Petermac's Railway

I've been otherwise engaged recently doing "more important things" according to SHMBO so am somehwat behind with everything enjoyable !!

Interesting to read about using caulking (mastic) Colin - it sounds excellent and I have plenty in my workshop.  I just wonder how it would react to trying to scribe/impress/cut otr whatever, the mortar lines.  In my experience, which is fairly extensive, it's horrible sticky stuff that's almost impossible to keep where it's supposed to stay …….

I'll try some expewriments to see at what poiint in the curing process I could form the stones.  If it works, it would be great because I just can't find my unopened tube of Milliput and at present, I don't have an immediate requirement for things to bulk up an order making the postage worthwhile.

Watch this space ……………………………(unless SHMBO has other ideas - I try to hide but I'm too big !!)

If you add a good dollop of PVA to standard polyfiller it makes it kind of flexible.

Thanks Andy - I'm almost sure there is some flex on the viaduct - it's only single treack, on a curve and around 80 cm long but, having said that, the joins between the stone sheets are pretty small so it may not be under as much strain as I'm imagining.  I do tend to build "delicate" things with earthquakes in mind …………………. :roll:

I need a few opinions please Chaps (and Chapesses).

Those following this thread will recall the main station sits above the platforms.  In fact, 11cm above the tracks and I need to get a road up there somehow.

This is the station board - 11cm above baseboard level - sorry, very blurred but I can assure you, it has nothing to do with SLW or RLW …………  Ignore the shed - I was just playing around at hiding some surface mounted servo motors.  I need to get my road up to here in a sensible manner :




The road emerges from this tunnel under the gradient leading to the upper level (on the opposite side of the unit)   The cereal packet represents the gradient I'd need if I went for "Option 2" - the bridge :




I think I have 3 options………..

Firstly, a level crossing over the rails here:



The problem with this is the rather unrealistic right angle turn from the taxi to the area immediately behind the loco shed visible on the left plus, the crossing would not be at right angles to the rails and would have to cross 16 cm of track.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a level crossing at anything but right angles to the rail - there'd be a risk of car tyres following the track rather than the road ………….I remember that was often a problem with tram tracks and the thin tyres of the 1950's.


My second option would be to bridge the rails at this point.  The problem with that is the unrealistically steep hill required  between the tunnel and bridge - the bridge would have to be around 6 or 6.5cm high and the tunnel is only 30 cm away from this point.

Crossing here would take my road down the back of the loco shed in this area :



I'm not sure it would look pretty dropping the road back to ground level after the bridge then climbing in the distance to the station level - a bit like a big dipper (or the A68 in Northumberland for those who know it).  Having the road at high level would mean high retaining walls immediately behind the loco shed and also along the tracks to the right.  Slightly further to the right is the gradient leading to the high level so this would also have some kind of retaining wall - either a rock face (as Marty has used for his tunnel) or a rather high brick/stone wall.  This would leave the tracks in a deep cutting.  Certainly not unprototypical,  but there's already very little "railway" to see on this side of the layout ……………….


My third option is to take the road up over the gradient track.  That again requires a steep hill, much longer than the bridge option.  I'd need to get the road from zero to +17cm in a run of only 82 cm.  This photo shows the problem.  The card is marked with the gradient required to get up over the stock on the rising track.  I can't make the hill any longer because I run out of width at that point being squeezed between the rising track and low level main lines as seen in the previous photo :



What would you do with it ?

I wouldn't drop the road at all. Do away with the station incline, move the road tunnely bit up so it buts up to the station giving you a bit of road leading away from the station then turn 'Away' to the left and lose the high level road 'off scene to the back. Think of Chubbers ' Disappearing lane ?  Put in a high level footbridge coming across the tracks from the high level station and drop it down behind or alongside one of the sheds ? Giving railway staff etc access up and down and beside the engine shed was it ? ( where Taxi was going to do a sharp turn) run a road for goods traffic etc alongside the shed and again ' lose it'  somewhere. Nothing says your bits of road have to Actually join up. Just look like they have a reason to be there, and disappear off scene somewhere
Easy Peezy  :thumbs

(Bet thats all clear as Mud).  


