Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2573Has anyone any idea what this is? (extra rail on the OUTSIDE)
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 10 Nov 2014 17:39

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This has got me stumped. It is the only photo I have seen of its kind.
As you can see from the attached link (I couldn't upload it as it's copyright by RCTS) at the lower left there is a length of rail on the OUTSIDE of the running rail. It is about the length of an average checkrail and opposite is what looks like either a grease reservoir or some sort of actuator.
I know that due to the severe curves in and out of the station (Whitby) there are several grease points, but this seems to be on the outside of the track. No doubt someone here will know and I'll reply with "ah of course. I should have thought that."

Thanks
Derek

http://www.rcts.org.uk/features/mysteryphotos/show.htm?location=Whitby%20Town&serial=6&img=66-97-19

EDIT: Some more here, especially fourth photo'

http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/2_30-8-81.htm

FURTHER EDIT:

It does look like the PW teams liked leaving rails lying around improperly. This is on a siding but it does show the practice went on.

http://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/BRITISH-STEAM-LOCOMOTIVES/LOCOMOTIVES-OF-BRITISH/17607390_g8hKkm/1854142410_ttHPV8F#!i=1854142410&k=ttHPV8F
Last edited on 16 Nov 2014 18:24 by DerekStuart
posted: 12 Nov 2014 12:18

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Derek.
That is not an arrangement I have come across before. The only possible explanation I can think of is that as the outside check rail appears to be higher than the adjacent running rail, it would contact the outside face of the tyre and force the wheel pair over toward the grease flange lubricator bar ensuring a liberal application, but this is only supposition on my part.

Tony.

posted: 12 Nov 2014 12:41

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Derek,

Not an extra I'm familiar with this either. Tony's answer is interesting, though
I would point out that the section of this check rail(?) closest to the running
line is not opposite what appears to be a P & M style rail and flange lubricator.

I was wondering if it just some setup to stop excessive run-off from the
high side of the line. There appear to be several areas of falling topography
that come together at that point.
A river of dirty water over the lubricator would not be good.

Without seeing what is off the photo at the bottom left the only other
thought I had is it an attempt to catch an errant wheel before it climbs the
platform edge.

Am interested to hear the answer.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 12 Nov 2014 15:35

from:

John Lewis
 
Croydon - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Could this be a fouling bar? They are usually in the 4ft, but apparently they could be outside.

John

posted: 12 Nov 2014 16:08

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Tony, I think it is the same level, just set further back.

Matt, the ground there is level with the top of the sleepers and the stone wall is set back about 5ft, so I can't see it being that either.

1 sleeper left of the item appearing to be a lubricant reservoir, there looks to be 'something' on the rail head. Not sure what. Perhaps even just a trick of the light.

Only other option- it's a check rail ready to be moved into position on the turnout just to the right of the picture and they've left it in a 'safe' place???

That lubricator wasn't there in 1980's- I have several photos that don't show it, so perhaps it wasn't needed for diesel/dmu bogies?

posted: 12 Nov 2014 23:02

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
It has nothing to do with the track except in so far as to protect the track from trolleys and such like coming down the platform ramp.

regards

Alan

posted: 12 Nov 2014 23:05

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi John.
John Lewis wrote:
Could this be a fouling bar? They are usually in the 4ft, but apparently they could be outside.

John
No, it is not a fouling or treadle bar. Although they could be on the outside of the running rail they would be fixed close to the outside edge of the rail and normally sit just below rail level being prevented from rising by any wheel sat on that part of the running rail. Any turnout protected by it would not be able to be unlocked. The ones I am familiar with at Bodmin General were made of angle iron rather than rail which would be of a much larger section than needed.

Tony.
Last edited on 13 Nov 2014 00:06 by Tony W
posted: 12 Nov 2014 23:28

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Alan Turner wrote:
It has nothing to do with the track except in so far as to protect the track from trolleys and such like coming down the platform ramp.

regards

Alan
I agree with Alan. I had the same thought this afternoon. Due to the lack of space there would not have been room for a fence or such like.

Rob


posted: 13 Nov 2014 01:44

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Alan Turner wrote:
It has nothing to do with the track except in so far as to protect the track from trolleys and such like coming down the platform ramp.
My first thought was the same. An old check rail is being used as a kerb for the walkway on the left.

