You’re making my head hurt! 
You just need to drink lots of beer like I do when studying/researching bridges or anything pertaining to this hobby for that matter Joe !
This is all Devon’s fault!
Devon, or do what I did when I build Resignation Bridge. Find a bridge you like, and copy it. I found a pony truss, camel back, bridge I likes, and I photographed it. Then I printed the photographs to scale, and cut my wood to fit the printed images and build my darn bridge.
Guess we went a little overboard huh??? But bridges are cool! I just went ahead and built my first one, without much info then copied it for the rest. Only later did I figure out what kind of truss I was using!(http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
The beautiful thing about this hobby is we can do what we want. I agree with David that if out find a bridge you like then you can copy it. Or you can build one from a plan. You can make it as accurate as you like. It is subjective. Or you can be an over obsessive nut job like me and go off the deep end learning anything and everything I can about a particular thing and then build it as close as you can.
We each just have to do what makes us happy. None of us is wrong…well maybe rooster is wrong, for me the research and learning is part of the fun
Devon, I’m not an engineer, That being said… I think that you are right on about what makes a bridge a Howe. The key is the pre-stressing of the “Truss” using the screws to tension the rods in a compression of the diagonal beams, and the fact that they set on a triangular wedge applies the compression forces equally to the beam, unlike what would be the case if the end of the beam was just mitered, it would want to travel as the stress is applied. The key is that the truss pattern could be most anything, but the compressed beams are pre loaded and set perpendicular to the wedge shaped pads that the tensioning rod passes thru.
This could explain why there are so many designs of the beams layout, but they incorporate the Howe pre stressing of the truss. The actual pre-loading can be accomplished by several ways that are different in technique but achieve the same pre-loading.
Notice the same principal of stressing used with the wedge on this stock car.
My 1/50 of a dollar. And I may be wrong.
Hello all. There are some very nice bridges shown in this thread. About 15 years or so ago, I was building my G Scale Model Railroad in the second floor of my barn. It’s in a 24" X 24" room and has about 140 feet of track. I decided that it would need some bridges. I looked around and found the Schreyer topic on Howe Truss Bridges and I built two of them from his plans. One is 48" (96’ @ 1/2" to the foot) and the other is 30" (60’ @ 1/2" to the foot}. I used clear redwood that I cut to size on my old Rockwell 14" bandsaw and they are held together with 3/32" brass welding rod threaded 3-48. I stained them with dark walnut Min-Wax and they have aged nicely. The shorter bridge is removable and covers the door to my workshop which is in the next room.
I see that there is some discussion about whether these are Howe Truss Bridges or Warrens or something else. This is not a concern for me. I leave that to the experts. I just needed some bridges and the plans really looked good to me. I hope you all like them. Oh, and please don’t tell me that they look like furniture as I was informed on another site.
Regards from Northern California.
Dave Taylor said:
Devon, I’m not an engineer, That being said… I think that you are right on about what makes a bridge a Howe. The key is the pre-stressing of the “Truss” using the screws to tension the rods in a compression of the diagonal beams, and the fact that they set on a triangular wedge applies the compression forces equally to the beam, unlike what would be the case if the end of the beam was just mitered, it would want to travel as the stress is applied. The key is that the truss pattern could be most anything, but the compressed beams are pre loaded and set perpendicular to the wedge shaped pads that the tensioning rod passes thru.
This could explain why there are so many designs of the beams layout, but they incorporate the Howe pre stressing of the truss. The actual pre-loading can be accomplished by several ways that are different in technique but achieve the same pre-loading.
Notice the same principal of stressing used with the wedge on this stock car.
My 1/50 of a dollar. And I may be wrong.
David,
You nailed it. After reading the patent and the drawing your right on the money. What makes a Howe a Howe is the combination of truss rod working in compression with and accompanying wedge block to transfer the load to the diagonals. Anything else won’t truly be a Howe. One common element I see in non-Howe “Howes” is the attachment of the truss rods to heavy cross timbers and diagonals that travel into the stringer. This can not be a howe because the loading of the diagonals would not be right.
I found that after trying to guess and even read what “experts” had to say a Howe was at the end of the day reading what his patent app said cleared it up.
