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

Re: [Z_Scale] Bridge clearance height

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.