Track fiddler Ok, I'm sure you meant well by that?
Ok, I'm sure you meant well by that?
I meant what I said. To me, it's a very interesting structure. If I were modeling in the area, I would build it.
Ed
PS:
Here's a bridge I'd like to model:
Actually, I started it awhile ago, but I stopped when I found I didn't have a place for it.
You'll note it's far from flashy. It actually looks like it'll be replaced next week. But it keeps on keepin' on.
Yes. Very nice. Hope someone models it someday.
I especially like the use of steel to support the girder span, and the funny curved brackets. Very classy, in an unpretentious way.
This is a Trestle I grew up with. Wooden Trestle, steel Truss. This one still exists in St Louis Park Minnesota and is fully operational. (Pictures taken within 6 months)
Solid as a board. The modern-day treatments to Railroad Lumber are Elite compared to what they were. This trestle Lumber was treated right in St Louis Park but that's a whole nother story.
Since the subject is up. This Trestle was in the news, attempted to be burnt down more than once. Who would try to do such a thing to such a beautiful structure. She just smiled and laughed at her assailants.
Oh and that other guardrail crap wasn't up when we were kids around this trestle either.
7j43kDid it burn down?
This would be fun to model:
Bridge and trestle fires were pretty common (hence the fire barrels on some). Once the creosote in the ties and timbers start burning, there's no turning back.
And when the cow kicked it overShe winked her eye and said,There'll be a HOT time on the old town tonight.
A 20 yr. old arsonist started the fire.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/mayerthorpe-arson-schalm-1.4192783
Interesting to note that the Mayerthorpe trestle was rebuilt and trains were running again in less than a month!
Cheers, Ed
You've always been a smart aleck Ed. Could be why I kind of like ya.
I guess it takes one to know one.
TF
So. What happened to it?
Did it burn down? Slowly (fire retardant)?
I seem to remember MR did an article on the Stanislaus River Bridge in one of their issues around 2015-16 featuring a modeler that had built it. My short-term memory hasn't been that great lately so don't Bank on it
I do believe it was before I got my 3-year subscription to MR when I used to check out MR at the library. I remember the bridge was painted red because it was a fire retardant paint they used back then.
The article I remember could have been the same bridge builder.
SeeYou190 Steven, anytime you post pictures of something you did not build, you should always give credit to the builder.
Steven, anytime you post pictures of something you did not build, you should always give credit to the builder.
Well, yes. Should. As in: it's a nice, polite and respectful thing to do. Nowhere near must. I wouldn't let my lack of knowledge about who built a model to keep me from posting it.
It's also nice to give photo credits. I generally don't when I post them here. I just do the link, and there they are. If a photo is a real stunner, as opposed to a trackside record shot, I think it's nice to give the photographer's name. And a compliment.
I don't know the rules about posting pictures you did not take, did you take these?
Neither do I. But if an on-line photo is linkable, I believe it can be posted here. I know I've done it many times, including in this very topic.
NWP SWP This is the bridge I'm talking about. Those are the best pictures I could find.
This is the bridge I'm talking about.
Those are the best pictures I could find.
.
Anyway, compliments to the builder and the photographer. That is an impressive model.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Ok thanks guys!
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
selector Those two back-to-back Howe Trusses would have been a chore to build.
Those two back-to-back Howe Trusses would have been a chore to build.
Especially up in the Sierra Nevadas, where there's unlikely to be flat space near to the bridge location to do the assembly. Then you get to build falsework to support the construction, piece by piece, in place.
Oh. Oops. Your raiload just went bankrupt because it took too long and cost too much money to build things like the wrong bridge in the wrong place.
NWP SWP I'm not doing an exact model of the bridge, I'm just basing my model off it. I'm going to have to add more bents to the trestle for increased weight loading.
I'm not doing an exact model of the bridge, I'm just basing my model off it.
I'm going to have to add more bents to the trestle for increased weight loading.
Probably more posts per bent is the way to go.
I'm also going to relocate the bridge to the Sierra Nevadas.
How can you base your model on a bridge that spans a river in a shallow flood plain when there isn't anything like that up in the mountains? Why not examine bridges up there, say on the old SP line over the hill, or the WP? And then there's the SP and GN/WP up north.
If you're expecting to model bridges in certain geographical locations, why not examine the ones already there, and see how THEY did it?
NWP SWP http://sandcrr.blogspot.com/2014/12/stanislaus-river-bridged.html?m=1 That's his website.
http://sandcrr.blogspot.com/2014/12/stanislaus-river-bridged.html?m=1
That's his website.
Seeing as this bridge was apparently near Oakdale, CA, I'm going to replace my claim that the upstream protector was for ice, and now say it is for floating debris coming downriver from the spring thaw in the mountains.
And the river looks very non-navigable.
OK, found that one too, now I know where your getting the stacked timber thing.
Mike.
My You Tube
My compliments to the soon-to-be identified bridge builder. Beauty, as they say in a country far, far away.
Steven,
That is an excellent recreation of an old wooden bridge. Notice how lightly built it is.
From the way the two piers are framed, it looks like they were designed to hold in loose rock. When the model is done, you should see lotsa little HO pebbles inside. Should look way-kool!
Upstream (to the left), that would be a structure to protect the center pier from ice damage.
I am not sure if the river is navigable. I note that the spans are deck, not through; so I lean towards no.
You would never see those wood trusses replaced by steel unless the entire bridge was also modified. The trestle looks to be on a flood plain. Therefore I think they would have replaced the wood trestle with a steel one (see Microengineering). I do note that one example, above, has a similar wood trestle approach to the main spans. So a (much sturdier) wood trestle is not impossible, though I think it unlikely. It looks to me that the real one has the trestle resting directly on the ground-adequate for a very temporary installation. Not for anything longer. I can't tell if the model is built with foundations for the bents, or if that is supposed to be ground, with plaster filling in later. A non-temporary trestle would have either a driven pile foundation or a concrete one. That is because the overflow of the river will tend to erode the ground around the trestle.
The two piers would have been replaced by concrete, either completely, or with a concrete foundation supporting a steel pier.
The truss spans might have stayed as deck style, especially if the river stayed non-navigable. Deck trusses are cheaper than through.
That beautiful wood bridge looks to me to have been a very temporary job, just to get the railroad through, so as to start bringing in the bucks--either as freight or because there was a completion deadline. It is very lacking in durability.
Two steel spans with steel trestle approaches supported by concrete would make a very beautiful model, also. Just a lot more modern, sturdy, and durable.
Nice-looking bridge, Steven, but it would be nice, I think, to give credit to the builder and/or the photographer.
Wayne
NWP SWPI might do something like Stanislaus River Bridge that was in MR a while back.
I'm looking through the archives, not finding anything. Maybe we're all talking about different bridges over the Stanislaus river.
After a search, I see there were others.
NWP SWP Ok how does a wood approach trestle, a steel deck truss, a through truss over the navigable channel, another deck truss and lastly the second approach trestle.
Ok how does a wood approach trestle, a steel deck truss, a through truss over the navigable channel, another deck truss and lastly the second approach trestle.
I'd replace the deck trusses with deck girder.
There's a reason for the choices designers make in doing bridges. For example, trusses will make longer spans, but cost more. So when you NEED a longer span, you use a truss. If you don't, the girder would be the choice. So, in your idea, above, there would have to be a reason to choose deck truss over deck girder. Regarding the trestle: I expect most of the time, they would use fill instead of the trestle. But when you use a trestle, it will allow water flow. Fill won't. That is why there is still a long trestle on the line just west of Sacramento. The river overflows on occasion--through the trestlework.
I really like the stacked timber piers that the Stanislaus had, maybe I can use stone but use the timbers as the break water (not sure if I have the right term).
I'm not finding anything close to what you'ra talking about when you use the term "Stanislaus". How about a link to a photo. Or two.
