hi Noah, bridges are extremely expensive to build and maintain. A RR company will always compare cost between a bridge, dam, dyke or a landfill for a tiny inlet. A culvert will do for drainage unless a river or brook brings large quantities of water. Also the current of the sea plays it's role, when to strong a dam or dyke could cause issues. Anyway IMHO a bridge over an inlet the size of a pond seems unrealistic. A larger body of water could justify building a bridge. Bridges are awesome, the pic you provided thrilling. If I am not mistaken you will have a major change of trackplan ahead. Paul
Paul, with all due respect, since we've already got an absurdly small oval of track, which is hardly realistic, why pick on just the bridge? I think we can apply the principle of selective compression here. So, let's pretend the body of water is much larger than what's actually modeled, shall we? Myself, I have no problem with what he's doing!
This is what I think of when I look at his bridge scene: http://pauldorpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Rail-bridge-1.jpg Granted, one of the spans is movable, but if the river is navigable, then this is appropriate. Otherwise, fixed spans will work.
David- Do you have an example of painted surface water w/ gloss overcoat? When I said a navigable river, I meant more of a level body of water upstream from the inlet, versus my previous setup which would've been a waterfall into the inlet. So I guess there will be a ~40' clearance for vessels passing under the bridge. As for the 2x4 construction, I know that's it's overkill. But I come from a background of building large skateboard ramps and snowboard features. So I guess it's just what I'm used to using. Also, my Home Depot's selection of 1x4's were warped/knotted/splintery garbage. And I didn't want to rip plywood because all I have is a Skilsaw. The layout is actually not real heavy, and the underside is completely open (no cross-members) which makes it a bit more simple for the bus wires w/ feeders to each piece of Unitrack, and for wiring switches. Although, I know you're not a fan of the DCC mess either ;-). If I ever have to transport the layout, I can easily remove the legs and a buddy (or my wife) can help me move it. Paul- My layout, being based in Northern California, adheres to a strict regulatory climate and pesky environmentalist oversight. There is a common concern for harming the King Salmon population that spawn up this river. A culvert would drastically harm this migratory pattern. The railroad was therefore forced to install a bridge. If you don't believe me, Google: Davis Frog Tunnel ;-) In all seriousness, it's my first "real" layout so I'm not too concerned about modeling with regard to the railroad's budgeting decisions. I like the bridge and water feature because they add interest.
Sure do... This actually replaced a poured lake, which was inferior in every way. You can read how I re-did it here: http://ganddinz.blogspot.com/2011/08/lake-redux.html
David- that link to the bridge you posted looks like it could be here on the Sacramento Delta (it may actually be). We have numerous draw/lift/swing bridges. Again, I'm just going to make the small wharf on the 'outside' of the bridge to eliminate this concern. Here are a couple more local lift/swing bridges: This is the Tower Bridge in Downtown Sac. For vehicles only. This is the I Street Bridge also in Downtown Sacramento. The upper level of this intermodal bridge is for cars, and the lower level rails lead directly into the Sacramento Railyards.
Ahh yes, I read that before on your James River Branch website but I forgot that you went that route for the pond/lake. For some reason I was thinking you used magic water and it wasn't such a pleasant experience. I must be confusing layouts/articles. *edit: never mind, i see where you wrote that it replaced a 'poured' lake; and on the G & D, not James River Branch
I'll certainly practice before applying. Fortunately, it's a rather inexpensive method, so I can practice making even a larger body of water without much concern for cost. If my water can come anything close to as good as your's did on the G & D, I'll be ecstatic! Thanks again, David!
Off topic: Since I've started back at the hobby, I've been partial to the Kato brand (track, engines, and rolling stock). I know they've kinda got their own knuckle couplers going on. However, is there a "best" or recommended coupler that I should make universal in my N Scale collection?
