Westlake Publishing Forums
September 24, 2017, 02:58:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:     REGARDING MEMBERSHIP ON THIS FORUM: Due to spam, our server has disabled the forum software to gain membership. The only way to become a new member is for you to send me a private e-mail with your preferred screen name (we prefer you use your real name, or some variant there-of), and email adress you would like to have associated with the account.  -- Send the information to:  Russ at finescalerr@msn.com
 
   Home   Help Search Login  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 79
  Print  
Author Topic: Jacq's Logging Project Discussion  (Read 296025 times)
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2008, 01:59:22 PM »

.....BLCo.



* Copy of Brookings_Wreck_TS.jpg (117.96 KB, 525x395 - viewed 1709 times.)
Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2008, 02:04:17 PM »

And one More. I have more...some showing the "tent" camp cabins, wooden camp cabins & cookhouse, lumber yard, mill interior, rear of mill with lumber conveyer, the other shay, and some other stuff that I have not scanned...but I figured this would give you an idea. 

Some Equipment data:

Brookings operated two 2-truck Shays, ?star? (sn-154), which was purchased second hand,  and #3 (sn-808) which was purchased new from Lima. (Dont believe the book "Narrow Gauge Nostalgia"/"Narrow Gauge in The Sierra Nevada"...the guy that wrote that, is a complete doofus when it came to accuracy on the Brookings engines and equipment....unfortunately every one that has read the book, parrots the same stupid mistake about there being three loco's.....THIS IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.)

SN No. 154 was built for Butters & Peters, in Ludington MI.; she was a 28 ton (41,000 lbs), 36? gauge locomotive, with 3-10?x10? cylinders, 10? diamond stack. She shipped from Lima on Aug. 7, 1887. http://www.shaylocomotives.com/data/lima/sn-154.htm

SN No. 808 was purchased new, and was shipped from Lima to Highland CA, on April 16, 1904. She was a 36? gauge, 28-ton locomotive (54,750 lbs.), wood burning, with 8x12 cylinders, and a 12? diamond stack.  http://www.shaylocomotives.com/data/lima/sn-808.htm

Brookings? rolling stock consisted of 21 to 27, Russel wheel and foundry ?Type 2 Pattern Log Cars?. http://www.steaminthewoods.com/Russel_Catalog/russelcatalog_pattcar2.jpg

Marc


* Copy of Brookings_ShayStar_atTank_TS.jpg (92.27 KB, 488x424 - viewed 830 times.)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2008, 02:35:31 PM by marc_reusser » Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117



« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2008, 04:31:45 PM »

 
 Marc,

 this info offers a lot of possibilities. Take your time, my work is also calling. The next couple of days are striped suit, white shirt & tie days for some technical meetings. From Thursday to Sunday I have been invited to attend a large exhibition. I thought first for 2009 but  it turned out for coming weekend.
Thursday built up, than 3 days trains Grin Grin Grin Grin and Sunday evening packing and home, it's only 100Km.
This will be the first time the layout is exhibited in Holland and the fifth in total.  I wonder how it will be perceived.
It has been at exhibitions in Cologne 2006 ( Germany), Warley 2006 ( Birmingham), Genk 2007 ( Belgium) and Railexpo 2007 in Paris and I was surprised and honored, that it was regarded as the most beautifull layout in Cologne and Paris with Best in Show Award in Warley and first price in Genk.  I still come across items that in my mind can be improved upon.
 I'll have to organise photo's (taken by many ) to post them in separate threads.

 Jacq

 PS, what's a doofus ? I haven't met that species yet. Your observation of parroting and it's occurances appear to be worldwide. I most problably have sometimes been part of it too  Roll Eyes

 Jacq
« Last Edit: March 04, 2008, 10:19:35 AM by jacq01 » Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117



« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2008, 03:54:23 PM »

 Marc,

 do you have the building dimensions of the Brooking Mill and the Bennet Hume Mill ?

 I prepared a trackplan for a Pino Grande variant and like to work out some variants
 around the other mills.
 I came across a photo of the Mumby Lumber and Shingle Mill in a setting which looks
 very attractive for a logging diorama.

