching for lack of actual progress! I don't think I'll get much actual operation here in it's intended location, just inglenook style shunting, but I thought I might as well make the whole area scenic, so the left hand board can incorporate a river, occupation crossing & crossing keeper's cottage, plus maybe a mill building as a view block. The intention would be to add on proper fiddle yards either end when more space is available. I also rearranged the road bridge to give a 90 degree crossing, loosing the skew of the real Lapford but making building so much easier! I finally made a site visit last week, although photography was tricky due to bright, low sunlight. I do realise now that the amount of vegetation that's grown up is amazing - a lot of viewpoints are now very difficult compare to older images! The classic "over the bridge parapet" view: Looking the opposite way (towards Exeter): Bridge close up - the left hand arch was an abbatoir at one time (!) and there are still big hooks embedded in the arch to hang things from (!!) Station building from embankment opposite - the vegetation here made this view difficult: Looking down the tracks from footpath crossing - note jointed track & not that straight in telephoto! Opposite direction - I think this bridge was originally something to do with drainage as there were serttling tanks to the north (right) of the line on earlier maps: The only train I saw during my visit - non-stop, there's only 4 stoppers each way daily: A hasty going away shot at maximum telephoto - the "Limit of Lapford token" sign is (I believe) something to do with a short section token used by trains accessing the sidings - which no longer exist, so the token is probably redundant! Walking up the road to the village of Lapford, you cross the bridge seen in the 2nd picture & get a view back to the main skew bridge. The different brickwork in the parapet is where the steps down to the demolished down line platform used to be: View the other way - note bullhead track! Finally, just off the bridge is this rather nice mill which will be a good basis for the view block on my layout plan - again, vegetation made pictures difficult (the white building is marked as the Post office on old maps): Interestingly, I looked on Google streetview & this mill is a more visible (winter picture, less leaves!), but the main interest for me is that the loop track is still in place on their images. I think the loop got removed around 2009/10 It also shows the rail-over-river bridge which I forgot to photograph myself... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted October 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 Smashing pictures Rich - it must have fired you up to go and see it. That first pic is quite sad...when you think of what it used to be like and the shunting activities it used to have. Even if you can't work on the layout itself, you could make a start on building trees for it...you're gonna need a lot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi Pete - yes it was rather sad seeing how much it's diminished. That blue shipping container got it the way a bit too If I'd got up there when I first thought about this I might have still seen the loop track in place! Yes, I will need a lot of trees - but it will fit with the idea of loading timber..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Thanks for sharing the photos. North Devon is getting very tempting.... If time/space is an issue what about starting with the buildings like the station, crossing keeper cottage etc. Its something I do when pressed - can do an hour or so of modelling in the lounge, keep interest up then place them on the layout when ready. Plus it'll give more motivation to get on with the layout once you have the buildings ready! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 Ah, the usual suspects all lining up to "motivate" me Cheers, Tom - that's what happened to me, you start looking at North Devon line pictures & you'll get drawn across to the dark side (of the Tamar!) I happened across Spnford Road thread - although it's recently been modifed, the initial road bridge on the layout looked rather good, so I think it's worth trying the Scalescenes printed stonework for this job. It's the usual question of whether texture or colouration is more important.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted October 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 It's the usual question of whether texture or colouration is more important.... There's only one way to find that out Rich Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted October 11, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 There's only one way to find that out Rich And the good news is that downloading a Scalescenes sheet is pretty cheap and virtually instant, so you can make your mind up very quickly! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 What's really tempting me about the Barnstaple line is that I already have the 31 and 25 and Dapol have announced the 33! Sat at work I've been doodling plans (can't download Anyrail to a work computer!) for Lapford-ish, Crediton or even Sort-of-Barnstaple that might fit in N gauge..... But I also have a Cornish china clay layout to finish and a lot of GWR kettles to use somewhere. Decisions, decisions, decisions. I don't know about 4mm but in N gauge I find colour is definitely more important than texture. A lot of the texture is overscale anyway (think enormous mourtor courses vs tiny stones) and stands out like a sore thumb when painted. I was lucky enough to find a stash of old Builder Plus stonepapers in my local model shop and at a normal viewing distance looks far better than my painted plasticard effords. Since the papers are long since unavaliable I don't think I'm breaking too many rules if the last sheet gets photocopied a few times.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 11, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi Tom - yes, you're right about overdoing the texture. I've seen several examples of using Scalescenes product where the photo-quality colouring convinces the eye that the texture is there, even when it isn't. I'm sure the illusion can be maintained as long as no-one actually touches the model! It's the usual question of whether texture or colouration is more important.... There's only one way to find that out Rich Can't resist comedy opportunity: FIGHT! Sazzle's scouting for a new printer at present; when it's bought the Scalescenes printout will be a good test of it's ability! