Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height

Expand Messages
  • Loren Snyder
    Michael, I think about 1 3/8 between the lower railhead and the upper track will suffice. Just put a box car on some track and take a visual measurement,
    Message 1 of 11 , Dec 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael,
      I think about 1 3/8" between the lower railhead and the upper track will
      suffice. Just put a box car on some track and take a visual measurement,
      that ought to do the trick.
      Loren




      -------Original Message-------

      From: Michael Piersdorff
      Date: 12/3/2010 8:07:24 AM
      To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height

      I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place where
      tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum
      recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a mid-60's
      era short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps the odd
      passenger car.

      Thanks for your suggestions.

      Michael


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • mark2playz
      Michael, In the prototype world the height is dependent on the classification of the bottom line, the more mainline it is the heighter the clearance. For a
      Message 2 of 11 , Dec 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael,
        In the prototype world the height is dependent on the classification of the bottom line, the more mainline it is the heighter the clearance. For a short line 20-25 scale feet (about 1 1/4 to 1 3/8 inches) is appropriate. If its your first design may I suggest you check out the Z-bend spec at www.zbendtrack.com/ . Its a set of guidelines for building a module, but their setbacks and clearances are a good reference for designing a layout.

        Mark

        --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, Michael Piersdorff <ironduke@...> wrote:
        >
        > I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place where tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a mid-60's era short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps the odd passenger car.
        >
        > Thanks for your suggestions.
        >
        > Michael
        >
        > ____________________________________________________________
        > Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
        > TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
        > Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
        >
      • Don Avila
        *Loren is correct on the height IF you don t run tall cars. I would point out there are many high bridges a hundred years ago and they have nothing to do with
        Message 3 of 11 , Dec 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          *Loren is correct on the height IF you don't run tall cars. I would point
          out there are many high bridges a hundred years ago and they have nothing to
          do with a specific time period. Go for the higher bridges - the additional
          costs are nil -- and you may change your mind later and want to run some
          more modern equipment down your Z tracks.

          ...don

          *
          On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Michael Piersdorff <ironduke@...>wrote:

          >
          >
          > I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place where
          > tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum
          > recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a mid-60's era
          > short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps the odd
          > passenger car.
          >
          > Thanks for your suggestions.
          >
          > Michael
          >
          > __________________________________________________________
          > Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
          > TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
          > Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
          >
          >



          --
          *...don a* *- Northern Ohio, USA*


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Don Fedjur
          Hster, You need to tell him why you are qualified to prperly answer that question. Sell him some tunnel portals. Don Fedjur Sent from my iPhone mobile office.
          Message 4 of 11 , Dec 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hster,

            You need to tell him why you are qualified to prperly answer that
            question.

            Sell him some tunnel portals.


            Don Fedjur

            Sent from my iPhone mobile office.


            On Dec 3, 2010, at 8:51 AM, "Loren Snyder" <ljsnyder@...> wrote:

            > Michael,
            > I think about 1 3/8" between the lower railhead and the upper track
            > will
            > suffice. Just put a box car on some track and take a visual
            > measurement,
            > that ought to do the trick.
            > Loren
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -------Original Message-------
            >
            > From: Michael Piersdorff
            > Date: 12/3/2010 8:07:24 AM
            > To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height
            >
            > I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place
            > where
            > tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum
            > recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a
            > mid-60's
            > era short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps
            > the odd
            > passenger car.
            >
            > Thanks for your suggestions.
            >
            > Michael
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Loren Snyder
            Don, I ll even be glad to sell tunnel portals to a guy modeling the plains states .....shucks, I don t show favorites. LOL Actually the reason I am qualified
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Don,
              I'll even be glad to sell tunnel portals to a guy modeling the plains states
              .....shucks, I don't show favorites. LOL

              Actually the reason I am qualified to answer that question is because I
              built the MTL display layout and it has a figure eight track configuration.
              Believe me, I measured carefully...............

              Loren




              -------Original Message-------

              From: Don Fedjur
              Date: 12/3/2010 3:14:24 PM
              To: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height

              Hster,

              You need to tell him why you are qualified to prperly answer that
              question.

              Sell him some tunnel portals.


