RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 20, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 20, 2011 So it looks like 39' would be a good length for us then. Second question on track - can folk confirm that, unlike UK practice, the rail joints were staggered? Continued thanks all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewC Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So it looks like 39' would be a good length for us then. Second question on track - can folk confirm that, unlike UK practice, the rail joints were staggered? Continued thanks all. Short answer is usually. That was normal practice but like everything there are exceptions. Personally I'd model the norm instead of the unusual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 So it looks like 39' would be a good length for us then. Second question on track - can folk confirm that, unlike UK practice, the rail joints were staggered? Short answer, yes they are staggered. On a different subject, can you in the UK access Google Books? Can you download books? I have found that that Google Books is an absolute gold mine for information about pre-depression railroading. I have found rule books, equipment registers (ORER), annual reports, manual on track, terminal and signal design. Manual on operations, etc. It is one of the most important resources I have for modeling the 1900 era. Another resource is the Historic American Building Survery - Historic American Engineering Record (HABS-HAER), part of the Library of Congress. HUGE repository of photographs and plans for buildings of all types and eras across the US. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 20, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 20, 2011 Thanks all. Dave, I have a look at the HABS website tonight and try and work out if Google books works over here! Both sound interesting though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gringo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 There's been a lot of traffic on this thread since my first post and I'm really surprised how much interest has been shown in the project. If you've read a couple of Chris's replies, pretty well all the answers to what, where and exactly when, we are attempting to model can be found. However, just to recap; the layout prototype is based upon the branch built through Whitewater (Elevation 5157 ft.), to Silver City in southern New Mexico. By 1919, this short-line had long been a part of the mighty ATSF (Santa Fe) system and as Dave-1905 has clarified in an earlier post, 1919 is the middle year of the operation of all the U.S.A. networks under the control of the United States Railroad Administration. How did we decide on this location and on that date to operate the layout ? The answer to that question is around four years and a lot of research! In fact, had we posted this thread four years ago, it might have saved me a great deal of that research, as quite a few of the subjects that it's taken a while to find the answers to have already turned up in replies over the last week. Thanks once again to all, please keep monitoring our thread and correcting any of our misapprehensions as they turn up. And I think that this just goes to show the real power of rmweb in helping us all to create more accurate models. Although I'm afraid, that in the case of this particular layout, we may take a couple of "easy options" rather than sticking to the absolute facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 Just to help folk locate John's project here's a scan of a sketch he sent to Damian and I early last year.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gringo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Now for those waiting to hear what happened next, here's the second instalment of the story how we got where we are today! What did we know about U.S. railways ? On the way home from the show, the three amigos were travelling in a hired van along one of the U.K's motorways. The idea discussed in the pub the night before had some merit and was still bringing a smile, but then Damian asked, "What do we know about U.S. railways ?" Chris said, "Well, they're a lot bigger than ours and a few years ago I drove through some parts of the south western States and into California. I saw some diesels, they were huge." Damian: "I know they use the same gauge track as here in the U.K. and I've read somewhere that the most popular modelling scale is HO ?" Chris: "Yeah, 3.5mm to the foot and it's the correct scale/gauge ratio for 16.5mm track". Damian: "O.K., 'Mr. Westerns' what do you know?" John: "Almost everything I know comes from the 'Dumpy Book of Railways of the World' - a little pocket sized book published by Sampson Low in 1957 with a 'Spam can' on the front cover! Plus I've read some extra stuff about the steam 'streamliners' of the 1930s and 1940s, like 'The Twentieth Century Limited' on the New York Central, the 'Hiawatha' on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific and the Southern Pacific 'Daylights', which some say were the most beautiful steam locomotives in the world. Oh, and I know a bit about some Canadian steamers too, like . . . . ." Chris: "No, no more, please stop there!" Damian, "Yeah, good idea, pull over in the next services, I need a brew and an Aspirin". So, although I knew a lot of useless facts, Collectively, we knew hardly anything about U.S. railroad infrastructure or how they operated around the beginning of the 20th century, except what we had all seen on the T.V. screen. So, over the tea and buns in a motorway services around four years ago, I was delegated the task of finding something out about U.S. railroads and the period. Plus what was available in HO scale, so that we could decide whether we could actually build anything worthwhile. And the sketch map was a long way off, about four years away! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The drawing matches my 1928 Handy Railroad Atlas and the Tyrone branch is shown as belonging to the SP. You have truly chosen a "two streaks of rust through the desert" piece of railroad. 8-) Its a branchline off a branchline off a branchline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 You have truly chosen a "two streaks of rust through the desert" piece of railroad. 8-) Its a branchline off a branchline off a branchline. And that probably explains why we've yet to find a single photo of the railroad in use! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 And that probably explains why we've yet to find a single photo of the railroad in use! Keep looking. If you never find one, the rest of us are gonna have a hard time challenging your model! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 Keep looking. If you never find one, the rest of us are gonna have a hard time challenging your model! Well on the plus side John can't prove that Bulleid Pacifics didn't run on the line.