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

[Andrew P]

Hi Jeff, thanks for some great sets of pics mate, you work in the same mathodical way that George T does, ( not a bodger like me and my Glue Gun) I bet you can WALK on that hillside, hahahha.

 

Not being too critical but, is that more of a Mountain side, as opposed to a Hillside, WOULD YOU GET SHEEP TO GRAZE ON THAT STEEP A SLOPE?  I hope I am not throwing a spanner in the works or offending your planning in any way mate.

 

The MAD LUNE OF DERBYSHIRE

[Jason T]

I wondered the same thing, the valley sides are very steep; almost gorge like.  I reckon you could slacken them out a fair bit and even lose some depth on the valley if need be, especially as the hill will continue upwards from the baseboard level.

 

Sorry.

 

Edit: if you look at Ribblehead Viaduct, although it seems like there are steep bankings that is because of the embankment that leads onto the viaduct, whereas the valley itself is a much more relaxed gradient: http://www.visitcumbria.com/carlset/ribblehead-viaduct.htm

 

Same with Dent Head; steeper than Ribblehead but not overly so.

http://www.english-lakes.com/settle_carlisle_railway.htm

Edited January 22, 2013 by Sandside

[Physicsman]

Hi Andy/Jason.

 

The formers aren't what the final "gorge" will be, steepness-wise. They just provide a basis to work with. The same kind of thing will be built on the other side. Then I'll "fill" the valley in with a central bit that will be about 5cm above where the ply-board (the bit with "River" written on it) is now. I'm compromised by the available space and not wanting to lose too much of the viaduct height..

 

The end slope out of the gorge on either side will be about 30 degrees.

 

The comparison with the real thing is a bit false because the valley width to viaduct height ratio in real-life is so much bigger. If I'd had space I'd have gone for about 10-12 arches, like Dent Head. The rise from the valley floor would then have been a lot gentler.

 

You are both correct with your comments. I'm just a bit stuck with the valley geometry I have at my disposal. But it WILL end up shallower than it first appears!!

 

As usual, I'm grateful for honest, constructive answers - what else would I expect from you two?

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

I've included a diagram here to try to show what I mean. The central pieces, fitted inside the side formers provide the valley floor and a structure on which plaster bandage can be added to create the river bed.

 

I COULD have missed out the middle bit and just linked the two structures from the left and right sides. But building those hill formers with pieces sticking out over 60cm from either side would be a structural nightmare. Yes, I'm still going to have steepish sides, but not quite as steep as first appearances make out!

 

 

Jeff

 

 

[uax6]

I tried this way back in the 70s when SMP track first came out. Oddly, the track is more forgiving of old Triang flanges than most because the chairs don't get in the way. Points are more of an issue because of the back-to-back measurements.

Thanks for that,

 

I'll have to get a length to see if my flanges will work, I might get away with it, we'll see!

[uax6]

This gives me an idea. When I am making up 500mm lengths of track (fiNetrax) for Tamworth, I should solder droppers onto each length of rail before threading the sleeper bases on.

 

Such a simple and obvious idea that I feel there has to be something wrong with it! Can anyone see a snag (apart from the boredom of 240 soldered joints in one go)?

And you could soldier them to the underside of the rail so that they can't be seen.... ;-}

[Physicsman]

Thanks for that,

 

I'll have to get a length to see if my flanges will work, I might get away with it, we'll see!

 

Good luck with that Andy - let us know what happens.

 

Did you check the Masons Lane layout I suggested?

 

Jeff

Edited January 22, 2013 by Physicsman

[uax6]

Good luck with that Andy - let us know what happens.

 

Did you check the Masons Lane layout I suggested?

 

Jeff

No Sir, I didn't Sir, will do though Sir, promise!

 

I got a bit of inspiration from a book last night, so have started a thread, and welcome any advise from the other Lunesters. I can't promise that construction will be rapid, it my take weeks to get to the actual construction stage. (I doubt that I could keep up with you or Coachman)

 

Looks like you are making progress on your favorite bit. Could I suggest something.... Well I'm going to anyway! How about sloping the river valley down towards the rear, so that the bit nearest the operating well is high, and the bit by the wall is low. This will allow the viaduct to stand to full height (and increase perspective) and you could have the bit nearest the well only 3 or 4 inches below the top of the valley sides.

 

Ok, must fly, back to domestic life!

[billyb_imp]

This is such a well thought out and engineered project, Brunel, Stephenson, Foster, Birkenshaw, Sturgeon, Walchaert, Hudson I am sure they would all  have been pleased to see your creation, maybe even Beeching would have kept your bunker open

[Physicsman]

No Sir, I didn't Sir, will do though Sir, promise!

 

I got a bit of inspiration from a book last night, so have started a thread, and welcome any advise from the other Lunesters. I can't promise that construction will be rapid, it my take weeks to get to the actual construction stage. (I doubt that I could keep up with you or Coachman)

 

Looks like you are making progress on your favorite bit. Could I suggest something.... Well I'm going to anyway! How about sloping the river valley down towards the rear, so that the bit nearest the operating well is high, and the bit by the wall is low. This will allow the viaduct to stand to full height (and increase perspective) and you could have the bit nearest the well only 3 or 4 inches below the top of the valley sides.

 

Ok, must fly, back to domestic life!

 

Now THAT is an excellent suggestion. Why didn't I think of that? Very good, Andy - I may well do that. It has interesting additional possibilities - like a small "rapids" as the water descends from foreground to background. Brilliant!

 

Do have a look at AndyP's Masons Lane - he made it in a few days for a competition. Will keep an eye out for your thread...

 

Jeff

 

EDIT: Jason - what do you reckon?

Edited January 22, 2013 by Physicsman

[Physicsman]

This is such a well thought out and engineered project, Brunel, Stephenson, Foster, Birkenshaw, Sturgeon, Walchaert, Hudson I am sure they would all  have been pleased to see your creation, maybe even Beeching would have kept your bunker open

 

Billy - you are TOO KIND! I enjoy projects that have plenty of 3D variety and if I can find an excuse to do some woodwork - I love it!

 

Very grateful to the Lunesters though. Andy's suggestion in the previous post just adds spice to my plans! What a GREAT hobby!

 

I hope you managed to make progress in your shed. Billy - do you have a thread?

 

Jeff

[uax6]

Now THAT is an excellent suggestion. Why didn't I think of that? Very good, Andy - I may well do that. It has interesting additional possibilities - like a small "rapids" as the water descends from foreground to background. Brilliant!

 

Do have a look at AndyP's Masons Lane - he made it in a few days for a competition. Will keep an eye out for your thread...

 

Jeff

Jeff don't forget the 'gusher(s)' from the culverts from the tunnel mouth, they could give an extra 'dribble' to add to the rapids (I want to say Rapid's Johnson here, been watching to much CBEEBIES!)

 

BTW look in my siggy, you'll find a link to it!

                                                         I

                                                        V

Edited January 22, 2013 by uax6

[Jason T]

I like the idea but I wouldn't go overboard with the height of the waterfall, more of a series of shallow steps.

[Physicsman]

Jeff don't forget the 'gusher(s)' from the culverts from the tunnel mouth, they could give an extra 'dribble' to add to the rapids (I want to say Rapid's Johnson here, been watching to much CBEEBIES!)

 

BTW look in my siggy, you'll find a link to it!

 

Yes, you mentioned that once before. Prototype question then.... There are culverts rail-side in front of the tunnel portal - and I'll include them. I'm guessing they'd lead to a drainage channel that could create a water flow downhill to the river... (rather than having a pipe down the hill). If so, another good idea.

 

Of course, rule 1 - I could add it as a scenic feature, irrespective.

 

Will look at your Diorama in a mo.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[billyb_imp]

Billy - you are TOO KIND! I enjoy projects that have plenty of 3D variety and if I can find an excuse to do some woodwork - I love it!

 

Very grateful to the Lunesters though. Andy's suggestion in the previous post just adds spice to my plans! What a GREAT hobby!

 

I hope you managed to make progress in your shed. Billy - do you have a thread?

 

Jeff

Things are slowly moving forward in the shed, I have got a blog but it doesn't work very well, so I am likely to move it on to a thread here in the next couple of weeks

[Physicsman]

I like the idea but I wouldn't go overboard with the height of the waterfall, more of a series of shallow steps.

 

Yes, my thought too. Maybe a 3-4cm (scale 12-15 feet) drop from front to back. I'd expected comments about the steepness of those formers, but WHY hadn't I thought of a multi-level drop?

 

I guess the answer was that I was thinking - RIVER - water level constant.... FLAT thinking...

 

Anyway gang - keep the suggestions coming before the damn thing is built. Cos when it's built I'm not changing it!!!

