Large Scale Central

The pictures that did not make GR article

General Discussion
#1

Here are a bunch of the pictures that did not make the Garden Railroad article. Funny looking at some of them and seeing how much has changed.

#2

Nice set of pics Shawn. I always enjoy seeing your pike, and figuring out how far you’ve come

#3

I agree with Dave. I never get tired of looking at pictures of your RR. Everything fits together so perfectly :slight_smile:

#4
Jon Radder said:
Everything fits together so perfectly :)
Couldn't have said it better, Jon ;) Ralph
#5

Nice layout.

#6

Some great shots. Will have to pick up the latest GR as I have not subscribed in many years. I do have almost a full set of GR drawings from over the years though. Just more stuff to do.

#7

As always. Great to see more photos of your layout… very nice…

#8

Shawn, excellent pics, your layout is so photogenic.

I particularly like shot #4, with the loco coming round the rocks.

Alec

#9

Excuse my ignorance, but how long was it between the submission and the publishing?

#10

Thanks for posting those pictures. Since I don’t subscribe to GR it’s great to see them.

#11
Lou Luczu said:
Excuse my ignorance, but how long was it between the submission and the publishing?
It took about 1.5 years. Most photos were taken 2 years agao.
#12

Womens Work!
:wink:

#13

Nice shots that give us a better look at your railroad. The ones in GR are good, but you can squeeze only so many photos into even an eight-page article. As the guys said, you do nice work and your layout is very realistic.

One question though: is the minimum radius of your curves really 6-1/2 feet, as stated in the spec pbox? That works out to a 13-foot diameter, which is pretty big. I couldn’t get a true fix on this by scannning the shots in GR, but I kept wondering how “wide” those curves really are. I ask only because so many stories in GR cite these giant radius curves, which doesn’t seem feasible based on what I often see in the accompanying photos.

#14

Shawn, we did the trip to the city this week so was able to pick up a copy GR at the LHS. When we got home I showed your article to SWMBO, she was very impressed with your RR. This coming from someone who thinks we are all a bunch nerds. LOL.
And also she seen the next story in the mag on making figures…she’s stoked and wants to try her hand at doing it…so off to Michaels to buy some Sculpey for her…:slight_smile:

Edit to add: She says the ladder on your water tower is crooked. WTH does she know. :wink:

#15
Randy McDonald said:
This coming from someone who thinks we are all a bunch nerds. LOL.
We are .....:( Train Geeks!
#16
Joe Rusz said:
Nice shots that give us a better look at your railroad. The ones in GR are good, but you can squeeze only so many photos into even an eight-page article. As the guys said, you do nice work and your layout is very realistic.

One question though: is the minimum radius of your curves really 6-1/2 feet, as stated in the spec pbox? That works out to a 13-foot diameter, which is pretty big. I couldn’t get a true fix on this by scannning the shots in GR, but I kept wondering how “wide” those curves really are. I ask only because so many stories in GR cite these giant radius curves, which doesn’t seem feasible based on what I often see in the accompanying photos.


Joe its 6 1/2 ft dia curves. not 13. My biggest curve is not even close to 13 lol.

Randy thanks. Your wife is going to have join lsc so she can show us her figures.

My wife calles me a dork.

#17
Shawn said:
Joe its 6 1/2 ft rad curves. not 13. My biggest curve is not even close to 13 lol.
It's 6 1/2 foot DIAMETER, you dork ;) Ralph
#18
Ralph Berg said:
Shawn said:
Joe its 6 1/2 ft rad curves. not 13. My biggest curve is not even close to 13 lol.
It's 6 1/2 foot DIAMETER, you dork ;) Ralph
Lol ya thats it. Lol I corrected it for you Ralph.
#19

Nice pics Shawn. The second one looks like the guard tower st Stalag Luft III :slight_smile:

#20

Shawn, Ralph and all, the problem, which Marc Horowitz mentions in the letters section of GR, is endemic to large scale. People, and manufacturers throw around radius and diameter like they’re the same. In GR’s “Railway at a glance” column (we call it a “Spec box” at R&T) is always says “minimum radius,” which in your case is (reads) 6-1/2 feet. Likewise, in the feature on the Winter Valley Railway, an indoor line, the “radius” is given as 6 feet, which works out to a diameter of 12 feet. Now if you picture a circle that is 12 feet across, then look at the size of Dave’s layout, ya gotta wonder…

In the Letters section of the April issue of GR, Marc (he’s the editor, for those of you who don’t do print) addresses this issue in “Radius or diameter” (page 14) and kinda explains it and questions the whole practice of swapping these terms. But I’m not sure that he realizes that his own standard, which is to use “radius,” is misinterpreted by guys like Ralph and Dave Winter, when they fill out that spec box.

I guess, Ralph, were you “clear on the concept” when you wrote “6-1/2 feet” on the “minimum radius” line? I’m just asking, just to satisfy my own curiosity, not to pick a fight or anything as I am a peace-lovin’ guy. Except when it comes to the Loch Ness Monster who’d better get off my dang lawn :slight_smile: