Thanks Robert - I’m honored to make a sketch for your consideration. I appreciate the opportunity share the idea with you!
Mike
Erie Lackawanna in Georgia I’m really enjoying your thread and watching progress you are making! Like the track plan but do have a question and/or suggestion if I can be so bold? I was an ironworker (Went to school at night) and I model a steel works similar to yours. Have you considered a small yard or run around track off the main? The amount of inbound and out bound cars might be difficult to manage by a crew with solely stub end tracks. Your main line crews could pick up and set out blocks of cars and the mill crews could keep up on the demands of a couple of furnaces. i hope you might find the suggestion worth considering! Mike
I’m really enjoying your thread and watching progress you are making!
Like the track plan but do have a question and/or suggestion if I can be so bold? I was an ironworker (Went to school at night) and I model a steel works similar to yours. Have you considered a small yard or run around track off the main? The amount of inbound and out bound cars might be difficult to manage by a crew with solely stub end tracks. Your main line crews could pick up and set out blocks of cars and the mill crews could keep up on the demands of a couple of furnaces.
i hope you might find the suggestion worth considering!
Hey Mike
Thanks for your comments and suggestion. I will give it some consideration.
Can you provide a sketch of what you have in mind? The layout plan shown early in this thread and on my blog is drawn to scale, and you can use that as someplace to start. Or, just draw something freehand and I'll try to noodle around with it. N scale, remember.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Robert! That bridge is really something!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
This is amazing. Your good work is becoming a real treat to look at. Keep up the good work!
I'm beginning to realize that Windows 10 and sound decoders have a lot in common. There are so many things you have to change in order to get them to work the way you want.
I cut out a few pieces and parts from a sheet of 3/16" basswood. The technical name for that white thing under the blank stock is a sacrificial spoil board. It is there to prevent cutting into the tooling plate or the machine table. Doing so would create indelible marks of shame and would earn considerable rebuke within the Sacred Brotherhood of Machinists, and make it considerably harder for me to earn my Junior Assistant Rookie Apprentice rating.
After a little preliminary sanding I cut the box smack dab in half, with each half forming the abutments for the high-level bridge.
Notice I said preliminary sanding; yes, there's quite a bit of effort involved in making wood look like concrete. The workflow goes something like this: sanding, sanding, sanding, primer, sanding, sanding, primer, sanding, top coat, sanding, and then finish coat. I suppose you could give short shrift to any of the above-mentioned steps, or even eliminate one or two here and there, but what would be the point?
A couple of photos showing a closeup of the North Shore abutment set loosely in place and an overall view. The opening to be spanned by the bridge is 6 feet wide by 27 inches deep by 9 inches high. It represents the San Juan River inlet (or outlet, depending on how you look at such things) to the deep water port that occupies the entire lower level of the layout. The high-level long-span bridge is required to allow ocean-going vessels to pass underneath.
The task today is building a simple square box from 1x6 basswood, 18" long by 4" wide by 3" deep. Flat and square on five sides, rough and open on the sixth (the back side, will never be seen).
Normal table saw work. Glued and clamped overnight. No nails or screws.
A little sanding to remove the blade marks and whatnot and then on to the next task.
I've been working on the high-level long-span Win Littlefield Bridge. It is located at the bottom center of the upper level track plan. Here's a photo.
Nowhere near finished of course, but it shows the current progress. This photo was taken in the work room (aka spare bedroom). The workbench is a 36" by 80" by 1-3/4" solid core door resting on two sawhorses. Not very complicated or elegant, but it is about 40 years old and is as solid and flat as it ever was. I sometimes use a large piece of 1/4" plate glass on top when I get persnickety about flatness.
The image shows the superstructure (the stuff above the bridge deck) on the left and the deck itself (upside face down in this photo) on the right. That gray thing under the superstructure is an architectural grade aluminum channel used for alignment and assembly. 'Architectural grade' means ". . . yeah, it's a little more expensive, but at least the edges are pretty square." It is 3"X1"X1/8" by 80" long (same length as the door). It is resting on two pieces of 1x4 ripped to 3.000" (to match the aluminum channel). Raising the channel gives the four bearing points of the superstructure room to extend below where the deck will be attached. Those shiny things with all the holes located at the mid point of the span are 1"x2"x3" machining blocks. They come in handy all the time to act as braces and support pilasters and as simple mass when assembling buildings and structures. I have a bunch of those in all sizes and shapes. A bunch of clamps, too. Square, flat, plumb, straight, level, perpendicular, etc. Words to live by.