              Don Fedjur


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Uwe Liermann
              Hello Loren, ... you mean that it isn t a figure seven or nine... SCNR -- Seasonal GreetingZ from the snow covered Germany Uwe
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello Loren,

                > Actually the reason I am qualified to answer that question is because I
                > built the MTL display layout and it has a figure eight track configuration.
                > Believe me, I measured carefully...............

                you mean that it isn't a figure seven or nine...

                SCNR

                --
                Seasonal GreetingZ from the snow covered Germany
                Uwe
              • Loren Snyder
                Well, I did try a 7 but the turn was way too sharp and when the loco got to the end of the 9 it couldn t turn around. Of course I guess I could have had it
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 4, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, I did try a 7 but the turn was way too sharp and when the loco got to
                  the end of the 9 it couldn't turn around. Of course I guess I could have
                  had it going around in endless circles.......then it would have been a big
                  fat zero.





                  -------Original Message-------

                  From: Uwe Liermann
                  Date: 12/4/2010 12:43:33 AM
                  To: Loren Snyder
                  Subject: Re: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height

                  Hello Loren,

                  > Actually the reason I am qualified to answer that question is because I
                  > built the MTL display layout and it has a figure eight track configuration

                  > Believe me, I measured carefully...............

                  you mean that it isn't a figure seven or nine...

                  SCNR

                  --
                  Seasonal GreetingZ from the snow covered Germany
                  Uwe



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • de Champeaux Dominique
                  I don t know for the pre-double stack era clearances. But anyway, maybe you could deliberately elect to follow double-stack specification, if one of these days
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 4, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't know for the pre-double stack era clearances. But anyway, maybe you could deliberately elect to follow double-stack specification, if one of these days you choose to change your target era. Otherwise you could then have some regrets, on the opposite if you follow these clearance specifications for your chosen era it won't look odd.
                     
                    Just my two cents,
                     
                    Dom

                     

                    --- En date de : Ven 3.12.10, Michael Piersdorff <ironduke@...> a écrit :


                    De: Michael Piersdorff <ironduke@...>
                    Objet: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height
                    À: z_scale@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Vendredi 3 décembre 2010, 17h07


                     



                    I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place where tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a mid-60's era short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps the odd passenger car.

                    Thanks for your suggestions.

                    Michael

                    __________________________________________________________
                    Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
                    TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
                    Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.










                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • mark2playz
                    Michael, With all the interest in your question, I pulled some of the old road road standards for your reference. I m uncertain when your prototype was built,
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 4, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael,
                      With all the interest in your question, I pulled some of the old road road standards for your reference. I'm uncertain when your prototype was built, but I'm assuming prior to the 1940s. A 19th century SP/CP document calls for 6 feet (1/3 inch in scale) above a boxcar: space for the brakeman. A 1938 Western Pacific standard calls for 22 feet ( 1.2 inches in scale) as the minimum clearance.
                      Ultimately its the height that looks right to you and the space you have for the grade to the bridge. I would encourage a grade of 1 1/2 % or less. For the 60s era the highest cars I can think of would be the autoracks and the domed passenger car.

                      Mark

                      --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, Michael Piersdorff <ironduke@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I am working on the design of my first layout, and I have a place where tracks cross - with luck, on a bridge. Question: what is the minimum recommended clearance above railhead for that bridge. This is a mid-60's era short line, so no double stack container cars, etc., but perhaps the odd passenger car.
                      >
                      > Thanks for your suggestions.
                      >
                      > Michael
                      >
                      > ____________________________________________________________
                      > Share photos & screenshots in seconds...
                      > TRY FREE IM TOOLPACK at http://www.imtoolpack.com/default.aspx?rc=if1
                      > Works in all emails, instant messengers, blogs, forums and social networks.
                      >
                    • RMC Scott
                      I would even go as far as allowng enough room for catenary (even if you do not intend to use It) 42.5mm (1.675 inches) between the top of the lower rail and
                      Message 10 of 11 , Dec 5, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I would even go as far as allowng enough room for catenary (even if you do not intend to use It) 42.5mm (1.675 inches) between the top of the lower rail and the under side of the bridge . You can make this appear lower by lengthening the bridge slightly. . the extra height also makes for easier track cleaning and for picking up any derailments. Try to keep your grade to under 3 % if you are going to run long trains.

                        Ralph

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.