A modelling dilemma

For my next “Market Garden” battle I have a large rail bridge for which I already have one straight rail hexagon tile embanked to the correct height.

My problem is that I also have two road/rail crossing points to create. I already have these crossings at normal ground level.

Option 1.  I make sloping railway hexagons to drop a height of 12mm over 10cm, which is a far steeper gradient than would look realistic.

Option 2. I keep the railway embanked at 12mm height and create bridges (real or indicated by painting) beneath for the roads. To do this I might need to carve beneath the normal terrain level to make a useable bridge.

The photo shows a Sherman tank (based) with the current embankment and a normal ground level railway, and an indication of the slope required for option 1.

Nominal ground scale is 1:2500, but vertical scale is 1:285.

I think that by setting up a mock-up and having seen the result I use the exaggerated slope method. So now all I need to do is to make two convincing sloped embankments and fit (and paint) the rail tracks..

The number of bespoke Kallistra hexagons in my collection is getting a little worrying, but it is keeping two companies in business – Kallistra and Really Useful Boxes!

Published by

General Whiskers

Wargaming butterfly (mainly solo), unpainted model figure amasser, and Historical Re-enactor of the black powder era.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.