The original plan was to fabricate, assemble, and install this bridge and write an article about the adventure. I had taken photos of some of the early fabrication and assembly, but I was not satisfied with the results. And the narrative of the process got a little cumbersome and started sounding . . . um, well . . . uninteresting. But the main issue was the mediocre-quality photos. My (old) camera had passed the 15-year mark and was beginning to show its age. Five megapixels is just not as great as it once was. So, I got a new camera. Arrived yesterday. I downloaded and installed Helicon Remote and Helicon Focus. They are specialized software packages to control cameras remotely (eliminate shaky and blurred images, even for tripod mounts) and create enhanced images to increase depth-of-field when photos are taken in cramped and enclosed spaces (such as in a crowded layout room).
Anyhow, this is the first photo. Not great. I am still pretty low on the learning curve, but I expect more to come in the near future.
Well Shazbot!
Robert, I was out in your neck of the woods a month ago and didn't think to let you know I'd be passing through. I would have loved to see your progress and meet you in person, and it completely slipped my mind.
Good to see you're still at it. I can't wait to see your finished version of the canyon.
I've also gotten started on my new version of the CB&Q in Wyoming. It'll be awhile before I get to Wind River Canyon. I'm hoping your finished work will provide me with inspiration and incentive!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
hon30critter Bull feathers!!!!
Bull feathers!!!!
Hey Dave-
That's pretty much what I thought. Well actually, it's about half of what I thought. I didn't know bulls had feathers.
ROBERT PETRICKSome people have said (only half-jokingly) that it is somehow unfair for me to use a CNC milling machine for scratch-building.
Bull feathers!!!! That's like saying you can't use a #11 blade to scratchbuild because it makes the cutting too easy. We should welcome new methods into the hobby. CNC is just another method of cutting various materials. It requires the same amount of thought (perhaps even more) to design the project, and it will be just as unique.
I haven't posted much lately, but that doesn't mean I haven't been busy. In addition to constant, regular, minor progress on the layout, I've been scratch-building the long-span high-level bridge shown at the bottom of the track layout plan. Here is a photo of the end of the lower deck:
Some people have said (only half-jokingly) that it is somehow unfair for me to use a CNC milling machine for scratch-building. Maybe they have a point. But nevertheless, I'm gonna take a moment to pat myself on the back.
I've been thinking . . .
There are a lot of modelers who take the one-square-foot-at-a-time approach to scenicking. I know some who do, and it's a perfectly good approach to take.
My approach is to bring up large areas of the layout at the same time at more or less the same rate. There are identified milestones along the way where the layout is in a stable condition and can be left idle indefinitely. One particular milestone even has a name: The Plywood Pacific (or something similar).
I reached the PP state about six months ago, and even had a Golden Spike ceremony; refreshments and high fives all around. All trackwork was in, all wiring was in, the Digitrax system was in and completely functional. I could run trains over every scale mile of the layout (and I did; you know, testing and whatnot). The layout was stable, and I could have left it that way for years.
At this point, the one-square-foot guys would focus on a small bite-sized area and do a soup-to-nuts scenick and install and paint everything from the bare naked plywood to the ground cover, the vegetation, the rockwork, the ballasting, the buildings, the structures, the mailboxes, the fire hydrants, the telephone poles . . . up to and including the little dog lounging on the front porch. Then move over a foot and do the same. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Like I said, a perfectly sound approach. My question is, how many take this approach to scenicking? This isn't a pop quiz, so there's no reason to panic. I'm just curious.
Thanks,
Very impressed! I visited your blog too, and your layout looks great! The best part is that you occasionally write funny things which make each post even more fun to read! Keep up the good work!
I haven't posted any updates in a while.
I generally wait until I have something photogenic to show so that I can post updated photos, but nothing I've done recently is particularly photogenic. I have been working on the layout, and I have been making steady progress. I've been working on the landforms, and the surfaces are pretty much complete. Most of the rock work in Wind River Canyon is in place, and a lot of it has been painted a base color of various mixed-in-place earth tones. There is still a lot to do with carving and shaping the faces, and there is a lot to do with adding color and shading and accenting here and there. I suppose the next photos I post will be of the canyon, in whatever shape it is in at the time.
