Just assembled my 50' thru girder, but find that I can't,. because of height and size of the abutment I made, use bridge shoes. I understand that some "small" girders use a steel plate instead of bridge shoes - would a 50' thru girder qualify for a steel plate rather than shoes?
Lastly, do all bridge tracks have guard rails? Would it be common or sem-common for a 50' girder bridge to not have guard rails? And if so, must they extend over the end in a "V"? Is a 50' bridge considered "small" in the prototype?
shawnee wrote: Just assembled my 50' thru girder, but find that I can't,. because of height and size of the abutment I made, use bridge shoes. I understand that some "small" girders use a steel plate instead of bridge shoes - would a 50' thru girder qualify for a steel plate rather than shoes?
a 50 foot bridge would certainly qualify as short enough to use a flat steel plate instead of a bridge shoe.
Prototype practice on guard rails varied all over the lot. Some railroads put them on every bridge or overpass, even big culverts. Others didn't use them at all. I think they should be used, but my prototype didn't run on the same gauge rails as yours, never mind that rather wide ocean between...
Your best bet, if you are following a particular prototype, is to follow the practices of your prototype.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
tomikawaTT wrote: a 50 foot bridge would certainly qualify as short enough to use a flat steel plate instead of a bridge shoe.
I agree. Also, I have observed girder bridges with shoes on one end and steel plates on the other. In fact, the Alhambra Valley viaduct here in Martinez made up of many adjoining girder bridges, uses the girder-and-plate approach along its length.
Mark
There is another thread discussing bridge shoes. Note my June 25 post.
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1472732/ShowPost.aspx