I cut out a few test pieces to see if this idea is gonna work.
It should work, but Holy Cow, we're gonna need a bunch of little 1:160 window washers to clean off all that fuzz!
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
I estimated that the individual window panes of the cathedral windows are 15"x18", and from that got this:And from that, extrapolated to this:
Still a little rough and in its early incarnation, but something to work with.
Following up my previous post. One of the first places to start research is Wikipedia; keeping in mind all the caveats associated with that site.
At the bottom of Wiki articles is a list of references and links. One such link lead me to this YouTube video: Buffalo Bill Dam Video
With a firm belief in the Educational Fair Use principle, here are a few screen captures from that video.
Starting with the workers inside and estimating their height and weight and knowing that the handrails are 42" high, I can start working out the dimensions of the windows, and from that the overall dimensions of the building.
Just getting started. More to follow.
A new scratchbuilding project. This one is inspired by another thread started by a new member. In that thread, the OP is looking for advice and info to accurately scratchbuild the power plant at a Cleveland Electric Generating Station in Ashtabula, Ohio. His plant is different, but similar in style and era.
My project is in the very earliest stage of the scratchbuilding process: researching the prototype and making design decisions. I will try to update in real time as I go along.
This is the power plant at the Buffalo Bill Dam near Cody, Wyoming, just a little ways down the road from where I live.
Here're a coupla photos:
One thing I pointed out in that other thread is that these buildings would not look out of place on any college campus. Different era; different considerations regarding construction costs.
I've done a little work on the narrative. Mostly correcting place names and syntax, but I've also fleshed out the paragraph regarding locals and turns:
ROBERT PETRICKAs mentioned in my previous post, this is an attempt to copy-and-paste the rough draft of my operation scheme. I don't know how this will show up on anyone's screen, and I realize that the narrative is a bit . . . umm . . . wordy, so I apologize in advance for any problems or inconvenience.
Hi Robert,
Your operations narrative shows up just fine on my desktop.
I am impressed by the amount of thought that you have put into your operations. My goal is to simply be able to run trains on my own layout. Formal operations are a distant thought. Perhaps I have that the wrong way around. You already have me thinking of how to add a separate yard as a wing on my layout.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Here's a sketch showing the lower level of the layout drawn to scale. The purpose of this exercise is to work out the official designations of the various features of the North Shore Yard so that my operations narrative and car cards and waybills can be worked out. The sketch shows the trackage as it is installed today using Kato Unitrack. There can be (and almost certainly will be) more iterations in the future.
The heavy line is the mainline and is designated as the Lower Main. It is 4.94 scale miles in length (including helix trackage) and is demarcated with mile posts as shown in green on the sketch. Mile Post 0.00 is at the turnout where the mainline diverges from the upper level.
The light lines are the various yard tracks. They are labeled with their official designation, and the number shown in red indicates the number of standard 65' cars that can be safely stored on each block of track. A few more could be stored, but I don't like the idea of things being so tight that coupler slack needs to be taken out to squeeze in one more car.
Mainline traffic can bypass the yard entirely. There are six points of access to the yard from the mainline (MP 2.08, MP 2.62, MP 2.93, MP 3.15, MP 3.52, and MP 4.94), and these points are labeled with Yard Limit signs to clearly demarcate the domain of the Yardmaster.
As mentioned in my previous post, this is an attempt to copy-and-paste the rough draft of my operation scheme. I don't know how this will show up on anyone's screen, and I realize that the narrative is a bit . . . umm . . . wordy, so I apologize in advance for any problems or inconvenience.
SeeYou190 Do you have somehing built into the side of the layout to hold them? Sorry if I missed the answer if you posted it earlier. -Kevin
Do you have somehing built into the side of the layout to hold them? Sorry if I missed the answer if you posted it earlier.
-Kevin
Hey Kevin-
I'm doing all this stuff off-the-cuff and writing it up as I go along. But yes, I do have a plan for some sort of car card boxes, and I don't think I've mentioned it yet. I'm also working on an overall Operations Narrative. I'm not sure how I'm gonna post that because it is about two pages in MSWord format and includes some highlighting and bullet points. I'll figure it out later. Maybe a paragaph or two at a time with circles and arrows . . .
