Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ridgeway Depot roof correction

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    I m just up to roof shingle laying on this kit and when I bought it Joe Fuss warned me to allow 18 hourr for the shingle laying. Sounds like he was right! Mark
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm just up to roof shingle laying on this kit and when I bought it Joe Fuss warned me to allow 18 hourr for the shingle laying. Sounds like he was right!

      Mark

      --- In HOn3@yahoogroups.com, RoundBell@... wrote:
      >
      > My brother built a Rags Ridgeway depot and said the roof problem was that
      > the materials were fine but all the roofs had angles that changed
      > (prototypically) and this caused very complicated shingle meets where roof sections
      > intersected. It just took lots of time.
      > He discovered another problem in both the Blazak plans and the
      > model kit. There is one point where the down sloping roof meets the cupola
      > squarely. This would accumulate snow and water and while the flashing would
      > keep the water from leaking in the building, but with this seam being flat the
      > water/snow would not have any inducement to drain off. He went to Google
      > satellite photos and found the depot (a house in Ridgeway) and it showed
      > there was a minor roof between the cupola and main roof that sloped to both
      > sides and would clear the snow/water off this area. This would be hidden from
      > view when viewing the side of the building from the ground and only
      > visible from a distance and looking at an oblique angle or from the air or down
      > on a model.
      > He says it is now too late to correct this on his model but people
      > who are still building this model can correct it. LocoDoc
      >
      >
      > In a message dated 1/22/2013 6:39:08 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
      > marowicz@... writes:
      >
      > Steven,
      >
      > I really like the Wild West product and used their shingles on my
      > Silverton (Banta) depot. There is an area of the Ridgway roof that has very
      > singular shingles, like 'designer' shingles and the WW product has nothing like
      > it. But if you can color match the Raggs shingle to the Wild West which are
      > printed then you will save time. I haven't found a match yet though.
      >
      > Mark K
      > Durango CO
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • roundbellrr
      Yes, my brother did call it a cricket , I just forgot. LocoDoc In a message dated 3/10/2013 5:50:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, DBRenegade@hotmail.com
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes, my brother did call it a "cricket", I just forgot. LocoDoc


        In a message dated 3/10/2013 5:50:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
        DBRenegade@... writes:

        I have a set of 8 large sheets that appear to be copies of the original
        blue prints for the Ridgway (Correct spelling) depot that I purchased in the
        1970's form John Maxwell. With them I could build a 1:1 scale model. :-)
        The plans show this feature. The the technical term for this feature is a
        Cricket. It is often used behind chimneys to divert water from pooling where
        the chimney and roof meet. The plans are 1/4' scale but show many detailed
        cross sections of trim and windows at 1/2" scale. The feature is 1'4" high
        and 2'6" across the top. It is topped with the saw toothed trim on the other
        roof lines. There are 4 tooth portions raised with two complete and the
        two on the ends. I posted two photos of the plan. The last two photos in each
        folder.

        HOn3 group in "Bergman's RGS" folder
        RGS Group in "Bergman's HOn3 RGS II" folder

        Don Bergman
        Holland, MI

        The following is a commet from the HOn3 group

        > My brother built a Rags Ridgeway depot and said the roof problem was
        that
        > the materials were fine but all the roofs had angles that changed
        > (prototypically) and this caused very complicated shingle meets where
        roof sections
        > intersected. It just took lots of time.
        > He discovered another problem in both the Blazak plans and the
        > model kit. There is one point where the down sloping roof meets the
        cupola
        > squarely. This would accumulate snow and water and while the flashing
        would
        > keep the water from leaking in the building, but with this seam being
        flat the
        > water/snow would not have any inducement to drain off. He went to Google
        > satellite photos and found the depot (a house in Ridgeway) and it showed
        > there was a minor roof between the cupola and main roof that sloped to
        both
        > sides and would clear the snow/water off this area. This would be hidden
        from
        > view when viewing the side of the building from the ground and only
        > visible from a distance and looking at an oblique angle or from the air
        or down
        > on a model.
        > He says it is now too late to correct this on his model but people
        > who are still building this model can correct it. LocoDoc



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steven Haworth
        Thanks Don - that s really helpful. I ve got this kit, but haven t started it (focusing on basic landforms right now). Although the Raggs shingles look
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Don - that's really helpful.
          I've got this kit, but haven't started it (focusing on basic landforms
          right now). Although the Raggs' shingles look great, are there any other
          options that would take less than 18 hrs? I like building kits... but 18
          hrs on just the shingles.... a touch tedious, eh?

          - Steven Haworth
          RGS history - http://www.rgsrr.info/
          Blog - http://rgsrr.blogspot.com/


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • kjb80401
          Steve, Check out Wild West Models offerings. _http://www.wildwestmodels.com_ (http://www.wildwestmodels.com) Keevan In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:16:18 P.M.
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Steve,
            Check out Wild West Models offerings.

