After reading the article about building a rustic house using "an 8-inch-long section of 2 x 4", it appears to me that the photos are showing at most a 1 x 4. Anyone else have an idea of what the actual size of the wood may be in the photos?
Celebrating 18 years on the CTT Forum.
Buckeye Riveter......... OTTS Charter Member, a Roseyville Raider and a member of the CTT Forum since 2004..
Jelloway Creek, OH - ELV 1,100 - Home of the Baltimore, Ohio & Wabash RR
TCA 09-64284
buckeye I had to read it a few times till I caught what he was meaning. You take the 2" x 4" and slice it longways on the table saw to get like 3 or 4 pieces. that's why it looks so thin. So basically each piece is about 3/4" thick so 4 of them would be 3" and a 2" x 4" is 3 1/2" maybe 3 3/4" so thats how he is doing it. If your cutting 3/4" thick the blade with will basically eat up the rest of the wood as it cuts, you lose about 1/8" per cut
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. Needless to say that's a lot of work for such a small project and I can use foam board and get the same results.
(I thought the exact same thing, Buckeye)
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
I was shocked when I saw the article. The item looked incredibly crude!
The item could have been made from sheet styrene or foam core, (or even "bristol board" like the articles in MR suggested in the early 1950's) and it would have looked a lot better.
My thoughts on reading the article were 1) they're trying to reinvent scratchbuilding and 2) they must be really hard up for articles.
I was really disappointed!
LittleTommy
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month