This was my first time working with water. I needed a pond under the bridge. I used WS realistic water. I ended up with 4 seperate pours of about 1/8".
I used some sheet styrene and clear caulk around the edges so I could work on it without the bridge in the way.
I mixed some testors paint into the water before I poured it. It was too green, so I had to adjust the color and do another couple of pours. The paint mad it dry with a dull-ish finish, so the final pour was clear and the finish was glossy.
Got the bridge peers painted and installed.
This is the final result, (I still have to finish ground scenery and ballast)
Let me know what y'all think.
Thanks,
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
Looks good!!!!!
The final color looks great. I used an alternative method of coloring my pond. I painted the base, feathering each subsequent color. That way, I had a pretty good idea what it would look like once I made the pours. I used the gloss version of ModPodge. I also tried my hand at drybrushing highlights on the final pour. I just checked, and I don't have any pics of it. Oops!
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Michael,
I'm not sure which one I like better.
That first photo of the water looks great too.
I suppose it is all about what effect you are looking for.
Very nice work.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrainMichael, I'm not sure which one I like better. That first photo of the water looks great too. I suppose it is all about what effect you are looking for. Very nice work. Rich
Rich,
Oh really? Ya the first pour was also more clear, and you could see the bottom of the pond better. I painted the bottom with dark grey and green to try to give the illusion of depth. But when I adjusted the color with dark blue, it just covered the bottom.
I appreciate the feedback guys, thanks!
When you add paint to Realistic Water, it only takes a couple of drops.
I usually dip a disposable swizzle stick into the paint and then into the water and stir it with a quarter inch flat bit in my cordless drill.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Michael -
OK, somebody has to ask... Why would there be such a regularly shaped "pond" directly under a bridge and nowhere else? I'm hardly a rivit counter and usually do things in modeling, "just because", but that seems a little out of place.
Archer
I don't think we would be able to see the bottom of a pond unless the water were routinely treated with floculents...which is highly unlikely. Ponds get warm faster, are subject to surface run-off from nearby agricultural facilities, and will almost always have a bloom or some turbidity that makes them largely opaque at depths greater than about 2'.
Secondly, it is how they look at the surface that is something like 60-70% of the realism that we seek as modellers. We need to see a realistic surface realistically reflecting a credible sky blue. This means we need to have nearby panels or a backdrop able to reflect the appropriate blue back onto the surface.
I think you have the right idea, and generally the right execution in terms of the 'water', but I would agree that now you need to figure out how to make the shoreline look more natural.
I'm not showing photos of my first water course. I have moved on... My second is many times better, but took some thinking and about two years before I knew what it needed to bring it up to a level of realism that even I could appreciate.
-Crandell
While I think that your water looks pretty good, I have to agree with Archer regarding the size and shape of the "pond". A real railroad would have either skirted the pond or filled it in. Turning the "water" ninety degrees to the bridge would make it look better, as it would more closely represent what you'd usually see in real life. This would also give you an opportunity to install bridges under those foreground tracks, which would increase the visual appeal.
Wayne
doctorwayne Turning the "water" ninety degrees to the bridge would make it look better, as it would more closely represent what you'd usually see in real life. This would also give you an opportunity to install bridges under those foreground tracks, which would increase the visual appeal. Wayne
Turning the "water" ninety degrees to the bridge would make it look better, as it would more closely represent what you'd usually see in real life. This would also give you an opportunity to install bridges under those foreground tracks, which would increase the visual appeal.
I have to agree, I'm by no means a "rivet" counter (for lack of a better term) but the pond just jumped out at me, and you have a very substantial bridge above it
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the feedback. It should look alot better with the cornfield/farm background. I still plan to do more work on the shoreline, like adding some dirt and grass along the edge near the track.
I'm not sure how I can extend the pond outwards more naturally with those other sets of track in place. Any suggestions how I could accomplish this without major surgery?
Maybe I could paint the shoreline far edge of the pond against the wall to make it look like the pond is bigger off the layout?
MotleyThanks for the feedback. It should look alot better with the cornfield/farm background. I still plan to do more work on the shoreline, like adding some dirt and grass along the edge near the track.I'm not sure how I can extend the pond outwards more naturally with those other sets of track in place. Any suggestions how I could accomplish this without major surgery?Maybe I could paint the shoreline far edge of the pond against the wall to make it look like the pond is bigger off the layout?Thanks,Michael
Michael, starting from the edges, try brushing some straight white glue on top of the pond, making it a more irregular shape. Once you get it to the shape you want, sprinkle on some of the same material as the surrounding landscape. Build it up slowly, and once you've planted some weeds, tall grass, etc. in the new area, it should all blend together.
Medina1128Michael, starting from the edges, try brushing some straight white glue on top of the pond, making it a more irregular shape. Once you get it to the shape you want, sprinkle on some of the same material as the surrounding landscape. Build it up slowly, and once you've planted some weeds, tall grass, etc. in the new area, it should all blend together.
OK I'm doing what you suggested and I also painted the far side shoreline blue so now it's a bigger pond going off the layout.
I think it looks good. Before it was placed under the bridge I couldn't see it but it once there the color matched.
Springfield PA
OK so I painted the far shoreline to give the illusion the pond is bigger off the layout. And I also made the track shoreline more irregular shaped, and some grass/weeds. Once I ballast that part of the track and more scenery around the bridge it should look pretty good.
Let me know what you think now.
That latest enhancement looks pretty good.
One possibility is to place a mirror under and behind the bridge to give the illusion of any even bigger body of water. The bridge would hid the mirror from view. Might be worth a try.
richhotrainMichael, That latest enhancement looks pretty good. One possibility is to place a mirror under and behind the bridge to give the illusion of any even bigger body of water. The bridge would hid the mirror from view. Might be worth a try. Rich
Thanks Rich! That's a great idea. I will see what it looks like after a put the cornfield backdrop in, then I'll experiement with a mirror.
MotleyI'm not sure how I can extend the pond outwards more naturally with those other sets of track in place. Any suggestions how I could accomplish this without major surgery?
You could raise up the track closest to the bridge by 1/4 to 3/8 inch (hopefully not too great a grade to do this), then extend the pond closet to the other two tracks. Span the water with a plate girder bridge or two on the close track. Add a culvert under the other two tracks for a stream to flow into the pond.
The water could be done in place, make a dam out of plaster or silicone sealer. then do a new pour of water. You probabaly would have to remove the existing water because it would be difficult to do a color match from the existing to the new.
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
selectorWe need to see a realistic surface realistically reflecting a credible sky blue. This means we need to have nearby panels or a backdrop able to reflect the appropriate blue back onto the surface.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
Painting the back side to match the water was a neat trick. Definitely created th illusion that the pond was larger. What kind of material is under the foreground tracks? If they're mounted on foam or something fairly workable, maybe consider carving a feeder stream under the trackage, emptying into the pond? You could place culverts or short timbers carrying the tracks across. Just a thought. Anyway, I think you've got some good ideas going.
Chuck
Grand River & Monongah Railroad and subsidiary Monongah Railway
GRAMRRMichael, Painting the back side to match the water was a neat trick. Definitely created th illusion that the pond was larger. What kind of material is under the foreground tracks? If they're mounted on foam or something fairly workable, maybe consider carving a feeder stream under the trackage, emptying into the pond? You could place culverts or short timbers carrying the tracks across. Just a thought. Anyway, I think you've got some good ideas going.
Thanks Chuck. I have 2" layer of pink foam. I might just do what you suggest here and make a little stream under the tracks. I think that might be doable without ripping the track out.
OR - even a low swampy area coming off the near edge of the pond, with low timber trestles carrying the track over. Either scenario could make for an interesting scene - the stream with flowing water and detailed bottom or mucky swamp with lots of weeds, etc.
I like it! I don't know what you have under the three tracks in the foreground. I had an area with a small trestle, but it didn't look quite right with the 2 other tracks in the foreground. So, I traced an extension toward the front of the layout. Using my Dremel, I cut the tracks about 4" on either side of it. Once the track was removed, I carved out the foam making a small ravine. I made abutments for each side of the ravine for each track, then made some more trestles. The tracks are for a logging area, so the trestles weren't too elaborate. My ravines are dry washes, mind you, but I could have just as easily created a *** for the leading edge and made a water pour. My hat's off to you, Michael, as you've taken all this "advice" in stride. Keep the pics coming. It's been said that white beadboard isn't very desirable for scenery. As you can see from the pics, I used it just fine. It just makes a bigger mess. That's why God invented shop-vacs, wasn't it?