With all due respect you could have read my entry a bit different. A tiny pond does not go well with an expensive bridge, so the trick to play is to make believe the body of water is much larger; e.g. by keeping the river on Noah's layout. Paul
My dear David, sometimes you are not very careful, I used the words "the size of a pond" and a bridge justified by a river or larger body of water. You had this bridge in mind for Noah's layout: http://pauldorpat.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Rail-bridge-1.jpg An awesome bridge, a wonderful picture; though pretty big to for Noah's river and the additional space required for its banks. When leaving out the left span the bridge plus abutments will take a space of 2 ft; for being navigatable it would require nowever a much wider river. Maybe some selective compression could make it fit. The length however of the river towards the second (road)bridge leaves us with a very short stretch along its banks. Long enough to justify to build a bridge to give access to a large enough warehousing area? Or would it be better to stick to a more modest approach and have some small ship/rail transloading facilities or fisherman's related activities like canneries or fish-packing plants along the front edge only. So the bridge does not have to be able to open and close. (is a non-movable bridge the proper word?) http://s411.photobucket.com/user/csuskim/media/avilatruss.jpg.html This scene is probably more then a mile long. How awesome this view might be, who has the space to build it? The balance between picking smaller scenes or more selective compression is often not easy. Basically there is no right or wrong. One modeler will choose for more selective compression then the other. It's just a matter of taste. Since two of my uncles were captain, one plying the oceans the other the Dutch and German canals and rivers, I do know how how much space ships really need to sail safe. Imagine a car with run-down tires on an ice road. Hardly any control of direction especially at low speeds when the wind and the currents take over. Though I might be a bit over sensitive on this subject. Smile Paul
So...I made some major changes this weekend. I felt that before I moved forward with my layout, I should just go ahead and do re-do my benchwork. I wanted to be able to somewhat easily remove the legs, and put the layout in storage if needed. I also wanted to eliminate the heavy 2x4" frame. Mostly because I felt it was a rookie thing to do, and I wanted the layout to be built a little more orthodox. 1. I completely disassembled the old setup. The only piece i planned to salvage for the remodeled layout was the top sheet of plywood. 2. I belt sanded the glue from the foam I had previously mounted. 3. I went to my big box hardware store and had them rip the plywood in store. I don't own a table saw so this is a great alternative. I wasn't about to try to rip plywood with my Skilsaw. I only had them do the necessary long-ways (hotdog) cuts, then I cut the pieces to length (hamburger) at home. 4. Wood ripped, cart loaded and ready to stuff this load into the back of my WRX wagon. I even cut the foam [myself] in store -mostly so it'd fit in my car. 5. At the end of an 8 hr day of nonstop work, I had all of my pieces cut and ready to go for assembly the next day.
….cont'd 6. Assembly... This is kinda of my own design -not that it's much out of the ordinary. It seemed to work just fine though. 7. Pretty much completed my work for the weekend at this point 8. Little undercarraige shot for ya 9. Floated the track on the fresh setup 10. And finally a close up of the new river/inlet setup The moral of this post is: if you do it wrong the first time, but you still have time to go back and change it before it's too late, maybe you should just bite the bullet. My mistake of going the other route wasted some time and money, but now I am quite happy with the outcome. And after two eight hour days of "construction" work, I am sore and very tired!
Great result of your "redesign". Looks now pretty sturdy but elegant too, your benchwork. Go on and let us see...
Congratulations on a job well done! The new benchwork looks great. I especially like the legs, definitely functional while looking good and a nice change from the standard 2 x 2's or what-have-you. You obviously put some thought into the redesign. Very sturdy looking. The only thing I'm wondering about is that the layout looks kind of low. N scale especially appears more pleasing to the eye the closer it gets to eye-level, however on a small layout I suppose it's not really necessary to put it up high. By the way, tell me about false starts and do-overs. I've started, stopped, redesigned and reverse-engineered more times than I care to think about. If I had a dollar for every time my wife has said "don't you ever finish anything?" I could probably finance a two week vacation. But we gotta do what we gotta do... right?
David and Paulus, if you don't stop this jousting I will have no choice but to recommended model railroad mediation!:funny:
Great work on the bench work rebuild. Like how clean it is and the lighting underneath. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
