Black Country Blues

[wagonbasher]

That sounds promising; are you at Expo EM?  I'll be there with Foundry Lane.

 

 

A bit more progress on the Starfish - just those fiddly door bangs and footsteps to add.  My first couple of attempts to solder together some footsteps from scraps of brass found their way to the bin.

DSCF3227.JPG

 

As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm taking a second look at the Heljan Dogfish.  Here is the next victim straight out of the box

DSCF3226.JPG

 

I had a feeling that the axleguards might be a little too small - comparing to part of a MJT brass axleguard appears to confirm my suspicions

DSCF3230.JPG

 

I've drilled through the axleboxes and trimmed away some of the plastic leaving just enough to keep axle alignment - there is still some tidying up to do here

DSCF3232.JPG

 

To keep things square, I've drilled a offcut of chipboard and inserted a 2mm brass rod and mounted the wagon on this while I work

DSCF3233.JPG

 

Trimming the top off the brass axleguard allowed it to drop in place and I've placed a axlebox in position (need to find some springs!).  I plan to glue the brass to the plastic, then fit some shoulderless pin-point bearings pressed in from the front to give the correct spacing to suit the normal 26mm axle length.

 

DSCF3231.JPG

The bear4ing centres on the new etch look lower than the RTR version, is the buffer height correct ?

 

Andy

[Mark Forrest]

Yes, as far as I can tell from the documents I've read, 3' is the minimum height on this type of bridge.

As we only need to raise our handrail 9" above the girder top I wonder if they might use a smaller less substantial support?

[Mark Forrest]

The bear4ing centres on the new etch look lower than the RTR version, is the buffer height correct ?

 

Andy

They do look lower don't they, but they aren't; the brass rod is passed through where the axle used to be - optical illusion (or my dodgy photos?)

[The Stationmaster]

Handrail height was 3ft 6inches in the 1950 edition of 'the requirements'  But what is the purpose of it?  Is it there to provide a walkway as on the bridge at Barnstaple or is it there for refuge purposes and in fact is there any room for refuges in any case?  Not all bridges of this type had refuges (not sure how 'they' got away with it but the one on our local branch doesn't have any and that's on a 'proper' railway as opposed to an industrial line.  In other words is it ok as it stands?

[Stubby47]

The bridge in Andy's pic has no refuges and a high-ish barrier on top of the girder. But, the angle iron on the girder supporting each upright would be a trip hazard ( at least it would be today) so might hinder walking along the girder.

 

I asked about refuges on the main viaduct and was told they would not be needed on such a short distance - as the girder bridge is even shorter, then I guess the same logic applies and none would needed. So, what is the barrier for ? If it's to allow foot crossing of the bridge then the footway needs to be walkable. If it's not for a foot crossing, then it's for an occasional pedestrian, so would not, necessarily, need to be as robust.

[Mark Forrest]

  In other words is it ok as it stands?

The more I think about it, the more I think it probably is.  Am I correct in thinking that the "requirements" were requirements for passenger lines but mere recommendations for goods lines?  For a difference of only 9" below the passenger line requirement I'm of the opinion that our industrial line probably wouldn't have bothered with a handrail at all.

[Mark Forrest]

The bridge in Andy's pic has no refuges and a high-ish barrier on top of the girder. But, the angle iron on the girder supporting each upright would be a trip hazard ( at least it would be today) so might hinder walking along the girder.

 

I asked about refuges on the main viaduct and was told they would not be needed on such a short distance - as the girder bridge is even shorter, then I guess the same logic applies and none would needed. So, what is the barrier for ? If it's to allow foot crossing of the bridge then the footway needs to be walkable. If it's not for a foot crossing, then it's for an occasional pedestrian, so would not, necessarily, need to be as robust.

We've probably confused things by refering to it as a handrail; there isn't a walkway on our bridge - reason the rail was being included was to raise the height to the minimum required; but that might not be applicable in our scenario.

[Daniel W]

The Gulf Red on that Dogfish is very bright, nothing that a good bit of weathering won't fix I suppose. I do like that Heljan managed to include the pipe above the solebar though. What is your general opinion of the Heljan Dogfish relative to the Cambrian kit Mark?

[DonB]

Here's a picture of a (now a cycle trail) rail bridge  over the Trent near Melbourne, of a different construction to Spams' bridge, but with "hand rail(?)" height of barely 3 feet. Very comfortable to lean one's elbows on!

 

 

An adjacent bridge, of similar construction to Spams', over the canal has side panels about 5ft 6" high!

 

 

I think both were M.R. installations.

Edited May 7, 2013 by DonB

[Mark Forrest]

The Gulf Red on that Dogfish is very bright, nothing that a good bit of weathering won't fix I suppose.

DB983217 was looking a little bit more careworn by the time Paul Bartlett photographed it in '92  http://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/brdogfish/h21939e89#h21939e89

 

I do like that Heljan managed to include the pipe above the solebar though. What is your general opinion of the Heljan Dogfish relative to the Cambrian kit Mark?

