These are from the Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway this morning just before the Santa Special ran over them. I am going to have to rethink my approach to model track laying. ;D
I love this crossing, I would not have been happy of my model looked like that.. it just goes to show.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49146459512_365381c728_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49145764903_865c99510c_k.jpg)
I'm in two minds over making models look run down. Yes there is wear and tear and lack of investment. Trains and the surroundings won't stay looking like they were when first built, but some of them never existed long enough to look completely decrepit.
It is hard to tell precisely from grainy old film, but footage of "last days" often show worn but tidy places:
Leek and Manifold (1904-1934)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5JdLg-Oao (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU5JdLg-Oao)
Southwold (1879–1929)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygtjCLh4YBs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygtjCLh4YBs)
Unless they were thrown together really badly in the first place I'm fairly sure railways would still look reasonably presentable after 30 years of use. I'm sure there are a plenty of buildings and roads around today that have not had major refurbishments in the last 30 years and are still serviceable.
Likewise with vegetation. There is a limit to how much plants grow in 30 or 50 years. Things are likely just to be looking "established" and no longer like a newly build housing estate.
The line above was laid in 1905 for transporting material from the Thames to the paper Mill then paper from the factory to the main line in Sittingbourne, plus shuttling workers. It was passed to the preservation Society in 1969 who have run it since.
It has a great atmosphere and the important bits are well looked after, and in many respect that is the atmosphere I want for my layout, so I think I am about to save a fortune on ballast chips :-)
I think you're right, Stephen - on many lines the ballast was barely discernible. That's not to say there never was any, but with time it became overgrown and clogged with mud, clay and whatever, and was never going to get cleaned. Provided trains ran (more or less) okay with not too many derailments there was no incentive to make track look pretty.
You're also correct that the wobbly track was very much the 'look' of many n-g lines, and indeed part of their charm, but the problem with trying to replicate it in an 009 layout is that it will probably create endless problems with poor contact, stalling and derailments. Best avoided, I suspect!
David.
I must admit I've not seen track like that since the 70's at Leighton Buzzard, perhaps I've been living a very sheltered life :P,.It makes a change however from the nearly main line standard that is to be seen on many preserved lines these days.
John Bruce.
Depends what you are trying to model. Early preservation era certainly threw that sort of stuff up, but it's also worth remembering that the Real Life stock has fully compensated suspension and will have worked at quite slow speeds (especially with paying public on board!)... Personally I try to vary the ballast, some parts old, some new and some in between. But i won't sacrifice running qualities for "realism" so nice though they look they are not something I would model except for the grass in between the rails! Stephen, if you really want to model more "decrpit" track have you thought of using radio control? Then pickups don't matter!
Quote from: Hobby on December 01, 2019, 09:03
if you really want to model more "decrpit" track have you thought of using radio control? Then pickups don't matter!
No I haven't, my last R/C project was a Robot Wars contestant, so my receivers are bigger than my locos. :laugh: I do need to look into it though.
I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!
However it is ballasted track, it is just that you can not see the ballast!
Brian Meldon
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 02, 2019, 09:39
I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!
That would be a modelling challenge, one of my refurbished locos jumps the track when it goes over a shadow.
Quote from: Stephen Rainsbury on December 02, 2019, 12:55
Quote from: B.Meldon on December 02, 2019, 09:39
I have seen the S&KLR looking a lot more overgrown that this. There are times in the summer months when in places you can not see the rails!
That would be a modelling challenge, one of my refurbished locos jumps the track when it goes over a shadow.
Yes indeed 009 track has to be spot on with no kinks at the joints, no dips or steps in the rails. It is far more critical than with 00. It just has to be spot on or you get problems.
This is good narrow gauge track! You should see the photos of some of the industrial systems that previoulsy existed here in the UK.
Yes it is imposiable to model poor track in 009 even with radio control things will still come off on poor track.
Brian Meldon
One possible approach is to make the track look worse than it actually is - actually level and no kinks but with the appearance of neglect. Even this needs care. There have been reports of static grass strands getting caught in loco gearing and loose ballast in the wrong place can cause havoc. Ballast and debris up to the rail tops needs to be applied with as much care as the neatest of track running embedded in streets. The longest of the weeds can be sited at the ends of sidings where locomotives rarely go.
Something that is relatively easy to do is avoid the look that some serious modern earth moving gear had been brought in and flattened the whole site before the railway was built. Ups and downs in the surrounding ground, washed out ballast, drainage ditches where only absolutely necessary, and then clogged up, hints at patches of track which were in a very sorry state before it had to be fixed and so on to indicate what state the track is in.
Can I suggest trying to find some pictures of Mr Wilkes wonderful coleford (think that's what it's called) or even buying his book (advert in 009 news). He has the amazing talent of being able to lay perfect running, diabolical looking track
Quote from: paul ludlow on December 02, 2019, 20:38
Can I suggest trying to find some pictures of Mr Wilkes wonderful coleford (think that's what it's called) or even buying his book (advert in 009 news). He has the amazing talent of being able to lay perfect running, diabolical looking track
I found a YouTube video of that a few weeks ago and noticed the the distance between sleepers on that seem to be three times greater that Peco mainline, and I agree it does look very good. I didn't know there was a book though, so thanks for pointing it out.
John Wilkes specialises in 'non-standard' track work!
If you really want some decrepit track, maybe a disused branch or siding to get the look without worries about running?
David.
Quote from: clayliner on December 02, 2019, 22:54
If you really want some decrepit track, maybe a disused branch or siding to get the look without worries about running?
I though the videos of the locos battling through that were superb, and I would love to replicate that but maybe it is going to be harder that I though. Maybe use green scatter rather than static grass.
Whichever way is a guaranteed way of getting muck in your mechanisms and the pickups... TBH if you want that sort of look with genuinely "up and down" track then you will need stock with full compensation like the real thing. I'd still go with radio control as well just to sort out the pickup issue once and for all.
Bear in mind also that although with a great deal of care and attention it might be possible to make the track look as if it is in terrible condition and get locomotives to run on it, as soon as they start to move the spell will be broken.
One thing that I don't think anyone has managed to model successfully is mass, gravity, momentum etc. The model is likely to twitch and jerk like a demented fly and look nothing like the telephoto footage of NG trains swaying and waggling. (I particularly like the one, of a peat railway I think, where a catch on a wagon is held in place with a thin tree branch, Morrissey-style. Now to find it again.)
If there is convincing video of a model I'd love to see it. It might be possible to get somewhere near it using the old cinematography trick and run the trains at breakneck speed and then slow the film down, but that rarely worked either, at least not with ships where the trick was often used.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's there was a 16mm scale NG layout on the exhibition circuits that had deliberately bad track.
There were kinks, dips, variable gauge, missing sections of rail, loose sections that went down into place as the railcar went over them, folding bridges etc. It was a joy to behold. It was battery powered, the railcar was specially made with wide treads on the wheels and the trackwork very carefully done to ensure it actually worked. I can recall speaking to its creator who said it took a considerable amount of time and effort to get it all to work.
I last saw the layout in about 1989 and sadly I have never seen a video online.
So it can be done in the larger scales, but not in 009.
Found it - NG peat railway in Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39JFjexSUk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39JFjexSUk)
Quote from: GraemeD on December 04, 2019, 11:28
Found it - NG peat railway in Germany.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39JFjexSUk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39JFjexSUk)
That is good track! You should have seen the track at Leighton Buzzard just before the sand trains stopped in 1981, or the track at the Cherry Orchard Lane brickworks in Rochford. No need for a zoom lense there!
Brian Meldon
Quote from: GraemeD on December 04, 2019, 11:28
Found it - NG peat railway in Germany.
So my track ISN'T supposed to look like that? Just as well I found out before I started gluing then ???
Never mind NG. Some US SG stuff is atrocious:
https://youtu.be/9X2A2f6E5DI
Any loose type scatter material used on the track, even when glued in place will end up in the loco mechanisms. Even some of the lighter types of ballast can cause this type of problem.
I use granite chippings fixed in place with 50/50 PVA/water mix. When dry and fully tested I then paint it a uniform 'rust' colour all over including the sleepers and the sides of the rails.
I am happy with the visual appearance and it all stays in place.
As to the visual condition of the track using this system it is very much about the surrounding scenery, keep it neat and tidy with a wider ballast shoulder for 'mainline' type narrow gauge track, but more random with the ballast edge closer to the rails for industrial or less maintained track.
At the end of the day railway modelling it is all about compromise, and the personal choices that each modeller makes regarding the priorities of compromises on their model railways. I always prioritise good operational running above exact scenic detail, as far as I am concerned a model railway should run well above all else. This approach works for me but others may do things differently.
Brian Meldon
I guess the crossing in the first photo is only for use by farm vehicles or similar...even then, most accommodation crossings I've seen have the road surface built up to the rail tops if only in mud, ash, hardcore or similar. I certainly wouldn't want to drive a car or (even more so) ride a motorcycle over it! From the railway's point of view, having vehicles crossing that would surely cause the rails to move over time due to the sideways force put on them by the wheels, potentially leading to a derailment.
Now r/c is available that will fit into tiny locos, perhaps some brave soul will have a go at modelling truly awful track...
Simon.
Other than for a static display I think it would be impossible to pull off. As soon as a train started to move any sense of realism would be lost as it twitched like a demented fly and any audience would just think it was the work of an incompetent modeller. I'd put on the same list of things not to try along with modelling moving water using real water. ;D
I think the real skill would be in laying perfect track and making it seem as if it was badly neglected. I'm still far from managing the first bit.
As I may have said before, check out coleford. Perfectly laid, diabolical looking trackwork, that usually works perfectly. ☺
Quote from: paul ludlow on March 10, 2020, 22:05
As I may have said before, check out coleford. Perfectly laid, diabolical looking trackwork, that usually works perfectly. ☺
Absolutely, it is definitely in my top five layouts of all time. The book is excellent too :)
Quote from: paul ludlow on March 10, 2020, 22:05
As I may have said before, check out coleford. Perfectly laid, diabolical looking trackwork, that usually works perfectly. ☺
That is not entirely correct.
John does have to compromise on the locos he runs, for example the newer section to the right was laid with code 60 Shiohara (I think) track and this prevents the use of some items that have larger wheel flanges as they hit the rail chairs.
I think he also uses graphite on the rails to assist items over the dead frogs, this is fine on a flat layout, but as it significantly reduces the haulage capabilities of any locos so it is useless if you have any layouts with grades.
But yes with the locos he uses it does work well.
Brian Meldon
With John's compromises accepted, I still find it a fascinating spectacle & can watch the trains go by for ages at shows, and usually do. ☺