Cheers

Matt

:hmm :hmm :hmm :hmm :hmm

Not a silly idea Matt and I had considered something similar at the other end of the station for the "Exit".  I had originally thought of building houses above the rising line but then wondered about a road - something will have to hide it ………..

A cheese wedge shaped rocky outcrop thick edge butting up against the retaining wall coming from the station, the road then comes from the station and curves away behind a tree belt that sits on top of the outcrop which can ' feather away' to nothing as it gets further away from the station and road. A good blending of outcrop, trees and backscene to fool the eye ? Again look at what Doug Did, it just needs to fool you into seeing the road going somewhere  :hmm

  Yup, when you can’t make it work within your visible scene, make it work outside that space by keeping probabilities plausible, ie, so the viewer understands the reality of the situation. Every model railway does this (fiddle yards for example) and by this effective ‘now you see it, now you don’t’ slight of hand, you can keep the scene looking really prototypical and achieve the desired result.
   
  It’s about staging a theatre or film set, so if the taxi is heading to a station and leaves the ‘set’ via ‘Station Road’, it’s believable that it’s likely to reappear in front of the station before too long.
   
  The subterfuge can take many shapes, as suggested by Matt’s citing of Doug’s road disappearing round the bend, to appear at another point on another diorama somewhere in the know world. Just adopt a story telling approach and let your imagine let you do what you need to do.
   
  Have fun.
   
  Bill.

I know your dilemma Peter.  I too tend to think that everything has to be seen and make sense, but then I see other railways where things are suggested and I am always impressed.  Maybe it's because when we are designing we know the tricks, so it doesn't seem so convincing. whereas to others it works.  
I have no solution to your problem, but perhaps a question or two that might lead elsewhere, similar to suggestions already made. Would it be possible to combine both the original houses and road idea?  Have the start of the road, then some house backs, with the road disappearing in front of them and then reappearing at a higher level with a slightly more gradual rise to the top?  The missing bit of road might not need to be modelled?  Or could you have houses with the road appearing at the station, with the houses - again if they were house backs -suggesting there is a road in front of them, which is why it appears at the station…..?  If you are worried about not seeing trains, could they be in pairs of semi-detached, with the road modelled between them, it wouldn't need to be full size, just the impression, giving gaps to see the trains run?  I rubbish at visualising these things which is why I always make mock-ups.  That might be another option for you, and if you use photographs of buildings, they can stay in place quite a while and look surprisingly good until you are ready to build. Having said that, I lived in Maidstone in Kent which had two very steep hills that literally plunged down and then straight back up, so even in relatively flat Kent, such things occur.

I squeezed a crossing into Faversham, but it was at an angle with a sharp left turn and it never looked right, so it got hidden by a warehouse in the end.

I'm sure there will be transport pedants around, but in general I don't actually look to see where roads are going and coming from, just whether they look like roads!  That's also a pretty good description of my navigating too!

Michael

PeterMac - if you use Google images for rail & road crossings, you will find many where they are not at right angles to each other , in fact there was one here in South Australia where two roads crossed each other & through the diagonal, ran the double track rail line. Now the main road is over the junction.

Hi Peter, I hope all is well and you are enjoying the sun in France as much as we are in England (although there is thunder and lightning at the moment).
I managed to purchase a book of Southern Region  which lists some visiting locomotives to the area (you will know why this has interested me…) and I have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that the LNER built some rather fine locos.  Thankfully some of them visited us (I presume they wanted some sun) so I may even get to model one or two.  

Michael

[user=6]Petermac[/user] wrote:

Firstly, a level crossing over the rails here:



The problem with this is the rather unrealistic right angle turn from the taxi to the area immediately behind the loco shed visible on the left plus, the crossing would not be at right angles to the rails and would have to cross 16 cm of track.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a level crossing at anything but right angles to the rail - there'd be a risk of car tyres following the track rather than the road ………….I remember that was often a problem with tram tracks and the thin tyres of the 1950's.

Peter,

There is a level crossing on the ECML just north of Peterborough (B1443) just before the Stamford line diverges which is at about 45 degrees to the tracks. It is a massively wide level crossing.