One issue I had in my previous limited operating experience on other model railroader's layouts was that the car card boxes stuck out into the (narrow) aisles and always drew a crowd around them.
My layout has wide aisles, so that will help a little, but I don't want the fascias to be too overloaded with stuff. Most of the card activity will occur on the lower level yard, but there will be several small boxes placed on the upper level in the vicinity of and within easy reach of the various yards and industries.
The boxes will not attach directly to the fascia, but will be be supported from the underside of of the benchwork and bolted (with large removable wingnuts) to the 2x4s that make up the major framework. I'll post photos and info on the design and construction of the boxes as I get there.
Thanks for your input.
ROBERT PETRICKLooking at the image, I couldn't help but notice someone misspelled 'PLUG'. Dang!!
I actually mispelled a city once when I was decalling a freight car once. Dang!
Your card look great. Do you have somehing built into the side of the layout to hold them? Sorry if I missed the answer if you posted it earlier.
My printer said I had to change the settings for cardstock, but I never figured out how to do it. I just ran the cardstock through on normal paper seting, and had no problems.
Living the dream.
Here're a couple of photos showing the car cards and waybills printed on 65-lb card stock. The first shows a full sheet of 12 waybills printed front and back (though only one side is visible in this photo, duh) with two cut out and flipped over. The second shows a full sheet of 6 car cards (front side only) with four cut out from a different sheet with two folded into position to form a pocket (though not yet taped).
EDIT Looking at the image, I couldn't help but notice someone misspelled 'PLUG'. Dang!!
hon30critter I bought a package of 110 lb. heavy paper (card stock?) a while ago. I intended to use it for making paper mock ups of scratchbuilt structures (for which it is excellent by the way) but I have also found that it is great for drawings that will be handled multiple times. It would be perfect for car cards and way bills. I have an HP 7520 printer which handles the heavier card stock quite nicely. It will also print double sided without having to touch the paper. Dave
I bought a package of 110 lb. heavy paper (card stock?) a while ago. I intended to use it for making paper mock ups of scratchbuilt structures (for which it is excellent by the way) but I have also found that it is great for drawings that will be handled multiple times. It would be perfect for car cards and way bills.
I have an HP 7520 printer which handles the heavier card stock quite nicely. It will also print double sided without having to touch the paper.
Hey Dave -
I'm using 65-pound card stock for both the folded pocket car cards and the slip-in waybills. I got some the other day from that Amazing Prime online retailer.
I searched that website, and the numbers were all over the place: 60-pound, 80-pound, 140-pound, 175 gpsm (grams per square meter), 273 gpsm, etc . . . even some odd gauge designations (regarding thickness, I suppose). Utterly confusing. You'd think there would be some correlation between pounds and gpsm, but there isn't. Also, it appears that poundage for card stock is different than poundage for cover stock.
Adding to the confusion is the official paper weight specs on the official HP printer technical support website. Completely unhelpful. The site says the max weight for my printer is 40-pound cover stock, which is about the specs for my company fancy letterhead.
The HP website also maintains a user forum as a source of helpful advice. No comment. Some users brag about ignoring the specs and using 120 pound stuff with no apparent issues . . .
Anyhow, I just took a wild guess and got a small 75-sheet pack for $6.99, including free 2-day shipping (five calendar days). Not too expensive in the overall scheme of things. I'm not too enthused about the idea of tossing away 74 sheets if necessary, but I'd be even less enthused about tossing away 249 sheets from a full pack.
The card stock is a little light, but I think it will serve the purpose, and it appears to feed smoothly. Plus, I can always find another use for it if it doesn't work out. Fold up paper buildings and intermodal containers come to mind . . .
If I were to use any sort of operating system for my planned one-man layout, it would be a card based system.
Your idea looks good Robert.
Yesterday, I posted an image of a skeleton view of car cards and waybills. The image showed the unassembled pieces superimposed on each other to work out the relative dimensions and show what is seen and what is hidden.
Here are two sheets camera-ready to go to the printer. I have an HP Inkjet printer that prints on both sides of the paper. The layout of the 'front' side and the 'back' side is arranged and aligned to give the final card the look that I designed. Those thin red outlines do not show up on the print. I only put them there to show forum readers the letter-size sheet edges.