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Thinking about the colour vs texture issue a bit more I have another observation (to muddy the waters further). For the large areas of stonework, ie my three arched bridge and the retaining wall I have gone for slaters plasticard. I've actually used 4mm small stones rather than the 2mm ones as I think slightly overscale stonework looks far better than overscale mortor courses. However for buildings I use printed papers and they look far better than my attempts at painted plasticard? I wonder why this is so, something to do with the viewing size of the structure perhaps. Anyhow as mentioned why not print of the Scalescene ones and see what you think. Even without baseboards built or track laid doing the bridge or soemthing will certainally feel like progress on the layout.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted October 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2012 Morning Rich, I stumbled upon this link earlier - didn't know 'The Master' Ken Gibbons had made Lapford Road MK II Would be good to see some pics of it... http://www.hullmrs.org/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted October 25, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted October 25, 2012 Evenin' Pete! I was aware of "mk II", there are a few piccies visible from Google (including some captioned as mk III !) and a couple in pennine mc's blog (what's happened to him, BTW?) In fact, I saw the mk II pictures before I read the RM article on mk I, which was why I got slightly confused when we discussed the viewing position back on pafe 1 - I always intended the view point to be as per mk II (over the goods yard to the platform), rather then the opposite way as per mk I ... if you follow me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 5, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2013 September 2013! Well, that's another year of non-progress gone Life got in the way again! I also realised that working in the conservatory was a bad move - temperature swings, plus dust/fluff out of the tumble drier made it rather harsh for models. We decided to get a loft conversion done as a hobby room/office/retreat from kids area but that still hasn't started ('too hot to work in lofts this summer' says builder....) However - I've started learning my way around Templot, had a bash at a handbuilt point and decided to go for 00-SF pointwork. I've decided to 'put down a marker' on a 12ft x 6ft section of the loft when it's done. After more thoughts, I decided to mash up Lapford even more by pinching the passing loop from Eggesford for a bit more traffic variety and a reason for retaining the signal box (!), then incorporated it all into a 'roundy-roundy'. Here's a couple of options. The left hand curve ('Barnstaple' direction) should be scenic, but the right hand ('Exeter') end beyond the 3-arch bridge will probably be off-scene, as the curved points go down to a scary 2ft radius..! The lower section (not shown) will obviously be curved back into a fiddle yard of some kind; I've promised Sarah the add ons (and probaly the 'Exeter' end board) will be removable to minimise intusion (the loft is not that big). First, with a kickback into a loading dock - but I think this would be difficult to work realistically (& it's an extra set of pointwork to make!): Then, removed kickback & added a 'disused' siding to add to the run-down look. The main sidings are straight off the loop as per Lapford & somewhat longer now; they'll need trap point blades on each siding though (again, as per Lapford) to prevent runaways getting onto the main lines I do like the look of these, there should be more 'operability' in having the 2 platforms and I can incorporate a bit more scenic development too Come back in another year to see if I get anywhere.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 5, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 5, 2013 Hi Mickey - yes, I know what you mean! I'm just aware that the sidings are a bit short, so access to the kickback will be difficult - although, I could make it look neglected & not use it anyway! I'm also wondering if I can change the curvature slightly to bring the right hand points 'on-stage' and and swap the bridge & level crossing; have the crossing over the tracks at the ends of the platforms (Eggesford style) - it will make the loop shorter, but hopefully still usable. Back onto Templot tomorrow... Edit - this has turned into 'North Devon 101' according to the post count. Join Procrastinators United! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 7, 2013 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2013 Obviously, the solution to the sharp 'Exeter' end points is to make the divergence 'outside' the curve instead of 'inside' - then it's eased out to 39" radius. Bridge & level crossing swapped as per previous idea: Or an alternative scheme with the sidings trailing off the up line - which is a bit more like Eggesford, but with the curvature through the platforms inverted: I quite like this too - I could have the river Taw running along beside the lower (down line) platform, again like Eggesford. I'd better change the heading of the topic now; it doesn't look like Lapford any more! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold bcnPete Posted September 8, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 8, 2013 Either work nicely as layouts Rich. Call me a traditionalist but I prefer the Lapford incarnations...but probably as I prefer modelling real locations. Rule No. 1 applies here of course Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted September 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 8, 2013 The alternative plan does seem to make better use of the space that you have Rich. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomJ Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 So which version plan are we on now....... Seriously its good to see some more ideas and I like the idea of the roundy much better, I think the operating fun will be more, especially with the passing loop. I think the new ideas are very good. Some how I prefer your first version with the sidings inside the line, as per Lapford. I'd leave off a kick back, and just go for trap points on the sidings, and maybe a disconnected siding. Are you planning on the somewhat utilitarian signal box at Eggersford or something a bit more traditional? Either way is good but I think that unless slavishly copying a real location the layout will look better with a box and signals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.