Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
At 5 feet long and 40 inches deep, it sounds like steel viaduct time to me. MicroEngineering makes two fine Tall Viaduct kits (180' and 240' high respectively) that sounds as if it might do the trick. I'm thinking that you'll need two of the kits, as each kit is only about 3' long. I used two of the 180' tall kits to span a 6' gap in my own MR, mine had to be built on a 34" radius (however the instructions cover 'curving' the spans very well). Also, with the taller 240' high span, you get 50' large girder spans to cover the distance from the towers, giving the bridge a much less 'spidery' look. Construction seems a little imposing at first, until you get the first tower built, then it's pretty easy from then on. I think they're terrific kits.
Here's my Deer Creek Viaduct, made from two of the 180' tall kits. Hope this helps.
As I said, this is made from the 180' kit, the 240' tall kit has larger 50' long girders between the towers.
PS: Another thought: This months Railroad Model Craftsman has a very detailed article on how Dick Roberts adapted the ME kits to model the big Bear River Bridge in California, at one time the highest steel viaduct in the state. It's got some terrific ideas.
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!
Brent,
Are we talking about a deep V-style canyon, or more like a river valley? If it's the latter, the bridge shown in the previous responses will work nicely. If it's a deep V, you'd be better off with something like the Canyon Diablo bridge:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2252840833_885b3ae817.jpg?v=0
I built a model of it in HO. Mine is actually scaled closer to N-scale, since the full-scale model would have been 6' long! But that one only has supports at the ends and where the concrete footings are.
Robert Beaty
The Laughing Hippie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The CF-7...a waste of a perfectly good F-unit!
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the
end of your tunnel, Was just a freight train coming
your way. -Metallica, No Leaf Clover
Arjay1969 wrote: Brent,Are we talking about a deep V-style canyon, or more like a river valley? If it's the latter, the bridge shown in the previous responses will work nicely. If it's a deep V, you'd be better off with something like the Canyon Diablo bridge:http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2252840833_885b3ae817.jpg?v=0 I built a model of it in HO. Mine is actually scaled closer to N-scale, since the full-scale model would have been 6' long! But that one only has supports at the ends and where the concrete footings are.
If the curved sections of the bridge are not at the deepest point of the canyon, a long truss-bridge span (say 120 to 200 feet long) could be placed at that point and a steel viaduct (composed of 30/50-foot girder sections) for the curved portion of the bridge. This would reduce the height of the tallest towers and make the bridge more interesting.
Mark
twhite wrote: .... This months Railroad Model Craftsman has a very detailed article on how Dick Roberts adapted the ME kits to model the big Bear River Bridge in California, at one time the highest steel viaduct in the state. It's got some terrific ideas. Tom
.... This months Railroad Model Craftsman has a very detailed article on how Dick Roberts adapted the ME kits to model the big Bear River Bridge in California, at one time the highest steel viaduct in the state. It's got some terrific ideas.
Tom, because of you I drove the 2.5 miles to "my" local hobby shop and bought the RMC mag you referenced. Having just skimmed the article and knowing you're an NCNG -- Bear Creek bridge fan, you better get started building NOW. It took the author six years to build his.
Brent--
That line in the background is below the bridge, but doesn't dip under the bridge proper. The bridge ends at an embankment, and crosses the lower line about 6" further down the right of way on a through-girder overpass.
BTW, just saw the Sunset ad on that Selkirk (I've got the Z-6 Challenger on order from them) and that is one INCREDIBLY beautiful locomotive. Congratulations. I've got several Sunset brass locos, and they're beautiful runners and good pullers. I think you'll be very happy.
Mark--
Wow--you bought the magazine all because of ME? I'm honored, sir, belive me! I was kind of bowled over myself, reading about how long it took him to build it. Six years. Imagine. And the NCNG built the real one in a little under four months, LOL! But isn't that one INCREDIBLE honey of a model? But it'll have to be something I can only dream about, since I'm just simply out of 'bridge' area on the Yuba River Sub. Besides, that curved Deer Creek Viaduct too me almost six months to build--radius templates, cutting, filing, using language that I didn't even know the meaning of the words--fitting and re-fitting--and that didn't even include fitting the doggone TRACK! I found out through much trial and error that you don't bend Sinohara bridge track like it was Atlas, unless you ENJOY stray guard-rails springing out and hitting you in the nose. One thing, though--after building that viaduct, I can put one of those darned ME towers together with my eyes closed. Funny thing about that--an N-scale friend of mine was listening to me hold forth on how complex the kit was and told me that the N-scale towers of the same kit come in four pre-formed pieces. You just cement them together and--VOILA! A tower. I almost killed him.