The front-and-back printing process is done internally to the printer. In the old days, such an operation required that the first side be printed, then paper taken from the output tray and flipped over and loaded into the input tray, and then the second side prints. All the while hoping that the paper is aligned and that the sheets are fed in the proper reverse order. Let's hear it for modern technology!
Based on the sizes I chose that I (more or less) copied from the MicroMark store-bought system, I can print six car cards on a single 8-1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. The smaller waybills can be printed twelve at a time per sheet. I'll post images of the waybill layouts later.
hon30critter Hi Robert, The card system is interesting to me, primarily because I have a very limited understanding of operations. Reading them in detail has given me a little bit better understanding of the process, and it has caused me to study the potential for operations on my new layout. I have to confess that my primary goal so far has been to just get trains running around the layout and spotting a few cars here and there. This may cause me to rethink the industries on my layout. Thanks Dave
The card system is interesting to me, primarily because I have a very limited understanding of operations. Reading them in detail has given me a little bit better understanding of the process, and it has caused me to study the potential for operations on my new layout. I have to confess that my primary goal so far has been to just get trains running around the layout and spotting a few cars here and there. This may cause me to rethink the industries on my layout.
Thanks
I've operated on a few layouts and I've used a few different schemes. I am not an expert by any means, nor could I even be considered very experienced. What I'm trying to do is take the limited knowledge I have and do a little research and try to come up with a scheme that's appropriate for my situation.
Car cards and waybills seems to be a good place to start. It's fairly simple, straightforward, user-friendly, and easy to learn. There is no hard time limit on any given session. You can simply stop where you are and pick up where you left off the next day or the next week.
It's also pretty forgiving in that one mistake by one user or a couple of mistakes by several users will not gum up the works and bog down the system for everyone else.
There's a kind of self-correcting feature where lost cars and lost cards and lost waybills can be accounted for and rejoined and put back into service when they are found.
There's a kind of inventory control feature that I'm engaged in right now by making a roster of all rolling stock. When the system is actually deployed, by simply checking the car cards you can know where the car is located on the layout (or where it should be located) or whether it's in a shoebox or storage bin someplace.
A lot of possibilities. It looks promising. And it's a fun activity and diversion to be engaged in at this particular time. There's always more ballasting to be done.
Haven't posted lately because I've been a little busy. Normal work, house work, yard work (this is what might be called 'spring gardening season' in the high desert), and a little layout work. Layout work has been mostly ballasting (not very photogenic) plus working out my Car Cards and Waybills operation system (also not very photogenic, but I'll share what I've done so far).
These are just a few skeleton views of unassembled and unfolded sample car cards and waybills. The sizes are just about exactly the same as the kits from MicroMark. Unfolded car cards are 6" by 2.15", and 4.25" by 2.15" when folded into a pocket. Waybills are 3" by 2". The images of the cars are actually printed upside down on the other (back) side of the card stock so that they show right side up on the front of the pocket when folded and assembled. Skeleton view.
The AAR designations are probably not right because that car identification system is completely confusing, but I'll figure out something.
Progress.
ROBERT PETRICKLunde specifically designed their structures to incorporate this ease-of-painting idea. Also, some of their models are molded in several colors and require no painting at all.
That's good to know.
hon30critter Thanks for the additional details. I'm assuming that you are using your laser cutter to make the replacement windows.
Thanks for the additional details. I'm assuming that you are using your laser cutter to make the replacement windows.
Yes. Laser cutting the frames was a little quicker. Milling them on the micro-mill would have produced slightly smoother results but would have taken longer and required much more hand loading of the blanks, etc. It was a trade-off decision.
Obviously there are still lots of molded in details that will have to be painted separate colours. I guess that's when masking tape becomes your friend.
Painting is not my favorite activity, and I'm not very good at it. A much-welcomed trend in commercial scale models these days is that Atlas and Cornerstone et al are offering kits molded in three or four colors, greatly lessening the need for painstaking detailed painting. That suits me fine because I'm not overly finicky about following prototypical color schemes; close enough is close enough.
