I like the 3-4-3 idea as opposed to 4-4-4, 2-2-2 or even 4-4 and move the the 3’s t the end which is what I assume your thinking, I really think the middle one needs to be 4. doing all 2’s I think would just not capture the detail your after
I agree - And here is the elevation changed to 3-4-3…
This is gonna be a really nice platform…
No 4-2-4?
John Caughey said:
No 4-2-4?
You got me to think about it for a minute, but no I don’t think so (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)
I like the 3-4-3 arrangement. Looks really nice. Your drawings are great too.
Daktah John said:
John Caughey said:
No 4-2-4?
You got me to think about it for a minute, but no I don’t think so (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-undecided.gif)
Just touching all the bases…(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
Thanks Dan. I wish I was fluent enough in SketchUp to draw it in 3D, but I’m Old School and can see the 3D in the 2D drawings. I did cheat and cut a full scale set out to get a feel for the size and proportions.
No work on the project today. I’m going to play trains in the snow. We only got about 3 inches of fluffy snow. Perfect for plowing. I wish I had a rotary - This stuff would blow real nice. My neighbor used a leaf lower to clear his walks.
No snow here and no progress this weekend. Took my son on a hunting trip. Headed home now. Have fun in plowing snow.
What about flipping the 3’s so the brace is inward and the posts to the outer edge to give it a bit more room. I really like it the way its drawn though.
Progress has been painfully slow; but I got a Cortisone shot a few days ago so it’s a little less painful now (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)
I think I have detailed enough plans to begin cutting wood this weekend. I’m off in a few minutes to the lumber yard to pick up that Beaded Cove molding. They will give me a 6" sample, or sell me a 6Ft piece for $12. I’m going with the 6Ft. If It works out, this will be the standard used on future station builds.
While I’m out I’ll stop by the prototype and get some new pics and detail info, like measurements. At this point I think my plans are final, but if I find a huge glaring error I might change them.
Not sure that I’ll finish, or even have anything to look at before the deadline, but I haven’t quit yet!
A successful field trip today brings me just a little closer to having some construction work to show. First stop, the Danbury Railway Museum to grab a few measurements. The uprights are even bigger then I thought - a full 8x8…
Next stop was Rings End in Bethel where I spent $12 of my allowance on 6 feet of Beaded Cove moulding about 2 inches wide. I also picked up a sample of the smaller version, about 1 inch wide. It was a really nice day here today so after lunch I set up my compound miter saw in the driveway and started slicing off 6mm pieces. 5mm would be a perfect match to the 4" prototype width, but I had some 6mm PVC to set up the saw with, so I went with that.
Here is the results after some sanding and a little creative carving. Left to Right: 2" Original profile, 2" with a little carving, 1" Original profile, 1" with a little carving…
They are not terribly fragile, but if you test them by applying pressure at both ends they will snap (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)
They are not as symmetrical of my interpretation of the prototype, so it makes a real difference if the bead is at the top or the bottom. Shown here on top of a scale drawing are both placement options…
I’m still undecided as to how I will place them. I like the angle of the left position best, but I prefer the bead on the bottom.
Ha I see your dilemma, The right side is aesthetically the most pleasing because it place the bulk at the bottom and like the legendary rock band Queen eludes too “fat bottom girls make the rockin world go 'round” which translates that the heavier details should be at the bottom not the top. I know in American culture this is a debatable topic but I stand that this is a correct way of thinking. Are we still talking architectural details here? Anyway can you message the molding to bring the right example to a better angle? If not I would stay right because we all know that driving on the left is just wrong.
Well, its a personal choice, and personally I like the one on the left, especially if the whole bracket could be move up a tad, so the top of the bracket would not be seen as easily. The bead, to my eye, just doesn’t look right, but the step cut looks like many of the rafter brackets I have seen on stations round these parts. Especially, if in the smaller part of the step, you put a threaded rod, a washer and a square nut.
John …got any pics of the 1" original with the bead placed at the bottom? The 1" is more symmetrical and would put the height and projection the same as the prototype. If you want to stay with the 2" then go with the bead on the bottom as it has more projection on the top. Just my opinion though. BTW that is a nice cove profile and better then what I had anyway !
David Maynard said:
Well, its a personal choice, and personally I like the one on the left, especially if the whole bracket could be move up a tad, so the top of the bracket would not be seen as easily. The bead, to my eye, just doesn’t look right, but the step cut looks like many of the rafter brackets I have seen on stations round these parts. Especially, if in the smaller part of the step, you put a threaded rod, a washer and a square nut.
You prefer your architectural details top heavy don’t you?(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
What about eliminating the bead altogether? and carving a little somethin’ somethin’ in its place like another step or notch. then the left would look better as David eludes to.
Devon, no, not really. But the bead just doesn’t look right to me, so I would try and camouflage it. Again, this all just my personal opinion, my 2 cents worth as it were. And my 2 cents worth aint worth a plug nickle. But he asked.
¿ ɹəʇsooɹ said:
John …got any pics of the 1" original with the bead placed at the bottom? The 1" is more symmetrical and would put the height and projection the same as the prototype. If you want to stay with the 2" then go with the bead on the bottom as it has more projection on the top. Just my opinion though. BTW that is a nice cove profile and better then what I had anyway !
On the drawing? I can do that and post it. The 1" is more pleasing symmetrically, but it’s way too small I think.
Daktah John said:
On the drawing? I can do that and post it. The 1" is more pleasing symmetrically, but it’s way too small I think.
PLease do