Author Topic: In defense of Puff Ball Trees  (Read 3049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

NWP Dave

  • Posts: 14
  • Respect: +12
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2025, 11:19:29 AM »
0
Does anyone know the specifics of the scenery techniques used on this T-TRAK module?
(Also curious about the general acceptability of the front scenery extension since it would likely overhang the display table.)



You might check out Laing's interview: https://nationalt-traklayout.com/video-highlights

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 16289
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +6798
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2025, 03:09:00 PM »
0
Unless it has complimentary end modules which bring the two tracks back to the front.

The tracks are at the regulation depth from the BACK of the module.  The river bank and details in front of the track are on an extension toward the edge of the table.  That's what I did on my Cumberland modules as well.


I think I added 2-3" to the front of the module.  No need for a transition.



There's usually plenty of room in front of the modules to allow for a bit of a stretch.  I see more modelers using this space to deepen their scenes.
Lee
Rockin' It Old School

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

Point353

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3459
  • Respect: +828
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2025, 03:30:04 PM »
0
There's usually plenty of room in front of the modules to allow for a bit of a stretch. 

Does that still hold true for an oval layout, with modules set up back-to-back and 180° end caps, on a 30" wide/deep table?

Maletrain

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3704
  • Respect: +689
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2025, 06:57:26 PM »
0
So long as the height adjustment feet are in the same place as a standard  module, it would not be a structural problem for a T-Trak module to extend farther toward the viewer than the edge of the table.  At least not until it made it fall off the table from too much weight to counterbalance with what is in the standard locations. 

But, if the T-Trak setup is actually going both directions on 30" wide tables, that might indicate a lack of space around it, too, so the front extensions might be "in the isle", so to speak.

mkearns

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • Respect: +69
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2025, 08:23:24 PM »
+1
Does anyone know the specifics of the scenery techniques used on this T-TRAK module?
(Also curious about the general acceptability of the front scenery extension since it would likely overhang the display table.)



Craig's module is a masterpiece. I've been fortunate to see it in person a few times. He really nailed it.

You can read all about the Prince module and Craig's scenery techniques in the January/February 2023 Issue of the C&O Historical Society Magazine (#1, Vol 55).

The COHS may have back issues available for sale. You can contact them at:

C&O Historical Society
312 E Ridgeway St
Clifton Forge VA 24422

540-862-2210

cohs@cohs.org

MK

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4200
  • Respect: +844
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2025, 09:27:56 PM »
0
You can't always count on having enough space in front of a module to have an extension.  Depends on how the ends are set up and how wide the tables are.  Try some wide corners and you may end up with 3 inches in front of a module before the edge of the table shows up.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5008
  • Respect: +1861
Re: In defense of Puff Ball Trees
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2025, 09:42:22 PM »
0
As that module masterfully demonstrates, you can fake background but you can't fake foreground.