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

Things are slowly moving forward in the shed, I have got a blog but it doesn't work very well, so I am likely to move it on to a thread here in the next couple of weeks

 

Get a thread going and we can all pitch in with "helpful" ideas! I was very concerned before I started this thread - I wondered what people would say. But it's great fun and - as you've seen - everyone is full of good suggestions (which you can go with, or choose to ignore).

 

Jeff

[uax6]

Yes, you mentioned that once before. Prototype question then.... There are culverts rail-side in front of the tunnel portal - and I'll include them. I'm guessing they'd lead to a drainage channel that could create a water flow downhill to the river... (rather than having a pipe down the hill). If so, another good idea.

 

Of course, rule 1 - I could add it as a scenic feature, irrespective.

 

Will look at your Diorama in a mo.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

Jeff, the culverts from the side of the wing walls flow down to the cess, here they are propbably put into buried drains to flow to the nearest outfall, in both cases the nearest river. Wether there is one or two drains, it's probably down to you and how much water you'd expect to have to shift!

[MichaelW]

Morning Jeff, a couple of thoughts before I go to work:

 

Culverts - The prototype tunnel mouth pictures appear to show that the drains round the tunnel mouth capture a stream that ran down the valley above the tunnel, so there would be a stream bed available for the culverts to empty into somewhere further down the track bed.  Would be an interesting feature to show how the railway took-over the stream bed to get to the tunnel, and how the water was diverted to (hopefully!) keep the track dry...

 

Valley sides - I see that valley and I think of Mallerstang Common (at least that's what I think it's called - I mean the valley to the south of Kirby Stephen, the one you travel through if you come over from Wensleydale) - that has a very steep side to the valley, with a U shape at the bottom, and easing off onto the hill tops.  Same goes for the valley that heads off towards Kendal from the top of Wensleydale (apologies for the lack of better names) - so I'd not be so concerned about the that.  Just remember when it comes to scenics that above a certain slope grass won't grow - the soil doesn't stay around long enough for the roots to hold it, so you'd probably need some scree slopes and rock walls in the steepest bits.

 

The only thing I was a little surprised by was the lack of an approach embankment - as there is a tunnel right next to it, an embankment would have been a good way to get rid of the spoil.  Though I can see why it would be a struggle to fit one in next to the tunnel.

 

How is the wiring coming along?

 

ps.  Are you sure you're not a Geophysicist?  That hillside looks like it'd survive an earthquake!

[Physicsman]

Morning Michael.

 

I'm going to have to look a bit earlier as these days you are posting well before I switch on!

 

Thanks for the comments. I think the photos of my construction - at present - are a bit misleading, but I like to show the stage-by-stage progress. The heaters are on and during today I hope to repeat the process on the other side of the valley. Then I can fill the middle in - the specifics of that could be interesting.... I think some of it will be "thinking on your feet"!

 

I just wonder what it's going to look like when the slope continues upwards above rail level for another 2 feet!!!!!

 

I've checked my stock of wood. After this valley construction I'll have to go and re-stock. Still, it's all good fun. I could have done the job many other ways but the wooden structure/plaster bandage/filler method just happens to appeal - even if it looks bomb-proof!!

 

Jeff

Edited January 23, 2013 by Physicsman

[MichaelW]

I just wonder what it's going to look like when the slope continues upwards above rail level for another 2 feet!!!!!

 

Seriously impressive!

[Physicsman]

Seriously impressive!

 

Hee hee! I hope you are correct. I've just come in for a coffee break. My house is going to need a good clean as there is sawdust everywhere. I've been working on the valley bit - I'll put some pics up later, probably about 4pm. If I keep going at the present rate I'll be pleased, but will run out of usable plywood (I've got lots of off-cuts, but they're too small to use).

 

More later!

 

Jeff

[Physicsman]

I promised photos by 4pm - and I've worked my socks off to get them to you an hour earlier!

 

I've fitted the formers on the right side of the valley and added in the first 4 "centre pieces". The river bed is part of this and, following Andy's excellent suggestion, the river bed rises towards the front. This will mean I can minimise obstructing the view of the central portion of the viaduct.

 

The centre pieces are just placed, not yet fixed, in position and more will be added...maybe tomorrow!

 

 

Jeff

 

 

[Allegheny1600]

Seriously impressive!

Dead right!!!

Nice work, Jeff!

[Physicsman]

Cheers John.

 

The middle section was planned. But the key to making it look a bit better was Andy's suggestion to run the river downhill to the viaduct. It gives me lots more scenic possibilities - rock pools, fly fisherman, level variation (which I think is key) etc.

 

I'm going to have to go and order a lot more wood/ply on Friday!

 

Jeff