What's New on the PRR Panhandle 2.0?

[Neil]

George, was that your editorial in O Scale Trains? If so, congratulations!

[G3750]

George, was that your editorial in O Scale Trains? If so, congratulations!

If you mean the piece on starting a new layout in the January/February issue, yes. Thank you!

George

[G3750]

Updated 6/14/2019:

Finally got off the dime. After an interminable number of measurements and re-measurements, I finally traced out the sub-roadbed piece connecting the eastern side of the Stone Arch with the rest of the layout (WV side). I haven't made the last cut, but here's a test fitting.

Benchwork_300_.JPG (145.93 KiB) Viewed 4414 times

Construction of the sub-roadbed support structures is next.

George

[G3750]

Updated 6/16/2019:

So, the test fittings continue. First, I used a grinding wheel (with my wife's help) to make the western edges of the sub-roadbed align with the end of the Stone Arch. By propping up the sub-roadbed, I was able to conduct a test fit.

Benchwork_302_.JPG (132.47 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Benchwork_310_.JPG (155.82 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Benchwork_311_.JPG (146.44 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Benchwork_303_.JPG (174.65 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

After that, I marked the spots on the existing sub-roadbed (already attached to the benchwork) where this piece will mate up.

Benchwork_305_.JPG (141.11 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Benchwork_306_.JPG (179.61 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Benchwork_309_.JPG (159.93 KiB) Viewed 4390 times

Cuts will be made that allow the new piece to fit into the existing benchwork like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle. At least, that's the plan.

Once that's been done, I will screw down the new piece and focus on creating a support structure underneath it. And there's the matter of mating the support structure to the east end of the Stone Arch. That must be anchored in a way similar to the Steubenville bridge abutment.

George

[healey36]

More progress! Looks like a nice tight fit, and that stonework turned out nice.

[G3750]

More progress! Looks like a nice tight fit, and that stonework turned out nice.

Thanks Paul. I am "OK" with the stonework, but making that self-stick stuff actually work is a PITA. I don't think I'm done with it yet.
We are inching along.

George

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.............but making that self-stick stuff actually work is a PITA. I don't think I'm done with it yet.

Hopefully when you get to the end, you will be able to look back and not see it starting to peel off at the beginning.

I have my doubts about much of the self-stick stuff that we have been saddled with over recent years.

[chuck]

A fair amount of self stick stuff has a shelf life of only 3-5 years, things like labels. If its peel and stick and the materials involved are very very dissimilar the more likely it will fail. I was buying stained glass for a project and the shop owner remembered me from a while back and asked if I had foil and how old it was. I told her over ten years. She said the stuff is only good for about three. Worse thing to have happen is have the foil traces start peeling back as you start to solder.

Contact cement is a good alternative, there are some water based ones. Urethane is insanely sticky and can make for a great contact pair, apply to both sides and then let set for a little bit. When dealing with wood some adhesives will perform better if the wood is sealed first with shellac or varnish.

[healey36]

I remember using pre-pasted wallpaper years ago...never trusted it, and slathered on a film of paste myself. That stuff never came down (but it peeled off just fine years later when I wanted to remove it).

[robert.]

Practice using a small iron on some scraps. wrap your iron with a dry tee shirt. This will keep it from scratching your printed stone work. A little heat goes a long way with sticky things. After you heat it. Use a large diameter wood dowel to press your stone work onto the wood. Use a tee shirt also on your dowel. You don't want to burn your paper. Just soften the glue a little.

[G3750]

I will look into these suggestions. Thank you!

In the meantime, I've been giving some thought to another issue. The new piece of sub-roadbed affects the location of a pop-up hatch. Here's the plan. The pen points to the green area (hatch) on the plan.

Benchwork_314_.JPG (121.56 KiB) Viewed 4330 times

Here's original hatch outline on the benchwork. Yes, it's triangular in shape.

Benchwork_312_.JPG (143.24 KiB) Viewed 4330 times

Here's the area without the new subroadbed.

