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

Re: [HOn3] Re: Ridgeway Depot roof correction

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.