No railroad allowed switches on bridges, did they?

[u18b]

Since derailments can happen at turnouts...... it appears many of the photos show turnouts on very  W- I- D- E bridges.

[crrcoal]

Completely forgot about this bad boy on the old LVRR.... http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=265224&nseq=25 

Thanks for all the input. My bridge happens to be a through truss so I don't know how that will fly, especially on how to throw the points with the switch inside the truss cage(!). The track has to be suspended over a pretty wide space, but if I feel like shortening the truss I can stick in a pier and have a through girder bridge cover the rest of the gap, and have the switch on that. That's plausible.
BTW, this situation is for an N scale layout, Peteski.

[radivil]

Since derailments can happen at turnouts...... it appears many of the photos show turnouts on very  W- I- D- E bridges.

Or you just luck out and its wide because there used to be a second track:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=484952

Not only a turnout, it used to have two and a crossing!  A crossing on a bridge!

[nickelplate759]

LOL!  I like that excuse!  I'll be at the show both days (with the Northeast NTRAK group): probably wearing an Optivisor working on someone's locomotive or fixing some electrical problem with the layout. 
[/quote

I was in Northeast NTRAK 20 or so years ago and this was exactly how I'd find Peteski back then. Some things just don't change.

George]

[OldEastRR]

OK, I'm taking the "anything goes if we need to" route. Once I get the track arrangement set I'll post it at TRW. I've got a crossing in the mix, like above, but that is not on the bridge but just past it.
Boy, your crazy old NE railroads sure built some wild stuff!

[randgust]

I had to look back in my old photos, but yes, the Oil City bridge did have a crossover between the two mains INSIDE of the truss span.   It's also in the history that it was controlled from the tower (not ground throws) and that it caused several injuries from kids getting caught in the remote-thrown points when using the bridge as a shortcut to the local YMCA.   That bridge was built in 1931, so by that time, you'd think they knew better.

I've got another one that just as bad, but no online photo - a two-track curved girder bridge that reverse-curved into a wye at Irvine (Irvineton) PA where the diverging turnout points were on the bridge - then to a curved crossing.   Think of a two-track wye with the diamonds, then bend the eastern approach and put it on a curved bridge.  Yeah.  And you can buy an Ebay DVD of the spectacular derailment PRR had there in the late 40's.  Coincidence?

Bridge is still there today but the route to the south (toward Oil City - connecting to that other bridge!) was removed in the 1970's.

In general terms - you'll find the railroad standards and AREMA standards are a lot stricter now than things were historically.  Locomotive and car weights have increased a lot, and unless there's a good reason for a turnout, it's gone, purely due to regular maintenance and inspection costs.  But we keep a photo collection in our company of things we see like this that aren't supposed to happen - turnouts points in the middle of grade crossings, dirverging route main lines on turnouts, switches on bridges, crossings in the middle of streets, and self-guarded turnouts in street trackage.    Design something like that today and I guarantee you any engineering group out there, even for a shortline, will say, oh, H*** no!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I had to look back in my old photos, but yes, the Oil City bridge did have a crossover between the two mains INSIDE of the truss span.   It's also in the history that it was controlled from the tower (not ground throws) and that it caused several injuries from kids getting caught in the remote-thrown points when using the bridge as a shortcut to the local YMCA.   That bridge was built in 1931, so by that time, you'd think they knew better.

I've got another one that just as bad, but no online photo - a two-track curved girder bridge that reverse-curved into a wye at Irvine (Irvineton) PA where the diverging turnout points were on the bridge - then to a curved crossing.   Think of a two-track wye with the diamonds, then bend the eastern approach and put it on a curved bridge.  Yeah.  And you can buy an Ebay DVD of the spectacular derailment PRR had there in the late 40's.  Coincidence?

Bridge is still there today but the route to the south (toward Oil City - connecting to that other bridge!) was removed in the 1970's.

In general terms - you'll find the railroad standards and AREMA standards are a lot stricter now than things were historically.  Locomotive and car weights have increased a lot, and unless there's a good reason for a turnout, it's gone, purely due to regular maintenance and inspection costs.  But we keep a photo collection in our company of things we see like this that aren't supposed to happen - turnouts points in the middle of grade crossings, dirverging route main lines on turnouts, switches on bridges, crossings in the middle of streets, and self-guarded turnouts in street trackage.    Design something like that today and I guarantee you any engineering group out there, even for a shortline, will say, oh, H*** no!

Actually, that reminds me... I have a situation in York where I'm doing something that might be a no-no.

I've got a grade crossing running through a crossover (the cork is the outline of the road):
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Although, I'd move it down an inch or so so it's not hitting the guard rails, frogs, etc...

How bad is that to do?

[davefoxx]

Actually, that reminds me... I have a situation in York where I'm doing something that might be a no-no.

I've got a grade crossing running through a crossover (the cork is the outline of the road):
(Attachment Link)

Although, I'd move it down an inch or so so it's not hitting the guard rails, frogs, etc...

How bad is that to do?

I don't think it's bad at all, because (1) it's unlikely a train is going to stop there and block the road crossing, and (2) as long as you clear the moving points, it won't be difficult to build the crossing.  It looks like there's plenty of room to shift the crossing, so that you'll even avoid the guardrails and the frogs.

DFF

[wazzou]

To further what DFF said, I think it would be avoided at most any cost in the real world.

[C855B]

... I've got a grade crossing running through a crossover (the cork is the outline of the road)... move it down an inch or so so it's not hitting the guard rails, frogs, etc.

Yup. Bryan beat me to it. If I were the project engineer for the RR, I would be leaning heavily on the city (or state) to adjust the road alignment so it avoided any turnout components. You need to think in terms of parts that will eventually require replacement or repair. In this case your Plan B is about right, run the road through the "passive" section of the crossover.

[JMaurer1]

For every rule, there usually are dozens of exceptions. Switches on trestles are probably the most common, but as shown there are all kinds of bridges with switches. It's YOUR railroad, do what you want...

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yup. Bryan beat me to it. If I were the project engineer for the RR, I would be leaning heavily on the city (or state) to adjust the road alignment so it avoided any turnout components. You need to think in terms of parts that will eventually require replacement or repair. In this case your Plan B is about right, run the road through the "passive" section of the crossover.

Oh yeah, that's my plan. Sorry, I thought the photo was more illustrative than it actually was.

The road would go through the straight section between the actual switch parts (frogs, guard rails, etc...).

[davefoxx]

Ed's Law.   

[C855B]

Light rail transit systems don't count.

[OldEastRR]

I think (and from memory of all I've seen) that as long as the roadway doesn't come over the moving points then it's fine. Whether a regular road crossing or one like this it wouldn't matter much whether the rails or ties or the frogs needed to be replaced -- the street would be shut down anyway. But having vehicles hitting even the butt end of the points would slowly knock them out of alignment, I would think. Then you'd have something like what happened to Amtrak in Kansas a few days ago.
I've also seen those streetcar-like switchpoints and long steel plates embedded in the highway on regular tracks. There's one downtown if I ever get down there again to take a pic....