billyb_imp Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Jeff The lines youve drawn on are a great help in seeing where your going with this, certainly helps me visualise what may be coming Edited February 8, 2013 by billyb_imp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted February 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 When I get chance, I'll put my thinking cap on and draw up an idea I have for the cottages along the back of the layout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robmcg Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) Jeff The lines youve drawn on are a great help in seeing where your going with this, certainly helps me visualise what may be coming Bill the small moving diagram of the steam locomotive which you show with your signature is the best way to describe or more accurately illustrate a typical modern? steam engine I have seen.. May I ask where I might obtain such a (moving) picture. It certainly beats explaning things like valve timing, overlap, lead, and valve gear! Have you ever tried explaining why three-cylinder engines can sometimes have to reverse before going forward? To a female? In any event, here is a three-cylinder rebuilt Patriot doing just that.... (in forward gear, I hasten to add)... If you read this Jeff, could you have explained it to physics classes without moving diagrams like Bill's? Kind regards, Rob edit; this is the (jpg image from the moving avatar. I apologise I am not very literate with all these emoticon and avatar things.. Edited February 8, 2013 by robmcg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 When I get chance, I'll put my thinking cap on and draw up an idea I have for the cottages along the back of the layout Hi Jason. Sorry it's taken so long to reply. I've been feeding my brother and watching a programme on the Album (LP). Any suggestions will be welcome. No hurry - that area will be one of the last to be developed. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Evening Rob. It's been quite a while since you've posted on here. But then you did explain that New Zealand basically switches off in December and January!! Animations are great for explanation - especially if you can pause or freeze-frame them. I used to use a lot of this kind of thing in my Physics classes - one of the most common being the 4-cylinder internal combustion engine. Must admit, Billy's steam engine is quite eye-catching. Good to hear from you. And you're back with a lovely loco photo, too. Cheers, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Which "open" area is that, Andy? All the areas that are usable are covered in board. Post a diagram to explain? Jeff That bit that appears to be just frame by your jigsaw in the photo. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 (edited) That bit that appears to be just frame by your jigsaw in the photo. Andy Yes, I'm with you. But what you are seeing is a bit of an "illusion". The open frame is actually in the background.... hope this explains... Original for reference: Jeff Edited February 8, 2013 by Physicsman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Jeff, If we use the photo in post 4027, would it not be possible for you to make the Hillock slightly higher so that a two or three arch overbridge could be put over the wagon? The road can then sweep down towads the corner of the green bit you've drawn? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Thinking about it, its a shame the road couldn't cross the railway as above, and then continue towards the first arch of the viaduct and then turn back under that arch and away, a bit like under Dent Head. I doubt you could do it now mind, without it looking silly. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Yes, both your previous posts sum things up nicely. The bridge idea is a good one - except it would appear out of the backscene and not go anywhere productive. So I'd prefer to keep it simple. I've been out to look at the hillock and cutting position. Wait until Sunday and you can give me your verdict!! Btw Andy - thanks very much for all of your input. I'm very grateful to the Lunesters who brainstormed such a lot of ideas over the last day or so. It has really helped! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Hi Jeff, I quite like the idea you have for the area the other side of the viaduct, I can see how that would work, and why the railway was built there in that way. I also like the idea of the gently sloping field leading down to the station, I think too many layouts are presented with low ground to the front, high ground to the rear. But I'm not convinced by your description of the rest of the scenic plans, possibly as I'm not quite understanding them. Essentially, I'm wondering why the station was built where it was (other than because that's where the railway is...). Essentially, where is the town it is supposed to be serving? Most junction stations had a town or village that they served, especially if they had a reasonable sized goods yard. (Those that just said Riccarton Junction - it didn't have the goods facilities ) Answering that solves the where should the road be question. And you also have to ask why is that town there - most conurbations have a reason for being where they are. And the answer to that will probably drive the shape of the land... This sort of thinking led to the attempt at a map earlier. Putting in a road bridge at the viaduct end of the station makes little sense to me - why is the road there? Crossing there suggests that the road was heading across the hill into the next valley - an unusual route for a road to take, most old roads followed valleys, and would wind round hills to save having to go over the top... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 8, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Very good point about the road. Here is a very curved ball, how about cutting the board behind the sidings and having the land drop away towards the wall, with a picture of KL nestling down in another valley? Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukebox Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Morning, Jeff! Rather than getting specific, I will leave you with a "broad brush" thought to mull overnight: Take the tracks that you have as a datum, and blank the rest. Now look at the scene, and imagine what the landform might look like with just the tracks running through it - maybe it falls away from you "into" the layout, maybe it rises. Also look at it left to right in relation to the viaduct valley? If you can visualise an overall landfrom that works, you might then use that as a basis for working out how the rest of the parts fit. In other words, look at it as a whole - something a lot harder for us (me) to do seeing it just in photos. I see you have a jigsaw at hand, so other than the trackbed, nothing else is really locked in.... Cheers Scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Oooo... I like that idea Andy, it gives a reason for the railway crossing to that valley (more so if KL is a market town, and therefore a good source of traffic), provides a direction for the road to disappear, and removes the 'why is the station in a valley on its own?' appearance. I don't think the slope needs to be very steep, just a continuation of the slope across the field... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Hi Jeff, I quite like the idea you have for the area the other side of the viaduct, I can see how that would work, and why the railway was built there in that way. I also like the idea of the gently sloping field leading down to the station, I think too many layouts are presented with low ground to the front, high ground to the rear. But I'm not convinced by your description of the rest of the scenic plans, possibly as I'm not quite understanding them. Essentially, I'm wondering why the station was built where it was (other than because that's where the railway is...). Essentially, where is the town it is supposed to be serving? Most junction stations had a town or village that they served, especially if they had a reasonable sized goods yard. (Those that just said Riccarton Junction - it didn't have the goods facilities ) Answering that solves the where should the road be question. And you also have to ask why is that town there - most conurbations have a reason for being where they are. And the answer to that will probably drive the shape of the land... This sort of thinking led to the attempt at a map earlier. Putting in a road bridge at the viaduct end of the station makes little sense to me - why is the road there? Crossing there suggests that the road was heading across the hill into the next valley - an unusual route for a road to take, most old roads followed valleys, and would wind round hills to save having to go over the top... I'm not trying to be evasive, but Kirkby Stephen - the 80% prototype - is a mile from the town of that name and the nearest inhabitants are a couple of sets of cottages nearby. So I'm happy to leave it that. The bridges aren't going to happen - I said that earlier. Too much effort for almost zero gain - and unnecessary. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on most of this! Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Morning, Jeff! Rather than getting specific, I will leave you with a "broad brush" thought to mull overnight: Take the tracks that you have as a datum, and blank the rest. Now look at the scene, and imagine what the landform might look like with just the tracks running through it - maybe it falls away from you "into" the layout, maybe it rises. Also look at it left to right in relation to the viaduct valley? If you can visualise an overall landfrom that works, you might then use that as a basis for working out how the rest of the parts fit. In other words, look at it as a whole - something a lot harder for us (me) to do seeing it just in photos. I see you have a jigsaw at hand, so other than the trackbed, nothing else is really locked in.... Cheers Scott Ah, but it is. There is NO room for large scale carving of the boards near the station. There is too much wiring and joisting to make wholesale changes to the structure. I'm quite happy with where I'm at for the stages set-out in posts 4026 and 4027. You can be the judge of what it looks like on (probably) Monday. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 8, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 8, 2013 Scott, if you're still reading this thread.... I'm going to send you a PM - it'll take me ten mins or so to draw it up. If you get chance, would you please comment? Thanks, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukebox Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Only 8am here - a long way to bedtime! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 9, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2013 Only 8am here - a long way to bedtime! Nearly my bedtime!! PM sent. I await your thoughts. I tried your holistic approach to the "lay of the land" and that's what "popped out"! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 9, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2013 You be careful doing things like that at this hour, you'll get a reputation! Andy 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyb_imp Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Bill the small moving diagram of the steam locomotive which you show with your signature is the best way to describe or more accurately illustrate a typical modern? steam engine I have seen.. May I ask where I might obtain such a (moving) picture. It certainly beats explaning things like valve timing, overlap, lead, and valve gear! Have you ever tried explaining why three-cylinder engines can sometimes have to reverse before going forward? To a female? In any event, here is a three-cylinder rebuilt Patriot doing just that.... (in forward gear, I hasten to add)... If you read this Jeff, could you have explained it to physics classes without moving diagrams like Bill's? Patriot_45536_portrait_5abcd_r800.jpg Kind regards, Rob edit; this is the (jpg image from the moving avatar. I apologise I am not very literate with all these emoticon and avatar things.. Walschaertsmotionavatar_1a.jpg Rob The Walschaerts Gear in motion gif can be found at Wiklipedia Walchaerts the animation is a gif. file, you are free to download it from there (differant sizes are available), you can also google Walschaerts and you will find many images again you need the gif type for the movement. It is quite eye catching, I had a bit of a problem getting it as small as it is, I didn't want some enormous thing there that some people may find annoying. Great photo you've included above Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 9, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2013 Morning everyone. I expect it will be very quiet on here today as a lot of people have gone to Doncaster. I'll be in the bunker after lunch and hope to make some progress over the next couple of days. The landscape discussion has reached a good pausing point. More can be said when I get some photos posted. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 Morning Jeff, just played catch up (see Lounge for reason) and a lot of good info coming in, ther is a lot for you to take in and think about, DONT RUSH IT, REMEMBER the land was there before the RAILWAY, Wise Old Lune. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold ChrisN Posted February 9, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2013 I'm not trying to be evasive, but Kirkby Stephen - the 80% prototype - is a mile from the town of that name and the nearest inhabitants are a couple of sets of cottages nearby. So I'm happy to leave it that. The bridges aren't going to happen - I said that earlier. Too much effort for almost zero gain - and unnecessary. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on most of this! Jeff I may be a little late as I have been clearing out my son's room ready for our move. A man walks into a pub in Kirby Luneside, the loungr bar actually, carrying a heavy suitcase and covered in sweat, (sorry it's Cumbria), drenched through his trenchcoat, puts his soaked trilby on the bar and says, "Pint of your best Landlord," and then in frustration, "I've walked and mile and half inr pouring rain, why didn't they build the station nearer the town!" The Land lord pulls the pint and places it on the bar and replies, "Happen they wanted it near railway. That'll be one and six please." There are many instances of places like that. Dagenham East station used to be called Dagenham Road before Dagenham was built up and as you sit on the train you wonder why they did not build the station nearer the old village as it passes it and the station is eventually a mile or so away. Must have been something to do with availability of land or the civil engineering of the station. Also, I seem to remember at Taunton last year the town did not exactly engulf the railway. What I am saying is that the railway had to take into account the landscape it was running through and if they came across a plateau or a reasonable place to put a station that fitted in to the way the line was running then it would be placed there and the roads and population, if there even were any would have to fit in. Jeff, I like your ideas for landscaping around the staion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted February 9, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2013 To Andy and Chris, Thanks for your posts today. I've only just managed to get myself ready to do something - you guessed it, bl**dy Physics help in the way again! So I've postponed today's woodwork - I'll do a bit of plastering instead. Chris - glad you like the plans. I've revised and improved (in my view) them a little in collaboration with Scott (jukebox). The scheme from the station to the viaduct should be a pleasure to build now. Plenty of landscape for the station to SIT IN! This could be the quietest day, postwise, for a few weeks. I'm hoping a few more messages will be on here when I look later on today. Hope the house move is going well! Jeff 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