Question on Standard Gauge 101 bridge and O gauge 106 bridge?

I have the 101 bridge on my layout. Can't answer the question re: e-unit operation, but I did have problems with the "cow catcher" causing a momentary short when starting up or coming down from the bridge. This occurred with both 0-4-0 electrics and small to medium (384 through 392) steam engines. This abrupt change also caused problems with couplers, including Ives and American Flyer as well as Lionel.

To reduce this approach/departure angle and thus eliminate the above problems I placed a 5/16" riser under the end of the approach and the tie of the track section to which it attached. A 1/4" riser was placed under the center tie, and a 1/8" riser under the ties where the next section joined. They were painted flat black and are virtually unnoticeable, as is the slight "opening" between the bottom of the bridge approach section and the bridge center section.

From both an operating standpoint and aesthetically, this also made the approach and the "landing" on the center bridge section much more gentle. I have no reservations operating any brand or type of engine and cars over my bridge, Lionel 400E excepted.

Ron,

Can't answer about the #101 bridge but am currently running on a #106 with (2) #105 approaches. Ended up restoring all these pieces due to paint flaking and rust on bottoms/ends. The paint on the lattice sides held up really well and didn't have to touch it other than mild soap/water. Owen is correct in using risers. The original slope on the #105 approaches is steep, I simply added a small approx. 1/4" wood shim under the track piece before and after the bridge approaches.

However, I remembered running trains on this piece years ago and had trouble with the original track pieces not being quite right. Ended up custom making a center track piece (from 2' piece) and using new standard length track pieces on approaches. Had to shift track ties and center rail insulation on all 3 track pieces. Then took it a step further and beveled the track rails to accept each other better on the slopes. It took some work/patience but was well worth the effort as roller pickups/wheels work much better with almost no track gap.

I only run #150 series locos and #600 series 4 wheel cars (max of 2 cars) because of the slope and need to watch engine speed on the down slope since it takes more juice to get up it.  A newer finer tune transformer works better, decided to quit using my ole LW as it didn't adjust fine enough, fast enough.

Is it all worth it? You bet! Hope it helps.

John

John H. Shetler posted:

Ron,

Can't answer about the #101 bridge but am currently running on a #106 with (2) #105 approaches. Ended up restoring all these pieces due to paint flaking and rust on bottoms/ends. The paint on the lattice sides held up really well and didn't have to touch it other than mild soap/water. Owen is correct in using risers. The original slope on the #105 approaches is steep, I simply added a small approx. 1/4" wood shim under the track piece before and after the bridge approaches.

However, I remembered running trains on this piece years ago and had trouble with the original track pieces not being quite right. Ended up custom making a center track piece (from 2' piece) and using new standard length track pieces on approaches. Had to shift track ties and center rail insulation on all 3 track pieces. Then took it a step further and beveled the track rails to accept each other better on the slopes. It took some work/patience but was well worth the effort as roller pickups/wheels work much better with almost no track gap.

I only run #150 series locos and #600 series 4 wheel cars (max of 2 cars) because of the slope and need to watch engine speed on the down slope since it takes more juice to get up it.  A newer finer tune transformer works better, decided to quit using my ole LW as it didn't adjust fine enough, fast enough.

Is it all worth it? You bet! Hope it helps.

John

 

 

John thank you for the information. I too like the 150 series and 4 wheel cars passenger and freight. Just curios as I have a beat-up 101 bridge with out the approaches. Bridge is bent and need paint, otherwise it is good. I will be on a lookout for the approaches. Looks like fun.

To expand on the e-unit question. Running a #153 in reverse with cars on has not been a problem but have had a couple run away cars due to hook couplers being worn. Getting the right combo of which hook goes on top solved that problem.  Can imagine that the longer the wheel base may cause problems.

John

I prefer to use those bridges without the ramps as they cause too many operating issues for my liking. You do need to be able to drop the bridge base down below the track bed thought. On my layout it was planned into the design with a depressed area for a river.

Tim

Timothy Sprague posted:

I prefer to use those bridges without the ramps as they cause too many operating issues for my liking. You do need to be able to drop the bridge base down below the track bed thought. On my layout it was planned into the design with a depressed area for a river.

Tim

Great Idea, plus it looks good.

Tim,

Great idea and looks really good! Full speed ahead. Makes total sense when doing a permanent layout.

John

I I may have the ramps you mentioned you were looking for RonH. Let me know if you are interested & I"ll try to find them. As you can see I have modified my bridges somewhat. As Timothy did I eliminated the ramps and I supported the bridges with piers. If interested you can see results on my J&C Studios Archive under bridge work. Sorry I could not get the pics to transfer here.

Here's a couple of pics I mentioned from my previous post.