I think the solebars (which lack rivet detail) and axleguards (undersize and axleboxes/springs lack depth) on the Heljan are its weakness. I know that some have picked up on faults with the angle iron supports on the body, but they seem ok to me. I've not actually built one of the Cambrian kits, but looking at their Catfish it seems to have better solebar detail. I suppose what it will come down to is how much time/effort it takes to tart up the Heljan versus building the Cambrian kit. The Heljan isn't the simple "pop in a new wheelset and do a bit of weathering" that I'd hoped - but I've heard the Cambrian is challenging to assembly square and true.

[Mark Forrest]

I had something like this in mind:

 

but just look at the level of the trackbed - quite different to the BCB bridge:

[wagonbasher]

So around full circle, Marks 'sketchup' single rail fits the bill to just get the height correct.

 

Andy

[Enterprisingwestern]

That sounds promising; are you at Expo EM?  I'll be there with Foundry Lane.

 

DSCF3231.JPG

 

 

See you there.

 

Mike.

[Old Gringo]

I had something like this in mind:

 

but just look at the level of the trackbed - quite different to the BCB bridge:

 

As Mike said in post 134 the minimum height between the running rail level and the top of the parapet (or hand-rail in this case) would have been 3 feet 6 inches, 14mm minimum in our case.

 

In practice, I think that this was generally increased on many bridges to 4 foot and increased yet again in B.R. days where an intersection bridge was crossing anything electrical.

 

So, if we set the handrail 16 mm above the running rail, it should be within spec. and satisfy the known measurements. 

[Arthur]

Nice photo here of a Janus crossing a canal bridge on an internal line at Shelton steelworks, Stoke on Trent.  Too distant to show any detail but the handrails, both sides, are clearly there.

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robmcrorie/5359164917/

[Mark Forrest]

This appears to confirm that a hand/guard rail of any sorts is optional on an industrial line

Workington Port Railway System by 28Gwyn, on Flickr

 

Workington Port Railway System by 28Gwyn, on Flickr

[The Stationmaster]

I wonder if we're starting to confuse several issues here.  Firstly as Mark has picked up, 'the requirements' applied to passenger lines and were merely recommendations for goods lines although they do provide useful guidance for other lines as well.  But what we then need to consider is the depth of the girders - which is directly related in most designs to the loading the bridge is required to bear, deeper girders allow heavier loads and vice versa.  And also what any walkway of any sort might be provided for.

 

The latter point I think is the only one that is likely to take this particular bridge near to any sort of need for a handrail or 'a suitable rail to meet a height requirement for the sides of the bridge' and that depends largely on assumed usage.  I think it is fairly safe to say that there is no specific need for refuges as longer bridges of this type on passenger railways didn't necessarily have refuges,  and that means there is no need for folk to climb on top of the girders for a place of refuge.

 

The railings on the Barnstaple bridge were, I suspect, there for a couple of specific reasons - firstly they allowed safe access for the Patrolman, then they allowed egress for crew from a failed train for whatever reason because there was no other way off it with the otherwise fairly shallow girders.

 

So coming back to the BCB bridge the decider I think relates solely to usage and even if it is used as a staff footway there need, I think, be no special provision at all - let them walk in the four foot and look after themselves.

[avonside1563]

I'm with Mike on this, most of the bridges with railings have parapets that are much lower than BCB's so much less of a requirement on ours, particularly as it seems to be more of a recommendation rather than a requirement.

[Stubby47]

On the model bridge, how much space is there between the tracks & the girders ? Is there room for a walkway, or do the little people have to use the 4ft as Mike suggested ?

 

Edit - Pic  in post 118 clearly shows adequate space betweeen the sleeper ends and the girder to allow pedestrian access.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Stubby47

[Stubby47]

Cheers,

 

THhe tricky bit is that the angle has to come out from the face of the girder in order to clear the top of the girder.

 

THis is the span bridge with its aluminium tape rivits added.

 

rivits on spans.jpg

 

spams span rivits.jpg

 

This is an off cut of the aluminium with its rivit in place, the cream coloured pieces are the backing paper of the aluminium.

 

rivit off cuts.jpg

 

I need to find some good shots of girder bridges with handrails that are mounted on the outside face of the girder.

 

Andy

 

Looking at the 4 rows of rivits, and comparing this to the bridge in Andy's photo (where there are only two rows of rivits except on the capping plates) - are the 4 rows correct ? If the main plates of the girder are single sheet, with a proportionately sized top edge, then this might be a cross sectional view :

 

 

where the blue is a longitudinal plate joining the square sections and the green is a top capping plate over the joins in the blue plates.

[Mark Forrest]

Who's been counting rivets?

[The Stationmaster]

Who's been counting rivets?

It's how Stu is filling his time between life with modules and moving on to Cornish branchlines

[Stubby47]

Who's been counting rivets?

 

Oh,h*ll, I'll be building track to a weird gauge next.....

[wagonbasher]

On the model bridge, how much space is there between the tracks & the girders ? Is there room for a walkway, or do the little people have to use the 4ft as Mike suggested ?

 

Edit - Pic  in post 118 clearly shows adequate space betweeen the sleeper ends and the girder to allow pedestrian access.

Hmm

 

the picture in post 118 also clearly shows un-ballasted cork !! 

 

Andy

[Andy Y]