Amoskeag Northern - Simonds Industrial Branch

[eric220]

I like the aesthetics of the truss much better than the girder. Just to throw it out there, would deck truss be an option?

[Dupesy]

There is (or were, I dunno if they changed em in the last few years) a similar set of "obstructed" signals in Ayer, MA...that I believe someone on this board has violated...

http://photos.nerail.org/s/?p=34965

Yes, that signal configuration is still there, yes it is the signal in your photo, yes it is more than slightly obstructed for an eastbound move, and yes, someone on this forum did have a stop signal violation there.   

[Dave V]

I like the aesthetics of the truss much better than the girder. Just to throw it out there, would deck truss be an option?

Deck girder would be much more prototypical here than through-girder...  If clearance isn't an issue (which here it's not) the railroad would likely build a deck girder, since it would use less steel.

Truss is good, though.

[Ian MacMillan]

I still like the truss the most and will most likely stick with it. I like through girders as well but I'm eh about adding a center pier.

Deck girders are nice as well, but the New England roads used them mostly on VERY short spans. There are some longer ones, but I'd say most are about 25'-30'.

[Dave Schneider]

I found the article I was looking for on girder dimensions. Harold Russell did a 5 part series on bridges in Model Railroader in 1988. In my opinion, Harold Russell is one of the great unsung heroes of model railroading. He did so much low key, but fundamental work. Anyhow, the August 1988 issue has specs for deck and through girder bridges, but Bryan already gave some of those. The article references the NMRA and I was able to find the NMRA datasheets on bridge dimensions. These are in the member section but I was able to access them. Very informative.
http://www.nmra.org/member/datasheets


Meanwhile, back at the AN-SIB, I have come around on the through truss bridge. It looks much better in black and fits the scene.

Best wishes, Dave

[Ian MacMillan]

I found the article I was looking for on girder dimensions. Harold Russell did a 5 part series on bridges in Model Railroader in 1988. In my opinion, Harold Russell is one of the great unsung heroes of model railroading. He did so much low key, but fundamental work. Anyhow, the August 1988 issue has specs for deck and through girder bridges, but Bryan already gave some of those. The article references the NMRA and I was able to find the NMRA datasheets on bridge dimensions. These are in the member section but I was able to access them. Very informative.
http://www.nmra.org/member/datasheets

+1
Added to my resources. Thanks Dave

[conrail98]

I could possibly move the signals back a tad, to the the right end of the X58

That's about what I was thinking. A good 1 1/2 or 2 locomotive distances between the end of the bridge and the signal,

Phil

[TrainCat2]

Ian, see my PM about an alternative.

[unittrain]

Man this is awesome modeling! Railwire level modeling

[Ian MacMillan]

OK, like I posted in WU, I have been working on the east module to have some continuity. I have to send in several photos next week to Trainfest to see if they will approve the layout to attend the show. They have to deem the layout "show worthy". I was concerned that even though it is about 9 months away that they may balk at the layout because of the current condition of the east module. I have spent the last week working on some "base" items to at least get it so that it at this point looks like it blends together, even though by the time the layout gets to Milwaukee in November it will even be further along. 

One of the spots I have been clueless as to what to do with is a lot that is on an embankment between the SIB and the Portland Line. You can see the road that I put in today. This road leads to the parking lot for the mill that will located in the spot where the blue foam is. The mill is going to be 6.5"h x 14"L x 5"W.

I had thought of leaving the embankment open and adding underbrush and what not and also pondered adding some DPM buildings to it as well. I have posted a shot of this area empty, with one building, and with two buildings.

The one building and two building slightly blocks a switch to the mill, but not to the point that if you just move a tad to the left or the right you can't see the points. It pretty much only obstructs it looking at it straight on.

Thoughts? Ideas? GFY's?

[eric220]

First impression is that the buildings have a crammed-in-there feel. I like the idea of some basic underbrush. Nothing wrong with a little open space.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I don't like the buildings either, for the same reason.

[GaryHinshaw]

How about a vacant lot with remains of a building foundation still in evidence, and some nice weeds and sumac taking over?  This would give some scenic relief from the embankment, and provide evidence of a misguided attempt to cram a building in there. 

[Philip H]

First impression is that the buildings have a crammed-in-there feel. I like the idea of some basic underbrush. Nothing wrong with a little open space.

How about a vacant lot with remains of a building foundation still in evidence, and some nice weeds and sumac taking over?  This would give some scenic relief from the embankment, and provide evidence of a misguided attempt to cram a building in there. 

This.  Definitely this. 

[DKS]

How about a vacant lot with remains of a building foundation still in evidence, and some nice weeds and sumac taking over?

+1