Don't get me going, LOL! On a certain thread of this Forum, I have been given the nickname "Bridge Tom" because of my propensity for throwing a bridge almost anywhere on the layout that I can find an excuse.
While I'm at it, and since someone mentioned the Santa Fe Canyon Diablo bridge and you yourself mentioned the Stoney Creek bridge, here's another big bridge I have on the Yuba River Sub. Now I don't know if it would work for you, but it's an arched steel viaduct--this particular model is made by Faller of Germany, though I've "North-Americanized" it a little. It's about 3 feet long, and is modeled after the Beichstahl bridge in Switzerland. If you wanted a central arch to help span the ravine, this might be adapted:
Another frequent contributor to this forum--ArtHill--has also built this model and "Americanized" it even more, and given it a much more spectacular setting. Hopefully if he sees this thread he'll show you what he's done with it. It's another model very much worth thinking about. However, being a German import, it's a little pricey, these days. But very much worth the outlay, IMO. And it goes together quite a bit easier than the ME viaducts.
Hope I'm not confusing you.
I would humbly suggest that you might consider revising your scenery a bit to accommodate a smaller bridge structure. Generally, prototype railroads prefered to avoid such acrobatics whenever possible, as they are costly to build, and more costly to maintain. They also generally require restrictions in terms of weight loads and speeds, which can also add expense to running trains. While such bridges certainly exist, and there have been a number fine models built along those lines, I tend to think like a typical railroader and try to figure a way to run the line less dramatically...
I'm such a stick in the mud!
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Lee:
You're not a stick in the mud at all, LOL!
Unfortunately, out here in the West, in mountain ranges such as the Sierra, Cascades, Sawtooth, Montana Rockies, Canadian Rockies and Coast Ranges, there often 'just ain't no way 'round it', because the mountains are geolgically young and spiky and still growing and the canyons are deep and often wide and to build around them would mean many additional miles of difficult cliff-hanging construction, which has it's own problems (winter avalanches, summer landslides, expensive to maintain snowsheds, etc.) so often the only way to alleviate the problem is directly, with a big, expensive bridge or viaduct across a deep canyon.
So you end up with two choices of operational nightmares on the prototype. For myself, none of the 15 bridges on my Yuba River Sub are 'for show', they're there because of the Sierra topography I planned in advance and the need to get the railroad OVER that particular topography. For instance, the number of bridges on the UP--formerly SP Cascade Division in Northern California would make you blink. And some of them are HUGE. But they're not there because SP liked bridges--they're there because they have to be there, otherwise the line could not have been built--or would have to have been built with line detours that would have made the whole route totally unprofitable.
It's what railroads out here--and I believe Brent's modeling the Pacific mountains--work. Bridges. Lots of 'em. And far more than the railroads would probably wish.
Just my thoughts.
Brent, Tom got me to try the berchstahl bridge and I love it. Building it was fun and time consuming. Amereicanizing it was a blast. You've seen the bridge so you know what I tried. It also showed up in MR this month. If you try it, share your pics.
BTW a ME bridge is next on my list.
Howdy, Brent.
One question. Do you have to have curved track on any part of your proposed bridge? If so, you might consider the asymmetric loads on the structure, which will have to be allowed for.
If your track across the abyss doesn't deviate too much from straight, you might consider a temporary through girder, AKA steel stud, with the track laid inside rain-gutter fashion. The raised lips of the stud provide a safety fence in case some piece of rolling stock decides to attempt suicide. The ones I use are all in hidden track, and are intended to be permanent.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Chuck's got a really good suggestion.
As to my own situation, while I was planning out the Deer Creek Viaduct, I simply laid wide-radius curved track on stacked and glued 4" WS risers. It wasn't very 'scenic' but it did the job until I could fit the viaduct in. But spline would work very well--make sure you support it, though--as if I had to say that, LOL!--until you can work your bridge in.
Now that you mention it, you're right! In fact, my own beloved Western Maryland crossed the Potomac no fewer than 9 times between Hagerstown and Cumberland, 10 if you count the connection track to the B&O at Cherry Run. The B&O, built 50 years earlier, occupied the twists and turns of the river valley, so the WM had to shoot the straight line and dig and bridge as necessary.
Most of those bridges were in the 600-800' long range, and the route was also punctuated by 5 tunnels, one of them almost a mile long! I guess the big difference is the bridge deckss were never more the 40 or 50' above the river.
I stand corrected!
