Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 3 Feb 2011 21:26 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I am currently editing some material on track for the 2mm scale Association. I have plenty of data on prototype track for periods when wooden sleepers were the norm but not for modern track with concrete sleepers. What is the normal spacing for modern track for concrete sleepers with CWR? Am I right in assuming that earlier concrete sleepers with jointed track used the same spacing as for wooden sleepers? Geoff |
||
|
posted: 3 Feb 2011 22:11 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Geoff, Take a look at this pdf document :- http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_Group_Standards/Infrastructure/Railway%20Group%20Standards/GCRT5015%20Iss%201.pdf and refer to section 5.12. This should give you some data to work with. Regards Rob Manchester |
||
|
posted: 4 Feb 2011 14:57 from: GeoffJones
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: Geoff,Thanks Rob that table is very helpful. Just what I need. But my heart did sink when I started reading from the beginning. Someone spent an awful lot of time stating the bleeding obvious: "Where sleepers are used, they must transfer the load from the rails, baseplates or chairs to the track ballast or supporting structure and assist in the retention of the specified track gauge." Assist??? How else to the rails stay in place? Most of the document is this sort of stuff. I suppose it has to be done otherwise some fool would say "Why don't we make them out of balsa wood. It would be cheaper." Regards Geoff |
||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2011 13:59 from: Judi R
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Geoff, Railway Group Standards took a significant shift in their aims an objectives, starting in Railtrack days and continuing now. Whereas beforehand, they were documents describing best practice and "how to build a railway", they have become performance specifications. The idea behind this change in philosophy was to allow and encourage innovation. If you had a cookbook then there was only one acceptable way to do things. If you take a step back and specify what the component or system (thing) has to do, then other ways of doing the job become possible. Naturally, anyone wanting to innovate has to jump through all sorts of hoops to demonstrate that what they propose is at least as strong and safe and, hopefully, long-lasting as existing accepted best practice, but it has led to some worthwhile new products and methods being introduced on the Brave New Railway. Judi |
||
|
posted: 5 Feb 2011 15:55 from: BeamEnds click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Judi R wrote: Geoff,Ah, so that's how the cracked rail fiasco came about, years of experience thrown in the bin for the sake expediency! I don't know if that's true (it would certainly explain a few things), but I certainly saw this in the automotive industry. In one case it brought a luxury car maker to it's knees - a mistake was made by an automotive engineer, who didn't have a full understanding of hydraulics, that persisted for about two years until a real hydraulic engineer took about 10 mins to spot the problem. |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |