I
You can do what Ted did and use trestles, they can be made from scraps of anything, though probably best from wood! Also you could use a curved viaduct as sold by one of the Continental manufacturers. I'd suggest you check out the websites for Faller or Auhagen first, they are most likely. They will also tell you the size of them so you can check if they'd fit. For such a small one I think N scale would probably be best.
Hello peter, if you look up my layout Knottworthy Magna you will see that I too looked at Nixnie for inspiration and posted a blow by blow account on here and Narrow Gauge Online Forum of its build, this might be of some assistance to you.
Kind regards,
BrianT. [gtmspyder]
Maybe you could just built up the corner again to create the narrow valley you wanted?
David.
Quote from: clayliner on September 27, 2019, 14:20
Maybe you could just built up the corner again to create the narrow valley you wanted?
David.
My thoughts too. Narrower and deeper into layout. With such a shallow inlet it could be difficult to make a bridge crossing at that location look convincing.
Is there enough blue foam left intact to form the actual track bed? The non-structural bits could be built up using a variety of materials. Of course if there is more of the same material you could fill the entire void and start again.
Many thanks for this advice, v helpful and gives me a
clear direction as I take my first steps in 009!
One other idea did occur. It is a variation on previous suggestions but would account for the side panels being trimmed back. The thing that makes it look a little odd at the moment is why a long curved bridge would extend out into a wide inlet. I think what it needs is a reason to do so.
One scenario might be that it is a coastal or estuary location and the railway is running along the shoreline and needs to cross a small bay or inlet. Instead of completely filling the gap and re-cutting a narrow gulley, the track could run out round the curve on an embankment, seawall or causeway. Then a shorter bridge is all that is needed and so will look less curved and more purposeful.
Rivers come from somewhere and go somewhere, the tide just goes in and out. If you want the look of a river you need to show whence it comes and where it goes, simples? A waterfall to drop down into your gorge could be a feature.
As to the bridge, don't forget context. Wooden trestles are fine in the Wild West, the Australian outback, on industrial or temporary lines and on military light railway. Common carriers tend not to have them, unless you're set in those earliest days. Old lines from the 19th century tend to have masonry arches, but steel (girder) would be common in the early 20th century. Of course, bulk carrying lines (ore, coal, gravel etc.) and main lines need more substantial structures than tramways with occasional traffic, and a 8t Bagnall 0-4-0 (4t per axle) strains you bridge less than a mighty 60t Baldwin 2-8-2 (13t per axle).
And then there is bridge type and size, a through-type girder or a suspension bridge would be wrong on your short spans, but for example a pair of Queen Marys from Airfix would make an eye-catcher on a minor industrial line, - post WW2 of course only.
So, what type of railway line, what rolling stock, what cargo at which period are you modelling?
For steel structures I recommend Micro Engineering, superb detailing that outclasses anything Faller, Kibri or the likes offer, and a modular system that allows you to combine most of their kits make them excellent value for money. On a budget PECO ain't bad either
Don't fall foul of it, while some manufacturers offer curved bridge spans structural spans between supports are always straight, i.e. multiple spans form a polygon, not a curve, that is wide enough for the track to curve on top of it!
And no, absolutely no connection with Micro Engineering, I'm not even a customer of theirs; - I buy their stuff only 2nd hand. ;D
Hope this helps
Waldschrat