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 Ok, next prototype question for those that know... It would appear that the through line within stations is set marginally higher than the lop line. Or looking at it another way the loop line is set lower. Is this correct and if so why is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 Ok, next prototype question for those that know... It would appear that the through line within stations is set marginally higher than the lop line. Or looking at it another way the loop line is set lower. Is this correct and if so why is this? I don't know why - apart from the obvious point that better ballasting is needed for the route that is run at linespeed - but certainly US modelling gurus encourage us to have the sidings and loops at a slightly lower level, and with lighter rail in many cases, too. In fairness, in such a huge country, with mega-mileage railroads, cutting costs by maintaining the minimal amount of infrastructure could really help the bottom line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Ok, next prototype question for those that know... It would appear that the through line within stations is set marginally higher than the lop line. Or looking at it another way the loop line is set lower. Is this correct and if so why is this? In the absence of photographs of an explicit location I can neither confirm nor deny ... Yes, it is popular on US layouts to model loop lines and particularly sidings with the following attributes: lower elevation (less build up of the grade) lower grade ballasting - sidings might only have 'recycled' locomotive cinders as ballast lighter rails - if your mainline is modeled with say code 83, it is normal to use a smaller profile rail for sidings Why? All these elements are cheaper to construct - a big factor when you are in the middle of nowhere and have to transport everything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 Thanks both for confirming this and for putting forward possible reasons why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 25, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 25, 2011 Now, big question coming up and one that's no doubt been done to death on specialist American forums and magazines.....wooden trestle bridges . Now I know that every American layout that isn't an urban shunting plank must have one BUT, is there a good reference on the design, configuration and construction of these beasts? Trestle in snow Trestle with an interesting sky... I'm particularly interested to know what they did when the river bed being crossed was wider than the distance between adjacent piers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 25, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2011 They often built a bridge between the two trestles. Sometimes a through truss and sometimes a boxy truss girder beneath. Here's an example http://www.moosecreek.ch/english/main_moose-creek-trestle.html Also search wooden truss bridge in google to see the variety of different types of truss girders. The line might be on top as the above link or through the girders as with any conventional girder bridge depending on clearances or preference of the designer. More inspiration here, Geoff Nott's is a good starting point but dip into more as there are some nice ideas in many that might help. http://www.modvid.com.au/html/body_miniature_world.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I'm particularly interested to know what they did when the river bed being crossed was wider than the distance between adjacent piers. Doubtless there's a prototype for everything, but I don't think trestles were commonly used to cross wide rivers. There are certainly examples where the wooden pilings are driven into the river and the bridge built up from these such as this for an extreme example. See here for more pictures of the trestle over the Great Salt Lake. Wide river crossings were generally avoided due to the engineering costs involved. Surprisingly this is quite achievable in the western US. In any case there are no wide rivers in the part of New Mexico you are modelling. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 They often built a bridge between the two trestles. Sometimes a through truss ... like this through truss or alternatively this girder or even a combo wood and steel trestle. (From the Portland and Western in my back yard.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 And that probably explains why we've yet to find a single photo of the railroad in use! That sounds like a challenge. By the way the 1985 Handy Railroad Atlas shows all the lines belonging to the ATSF and the major lines still there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Ok, next prototype question for those that know... It would appear that the through line within stations is set marginally higher than the lop line. Or looking at it another way the loop line is set lower. Is this correct and if so why is this? I assume that you are asking why the siding is lower than the main? In the US a loop is a, well a loop. Its a circle of track like at a power plant where they unload unit coal trains. If you are searching Google for American track stuff, use "siding". The main is higher for drainage. You put the main up on a layer of ballast so it drains ahd holds line better. The siding is only 10 mph so the quality doesn't have to be as high. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Now, big question coming up and one that's no doubt been done to death on specialist American forums and magazines.....wooden trestle bridges . Now I know that every American layout that isn't an urban shunting plank must have one BUT, is there a good reference on the design, configuration and construction of these beasts? Trestle in snow I'm particularly interested to know what they did when the river bed being crossed was wider than the distance between adjacent piers. Look at this link, notice the stream is wider than the bent spacing. Trestle with an interesting sky... Here's some really old bridges: Beanpole bridges Somehow I think that bridging major rivers is not going to be a major challenge on your chosen piece of railroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Here's some really old bridges: Beanpole bridges And a truly scary looking AT&SF steel trestle linked from Railroad Forums. It is the Diablo Canyon bridge in Arizona. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave1905 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 And that probably explains why we've yet to find a single photo of the railroad in use! Spending about 15 minutes on Bing Images, here are some pictures of the Silver City area: My comments about not needing a big bridge might have been premture.. Some mine carts used in the copper mines.. And the mine pit itself.. Plans for Dr. Gudger's house.. The rather ornate Elk's Club.. The Silver City train station.. Now here's the wierd part. I actually found pictures of a train in the Silver City area, although it was modern train. The bizzare part was the pictures were actually on the New Mexico Teen Pregnancy Council website. They had a art competition and some railroad pictures were submitted, scroll down to the 4 black and white pix. The Silver City area train pics.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 2ManySpams Posted January 26, 2011 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted January 26, 2011 what i should have said is that we've spent many, many hours searching but that we haven't found photos of Whitewater. There are a reasonable number of images of the likes of Silver City etc but nothing yet of our middle of nowhere location! Tough thing for us being on this side of the pond is knowing if the other 'local' locations are representative of Whitewater. The other thing you find is that people tend to take and post photos of the unusual or quaint. The normal and mundane get ignored. Probably explains why distant layouts of the UK can look a bit odd to our eyes. ideally we'd normally visit our chosen project location but that's a bit more costly on time and money here. This project is certainly throwing up a new set of problems for us! Perhaps I should propose next year's family holiday is to New Mexico...... Continued thanks for help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.