Talk:Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad

A fact from Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 April 2016, and was viewed approximately 11,719 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the McBride Creek bridge (pictured) of the Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad was built from horizontal logs?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Columbia and Nehalem Valley Railroad.

Wikipedia

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Columbia & Nehalem River Railroad[edit]

Not to be confused with the Columbia & Nehalem River Railroad, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three phases of the bridge at McBride Creek[edit]

It looks to me, as if the bridge at McBride Creek was built in three phases:

Orignal bridge
After strengtheining the upper mid section
After strengthening also the lower mid section

The diagonally placed struts after strengthening the upper mid section show that the horizontal centrifugal forces of the heavy trains in that bend were seen as a problem. Apparently the builders were worried that the bridge moves sidewards The third picture nicely shows the water barrels for fire fighting, if a spark from the locomotives had inadvertantly incinerated the bridge. Or were these temporarily installed to pull up the lengthwise placed logs? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several points: It is obvious at a casual glance that there is either more than one location involved, or the topography changed, radically, between some of the photos. The latter isn't unheard of in logging, of course.

Next, "centrifugal force" is dependent on speed; have you ever actually watched a shay in operation?

Also, note the difference in batter between the strutted section and that without. The cribbage may have been harvested. The cribbage may have been replaced for other reasons. It may, in fact, be a different crossing entirely. But whatever the case, the batter has changed. Anmccaff (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]