Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

August 31, 2021 03:26PM
stanames Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Greg and others
>
> Despite the long standing stories. Nither Lobato
> nor Cascade are built for standard gauge weight
> limits.
>
> It was common for many of the steel bridge
> components on the NG lines to have come from
> standard guage lines.
>
> In the late 1800s as the weight of standard gauge
> trains increased many of these bridges were
> replaced with stronger bridges and the old bridges
> often reused on the NG.
>
> For example all deck girders and the pin connected
> deck truss used for the bridge at Cimarron Creek
> (the NPS display) are recycled from various
> standard guage bridges that had to be replaced.
>
> The Labaot beidge was built in 1883 and I suspects
> its origional guiders were not recycled as this
> was to early for this practice to be in widespread
> use.
>
> The Cascade Creek Trestle was not constructed
> until 1889, and several of its deck girder spans

> were recycled from other standard guage routes of
> the D&RG.
>
> The bridges were designed by C. Shaler Smith, The
> overall bridge designs are not structually sound
> for even late 1800 standard guage trains. The
> single pier structure and overall desigh gets its
> end to end strength from the entire bridge
> structure and you will not find this bridge design
> in a standard guage bridge, The curved aspect of
> Cascade is an engineering marvel.
>
> Furthermore if you look at the length and height
> of the individual girders for these bridges you
> will find that they are way undersized for any
> standard guage use, even 1890 use.
>
> Since Cascade uses recycled deck gurder spans that
> were recycled from standard guage bridges that
> were not strong enough to hold standard guage
> trains of that era, I think it fair to say that
> Cascase was definately not built with the
> intention of ever having standard guage trains run
> over it.
>
> Stan

Thanks for your input Stan, I'll have to dig, somewhere in one of my books it stated that the idea was to standard gauge the San Juan Extension, because of how profitable it was becoming , of course that was before the silver crash in the 1890's, pretty sure that is part of the reason it was never was fully standard gauged.

Still a Student,

Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2021 03:26PM by davidtltc.
Subject Author Posted

320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley Attachments

davidtltc August 24, 2021 03:06PM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

guymonmd August 24, 2021 03:36PM

From underneath

davidtltc August 25, 2021 07:59AM

Cascade Creek Viaduct Attachments

davidtltc August 27, 2021 10:12AM

Trail To Photo Oportunity Attachments

davidtltc August 27, 2021 01:49PM

Cascade Creek Viaduct skiwampus Attachments

davidtltc August 31, 2021 05:20PM

Re: Cascade Creek Viaduct skiwampus Attachments

heatermason August 31, 2021 06:30PM

Re: Cascade Creek Viaduct skiwampus

davidtltc August 31, 2021 06:43PM

Re: Cascade Creek Viaduct skiwampus

Greg Scholl August 31, 2021 08:59PM

Re: Cascade Creek Viaduct skiwampus

davidtltc August 31, 2021 09:36PM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

Casey Akin August 30, 2021 10:23PM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

George W Pearce August 31, 2021 08:38AM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

davidtltc August 31, 2021 08:49AM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

Greg Scholl August 31, 2021 11:04AM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

davidtltc August 31, 2021 11:55AM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

stanames August 31, 2021 02:12PM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

davidtltc August 31, 2021 03:26PM

Re: 320? Not a drones perspective.eye rolling smiley

Eddy Sand August 31, 2021 02:30PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login