But I'm not so sure, it doesn't look quite right. It is too close to the track and appears to be on top of the sleeper ends. I can't recall ever seeing such groundworks extending over the track except where a roadway or level crossing is specifically intended. It is certainly too close to the track to protect it from anything. In fact if something should dislodge it over the running rail it would present an even greater hazard.

Hmm...

Martin.

posted: 13 Nov 2014 15:38

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I am going to Whitby (taking photo's of the one remaining original turnout)

I will drop a copy of this into NYMR permanent way department and ask them.

I agree with Martin's assesment that it can't be a deliberate barrier.

I have a few people still sending me pictures of the station so perhaps it will show up on another one.

posted: 13 Nov 2014 18:17

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
        Is it something to retain the groundwork away from the rail and enable access to knock the chair keys in?
Trevor :)

posted: 13 Nov 2014 20:16

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Trevor, the ground there is very stable on 100 years (at the time of the photo) compacted cinder/ash ballast that was level with the sleepers. The stone wall that you can just see is the remains of the engine stable foreman's office (not the mess area as I previously stated) which was demolished by the Luftwaffe in 1940.

So the ground is pretty stable and there's nothing to come down on the track.

As for previous comments about protecting track from trolleys, this was indeed the pedestrian route for drivers signing on and off. It is POSSIBLE that trolleys would have been going down the ramp too, but I can't think why. There was no barrow crossing (it is a terminus so not needed) and there is only the engine stable, which would have had its supplies come in by wagon to the shed area and not the station.

posted: 14 Nov 2014 13:06

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Another interesting question is how that outside check rail is secured. The obvious answer of using Check rail chairs can't be so or there would be keys on the inside of the running rail which there aren't. I don't see any signs of bolted through spacing blocks either. With regard to my earlier supposition, I suspect that the positioning of the flange lubricator opposite the check rail in question was purely coincidence and a thus a red herring. All in all something of a mystery.
Tony W.
Last edited on 14 Nov 2014 13:11 by Tony W
posted: 14 Nov 2014 13:48

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Looks like the sleeper ends beyond it are covered by ash. Could be a loose bit of rail placed so that a layer of ash could be laid behind it to avoid folk tripping up on sleeper ends.

posted: 14 Nov 2014 14:05

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I think the only likely explanation is that it is a spare check rail left there by the p.w. gang. Either an old one removed from the turnout on the right and waiting to be collected, or a replacement waiting to be installed.

It's odd that they would leave it where it is, rather than in the 6ft way, but maybe that was the most convenient spot for access to/from their trolley while the other line was still in use. Given the walkway on the left they would have placed it close to the track and well out of anyone's way.

What looks strange though is that it is standing upright. Short bullhead rails left lying about almost always lie flat, unless several are stacked together.

All in all a very odd photograph. Strangely none of the dozens of folks in the picture seem to be taking the slightest interest in this check rail. I've noticed that in other pictures too. You almost never see anyone looking at a check rail. :)

Martin.

posted: 14 Nov 2014 14:45

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
"Strangely none of the dozens of folks in the picture seem to be taking the slightest interest in this check rail."

Martin, you need that as your signature on here, you really do.

--
If you look to the left of it (I've cleaned it up in photoshop) there appears to be a second one- so the spare bit of rail idea might well be right.

posted: 15 Nov 2014 11:56

from:

Simon Dunkley
 
Oakham - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Maybe it is just me, but if you zoom in, there appears to be an outside check rail placed on each side of the track.
Edit: not just me - see previous post!

Looking at maps on old-maps.co.uk (which I know cannot be relied upon totally as they were not mapped with future railway modellers in mind) it would appear that there was a turnout slightly to the left of the photo, facing departing trains, which formed a scissors crossover.

The arrangement (but not the detail nor the facbrication) is vaguely reminiscent of cast self-guarding crossing frogs in North America. Given the slight gap between the check rail and running rail, as well as the suspected difference in height, are the two rails there to make sure that wheels are not coming off the rails when approaching the diverging route on the turnout, which would have a degree of contra-flexible to it? Not knowing anywhere near enough about the locos that ran on the line, we're there any with flangless drivers in use? If so, then outside check rails would be the simplest practicable way of stopping them from sliding off the rails in these circumstances, and would explain their removal in diesel days.

Just my couple of denari...

Simon
Last edited on 15 Nov 2014 11:59 by Simon Dunkley
posted: 15 Nov 2014 12:39

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Simon,

Self-guarding frogs can only work where all wheels are the same width.

In the UK this is not the case, locomotive wheels are wider than wagon wheels. If the raised portion is set to suit locomotive wheels it will have no effect on wagon wheels. If it is set to suit wagon wheels, locomotive wheels would jam on it. That's why self-guarding frogs are not used in the UK.

I must confess that this extra check rail is invisible to me. :?

If derailments frequently occur at the entry to a switch, this would be controlled by means of a conventional check rail. Here's an example of that:

2_150732_540000000.jpg2_150732_540000000.jpg

Pic thanks to Adrian Marks of this parish, originally posted on RMweb, see:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=129570#p129570

regards,

Martin.

posted: 15 Nov 2014 17:31

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Simon
I know what you mean about the other rail- there is a protrusion about parallel with the "lower" end of the mystery rail. But I don't think it's a second checkrail.

The example Martin shows is of course inside and you can understand its purpose.

I think the "p way lot dumped it there" is the best answer so far. This was the 1950/60s so perhaps not so strict- (it's only a 15MPh section there anyway)

posted: 15 Nov 2014 21:26

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Simon is right that there's something on the right rail, outer edge- but it's not another rail.

I wonder if it is, as some suggested above, a treadle board for working the lubricator.

Likewise there might be a treadle at the other side which we can't actually see. If so, would that pose a danger to crews walking on the walkway which would need to be protected by a guard rail?

ie to stop feet or trouser legs getting caught on the treadle bar?

posted: 16 Nov 2014 02:09

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I might be wrong Derek, but as I understand it the P & M style rail and
flange lubricators (which this looks like), didn't have a long treadle bar.

The early versions were activated by track deflection on a steel spring
which opened the ports of the grease container.

The later versions worked off two little pump buttons that sat an eighth
of an inch above the top of the rail on the outside attached to the container
mounting.

All of this was designed to sit between two consecutive chairs to allow
easy placement.

Two holes are drilled through the rail's web. These are hollow and
allow the grease through to the grease plate assembly on the inside.

The reason I thought that it may have been to help keep run-off
to a minimum at that point is that lubricators can stop working
if they get grit in the plunge guide hole or in the pump body.
Immersion was not recommended.

Like Martin, I can't see any other check rail or other PW item around
the grease container. There is a reproduction artefact on the rail
head between the next two sleepers which could be from water on the
camera lens or some failure during any stage of the reproductive process.

I sincerely doubt any PW staff would have left a 10 to 14 foot length
of unattached steel rail next to a running line with passenger traffic.
The chances of accident leading to injury and death would be
considered far too high.
In the New South Wales Government Railway of the period this
would get you reported with a risk of a fine and demotion.

I can't see why that wouldn't be the case with BR as well.

What ever reason that it is there it does to my eye appear to be on the
sleepers and would be fixed.

I would also point out that the bottom of the feet of the man in the
dark trousers standing at the right hand end of the mystery rail are
close to the top of the rail in height.
At the left hand end the top of the rail appears to have become
higher than the ground behind it.

As has already been suggested, this could be the fastest,
cheapest solution to holding the ground back from the running rail
that the PW staff could come up with.

Matt M.

posted: 16 Nov 2014 02:45

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Derek,

I have now asked about this on the trackwork Yahoo group, to see if anyone there can suggest anything:

 http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/trackwork/conversations/messages/1384

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Nov 2014 15:50

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt,

Thanks- how about then that the rail is protecting the 2 buttons that would be connected to this?

There is a scissor crossing just behind the camera, which means both rails would need lubrication points. It is common to have one reservoir feeding both rails via pipes (we can't see them but it doesn't mean they aren't there).

As for holding back the ground, please take it from me that the ground there is at sleeper level and is very well compacted cinder/ash 'ballast' and there is nothing to 'run off'- certainly nothing that a 'check rail' could stop. There is the platform slope- so rainwater, there is the slope down from the 'wall' on the left (the stable mess room foundations- perfectly strong and not moving) so I can't see that being the case I'm afraid.

I am going to have a look through my photo collection (some 220 at last count) and see if there's any better photos.... I seem to remember either a Deltic or EE4 sitting right there which would give a view in 'modern' era.

Martin,
Thanks for that.

A suggestion for Templot... how about a "insert mysterious rail that no one knows what it does" feature? :)

posted: 16 Nov 2014 15:52

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt

Here's a photo in 1983 with all evidence removed BUT it shows the ground as I describe. Now what would need flange lubrication in 1960s but not in 1980's when you have 8 axle heavy EE4's going over it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jncarter1962/8559608907/

posted: 16 Nov 2014 16:02

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
DerekStuart wrote:
Here's a photo in 1983 with all evidence removed
Hi Derek,

Not all evidence removed. There is something lying along the sleeper ends in the exact spot where the check rail was, and those sleepers have less ballast between them than the others. And there is something boarded over just beyond.

It makes me wonder if there is some sort of drain/channel/cavity/manhole below the track at this location, and the check rail may have been part of a cover over it.

Was there ever a water crane on the end of this platform ramp? An ash pit? Has this track always been a platform line? Or part of an old engine shed line? Cattle docks?

I've been very doubtful that the flange greaser (if that's what it is) has any relevance to this check rail.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Nov 2014 19:52

from:

Simon Dunkley
 
Oakham - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Simon,

Self-guarding frogs can only work where all wheels are the same width.

In the UK this is not the case, locomotive wheels are wider than wagon wheels. If the raised portion is set to suit locomotive wheels it will have no effect on wagon wheels. If it is set to suit wagon wheels, locomotive wheels would jam on it. That's why self-guarding frogs are not used in the UK.

Thanks for the explanation, at least for those who didn't know why they won't work over here, but other making a reference to the arrangement of having something to rub against the outer face of the wheel to keep it on the rail, I wasn't actually talking about frogs.

I must confess that this extra check rail is invisible to me. :?

Well, as others have agreed, there is definitely something there.

If derailments frequently occur at the entry to a switch, this would be controlled by means of a conventional check rail.

In my post, I spoke specifically about potential problems with flangless drivers. Not sure how a conventional check rail would help out there. Not sure, given that I had specifically mentioned flangless drivers, that you were responding o what I posted, but never mind: all information is useful if shared.

But as I said, my post was pure supposition.

Regards,

Simon

posted: 16 Nov 2014 20:48

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Simon,

You have rather lost me with talk of flangeless drivers?

Flangeless wheels aren't permitted where any part of the track is raised above the running surface. Quite a few modern diamond-crossings now have cast K-crossings with raised check rails. Steam locomotives with flangeless drivers are not permitted to work over them in case the wheel moves across and hits the end of the check rail.

In any event, this mystery check rail appears to be level with the running rail, rather than raised above it. To act as a guard rail similar to those on viaducts it would need to be a couple of inches above the running rail. And very much longer -- there's not much sense in trying to prevent a derailment just a few feet in front of the platform ramp. To be meaningful for such a purpose it would need to be several rail lengths long.

From Derek's latest pictures there is a locomotive length of straight track between this location and the scissors crossover, so I'm puzzled why any special treatment would be needed.

All in all, it's still baffling. :?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Nov 2014 21:35

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin

I added another link to the page below- 4th photo' which shows the area in more detail.

http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/2_30-8-81.htm

There is a piece of tubing there, but I think it's just waste. The wooden plating is the cover over the duct for the signal linkage- the walkway and the signal is clearly seen in the photo' above.

In the earlier photo' the grass area at the end of the platform used to be part of the engine shed (the building you can see- note the side in Yorkshire stone and the end in brick (lined with breeze block as it's just running bond), which was a result of the Luftwaffe in 1940.

So there's nothing specifically untoward there. As for a checkrail to guard anything subterranean, as you said above, that's not what this is doing.

Hopefully my (delayed) trip to NYMR might help... Not sure if they're open, but can usually find someone about who could ask the p way team.

posted: 16 Nov 2014 23:48

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
        Is it possibly old water or electric conduit for a water supply or old lighting?

2110_161845_390000000.jpg2110_161845_390000000.jpg

2110_161847_070000000.jpg2110_161847_070000000.jpg

Or possibly the remains of old point rodding?
:?

posted: 17 Nov 2014 00:55

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just rubbish I think. I have another photo' somewhere that shows it as a pipe or tube. Certainly not point rodding and it isn't connected to the mystery rail.

posted: 17 Nov 2014 02:26

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for the further photos Derek.

The first one, in particular, tells me a lot more about what is happening in the area that
PW texts refer to as Earthworks, Formation and Drainage is occurring than the original.

It also made me look at the original again as a whole photo rather than concentrating
on the problem item.

The photographer is at least three to four foot higher than those standing by the track.
That changes my first assessment of the relationship of the ‘mystery rail’ to the track work
and the platform. I now think that it is not on the sleepers but beyond them.
And I truly feel it is not part of the track formation but to do with ground works.

I note that in the first of the ‘modern’ photos you sent a link for that as Martin points out,
that there is something there still. It is in the same position. And, with a sleeper count,
the same length. This has to be more than a co-incidence.
I also don’t think this has flared ends. More an issue of having a bend in the middle
and rising at either end.

There are a couple of questions.

1. Was the platform covered with tarmac at this time?

The later photo shows it has been at some point.

2. If so did it continue down the ramp to the almost level ground?

Could this have been to keep the tarmac off the sleepers?

This is beginning to look more and more like some sort of edging to keep the track
formation clear of encroachment by off-track levelling due to the lack of room.


(how about then that the rail is protecting the 2 buttons that would be connected to this?)


It was only the first thought I had in regard to the placement if this item in relation to the
track formation as I saw it. And as I have said above; I’m not sure that it is a rail.


(There is a scissor crossing just behind the camera, which means both rails would need
lubrication points. It is common to have one reservoir feeding both rails via pipes (we can't
see them but it doesn't mean they aren't there).)

I don’t think the lubricator is there for the crossover.
It is more likely to be there for the curve through the platform.
There is probably one on the other end of the platform as well, though they are supposed to
have a very long coverage length. 
I don’t think there is a feed to the other rail as there is no sign
of the grease plate assembly and that would be visible due to it interrupting the reflected line
of the flange on the bottom of the rail. See a later answer.


(As for holding back the ground, please take it from me that the ground there is at sleeper level and
is very well compacted cinder/ash 'ballast' and there is nothing to 'run off'- certainly nothing that
a 'check rail' could stop. There is the platform slope- so rainwater, there is the slope down from the
'wall' on the left (the stable mess room foundations- perfectly strong and not moving)
so I can't see that being the case I'm afraid.)


Okay. I wasn’t worried about the stone wall falling down or moving. I was interested in the
run-off issues. The photo with the EE4 shows a decent run-off issue with the gravelling
and gullying occurring. The first part of any PW course I have ever read, is about
Earthworks, Formation and Drainage.
And that is about keeping excess water off.
Water at speed is very efficient at removing small particle ballast, (undercutting),
as well as filling larger granite ballast with grit and stopping it from doing its job properly.
This also allows water to be retained in the ballast with detrimental results.
Both these problems are worse for steam locomotive operation than diesel due to the
shorter range of suspension travel available.

Having said that, the Federal Government of Australia’s own track maintenance company
has been under fire due to poor cleaning of ballast which has led to rough riding and
speed restrictions on the main Sydney to Melbourne line due to an issue known as mud-holing.

Also, again, I seriously don’t think this is a check rail.

(Just rubbish I think. I have another photo' somewhere that shows it as a pipe or tube.
Certainly not point rodding and it isn't connected to the mystery rail.)

That is fine. It could be the same old pipe, just not so old. As Martin and I have noticed,
it is the same length at the same place…
Out of interest I would like to see the picture. I’m bloody curious about this now.


(Here's a photo in 1983 with all evidence removed BUT it shows the ground as I describe.
Now what would need flange lubrication in 1960s but not in 1980's when you have 8 axle
heavy EE4's going over it?)


Um, steam locomotives. Very long ridged wheel base. By the 1940’s the main issue
regarding flange rubbing on curves was due to steam locos.
Diesels generally have more side play and smaller wheels which makes a lot of difference.

As you pass the tangent point on a curve the leading wheel flange on a ridged wheelbase
is forced against the outside edge where it stays for the duration of the curve.
The wheel base would have to be at a certain length, or the radius of the curve smaller
before a rear wheel flange would also become pressed up against the inside rail.

Looking at the curve around the platform at Whitby in the photos there is no check rail.
So as a rough guess I would suggest the flange lubricator is there mostly to stop
flange squeal from the outside rail as the locos pulled into the station.

As a general rule you shouldn’t need a lubricator to pass through a formation
of leads and crossings.

About EE4’s I would defer to the experts. However from memory they have a between the
frame leading pony truck, (in other words not fully ridged), and I think 16 foot ridged for
the other three axles. Probably about an inch of combined side play between the three
driven axles as well. Maybe a thinned centre flange? And 3’5” wheels?

Weight is not an issue re flange contact on curves other than maybe helping to stop
the flange climbing over the railhead.

There may also be a different style of lubricator being used at the later date.
I haven’t caught up with the current systems but I believe the reservoir pots
are a lot more remote. And usually do more than one feed.


Derek, Whitby is your project and I would expect you to have way more knowledge
than me. I only suggest these things as you asked the question.
Hopefully this lets you understand why I came to the conclusions I have expressed.
I could well be wrong in my assessment. Very wrong.
This is the joy of research. I’m always learning new things about old subjects.

Will continue to watch this space with interest.
If I can think of anything else I’ll let you know.

Good luck with the research.
Regards, Matt M.

posted: 17 Nov 2014 14:55

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matt

Thanks for that forensic analysis. I think you make a good point re perspective. I've just tried to (crudely) work it out using two ball point pens.

And you are right that the pipe is the right length- that 'bit' you can see in the extreme lower left of the first picture is the wooden cover over the point/signal rodding. If you notice down past the EE4 the scissor crossover is worked off the linkage that first comes under that location before running parallel and then re emerging under another 'tunnel' to the scissor. Also there's a signal half way between.

That's a lot of moving linkage/rodding there.

In this photo, you can just make out a (signal) wire which would have come under the track at the location in question before running back down platform 1 to the starter.

Perhaps it was to protect the signal wire? Is there some rule about rods and wires encroaching onto recognised walkways?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgadsdon/7144598301/

The wire isn't easy to see but it's nearly half way up.

As for me being a Whitby expert. Hardly, but thanks. ALthough thanks to many people on this and other forums I do think I've amassed quite a bit of into on the place, which I hope to put to good use.

posted: 17 Nov 2014 16:19

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
        I notice in the last image the signal on the platform. How does the control wire rod reach it from the signal box? Perhaps the mystery object is something related to that. Rodding/wire conduit to reach it through the platform  somehow? The signal seems to have a linkage into the platform at its base. Assuming it doesn't run along the surface there must be some way of routing it under the platform surface. In later pictures the signal has gone so it could explain the apparent unused/unconnected status of the object. I think this is developing into a mystery on par with the Rossetta stone. :D
Regards.
Trevor. :)

posted: 17 Nov 2014 16:28

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Trevor, if you look at the right hand road in the last photo', the signal box is just to the right of the dog leg.

The rodding comes down the right side out of shot, before crossing the 3 roads to the area in question and then this one wire for the starter comes back along the platform edge. It certainly would be behind that rail.

It couldn't go along the wall- so that's what I think it is- just a piece of metal that happened to be a rail and happened to be opposite grease pan, to protect the signal wire from trolleys.

So altogether all the different answers here have been close in various ways.

posted: posted: 17 Nov 2014 16:33

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Yes- looking again, the wire from the wooden cover down to the signal on the stable and then the scissor is along the wall- so no risk of damage to it. Along the platform the same. At other areas it is exposed, but NOT on a recognised crew walk way.

At this particular point there is only a signal wire, which is far less robust than a point rod. Thinking about it- Mr miggins of to sign on for duty stops to rest his foot on the rail/wire to tie his boots.... he causes the signal wire to come under tension. Off goes the K1 at the clear signal and BANG...

This is the ONLY exposed area of control wires that would be at risk of damage from people or trollies.

I don't know about anyone else, but that's me happy with the explanation. Of course, in 1981 the wire is through that small piece of conduit/ tube.

In 1984 the signals were rationalised and then removed in 1988 hence no trace now.

Well done and thanks. Mystery solved (a small detail btw that WILL be making it into Whitby50G)

17 Nov 2014 16:33

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Double post error. Sorry.
Last edited on 17 Nov 2014 16:34 by DerekStuart
posted: 17 Nov 2014 19:12

from:

Trevor Walling
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello,
         Maybe topics like this could be considered Railway Archeology. :D

posted: 17 Nov 2014 19:40

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Trevor,

I didn't realise just how in depth such an investigation could be. How 200 research items could all look at things in different direction and angles and you just make out a detail in the corner of one and then another and suddenly you have an idea what it was really like.

