What's New on the PRR Panhandle 2.0?

[healey36]

Looks sharp! Should meld nicely with scenery.

[rogruth]

Looks sharp! Should meld nicely with scenery.

Oh yes!

[G3750]

Updated 7/17/2018:

I mocked up the bridge against the backdrop in its approximate position (pretty close). Here are some photos.

Br&Backdrop_001_.JPG (143.74 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Br&Backdrop_003_.JPG (163.05 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Br&Backdrop_002_.JPG (160.13 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Br&Backdrop_004_.JPG (137.28 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Br&Backdrop_005_.JPG (128.09 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Br&Backdrop_006_.JPG (142.86 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

George

[rogruth]

Looks good to me. No it doesn't, it looks great!
Glad to see it is double track like the original.!!!!

[G3750]

Looks good to me. No it doesn't, it looks great!
Glad to see it is double track like the original.!!!!

Thanks Roger! And there are still 6' of bridge I haven't shown you (the approach spans on either side)!

George

[rogruth]

I think I remember that the approaches on both sides are curved. Is that true?

The B&O bridge at Bellaire is the same way because there is not much room to
get everything in between the hills on both sides of the river.

[G3750]

I think I remember that the approaches on both sides are curved. Is that true?

The B&O bridge at Bellaire is the same way because there is not much room to
get everything in between the hills on both sides of the river.

No, the approach spans are straight.

George

[rogruth]

I think I said it wrong. The approaches to the actual spans crossing the river have curves on land but not the bridge sections,

[G3750]

I think I said it wrong. The approaches to the actual spans crossing the river have curves on land but not the bridge sections,

You are correct there, Roger.

Overhead view.jpg (768.58 KiB) Viewed 2487 times

George

[healey36]

Looks great, George, and the scale of it looks much better than the 1.0 version. Glad to see there was a bit to add to the center of the backdrop...I was wondering about that.

One of the weird things about these types of structures set near the back wall is that, depending on the lighting, they tend to cast a shadow onto the backdrop which then takes away a bit from the visual (hardly noticeable here). Almost impossible to mitigate unless bright overhead lighting is installed near the back, dissipating the shadow cast from the lighting at the front.

That bridge looks outstanding. I have often pondered the expense of such an item and whether it brings that much to the model...in this case the answer is pretty obvious.

Paul

[G3750]

Looks great, George, and the scale of it looks much better than the 1.0 version. Glad to see there was a bit to add to the center of the backdrop...I was wondering about that.

One of the weird things about these types of structures set near the back wall is that, depending on the lighting, they tend to cast a shadow onto the backdrop which then takes away a bit from the visual (hardly noticeable here). Almost impossible to mitigate unless bright overhead lighting is installed near the back, dissipating the shadow cast from the lighting at the front.

That bridge looks outstanding. I have often pondered the expense of such an item and whether it brings that much to the model...in this case the answer is pretty obvious.

Paul

Thanks, Paul! I agree about the relationship of the bridge's size to backdrop's size. We are much closer to the real thing in Panhandle 2.0.

As to lighting, I think we good here as well. The supplied bulbs will be replaced with 4100K LEDs, which should provide a more intense light. So even that should improve the lighting and dissipate any remaining shadows.

I'm very happy with how the bridge looks and has translated to O-gauge. The bridge was always intended to be the center-piece of the layout. Credit for that recommendation belongs to Neal Schorr, who is a pretty awesome 3-rail modeler by any standard.

I can't wait to see it with the attached approach spans and sitting on those massive piers. I think it's going to be over the top.

Thanks, again.

George

[robert.]

Now that you probably have your bridge resting safely on a table. Let me say " Had i taken that photo. I would have been a disaster." I can see it now. As i turnaround to snap a photograph. It would have fell from It's lofty perch of stools and boxes.

[G3750]

Now that you probably have your bridge resting safely on a table. Let me say " Had i taken that photo. I would have been a disaster." I can see it now. As i turnaround to snap a photograph. It would have fell from It's lofty perch of stools and boxes.

Good thing you mentioned it. I had left the bridge in position. Then your paranoia became my paranoia.

I took the bridge down and put it safely on a more stable perch. Thanks!!!

George

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Then your paranoia became my paranoia.

It's contagious!

[rogruth]

George,
I say this jokingly but some nit-picking rivet counter will probably be upset that the walk-way over the top is missing.
I Saw that bridge many times and did NOT notice the walk-way until my uncle, who worked in that area for the Pennsy, told me about it.
I asked him if he had ever been on top of the bridge. He answered "I am a track man not a bridge man so officially the answer is no".