Subject:
|
Re: Timber trestle crossing water
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:24:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1342 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
Prototype question:
When a timber trestle bridge crosses water, is it usual to have the timber
bents permanently submerged? Or is it usual to have stone or concrete piers
supporting the trestle bents?
I’ve tried google, but can’t find a clear answer. There are some pics of the
bents resting in water, but it’s not clear to me whether this is common, or
even if it is just the result of abnormally high water.
Any advice (or links) would be appreciated.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
I had a look at the google images and was surprised to see any trestles getting
wet. I think the trestles are directly buried in the ground on each side of the
river, with rock in the ground being the support.
I guess the timber wouldn’t last long if it were submerged, though a few coats
of bitumen might help. In that case it should be black with bitumen up to the
river flood level.
An HO model railroad that I remember had a trestle bridge across a creek, but
the normal water level was very low, so no trestles were in it.
I know modern steel versions have a concrete base, rather than submerge the
steel. It doesn’t make engineering sense to submerge the wood, as long as
concrete is availalble. Perhaps that makes it depend on the vintage of the
bridge.
Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Timber trestle crossing water
|
| Prototype question: When a timber trestle bridge crosses water, is it usual to have the timber bents permanently submerged? Or is it usual to have stone or concrete piers supporting the trestle bents? I've tried google, but can't find a clear (...) (19 years ago, 27-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
