Model Railroading > Thru plate girder bridges

Hi, I am going to use a thru plate girder bridge or two on My layout. Atlas, Central Valley, and Micro Engineering have kit or ready made ones. Can anyone comment on their experience and results useing these? The gaps are 6" and 9", so 50' and 70' scale length in HO scale. Thanks Steve

The Central Valley through truss makes a very nice model. It's a 21" span.

Tom

The Exactrail girders are also nice.
Regards,dK

Scoopcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Central Valley, and
> Micro Engineering have kit or ready made ones.


I've used both as approaches in conjunction with a truss bridge. The ME is a bit more finely detailed. Lighter prototype, I think. The CV requires a bit more sanding/filing to remove draft angles. But they are fine models and work together. (for me!) The Atlas is certainly a classic in the hobby, but the floor structure leaves a lot to be desired. It is a model of a special sort of thin deck bridge, but the relief is just too shallow.

Its been 20 years since I played with the Atlas, but I remember it being train set type detail, with rails already molded in.

I have built both the Micro Engineering and the Central Valley Bridges.

The CV bridge is 72', and is a nice kit.

The ME is 50', but compared to building the CV, is a nightmare. Basically, you have to assemble the internal bracing. On the CV, its all one piece. Also, the manufactures photo is a bit miss leading; The girder edges are curved. In reality, they are square, and the instructions tell you to cut them yourself. Good luck getting 4 curves exactly the same.

They probably made all four corners square so the modeler could leave them that way, curve them, or angle them depending on his prototype or personal taste.

Walthers makes one as well. My personal choice is CV.

That's not a thru plate girder bridge...

UP3806 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Central Valley through truss makes a very nice
> model. It's a 21" span.
>
> Tom



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/14 09:45 by wabash2800.

Correct

wlankenau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They probably made all four corners square so the
> modeler could leave them that way, curve them, or
> angle them depending on his prototype or personal
> taste.

I've used all three and yes the ME requires more work but the parts can be used for other projects. I do like the CV one. As someone just posted, unless something has changed, the Atlas one has code 100 track embedded. I cut one up for a friend to invert and make it into a deck-girder. I pick and choose bridges to fit the application.

Like most other bridges, thru plate girder height gets higher as the span increases. Another factor is the E bridge weight rating, but both the ME and the CV thru plate bridges are suitable for modern prototypes. Now, the CV thru truss technically could not support anything larger than a GE 44 tonner or a small steam loco.

I haven't done a Micro Engineering one, but the CV goes together nicely with a bit of car and patience. Yes the old Atlas molding shows its age, but if it isn't in the foreground they still look OK and they are strong and simple. You can pull out the rails and change to Code 83 (I don't know about Code 70). The Atlas bridge has a rail length of 9" to fit into train set track, the CV's are slightly longer. I like the CV bridge if it's in a place where people can see it - the "see through" effect pleases my eye. I still use two on my secondary line and have no plans to replace them. They look OK and do the job just fine.

Thanks guys! I will go with the CV one. Its for a 1 Square Foot club contest, it will be designed to fit my layout, AKA a scenic trial for the shelf part. I will build it so I can plug the section in after the contest. Steve

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Correct
>
> wlankenau Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They probably made all four corners square so
> the
> > modeler could leave them that way, curve them,
> or
> > angle them depending on his prototype or
> personal
> > taste.

Of course; But when the sales description reads "choice of straight or curved", one would assume that there would be extra parts, maybe pre-scored lines to cut on, etc...Not just "good luck".

Stottman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Of course; But when the sales description reads
> "choice of straight or curved", one would assume
> that there would be extra parts, maybe pre-scored
> lines to cut on, etc...Not just "good luck".

Good point . . .