Also I have seen some nice bridges that people have built regardless of what they should be called. I have plenty of inspiration for when it comes time to make my combination pile/Howe/pony truss bridge. The one I want to copy employs pile bridges leading up to a double span of Howes 60 feet long each and a pony truss coming off the double spans of Howes. Should be a real feat and a great winter project someday.
Gaylord Mann said:
Hello all. There are some very nice bridges shown in this thread. About 15 years or so ago, I was building my G Scale Model Railroad in the second floor of my barn. It’s in a 24" X 24" room and has about 140 feet of track. I decided that it would need some bridges. I looked around and found the Schreyer topic on Howe Truss Bridges and I built two of them from his plans. One is 48" (96’ @ 1/2" to the foot) and the other is 30" (60’ @ 1/2" to the foot}. I used clear redwood that I cut to size on my old Rockwell 14" bandsaw and they are held together with 3/32" brass welding rod threaded 3-48. I stained them with dark walnut Min-Wax and they have aged nicely. The shorter bridge is removable and covers the door to my workshop which is in the next room.
I see that there is some discussion about whether these are Howe Truss Bridges or Warrens or something else. This is not a concern for me. I leave that to the experts. I just needed some bridges and the plans really looked good to me. I hope you all like them. Oh, and please don’t tell me that they look like furniture as I was informed on another site.
Regards from Northern California.
Gaylord,
I love your bridges, it really matters little if the engineering is spot on to meet a definition. I tend to be a student of what I am trying to model but only because I love to learn as much as I love to model. To me they are much the same process. But that isn’t for everyone. Your bridges are beautiful, well built, and fit your needs. That makes them great in my book.
That archive that you showed as the source for the called out “Howe” bridge, How accurate, after much discussion here as to what makes a true “Howe” might that be? Just maybe, the term “Howe” was being used to call out most any “Truss rodded” bridge form, as a generic term. To be sure, as actually built, I would find the blue print for the bridge that was built at that mile marker. Just could be that the bridge gang super, had a better idea of his own.
Devon Sinsley said:
Gaylord Mann said:
Hello all. There are some very nice bridges shown in this thread. About 15 years or so ago, I was building my G Scale Model Railroad in the second floor of my barn. It’s in a 24" X 24" room and has about 140 feet of track. I decided that it would need some bridges. I looked around and found the Schreyer topic on Howe Truss Bridges and I built two of them from his plans. One is 48" (96’ @ 1/2" to the foot) and the other is 30" (60’ @ 1/2" to the foot}. I used clear redwood that I cut to size on my old Rockwell 14" bandsaw and they are held together with 3/32" brass welding rod threaded 3-48. I stained them with dark walnut Min-Wax and they have aged nicely. The shorter bridge is removable and covers the door to my workshop which is in the next room.
I see that there is some discussion about whether these are Howe Truss Bridges or Warrens or something else. This is not a concern for me. I leave that to the experts. I just needed some bridges and the plans really looked good to me. I hope you all like them. Oh, and please don’t tell me that they look like furniture as I was informed on another site.
Regards from Northern California.
Gaylord,
I love your bridges, it really matters little if the engineering is spot on to meet a definition. I tend to be a student of what I am trying to model but only because I love to learn as much as I love to model. To me they are much the same process. But that isn’t for everyone. Your bridges are beautiful, well built, and fit your needs. That makes them great in my book.
Thank you for the nice compliment. Well, as I mentioned, I used the website of George Schreyer, I followed the plans and methods shown on the site. I wasn’t concerned with complete accuracy but after looking into the matter those years ago, his plans looked as good as any. His material is still up, although it hasn’t been updated since 2007.
Thanks and regards.
GNM
Dave Taylor said:
That archive that you showed as the source for the called out “Howe” bridge, How accurate, after much discussion here as to what makes a true “Howe” might that be? Just maybe, the term “Howe” was being used to call out most any “Truss rodded” bridge form, as a generic term. To be sure, as actually built, I would find the blue print for the bridge that was built at that mile marker. Just could be that the bridge gang super, had a better idea of his own.
Hmm, finding the blue print of a bridge that might be more than 100 years old at any mile marker could be quite a task. I’m afraid that’s beyond my capabilities but I understand what you are saying. If you find them, I’d sure like a copy.
