RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 24, 2015 Actually I have throught of a problem this is not set in the UK so it is not easy to go out and look at a few. Trip to the US for research Chaz? We do have a good few Maples in Woodcombe walk. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 24, 2015 Author Share Posted January 24, 2015 (edited) Actually I have throught of a problem this is not set in the UK so it is not easy to go out and look at a few. Trip to the US for research Chaz? We do have a good few Maples in Woodcombe walk. Don A tree is a tree and I'm pretty confident that if I combine some of the research shots I have taken and continue to take with Googled info' about American species and photos of US NG in woods etc I will get as convincing a result as I want. I am afraid a trip to the US is out of the question - my fear of flying rules it out. I'd love to ride on the preserved US NG lines but will have to settle for books and videos. Chaz Edited January 24, 2015 by chaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Sorry Chaz, had to be done. I'm not a huge fan of flying either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Flying is okay so long as it isn't in a glider or a single engine plane - go for the one with two or more engines - that way you have spares! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2015 Flying is okay so long as it isn't in a glider or a single engine plane - go for the one with two or more engines - that way you have spares! Yes but the wing can still fall off... Not helping am i? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 It takes a LOT to take the wing off a plane, seeing as the whole set of wings is a single entity. Those can FLEX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 (edited) Chaz, Trees like Maples and Oak tend to be taller and straighter (which is why the Royal Navy liked American Oak for masts. When the trees get leaves in my backyard I’ll take some photos - we’re getting 24” (yes, two feet, everything is bigger over here...) of snow starting tomorrow so it’ll be a while.... Best, Pete. Edited January 26, 2015 by trisonic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Chaz, Trees like Maples and Oak tend to be taller and straighter (which is why the Royal Navy liked American Oak for masts. When the trees get leaves in my backyard I’ll take some photos - we’re getting 24” (yes, two feet, everything is bigger over here...) of snow starting tomorrow so it’ll be a while.... Best, Pete. Actually Pete shots of trees without leaves are really useful as you can see the structure much more clearly. But I would be grateful for any photos you post. Chaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 26, 2015 Author Share Posted January 26, 2015 Flying is okay so long as it isn't in a glider or a single engine plane - go for the one with two or more engines - that way you have spares! I don't want to prolong this discussion, which is not of any great interest to followers of the FVRR so I will just say that a fear of flying is not rational, so it can't be reasoned away. I haven't been on the London Eye (to my regret) for the same reason. Let's not mention it again, it's boring. Chaz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) I have made some progress on the river.First I painted the river bed. This required a little faith as at this stage it doesn't look even slightly convincing..... Colour was important, finish less so, given that the effect will be viewed through the equivalent of frosted glass. The paint is artist's acrylics applied with an airbrush. There are only two colours here - the yellowy, sandy colour (for the shallows) is yellow ochre, oversprayed with a yellow ochre/ultramarine blue mix to get the deeper water effect. I used pieces of cereal packet card to stop any overspray - absorbent side up. The shiny printed side is not a good idea, you just get lots of rivulets (!) of colour running down and making puddles where you definitely don't want 'em. And here are three snaps of the river - with a trial fit of the acrylic sheet with the gel painted on for ripples. I had decided that the easiest water effect for the Furness River would be to model a stretch where the water is relatively still but rippled by the wind. The ripples still have a milky whiteness where the gel is thicker but I am hoping that this will clear in time. This is not very apparent in the photos and will not be disastrous if it's permanent. I am very pleased with the effect so far. Of course the colour of the "water" will depend to a large extent on what is behind it - reflections will determine how it looks, just like it does with real water. For these photos I put the baseboard on a Workmate so the background is random and includes a Velux window. When this section is finished I will have put a wooded slopes effect in place behind the river so the water should end up looking darker and greener. Chaz PS - given that this is the sort of modelling I wanted to spend my time on does it matter that the trains that cross the bridge will be to that awful compromise On30, and not to the far more accurate On2 or On3? Discuss! Edited January 30, 2015 by chaz 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJon30 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Very effective water. Re gauge/scale - its only a problem if you want it to be. I assume that your railway is a representation not an actual prototype, so there are plenty of 30 inch gauge railways around to base it on, perhaps just not that many in the US, although maybe more than you think http://www.bigindoortrains.com/primer/narrow_gauge_railroads/30in_rwys/30in_rwys.htm Rgds Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Very effective water. Re gauge/scale - its only a problem if you want it to be. I assume that your railway is a representation not an actual prototype, so there are plenty of 30 inch gauge railways around to base it on, perhaps just not that many in the US, although maybe more than you think http://www.bigindoortrains.com/primer/narrow_gauge_railroads/30in_rwys/30in_rwys.htm Rgds Andrew That's right Andrew, the Furness Valley Railroad is entirely fictitious and as such I am free to set my own rules. Indeed Rule One applies - as always. Rule One - It's my *%$+$& railway. (insert adjective of choice) Edited January 30, 2015 by chaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnaby Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Those photos of your WATER PROJECT are champion. Thinking.............. The "grain" of the water ripple I've not thought about before but if it is wind driven as I suspect it is any other angle but how you have would look odd to me. As the wind is a variable that last comment can't be correct but trying to rotate your water makes it look odd. Now I'm thinking that because there could be a greater flow resistance to the water the "grain" of the water at the edges would drag and cause some curvature and not be straight across. maybe I need to think of the ripples as a dotted line and not a single line. Help, I think I'm in deep water here. Thank god I only intend to have some little puddles. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Those photos of your WATER PROJECT are champion. Thinking.............. The "grain" of the water ripple I've not thought about before but if it is wind driven as I suspect it is any other angle but how you have would look odd to me. As the wind is a variable that last comment can't be correct but trying to rotate your water makes it look odd. Now I'm thinking that because there could be a greater flow resistance to the water the "grain" of the water at the edges would drag and cause some curvature and not be straight across. maybe I need to think of the ripples as a dotted line and not a single line. Help, I think I'm in deep water here. Thank god I only intend to have some little puddles. Regards "Help, I think I'm in deep water here".....Passing quickly over the awful quip and thinking about water, wind and ripples...... Grain of ripples? Well yes, but I supposed that the wind was blowing along the river, if it was blowing across then the bit under the bridge would have to be a flat calm. Curved ripples? Crikey, I can't begin to get my head round that. No, on reflection (see what I did there? ) I think the ripples will always be at right angles to the line of the wind......Yes? There will be a number of other details to add - The abutment on the left will have a boardwalk along its base (for fishermen - just like one on the River Itchen, under a bridge over which the Eastleigh-Portsmouth line passes) The abutment on the right will have a thin "beach" - sand glued on with more gel. As this is on the inside of the river curve a "beach" is quite likely. Regardless of all this my sole intention was that the result should look like water. Looking at my very first post in this topic I see that I talked about the bridge crossing a "dryish riverbed". OH, I must have changed my mind. Edited January 30, 2015 by chaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted January 30, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2015 The bridge and water look quite good. Water is such tricky stuff to model not least because it it moves too much. We also tend to see it from a different angle in real life to that on a model. From a low angle you can seen nothing of the conditions under the water it seems to be all the relections of the background and sky. If you has a solid base to the bridge rather than the open structure there would be a shadow under it. I am now thinking modelling the trees sounds less tricky. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) The bridge and water look quite good. Water is such tricky stuff to model not least because it it moves too much. We also tend to see it from a different angle in real life to that on a model. From a low angle you can seen nothing of the conditions under the water it seems to be all the relections of the background and sky. If you has a solid base to the bridge rather than the open structure there would be a shadow under it. I am now thinking modelling the trees sounds less tricky. Don The only way to do movement is to use real water but this always looks totally wrong as well as being a real nuisance to contain. You can't scale it and the meniscus that you always get where water touches an upright looks terrible. There is no solid structure to the girder bridge Don, just the girder work you see in the snaps plus a "ladder" of bridge ties to which the rails will be spiked. However if the bridge did have a deck I would rely on that to cast its own shadow, any painted shadow would probably look false. I think the water effect I have got is probably the best I can do (it certainly looks better than the canal on Dock Green) but I would be happy to hear from anyone who has done better. There will be a pause in progress on the FVRR as my attention switches to the extension board for Dock Green (viz). I hope to back "in the US" within a week or so. Chaz Edited January 30, 2015 by chaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 ... I think the water effect I have got is probably the best I can do (it certainly looks better than the canal on Dock Green) but I would be happy to hear from anyone who has done better. ... Chaz, I for sure haven't done it better (mind, it's hard to beat what you show to us) and so am not in a position to critizise or advise. The method you choose certainly is promising. Go along that way and let us see further pictures, please! Regards Armin PS: not that I would make you envious, but a look at these pictures (et seq.) is worth a minute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Chaz, I for sure haven't done it better (mind, it's hard to beat what you show to us) and so am not in a position to critizise or advise. The method you choose certainly is promising. Go along that way and let us see further pictures, please! Regards Armin PS: not that I would make you envious, but a look at these pictures (et seq.) is worth a minute. Thanks for your positive comments. The pictures you link to are certainly worth a look - the model they show has a fully detailed riverbed with a ripple effect over the top, and does look quite stunning. The way I have designed the river section doesn't allow me to put the necessary space between the river bed and the acrylic surface so I will have to keep what I have. It would require a major rethink to change it and I'm not unsatisfied with what I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 1, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 1, 2015 A Mr Ian Hicksmudd ( I think I have that right) did build a layout with real water which actually went across a baseboard joint. I saw it some years ago at Wolverhampton. As you say it does tend to look like water round a model rather than the real thing. To my mind it is only very shallow water were you can see anything much of the bottom. My last attempt at a pond was using PVA which I had seen recommended. It turned milky and lifted off the baseboard. I am planning to try acrylic sheet with pva or varnish ripples on the next layout with a black sheet under the acrylic. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 I think we have to accept the fact that certain things are extremely difficult to model and water must be near the top of the list. Troel's Kirk's Cranberry Wharf includes some pretty impressive water but even this, which looks superb in still photographs, suffers from the common problem - it doesn't move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Railway modelling has a movement element, which is missing from some (all?) other modelling disciplines. When we are unable to animate an element, it becomes obvious to us. For example, the movement of trees with the wind! We have to accept the compromise and work to achieve the best visual effect we can. Speaking of trees (sorry!), I have never seen anybody model an effect of the wind, the fallen, decaying tree trunk. Paul, is that a challenge? Should be a doddle compared with trees with a full set of foliage. The fungus growing on it will be an interesting detail. Hmmmm....... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 I suppose it is if you are up for it Chaz! You will need to research fungi of North America now. I will expect the full Gordon Gravett treatment with parasitic plants such as ivy growing around the trunk. Is there a native N American ivy species? Then there are the fallen trees which are still alive, with new branches growing skyward.......... What! I was just going to model a log with a few bracket fungii on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) I took a break from the extension board woodwork for Dock Green this afternoon, and made a bit more progress with the approach to the girder bridge. Offering up the stone colour test that I did earlier alongside the abutments I noted a marked difference in colour. I'm quite happy with the change in colour but I think the tone is a little on the light side. Adding another wash of thinned black acrylic produced this change. Having done both abutments with the extra wash I fixed the first one in position.... ....and added some paper mache to fill the gaps in the bank up to the back of the stonework.This side can't be seen from the operator's side as the baseboard is against the wall in a corner, but I will have to fill that gaping hole! That narrow strip of ply' fixed to the underside of the trackbed will be used to support some small trees and shrubs. I want to try and disguise the fact that the river doesn't go anywhere. Before I add the other abutment I need to check the trackbed heights with a spirit level - after that the bridge can be fitted with the prospect of at last spiking down some rail. Edited February 2, 2015 by chaz 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 3, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2015 I like the idea of the lof with fungi Chaz. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 I like the idea of the lof with fungi Chaz. Don I was thinking more in terms of a log, but if you think a lof would be better......... Link to comment 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