Most of the layout is flat, and one thing I've been doing lately is taping and mudding the joints in the plywood, and then painting the entire surface with a coat of Sahara Sand. That will be the base color underneath the landscaping and whatnot, but for now what I wanted to do was the kind of seal the plywood and get rid of the textures and the grain. The top of the benchwork is 1/2" BC plywood. The B-side (the good side) has a bunch of football-shaped patches, and I wanted to cover those so that they don't show through even under the ground foam and landscaping. Another thing I've been doing is finishing the fascia. My goal was to have a continuous, unbroken edge with jointless seams and smooth curves. I also did not want exposed nail holes or screw heads. I think I've achieved that, and I'm pretty much satisfied with the results. But even so, the results don't photograph particularly well right now. Maybe after the fascia is painted.
Anyhow, here's my update. Hope it doesn't disappoint.
Looking good! Your rock work is moving along, with great results.
I used mock-ups too, mostly card board buildings, and hot glue. I think it's an excellent way to design and visualize, and get a handle on how much space a structure needs, or takes up. For me it helped locating my tight yard and industrial switching tracks.
Mike.
My You Tube
It's been a while since I last updated this blog.
Here are a couple of photos I posted in another thread, so I figured I might as well add them here.
Don't get too excited about the soup cans and mayonaise jars and matboard buildings. They represent buildings and structures and whatnot that I will scratchbuild soon. I'm a big believer in the concept of placeholders: those things you see are about the right size and shape, and I am always keeping an eye out and checking mass and volume and texture and viewpoint vistas. This stuff really helps. BTW, that smokestack is a 22" tapered table leg. It works out to about 300 scale feet tall; moderate size for a modern chemical-plant-paper-and-pulp-mill.
Still have a lot of other things to do. It's kinda hard to tell, but I am making progress.
Sunday afternoon, not much going on, nothing worth watching on TV, so I decided to CA glue a few ABS bases to NJI signal masts.
The closeup doesn't look all that good. A lot of strange reflections and whatnot. I guess close macro-focus needs a little work. Nevertheless, still making progress.
Brunton You're poaching my prototype, Robert! Just kidding, of course. The Wind River Canyon lends itself so well to modeling that I'm suprised we don't see more renditions of it.
You're poaching my prototype, Robert!
Just kidding, of course. The Wind River Canyon lends itself so well to modeling that I'm suprised we don't see more renditions of it.
Hey Mark-
I suppose you could make a pretty good case that I did steal your ideas. I've been working on my layout for about a year, but I've known about yours and your website for quite a while; several years, I guess. I don't remember exactly how I first saw the CB&Q in Wyoming. Maybe I came across it while doing online research, or maybe by just click-clicking on the link in your signature at the bottom of one of your posts. At any rate, you should feel kinda proud that your ideas are worth stealing. After all, people only steal the good stuff. Just kidding, of course.
To address one of your comments . . .
Last year, I wrote an article for the Layout Design Journal (here's a link to their website: LDSIG ) describing in detail how I went about researching, designing, and constructing the Wind River Canyon peninsula of my layout. In that article I mentioned that I have a pretty expansive view of the freelanced portion of freelanced prototypical (and now that I think about it, I'm also pretty fast and loose with the prototypical part as well). The Chief Washakie Bridge is about a quarter-mile downstream (north, towards Thermopolis) of Boysen Dam. Here's a photo:
It is not officially named that. I made up the name. I'm not sure it is named at all; and even if it is named, it probably has a cold hard designation like B17.1-53 or something. Not very romantic. Chief Washakie sounds way cooler. Plus, when you look at the photo and compare it to what I actually built, you'll see that I changed the design a little. For dramatic effect and whatnot. See previous paragraph.
Anyhow, glad to see you're gonna start building the CB&Q in Wyoming. I notice that the current layout as well as the website have been changed and updated. Good. I'll be following your progress.
Hey Robert,
In one thing to think about with the colors of your rocks is a term we used in scale modeling called scale color. Generally you want to lighten your colors as an item gets smaller from the original like 1:160. By lighting your color you help it look more natural and avoid that zebra strip look. Also a final wash of a neutral color might help tie the colors together.
If you already know all this disregard. I was just exited that there was something I could share besides great work comments.
RWSlater That is one of the challenges of modeling the west we just have such large open spaces. Living in northern Arizona I have no problem believing in the color of your rocks.
When people from out-of-state come to visit and we drive around, it's kinda hard to get them to grasp that the mountains they're looking at are 40 or 50 (or more) miles away. It's good to know there are modelers on this forum who understand the problems of trying to depict those expanses in a model that is only 2 or 3 feet away.