            _http://www.wildwestmodels.com_ (http://www.wildwestmodels.com)

            Keevan


            In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:16:18 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
            haworth7@... writes:

            Thanks Don - that's really helpful.
            I've got this kit, but haven't started it (focusing on basic landforms
            right now). Although the Raggs' shingles look great, are there any other
            options that would take less than 18 hrs? I like building kits... but 18
            hrs on just the shingles.... a touch tedious, eh?

            - Steven Haworth
            RGS history - http://www.rgsrr.info/
            Blog - http://rgsrr.blogspot.com/


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jim Williams
            Hi all .....There s a major misconception being advanced here......The difficulty is not with the shingles, It s the design of the roof......It s hard because
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi all .....There's a major misconception being advanced here......The difficulty is not with the shingles, It's the design of the roof......It's hard because the depot has 15 different roof areas all of which need to intersect correctly .....So, it's going to be slow work............

              I should at this point mention that I know because I built one of these  Ragg's kits several years ago and found it to be very well designed and it didn't take 18 hrs to shingle....The shingling  wasn't a "one evening project" and I didn't try to do it in one shot, so I can't give you an accurate time, but probably 4-5 hrs at most......... it was straight forward and easy to do and the result I felt was worth the effort....Best Jim W.


              ________________________________
              From: "Kjb80401@..." <Kjb80401@...>
              To: HOn3@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:14 PM
              Subject: Re: [HOn3] Re: Ridgeway Depot roof correction


               
              Steve,
              Check out Wild West Models offerings.

              _http://www.wildwestmodels.com_ (http://www.wildwestmodels.com)

              Keevan


              In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:16:18 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
              haworth7@... writes:

              Thanks Don - that's really helpful.
              I've got this kit, but haven't started it (focusing on basic landforms
              right now). Although the Raggs' shingles look great, are there any other
              options that would take less than 18 hrs? I like building kits... but 18
              hrs on just the shingles.... a touch tedious, eh?

              - Steven Haworth
              RGS history - http://www.rgsrr.info/
              Blog - http://rgsrr.blogspot.com/

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mark
              This is a good point. It s getting the intersections and the overlaps that Joe told me takes time. And you cannot use the Wild West shingles because some of
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                This is a good point. It's getting the intersections and the overlaps that Joe told me takes time. And you cannot use the Wild West shingles because some of the shingles around the tower are unique to that area and not represented in the Wild West version, nice as their stuff is.

                As for the 18 hours, I'm sure that is what Joe told me but perhaps he realises that I'm a very slow worker. I'm building the full length version but that should not make much difference because it's just the length of the baggage hall that changes - no complex changes there.

                As for all of Joe's stuff, it IS all very well thought out, pleasure to build.

                Mark K

                --- In HOn3@yahoogroups.com, Jim Williams <wwww5960@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi all .....There's a major misconception being advanced here......The difficulty is not with the shingles, It's the design of the roof......It's hard because the depot has 15 different roof areas all of which need to intersect correctly .....So, it's going to be slow work............
                >
                > I should at this point mention that I know because I built one of these  Ragg's kits several years ago and found it to be very well designed and it didn't take 18 hrs to shingle....The shingling  wasn't a "one evening project" and I didn't try to do it in one shot, so I can't give you an accurate time, but probably 4-5 hrs at most......... it was straight forward and easy to do and the result I felt was worth the effort....Best Jim W.
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: "Kjb80401@..." <Kjb80401@...>
                > To: HOn3@yahoogroups.com
                > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:14 PM
                > Subject: Re: [HOn3] Re: Ridgeway Depot roof correction
                >
                >
                >  
                > Steve,
                > Check out Wild West Models offerings.
                >
                > _http://www.wildwestmodels.com_ (http://www.wildwestmodels.com)
                >
                > Keevan
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 3/11/2013 2:16:18 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                > haworth7@... writes:
                >
                > Thanks Don - that's really helpful.
                > I've got this kit, but haven't started it (focusing on basic landforms
                > right now). Although the Raggs' shingles look great, are there any other
                > options that would take less than 18 hrs? I like building kits... but 18
                > hrs on just the shingles.... a touch tedious, eh?
                >
                > - Steven Haworth
                > RGS history - http://www.rgsrr.info/
                > Blog - http://rgsrr.blogspot.com/
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • John Stutz
                ... If it is the valleys where water collects from two roof slopes that are the problem areas for model shingling, consider following real roofing practice.
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 03/11/2013 03:00 PM, Jim Williams wrote:
                  > Hi all .....There's a major misconception being advanced here......The
                  > difficulty is not with the shingles, It's the design of the roof......It's hard
                  > because the depot has 15 different roof areas all of which need to intersect
                  > correctly .....So, it's going to be slow work............