Masonry is a bad choice for bridge supports. You are HOPING the mortar holds. Or you are using huge stones that are beautifully fitted. Very expensive. Concrete is the preferred choice.
Wood pilings around the concrete can be used to protect it from impacts delivered via the water.
NWP SWPI know Central Valley makes really nice through trusses and Walthers has the Cornerstone deck truss
I used the Central Valley through girder with Walthers wood pile bents and I like the results:
EL_3638b by Edmund, on Flickr
It is an industrial area, wood was cheap but steel had to be used to span four tracks below.
NWP SWPAnyone know of a good steel deck truss kit,
The Walthers Pratt truss wouldn't work?
https://www.walthers.com/109-single-track-pratt-deck-truss-railroad-bridge-kit-15-x-2-5-8-x-3-1-8-quot-38-1-x-6-6-x-7-9cm
Exactrail makes a beautiful 72 foot deck girder. Sadly, it is not a kit nor a truss so does not meet your criteria.
https://exactrail.com/collections/all/products/72-deck-plate-girder-bridge-wood-handrails-gn
There are several lengths, handrail options and paint jobs available.
Good Luck, Ed
Anyone know of a good steel deck truss kit, I know Central Valley makes really nice through trusses and Walthers has the Cornerstone deck truss but I don't think the Walthers model would look very good with the higher detailed CV kit.
I could be wrong though!
j. c. google black warrior river bridge
google black warrior river bridge
Three story high trestle. Taller than the others.
And another interesting bridge.
And it's a great example of a bridge on a curve.
7j43k An interesting round-over on the end of the girder. Since there's not one at the other end, I'm gonna assume it was done to keep low hanging loads from slamming the end of the girder. Which I've never seen before. But it also might explain the more common double-ended version of the round-over.
An interesting round-over on the end of the girder. Since there's not one at the other end, I'm gonna assume it was done to keep low hanging loads from slamming the end of the girder. Which I've never seen before. But it also might explain the more common double-ended version of the round-over.
Ed, I get the suspicion that this river crossing has seen at least two different versions of construction in the 100 years that it has been present. It could be that the girder closest to us was modified to fit that odd pier-that-looks-like-an-abutment, and slid from the span now occupied by the Pratt. This entire area is frequently tidally flooded....Bay of Fundy with its extraordinary tides. Maybe they came close to loosing the first construction and modified it by lengthening it to span to higher ground? That is to say, it's kinda untidy, if interesting and appealing in its own right, so it is probably tinkered with.
7j43k I would have thought they'd use a deck girder. Is there a road underneath that needs the clearance?
I would have thought they'd use a deck girder. Is there a road underneath that needs the clearance?
As I suggested above, I think this bridge is different from a previously existing, perhaps original, perhaps not, version. There most definitely would NOT have been a road anywhere near the bridge. Tidal plain. The Gaspereau (GAS-pero) river runs in a deep tidal mud-flat type channel, great for paddle boarding, tubing, and kayaking. The main highway runs NE/SW at this point, about 400 yards to the east of the bridge, and we had to park at a farmer's field and walk about 400 yards to get to the bridge across his field, but approaching from the west.
Here's a photo I took at the south end, the end we can't see along the curve at the far side of the Gaspereau in the first image.
7j43k By the way: In the above photo, there is one bridge but a least four spans (depending on how you classify the trestle)(two truss and two girder). Abutments are normally only at the ends of a bridge--besides vertical support, they hold the embankment back and provide longitudinal stability. Piers are used between abutments. And trestles, again, kind of cloud the issue. Ed
By the way:
In the above photo, there is one bridge but a least four spans (depending on how you classify the trestle)(two truss and two girder). Abutments are normally only at the ends of a bridge--besides vertical support, they hold the embankment back and provide longitudinal stability. Piers are used between abutments. And trestles, again, kind of cloud the issue.
Well................they serve a purpose when they can help control costs and don't really need to be removed, modified much, or rebuilt. This wonderful hodge-podge must have been the ticket for a team of engineers and the bean counters.