Batman--
That's incredibly spectacular. And, the CN being the 'Johnny-Come-Lately' in the Fraser River Canyon had to do a lot of that to keep their grade separate from the CP.
Oddly enough, it seems to be the "Johnny Come Latelies"--railroads built after the original transcons were laid in the 19th Century, that tend to have the most spectacular bridges because of their improved construction techniques. In the Northwest, the Great Northern had some incredible viaducts to save miles of construction (whle the original Northwest transcon NP built 'around' them as much as possible), and when the even newer Milwaukee built its Pacific Extension, in the first decade of the 20th Century, there seemed to be a big bridge or viaduct every few miles or so over the Rockies to help the railroad attain the most direct route west possible.
And Lee mentions the WM in the Alleghenies, using newer construction techniques to attain the goals of that particular railroad in the least amount of mileage possible. And from the photos I've seen of the WM, it was a REALLY spectacular piece of construction.
Oddly enough, here in the California Sierras, on the two trans-mountain routes now owned by the Union Pacific, the very difficult profile of the Southern Pacific route over Donner Pass built in the 1860's contains only about four or five major bridges because of it's ridge-top profile, while the later 20th Century construction of the Western Pacific through the Feather River Canyon required a great many more--including three spectacular viaducts--because of the 1% maximum grade imposed by the railroad resulting in a much longer route closer to a canyon floor.
Yes, bridges are expensive to maintain, but often they have to be weighed against the impact of total mileage reduction in the total route.
Luckily, on model railroads, we don't really have to spend money 'maintaining' them, and the result is usually a REAL attention getter.
Keep us posted on what you decide, okay?
BATMAN wrote:Thanks guys. Chuck your timing is perfect. I was just going to take some old steel studs and stringers from a dismantled kennel building, to the metal recycler. Brent
Save the steel! It can be used for risers, joists and even 'C works like L' girders. Smaller angle and channel can be used to beat plywood subgrade into submission, or to brace sagging splinework.
With the exception of cookie-cut plywood subgrade and thin foam, my benchwork is all steel. Desert heat and (lack of) humidity does terrible things to wood, but my ferrous framework is entirely unaffected.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on steel stud benchwork)
WM's Salisbury Viaduct near Meyersdale, PA, and 4 miles to the east...
Keystone Viaduct. These two bridges are on the west slope of the Allegheny ridge, and were built to keep the grade close to 1%. Ironically, the Western Maryland and the Western Pacific were both laid out, if not built by the same group, the Fuller Syndicate, which was a project of George Gould, son of the notorious robber baron, Jay Gould. His scheme was to create a coast to coast transcon by piecing together existing roads and building connections where they were needed.
The Connellsville Sub of the WM was actually built in 1912, after the collapse of the syndicate, but it was deemed necessary to create a western connection to provide a competitive route to the B&O between Baltimore and Pittsburgh. The final link in what would have been Gould's road was the Pittsburgh and West Virginia connection to the WM at Connellsville, which included this massive bridge built in 1931.
Unfortunately, despite its outstanding engineering and thoroughly modern design of the WM routes between Hagerstown and Cumberland, and Cumberland and Connellsville, both were abandoned when Chessie the Knife assumed control in the mid 1970's. All traffic was routed over the B&O's archaic, twisting and steep lines due to Chessie's aversion to taking care of things. (i.e. Bridges and Tunnels.)
The good news is that the route is now accessible as a hiking/biking trail. Not as fun as chasing trains, but you can at least experience the landscape.
I guess the lesson here is to think about the history of your railroad, was it there first using old technology? or was it the late comer that had no choice but to bridge and tunnel its way around the old competitor?
Although, soaring steel bridges are more common in the west, I do have a thing for the graceful stone and concrete viaducts of the Northeast...
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
It would be a hugely demanding project, but one of the largest and longest viaducts in the world is the Lethbridge CPR viaduct in southern Alberta.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/canadian-west/052920/05292082_e.html
Crandell:
WHOAH!! That baby makes the Pecos River bridge on the UP (ex-SP) Sunset route look like a culvert, LOL! Now, THAT'S drool-inducing
Lee: What I admire about those WM bridges is that they look so incredibly SOLID! That railroad was built really WELL. Your comment about Chessie and the Connelsville branch reminds me of BN when they took over SP&S and abandoned the newer high-speed grade from the Columbia River north to Spokane in favor of the older, more curving and heavier graded NP line--their excuse was that the NP line served a couple of towns in the Yakima Valley that the SP&S bypassed. Could be, but it sure added travel time.
They're styrene. LOTS of styrene.
Brent, you would cover a span of 61.25' in real-world scale.