 Jacq
 
 


* 73.JPG (12.75 KB, 192x143 - viewed 898 times.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2008, 12:42:27 AM by jacq01 » Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2008, 04:24:40 PM »

Jacq,

I have nothing on the Brookings mill size that I know of. Somewhere in my old old logging/lumber trade news papers/magazines from the period there might be an off-chance of a mention of the overall dims., or how what kind of saw, but highly unlikely.  You could probably use the sturgeons mill, or the one that Marty Jones built (see pics below) as a fair idea/template for size/equipment layout.

The Hume mill I am still looking for the sketches. Can you email me your e-mail address, so that I can send the scans directly to you.

That photo opf the Mumby operations has been among my all time favorite images. I have had this photo hanging above my workbench for the past 6 years or more....always dreaming/thinking of some day modeling it as a module...it's a perfectly beutiful compact scene, and has everything one could want for a logging camp module/scene. (If I ever do build a logging scene it will likely be O-scale/Proto-48 standard gauge like the Mumby image...years ago I purchased a 3-truck Willamete loco for this purpose.....and am still on the lookout for a 2-6-2ST or 2-8-2ST.  Smiley  )


Marc



* MJ_Mill01.jpg (47.79 KB, 550x279 - viewed 849 times.)

* MJ_Mill04.jpg (68.51 KB, 550x367 - viewed 907 times.)
« Last Edit: March 13, 2008, 04:35:39 PM by marc_reusser » Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2008, 04:36:58 PM »

...Some more of Marty's Mill



* MJ_Mill02.jpg (84.08 KB, 550x488 - viewed 806 times.)

* MJ_Mill05.jpg (65.29 KB, 383x500 - viewed 795 times.)
Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117



« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2008, 03:27:40 AM »

I've seen Marty's work on several blogs, very nice work.
are ther more photo's of Mumby Lumber available or is this view the only one?
There is enough information to design a diorama with all the characteristics.
The only problem is guessing what the mill arrangement was. Incorporating an open style mill like Marty's or PinoGrande is a very appetizing alternative.

Jacq
Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117



« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2008, 02:47:04 PM »


   Here some studies for a  16?0 ? x 2?0? x 1?8?  O scale diorama.
  Height above floor to bottom of lower valance  4?6?

  The area in the back is the staging yard for a small variety of trains like
  Fully loaded skeleton  cars,   loaded cut timber ,  small maintenance and
 Crew carrying   in On30


 

  Mill with railway workshops, log dump and part of a mill showing  the sawing
  Process.  All buildings with complete interior. 


 

Based on Mumby Lumber & Shingle Co photo.  Size, details of buildings
and mill are interpreted. This is an effort  to create the atmosphere and not an
accurate model.  No further details known.




Freelance mill,  based on several different mills.
This is an effort to show the flow from log to rough cut lumber.

Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2008, 03:55:49 PM »

Great stuff Jacq!

I have to say that IMO the one based on Mumby really is the standout. To me it offers the most in visual interest, character, and opportunity for modeling diversity. The nice thing is that it also has a prototype basis, and thus also really captures the mood and character of a camp/operation like it.  It also looks like the one that will offer the most oportunities for dramatic/interesting/dynamic photographs and vistas/lines of viewing.


The other two though maybe more prototypical in "scale distances" seem a bit mundane. and lack visual interest....the kind of stuff i have seen in different variations in numerous other places (though I know yours would be different and modeled superbly).

Marc
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 04:00:57 PM by marc_reusser » Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4780


« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2008, 04:46:03 PM »

I have a comment about the term "staging yard": I propose we eliminate it from our vocabularies. It is a pretentious Kalmbach synonym for "storage yard".

Even though you happened to use the term, the following tirade is not directed at you, Jacq. It's only here because it's my little forum and you inadvertently provided me with an excuse to show how odd I am.

Since the dark days of that nincompoop, Russ Larson, Kalmbach has embarked upon a campaign of using "cool sounding" words to make simple, sometimes childish, things appear sophisticated, intelligent, complex, and adult. Pretense, however, is merely an idiot's attempt at obfuscation. "Staging yard" is such a term because it attempts to aggrandize the simple concept of playing with trains. And, face it, to some degree we all "play with trains", even those of us with static models!

Another word in our hobby I have grown to destest is "prototype". It has become jargon for any number of better synonyms. Even I use that damned word sometimes and I always regret it. Generally, I prefer "original" or "full size" or some other more descriptive and (again) less pretentious alternative.

I know: This seems to have nothing to do with modeling. But it does have to do with the attitude we bring to modeling and whether we take ourselves too seriously. And that's why those little "Kalmbach words" annoy me so much.

I'm done.

Russ
Logged
RoughboyModelworks
Guest
« Reply #25 on: April 07, 2008, 05:47:35 PM »

Jacq:

These are all interesting concepts, though I admit the third is my personal favourite. I believe the mill set up front, the angled trestle, the hidden track will all add greatly to the visual interest. The only concern I have about all the designs is the curve radius. To my eye, there's little that destroys the illusion more than a snap-track like radius. Perhaps a hidden sector plate could accomplish some of the operational aspects you're seeking without disturbing your quest for realism. Are you committed to a 24" depth?

Russ:

OK, I promise to never use the words "prototype," "staging yard" and "Kalmbach" again...  Wink and I vote we add "master modeler" to the list of banned over-used euphemisms as well.

Bill

Logged
jacq01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1117



« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2008, 12:48:16 AM »

   Russ,
 
Quote
It's only here because it's my little forum and you inadvertently provided me with an excuse to show how odd I am.
 

  I'll correct the words as quick as possible otherwise........... Cheesy  don't blame me if the others will fall back in the old habit of using these words, even here we grew up with Kal... as THE source for american model railroading.

   In England they use the word fiddle yard instead of staging yard.  It is a very good   description for what is happening in this, supposedly for the public invisible, area.
Every one is fiddling there with trains.

   Prototype means in my profession: something new / not tested / not final.
   Using this word while meaning "like the original", "based on the original", is actually not correct ( unprototypical  Grin Grin Grin )
   Similar the use of  "selective compression"  is suggesting that reality is nearly copied.


 Bill,

 only the coloured part will be visible. The 17" - 18" radii to the back are NOT visible
 for the public.
In the third variant, the two tracks are not connected. The logging line is approx 4" higher than the outgoing cut lumber line.

 Marc,

 the diorama based on Mumby offers many possibilities, I agree. It still needs a lot of
 missing info to fill in the voids and questions I have.
 -  Sort and size of mill
 -  type of railway. It appears a short line with a logging operation having track rights.
 -  type of engines and rolling stock.

 The other studies are in that respect less complex as it only covers the actions around the mill and it's own railways.

 Jacq
 
 


 
 

 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 12:56:18 AM by jacq01 » Logged

put brain in gear before putting mouth in action.
never underestimate the stupidity of idiots
I am what I remember.
finescalerr
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4780


« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2008, 02:30:41 AM »

I am so glad you guys understand me. And, yes, "master model railroader" or "MMR" should be banned without further discussion!

Jacq: Your modeling, layout, and plans are excellent. Everything you contribute is just wonderful. And I love your definition of "prototype" because it is so ACCURATE! Thanks.

Russ
Logged
marc_reusser
Curmudgeon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4518



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2008, 02:49:48 AM »

Had a few minutes to browse through some of the old records I have and came up with this from the Feb 1901 'Columbia River & Oregon Timberman" magazine:

"Mumby Lbr. & Shingle Co. of Olympia, was incorporated.  $10,000,. Thomas Bordeau, F.R. Brown and S.C. Mumby."

I believe they went under sometime around mid 1930's.

If I run across anything pertinent to your design I will let you know.

Marc


PS. Russ....anther term that should be banned from here, as it is a complete oxymoron, is "Master Model Railroader"....I have seen more Cr** from MMR's than I care to recall.
Logged

I am an unreliable witness to my own existence.

In the corners of my mind there is a circus....

M-Works
Krusty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 189



« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2008, 05:25:22 AM »

Quote
I vote we add "master modeler" to the list of banned over-used euphemisms as well.

What about those of us who've been known to make masters for casting model railroad parts?
Logged

Kevin Crosado

"Caroline Wheeler's birthday present was made from the skins of dead Jim Morrisons
That's why it smelt so bad"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 79
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!