Can you suggest some bridges for me? I'm not sure which ones to use.
Maybe something like this: bridge or this short trustle
I made mine from some scraps of 1/8" wood paneling. You can find small square sheets of birch at Michaels. I have some pilings that were cut from trestle supports that I'll use to replace the rectangular ones with.
Marlon, that is AWESOME!! You did a great job on that. Can you come over and do that for me? LOL
Thanks for the ideas, I really appreciate the help.
Yes, the water feature is well executed, but the location makes no sense at all. You've created a completely implausible scene. Railroads avoid building expensive bridges, especially through trusses that limit clearances, whenever possible. If the pond absolutely positively has to be there, then a simple girder bridge would be more appropriate, since there's no apparent reason to maintain a minimum clearance over the water line.
Yeah, yeah yeah... rule #1 yadda yadda. It still looks wrong.
If I was the chief engineer on this job, I'd order a few carloads of fill dirt and dispense with the bridge altogether. Sure it wouldn't look as cool, but it would look a lot more realistic!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
wm3798Yes, the water feature is well executed, but the location makes no sense at all. You've created a completely implausible scene. Railroads avoid building expensive bridges, especially through trusses that limit clearances, whenever possible. If the pond absolutely positively has to be there, then a simple girder bridge would be more appropriate, since there's no apparent reason to maintain a minimum clearance over the water line.Yeah, yeah yeah... rule #1 yadda yadda. It still looks wrong. If I was the chief engineer on this job, I'd order a few carloads of fill dirt and dispense with the bridge altogether. Sure it wouldn't look as cool, but it would look a lot more realistic!Lee
Here's a through truss bridge over a pond, well maybe the creek ends at the pond. But they still built a truss bridge over what seems to be a small body of water. So it's not that un-realistic.
Ah, but that's a relatively light weight highway bridge, built with tax payer money, and probably with plenty of kickbacks to the local politicians. Railroad bridges have to help the railroad turn a profit, or at least minimize the expense side of the ledger. I'm sure if you dug deep enough you could find a prototype photo that does what you want it to do. But realistic model railroad scenes tend to portray the more typical situations that are out there.
There are plenty of bridges on the Santa Fe and Union Pacific that cross dry river beds, so there's no water at all most of the time! But you can bet your sweet bippy when the spring rains come, the trains run right on time. For those prototypes, a bridge over nothing would be pretty typical.
I think the main problem with what I see in your shot is that it looks like you approached it backward. The natural landscape would always be there first (even though that's usually the last part of the layout we build!) and the railroad should look like it's doing it's best as it crosses that landscape.
Yours looks like you wanted a bridge, and you forced a square pond into the scene so you could justify having the bridge. It just doesn't ring true.
The other scene with the several bridges crossing the same gulch works because the setting is a labrynthine logging line. He suggests a good solution to your problem.
For instance, instead of having a pond under your bridge, you could taper it into a culvert under the tracks in the foreground. The tributary to the pond would empty into it, and the scene would make more sense. It would also help to make the pond into a stream or river, and have it extend to the back edge of the layout, where it can be blended into the backdrop to give the impression that it goes on into the distance.
Not the best picture, but it gives you the idea. This shelf is about 12" deep, and the water is simply gloss acrylic medium brushed over the painted plywood surface. The rough plywood grain provides the ripple effect.
I hope I'm not coming across too preachy. You did a really good job modeling the water feature, I'm just trying to help you understand how to make the scene look more realistic.
Thanks Lee, I appreciate your criticism here. I want to make the scene believable, but you're right, I had the bridge first and put the water under it after the fact. I wanted a bridge scene and didn't think enough ahead. I'm still new at all of this, it's really my first layout since childhood. That's why I come on these great forums to learn.
So, let's make it beleivable, since the other two tracks are for the ethanol plant, how about a creek in between the two mainline tracks and then dumping into the pond.
Like this...