@Mark Boyce posted:Alan, the thought experiment is an idea that I think could work. I have seen where people have attached cables with motors to lift layouts to the ceiling in their garage when not in use. The bridges would be easy compared to that.
I ordered a second linear actuator yesterday evening. It was about $40.
You now have enough power to lift the entire layout up and leave the bridges stationary ! 
Alan, you are right about the 'Y' connector to both sides of the bridge.
Richie, That idea solves all my problems!
I have been slowly working on the installation of the new lift-up bridges while taking care of fall outdoor chores, etc. I am glad to report both bridges are operational. My previously mentioned plan of installing separate linear actuators for each bridge worked very well. It was much easier getting the new bridges installed and working using the plexiglass pieces Mike @mike g. cut and sent to me. Both bridges are very stable from flexing in any direction, and seat in the down position nicely. Here are a few photographs.
I can run a train across the lower bridge again, but of course the upper bridge is the "Bridge to Nowhere"
I was looking at the most recent SCARM drawings Jeff @ScoutingDad and I were working on and determined that I will probably have to buy a curved switch for the missing approach to the upper bridge and keep the curves at 054 throughout. I measured 47" from the end of the bridge to the backdrop. I also measured from the center rail of the track nearest the long wall to the backdrop at 87". I will now be working on the SCARM drawings first showing those two measurements and then working on an acceptable track plan. I will post more once I get started on that.
I have two videos of the bridges operating that I will be posting later after I get them loaded to YouTube.
Looks great Mark, can’t wait to see the videos.
Andy
Thank you for the comment Andy, and thank you everyone for all the likes!!
Here are the two videos I promised. With two of the actuators running, it is a bit louder, but so what. My hearing is going anyway.
Notice I have two up/down center-off switches now, so I can run the bridges independently of each other. It is kind of handy to have the upper bridge in the raised position and the other in the down position to work on the roadbed and track. I still plan to do something different, maybe have one long girder bridge under the track like a prototype over the Cheat River at the bottom of the Blackwater Canyon Grade. This is good enough for now, since I want to settle on a plan so I can get the track completed enough to run a train completely around the layout again.
Mark these look great and operate perfectly.
We have been arguing about bridges for a week.
Now get the track done. We want to see your trains run.
Awesome progress @Mark Boyce! Looks like they work great!
Pretty Slick Mark. Nice Job.
That's awesome!! It's so smooth!
Pretty cool Mark, I would never be able to do that. Trains would wind up going up the bridge when it was moving.
Dang!!!! 
Well done, Mark!!
George
Excellent. Very smooth operation,especially with the two bridges moving in tandem.
Cool!! Those bridges are awesome, nice work!! 
Looks great, Mark! With hardware like that, reliability ought to be no problem.
Very nice. I'm impressed by the comments and your how you integrated some and brough your project to completion. A long drawn out process has come to fruition.
This will be a big focal point on your layout. Now get those trains a rollin'.
Thank you, Bill, Rich, Dave, Bill, Dave, George, PRRMP54, Penn-Pacific, Steve, Wood!!
I am very pleased with the operation. Since this was a second go round on this, the installation went much smoother and is much more solid with Mike's plexiglass. I am anxious to get trains rolling again as well! Please stay tuned!!
I felt like working in the train room instead of on the SCARM drawing today. Since I had to move the passing track 1/4” farther away from the main line to match up with the double track bridge, I needed to rework the Thomas Station base a bit. I ended up with the station a little closer to the bridge. It slides into the new position nicely.
The bridge tender can hang out in the station; especially during those Pittsburgh winters.
@Tranquil Hollow RR posted:The bridge tender can hang out in the station; especially during those Pittsburgh winters.
That’s where I would hang out. I never liked working outdoors in the winter. Everything is harder to do in the cold.
Nice fit Mark.
Thank you, Dave! I was surprised how easy it was to alter it to slide in the new slot. As a supervisor I had long ago used to say, “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while” 😄
@Mark Boyce posted:Thank you, Dave! I was surprised how easy it was to alter it to slide in the new slot. As a supervisor I had long ago used to say, “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while” 😄
You should see some of the smart folks I work with. As both my grandfather and uncle used to say, "if it was a snake it would've bit you." Right by their feet, lol. Good that it just went right where it was supposed to.
Hi Mark, it sure has been a nice read getting up to speed on your bridge projects and the layout. Sorry I haven't been around, but I have been keeping an eye on this project, just not a lot of time to comment or even do anything on my projects!
I have to say your bridges look OUTSTANDING! They run so smooth that you would think they are being ran by a computer, your work make's my bridge lift looks so sloppy! But you know what that's ok, we all need things to work on with our layouts! LOL
The station looks great right next to the bridge! When I was growing up we had a local fire station right next to the RR Bridge and it was so cool looking when the red flashing lights from the fire engines would bounce off of passing trains!
Overall, you have done some really amazing work and congratulation on getting her done!
Outstanding videos Mark! Nice smooth operation on both bridges. Very well done. That’s quite a milestone.
The new home for the station works well too.
Andy
Beautiful Job Mark. Glad I watched bridges going up. Made me realize that with long bridges, on a high level layout need, to make sure make you have enough ceiling height. I am starting to plan my layout and could have easily overlooked that. Thanks!
Heavens to Murgatroid! I had missed your video post earlier. I was not familiar with "linear actuators," so at first I thought I heard pumps running hydraulics. I am guessing there is a kind of Archimedes screw mechanism, similar to that used to move grain. What genius!
Thank you Dave, Mike, Andy, Mainline Steam, Golden Prairie Railroad!
Yes, you have to watch how high you lift the end of the bridge before it hits ‘the sky’. There are two black marks on the ceiling where the bridge just touched. I backed off the limit switch a bit.
The bridges are powered with linear actuators that are powered by attached 12-volt motors. Actually a very simple arrangement, thanks to Mike above for the idea!
Mark, maybe my idea, but your AMAZING work! It looks so smooth! At first, I was thinking you could hook both actuators to the same switch, but I like your idea of them being independent!
Thank you, Mike! I was going to use one switch, but decided to go with individual switches when to make it easier to wire. Then I realized it is probably better to be able to operate individually if I need to.
Thank you once again to everyone who wrote and everyone who sent 'likes' concerning my newly installed lift-up bridges. I am tickled pink over how much easier it was to get the second go-round installed and how well they work. Many thanks for all the ideas, encouragement, and compliments!
Now it is time to move on to the track planning in earnest. I sat down a couple of evenings trying to make revisions to a couple of different ideas, and finally came to the conclusion that it would be easier to just put some pieces of track together on the existing layout and see how an idea works. Wow! That's the way I did it probably 55 years ago.
I'm going to post this much for now, since I need to leave the computer. I'll fill in details with photographs soon.
@Mark Boyce you sound like me when it comes to track planning. We’re just somewhat winging it. LoL! Looking forward to the outcome! I’m one of those sending “likes”!
You know Mark some folks say there is nothing like hands on! A good majority of my layout was planned but a lot of it didn't match up or look correct, so it was a good amount of place Pices and then take them up till I was happy! The way to go for me!
Thank you, Rich and Mike!
So this is the screen shot of the layout as it stood before adding the double track bridge. (This is an approximation of reality)
My desire was to lengthen both passing sidings, which the double track bridge would enable me to do. However, lengthening the other siding would mean putting one of the trac switches on a grade, which could cause operational issues. I also realized that even with short trains, I was having trouble switching tracks to avoid the "cornfield meet" (head on collision). I had considered double tracking the whole mainline, but there isn't room for a double track or two single track bridges on the lower level. Jeff @ScoutingDad offered this variation way back on page 76, August 21st. (I couldn't believe it was that long ago). It provides an upper level track, lower level track, and two ramps between the two so a train on either level, going in either direction could move to the other level. He even showed how the town could be raised to the upper level with a lift off allowing for storage underneath. It is all a good idea.