Benchwork_313_.JPG (140.74 KiB) Viewed 4330 times

I've decided that I am going to retain the hatch by:
1) cutting it out
2) putting the new sub-roadbed down on it
3) tracing the hatch dimensions on the new sub-roadbed piece
4) cutting the new sub-roadbed piece to accommodate the hatch

George

[chuck]

You may want to try a cardboard mock up/test version of the hatch. That seems awfully small/tight.

BTW, this is the stuff I used at work and around the house as a "go to" general purpose adhesive. Specialty versions (clear, weatherproof, ,,) only come in 9 oz caulk gun style tubes and you need to be gluing a lot of stuff to make that worthwhile. Once you open the tube the clock starts running on what's left. GP version is available in 3 and 6 oz "toothpaste" tubes. Stuff is very strong and has almost no odor and is water cleanup.

https://www.lowes.com/pd/loctite-interior-exterior-construction-adhesive-actual-net-contents-3-fl-oz/50449428?cm_mmc=shp-_-c-_-prd-_-pnt-_-google-_-lia-_-133-_-glue-_-50449428-_-0&kpid&store_code=1847&k_clickID=go_1793096639_69778060236_346785428772_pla-303340671577_c_9016897&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl6LoBRDqARIsABllMSYOmDJ1Veiti9Ht-j6Tj49WbFdNBvLWO2UtEwutfJNecoHPCR75vAwaAhTzEALw_wcB

Stuff is very strong and has almost no odor and is water cleanup.

[G3750]

You may want to try a cardboard mock up/test version of the hatch. That seems awfully small/tight.

BTW, this is the stuff I used at work and around the house as a "go to" general purpose adhesive. Specialty versions (clear, weatherproof, ,,) only come in 9 oz caulk gun style tubes and you need to be gluing a lot of stuff to make that worthwhile. Once you open the tube the clock starts running on what's left. GP version is available in 3 and 6 oz "toothpaste" tubes. Stuff is very strong and has almost no odor and is water cleanup.

https://www.lowes.com/pd/loctite-interior-exterior-construction-adhesive-actual-net-contents-3-fl-oz/50449428?cm_mmc=shp-_-c-_-prd-_-pnt-_-google-_-lia-_-133-_-glue-_-50449428-_-0&kpid&store_code=1847&k_clickID=go_1793096639_69778060236_346785428772_pla-303340671577_c_9016897&gclid=Cj0KCQjwl6LoBRDqARIsABllMSYOmDJ1Veiti9Ht-j6Tj49WbFdNBvLWO2UtEwutfJNecoHPCR75vAwaAhTzEALw_wcB

Stuff is very strong and has almost no odor and is water cleanup.

I will definitely try the mock-up. The hatch is 33" x 16" deep. There may be space to buy another 1" on the long axis. And I will check out the glue - thank you!

George

[G3750]

Updated 6/21/2019:

Last night, the Weirton Area Museum and Cultural Center hosted a presentation on the 1st Panhandle bridge across the Ohio River between Steubenville and Weirton. Between that and today's photo expedition, I cleared up a few mysteries regarding the bridge.

Remember the arch? I wondered why it would have been constructed and whether or not it was part of the 2nd or 1st bridge.

The consensus is that it is part of the 1st bridge and was constructed to span Harmon Creek. The creek paralleled and then entered the river south of the bridge. At some point, the creek was diverted and straightened. The pond or backwater is part of the original mouth of the creek.

Bridge4_025_.JPG (228.43 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

Pier 2 is different in appearance from the other piers. It is smaller and older, perhaps dating back to the 1908-09 rebuild of spans 1 and 2.

Bridge4_005_.JPG (280.65 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

A closer look at the top of Pier 2 indicates that it is crumbling.

Bridge4_018_.JPG (274.27 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

In the photo below, the pond is to the left and the river is to the right. The concrete block to the right indicates the very end of the arch.

Bridge4_007_.JPG (307.11 KiB) Viewed 4302 times

One of my previous photographs seemed to indicate the presence of a 2nd arch further east. Closer examination of the top of the arch confirms that there is no second arch.

George

[rogruth]

George,
Great photos as usual. Is the bridge still in use? By NS?