Gaylord Mann said:
Dave Taylor said:
That archive that you showed as the source for the called out “Howe” bridge, How accurate, after much discussion here as to what makes a true “Howe” might that be? Just maybe, the term “Howe” was being used to call out most any “Truss rodded” bridge form, as a generic term. To be sure, as actually built, I would find the blue print for the bridge that was built at that mile marker. Just could be that the bridge gang super, had a better idea of his own.
Hmm, finding the blue print of a bridge that might be more than 100 years old at any mile marker could be quite a task. I’m afraid that’s beyond my capabilities but I understand what you are saying. If you find them, I’d sure like a copy.
To be fair, Mr. Schreyer himself said "The design is only a loose representation of a real Howe Truss.
Dave Taylor said:
That archive that you showed as the source for the called out “Howe” bridge, How accurate, after much discussion here as to what makes a true “Howe” might that be? Just maybe, the term “Howe” was being used to call out most any “Truss rodded” bridge form, as a generic term. To be sure, as actually built, I would find the blue print for the bridge that was built at that mile marker. Just could be that the bridge gang super, had a better idea of his own.
Ha, David you must know me to well, with out knowing me at all. While in St Paul, I poured over NP bridge plans and hoped to find something that would work. There were even reference to Howe bridges but “sigh” no luck. My prototype was built even before the NP take over so not telling they used even NP plans. It will be an enigma. I would love to turn up a set of plans but I have no idea if such exists. For now I will leave it up to my own interpretation and pray someone finds evidence to prove me wrong.
I think I agree that “Howe” became synonymous with the truss rod style. Even if this is not entirely correct it happens all the time, and I am good with it. I am especially good with it from a modeling perspective. For me I will build it exactly like the patent and the diagram shows. That way I will satisfy myself that I built a Howe. It will still be open for interpretation as Howe did not define the cross pieces that tied his trusses together. So in the end it will still be my own artistic lisc. that will play out.
This has been a good conversation and I appreciate all the input and sharing. It was a learning experience. I went from one spectrum to the other and back again on what I understand a Howe to be. I love learning.
Devon,
My dad, a retired Civil Engineer is coming to visit in a couple of days, I’m going ask him if he knows the difference between the different types of bridges. It will be interesting to see if he defines a “Howe” as a “Howe” or something else! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
Craig Townsend said:
Devon,
My dad, a retired Civil Engineer is coming to visit in a couple of days, I’m going ask him if he knows the difference between the different types of bridges. It will be interesting to see if he defines a “Howe” as a “Howe” or something else! (http://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-foot-in-mouth.gif)
Please share when he does. I am curious.
Devon, cant you even find a picture of the bridge you would like to model? Since bridges were/are kind of photogenic, I would think there would be at least one photo somewhere. Then, maybe, you Warren know for sure Howe that bride was built.
Just do a Bollman Truss, then nobody will doubt you.
Done in Iron.
John
David Maynard said:
Devon, cant you even find a picture of the bridge you would like to model? Since bridges were/are kind of photogenic, I would think there would be at least one photo somewhere. Then, maybe, you Warren know for sure Howe that bride was built.
David,
You would think wouldn’t you? As far as I know I have a copy of every know photograph of this RR. Now I know I don’t but the key word is known. I only have one photograph that shows a bridge and it is only a part of one laying in a river along with a crashed locomotive. From that picture we can see it was likely a truss of some sort. The track profile simply lists three types Howe, pony, or pile or a combination of these bridges. We have a suspect picture we think is construction of the line and it shows the building of a pile bridge. So at this point in time I have to use my imagination. What I do know is the length of the over all bridges, the length of each span of each type, the height above water and the height of the bridge structure. Nothing else at this point; but I will forever be on the lookout. Until my trip and the the discovery of the track profile book we assumed all bridges were either pile of trestle. It was a surprise to see the two types of truss bridges. It explained all the extra lumber in the one picture and how they spanned the river.
Like I said I am eagerly waiting to come across a blue print or photo of one of these bridges. By 1888 when NP took over all bridges built were trestles. I have a couple different plans NP used for these. It is that original period between 1886 and 1888 when the narrow gauge line was built that would have the Howes in them. Just add that to the list of things I do not know about this RR that I will search for the rest of my life to answer.
Until then I am left to my imagination which is not a bad thing. I will buy a case of beer for the first person that can present a plan or photo of these bridges in question.
John Caughey said:
Just do a Bollman Truss, then nobody will doubt you.
Done in Iron.
John
Now that would be a fun bridge to model.