So I've been able to ponder this for over 2 months. I just didn't know if I liked the two ramps that close together, but kept it in mind. I wrote a couple of weeks ago that I would have to use a curved turnout to bring the passing siding back to the mainline after leaving the double track bridge. Otherwise the track with 054 curves would hit the wall 47 inches away. I discovered the 072/054 curved switch takes too much room also, so I thought an 054/042 curved switch would work, but they don't make that. The other size is 054/031, that makes sense, but I can't use an 031 curve since a lot of my engines can't negotiate 031.
I remembered that Jeff had suggested I could connect the inside curved sidings the whole way around for a lower loop. I thought that is how I could double track the mainline, by having the two lower tracks diverge to cross the abyss at different points and then merge back side by side. Oh no! That means another lift-up bridge. Or, I could look back to a lift-out cassette feature for moving cars on and off the layout that we looked into on 'Plan C' three or four years ago. Don't ask me what pages that is on!!
Since the grades and routes are all worked out and proven to work on the layout, I decided to just start laying out track pieces to see if it is feasible, moving obstacles as I went. I decided it would work. I took a series of photographs to try to show what a track plan would show.
First is just a 37" section of track showing where the cassette or bridge would set into place. Only 2 boxcars fit, while three 2-bay hoppers or 2 hoppers and a caboose fit. Well moving right along.
The lower level rear track is the track that heads to the right underneath the upper level and over the girder bridge. The foreground track would become the inner mainline track. It has 042 curves instead of 054 curves like the existing mainline. that would work out fine. Only 2 of my engines and maybe the passenger cars need 054, everything else can handle 042. This could be one of my crossovers from inner to outer mainline tracks.
Here the existing siding underneath the station continues across the canyon. Yes, I have clearance for the tallest cars and engines.
I continued along straight and then curved next to the existing lower level mainline. Since it would be double tracked, I wouldn't need the lower passing siding, where the red boxcar is sitting. I just ran the track over top of the siding for now. I did remove a couple of the trestles to allow for the proposed track alignment. On the upper level, I would just continue the inner track with 042 curves. I didn't see a need to mock up all that.
Continuing on to the straight beside the lower mainline. Here could be a second crossover. I already know I have enough overhead clearance at this point. I would just need new, better support of the 2 upper tracks.
Here the mockup in the rear stops since the inner track will just parallel the existing track to the top where the switch for the passing siding would be removed.
In the front, the descending track would have an 042 curve parallel and in front of the existing track and Lionel girder bridge.
Here on the front track I would come back to the siding Jeff suggested continuing for the lower loop. The same track would be used, but it would be raised to the same grade as the track with the B&O SD9.
If you followed along, you did better than me. I had to shuffle a couple photographs, and admit following two ROWs gets a bit tedious. I'll see if I can mark up a drawing and scan it. In the meantime, I would be glad to see everyone's comments and questions. I'm thinking I like this idea, but need to sit on it a while. However, I don't want to sit on it for as long as the last track planning ideas.
Thanks for sharing the details on how you think through things. It really is helpful. The struggle is real!
Yeah Mark, got a little dizzy following the curved tracks around. Yes, a sketch would be helpful.
Steve
Thank you, VJ&P and Steve. I agree Steve, I’ll get a drawing fixed up for everyone; including me. 😄
Planning in 3D is usually easier than on paper Mark. Sounds like you are on the way but sketching it out for us to see would help.
Bob
Mark,
This is some wonderful planning. I can't help but notice the B&O geep. Which model is this?
Dave
Mark, I would be happy to redraw the modifications in SCARM. Just mark up a drawing and I'll convert it over. I was wondering about the spacing of double inclines next to each other. Part of the issue is without the two inclined sections, you will not be able to continuously run a train from one level to the other and back again. Clearance would only be an issue if you were to run trains up and down the inclines at the same time. Visually they could be in a valley so would not be seen.
BTW - its much easier to see the layout in the section views. There were also 3D renderings, which used the SCARM feature to run sample trains to make sure everything connects. I agree with Mark regarding the lack of a Ross 054 to 042 curved turnout. I suppose rail spacing is an issue.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