The Mayflower Hotel in Jacksonville is (was) a dark red brick masonry structure with natural tan sandstone trim features and details. The image on the cover of the Lunde box is also red with tan trim. My model will more or less follow those colors. The window frames will be painted nutmeg (kinda dark coffee brown like a nutmeg, surprisingly), the brick walls will be dull Tamiya red, the ground floor rusticated stonework will be a dignified shade of Sahara tan, and the cornices and balustrades will be left unpainted in their molded color of creamy white. The design of the building will make masking rather straightforward because the different building sections are clearly delineated. I think I read in the product literature that Lunde specifically designed their structures to incorporate this ease-of-painting idea. Also, some of their models are molded in several colors and require no painting at all.
So, we'll see.
hon30critter Hi Robert, Thanks for the photos. I believe that the window frames are separate moldings. Is that correct? That's one of the main reasons for my interest in the buildings. Do they have provisions for building larger structures out of several kits? Dave
Thanks for the photos.
I believe that the window frames are separate moldings. Is that correct? That's one of the main reasons for my interest in the buildings.
Do they have provisions for building larger structures out of several kits?
Hey Dave-
Yes. The window frames come in single sheets that are applied to the back (inside) of the wall sections. Assembling the wall units is a little maddening for a coupla reasons: 1) the windows are applied on the back (blindly), 2) difficulty lining up an array of 20 or so windows due to Item Number One immediately preceding and due to some slight distortions of scale and dimensions mentioned in a previous post, 3) expanding on Item Number Two . . . there are no tabs or slots or bumps or ridges or alignment nubs to help positively seat the window frames on the back of the wall section, and 4) personal problems using CA adhesive (also mentioned in a previous post).
In fairness to Lunde Studios, they do make provisions to mitigate some of the scale and assembly issues by adding scored lines to the sheet so that the windows can be broken apart into smaller unit arrays. And in double fairness to Lunde, the issues and distortions I'm talking about are not all that bad. They were a little more pronounced in the Juno Watt building, but even then the kit was certainly not poorly fabricated.
What I 've done is fabricate window frames similar to how Cornerstone or Atlas or Kato design their kit windows or how Grandt Line or Rix or Pikestuff fabricate their aftermarket window frames.
I did a quick informal calculation regarding time and material and decided that a two-by-two array of four window frames was the most efficient way to produce these things. But even so, there are a lot of these units required.
Still throughly enjoying this thread.
Cheers, the Bear,
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
ROBERT PETRICKHere's a photo of several typical wall sections showing front and back views. Keep in mind this is N scale, and as such the details are pretty good. Sharp edges to the cornices and balastrades and parapets, and pretty good alignment. Pretty sharp (and not too much over-scale) brick engraving. Some corners are sharply mitered at 45 degrees, and some are 90-degree square. Several use tabs-and-slots for alignment.
hon30critter ROBERT PETRICK Hey Dave- I'm trying to organize my thoughts and opinions about Lunde Studios. I hope I don't come across as too overly critical, and I hope everyone takes a broad look, and I hope others chime in with their observations and experiences. Hi Robert, Thanks for sharing your observations. Your cautions about warped walls are well appreciated. Although problems of that sort don't preclude me from buying the kits, it's nice to know what I might be in for. I hope others will comment on their experiences with the Lunde kits. Dave
ROBERT PETRICK Hey Dave- I'm trying to organize my thoughts and opinions about Lunde Studios. I hope I don't come across as too overly critical, and I hope everyone takes a broad look, and I hope others chime in with their observations and experiences.
Thanks for sharing your observations. Your cautions about warped walls are well appreciated. Although problems of that sort don't preclude me from buying the kits, it's nice to know what I might be in for.
I hope others will comment on their experiences with the Lunde kits.
Here's a photo of several typical wall sections showing front and back views. Keep in mind this is N scale, and as such the details are pretty good. Sharp edges to the cornices and balastrades and parapets, and pretty good alignment. Pretty sharp (and not too much over-scale) brick engraving. Some corners are sharply mitered at 45 degrees, and some are 90-degree square. Several use tabs-and-slots for alignment.
Like I said, N scale. I assume the HO scale buildings have as much or more detail and that they are just as carefully fabricated. I suggest you go ahead and get a kit or two. And, of course, post photos of your adventure.
