Most layouts i've observed could do with less structures, I see no need to torture yourself, work it into the layout and the rest will follow. I do agree that several smaller bridges would enhance your layout further. Speaking of bridges, my local S group nearly fainted when I brought up the subject of seeking volunteers in the near future to assit in completing my 40 foot long wooden pile trestle, some people have no sense of communiity
Dave
Modeling the slower side of the great Southern Pacific in S
Rather than re-doing the benchwork, you could add Woodland Scenics risers under the track when you put it in place. That way you can have room to add a stream or a road under the bridge, but still have a flat surface to work with. If it's just over a stream or road, even using 2" risers will be sufficient.
markpierce My point is, that for every significant bridge even in most difficult territory, there are many more "little bridges." I'm not against large bridges. My point is that little bridges are overlooked. Even if you go for the Walthers truss, don't overlook the little guys.
My point is, that for every significant bridge even in most difficult territory, there are many more "little bridges." I'm not against large bridges. My point is that little bridges are overlooked. Even if you go for the Walthers truss, don't overlook the little guys.
A excellent point. A culvert beneath a rail line, with a trickle of water running through it, presents a modeling opportunity many people overlook. When you think of the "geology" of your layout, such features give you a reason to put a dip in your terrain.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hi!
You all convinced me - which I admit wasn't all that hard to do. I found an area that will accept the truss bridge with some realism, and have started to alter the benchwork. Also, I can work in at least one girder bridge as well.
It just goes to show you, all the planning and drawings and check lists and you still can have a situation!
Thanks all,
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
twhite Out here in the west, railroads might not like bridges because of the upkeep, but in a great many areas they are absolutely necessary. I'm thinking specifically of the ex SP "Shasta Route" between Redding CA and Eugene, OR, which is just chock full of them through the Cascades.
Out here in the west, railroads might not like bridges because of the upkeep, but in a great many areas they are absolutely necessary. I'm thinking specifically of the ex SP "Shasta Route" between Redding CA and Eugene, OR, which is just chock full of them through the Cascades.
Yeah, there are spectacular bridges out here in the west. So, why don't we check out the SP (now UP) route starting north at Cascade Summit through an area of spectacular bridges, snow sheds, tunnels, sheer cliffs, and beautiful scenery. Starting at Cascade Summit (m.p.536.7), 51' girder bridge (m.p. 536.93), 7 little bridges, 91' girder bridge (m.p. 549.07), 2 little bridges, 161' girder bridge (m.p. 552.30), 2 little bridges, 516' bridge (m.p. 563.23), 30 little bridges, 282' girder bridge (m.p. 578.74), 7 little bridges, 316' truss bridge (m.p. 582.55), 19 little bridges, 811' girder and truss bridge (m.p. 590.00), 14 little bridges, 102' girder bridge (m.p. 601.65). I'm tired counting now. ("Little bridges" are essentially culverts, usually 4 to 8-foot diameters.)
Mark
Another vote for including the bridge.
What would you have to give up to include it? It sounds like it's really just a matter of deciding to put in some water, or a dry wash or even a roadway below.
I did plan for my bridges, and I think they add a lot. Since my mainlines are completely flat, having the bridge so the trains go "over" something without having to climb adds scenic interest to your run.
If you can get the bridge into the layout, by all means put it in. The more bridges, the better
Don't let being double deck stop you.
Larry
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
My studied advice is to fuggedabbuddit. When you have this plan done 'as planned', plan something else, and use your reminder notebook to cue you to find a use for that dusty bridge. But you should stay the course this time around and enjoy it. Also, critique it. Keep notes. If you can legitimately employ the bridge next time around, you are sure to enjoy it pain-free. Otherwise....good luck.
-Crandell
If you didn't originally plan for bridges and have everything on the layout set and with a specific purpose, I'd tend to go along with Mark and use some smaller bridges that won't interfere with structure plans, but still give you an excuse for 'bridging' small streams. Culverts or short one or two bent shallow trestles. But I wouldn't sacrifice a planned structure for a bridge.
This may sound odd coming from me, because I have quite a few large bridges on my layout, but they were part of the original plan due to the mountainous nature of my terrain. Out here in the west, railroads might not like bridges because of the upkeep, but in a great many areas they are absolutely necessary. I'm thinking specifically of the ex SP "Shasta Route" between Redding CA and Eugene, OR, which is just chock full of them through the Cascades.
However, if you feel that sacrificing the structure you had planned would not interfere with the nature of the layout itself, it couldn't hurt to use that Walthers bridge. But it's a decision you'd have to make after considering all of the pros and cons of it.
'Tis a conundrum, as they say, LOL! Not every layout NEEDS bridges, but a lot of model railroaders (including myself) want to have them.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Yes, every railroad needs bridges, but they needn't be large like your Walthers truss, and surely you don't want the appearance of an afterthought. Every layout needs several little bridges. Have you thought about a short, one-bent-tall wooden trestle crossing a small gully or wet/dry stream? You can have your bridge and structures too. And how about some culverts placed strategically? Save the Walthers for your next layout.
Yesterday I finished up the gridwork for the main level on my HO 11x15 two level layout. The lower level is a staging & storage area that rolls up a 2 percent grade to the main level. Once I finish cleaning up, I'm ready to put in the main level plywood and lay roadbed/track.
Sounds good, but I'm now realizing that my leaving out an area in need of bridging in the "master plan", is giving me second thoughts. I've got a nicely built 15 inch Walthers truss bridge with mounted track and guardrails from my previous layout, and nowhere to put it! I originally didn't think I would have to have it, but what model railroad doesn't have at least one bridged area???
I do have two places that I could adjust the gridwork and have a "realistic" ravine or stream, but that would restrict some planned structures for that area. Ha, I think I'm in gridlock!
What are your thoughts on the subject???