Author Topic: Not the Seaboard 2.0  (Read 13729 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #105 on: January 11, 2018, 06:36:58 PM »
0
Agree the Thurmond scratch would be awesome.  I am imagining the clerestory on that model.  Would look fantastic, particularly if you built trusses and added subtle interior lighting, welding LED, etc.- signature scene.

Otto and John, thanks for your input.  And Jason (aka Mr. Five), let me know when you want to check it out.  Still a work in progress but pretty functional.  8)  Not sure how much big steam will run on this unless it's the articulated stuff.  With that there is no trouble at all but a rigid eight driver or six wheel diesel, maybe not so good, especially across Main Street and up the hill to nowhere. :)

I'm actually pretty familiar with Thurmond and have visited there several times, as recent as last year.  It's still a busy mainline and has a fun flavor.  Unfortunately the engine house is gone since the early '90's but the station is there as well as a row of old stores facing the main line and the whole site is now under the National Park System.  One feature of the area is it's so compact yet chock full of neat features, begging to be modelled in N scale.  And if you made a trip there the whole region is full of beautiful scenery and little scenes.  Even the drive to Thurmond is full of cool stuff to see.

Somebody out there has a nicely done module of Thurmond that I saw at the Jaffa Center.  I'm sure many folks here have seen it and could identify it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 07:48:44 PM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #106 on: January 11, 2018, 08:20:04 PM »
0
As far as any water features or the auto/ train bridge across the river, there is no room for such things.  It would be outrageously cool just not to be on this door layout.  The building already sits near to the edges in a corner and in fact, that's one of the decisions I have to make in my planning, how close I go to the edge.  One way would pretty much dictate being parallel and very close to the edge while the other way, similar to what Dave did, would be to set it slightly cocked, two bays with a possible partial bay less than full length, appearing as a possible addition.  That's also where I could add shop space, the more likely decision.  None of those decisions are finalized yet.

One of the things that was never provided for, existing or as under consideration, was vehicle access to the engine house/ yard area.  The rails are too close to each other to have a dirt road between them and the logical place to access, the short bit of road outside the track loop where it enters town, has completed road and sidewalk, all nicely done but with no driveway entrance.  Easy enough to modify at a glance but then there's color match and such to be done to the road and sidewalk if mods are to be done.  If I was sure of colors I could probably redo it easy enough but if they aren't right it'll look like crap (blunt form of "not so good").

There's still plenty that can be done with the scene though and I think that the style of that building, found in various locations around the C&O, is cool, meets a prototypical flavor for the locale, and physically fits nicely in the scene and space.  And the building could be moved to another layout someday where those features could be added, not requiring the building to change.

And to that end, for planning and sampling available goods, last night I ordered a full sample kit of every window and door that Tichy offers.  And I already blew the $15 budget over twofold. ;) :D 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 11:15:29 PM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #107 on: January 11, 2018, 10:00:53 PM »
0
Agree the Thurmond scratch would be awesome.  I am imagining the clerestory on that model.  Would look fantastic, particularly if you built trusses and added subtle interior lighting, welding LED, etc.- signature scene.

CLERESTORY!  That's the word I couldn't think of.  8) :D 

The trusses would likely be done but the clerestory in this case doesn't have windows.  They seem to be louvers providing ventilation for the steam engine smoke as well as cooling during the summer months.  Not as sexy for seeing the interior but in general, still a nice feature.  That's not to say I couldn't make them windows as I think some engine houses maybe used windows and I also could put skylights in some but in my searches, when I found skylights they were models, not prototypes.  But they might still exist.  Anybody know of any? 8)
Mark G.

Lemosteam

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5966
  • Gender: Male
  • PRR, The Standard Railroad of my World
  • Respect: +3797
    • Designer at Keystone Details
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2018, 10:18:46 PM »
0
CLERESTORY!  That's the word I couldn't think of.  8) :D 

The trusses would likely be done but the clerestory in this case doesn't have windows.  They seem to be louvers providing ventilation for the steam engine smoke as well as cooling during the summer months.  Not as sexy for seeing the interior but in general, still a nice feature.  That's not to say I couldn't make them windows as I think some engine houses maybe used windows and I also could put skylights in some but in my searches, when I found skylights they were models, not prototypes.  But they might still exist.  Anybody know of any? 8)

Yes the smaller pic made them look like windows, but the angled slats would still let the glow out.  Then you would not have to make the trusses.

Wait- this is in fact industrial- why not use it for the contest?

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2018, 11:11:01 PM »
0
Yes the smaller pic made them look like windows, but the angled slats would still let the glow out.  Then you would not have to make the trusses.

Wait- this is in fact industrial- why not use it for the contest?

