I have been modeling a 30 mile segment of now defunct short line, the DAV&P. So far I have been pretty faithful at keeping things historically accurate, ok well with in the limits of time, space and budget. I have had to make few concessions. I have come to one bridge that is well vary plain. Its supposed to be a simple girder bridge, see example photo below. I was thinking of building a warren truss bridge instead. But here is the facts. This is the bridge that washed out in the 70’s and was the final nail in the railroads coffin, so as to speak. After the wash out Conrail ripped up the rails. So this little bridge brought the line to its end. So in short do I model the bridge that “ KILLED “ my short line or do I model the original simple bridge, or do I model a different more interesting bridge and get a little bit of revenge? What would you do? The first pic is close to the Original bridge and the second is a posible replacement.
If it were my layout, I'd opt for modeling the bridge as close to the prototype as budget, availability, and my talents allow. Others will cheer your efforts to avoid modeling the bridge that murdered the prototype RR. :tb-tongue::tb-biggrin:Of course, you could also decide by not deciding: make them both and install them in a way that you can exchange them out as the whim moves you. This interchangability option has been used by some modelers who like to model multiple eras so that, by putting in a few signature structures to identify a particular era, they can set up either old structures or modern structures as a function of the type of locos and rolling stock they want to run that particular day. .
My quick vote would be for the original one. Looks like you could make an interesting and identifiable scene of that. Jamie
I might look at the one best fitting my time frame modeled. However, that bridge which makes you happiest is the right one. Boxcab E50
I think the original bridge also. The possible replacement you show may stick out like a sore thumb. Mainetrains
Sounds to me like you are trying to be as faithful to the actual line as possible. I too recommend the "real" bridge simply BECAUSE it has an important place in the history of the line, albeit a sad history...this part of your layout will be a dicussion poit when visitors come by. So do you want to say "yep this bridge led to the closure of the line" or "yep a bridge in this spot, not the one I modeled, but something different, led to the close of the line"?
There is more to this pseudo-quandry (it isn't a dilemma, which, by definition, requires a forced choice, both of which will do harm, and the way ahead is not obvious). I say there is more to it because your opening remarks, if we are to take them at face value, provide us with clues to your motivation and your sense of fidelity to a prototype. Then you introduce the fact that you wish to use another bridge. Your words do not say as much, but your meta-message does. So, I would throw the question back to you with one of my own...what is is about the original bridge that you find unsettling, defective, or unappealing to such an extent that in this one instance you would be seriously contemplating breaking from your original plan to be faithful to the prototype? I think the clue may be in your use of the word "plain". It doesn't have much appeal to you, and you have developed a preference, say a "hankering" for the truss type. So, in the end, you must live with your decision, and it is yours to make. You will continually have to rationalize your choice once the bridge is fitted and becomes a more-or-less permanent fixture that you may have to explain away to guests. Since you asked, and in keeping with your prior commitment to the prototype, it would not be debatable for me...the original must be placed there. What you can do at a later date, say in 3-5 years, is fictionalize your railroad's true history, extend it to the present, and introduce what would have been a replaced bridge and newly acquired diesels and such. In that respect, nothing would preclude adding and ripping up spurs as their needs changed. It would add some considerable longevity to a layout that you weren't prepared or ready to dismantle.
I want to thank you all for putting in your ideas. As I red threw the different post I began to see that there was no clear cut answer, at least not at first. Then a single comment jumped out at me. “So do you want to say "yep this bridge led to the closure of the line" or "yep a bridge in this spot, not the one I modeled, but something different, led to the close of the line"? “ By: J Cater After all the work to fallow with the prototype as close as I had. It would be a shame to have to explain that every time. Then my 9 year old daughter and I where talking about it in the train room the other night, when she made this observation: “ But dad it was not the bridge that washed its self out! “ By Melissa Moore That’s when it hit me. The bridge did not do anything, in reality it was the raging water from the store that washed it out. The bridge had been doing what it was supposed to do from day one. I guess if I was going to harbor ill feelings toward anything it should be Conrail’s upper management, who made the decision to abandoned the line after the wash out. So the original / proper bridge will be molded. I have also begun to reconsider 2 other deviations that may just get fix as well. I want to thank all for there input. I thought this was a simple question, but as we got into it, it was anything but.
Sean, glad we could help. I am often in the same boat as I try to model the Colorado and Southern in the fall of 1899...some deviations are necessary, others I just can't live with
My vote does not count but: I'd go for something out of the box. Expand the width of the river and put a completely out of place sweeping concrete arch. While it may not represent your railroad there are 100s of examples where a stray architechtural construction has appeared in the midst of normal.
