Layout Tour-Pete Nolan-Progress

I've edited the title, as we're are well beyond the first level, and almost to the top, thanks to Rick N's layout building party on the Layout Design thread.

I see that's there's only 8 images per post, so I'm editing on the fly:

We'll start with the roundhouse. I'm using overall views, rather than "scenic" views, as some members of all forums have said that these "helicopter" views are helpful. Check my railimages site for closer views. We'll follow a consist headed by Baldwin's 16-44 No 8807 around the first level. The second and third level will be visible at times above. We are heading true west.

Below we see 8807 exiting the roundhouse area and entering J-Town. There are four leads to the turntable, and the diesel yard is behind them. The yard entrance is the diverging route above the consist. The clamps await my visit into the access for the corner to correct some vertical misalignments.

Below, 8807 has turned from true west to true south at the north end of the yard. A seven-track yard lies between the front and rear buildings.

From the south end of the yard looking north, a Trainmaster prepares to leave the main yard with a 44-car ore train. Our train, 8807, is off to the right of this picture.

Train 8807 passes the south end of the yard, with a C2 freighter docked. I may need more dock room here, though docks are notoriously crowded.

Past the docks, 8807 has turned true west (OOPS, I meant EAST) and entered the Cape Cod Railroad Bridge. Past this bridge, 8807 is going to face a steep climb. The "upper bridges" are the destination, and the entry to the second level.

8807 leaves the west (EAST!!!) end of the bridge. The high bridges are the destination, so we have to gain about a foot of elevation. There is a mid-level track--perhaps abandoned, but perhaps leading to a loader for a ship. The dock in the foreground is just a mockup.

Now 8807 has turned back to true north and started up the 2.5% grade. An RDC waits on an inner track to run in the opposite direction.


[ 23. March 2004, 04:13: Message edited by: Pete Nolan ]

 

Colonel,

Thanks! I thinks there's bandwidth and interest for all of us.

Pete

 

Colonel,

Let me start out by saying that I know that I at least am going to "hang out" much more at Trainboard, as it is a very good Forum. There really has been some good discussion going on here.

In regards to Pete's work, I agree with you 100%; I especially love his work on the bridges (which are simply incredible) and on his vessels (he is a fantastic shipbuilder).

 

Colonel,

I'm going to hang out here a lot more too.

I've contributed to Railimages, and humbly suggest anyone who uses it make a contribution of whatever you can afford.

Paul, I hope your graciousness--evident well before the Atlas shutdown--serves you well.

Pete

 

Pete,
Perhaps an article on your experience with the multideck layout is in order. I have a multideck plan that is getting ready to be built. I would love to hear your thoughts on the use of shelf brackets with foam. It looks like a simple and strong method. At some point I may send my plan over to you so you can give it the okydoky to procede order. Thanks for giving us overhead views. I am going to be leaning on you a lot in the coming months when I break ground on my own multidecker. You ships and bridges are wonderful.

I have a few questions:
Do the rope lights provide enough light?
What is the width of each deck and what is the distance between decks....Would you change it?
Will you build a bridge for me?

WELL DONE!!!!!

 

Brew,

I had a problem attaching the foam to the wire racks, eventually resorting to bailing wire looped through the foam around a number of the wires. And it's not as steady as I'd like. I originally did it because I thought I would save vertical space--yet the shelf brackets are almost as thick as 1 x 3s. I think I could have cantilevered something out of wood that would be as strong and thin--and much cheaper. Still, it worked out OK.

The bottom shelf is 20" wide; with a 4" extension for the ships. The two other shelves are 12" wide. They are separated by 15". That's the "west wall." On the east wall, I have only two decks, as the third would have gotten too high. This wall is built on top of 36" high cabinets, and is constructed almost entirely of foam--I used it like plywood for vertical supports. I would not change the spacing--it works well.

The rope lights are just supplements for the halogens on a track down the middle of the room. By themselves they would not provide enough light.

Writing for the hobby magazines doesn't pay enough to really interest me, except as a possible tax write-off. I had more than enough real work last year. I may do an article on long-span bridges as a favor to one of the editors--but don't hold your breath.

Sorry, I'm not considering building bridges for others right now--it falls into the same category as writing for the hobby pubs.

Be glad to look over your plans.

Pete

 

You guys are always welcome to the "Family" here on the TrainBoard, especially when you bring photos of such interesting workmanship!

 

This is a nice Family, watash. You're now on my Favorites list, so I'll check in regularly.

Pete

 

Alan,

I've been building the layout for a little more than a year. I finished the room in about Sept 2002, but didn't get started until all the Fall chores outside had been completed.

The ships are almost entirely scratchbuilt. I did have a source in Florida for winches, anchors. etc. but I've lost his email and he doesn't seem to be plying his wares on eBay any longer. The ships are a challenge to build, especially the railings and cranes. The mahogany hulls are actually pretty easy, but then I have a monster sanding disk to do most of the work. Here's a straight-down view of a 1957 fast, refrigerated tanker:



And another view of it on the open sea:


The open sea is actually my garage floor, with a little color substitution

Pete

 

While everybody is commenting on the great model work and scenery, I want to say the photo work is tops as well. The Photography and Trains forum would benefit if you could give us some insight on how you did these great pix.

 

Pierce,

I have the advantage of owning a Nikon D100, which is a 6 megapixel digital slr that uses Nikon's lenses. I usually use either a 12-24mm or 24-85mm lens, which have good close-focusing capabilities, although I have close-up lenses for both.

I use lots of light. When I'm really serious, that includes at least four photofloods. The idea is to light the whole scene evenly, then use one flood to accent the foreground.

I use the smallest aperture, usually F22. The D100 has different focusing zones, so I play with them until I get the most acceptable focus. Or I go manual when the autofocus is confused.

I use a very sturdy tripod, and turn on the "delay" feature, so that mirror bounce is eliminated. I've found that camera shake is the single largest contributor to blurriness.

I use the lowest ISO setting, which is 200 on the D100. And I shoot 17 Mbyte TIFFs, although I am experimenting with the RAW mode now that Photoshop understands it (well, we'll see about that). Now, taking a 17 Mbyte TIFF down to a 100K jpeg really destroys the true capabilities of the camera. I have 13" x 19" prints of some of my pictures that are incredibly sharp--although 11 x 17 is the general maximum--it depends on the details in the shot.

The rest is composition--and I think that's something you simply learn over time. When you think you are close enough, get even closer. I consider myself a very good "people" photographer because I'm not afraid to get real close. There are all sorts of guidelines for composition, but I just shoot what looks good to me.

That's about it--no secrets, really--although knowing how to use Photoshop really comes in handy. Photoshop is expensive, but I need it for my real work, so I have become proficient at "tweaking" images (or just plain faking them) for the best reproduction.

Pete

 

friscobob,

Check out my Railimages account. Here's three rather primitive "planning views" from it:

First level:


Second level:



Third Level:


I've made some modifications since I drew these, most notably going to a double track up to the third level and some additional sidings, but these are pretty accurate.

Pete

 

I'm wondering--(besides a shameless bump)--is there enough detail in the track plan for viewers to understand what I'm trying to do? What else do you need? I can do the full tricked-out illustration, as I did for the old layout:



But with 100k limitation, which I fully understand, it's hard to present it correctly, with enough resolution.

What think ye?

Pete

 

Like I said be fore Pete,great work!!!That boat is ,again,GREAT!!!!!!!!Mike