so your family must be from south of the WeißWorscht-equator, as was my mother from Frankonia. for her all that were Wärschdle - no matter, how big or how many.
i, myself was raised as a SauPreiss with Schieberwurst (small slice of Wurst on a big slice of bread)
this is a very hungry topic. i think i’ll have some Mettwurstbrot for breakfeast tomorrow.
Yay, a free weekend at home, and beautiful weather!
First steps today were to pull track up and staple the template down to the old plywood. The template has markers for the pier form hanger thingies, and all seems to be lining up fine.
After that, I installed two temporary supports over the roadbed, and removed three posts. Then I screwed in place about 2/3 of the pier forms.
I’ll make pier elevation adjustments tomorrow, and eventually adjust the bent heights in the CAD to match. Base plates for each bent will get stuck to the bottom of the forms; need to make all those in the morning.
Not sure when I’ll get to it, but the next big job is to pour the footers up to those suspended base plates. The forms should then be able to support the plywood. So then I’ll take out the remaining posts, install the final pier forms and pour the remaining footers.
The idea is to end up with something vaguely like this, with CAD files for the structure reasonably in sync.
Hollywood, ever since you shoved this nice little ice pick in my head (
), I’ve kept coming back to find some sort of answer. After maybe 6 attempts I think I’m getting closer.
I wish the radii weren’t already at a bare minimum (4’), because that’s what’s causing all the wonkiness.
Maybe someone will eventually visit the layout and notice that nothing is horizontally parallel in those spans, or the towers supporting them. Whatever. At least, this makes that lower span more interesting, as you say, and eliminates the overly-high clearance I’d had there before.
Still working out the details though…
General question on trestle tie spacing.
I currently have them spaced similar to LGB / other track. But as in Hollywood’s example, and other photos of kits and prototypes I’ve seen, the ties are super close together.
Any thoughts on why this is, and if it was standard practice? Safety in walking? Or just more spiking opportunities?
I can double their quantity in my model, but this would result in an almost solid surface of ties. But maybe that’s ok, prototypically?
On open-deck trestle spans, railroad ties are spaced closer together to distribute the concentrated weight of a train over a wider surface area
. Unlike tracks laid on ballast, these ties rest directly on the bridge’s steel or timber framework, leaving open spaces between them.
The closer spacing is necessary because the ties on an open-deck bridge lack the continuous, cushioning support of a deep bed of ballast.
On a ballasted track, the weight is distributed broadly through:
The rails.
The ties, or "sleepers".
The bed of ballast, a layer of crushed stone.
The underlying ground, or "subgrade".
In contrast, on an open-deck bridge, the weight is transferred from the rails, through the ties, and directly onto the main structural beams of the bridge. Without the broad distribution offered by ballast, the more frequent ties are required to:
Prevent excessive deflection: The dense placement of ties prevents the rails from bending or bowing downward between the support beams under the heavy load of a train.
Improve lateral stability: Fasteners, such as hook bolts, secure the ties to the bridge's support beams. The closer spacing of the ties provides more points of contact for these fasteners, which increases the track's resistance to lateral (sideways) forces.
Provide safety redundancy: If one tie were to fail or become damaged, the closer proximity of its neighbors ensures the rails remain properly supported, reducing the risk of a derailmentThanks Hollywood, I knew I could count on you.
Re the final paragraph, the 1st point doesn’t make sense to me yet, because it would apply to regular track on ballast, where no tight spacing is done. The last two arguments though do make sense (to my slow mind), along with the prior reasoning of load distribution.
Cool. So I’ll plan on doubling up my ties for this. And maybe extending some for the occasional barrel / escape platform.
Not sure this will help, Cliff.
But, based on my research for my own bridges, I have found that standard trackage (LGB,etc) is spaced at about 1.5× the width of the ties. Whereas, on a bridge, it seems that no more than 1× spacing (or, equal spacing) is better. I am planning to do equal spacing on a module for Big Green at some point. That’ll mean that ties will be no more than one ties-width apart.
Great planning and work on these trestles. I can’t wait to see this second one completed! Maybe someday I’ll be able to see them in person.
Thanks for that further info John, much appreciated.
You bet, please swing by, maybe before or after your trip to @JRad’s digs for EBTECLSTS '26. 
Change in plans: I decided to get rid of all the old posts and put in rebar for support. That way I was able to hang all the jigs at once.
Once the jigs were in, I corrected a few bent heights by sliding the jig up or down. I’ll tweak the CAD model for these adjustments.
Then I cable-tied the footer base plates to the bottoms of the jigs. These plates will stay with the mortar piers when the jigs are removed.
Still need to do final leveling, then comes pouring the footers I think, maybe next weekend.
My GN trestle drawings show 8" x 8" ties on either 14" or 15" centers. 14" for the heavier weight bridge and 15" for the lighter weight bridge.
Cliff, I was just about to say, wouldn’t a railroad facing these severe conditions, blast a new tunnel, and put in a steel viaduct and start running diesels? …
Looking forward to your G-Scale SCMaglev operations with excitement! 
Thanks for that further data point Craig, much obliged.
