Steel Arch bridge

[Jananton]

Hummmm - I like the original bridge - think I'll make it too. Single track of course.

Ben

Hmm, better make some warning signs about max axle pressure then too. It looks quite too flimsy for some of the rolling stock in trainz.:hehe:
On the other hand, maybe that's what diabolical about it.

Greetings from sunny Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

Yeah I've made a few bridges that look at least as flimsy as this one. One looked like it would fall down if an ant walked across it but the photo showed two 4-4-0's and 5 cars all on the span. Personally Id get out and walk across (carefully), lol.

In reality older bridges like this were tested by running several locos coupled together across. Dunno if there was one (brave) engineer on board or not.

Ben

 

[Jananton]

In reality older bridges like this were tested by running several locos coupled together across. Dunno if there was one (brave) engineer on board or not.

Ben

Hmm, that somehow sounds like that could be an expensive hobby. even without a nowadays pocket calculator. I certainly wouldn't volunteer to be aboard one of those. :hehe:
On the other hand, I've have never had a bridge collapse build by you, so I suppose I would be okay...

Greetings from nighttime Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

Ya know - the ability to have bridges collapse if over loaded would make an interesting (and prototypical) addition to Trainz. Bridges and trestles were rated by an "E-loading" value. E30 was the lightest and E72 the heaviest. Its a rather complex calculation based on double headed consolidations. Be interesting and keep us from running a 4-8-8-4 over Diablo Canyon Bridge 1 (the original) which I should be starting this morning as the other one is almost done.

Ben

 

[Jananton]

Hi Ben,

Interestingly I thought about the same thing after posting yesterday. Although animation would be difficult, but doable, the more difficult part would be the scripting. I presume it would be possible to calculate the axle pressure between two attachment points, but if it's possible to break up a part of the track from a script I've no idea. And then what happens next. Does it remains as rubble during the rest of the session, will there be a "Reset Bridge" button, or, the most elaborate solution, will there become a temporary material drop off point in action at one or both of the bridge heads. So work trains can drop their load to rebuild it over time. This only of course when running a session long enough.:hehe:

Such a bridge would definitly be an interesting asset. Maybe someone with real excellent scripting skills would know if this really is possible.

Greetings from nighttime Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

The modern bridge is on the DLS this morning. Hope its what you had in mind.

The original one is about half done.

Ben

 

[bendorsey]

I just uploaded the original 1-track bridge. Get approved and on the DLS in a few day (I hope).

Ben

 

[UP5521]

Nice, maybe I can run a 2-6-0 mogul steam locomotive with a long heavy freight over this bridge but I don't know because the bridge structure concerns me and this could prevent me from doing this and I think it might be a good idea if the train was short so the bridge does not strain everytime a train rolls across it.

 

[bendorsey]

Well its definately flimsy looking but a lot of bridges from way back then look similar. Equipment was light - 4-4-0's and 2-6-0's was pretty much it until the 2-8-0 arrived (1880's or so I think). Rolling stock was rarely longer then 40 ft and of wood construction so weighed less then modern traincars.

Ben (who would still prefer to get out and walk across it, lol).

 

[Jananton]

I just uploaded the original 1-track bridge. Get approved and on the DLS in a few day (I hope).

Ben

Can't wait to see how fragile that will look in trainz.:hehe:
Btw, that's an aspect I like very much in trainz, not only you can travel in distance and places, but also in time.

Greetings from nighttime Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

Its on the DLS this morning. Hope its spindly enough.

Ben

 

[bigricho]

The original looks nice.

Sturdy, too.

But trying to put the current bridge in, it only comes 2/3rds of the way up to the track level. Is there any trick I can try to get the bridge to match the ground at track level? Or match the ground at one of the footers?

Thanks

 

[bendorsey]

Nice pic.

The original bridge had supports on the bottom of the 200 ft deep canyon. The current version has supports about half way up. The photos in the thread show this. Raise the bridge to match the track level and adjust the canyon walls to match the concrete supports perhaps?

GADZOOKS! Two Big Boys on this bridge. One tender with a full load would probably have collapsed it. Where didja get the time machine, lol? This was built around 1884.

Ben

EDIT: It might also be necessary to change the height values from -20,20 to -30,30 or even -40,40.

 

[Jananton]

I won't say told you so, but I somehow expected a picture like this.:hehe:

Btw Ben looking for the Diablo bridges on the DLS I also noticed your Engine_Complex_Part 3, 4 and 5, nice buildings, may I ask what happened to part 1 and 2, since they seem to be missing from the DLS listing.

Greetings from nighttime Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

Hi Jan:

I agree - - - you know someone just had to do it since I mentioned it. A pair of Huge Boys (4-8-8-8-4's) next? :hehe:

I did a search and can bring both up by either title or kuid.
Engine_Complex_Part_1 - kuid2:210518:8391:2 (turntable and round house).
Engine_Complex_Part_2 - kuid2:210518:8392:3 (transfer table and buildings).
There is a screeshot in one of the folders (Part_1 I think) showing how they are supposed to go together. Glad you like them.

Ben

 

[Jananton]

Yeah, from the thumbnails they looked very good, can't wait to see them in action so to speak.
The CMP doesn't show part 1 and 2 here, hence the question. Now I know they're definitly there I'll do some exploring again to whip the CMP into order.:hehe: Thanks.

Edit: Found them, broadend the search from buildings and structures only, to all.

Greetings from nighttime Amsterdam,

Jan

 

[bendorsey]

I've always been a little curious about the Huge Boy. Not to purchase one as I model in 3 ft gauge (D&RGW). What interests me is how they articulated the 3 sets of drivers. I once got into a serious discussion of the triplex and its shortcomings:
1. Weight on the rear set of drivers decreases as fuel and water is used up so tractive effort decreases as well).
2. Added steam usage capacity without added steam generation capacity (boiler is the same size as a 2-8-8-2).

My position was to place all 3 sets of drivers under a lengthened boiler. If the center set were the ones that ridgidly attached to the boiler and the other two swiveled under it - overhang at either end would be no more then on a conventional 2-8-8-2. If the rear set was the one ridgidly attached to the boiler like a 2-8-8-2 and the 2 front ones swiveled under it, overhang at the front would be excessive. I 've alays wondered which way they set up the 3 driver sets on the Huge Boy. The longer boiler and no drivers under the tender would solve the other problems the triplex had. Twas a lively discussion, lol.

Ben

 

[bigricho]

EDIT: It might also be necessary to change the height values from -20,20 to -30,30 or even -40,40.

-40,40 does the trick.

Thanks again for the great job.

 

[bendorsey]

Glad you like it.

Its an odd bridge in a way with the walkways on the lower supports. Steep as they are I wouldn't want to walk them on an inspection tour unless I had a safety line attached to something. Also all the inspection platforms under the deck are rare. Can't say I ever saw one with that many before. They might even have been connected to each other under the center of the deck but I couldn't tell for sure from the pics.

Back to my latest headache generator, lol.

Ben