NRM Article - Tunnels

Articles which have been added to the main site
The Great Bear
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: SouthWest

Postby The Great Bear » Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:55 pm

Nice one Danny.
The toilet roll tube and brick paper's a great idea. Presumably a larger cardboard tube would do for 00. My tunnels look awful as they're just the entrances and you can see the walls of the room through them. I might be able to fit one of these tubes in and glue it in position.

George - your one liners are great. They bring a bit of humour to the read! I hope you post some if I ever do an article. :D

Regards Tim (GB).

User avatar
02_tank_buff
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Ryde, Isle of Wight
Contact:

Re: Article: Tunnels

Postby 02_tank_buff » Sun May 25, 2008 8:07 pm

No offence but isnt that tunnel portal a little too large?

mumbles
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:23 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Article: Tunnels

Postby mumbles » Sun May 25, 2008 11:15 pm

thread from 07_resurrection_buff wrote:No offence but isnt that tunnel portal a little too large?


:x

gppsoftware
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am

Re: Article: Tunnels

Postby gppsoftware » Mon May 26, 2008 11:37 am

02_tank_buff wrote:No offence but isnt that tunnel portal a little too large?


Not at all - it's based on the western end of Dainton. If you have a look at photos of Dainton, you'll see that the top of the arch is almost twice the height of a train.
Remember that Brunel built very large tunnel mouths on this style of tunnel. They were also built for broad gauge.

Also, to get the size correct, I actually used a photo and digitially adjusted it while maintaining aspect ratio. It is very slightly wider/height than it should be (only a few mm) by virtue of the fact that we have the wrong gauge of track and we place our model track at wider separations due to our curve radii (which is 5 foot in the picture).
This makes my model very slightly over scale. If I didn't maintain the aspect ratio, the overall proportions would definately be wrong and it would look totally wrong.

Graham Plowman

User avatar
pete12345
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 7:53 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: Article: Tunnels

Postby pete12345 » Mon May 26, 2008 12:12 pm

I agree with what Graham says- if you have to make one part over or under-scale, keep everything else in proportion. Having a tunnel that is slightly overscale looks much better than one that is the correct height, but too wide- it will look squashed up. The same goes for 00 trackwork. Having the sleepers at HO scale spacing (therefore underscale for 00) looks much better than spacing out the sleepers and leaving the track gauge underscale (unless you want a narrow gauge look :wink: )

Pete
Once an engine attached to a train, was afraid of a few drops of rain...

gppsoftware
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:34 am

Re: Article: Tunnels

Postby gppsoftware » Tue May 27, 2008 11:43 am

pete12345 wrote:I agree with what Graham says- if you have to make one part over or under-scale, keep everything else in proportion. Having a tunnel that is slightly overscale looks much better than one that is the correct height, but too wide- it will look squashed up. The same goes for 00 trackwork. Having the sleepers at HO scale spacing (therefore underscale for 00) looks much better than spacing out the sleepers and leaving the track gauge underscale (unless you want a narrow gauge look :wink: )

Pete


Thanks Pete.

I should correct myself. I wrote that my model was of the Western end of Dainton tunnel. It is actually the Eastern end - the two are quite different in appearance but have the same tunnel mouth size/profile.

Graham Plowman


Return to “Accepted Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest