Quick question.

What (in anyone's opinion) would be a good width of dimensional scale lumber for one to use for pier decking that could "realistically" support rolling stock and locomotives?

The dimensional thickness actually doesn't really matter as the model I'll be building will use 1/8" craft plywood for its base and the thickness will not be seen once the model is completed. I was thinking of something like an * x 12 or maybe a * x 16. With " * " being the dimensional thickness. I guess a width that looks soild and sturdy with out looking too over sized is what I'm looking for here. I was thinking something with a width of 12" will be sufficient as the truss bridge I am also building has chords of wood that are 10 x 12".

I might experiment a bit here and build a couple of mock-ups with some track and put a loco or car on top to see how it looks, but was wondering if anyone might have a suggestion or idea as to what to start with.

This is one of those instances where I wish I could mill my own scale lumber but I do not think I have the tools to make consistent or accurate cuts unless someone has suggestions on how to use a 12" table saw to make small pieces of timber? But that seems like it would just make more saw dust then actual timber. Plus...its seems kinda dangerous hock:
(Perhaps it could be done with some care and a thin kerf blade? I dunno?)


Now I'm rambling...any thoughts?

Thanks!

My guess...Its only a guess, would be the same thickness as a tie.

Take scale measurements off of photos and drawings, while remembering that the later in time you model, the less available oversized-width planking became. Today, for example, 12" is as much as you can hope for.

eightyeightfan1 Wrote:My guess...Its only a guess, would be the same thickness as a tie.

I was thinking that too. However the builder in me tells me that regular ties are supported by ballast and most importantly the ground. Where as a structure that is suspended over piles and cross members might require lumber of slightly greater dimensional proportions. I could be wrong though.

MountainMan Wrote:...while remembering that the later in time you model, the less available oversized-width planking became. Today, for example, 12" is as much as you can hope for.

I was thinking this also which is why I might go with 12" and use the "big stuff" like 10x16"'s for the major structural components. I've got a plan in my head I just need to plot it on paper to see how it all fits together.

Still interested in hearing more from everyone.

will look in the pile of old magazines i rember a photo of a rail pier under construction .
jim

jim currie Wrote:will look in the pile of old magazines i rember a photo of a rail pier under construction .
jim

Thanks Jim. That would be great! I ordered a book off of Amazon, "Wharves and Piers - Their Design, Construction and Equipment" by Carleton Greene. From what I could read on line it has a lot of info on the design and construction including rolling stock. Should be a good reference to have close by and give me some ideas for details as I get closer to construction.

I looked at the Library first and they didn't have it.

Tetters, Hello again. I'm admiring your dedication to "getting it right." I think you will find that track on a pier actually has a "trestle" or "bridge" underneath, engineered to support the weight of the track and trains. Strictly speaking, the structure would be "timbers", as "planking" covers holes in a structure, and doesn't carry much load, and is usually wider than thick (2"x12" or 1"x6") for decking or sheathing. If the under-structure won't/can't be seen - size doesn't matter...but if you're modeling the whole structure, the weight and forces generated by moving rail cars needs stout support - pilings carrying stringers (like a trestle in size and configuration), braced and with bridge ties supporting the rails. The rest of the dock/pier wouldn't need to be as heavy, unless you are carrying industrial-weight equipment (mobile cranes, heavy trucks, etc.) there, too. As to "scale" size...the timber and planking used in 1:1 structures this size and strength would likely not be of "stock" or precise dimension, which may make your sourcing the parts less complex. If any of this helps, it'll probably be accidental ! Bob C.

Bob's got it right, I think. The track support structure is a bridge, with the decking in place mainly to keep other stuff (and people) from dropping through the open spaces.

In many instances, "to-scale" lumber can look undersize, although many of us also use stuff that's too heavy. I'd guess that the prototype would use 2"x12" or 3"x12" (true dimensions, not the undersize stuff that's been through the planer) and that the 3" dimension would look better.

You might even want to go as thick as 4" - I recalled that I had used 3'x6" and 3"x8" on this bulkhead flatcar, and, while it looks appropriate to me, it may appear a little on the light side for wharf decking:


Wayne

Interesting. I never would have thought of the support structure as a bridge. I was thinking more in terms of piles driven into the lake bed with stringers and chords laid along the top with diagonal bracing hammered onto the piles.

You guys have given me a great idea which might actually make construction easier or if not more interesting. :?

I can draw up and layout a jig / template on the work bench and assemble rows of trestles...then carry them over to the "lake" and set them in place.

Great ideas guys. Thanks a bunch. This is going to be AWESOME!

I would assume(You know the saying) that the dock would be strong enough to hold the rolling stock only. Wouldn't most railroads use an "idler car" for spotting the rolling stock on the dock?

eightyeightfan1 Wrote:I would assume(You know the saying) that the dock would be strong enough to hold the rolling stock only. Wouldn't most railroads use an "idler car" for spotting the rolling stock on the dock?

I have given this a great deal of thought as well. For my particular model the only way to get "stuff" off of the car float is to have the loco roll onto the wharf. I have seen old photos of steam engines on wood docks and piers in large harbors pulling freight to "shore". Mind you these were not big engines so as a "rule" I was thinking about adding a weight restriction to operating the harbor yard, but that doesn't make sense if I'm going to spot a variety of rolling stock and the dock will have to support their weight as well as that of the locomotive assigned as the switcher.

I have already decided that as an operating "rule" locos would not be allowed on the float bridge and will have to use a couple of flats to spot and remove freight off of the float. I think that was a given from that start.

The primary locomotives I have are

GP 9 = 125 tons.

SW9 = 124 tons.

2-8-0 = 189.5 tons. (incl. tender) <---- ironically the only steamer I have is the "heaviest" one of the bunch.

Soooo... I think my crews are safe from drowning. hock:

That said, I think the objective I'm shooting for is to make it look believable. Use wood of dimensions that looks like it was meant to support the weight and create the illusion that scene modeled actually existed. Assemble the trestles, space them apart at a believable distance. 12' scale feet? Maybe 18'... 20' wider? And give it enough beef to make it look strong.

The 1:1 scale size of the pier is 3' 5 1/2" long by 8 1/2" wide. I do not plan on making the trestles as wide as the entire width of the pier either. I was planning on going about half the distance and covering the "back wall" length wise with a row of piles. The pier itself will be low enough that you'd have to crouch down a bit in order to look all the way underneath and there is no sense in modeling something you can't see for the most part.

Whew...I'm getting tired just talking about this build.

I think I would get a smaller locomotive to use on the dock. Bachmann has offered Ge 44 toners for years, you should be able to find a used one cheap. They currently offer the 45 toner as well, or you could use a Plymouth switcher, or even an Athearn L'il Hustler. A small loco like one of those would look more realistic working the dock than something as large as even an Sw-9.

tetters Wrote:

eightyeightfan1 Wrote:I would assume(You know the saying) that the dock would be strong enough to hold the rolling stock only. Wouldn't most railroads use an "idler car" for spotting the rolling stock on the dock?

I have given this a great deal of thought as well. For my particular model the only way to get "stuff" off of the car float is to have the loco roll onto the wharf. I have seen old photos of steam engines on wood docks and piers in large harbors pulling freight to "shore". Mind you these were not big engines so as a "rule" I was thinking about adding a weight restriction to operating the harbor yard, but that doesn't make sense if I'm going to spot a variety of rolling stock and the dock will have to support their weight as well as that of the locomotive assigned as the switcher.

I have already decided that as an operating "rule" locos would not be allowed on the float bridge and will have to use a couple of flats to spot and remove freight off of the float. I think that was a given from that start.

The primary locomotives I have are

GP 9 = 125 tons.

SW9 = 124 tons.

2-8-0 = 189.5 tons. (incl. tender) <---- ironically the only steamer I have is the "heaviest" one of the bunch.

Soooo... I think my crews are safe from drowning. hock:

That said, I think the objective I'm shooting for is to make it look believable. Use wood of dimensions that looks like it was meant to support the weight and create the illusion that scene modeled actually existed. Assemble the trestles, space them apart at a believable distance. 12' scale feet? Maybe 18'... 20' wider? And give it enough beef to make it look strong.

The 1:1 scale size of the pier is 3' 5 1/2" long by 8 1/2" wide. I do not plan on making the trestles as wide as the entire width of the pier either. I was planning on going about half the distance and covering the "back wall" length wise with a row of piles. The pier itself will be low enough that you'd have to crouch down a bit in order to look all the way underneath and there is no sense in modeling something you can't see for the most part.

Whew...I'm getting tired just talking about this build.

When I built decks, there was a handy reference table that told me how wide a span was acceptable for a given size of lumber, and a given load. Tables like that are found in any deck building reference, and might give you a starting point, or more simply just space your bents the same distance as those on a wooden railroad bridge. If you get the bents too wide, they won't "really" support the weight of a loco, freight cars and cargo plus ancillary equipment, structures and people.

It might interest you to know, though, that my deck, which spanned sixteen feet out from the house, was supported by 2x12's supported every eight. This was necessary because of the heavy winter snow loads that large decks have to carry here in the mountains, plus the estimated weight of people and deck furniture.

Don't forget that the track on a wooden bridge is supported, beneath the ties, more-or-less directly under the rails, so those members need to be the heavy ones. For a wharf, their ends would most likely sit atop wooden pilings driven into the lake's bottom - cap timbers, as on a pile trestle, would usually sit atop the piles, with the rail support timbers atop them. As MountainMan points out, the depth of these members will be dependent on their span and on the load carried (which includes the surrounding deck area and the "live" loads of the train. I'd say that looking at a pile trestle should give you appropriate spans for your wharf - at least the part of it under the track, and then you'll be able to safely operate that steamer.

Wayne