OK I drew an elevation drawing showing the piers. Like I’ve mentioned many times before I can not do this to scale and I only want to represent the above mentioned bridge. So do you think I should lower it or leave it as is?
Well after thinking about it I think Inkaneer is correct and I’m going to raise it up so that the piers are 6”
I'd go as high as you can, as it will make for a very dramatic scene and good photographs. 6" will look good! As far as carving the grout lines in the pine, it was REALLY easy to do. Just draw along a straight edge with a ball point pen - it doesnt even matter if the pen works or not, all you want is the ball to etch into the wood. Each of my piers only took about 10-15 minutes to do. I measured out and drew lines w/ a pencil first, and then drew over them with the ball point pen applying enough pressure to press into the wood. Keep us posted. Being a certified bridge junkie and scratchbuilder myself, I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out!
I copied a portion of Bessemer Bridge Elevations and inserted their own scale around the drawing and it appears that the truss varies in size below the deck and the piers are also varied height. Since I cannot have the true length of the bridge because of the space requirements, I can either have the 160’ distance from the deck to the water and compromise on the pier height or shorten the piers and compromise on the deck height. I don’t want to get it too deep because then it will look more like a deep gorge instead of a river valley The one big thing that I did not take into consideration until Inkaneer brought it to my attention was difference between the ground level and the water level. It has been a very long time since I’ve been under this bridge, but as I remember it there was quite a droop down to the water line. I’m just guessing, but think it was at least 30 ft if not 50 ft to the water line and I’m sure the river has changed quite a bit since the first elevation drawing was done. This drawing has 80’ piers and 133’ deck height above water. I lower the water too much it going to look more like a deep gorge. I learned about how to deal with this proportional stuff many years ago, but I’ve forgotten everything I learned.
This may or may not be useful The piers shown below are made of basswood. They are tapered with split dowels glued to the sides. They are painted with latex paint and stained with watercolors. The first two piers are near the waterline, but the third one has nearly half its height buried. A siding crosses under the bridge just beyond the third pier. Here is another view. A couple of thoughts: If your model bridge is significantly shorter than its prototype, then consider proportionally shortening the piers to keep the surrounding valley terrain believable. If the span distances (from pier to pier) are consistent throughout the bridge's length, then the bridge superstructure (your deck truss) should generally have the same depth (top to bottom) along its length. However, if the span distances vary, longer span distances will require a deeper (taller) truss and shorter span distances will require a shallower truss. (Of course, there are exceptions for various reasons.) This harmonizes with your astute observation this morning about the Bessemer Bridge. For what it's worth, I used to supervise construction of highway bridges. Was personally involved in around 10 bridges ranging from 35 feet to 720 feet long. Nothing spectacular or particularly photogenic.
Preliminary bridge setup to check height. I laid some wood down to get an idea of how my Diorama is going to look and I’m not too pleased with the results. I know there’s no water or terrain yet and I still have to make the piers yet, but it sure looks different from the drawing. I’m now thinking about maybe raising the two side layouts, but I’m not sure yet.
I'm not sure what you were expecting, but it doesn't look bad to me. What you need to realize - and focus on - is that the backdrop is more important than many of the scene details. The only way you can may a scene depth that short look right is a photo backdrop. The good news is that the Allegheny is navigable, it may be more work than building the module, but you can get photos from the vantage point you want. To show you just how effective this really can be, this is the forum project that a number of us participated in with Jerry Britton, on his Duncannon, PA bridge: http://kc.pennsyrr.com/photos/01501/01598_m.jpg It took a while before we convinced him just how good a photo would look behind it, but after he did it, it is one of the best bridge scenes I've ever seen in my life. I've stood right in front of that on his layout, and it looks just as good in person. But if he had an inch behind it.... The trick with that kind of backdrop is that you get the shot, and then start matching the scenery colors to it, not the other way around. You're also going to need a backdrop 9-10" above where you are at now, but that's another story. I'm just focusing on the 'wall' behind the bridge piers and how to deal with that. You're incredibly fortunate that the PA turnpike bridge is right beside it. I just went onto Google Earth - on Street View - and you can pick up photos from the center of the bridge. That's a little below track level. But you get a great sense of what the scene should look like from that elevation - the river, the perspective, the view up the valley, etc. The Google Earth shots show a new turnpike bridge under construction. I'm thinking that if you got a high-resolution shot off the middle of the new bridge looking DOWNSTREAM you'd get the right scene and perspective. Either that or any other high-level highway bridge where you could safely get shots off. You have friends in Pennsylvania!
Thanks for the advice. Jerry Britton’s photo back drop does help give me a little hope because it sure looks good. I kind of figured I would have to definitely do something special for a back drop. For some reason it didn’t really dawn on me how close the bridge was to the back wall until I saw it. The plywood in back was the piece I cut off the bottom and as soon as I saw it on the back I ran to my woodshed to get another piece, but all I could find was oak veneer. I didn’t want to waste that on something I’m going to paint, so I need to make a trip to Homedepot. If you think 9-10 inches above, then that’s what I’ll shoot for. I’ll have to move my monitor higher up, but that’s not a problem. I was thinking about moving it into the corner anyway and actually getting a bigger wide screen. As far as the photos for the back drop go, I’ll have to plan a trip to Pittsburgh for that and I’m sure my family will like that one. The one thing that worries me is that the bridge is only 1” away from the background and I wonder if I’m going to have a problem with shadows.
So I just check it out from the turnpike and pretty cool. I never thought about looking at it from there.
You will have a problem with shadows. It's kinda perverse, the closer you are to the backdrop the less noticeable it is. You do have to be far enough out from it to allow some overhead light to get in there though. It also has a LOT to do with what kind of lighting you use, particularly for photos. I have a rather dense population of overhead shoplights with 5400-degree daylight 48" tubes in them. They don't produce much shadow, and give kind of an overcast look. Color rendition is outstanding. For photos, I add a 5400-degree clip-on halogen keylight to put some shadow in there. I'm careful to control the light position and where the shadows hit so that the worst of it isn't obvious in a particular shot. 100-watt incandescents are just the worst, you'll get multiple shadows from multiple directions, and horrible color shift. Telephone poles in front of the backdrop are the worst. Trees are the second worst. Notice on Jerrys shot the complete absence of anything on the layout that casts a shadow on the backdrop. That's planning. The only thing I can offer and reinforce is that the real trick is to do the backdrop and match the scenic colors to it. And use the camera early and often, as your mind may convince you it looks OK but the camera will fix that opinon rapidly.
I’ve been searching the internet for a photo for my backdrop and it looks promising but I think it’s going to take a while. Found one on flicker from the Hulton Bridge, it’s not quite right but it’s a start. There are thousands of photos of the point and the rest are hard to find. My niece and her husband have a boat that they takeout on the Alleghany, but I’ll have to wait for summer for that. I’m going to paint my bridge today and hopefully start on making the piers. I should be able to at least get them cut to shape. I figured I need to make them from 2x6’ to get the proper taper.
Johnny, Heres one in Minneapolis crossing the Mississippi River. Do a search for ''Short Line Bridge'' . Wikipedia has all the stats about it.
Those two photos show the next thinking point you want to consider. There are two vantage points you could do here.... one is about rail height, the other is more down on the water level. The decision will dramatically change what the backdrop looks like. From river level, there will be sky visible behind the bridge, and you'll see the curvature of the forested hills in the background. If you take it up to track level, there will be primarily water behind the bridge, and the hills will be more flat, as remember this is really a plateau with a river valley going through it, not mountains. I'm further up the river, but when you're at the top the horizon is amazingly flat. There are two ways of looking at the layout, from firsthand in your own eyes and from camera views. You really want to think about that - where your priorities are because the other one won't make out quite as well. I set my 'horizon line' fairly low - 2" above railhead on the desert scenes and 3 1/2" above railhead in the mountains. You've got an entirely different situation here. I'd really suggest that you get some low-resolution test shots and play with the alternatives - one that has a horizon line either at or slightly above track level, and another one that has a horizon line lower, so that the bridge is against sky rather than the green forest line. And then take some pictures. You don't need a really good or final shot to do this, any valley shots you snag off of the net can be manipulated with Photoshop and reprinted in panels. I've been known to leave mine up printed on plain paper and held up with a couple pieces of tape for months while I study it. I've never done it, but for this case, I wonder if it would be great to have interchangeable panels to slide in to get the best of both for photos....
Thanks guys, Having interchangeable panels would be really easy to do because they could hang off of the upper layouts. It’s just finding the correct photos and I’m pretty sure that nobody would be allowed to stop on the turnpike or walk across the RR Bridge to take a photo. The river Dieselfan1 shows in the Minneapolis photo made me realize that it doesn’t have to be at the exact spot for a photo and except for the white sand that photo could easily be the Alleghany River, so that helps me by opening the range for searching for a photo, I need to think about how to get different views and I do like the idea of hanging some photos up to study for a while.
Back to the Pier. Well the Back drop is just going to have to be postponed, because l need to get the bridge in operation. I took the deck truss bridge apart for painting and I started thinking of doing another Double truss bridge to replace the Plate Girder Bridge that I have there now. I thought it would be an easier transition to use the Girder Bridge because the two layouts need to be separated at this point for working under the layout and the exact dimension hasn't been established yet. I decided to order another bridge and I think it will be actually easer to modify the truss at the end. I’ll just cover it with trees like in the Google Maps photo. This would make the truss deck approximately 48” (640’) long. I cut two Piers but it looks like the taper might be a little extreme. I just guessed at without measuring it. I had some caned spray paint that I thought was close, but now that I see it I realize that I’ll have to repaint. Painting is not one my strong points, but I have to paint again anyway when the other bridge gets here. I’m not sure but I think the actual color is more of bluish green. I don’t know. Anyway this is what I got so far. I’m trying to decide whether I should take some of the taper out before I start carving in the grout lines. I also ordered some Plastruct Styrene Square Rod to fill into the truss structure to match the actual structure shown in the photo.
Well it’s been an on and off project. Every time I get in a bind for ideas I stop and work one something else. I was going pretty strong on it in October than had to put it up to get my Christmas layout going which was a massive O-scale project. When I stopped the last time I had rebuilt the piers with 1/8” plywood instead of solid pieces of wood. It turned out that the piers were not tall enough and I had some difficulty cutting them with a band saw because they were warping. I used a table saw for the shorter ones. I cut straight pieces of wood for support and then enclosed it with tapered sided plywood. It worked so much better that I couldn’t believe I wasted so much time trying to cut those long tapers in a solid piece of wood. The straight piece of wood in the center was really not necessary, but it made it easier for me to get the correct height and gave me something to glue to. I bought several textured cut stone products to cover the wood, and I was real impressed with the Chooch 8260 Flexible Stone Wall, because it looked more like the real stone to me although not quite to scale or color. I have ordered enough to cover all the piers. There is a piece in the photo above laying on the foam next to the pier so you can get an idea of the size. Here is an N-Scale Cut Stone Comparison photo of the items I bought: Also I was originally going to put in a steel mill below, but changed plans when I actually saw the mill under the bridge. I was just in total shock to actually see it in place. Things look so different on paper. Thanks for bringing this up again, because you have rekindled my interest in starting up again. I may start up again on this weekend. I had run out of plywood to finish the piers just before stopping to do the Christmas project, but found another piece while working on it. Plus I finished with the Christmas project. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVPNGc8sWIE&feature=g-upl&context=G20b03fcAUAAAAAAABAA smile:
Oh wow the Large 10" x 14" sheets would have been ideal, too bad you didn’t post this months ago. I already bought 6 packages of the Chooch 8260. It’s a little bit of a problem because I have to run two sheets per side due to the height. And yes that would have been better although not exactly prototypical to the exact bridge. But thanks for the link. There is a few other items there that I’m interested in as well. :thumbs_up:
I just noticed these and I think they are perfect. I might just buy these and use the other stuf for something else.