And at Wool in Dorset the main road runs parallel with the line before crossing the tracks, again not at a right angle although not as pronounced as the one above, maybe 70-80 degrees.

Hi Petermac.  Research, Research, Research, famous last words, I only wish that I had researched the size Ratio myself, but N gauge wouldn’t have suited my hands, better than OO Gauge, even though it would have fitted the space available, at least I could have followed the prototype and see the mistakes made by the professionals. The eight or more track viaduct into London Bridge would have been a sight to behold, full of green coaches or maybe blood and custard? or equivalent. Best wishes Kevin

[user=1512]Headmaster[/user] wrote:

Hi Peter, I hope all is well and you are enjoying the sun in France as much as we are in England (although there is thunder and lightning at the moment).
I managed to purchase a book of Southern Region  which lists some visiting locomotives to the area (you will know why this has interested me…) and I have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that the LNER built some rather fine locos.  Thankfully some of them visited us (I presume they wanted some sun) so I may even get to model one or two.  

Michael

Brilliant Michael - another modeller has seen the LNER light - "they bilt em good int north"  !! …………. :lol:

We've had some blistering weather here over the last day or so - up to 34C but yesterday it turned sticky as blazes.  Needless to say, thunder last night and rain today.  The gardens need it but I don't.  The temperatrure has dropped a good 8C with the rain.

Hopefully, that's not the end of summer just yet particularly as the spring was a total non-event (unless you were a duck) ………………… :roll:

Thanks for further info on oblique crossings Alan - how do you know so much about that part of the ECML - was it once your stomping ground ?

My problem wasn't just the crossing - I could have lived quite happily with that - it was more to do with all the changes in levels.  I didn't want to create a big-dipper roadway but nor did I want to have the railway virtually out of sight in deep cuttings.

I've gone for the suggested option of no roadway at all ………………….at least, not at this side of the station building.  There is a possibility at the other end where it might blend in better ……….. :hmm

[user=1512]Headmaster[/user] wrote:

Hi Peter, I hope all is well and you are enjoying the sun in France as much as we are in England (although there is thunder and lightning at the moment).
I managed to purchase a book of Southern Region  which lists some visiting locomotives to the area (you will know why this has interested me…) and I have to admit, albeit reluctantly, that the LNER built some rather fine locos.  Thankfully some of them visited us (I presume they wanted some sun) so I may even get to model one or two.  

Michael

Michael,

You do know that O V Bulleid was a GNR and LNER man before defecting to the SR? :tongue

(where' s the tin hat emoji?!)

[user=6]Petermac[/user] wrote:

Thanks for further info on oblique crossings Alan - how do you know so much about that part of the ECML - was it once your stomping ground ?

My problem wasn't just the crossing - I could have lived quite happily with that - it was more to do with all the changes in levels.  I didn't want to create a big-dipper roadway but nor did I want to have the railway virtually out of sight in deep cuttings.

I've gone for the suggested option of no roadway at all ………………….at least, not at this side of the station building.  There is a possibility at the other end where it might blend in better ……….. :hmm

Not exactly my stomping ground, and I was born too late to see steam anyway. North East Essex was where I was born and bred. I stumbled across that level crossing whilst heading across to a certain bookshop in Stamford.



But I do have an interest in railways across the whole of Britain (and some foreign countries), especially the LNER area, and have travelled this country extensively.

Hi Alan. :off topic  Which reminds me, and many a. rail fan, of a Railway Crossing at the same sort of angle. But that is a really rough ride. Best wishes Kevin

[user=2220]Alan W[/user] wrote:

That is some crossing! 5 tracks, but it does have me wondering if that is the widest in the uk, or abroad!?

[user=2057]TeaselBay[/user] wrote:

[user=2220]Alan W[/user] wrote:

That is some crossing! 5 tracks, but it does have me wondering if that is the widest in the uk, or abroad!?

We used to have one in Brisbane on Fairfield Rd at Yeronga. It was hugely wide and idiots in cars were always getting stuck between the gates. It's been replaced with a bridge.