While I'm a little way off building the bridge for the ravine, I'm considering what will look good in this space. I plan to have one other bridge on the layout, but it will be lower than this one. That one will be a wooden trestle, so here I have an opportunity to explore a different sort of bridge design.
I really like the look of the spindly steel girder bridges on the Georgetown loop and the Colorado Midland lines. The steel supports are noticeably thinner during my chosen period, which to me adds interest and drama. My family members bring a non-modeling perspective often based on gut feel and aesthetics, and they are not huge fans. Still, I remain drawn to modelling something like this.
The other options would be wooden or steel truss bridges, like the two bottom photos. They look to be a bit more of a challenge to pull off. But would make a rewarding project. I think I prefer having the train run on top of the bridge, rather than through the trusses. But then some days I really like the through truss look. Perhaps this means that I need to find a way to add a third bridge to the layout somewhere!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What do you think might look good over my ravine space? Feel free to leave a suggestion in the comments below.
 |
I went back to the post in December with the ravine images. How fixed is the depth? The trestle bents will need to be very tall, but there's room for the base width. Still, I suspect raising the bottom of the ravine might be necessary. My vote is for the first picture. Spindly is beautiful to me, and is a great chance to do some really fine scale bridge building in styrene or brass.
ReplyDeleteYour ravine reminds me of a spring I used to swim in when I lived in Florida. Snorkeling out over the approach, the water was maybe two meters deep, then suddenly it dropped to 8 meters. Not that deep, but gave me vertigo all the same! I've felt the same feeling on trains heading out onto bridges.
Thanks Galen. You make a good point about the depth. I'm keen to retain as much of the drama of the depth as possible. But as you say, the bents may have to be much wider and that could spoil the effect anyway. I may have to mock something up and see how it looks.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think spindly is beautiful. I've noticed in later pictures of that bridge the bents have been beefed up significantly. Most HO scale bridge kits seem to have quite burly bents. I may have to try and make my own to get the thin spindly look.
Sounds like a lovely spot to swim. Amazing how depth can change just like that and it is a strange feeling swinging out into space when your train crosses a high bridge. I find the effect is more pronounced in an open sided observation car.
Hi, what a great looking railroad you are building. Regarding your ravine bridge conundrum, are you at all familiar with the Woodstock Railroad, and its bridge over the Queechee Gulf?
ReplyDeleteThis is the only picture I could find online of the first bridge https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gulf_Bridge,_Woodstock_Railroad,_168_feet_above_the_water,_by_Henry_Cushing.jpg
Its the right era for your railroad, and the scenery location you have created is uncanny similar. The Woodstock railway was in Vermont, so all the way east. I canscan a better photo from the book if you are interested
Hi Ross, That's an incredible-looking bridge. I had not come across it before. I'd be interested to find out more about it. What book have you found the information in? Many thanks for the interest and for sharing your find!
ReplyDeleteIt is in "Over the Hills to Woodstock", by Edgar Mead. There's a copy in Australia listed on abe books, or I'll scan some pages of my copy if I can email you
ReplyDeleteThanks Ross. I've managed to find a copy of the book on the Internet Archive. It's very interesting and there are some good photos. You're right, the landscape is uncannily similar to what I've been modelling. This is very helpful, thank you!
ReplyDelete