Water and banking

[rayarpino]

I was watching a DVD the other day, offered with a railway modelling magazine, and in it was a layout that featured a real water stream, pumpted around the layout by a windscreen washer unit.

The builder was very proud of thi feature but, hontestly, nothing looks less than real water than... real water. It just as if one was running a tap across th layout. Th colour is completely wrong, being all clear, the flow unnatural. No thanks.

 

Another matter is banking large radius curves. I believe this addsa degree of realism but of course, the angle scaled down is virtually inexistant. So a little poetic license is necessary without overdoing it, of course. 

What do you think?

[96RAF]

I am a firm believer in the exaggeration of scale effect and that 'stuff' needs to be overscale to look right, such as ballast, superelevation and some details.

 

I have also been shot down on forums by people saying exactly the opposite is true. E.g. You need to use n scale ballast on 00 To make it look right.

 

So who is right the exact scale size version or the looks right version and which way do you have to go to achieve this.

[2e0dtoeric]

All I can add is that supposedly OO scale ballast stones look like boulders next to a loco! The result being that a length of ballasted track looks as though it has been laid on a scree slope after a landslip.

Regarding real wet water, I've not seen any that looks right at scale sizes either. You can't scale down the water molecules, or gravity, so you can either cheat and have 'stiff' water, or you have a realistic-looking stream bed, with a bare dribble of real water running down it, to give the moving mirror effect. The major difficulty is keeping the wet water in the stream, and not allowing it to 'escape', or real troubles then begin!

[LCDR]

According to my Permanent Way  Association handbook real stone railway ballast in the UK should conform to the following specification.

 

Should consist of crushed rock containing a mixture of sizes mainly between 50mm and 28mm diameter which will pass a square mesh sieve with hole size -

63mm  - 100% will pass

50mm - 97 to 100% will pass

28mm - 0 to 20 % will pass

14mm - 0 to 2% will pass

1.18mm - only 0 to 0.8 will pass (to prevent excess of rock flour)

Elongation should not exceed 50% - to avoid lots of long thin pieces.

 

So for realism on an OO layout you ballast grains should be be about an average 0.5 in diameter , but with none greater than about 0.8mm.

 

However this is the 1993 edition, also it only applies to main line railways, so in many years gone by and in sidings and light railways track was frequently  ballasted with spent loco ash, which was a dark grey powdery material. On a model railway a smooth filler paste painted grey  could be used to represent this.

 

 

[LCDR]

 The only time real water can be useful and look reasonably realistic on small scale models is in docks and canals where floating boats and barges are moving. This can be achieved by having a track under the canal or dock with a powered wagon with a magnet on top running on it, and a steel block in the boat hull is attracted by the magnet and follows it through the water. I have seen this on exhibition layouts  and it does look impressive.

 

There are many scenic water materials, but even simple clear varnish applied in layers over a flat smooth surface (hardboard) painted to represent a river or pond can look effective. Falling water is less easy but there are materials and techniques available. It won't fall of course!

[LCDR]

 Superelevation (or cant) is the difference in height between the inner and outer rail on a railway curve.

 

The outer rail is raised on a curve to counteract the centrifugal forces as a train goes round a curve at speed. On the real railway the maximum permitted superelevation is 150mm (2mm on a OO model) and increases from 0 to 150 mm depending on how severe the curve is. Through platforms the maximum superelevation permitted is 110mm.  A formula is available to calculate the effective and safe amount of superelevation but in the peculiar conditions found on a model railway (exceptional severe curves) this is meaningless on a model railway.

 

I do apply superelevation on my model railway, I use  thin strip of material (roofing felt on my garden railway) under the sleepers on the outsides of my curves.

[96RAF]

The problem with trying to get realistic scale water effects is the 1:1 water would have to move in scale time, this latter parameter being a tad hard to reproduce.

[Chrissaf]

I saw that video too. The water didn't look at all realistic. I think the main issue was that the water surface tension made the water bulge up along the edges. It flowed far too fast for the scale.

[96RAF]

Its the same effect as locos and coaches rocking as they traverse uneven tracks, the time element needs to be slowed down to 1:76.

 

I bet if you ran that video in slo-mo it would look more realistic.

[PJ_model_trains]

 Interesting conversation I think...

 

@RAF96

I have also been shot down on forums by people saying exactly the opposite is true.

 

Either they were blanks or they were a bad shot. 🤐 Glad they missed you though!

 

@LC&DR

So for realism on an OO layout you ballast grains should be be about an average 0.5 in diameter , but with none greater than about 0.8mm.

 

I can't wait the the scale size for ballasting N gauge 😉

 

Dam and Ballast I lost my calculator. 😮

 

[LCDR]

 "So for realism on an OO layout you ballast grains should be be about an average 0.5 in diameter , but with none greater than about 0.8mm.

 I can't wait the the scale size for ballasting N gauge 😉"

 

Like everything else in this delightful hobby there needs to be a compromise. We use a track gauge which is nowhere near to scale, rails significantly heavier in section in proportion to what they would be real life, we have curves on our layouts  that a bogie carriage would never negotiate, our steam locos are moved by electricity etc. etc. - so we use whatever looks about right.

[81F]

  I have only balasted parts of my narrow gauge using the finest Hornby ballast that was available at the time. While it looks OK from a distance, I cannot help feel it looks a little too course close up when compared to the real thing (see below). Having said that the emossed brick on the sation building (made from Wills sheets) looks a little coarse - PS sorry I got the loco the wrong way round!

/media/tinymce_upload/24161ec21a26658262010aef5b66cb86.jpg

[Bulver]

Well, Eight-one, I think your right hand picture is a treat, I really thought I was looking at the same scene but in different eras.  Well done, indeed, most impressive

Rod

[LCDR]

Some quality modelling there 81F.

 

Here is a recent picture of Welsh narrow gauge, to illustrate ballast being used nowadays. I don't think your ballast is so far removed from reality.

/media/tinymce_upload/796acb74936d2139dd2b2f21897af46a.JPG

[PJ_model_trains]

 Very impressive 81F

[PJ_model_trains]

 "So for realism on an OO layout you ballast grains should be be about an average 0.5 in diameter , but with none greater than about 0.8mm.

 I can't wait the the scale size for ballasting N gauge 😉"

 

Like everything else in this delightful hobby there needs to be a compromise. We use a track gauge which is nowhere near to scale, rails significantly heavier in section in proportion to what they would be real life, we have curves on our layouts  that a bogie carriage would never negotiate, our steam locos are moved by electricity etc. etc. - so we use whatever looks about right.

 

Well put LC&DR

 

It is what looks reasonable and pleasing to the eye of the user.

 

We would also not scale down the LUX of lighting from signals and on locos, I would agree most of my signals and feathers are to bright, they could do with a resistor to reduce the brightness, but then my eyes are not that good either so I am happy with them whereasa another person may not be.

 

It is not just a fantastic hobby, it is a very flexible one.

 

The young kids are missing so much!

 

[Carltonf]

I've just returned from Hamburg, where I visited Miniatur Wunderland (well, you wouldn't not, would you!).  To echo what LC&DR says, it can look ok in docks, and that fantastic exhibition in Hamburg is proof of that.  The Scandanavia area features a huge expanse of real water, through which there are model ocean liners and cargo ships that travel up and down the waterways.  All I can say is, spectacular! 

I do agree otherwise that typically real water doesn't look right on small scale models, maybe it's the huge size of the area that makes it work.

[81F]

@LC&DR,

 

Funny you should  pick that picture of a Fairlie on the Cob at Porth Madoc. Most of the he Hornby Ballast I used was bought cheeaply around 100yds away from the FR shop when they were downsizing around 10 years ago! 😀