08-18-2021, 07:37 AM
Just an update of sorts. I find using the correct math, 
that it's physically impossible to do what I was going to do and still maintain even a 3% grade, regardless of where the bridge is. What was I thinking, 
it looked good on paper and my original calculations showed it was doable. Anyway, it is not, and so I put my old engineering slide rule back in its case. I do not want to add any length, and even with a 4% grade, I'd have very little level track, so here are two alternates, no bridge, no crossover, no grades, just common sense and adding foam to raise the height.
The end result, less scenery and more room for structures, which I like to do anyway.
that it's physically impossible to do what I was going to do and still maintain even a 3% grade, regardless of where the bridge is. What was I thinking, it looked good on paper and my original calculations showed it was doable. Anyway, it is not, and so I put my old engineering slide rule back in its case. I do not want to add any length, and even with a 4% grade, I'd have very little level track, so here are two alternates, no bridge, no crossover, no grades, just common sense and adding foam to raise the height.The end result, less scenery and more room for structures, which I like to do anyway.
Don (ezdays) Day
Board administrator and
founder of the CANYON STATE RAILROAD
Board administrator and
founder of the CANYON STATE RAILROAD