Good luck.
ROBERT PETRICKHey Dave- I'm trying to organize my thoughts and opinions about Lunde Studios. I hope I don't come across as too overly critical, and I hope everyone takes a broad look, and I hope others chime in with their observations and experiences.
I have an HO scale Lunde Studios kit of the Falcon Tower building. I have inspected the parts, and it looks very good. I plan to use the kit to build two buildings, but time will tell.
I built an N scale Magnusen kit of the Victoria Falls Hotel, and had no problems assembling it with the Super Glues of the 1990s.
hon30critter ROBERT PETRICK I started on the store-bought kit just to see how things go. I have some early observations on Lunde Studio kits; but before I make any comments, I'd be curious to hear from others who have worked with them Hi Robert, I am contemplating using a couple of Lunde Studios HO kits on my new layout. I will be interested in hearing what you and others have to say. Dave
ROBERT PETRICK I started on the store-bought kit just to see how things go. I have some early observations on Lunde Studio kits; but before I make any comments, I'd be curious to hear from others who have worked with them
I am contemplating using a couple of Lunde Studios HO kits on my new layout. I will be interested in hearing what you and others have to say.
I'm trying to organize my thoughts and opinions about Lunde Studios. I hope I don't come across as too overly critical, and I hope everyone takes a broad look, and I hope others chime in with their observations and experiences.
I only have first hand knowledge of their N scale kits, and very limited at that. I have two: Ashbury Hotel and Juno Watt Electric Company. (Aside: I like the Ashbury name, but the Juno pun is a little too cutesy Allen-esque for me; but I digress.) They are part of a downtown line of office and commercial buildings that is a little more upscale than their DPM predecessors. And a little taller. They fall into the eight-to-ten-story range. I don't know the proper architectural term for their collective style. They appear to be typical 1920s and 1930s low rise skyscrapers. Some Art Deco and Beaux Art decorations and motifs. Terra cotta mosaics and scroll work under the windows and around the corners and whatnot. Crenellated roof terraces and egg-and-dart dentils. When paired with the low-rise two- and three-story DPM buildings, they give the sense of a (then) modern progressive town turning itself into a small city. Main Street USA on the move forward.
The Lunde kits are a little more finely detailed than the DPM kits. The brick work and stone work and the window sills and lintels are sharp, almost crisp. The scales and proportions seem about right. N scale, remember! But . . . the tilt-up wall sections are warped (not ridiculous, but not straight either), and adjoining sections are of slightly different size. The size irregularities really show up in the back-of-wall applique window details. The irregularities most likely come from the manufacturing process. From what I've read, the kits are made by rubber mold copies of the original pieces and parts and are cast in room-temperature liquid polyurethane resin. The parts are cleaned up and de-flashed somewhat after removal from the mold, and some are actually machined to a reasonable tolerance. But there are still some irregularities, some noticeable. I don't know how lenient I should be about this.
Notice the kits are polyurethane? That means they can only be assembled using CA adhesive. Not my favorite adhesive. Sticky. Messy. Even the slow stuff is pretty dang quick. I prefer styrene and ABS plastics so I can 'grind down' the solvent welded joints. Others may disagree.
Anyhow, the N scale kits are nice and I see no reason the HO versions wouldn't be as well. But I am looking for more input from others.
BTW, I will add a similar post asking similar questions regarding CMR structures. CMR (Custom Model Railroads), not CMR. I have a couple of those.
ROBERT PETRICKI started on the store-bought kit just to see how things go. I have some early observations on Lunde Studio kits; but before I make any comments, I'd be curious to hear from others who have worked with them
Here's a yard sale photo of a store-bought building kit I'm assembling. It is the Ashbury Hotel by Lunde Studios. N-scale, of course.
And a photo of the boxtop.
The kit is very similar to a scratch-build hotel I designed (but not yet built) a long time ago based on the Mayflower Hotel in Jacksonville, Florida.
I haven't done any work on my scratch build design, but I started on the store-bought kit just to see how things go. I have some early observations on Lunde Studio kits; but before I make any comments, I'd be curious to hear from others who have worked with them (especially the N-scale kits).