Ben B Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 3 hours ago, Halvarras said: Some real 'outside the box' railway modelling there! For some reason those latter scenes remind me of the 1983 movie 'Spacehunter - Adventures in the Forbidden Zone' starring Peter Strauss and Molly Ringwald (I'd be interested to know if anyone's ever heard of it?!) I've heard of it :) when I was younger, my mum worked some evenings so it became tradition to watch a Western or a Sci-Fi film with Dad whilst she was out. From what I remember of Spacehunter, the director saw Staw Wars and Road Warrior, and thought "I'll do that too! AND on a third of the budget!" ;) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 11 hours ago, Ben B said: Given that a lot of my model-making with railways over the years has been for unusual art projects...... THAT photo is in the wrong Thread!!! 😉😁👍👍👍 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) I'll just leave this here.... video is in real time, not speeded up. Edited July 17 by F-UnitMad 1 1 1 1 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halvarras Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ben B said: I've heard of it :) when I was younger, my mum worked some evenings so it became tradition to watch a Western or a Sci-Fi film with Dad whilst she was out. From what I remember of Spacehunter, the director saw Staw Wars and Road Warrior, and thought "I'll do that too! AND on a third of the budget!" ;) And the director of the James Bond movie 'Moonraker' saw Star Wars and thought "I'll do that too and on TWICE the budget!" 😁 Edited July 17 by Halvarras 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted August 11 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 11 Also posted elsewhere and not trains, but here's some model boats I (and Dad and the neighbours' sons) made from off-cuts of wood, in my childhood. They were to populate a dock (well, the carpet) when I had my Matchbox dockside set all laid out. Scale is best described as "various". Why there might have been a, aircraft carrier, frigate and a submarine in my imagined equivalent of Heysham, I'm not sure and yes, I do now understand the political sensitivity of my fictional ferry operator..... 6 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeithMacdonald Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 14 minutes ago, Northmoor said: Why there might have been a, aircraft carrier, frigate and a submarine in my imagined equivalent of Heysham, I'm not sure and yes, I do now understand the political sensitivity of my fictional ferry operator..... I wondered where Calmac and Ferguson had got their design ideas from. Now I know. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
25kV Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 36 minutes ago, Northmoor said: Also posted elsewhere and not trains, but here's some model boats I (and Dad and the neighbours' sons) made from off-cuts of wood, in my childhood. They were to populate a dock (well, the carpet) when I had my Matchbox dockside set all laid out. Scale is best described as "various". Why there might have been a, aircraft carrier, frigate and a submarine in my imagined equivalent of Heysham, I'm not sure and yes, I do now understand the political sensitivity of my fictional ferry operator..... 😲 Well, here's a staggering coincidence for you ... These are the only remaining (and sadly worst-finished) examples of my Carpet Boats, that I built with my grandad back in the early 1980s. The earlier ones were much more elegant, with hints of Windermere's Teal and Swan to them, and neatly filed and sanded into smooth shapes. Lion and Lord of the Isles here were latter-day creations, where I was clearly more interested in hacking things into the "right" general shape as quickly as possible. 5 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 I posted about my US O Scale 'pizza' layout earlier in this Thread. Things have got even more unrealistic with the addition of a 3rd rail for On30 stock to have a spin on. This has, in turn, led to an interesting operation possibility.... There was no racing going on during that play time, honest..... 🙄😇🤦♂️🤣🤣 5 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfish Posted August 13 Share Posted August 13 On 13/07/2024 at 22:38, F-UnitMad said: There is some debate in O Scale concerning minimum radii, especially for UK stock with scale 3-link couplings. 4ft seems to be pushing it, even with short engines & 4 wheel wagons. But what minimum radius could a short American O Scale engine & caboose get round?? Turns out, it's about 9+5/8th inches.... If you take MOROP's recommendations in NEM 111 as the absolute limit, then their recommendation of a maximum "attack angle" between wheel and rail results in a minimum radius of 2.4 times the wheelbase for rigid 4-wheel stock. You might be able to go smaller, I have successfully managed to run on 170mm radius tram tracks. The limit is greatly reduced by having deep flanges, hence the reason for the fine scale wheels on Hornby tinplate. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JZ Posted September 3 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 3 When the S&D needed a bit more oomph over the Mendips. Baltimore & Ohio EM-1 2-8-8-4. (the broken handrail has been repaired, but was the reason I got it cheap) USRA 2-6-6-2 A tale of two T1s. LSWR T1 0-4-4T and Pennsylvania RR T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex. 8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, JZ said: When the S&D needed a bit more oomph over the Mendips. Baltimore & Ohio EM-1 2-8-8-4. (the broken handrail has been repaired, but was the reason I got it cheap) USRA 2-6-6-2 A tale of two T1s. LSWR T1 0-4-4T and Pennsylvania RR T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex. Good job the American locos are to a smaller scale, or they'd foul the station platform - or rip it out!! 😁 A good idea of the true size difference of Nth American & UK locos was when Class 66s were being moved to the docks by Canadian National.... 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeps Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 On 03/09/2024 at 15:40, JZ said: A tale of two T1s. LSWR T1 0-4-4T and Pennsylvania RR T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex. What a beautiful locomotive. Not sure about that object behind it though; something from a Batman movie?😃 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JZ Posted September 4 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 4 2 hours ago, Deeps said: What a beautiful locomotive. Not sure about that object behind it though; something from a Batman movie?😃 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Railroad_class_T1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelrailwayquest Posted September 6 Share Posted September 6 My layout 'Brief Encounter Monochrome' has no colour so very unrealistic 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted September 6 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 6 On 03/09/2024 at 17:12, F-UnitMad said: Good job the American locos are to a smaller scale, or they'd foul the station platform - or rip it out!! 