                  If it is the valleys where water collects from two roof slopes that are the
                  problem areas for model shingling, consider following real roofing practice.

                  Shingles are not much use for keeping water out of converging slopes. Standard
                  practice has these valleys lined with a 3' wide strip of roofing felt or
                  galvanized steel, with shingles lapping about half of the half width on either
                  side. This leaves about a foot clear for washing out the leaves that would
                  collect on intersecting shingles. With felt you want a wide board, say 8" or
                  so, to support the felt. With galvanized steel, there is a standing inverted
                  "V" down the center, to allow for thermal expansion and contraction.

                  Any professional roofers care to comment? I have only ever shingled one house,
                  and that was a family effort when I was in High school.

                  John Stutz
                • Harold Huber
                  I always use 5 X 8 note cards and cut and fashion the correct size and shape and then transfer the design to the shingle material, cut out and then apply the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 12, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I always use 5" X 8" note cards and cut and fashion the correct size and shape and then transfer the design to the shingle material, cut out and then apply the shingles. This is if the shingle sheet is of the one piece type like Wild West. Yes the time is a little longer, but The waste of material is minimumal.
                    Harold Huber
                    Hi all .....There's a major misconception being advanced here......The difficulty is not with the shingles, It's the design of the roof......It's hard because the depot has 15 different roof areas all of which need to intersect correctly .....So, it's going to be slow work............

                    I should at this point mention that I know because I built one of these Ragg's kits several years ago and found it to be very well designed and it didn't take 18 hrs to shingle....The shingling wasn't a "one evening project" and I


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Hart Corbett
                    FWIW, I posted the below message on this subject on the RGS List The message talks about only a small portion of the roof discussion. In it, I cite some
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 12, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      FWIW, I posted the below message on this subject on the RGS List The message talks about only a small portion of the roof discussion. In it, I cite some photos in Vol. 1 of "The RGS Story" which also could be useful in determining shingle styles for different periods of time over the life of the RGS. Additional searches in the other 11 volumes might turn up more and might help with the modeling shingles problem which Steve Haworth described.

                      Maintenance of the prototype roof must have been an ongoing headache for the RGS, just as modeling it is a headache for modelers. At a guess, once the RGS hit hard times, the railroad almost certainly chose the cheapest way possible for maintenance. Probably why the cricket disappeared. The Maxwell plans that have been mentioned most likely were the ones used when the depot was built in 1890 when the RGS was still flush with construction money.

                      Here's the message from the RGS List. The photos of mine mentioned in it are in the Photos section of the RGS List. Many members of this HOn3 List also are members there and can access them if they wish. I'm not reposting them on this HOn3 List.

                      With best regards, Hart
                      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                      "" All:

                      In July 1960, I photographed the Ridgway depot while standing on the road to Telluride near its junction with Hwy. 550. I posted that photo in August 2008 in the Photos section of this List in an Album titled "Corbett Collection Photos". Next to that photo I've just posted an much enlarged part of that photo showing part of the tower and the depot roof. There is a very large (an heavy looking) TV antenna mounted in that space immediately behind the tower. There isn't much on which to mount that antenna; the occupant of the depot back then may have built something flat on which to support the antenna. Certainly no much there in the way of a "cricket". The roof appears to be some sort of asphalt shingles.

                      Next to the enlarged photo is a photo of the depot after it had been moved, turned into a home, and refinished with a new roof. Absolutely NO cricket is there. It appears that a lot of the siding had been replaced. The roof appears to be asphalt shingles.

                      Next to that photo is a photos which I took in August 2011 (37 years after 1974). This is the roof which undoubtedly showed up in the referenced satellite photo mentioned in Don's message below. Siding replaced and is very different from earlier times.; the roof is all metal. This time, there definitely IS a cricket there.

                      I did some searching in Vol. 1 of "The R.S.G. Story" (Sundance). I found 3 photos in it that clearly show the area behind the tower where a cricket would have been: page 68 (taken March 1953); page 142 (May 1947 with engine 20 in front); and page 69 (November 1951). I have not searched the other 11 volumes.

                      It would seem that if the cricket existed originally, it apparently disappeared in subsequent re-roofings or whatever since the depot was built in 1890. Maintaining it it may have been a headache to the RGS after it fell on hard times in the later 1890s and thereafter, even though the depot originally was a joint venture between the RGS and the D&RG.

                      The Maxwell plans perhaps depicts the depot as originally conceived and built but not after the passage of years and the need to re-roof from time to time. So modeling accuracy really depends on what time period is being modeled. There is no reason to criticize Raggs or Mike Blazek; their work is outstanding!

                      BTW, the direct link to the photo Album discussed above on this List is:

                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RGS/photos/album/926331467/pic/list

                      The Ridgway Depot photos start with the seventh photo.

                      With best regards, Hart ""
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.