Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railroad along the Missouri River by Cathead - 1/87 (HO) scale - model railroad with steamboat

[Rik Thistle]

Eric,

 

This is all quite fascinating and informative for me, especially since you have a backgound in how landscapes are actually formed. 

 

I look forward to each post (and Comments) on the bridge and tunnel scene taking shape.  Keep 'em coming, thanks.

 

Richard

[Cathead]

7 hours ago, Keith Black said:

Are you using any flame retardant chemicals in the mix?

Interesting question; absolutely not. (a) I don't want to personally work with anything like that, (b) they're all set with glue and not sitting around like a light flammable powder, (c) any broader fire risk comes from the extensive wooden benchwork, not a thin skim of glue-fixed natural material. 

 

2 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

This is all quite fascinating and informative for me, especially since you have a backgound in how landscapes are actually formed. 

Thanks! It's definitely a challenge thinking through the real setting and trying to figure out how to translate it into a version that's simultaneously scaled down but also true to eye.

 

Having said that, I should have waited to post the results above. Shortly after I did, Mrs. Scenic Consultant came in from the garden and had a look. She agreed that the material was coarser than scale, but also had a very good idea how to adjust it. She suggested rubbing off some of the coarsest outer layer, which I tried, and it worked brilliantly. What happened was that the material that had truly embedded in the glue stayed, dulling the painted plaster surface and giving a sense of texture, but some of the material that was sticking up more and really looking coarse went away, making the grain/particle size less obvious. It's a bit hard to explain this change, but I tried a series of photos this morning to see if I could get the comparison across.

 

(1) Original painted plaster creek bank. Too smooth, uniform, and shiny, though the color and base shape are good:

 

(2) Sifted leaf and sand application. Improves the texture and complexity, kills the "shine", but a bit coarse (I started to realize that the flatter surfaces looked a bit like a power company wood chipper had been through). And the area along the creek bank is a bit too gravely for an area that in real life is mostly muddy rather than rocky:

(3) Same texture after the upper layer has been rubbed away. Now there's a more subtle blend of "powder" and coarser material dulling the surface, maintaining that complex natural non-plaster look, but less of the "wood-chipper and gravel" effect:

I thought (2) was fine until I saw what (3) accomplished, and that's now the new approach. The material that gets rubbed off can be collected and re-used elsewhere, so it's not a waste.

 

It's less fun if you're not learning!

 

[Keith Black]

21 minutes ago, Cathead said:

Interesting question; absolutely not. (a) I don't want to personally work with anything like that, (b) they're all set with glue and not sitting around like a light flammable powder, (c) any broader fire risk comes from the extensive wooden benchwork, not a thin skim of glue-fixed natural material.

I don't blame you a bit. Crazy factoid about cigarette tobacco is, of the 1,000 chemicals used in manufacturing cigarette tobacco, flame retardant is one the chemicals used. 

 

 The last two photos in the post above are very convincing. 👍

[NavyShooter]

I'm not a railroad guy, but damn....this is beautiful work.  Your subject matter is interesting, and the history that all of this ties together is amazing...from the tales of how grain elevators worked back in the day to your leaf grinding...wow!  Definitely following this thread going forward!  Great work!

NS