I thought of that. 8)  It would fit the bill.  Problem is I don't think i could finish it in the time frame allowed.  Not for the detail I'd like to do and the lack of experience I have in scratch building, and the fact that I really have to get back to some loco work.  In fact, that's what I should be doing right now. ;) :D 

If I persue this (very likely) it will be a first scratch built building for me and those things always go slower than the next one no matter what skills you might have.   And it will be track mods, pits between the rails, etc, etc.  It has all kinds of potential for a really neat scene, though.  8)  I will try to stay proto by style but the rest will have to be just to fit.
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2018, 11:12:25 PM »
0
Does anybody know how deep typical service pits should be under the rails?  Or any other not so obvious features of them?  I've seen steps, removable wood hatches, and maybe even side stair access points that would go under the rails.  Not sure if that's all they were or if they served some other purpose.

Edit add:  Search results suggest that they are about 5' deep.  Some suggest less. :|

Add 2:  Further searching didn't find a dimension but a lot of pictures showed either 5 or 6 steps.  If they are standard height of 7" each that says basically 3' to 3.5' .  Even if they were 10" high that's still only four feet.  This is suggesting to me that the one source I found in print was taking a WAG and didn't know.  And apparently the proper term is "inspection pit".  :)  I will keep looking.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 02:26:27 AM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2018, 01:51:18 AM »
0
OK, a lot more information gathered on service pits.  At this point after a LOT of reading, the answer is there is no standard and even in modern construction there is discussion with varying opinions.  It seems fair to say that steam era pits would likely fall between 2.5' to 5.5' with the most between 3' to 4'.  Modern or diesel era could be 4' to 6', most around 4.5' to 5.5'.  The differences are attributed to the height of the components to be accessed with steam being higher reach on average mainly due to larger average wheel sizes, therefore the lower pit depth.  Watch your head!

Steam era also could have optional outside rail pits, maybe 30" deep, for comfortable access to side rods and valve linkage.  Still have more to find there but that could explain the several feet of planks found outside the rails in some photos.  It's hard to say in Thurmond because the one section on the river side is built off the ground, supported on massive bents and that section is pretty clearly all wood.  I don't think it was under rails but under shop space.  On the land side it's hard to say but it seems that there are planks at least a few feet from the outside of the rail and then maybe changing to concrete.  I also found where some construction specs called for oak, brick, or mastic(?) over the concrete floor and as a sacrificial material for heavy parts being placed/ dropped on the floor.  Could use more info here and will keep looking.

I've also narrowed down a number of the dimensions.  The board and batten, roof slope, roof overhang, o'all height of roof and clerestory, louvers, roof joists, doors, windows, support beams, floor construction, and etc. :)  I've started some research on availability of necessary shapes and sizes of material.  This should be doable and with justice. 8)  And with a LOT of work, mostly in planning and design. :|  Execution won't be too bad once a plan is complete.  The louvers are still a challenge but will be able to be done even if it does drive me to drinking. :)

Still very open to knowledge and suggestions. 8)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 02:08:39 AM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2018, 06:12:54 AM »
+4
I was able to get enough information and dimensions to start a drawing and a card stock mock up for the engine house.  I am making two versions of a side extension as well.  Because I'm artistically challenged the mockup lets me get some sense of how everything will fit and look.

The mockup is my drawing printed and mounted on either old foam scraps or heavy cardboard scraps and colored with a red Sharpie.  The roof is heavy cardboard salvaged from a shipping container.  I took this opportunity to try out tarpaper roofing using paper type medical tape colored with a Black Sharpie and then dusted with corn starch (it's what I had laying around).  It's tedious, cutting the widths to standard 36", but it looks decent and can be executed with a little more care for a neater look.  This was trial. 8)

Here are a few pics that give the general idea.  I will be making the trial addition parts soon and will post pics of them when I do.  As usual, any and all comments welcome. 8)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 06:55:32 AM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

Philip H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8941
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +1675
    • Layout Progress Blog
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #113 on: January 17, 2018, 10:24:14 AM »
0
well not that you've finished that project, what's next? That makes a good stand in, and you can probably leave it for years and be ok.  At the very least I'd transfer  the roof as is to any replacement building.
Philip H.
Chief Everything Officer
Baton Rouge Southern RR - Mount Rainier Division.


Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 18545
  • Respect: +5860
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #114 on: January 17, 2018, 04:03:31 PM »
+1
One hell of a mock-up!  8)

casmmr

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 209
  • Gender: Male
  • It is a Hobby
  • Respect: +20
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #115 on: January 17, 2018, 05:04:12 PM »
0
That roof is fabulous! If that is what you call a mockup, I will give up trying to scratch build structures.  Great job.  later, Craig

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #116 on: January 17, 2018, 06:21:17 PM »
0
Thanks guys. 8) 

I have said before, I AM an old machine guy and very experienced with tools and their uses.  I am NOT an experienced modeller so there are many techniques used at this game that I have to learn.  Thank goodness that there are many overlaps. 8)  It gives a guy like me a chance, not always starting at zero. :)  Most times I'm familiar with the concept and can get a lot out of reading about techniques used but that last bit that only comes from experience is missing.  Example, until recently, I've never really used acrylics, artists chalks or powders, many of the raw materials and suitable glues, scenic materials of any sort, very limited air brush use and never with acrylics.  And that list goes on.  If it's modelling, I'm still pretty new.  But the mechanical aspects, soldering skills are decent, machining and design of mechanical devices are actually pretty strong (it's what I did for decades), skill with a standard spray gun with industrial and automotive paints is decent, mechanical diagnosis and repair is strong, electronics are OK at the basics and the basic understanding but limited otherwise, etc.  That's the gist of where I am in this.  And then when it helps to have the artist's eye, scale concept without a thing in front of you... that's pretty weak.  I can critique and usually pass a proper judgement when I have something to look at but as far as envisioning a proper scene in my head, not so good.  And that's why I need a mockup for a project this extensive, requiring track relocation, board work, etc.

So, for that mockup, the basic structure, once the research for some dimensions and details then the drawing was done at some level, was actually quite easy with the drawing already in the computer.  Print it on card stock (heavy paper), double side tape it to some scrap foam pieces (accurate key dimensions), color it with a magic marker using a straight edge to mask window and door details, and in pretty short order I had a true to scale (at least as drawn) ;) building to put in place and start evaluating the whole project. 

The roof was another story and took a few hours from start to finish, being brand new at the whole effort.  If I had the experience I now do, that step would have been some black Sharpie at most but it was a golden opportunity to learn what I needed to know if I am going to model tarpaper roofs.  It sorted out OK and I now know what to expect so the next effort will be much quicker.  I will also look to see if that tape is available in 1/4" width as it would be close enough for most installations and would eliminate one of the most time consuming parts, to stretch out, lay out, and cut.  Although as I did a few even that got easier.  I can always cut to a more accurate dimension should it be needed. 

I also will be interested in how this tape holds up over time.  Does anybody have experience with this?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2018, 06:27:56 PM by narrowminded »
Mark G.

narrowminded

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2305
  • Respect: +743
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2018, 07:51:04 PM »
0
well not that you've finished that project, what's next? That makes a good stand in, and you can probably leave it for years and be ok.  At the very least I'd transfer  the roof as is to any replacement building.

Thanks, Philip. 8)  That was just the start of the project, making sure it would fit and look OK.  What is needed is track relocation, a floor, and I think I'll do service pits and some more extensive detailing. 

What I have in mind but have not made the mockup yet, is an "addition" off the side that would be shop and depending on layout, maybe another track and door and maybe the pits for wheel changing.  Not sure that room is sufficient for both but then wheel change could be built in to the two main service pits.  Also a siding and maybe freight doors in the shop with a small loading dock for such things as oil drums, parts, and such.  I will make another post as I do more evaluation but any reactions or critiques at this point would be welcome.

One thing I'm not totally happy about and knew before I started is the location which is close to the edge of the layout and square with that edge.  I'll consider a few options but really need the addition pieces for my assessment.  I may just live with it if everything else works the way I like.  I wouldn't mind opinions on that and anything else that strikes folks. 8)

Thanks again for looking. 8)
Mark G.

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5393
  • Respect: +1961
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #118 on: January 17, 2018, 11:59:29 PM »
0
Well, since you're asking for *opinions*, here's one and it's FREE :D
I commented on this before, and I still think pushing the engine house over one track and have the two shorter tracks serve it and having the open track along the edge available to display your prize equipment would make for a better edge treatment. Alternatively, if you leave the house in place as is, I'd look at dropping the slope and building up open timber supports and bracing along the edge for the outbuildings, like the prototype. That is what gives the prototype so much character IMHO, and it would create a great edge, in-your-face detailing opportunity.
Great little "mockup" btw....loving it!
Otto K.

jpec

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 858
  • Gender: Male
  • Perception and reality engage in a daily civil war
  • Respect: +175
Re: Not the Seaboard 2.0
« Reply #119 on: January 18, 2018, 01:02:03 AM »
0
Somebody out there has a nicely done module of Thurmond that I saw at the Jaffa Center.  I'm sure many folks here have seen it and could identify it.

That would be Mr. Paul Fulks of Cantington N-Trak.

We were nosing around Thurmond  a  few years back and  a ranger from NPS happened to be there doing some maintenance. He let us in the station and said we could go upstairs but cautioned us there might be a few dead things up there since no one was there much in the winter. There was a layer of dead beetles on the entire floor about 3/4" thick.
"trees are non-judgmental, and they won't abuse or betray you."- DKS