😁 A good idea of the true size difference of Nth American & UK locos was when Class 66s were being moved to the docks by Canadian National.... Nah, that's not prototypical, the CN GE unit is HO with knuckle couplers fitted, and the Freightliner 66's are OO and fitted standard UK couplings, so how did they couple them up? The back scene looks too flat as well. Try again 🤣🤣🤣 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted September 6 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 6 3 hours ago, Modelrailwayquest said: My layout 'Brief Encounter Monochrome' has no colour so very unrealistic But your layout wasn't meant to be realistic, and from what I gather, it was your impression of the 1940's black and white film genre? It's success is it's simplicity and how it just 'stands out'. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted September 6 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 6 On 03/09/2024 at 15:40, JZ said: When the S&D needed a bit more oomph over the Mendips. Baltimore & Ohio EM-1 2-8-8-4. (the broken handrail has been repaired, but was the reason I got it cheap) USRA 2-6-6-2 A tale of two T1s. LSWR T1 0-4-4T and Pennsylvania RR T1 4-4-4-4 Duplex. Instead of the B&O standing for Baltimore & Ohio, could stand for 'Bath & over the Mendips' 🤣 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halvarras Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 (edited) "It's a Ruston 48DS 'Jim', but not as we know it!" I had to have one of these delightful little models and Jim's exquisitely printed wasp stripes gave this model a BR appearance (to my eyes anyway....), so in my version of reality BR obtained a second 48DS, some time after DS1169 hence the later cab, and numbered it consecutively but with more style than a car numberplate! Some very careful masking retained the nameplates' silver rims while the red-backed 'JIM' identity was infilled black and gloss varnished for the application of waterside transfers. This was (another) one of those times when having a boxfile stuffed with transfer sheets going back to the 1970s proved an advantage - the numbers came off an old SMS BR blue/grey coaching stock sheet 'A4', the incorrect condensed numerals allowing the number to be squeezed into the silver-outlined box - just! (The same sheet supplied the same solution to the Dapol-based Fruit C look-alike ENPARTS van DW1400 elsewhere on this thread). Having been brought into BR departmental service it deserved something other than a Conflat as a runner, and having recently modified a spare Dapol 5-plank wagon body to represent one of the two GWR 3-plank wagons W36459/60, being a straight clip-fit replacement it was the obvious answer. Whether either of these wagons lasted long enough to become departmental wagons is unknown, but the thread title covers it! Transfers in this case, 'DW' off the same 'A4' and numbers off another old SMS sheet, 'LA8' for wagons - bought two of those, decades of plundering even if they're not stunningly accurate. The fiddliness hurts my eyes a bit these days though........ (Is anyone else puzzled as to why Hornby hasn't done DS1169 yet....?) Edited September 8 by Halvarras Sorted out the transfer origins 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
009 micro modeller Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 I find it’s a bit more difficult to do something really outrageously unrealistic in 009 because narrow gauge railways are often a bit unusual and a lot of NG modelling is freelance, but for my contribution to the thread here’s a photo of a wire-electric Bo-Bo visiting a small watercress bed (freelance loco for a freelance project, but the watercress bed is based on a real location): It will visit again when it’s painted and finished. The bloke sitting on the plank eating his sandwiches was a bit surprised. As can be seen, the watercress farm owner has thoughtlessly neglected to put up any OLE for it, though even in 2-rail mode it can’t actually run that far as it doesn’t fit through the scenic break on the right. Ironically the (also freelance but rather more appropriate) railtruck on the left is what I used to consider a relatively large 009 loco. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 4 hours ago, Halvarras said: I had to have one of these delightful little models and Jim's exquisitely printed wasp stripes gave this model a BR appearance (to my eyes anyway....), so in my version of reality BR obtained a second 48DS, some time after DS1169 hence the later cab, and numbered it consecutively but with more style than a car numberplate! Harrumph!! Point of Order, for uber-Pedant Mode.... the Topic Title says "Unrealistic", not "Plausible but Freelance"..!!! I for one, not being at all familiar with the loco type in question, never mind it's BR service, would be none-the-wiser if & when your model is weathered a bit & shown on a nice layout - it could look realistic even if it's not prototypically correct!! I do apologise, Pedant mode /OFF..... 🤦♂️😉😁😁😁 1 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halvarras Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 4 hours ago, F-UnitMad said: Harrumph!! Point of Order, for uber-Pedant Mode.... the Topic Title says "Unrealistic", not "Plausible but Freelance"..!!! I for one, not being at all familiar with the loco type in question, never mind it's BR service, would be none-the-wiser if & when your model is weathered a bit & shown on a nice layout - it could look realistic even if it's not prototypically correct!! I do apologise, Pedant mode /OFF..... 🤦♂️😉😁😁😁 Point taken! It didn't really fit into the 'Fictitious Liveries' thread either. Perhaps a 'Plausible but Freelance Models' topic is called for.........or perhaps not, too much sub-division could get confusing! 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
009 micro modeller Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 5 hours ago, Halvarras said: Perhaps a 'Plausible but Freelance Models' topic is called for Too wide a topic I would think, as I mentioned above pretty much all non-prototype NG modelling would probably fit into that category. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halvarras Posted September 9 Share Posted September 9 5 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said: Too wide a topic I would think, as I mentioned above pretty much all non-prototype NG modelling would probably fit into that category. Not a problem for me as I don't make a habit of this kind of thing 🙂! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JZ Posted September 11 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11 This. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted September 11 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 11 38 minutes ago, JZ said: This. Absolutely agree, but now I've clicked on the link I'm afraid Google will start suggesting this kind of thing in future! 😲 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now