Andrew P Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I'm actually doing no more today. That's because I'm going to buy some 4' x 2' 3mm MDF sheets from Wickes tomorrow and fit the curved backscene board in place before I put mod-roc etc on top. Even then I might not get very far as I've only one and a bit rolls left: 10 more on order. You were correct from the start. This is far shallower and far better. Btw, the "surgery" involved cutting new formers and repositioning the supports. The old ones weren't usable - I couldn't just cut the tops off. Andy - re. Tupdale - I remember it appearing in around MR 60 - hell, that's probably the best part of ten years ago. I've got all the MRs from number 3 - I ought to look it up. I'm itching to do something - but it'll have to wait. Plaster asap Andy!! Jeff Jeff, Tupdale started in Sep 2004 and the issue with the rock in was Feb 2009, yes almost 5 years later. Bodgit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 29, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2013 Scott, THAT is a good suggestion! I'll construct the fell above the tunnel area as usual, to get the feel of the inclines. After the plaster layer has dried out I could add the "cliff/scree" top, just as a feature on an incline - probably 5 - 6cm deep would do (scale 12-15 feet). This could be extended back.... see my doctored photo.... What do other people think? Honest comments, please.... Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 29, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2013 Jeff, Tupdale started in Sep 2004 and the issue with the rock in was Feb 2009, yes almost 5 years later. Bodgit Cheers Andy. What do you think of Scott's suggestion - an interesting feature or OTT. Jason's comment will be interesting!! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted March 29, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 29, 2013 I think it would look good on the backscene rather like the photo. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jukebox Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I think 50mm or so is the right sort of scale ~ it may even help with a sense of forced perspective. You'd never have the space for the full sized feature, so my idea (which your photoshop version looks just right) is to try and infuse the character. It might well be that smaller is better, in this instance, so that you don't revert to toytown! As always, Rule #1 takes precedence. Cheers Scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 29, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2013 I think it would look good on the backscene rather like the photo. Don Fair comment, Don. It would make it easier for me BUT it would rely on my artistic skill (which = ZERO) to paint in the background. Actually, with the haze to show distance, I could probably DRAW it onto the backscene in pencil, smudging the detail (ha ha) to suggest distance. Keep the comments coming! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Scott, THAT is a good suggestion! I'll construct the fell above the tunnel area as usual, to get the feel of the inclines. After the plaster layer has dried out I could add the "cliff/scree" top, just as a feature on an incline - probably 5 - 6cm deep would do (scale 12-15 feet). This could be extended back.... see my doctored photo.... 100_2901A.jpg What do other people think? Honest comments, please.... Jeff Jeff, I think the Scree would be Grey, NOT Green, Red and Yellow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Cheers Andy. What do you think of Scott's suggestion - an interesting feature or OTT. Jason's comment will be interesting!! Jeff Yes Jeff I think it would work well, but could you have it back about 3 inches behind the hill to give it distance? i.e. the next hill over, about a Mile away? Bodgit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Fair comment, Don. It would make it easier for me BUT it would rely on my artistic skill (which = ZERO) to paint in the background. Actually, with the haze to show distance, I could probably DRAW it onto the backscene in pencil, smudging the detail (ha ha) to suggest distance. Keep the comments coming! Jeff Jeff, As per David Wright in the current BRM you could use aerosols from Halfords, He uses Acrylics and a light mix of Grey with a light lilac / Purple to give a haze, a Blue for the sky and NO HARD EDGE FOR THE HILL TOP, I have to do a series on Back Scenes for RM next week I will try and see what I can do with just paints and send you some tips. (IF IT WORKS) Bodgit the Brush Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 29, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 29, 2013 Jeff, As per David Wright in the current BRM you could use aerosols from Halfords, He uses Acrylics and a light mix of Grey with a light lilac / Purple to give a haze, a Blue for the sky and NO HARD EDGE FOR THE HILL TOP, I have to do a series on Back Scenes for RM next week I will try and see what I can do with just paints and send you some tips. (IF IT WORKS) Bodgit the Brush Having given this some thought I think the kind of feature Scott referred to would probably look better as a backscene feature in the distance. In fact, I think it would look good on the backscene behind and to the right of the viaduct.... it could appear "behind" the secret project.... Any suggestions are welcome Andy! Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
emt_911 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I think it would work better as part of the back scene. As has already been said, it doesn't have to be particularly sharp and if slightly hazey would accentuate the percieved distance. Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew P Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 I think it would work better as part of the back scene. As has already been said, it doesn't have to be particularly sharp and if slightly hazey would accentuate the percieved distance. Duncan CORRECT Duncan, good idea Jeff and then the Tramway up to the Hill top Town would look good BOLL***S SORRY Jeff ave I given it away? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 30, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 CORRECT Duncan, good idea Jeff and then the Tramway up to the Hill top Town would look good BOLL***S SORRY Jeff ave I given it away? That's ok Andy, it had to come out sometime. I've got quite a collection of T gauge buildings and figures to sit on that hilltop. Should look like Appleby in the distance!! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted March 30, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 I say go with Ingleborough as part of the backscene and leave the altered hill on the left side of the layout as it is, which looks a hundred times better, by the way. A thought I had was that rather than have tunnel mouths at this end, why not model a road overbridge (well, two) and have the railway running in a cutting through to the backscene. That way, you get the chance to model some rock faces and could also continue the cutting onto the station side slightly, between the main and branch lines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelW Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Morning Jeff, Interesting set of ideas coming through - glad to see you had a rethink on the precipitous slopes around the tunnel mouths, it looks so much better for it. Agree with Jason(?) though that a quarry would look good - they had to get the stone for the Lune Viaduct from somewhere afterall Also think the cliff topped hill would look best as a background, I think your idea of behind the viaduct would work really well! Mike, not there Sunday, am there today and Monday instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted March 30, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 30, 2013 Ted Polet did an article where he set up a projector ( raised on a chair and boxes) to project a slide of the scenery he wanted onto the backscene and could then draw in the key lines from the projection. It does depend on getting the right slide. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
emt_911 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Don I've seen that technique used before. Although now with technology as it is, a laptop and projector after an online search for the right image would probably yield a better background. Duncan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 30, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 I say go with Ingleborough as part of the backscene and leave the altered hill on the left side of the layout as it is, which looks a hundred times better, by the way. A thought I had was that rather than have tunnel mouths at this end, why not model a road overbridge (well, two) and have the railway running in a cutting through to the backscene. That way, you get the chance to model some rock faces and could also continue the cutting onto the station side slightly, between the main and branch lines. Hi Jason. Would you care to sketch this idea, as I can't visualise it. One of your famous sketches is long overdue! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Jason T Posted March 30, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 I'm off out now Jeff, but will later, I promise Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 30, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 I'm off out now Jeff, but will later, I promise No problem. I shall keep an eye out for it! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 What about something like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Would help if I attached what I meant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 30, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 Hi Peter, Thanks for your idea. I'm keen to do something like this as I quite fancy scratchbuilding another bridge - and it'd be quite a feature. I'm not sure how it would integrate into the tunnel scheme. I don't want to clutter things un-necessarily. I'm not doing any work in the bunker until I see what Jason - and anyone else - comes up with. Remember, the hill is a given and the trains need to enter and exit through it.... Cheers Peter - much appreciated. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Kazmierczak Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Jeff, The overbridge creates a visual break but the aquaduct (seldom modelled) would be the actual scenic break. Tunnels at both ends of the layout woud be rather passe (unless modelling Nottm Vic, B.ham NS etc) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted March 30, 2013 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) Jeff, The overbridge creates a visual break but the aquaduct (seldom modelled) would be the actual scenic break. Tunnels at both ends of the layout woud be rather passe (unless modelling Nottm Vic, B.ham NS etc) Are you aware of any prototype aqueducts in this situation? Jeff Edited March 30, 2013 by Physicsman 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