Seems my photos confused my statements. Not unusual for me They are not of the bridge that I have problems with.
The photos are of my curved bridge, built last spring. The Connie fits through that one just fine. I was careful to use a 1:20.3 clearance gauge (in the background of the photo) to design the bridge and place the hinges.
I wasn’t so smart when I built the latest bridge two weeks ago. I made the bridge quite narrow and and set the hinges about 1/4 inch too close to the track to clear the rods on the Connie. I’m less than an 1/8 inch too high and my hinge point is probably close to 1/4 inch above the rail head, so I can go lower without screwing up the pivot point at the rail head.
There are several optional solutions as you kind gentlemen have pointed out…
A - I can make the bridge at the hinge point wider, then move the hinge outside of the clearance window. Not my favorite solution because this new bridge has very clean lines.
B - I could flip the hinges over, putting the barrel below the surface. This will require minimal woodworking that is within my skill set. Only problem being that the hinge is designed for flat head screws on the barrel side only. I’d need to change to round heads.
C - My idea of chiseling, grinding or otherwise cutting the wood in the outline of the hinge so I can bring the hinge down flush with the wood surface. This will give enough clearance, but is not something I have tools or skills to do easily.
Both B and C would be problematic if my hinge point were exactly at the railhead. Fortunately my design was not that close and I can move the hinge point lower without causing the track to bind at the fold.
This concept of putting the hinge point at the railhead was a very difficult one for me to grasp. I just don’t see things like that without use of graphic aids. For me, drawing the deck, ties and rail in Viso, then using the Rotate function allowed me to see the issue and experiment with different hinge point (rotation center)locations.
Thanks for the input folks!
JR