I'm a little nervous about using such a bold color for a fairly large section of rocks and still be able to show some of the other formations in their contrasting colors. I'm trying to get the overall feel for the place, and I don't want the whole thing to look like some zebra-striped birthday cake or something. And blogging about it in real time seems painfully slow. Thanks for your patience.
I'm curious as to the actual location of the Chief Washakie bridge. Is it before or after the Boysen Dam as you head north towards Thermopolis? I'm aware of the through truss bridge north of the dam, but know little about the area just south (except that there's a decent-sized tunnel there).
Also, will you be modeling any of the remnants of the line before it was realinged for the new dam? There is some rather prominent old grade and even an abandoned tunnel north of the dam. When I get home I'll post a couple of photos (right now I'm at the office).
I'm really looking forward to following your progress, especially as I plan to start my own version of this area in a few months, after I retire.
In case anyone thinks I'm exaggerating the colors (which, I admit, is a real possibility), here're a few actual rocks from the Chugwater formation. I chose small rocks because I plan to use them as boulders on my layout. I specifically looked for highly-fractionated rocks so that they wouldn't look too out of scale. Shown alongside a swatch from the local paint store.
Making progress.
I hope this doesn't come across like a dull geology class lecture . . .
Here is a brief description of the various prototype rock formations I am trying to capture, starting from the bottom and working upward:
The lowest rocks are pre-Cambrian basalt and mafic granites. They range in age from 1 to 3 billion years old (billion, with a b). Basalt is black, but when you look at the granites (standing back a little ways and squinting) they appear gray. But up close you see that they're black with little bitty white specks or they're white with little bitty black specks. With some areas tending toward green and pink. There are also streaks and inclusions of brilliant white quartzite here and there.
Above that is a thin, uniform layer of Flathead sandstone. About 400 million years old. Rusty brown and golden ochre. The layered look is easily effected by using 2" rigid Styrofoam insulation stacked pancake-style.
Above that are the Gallatin and Gros Ventre (pronounced grow-vahn) limestone formations. They are generally light in color, ranging from grayish-tans to light brownish-grays. They are blocky, craggy, and severely fractured. They are the source of the large boulders strewn all over the canyon. Some very large. I mean very large. The size of houses. Here's a photo of one that came to rest in the middle of the river. Casually sitting there today, just minding its own business.
That brings us to about track level. Next is the Chugwater formation. About 200 million years old. Red sandstone, ranging in color from burnt pumpkin to colonial brick red. I lived in Atlanta for 20 years, and believe me, Georgia clay pales in comparison.
Above that, and topping the layout, is the Madison limestone. It looks kinda like creamy yellow mottled clotted cottage cheese that is long past its expiration date and needs to be tossed out. The Madison is a surface aquifer and actually supports vegetation. Sparse vegetation. Very sparse. Wyoming. One thing about the Chugwater and the Madison is that the interface between them produces some interesting, typical Western sights: castle rocks, chimney rocks, and in extreme cases, table rocks. Out in the open plains, the rigid limestone sits comfortably atop the striated, layered sandstone and has done so for many eons. But, when a river cuts a rift and exposes the sandstone face, it crumbles like Granny's dry cornbread. When this happens the upper solid limestone is undermined and breaks off, leaving sheer vertical walls. I haven't seen any table rocks in Wind River Canyon, but there are plenty of chimneys and I hope to include one or two.
mbinsewi I'm anxious to see how your layout develops.
I'm anxious to see how your layout develops.
So am I. I've done rocks before, of course. Almost everyone on this forum has. But never this large. I'm not entirely certain how it will turn out.
I just took a Google ride North on 20, from the dam to Thermopolis. I loved the rugged rocks through Gold Creek.
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe When the scenery looks like that how could it be wrong? I love it and think that it might be the highlight of your layout. The spaces like that make the other places seem farther apart. It adds a lot of 'miles' to your layout.
When the scenery looks like that how could it be wrong? I love it and think that it might be the highlight of your layout. The spaces like that make the other places seem farther apart. It adds a lot of 'miles' to your layout.
Hey thanks, Lone Wolf. A specific design criteria is double mainlines throughout for long, continuous runs that allow trains to stretch their legs. I like trains to run; to pick up stuff here and deliver it over there, and over there is usually a long way away with lots of nothing in between. Open space, fresh air, panoramic vistas; that sort of thing. I like the empty scenery.