Thanks GMorrison for video. It does bare the strange mix of comedy with the traumatic. It is difficult to make light what is inherently heavy. Even Jerry Lewis showed similar difficulty in the movie “The Geisha Boy”
I knew my worktable was old, and sagged in the middle, but when a dowel rolled under the base I knew something else was wrong. The base board was also bowed. I knew that painting the raw side would not straighten it enough. Decided to add an opposing bow by using another board from the same source. This time, I will also make it larger so I can include a display frame.
Glued the opposing bows together. Later, I inserted several screws from underneath.
Minder sure takes some risks. Here he is directing my cut.
Planned to use 3 mm Clear Perspex for casing. Used scrap 3 mm Perspex, plus a thin card, as a spacer while securing the framing to the board.
Top-right: Had to take a few test cuts to figure out which was the best 45 degree cut (I have no angle jig).
After installing the frame, Minder discovered I drilled an extra row of holes at both ends.
Broke the spatula on first application of wood putty. Poor quality spring steel from China. Cheap is not necessarily better. So. I brought out my old spatula, I use for mixing, to do the job.
Then after some sanding . . .
I continue to be in abject admiration of this project. And, also of your continuing documentation of it, and in two distintly different venues.
The pressures you put upon yourself are ever so complicated. And your “relief valves” an excellent example to of all on how to cope with that pressure to make things right even when the various media and our frail humanity get in the way.
In simple photos is looks all so effortlessly easy, the work of a true master. Which can make it all too easy to forget that a ‘master’ is not excused from the hard work. And Murphy is always waiting to dash ice cold water with no notice.
At work, I’m managign the construction of right at US$82 million in projects–all I ever see are the flaws, the not-quite-rights, the blemishes. It can wear a person down. To where you you need to focus on something else, anything else for a bit, to let your eyes see anew.
May friend, you are amazing. And, I’ll knock the block off any who says different.
Well, I better not say differently [:D]
Thank you Mac for such a high complement. I sure hope we can always see the positive in everything and accentuate it to those that still seek it.
I always performed better after a pat on the back, even when I actually have to physically do it for myself. Well, actually, it works better that way, because one rarely experiences such physical confirmation. I remember the first time I did that to myself. . . I almost cried.
Anyway, it is especially nice to have such good friends here on FSM forum.
A few weeks ago a friend shared a few stories about his father, who was one of the POWs. One of the stories he told was how his father witnessed five blokes fight tooth and nail over a dead rat.
It’s one of the books I’ve picked up several times, and put it down because I know it’s a horrible part of history. I’ll get to it eventually
‘Shattered Reality’ always takes time to pick up the pieces. And when ready, we fill in the gaps with what we did not want to know, but needed to know for its hidden truth of who we are.
Trying to make sense of the construction techniques. This movie bridge was really slapped together in a near enough is good enough way. It was built to hold a train with carriages, and to be blown up after construction. It was not built to last.
Was prompted by others to use cut/filed-in joints. I did this where appropriate. So, in a way, I followed the original designers, I compromised, in that the model was not going to actually hold anything of significant weight, but it needed to look like it could.
Below drawing got altered later on.
I wish I could help. However, I will watch with anticipation. This is one of ky favorite movies. Ray
Thanks Ray. I am not seriously in trouble with the build. Just being honest about the challenges we all have with our model making. Thanks for watching.
Made a template from dressed timber to ensure correct amount of lean-in, height, and squareness to the longitudinal.
Updated the drawing to include a thicker cross-beam. This did not alter the template outline.
Collecting off-cuts and shavings for future use in diorama. Shaving off excess timber for correct alignment.
One step back too far.
This is going very well.
A couple of observations.
The truss above the roadbed is quite a bit shorter in height than the section below.
Higgins overstated it, but its about a 3 above 4 below.
The verticals in the trusses out board of the main piers are either double logs, or big ones split top and bottom. The latter would suggest the whole thing was a model.
I don’t think in my 40 years of practice I’ve looked quite so hard at a structural engineering model as I have here, but you are certainly making a model of a model.
Thanks, GMorrison, for complement.
Earlier I mentioned that there were three models made for the Magnum PI TV series. One was shown on a previous episode on Higgins bookshelf, which I think is shown below in image (1). The second (2) was made where Higgins actually is filmed gluing matchsticks in place. After filming, the piece was quickly taken off and cleaned up, by the builder. The third (3) model was built to be blown-up. Each model looks very different to each other, especially in terms of spacing between trusses.
Here is a photo of the real movie bridge. Notice that the actual trusses on the cantilever are equal top and bottom. What makes it look smaller on top is the platform and railings.
The other problem encountered with the top half is how the platform is built by the modellers.
They are caught out by two building approaches. The first, is that the real railway tracks is built into the platform as opposed to being on top of it.
The other mistake is that the Burma railway uses a narrow gauge. Scale railway, Z gauge, is the closest width (6.5 mm) for the needed 5 mm. However, Z ‘scale’ (different to ‘gauge’) is 1:220 as opposed to the 1:150 I am using. Hence a small train indeed.
That is why I am not going to present a train in this build, at the scale I am using.
Created a second template to fit in between the piers. The card also shows me which sets of piers have supporting horizontal braces.
Scale and Rail gauge get complicated quickly. Full-size rail gauge is around 4’-8"; or 56", or 142-145cm. The pre-made rail scales all “want” a nice even number of millimeters between the rails to represent the scale. Which is handy bfor casting rail sections. But, less so when 1 meter, 2’ and 3’ rail gauges have been used.
The narrow-gauge model railroaders are a dedicated and committed lot, and many have “workarounds” to achieve their ends. In your case, you’d probably have to handspike rails (so that the sleepers would be the right size). But Z guage trucks under N gauge body work would get a result.
Probably simpler to let the work stand for itself, instead.
And, getting the right rolling stock would be very very difficult.
My last big layout included a narrow gauge/ standard gauge interchange. I did use Z gauge (1/220 if used as standard gauge track, more or less 1/160 if used to represent 3’-0" guage.).
I scratch built the cars as they were oil transport cars- flatcars with rows of wooden barrels on them. Z trucks.
Needless to say there was no locomotive on the slim gauge.
Judging from the DB locomotive there in “Die Brucke”, the Germans beat the Japanese in 1947 and won the war outright.
Thanks Mac for excellent explanation and information. I figured the narrow gauge used was about 33". Compare Alec Guinness height to width of track in previous images.
I totally agree with you. If anything, at least a home built flat car, as GMorrison suggested, but loaded up with a few tracks and sleepers to finish the bridge off.
Thanks for the good idea.
[:D]
If that was the case [:O]. I don’t think I would be here.