Was not sure if this should go in this forum or in Modeling... anyways. With my Howe Truss bridge completed I was looking at all the left over scrap and thought I'd try my hand at a short covered railway bridge for my layout. I built a trestle some time back with a center span and since the water feature I hoped to figure out for this spot is still on the drawing board I decided to retro fit a cover to the center span. The idea was not to have to permanately attach any part of the cover to the trestle center span.
Here's where I'm at with it at the moment:
I've posted a number of pics and narrative on the building process in the new MLS Builders Logs here:
It's rather short as these things go (based on looking at pictures of the real ones). It scales out to just under 30 feet in 1.20. It's modular in that you can lift the roof off and then each side wall can be removed from the center span of the trestle where it will ultimately be installed.
As always, questions, comments, feedback, and/or suggestions welcome.
What would enhance the dilapidated roof planking? I assume back in the roof's youth it was covered in either shingles or tar paper or both. Should there be a few shingles in places and maybe some underlying tar paper or should I just go with the skeletal planks?
Here's a link to covered bridges near me. Granted these are all for road vehicles, they are not built as heavily as for Railroad use. However, I think you'll find they are in a wide range of conditions, so you might get some ideas.
Okay, the covered bridge is done, and I've installed it in the layout. Installation was easy since the walls and roof are three separate pieces. Each wall snuggly fits into the trestle span and the roof drops on and hold everything together.
What I'm unsure about is the overall size and diminsions of the construction. I really should try that planning thing before building stuff. Sigh.
From some angles the covered bridge seems to dwarf the Shay. Not knowing how these buildings were spec'd in 1:1 I was working off the clearences I used on the truss bridge I built late last year:
On the truss I have 1.75 inches from the top of the stack to the bottom of the beams. On the covered bridge I have 2 inches. Maybe it's the peaked roof that just makes it look odd.
Shown here exiting the north end it does not look too bad. I could have gone for just clearing the stack but figured with real trains smoke would be belching out and they would want some clearance.
Very nice. As for dwarfing the loco... I am often surprised at how large a bridge is, compared to a train going through it. It really is logical, after all, the train has to go "through" the bridge, so the bridge must be much bigger than the train.
You are right, of course. What is throwing me is, I think, that because of the way I constructed the side walls, removable and integrated with the trestle span, they extend down well below the track line. This makes the height of the covered bridge look like much more than it is. That may be it.