Jacq's Logging Project Discussion

[jacq01]

  I was lucky to get the 12mm boards for Euro 0,40 a piece. 50 pieces was Euro 20,- = approx $ 30,-.
  A full 4 x 8 sheet of 1/2" is costing in the discount store Euro 48,00. So I was lucky. All timber for the complete diorama for Euro 20,-

  Here some progress.   trying to establish what will be best valance height. The one shown is approx 420 mm

 

  There will be no uprights on the front.  Dam tryout with height of approx. 50mm above waterlevel.  Roadbed is in place approx 100mm above  waterlevel.

 

  Valance size will be 100 - 125 mm  sort of lamps not decided yet. Alternative to globes necessary as globes will be banned for sale from end of 2010 ( as far as I know) Thinking of warm tubes and some LED spots behind difuse ceiling plate.

Jacq

[danpickard]

Jacq,
I think I like the tight viewing gap.  I've been toying with that sort of gap with my ideas pile for my next exhibition layout (once Dolly Varden has retired).  We used an opening of about 550mm I think, mainly to get more of the verticle presence on show.  The narrower window though forces your focus back onto/into the model more.  In this particular case, the goal is to get the viewer bent over peering into the workings of the mill.  I like it... has my vote... measure twice, cut once.

Dan

[marc_reusser]

Jacq,

I Like that you are cropping the image tight...I can't really say from a photo, as this is always something better seen in actual 3D.....I like tightly cropped views...but it seems to me to be just a few cm tight at the top.....but like I said, hard to judge in a photo.


I do have to say, I am not sure about the height of the roadbed....seems to cut a bit high onto the scene and mill proportion. ....again maybe it's all just in the photo...or my being hung up on the Hume mill images.....but I would think that at least not having an even 50mm for both the dam and the roadbed would be better, as these are both sight-line gauges....maybe make the ratio 2/3 to 1/3 or some random difference....by simply lowering the track grade.

Another thought on the track height (as inregards to water level) is how will this affect the way you see the rollway in the later scene....will it be sloped so steeply as to maybe be viewed as "blocky"  in the overall scene? (I hope you understand what I am getting at).

I also think that by bringing the grade down, it will help give a taller/larger scale to the mill and the feeling of taller/more towering trees in subsequent scenes.


M

[jacq01]

 
  Marc,

  I am still expirementing with the valance height. I first had 470 - 450 mm as on my H0 layout. Maybe best to take some photo's on the anticipated average eye level ( 1600mm) , which imo should be just under the lower edge of the valance

  top of rail is the same as the loghaul railheight on the tressle crossing the dam arches.  I am still playing with the height of the dam collar but I am limited by the slope of the loghaul.
  It appears from photo's that the main supporting timbers of the bridge across the arches are around 18"
  Distance roadbed ( top of rail)  to the waterlevel is 65mm and the dam top is now 35 - 40 mm above waterlevel.
  That makes it possible to built the bridge over the arches. Based on the tressle construction I adapt the dam height. 
  Approx 12'0" looks acceptable to me for the logbrow above waterlevel. The distances to the waterlevel will be reduced by +/- 5 mm when the acryl or glas plate goes in. When the glas can be cut with the dam arch radius, I'll use glass, otherwise acryl.

  As I have a double track on the logdump module, I am looking which variant fits best to the geographic situation: Hume Lake or Sugarpine logdump or maybe a combination.  Things are going as planned.  building one module and planning the details of the next one.  It all must be in balance with the overall concept along the lines of the Mumby photo. The biggest challenge there is the transition workshops/ "village" on one side to the mill on the other side. Here the logpond and logdump will have a vital role.

Jacq
 
 

[RoughboyModelworks]

Jacq:

I generally agree with Marc and like the tightly cropped view. The valance height looks right to me in the second photo, perhaps a little tight in the top shot, but will depend on the final viewing height and what landscape, trees or whatever is in the background. I think it's particularly effective with the mill and roadbed at an angle to the front viewing plane... so much more interesting and dynamic than having everything parallel to the front.

Paul

[MrBrownstone]

Hey Jacq,

I like the second shot as well... (from the non-experienced viewer point)

it still has plenty of depth to please the viewer peering/gazing into the subject.

IMO

Mike

[danpickard]

Isn't the second shot with the same height valance, just from a lower angle?

Dan

[jacq01]

  Dan,

  checking the photo sequence and the adjustments done to the valance, you are right.
  The second photo is from a lower angle.

  As everything is pulled down to work on the groundfloor level, the next impressions will be with the posts of the lower level temporary in place, water at the correct level and the hill side filled (with green foam ).
  Looking at the photo's and the 3D real set up, it is difficult to form an opinion.
  What is also missing is the influence of the second module on the scene.

  Tomorrow I am of to Lahnstein to see Marcel and Alan. Due some cancelations Marcel has been asked on a few days notice to participate again. Next week I'll set up two modules to see the total set up of the right hand side of the diorama.

Jacq

 
 

[jacq01]

 Here the set up with 2 modules and different valance heights.



  Valance lower edge to top of waterlevel  425mm   Pond surface (tan area) to road bed  52 mm 



Space between roof mill and valance appears too much.



opening reduced by 50 mm. Space to top of roof looks too small.



this looks al right, a happy compromise between the two previous sizes.



The log pond streches from module 2 to the dam on module 4 ( the mill)




The track is disappearing in a cut in the hillside behind mill. Smaller radii will not be visible nor the opening in the background.
The mill's interior can be viewed from 3 sides. I am still in doubt on closing the long wall on the far side.
Advantage is the function as scenic divider.  Disadvantage is the disappearance of the open character.


Jacq

[mobilgas]

Jacq,      Now that you posted  pictures of the 2 module's together you can get a better idea of what your shooting for.      Craig

[marc_reusser]

Jacq,

It looks very good when connected with the other module. I am glad to hear that you will be running the pond through several of the modules, it will make the seem much more realistic.


I know you probably already are thinking about the log dump, and have a design style in mind....but if you don't mind, I thought just for the fun of it I would post some images of dumps that are sim to your set-up (lower to the water, and against a sloped hill/grade on one side.)...might be something of interest or others might enjoy them.



M

[marc_reusser]

M

[marc_reusser]

Two from Brookings Lumber Co.

M

[marc_reusser]

This is Northern California Lumber Co.

The log dump is just visible at the left side of the image (red arrow), the rollway at the right side of image is for logs that were yarded out of the woods via skidroad.

[Ray Dunakin]

Wow, those photos are fantastic! You have a great collection of pics, Marc. Thanks for sharing them.