I would say that I know 95% of all the railway infrastructure for this 1/2 mile or so in great detail.

Yet even now there are some bits I don't know- trivial things I suppose.

- did the locking room of Town signal box have windows at the back (very small gap before the shed office)
- What was the dimensions of the strange concrete (1960's) shed at the back of Bog Hall that doesn't appear on any maps.
- Some of the point/signal rodding locations.
- There's a mix of 30, 45 and 60ft track panels. Which is correct for the era I'm interested in.

I shall go on. And on.

But yes this archeology as you call it is like a hobby in its own right. But then as we're on a Templot forum, it's right to point out that Templot can also be like a hobby in its own right.

posted: 20 Nov 2014 13:01

from:

Matt M.
 
Australia

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Derek,

Sorry to take so long to answer. Been very busy.

Glad to help with the thought process. Sometimes it helps to have people who
see things differently comment. I know it has helped me over the years.

I have no idea about the signalling rules regarding rods and wires encroaching
onto recognised walkways. My own research has been concentrated on the PW,
especially regarding rail types and leads as used by the NSWGR.
Partially because Templot really requires me to understand what was going on to use
it properly and the model is a loco shed therefore un-signaled.

I am collecting information for later use but am not up-to-speed at this point.
You could ask The Signalling Study Group. Someone there should be able to
either answer your question or point you in the right direction.

If you study a subject long enough you become an expert along the way.
I've been researching the running shed / depot at Clyde in Sydney for
three or so years.
Not so easy to do as despite being a major shed and very busy there is little
official recorded evidence. Where as every other major shed has photo sets
listed in the Railway Archives, Clyde doesn't.
So when an ex-employee wrote to the Australian Railway Historical Society in
Sydney complaining that he never read anything regarding the shed he worked
at they sent me and email copy so I could supply the answers to some
questions the gentleman asked.

It is fascinating what you can find with patience and help. There are still
many items about the shed that I haven't found. Three photos would top the
list. The eastern side of the shed facing the road. Never seen that. And there
were a number of attached little sheds on that side.
A shot of the loco inspector's office as it was from 1892 to 1918.
and a clear shot of the sand furnace. I have some idea of what that looked
like but it would be nice to confirm.

However I'm doing well on the type of rail, radius of lead exits and now crossing
angles for most of the depot.

I'm attempting to attach a picture of NSWGR PW in the late 1890's.
Main line west out of Sydney. One of my favourite photos as there
isn't a loco standing on or in front of what I actually want to look at.

Matthew.
Attachment: attach_1997_2573_Looking_east,_toward_Lidcombe._Lady_in_long_late_Victorian_Edwardian_dress_&_hat_on_wooden_up_platform_Bridge_at_Railway_Street.000279-1.jpg     257

posted: 25 Nov 2014 14:45

from:

DerekStuart
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Matthew

I couldn't agree more with your comments. Although our projects are separated by several thousand miles and un-doubtedly not dis-similar methods were used, they seem to have much in common.

What I find quite noticeable is that you don't just learn about trains as such, but architecture, geology (maybe this doesn't apply in a loco yard- but for example have you seen the way some people put water courses in- rivers cut into deep ravines of soft sand, which doesn't happen), of course engineering and even if you're modelling a historic location you even take on the disciplines of a proper archaeologist.

I never thought when I started this that I would have driven 400 miles round trip just to take a close up photo of a turnout to gauge what type it was (and yes, I am doing just that early next month).

It is a little ironic though to be supplying information to someone who actually worked there.

In respect of the missing shots- I too still have some bits that I can guess, even though I would like to KNOW, but I am working on the basis that with the 200+ items I now have in my folder, if I don't know then the chances of anyone being able to tell me that I am wrong is quite minimal.

It's interesting to see the British influence of the era in that photo, as had you not told me then I'd never have guessed it as Australia. I assume from what you've said, Australia had its railways 'rationalised' too? Modern Australian railway photo's show that the railways there have developed their own distinct identity now.

I hope you'll keep us updated with your progress as it sounds really interesting.



Templot Club > Forums > Prototype pics > Has anyone any idea what this is? (extra rail on the OUTSIDE)
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


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.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems