Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2594Modelling 15inch gauge RH&DR
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 11 Dec 2014 14:44

from:

TPP
 
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 guys

I am new here and I am afraid I will need to be asking lots of questions not only about Templot but also real track work - and unusual trackwork at that.

I am considering modelling something based on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway which is of course a 15" gauge railway. I will be be building in 1:22.5 scale using a model gauge of 16.5mm - probably using Peco code 100 rail.

I have some books on the railway and my first problem is trying to understand the descriptions of the turnouts - they are described as follows ...

Originally 1 in 8 crossing and 7' switches

Later changed to 1 in 10 with 9' switches

...

The problem is I don't really know what that means and I am going to need to know if I have any chance of drawing them in Templot

I know the sleeper sizes and have some idea of the sleeper spacings and have managed to draw some straight and curved panels so far

I think drawing the points is going to be a real challenge let alone making them

So could some explain the descriptions to me please

posted: 11 Dec 2014 15:00

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,
         You might find this helpful  http://www.templot.com/martweb/gs_realtrack.htm
Regards.
Last edited on 11 Dec 2014 15:02 by Trevor Walling
posted: 11 Dec 2014 15:14

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks Trevor

Ok so the switch part seems fairly straight forward and seems it refers to the length of what I would normally call the point blade ( because I don't know any better yet I am afraid )

I am not so clear on the other part - does the 'one in 8' and 'one in ten' refer to the v crossing angle then ?

posted: 11 Dec 2014 15:31

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - 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 TPP

Welcome to Templot.

Yes the ! in 8 and 1 in 10 relate to common "V" crossing angles.

A turnout consists of a pair of switches (point blades) and a common crossing. There are a number of options for Switches in the "TEMPLATE" drop down boxes "SWITCH SETTING.." for common crossings you can use F5 and the mouse.

HTH

Phil

posted: 11 Dec 2014 15:45

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks Phil

That's a part of the puzzle sorted then.

I just realised I am not sure where the switch starts and finishes - obviously the tip is one end but where is the other end ?

posted: 11 Dec 2014 17:28

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 Rob,

Welcome to Templot Club. :)

You may find this page helpful:

 http://templot.com/companion/index.html?gs_firstoff.htm#first_time_trackpad

You said:
I will be be building in 1:22.5 scale using a model gauge of 16.5mm - probably using Peco code 100 rail.
Before we can help you much further we need to know which wheels you will be using? This affects the flangeway gap and probably the heel offset for the switch. You may perhaps be using 00/H0 wheels on 16.5mm gauge (RP25/110 wheels), or maybe exact-scale RH&DR wheels (the width of which and flangeway gap are what sizes?), or maybe some other wheels for 1:22.5 scale?

If you have a drawing of RH&DR pointwork perhaps you could post it here?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 11 Dec 2014 18:31

from:

TPP
 
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

All my rolling stock will be using standard 00 wheels , the locos mainly Bachmann and Hornby and the wagons and coaches most likely wheels from Romford

I don't have any drawings but that's not a huge problem as I'm hoping to create a railway that was very heavily inspired by and influenced by the RH&DR rather than that exact railway - but mine will be close

I have decided on my straight track panels using sleeper dimensions from the real RHDR - these are 36" long and 9" wide. I will be using Peco code 100 FB ( I think )

My track panels are 25' 8" long
The end sleeper is spaced so that the joins will have a sleeper spacing of 22" centres and all other sleepers will be spaced at 28.8 " centres

If I have added that up correctly it should all fit properly with 11 sleepers per panel

I know the basics of the RHDR paintwork as I posted earlier and I will be happy with anything that looks feasible with those documented 'dimensions' and sleeper spacing that seems sensible with my straight panels.

I want to avoid it looking like industrial GN15 trackwork but like everyone space is an issue so I don't want the point work to be longer than it needs to be - both for looks and to accept my 00 based rolling stock - the largest of which will be a 4-8-2
Last edited on 11 Dec 2014 18:50 by TPP
posted: 11 Dec 2014 18:46

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - 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:
 or maybe exact-scale RH&DR wheels (the width of which and flangeway gap are what sizes?), or maybe some other wheels for 1:22.5 scale?



Hi Martin,

As a matter of interest, I happen to have found a hand-drawn drawing of the RH&DR wheel profile that one of their engineers sent to me some time ago.  See attached PDF file.

As to flangeway gap, I seem to remember, it was 22mm or the equiv imperial size, at least that was what I was told.

All the best,

Brian
Attachment: attach_2015_2594_Romney_Wheel_Profile_2_inv.pdf     309

posted: 11 Dec 2014 20:27

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:
As a matter of interest, I happen to have found a hand-drawn drawing of the RH&DR wheel profile that one of their engineers sent to me some time ago.  See attached PDF file.

As to flangeway gap, I seem to remember, it was 22mm or the equiv imperial size, at least that was what I was told.
Hi Brian,

Many thanks indeed. :)

Wheels are 2.5" wide which at 1:22.5 scale is 2.8mm -- which just happens to be exactly the same as 00 RTR wheels RP25/110 which are 2.8mm wide. :thumb:

And a 22mm flangeway gap scales to 0.98mm, or say 1.0mm in round figures.

Which just happens to match 00-SF and DOGA-Fine. :thumb:

Rob it's your choice between those two, but I would recommend 00-SF (16.2mm gauge) because then your Hornby and Bachmann wheels won't need any changes to the back-to-back dimension. 00-SF gauge tools are available from C&L.

The alternative would be ordinary 16.5mm 00-BF (gauges not available from C&L), but then the flangeway gaps would be overscale at 1.25mm.

However, I'm not sure how well C&L gauges will fit Peco Code 100 rail. But they will fit (or should do) code 82 Flat-Bottom rail from C&L. Do you know the rail size (height) for the RH&DR?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 11 Dec 2014 20:45

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks again - this is starting to sound good to me

Here is what I have found about rail

Originally the line was laid with second hand 25lb rail that came back after WW1 - it was part American and part Belgian. I can't find the exact spec for that but similar 25lb rail was sized as follows from what I can find ...

Head width = 1.5"
Height = 2.75 "
Foot width = 2.75"

It was later partially relaid with 30lb rail

Head width = 1.5"
Height = 3"
Foot width = 2.75"

Someone has just pointed me in the direction of kalgarin 125/7 FB rail

Head - 0.056" - 1.42mm
Height - 0.126" - 3.2mm
Foot - 0.112" - 2.84mm

The problem is where would I get track gauges for that rail ?

Am I right in thinking it will be more smooth built to SF

posted: 11 Dec 2014 20:50

from:

TPP
 
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 wonder how it will look with code 83 rail ?

Part of the 'problem' is that although the gauge of the real thing is about 1/4 scale the locos are built to about 1/3 scale and I am wondering if the lower rail might look odd ?

With that said - I have never built trackwork before and I am wary of making things harder for myself that it needs to be.

I am pretty sure that well built code 83 will look better than badly build code x

posted: 11 Dec 2014 21:12

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 Rob,

It seems that any 4mm scale rail for 00 gauge is going to look too small, not only for height but also width.

British Standard 30lb Flat Bottom rail is 3.1/8" high which scales to Code 139 at 1:22.5 scale.

Head Width is 1.5/8" which scales to 1.83mm wide.

You seem to be needing 0 gauge rail, such as Peco Code 143 Flat-Bottom rail.

Unfortunately I don't know where you would get 00 track gauges for such rail. Debs of this parish may be willing to make some for you if you don't have the means to make your own.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 11 Dec 2014 21:21

from:

TPP
 
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 had considered the Peco 143 as that shouldn't be too hard to get hold of both now and in the future.

The one concern I did have ( because I don't know about such things ) is if there would be any problem running standard 00 rolling stock on the head width of the code 143

Can any one advise on that please ?

PS - I would need to get gauges made - I don't have the equipment or skills to make my own

posted: 12 Dec 2014 00:08

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - 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

TPP wrote:
Originally the line was laid with second hand 25lb rail that came back after WW1 - it was part American and part Belgian. I can't find the exact spec for that but similar 25lb rail  ...

Hi Rob / Martin,

Ahem!!, I also happen to have found the rail section profile of the RH&DR  25lbs/yd rail from the same source.  See attached PNG image.

All the best,

Attachment: attach_2016_2594_25-lb._Rail_Profile.png     2076
Last edited on 12 Dec 2014 00:10 by Brian Nicholls
posted: 12 Dec 2014 07:38

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks a lot Brian

I think that's the rail I based my dimensions on - I think I found it on the Harmersteel website

Do you have much information on the RH&DR ?

Is it something you are interested in yourself ?

posted: 12 Dec 2014 15:28

from:

TPP
 
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 had a new book arrive today that showed some details I had not seen before
One was the spacing of sleepers at joints at least on this part of the line - much closer than my guess.
It also quite clearly shows that code 100 isn't going to look at all right - I am now thinking code 143 peco rail
It also has some photos of some turnouts - I am not sure these are of any use but some of you more experienced people will get something from them - also one shows a siding off to the right that looks to me to be a bit tighter ?
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track001.jpg 
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track002.jpg
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track003.jpg
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track004.jpg
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track005.jpg
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track006.jpg
http://thepurpleprimer.co.uk/rhdr/track007.jpg

Last edited on 12 Dec 2014 15:28 by TPP
posted: 12 Dec 2014 16:42

from:

Brian Nicholls
 
Poole - 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

TPP wrote:
Do you have much information on the RH&DR ?

Is it something you are interested in yourself ?

Hi Rob,

To be honest, I do not have any great detail on the RH&DR, as it was several years ago when I last had any communication with them, and only then for the details of 15" gauge wheel to rail specs, this I have given you on this forum.

I had heard, through the grapevine, so to speak, that at the later part of 2013, the RH&DR had started relaying their track with new and more substantial rail, something of the order of 36lbs/yd or the metric equiv.

All the best,

Brian
Last edited on 12 Dec 2014 16:44 by Brian Nicholls
posted: 12 Dec 2014 17:42

from:

Hayfield
 
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
TPP wrote:
I had considered the Peco 143 as that shouldn't be too hard to get hold of both now and in the future.

The one concern I did have ( because I don't know about such things ) is if there would be any problem running standard 00 rolling stock on the head width of the code 143

Can any one advise on that please ?

PS - I would need to get gauges made - I don't have the equipment or skills to make my own
TPP
You could use an  electronic calliper for gauging, or a simple bar gauge could be made from a piece of brass which has been carefully filed to shape.
Another method is a bit of studding or bolt, and where 2 nuts are tightened together they stay put. so a bolt and 6 nuts will make a type of roller gauge/ check rail gauge. just use an electronic calliper for fine tuning to gauge. 1mm flangeway gauge available from the EM gauge society. Where there is a will there's a way. Good luck as it sounds very interesting
John
John

posted: 13 Dec 2014 08:39

from:

TPP
 
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

I have been admiring your work on RMweb - luckily I will only have to produce much easier bits of trackwork than the complicated ones you make looks easy.

Some of those low tech ideas for gauges sound very straight forward

posted: 13 Dec 2014 08:43

from:

TPP
 
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
Last nights reading turned this up ...

It is referring to Greenly - the lines constructor - in fact he more or less constructed the entire railway ...

" the Romney sleeper spacing of 22 inches being said to be his natural stride "

posted: 13 Dec 2014 09:22

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 TTP,

For more photos, have you seen?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/sets/72157629902127156/with/7281272392/
ERNIE’S Railway Archive on flicker

A couple of things to note re RH&DR track depending on how prototypical
you wish to be.

They are spiking the main running lines in a method the NSWGR refers to
as ‘anchor dogging’. This is done to resist rail creep with “T” or flat bottomed
rail. The spikes are offset, the ones located in the ‘four foot’, or on the inside
of the rails, leads in the direction of travel. As the RH&DR has a double main
these are spiked in opposite directions. On single track the ‘anchor dogging’
will be leading in the direction of travel by the heaviest loading or going
down hill.

It is possible that on tighter curves there will be two spikes on the outside
of the outer rail. This is to take the extra force applied on curves.
I haven’t seen a picture of their curves so don’t know if this occurs, but you
should keep it in mind.

They also appear to stagger two outer and one inner spike at the stations and
multi directional track that takes a starting load.

The HO modelling method of spiking each side of the track opposite doesn’t
actually happen in real life all that much.

The crossings are a bolted crossing. The bolts go through the rails and
through a series of chocks that hold the rail at the right position.
The point of the V is held in one of these.
These two photos show how the chocks fill the gaps between the rails effectively
making the crossing solid. look at the righthand side.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/7281300334/in/set-72157629902127156
http://www.flickr.com/photos/irishswissernie/7281301452/

However you go about making these fetters in model form they go a long
way to making the track look realistic.

Have you tried the RH&DR association Heritage Group? I think they are still around.
They can probably help you with information regarding a number of your queries.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 16 Dec 2014 21:40

from:

TPP
 
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 Matt

Thanks for the additional info - really useful

posted: 16 Dec 2014 21:46

from:

TPP
 
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
The more I learn the less I know

Some more reading has revealed that in 1946/47 the RH&DR received some items from the closing Eaton Hall Railway. Apparently 21 sets of points and 5,000 yards of 'track'

This is weird - I thought Eaton Hall was laid by Heywood using 16lb rail and Heywoods own design of cast iron sleeper. I also think that the pointwork was built at Heywoods Duffield Bank workshops and transported to Eaton ready to lay. I have not yet read anything that suggests Eaton was later relaid with anything else.


I am sure I have seen a 70's ish photo of the RHDR with a pile of what looks like bare Hudson Jubilee style pressed steel sleepers - annoying I can't find the photo now
Last edited on 17 Dec 2014 09:01 by TPP
posted: 17 Dec 2014 08:54

from:

Hayfield
 
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
TPP

A request from the folk here and on RMweb for any old photos of the RH&DR might bring some enlightenment

posted: 22 Dec 2014 14:06

from:

TPP
 
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 tried mocking something up using Peco code 100 rail and some styrene but the rail looked too light 
 
This is my latest attempt - Peco code 143 on 2mm styrene sleepers and spikes made from layers of styrene strip - the figure is 1/22.5 scale
 
....
 
track0.jpgtrack0.jpg
 
For your amusement only here are my track gauges ...
 
track_gauges.jpgtrack_gauges.jpg


posted: 22 Dec 2014 14:09

from:

TPP
 
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
Detail ...
 
detail.jpgdetail.jpg

posted: 22 Dec 2014 18:40

from:

Hayfield
 
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
Looking very good, especially the distressing of the sleepers.

Having said that I believe either ply or wooden sleepers would lift it even further, especially if it takes staining so that areas on the sleeper will vary slightly. Also metal spikes might be stronger, Peco do them, others also available or the old fashioned method of using cut down staples

posted: 22 Dec 2014 19:58

from:

TPP
 
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 Heyfield - thanks for the reply

I am actually quite surprised at how strong it seems to be but it is a VERY slow method and I am not sure at all it is a sensible option - it was a case of a mock up with what I had available

When you say cute down staples do you mean cut down stationery staples - for fixing paper together ?

How would one go about that - I assume you will drill the wooden sleeper and then cut the staple down so it didn't protrude beneath the sleeper

Would you glue the staple or make the hole suitably undersized ?

posted: 23 Dec 2014 08:39

from:

Hayfield
 
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
TPP Good morning. Yes it is the office staples and the method I have seen goes back to the Railway Modeller in the 60,s. for 00 gauge they use Bambi staples, though you could use the next size up for larger scales. 
Yes a pilot hole in all but the softest wood would be needed, and in some cases a bit of glue may be needed. I have seen a type of metal plate between the rail and spike, which could be made from squares of plasticard 
From memory make up a dozen at a time, put masking tape on the outside (to stop the staples falling all over the place), cut in half, then trim to the size required. Peco do still sell track spikes, I have some very old ones which state 1/2" steel, newer ones may be a bit bigger. 
 What is the size of the sleepers ?
Edit: I also have found some Peco spikes anout 3/4" long. Also there is a company selling narrow gauge track parts including spikes
Last edited on 23 Dec 2014 08:46 by Hayfield
posted: 23 Dec 2014 09:17

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 TPP,

Looks good.
The method of manufacture depends on the longevity
of your track that you are after.

There are other suppliers of track spikes.
You could try Micro Engineering in the U.S. Or Micro-Mark.
Some of the heads are oversize for scale but that wouldn't be
a problem for you.
Hunt through U.S. suppliers you will find something close.
It is the head size that is the issue usually. You can make them smaller
if needed with a good cutter.
Yes pre drill a pilot hole as Hayfield says. It will stop you breaking
spikes. Use a hard, stable wood with a close grain if you
are going down the timber route. A pair of spiking pliers would be
useful.

I didn't see rail plates on any of the shots of the RH&DR I saw.
As a rule they were only used to deal with heavy loads which I doubt
the RH&DR sees. They are screwed into the sleeper and the dog spikes
go through holes in the plate.
Depending on the design they spread the load; cant the rail for the
1 in 20 angle; if shouldered on the outside, or both sides, help stop
lateral movement of the rail, which also helps stop the rail movement
cutting off the heads of the spikes.

You will need to sort out the slide chairs for the switch rails of the leads.
They look reversible, so ten to a lead. If you know someone with CAD skills
an order through Shapeways, or the like, would probably make your
life easier.
I noted some variation in sleeper width around the leads as well.

Welcome to the joys of research.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 23 Dec 2014 11:28

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
To echo Matt, Microengineering produce a range of rail sections and track spikes. There are some UK importers if you do not wish to order directly from the US, although it is no more difficult than mail order over here. For a small order, you may well avoid VAT and the notorious £8 "handling fee".

posted: 23 Dec 2014 11:45

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks for the replies

The real sleepers were (are?) 9x4.5x36"

I will most likely be working in 13.5 mm to the foot or possibly 7mm

Based on 13.5mm what I have done is used 2mm styrene 10mm wide and 41mm long

The styrene spikes I have made seem to be surprisingly sturdy - I wasn't expecting them to be

My real worry is the pointwork - I have never done anything like that and frankly the prospect of it worries me.

I wonder what will be the easiest way to construct them - I am not at all sure building them on wooden sleepers will be the easiest way for me.

I only intended it as a mock up but could it actually be feasible to build it all in styrene ?

Someone must have tried it

posted: 23 Dec 2014 13:10

from:

alan@york
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Obechi strips are available 10mm wide, which you cut to length.
Various thicknesses also.
Try your local doll's house shop which sell them as floorboards. I use them with superglue to stick chairs down
a@y

posted: 23 Dec 2014 13:23

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
The main thing is that it stay in gauge.

If you are using styrene I would laminate two sheets together
to help with keeping it flat. If they cup or twist in the middle it
is not going to work.
For timber I would try for sleepers that are around 3.5mm thick for
spiking. I'm not sure 2mm will give you enough gripping
length for the shaft of the spike.
Timber that moves a lot with heat and moisture is not good
either. If you are fixing with spikes stable timber is a must.

Gluing the rail to the timber is standard but you will have to
research what glue will give the best result. Remember you are
not using a chair or plate so the contact surface area is smaller.
And there is less give for movement as well.
A spike will give a mechanical safety net.

The S7 group is pushing walnut sleepers from long term
experience with their use.

I understand your worry about point work. I'm about to
go through this myself. What has been happening here is
people have been building 7mm point work the way they
do in HO and it looks dreadful. Or they have bought
comercial point work that looks nothing like NSWGR.

Working in S7 I have had to do research into what was
done at the time of the layout and before. It also helps
when using Templot to understand track formations.

And jigs are the way to a successful crossing.
Once you have decided on a rail, if you go for an American one
a number of the companies also have jigs for making
crossings. Until you make a decision regarding rail nothing
else can be decided.
For jigs you may have to slip some readies to someone
to help you out.

Luckily for us Kalgarin Model's rail is just about perfect for
the range of flat bottom rail used during the period we model.
But no jigs.
As it happens I model with a guy who is a mechanical engineer
so making jigs isn't a problem.

There is an article in MRJ 227 on floating scale pointwork by
David Nicolson of the S7 group. You may find some of the information
in that of use. As a more experienced modeller said to me,
"The last hard lead to build is your first successful one".

It's late here and I have an early morning, so signing off.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 24 Dec 2014 15:27

from:

Hayfield
 
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
TTP

Here is a link to the spikes available from Peco http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PECO-IL-13-Rail-Spikes-Chemically-Blackened-Steel-O-16-5-On30-Narrow-Gauge-New-/121230969686?pt=UK_Trains_Railway_Models&hash=item1c39edcb56 You can order direct

As for turnouts, they should be quite straight forward to build. The common crossings can be built as a stand alone unit, and once set in place should be easy to lay the stock rails in gauge. Would be wise to pre-curve both curved stock and switch rails. Plastic rail joiners can be used as hinges between the common crossing and switch rails. Should be quite easy to build

I personally would go for wooden sleepers though, they do look much better than plastic. Coupled with metal spikes

posted: 28 Dec 2014 11:56

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks again for the replies guys
I have now found even more variation of sleepering ( is that a word? ) on the RH&DR's own website
This is really odd - looks like wooden sleepers that have been skinned with steel sheet ????http://www.rhdr.org.uk/locomotives-the-bug.html
This shows two consecutive very short sections of rail with fishplates joining them and closer sleepers ( why on earth would you do that ? )  and none of these sleepers look 9" wide to mehttp://www.rhdr.org.uk/locomotives-hercules.html

And some woooden sleepering that is fitted with Pandrol clips ? - but this appears to be on some pointworkhttp://www.rhdr.org.uk/locomotives-winston-churchill.html
All very odd to a newbie 

posted: 28 Dec 2014 13:42

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 TPP,

With the Bug shot best guess is that there is some issue
with the rail. It seen better days and appears to have a
jagged edge and has been previously notched on the
flange three times that is visible.
I can't tell from this photo if the plate is continuous across the
sleeper or in three sections.
Given that it is capping the end of the sleeper I would guess
continuous. If so it is probably there to protect the sleeper
from the poor quality flange.
If in three sections, which I doubt, it may be there to lift the
spikes past the cutting edge of the flange.
It would be interesting to see if that arrangement turns up anywhere
else. They have fastened the rail, plate and sleeper together with
the screw spike that is on the outside of each rail opposite the inner dogspike.

With the Hercules shot, possibly using up some short lengths of rail?
I note that the spiking appears to be of the two outer and one inner
method that they use when there is a heavier load that may cause
rail creep. They also appear to have put the outside spikes on
either side of the strap style fishplate. That may be another
attempt to stop rail creep. The NSWGR had flanged fishplates
with notches on the flanges for driving the spike through for
that very purpose.

Winston Churchill shot. Probably new leads. I don't know if they
design and build this stuff in-house or not but it is a hell of a lot
faster and easier to assemble a lead with plates with pre-set clip mounts.
Especially with a volunteer labour force.
As long as you set the plates out properly, in the right order, the gauging and
rail angles of the diverging road should be as designed.
I note there is a bolt that doesn't appear to be attached to anything
going throughout the rail web between the last two sleepers at the
bottom right corner.

Clipped track is a pig to model accurately due to the fine nature of the
clip material in scale.

Regards, Matt M.

posted: 28 Dec 2014 14:09

from:

Hayfield
 
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 have a few photos taken 5+ years ago, as they are of stock primarily the shots of the trackwork are not too detailed. Plain sleepers with spikes driven in, sleepers at joins very close together. The sleeper size to rail looks larger than mainline track but that may just be an optical illusion

posted: 28 Dec 2014 21:11

from:

roythebus
 
Aldington Frith, Ashford, Kent - 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
Living close to the RHDR, I'd say their track varies depending where and when it was laid and what they had available at the time. Rail weight and size varies too. The heritage group is still going and may be able to help. I'd suggest a visit to take lots of pics to see just how much everything varies. I'd heard they've recently had some rail from Zimbabwe.

posted: 30 Dec 2014 15:57

from:

TPP
 
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 had another small book arrive today published in 1976

It confirms the details of the original rail and sleepers and goes on to say that in 1970 30lb rail was acquired from the Sierra Leone Railways. This was laid on BR sleepers ( are these 9" x 4.5" ? ) cut in 3 to lengths of 2' 10"

It also refers to the original points which it states had a radius of 125ft or 150ft

There is also a small picture of some steel sleepers on a test section of a mile apparently
Last edited on 30 Dec 2014 15:58 by TPP
posted: 30 Dec 2014 16:01

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
TPP wrote:
This was laid on BR sleepers ( are these 9" x 4.5" ? ) cut in 3 to lengths of 2' 10"
Hi Rob,

BR plain track wooden sleepers are 10" wide and 5" thick.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 30 Dec 2014 16:05

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks Martin

posted: 4 Jan 2015 14:46

from:

roythebus
 
Aldington Frith, Ashford, Kent - 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 must have been the Sierra Leone rail I was thinking of, somewhere hot!

posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:12

from:

TPP
 
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 GuysI am moving along with my idea of building a 15 inch gauge railway in 7mm scale.
This will use 9mm gauge track at 1/43.5 scale
My 'prototype' uses 6.5" wide sleepers ( 36 " long on the straights ) and on the straight is spaced 27" between centres.
My first turnout will be a 1 in 6 based on one of the N gauge ones in Templot
I then set a new 'gauge' based on 7mm scale and N gauge standards ( taken from the templot details for N gauge ) for Flangeways
I will be using flat bottom rail so I set the rail width to a size that prints out to the 1.4mm base of my chosen rail
This is what I have so far - this is supposed to be a 1 in 6 - I obviously have done something wrong as it looks very different to the standard N gauge one I printed out
undefinedundefined
undefinedundefined
The timbering looks half sensible as far as spacing goes but I have overlapped sleepers in the middle and the bottoms of the sleepers dont line up - which I am used to seeing - looks very odd
Also the checkrails are obviously totally wrong too
All very frustrating as this is obviously a very clever piece of software that is showing all too well that I am not very clever at all 


posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:13

from:

TPP
 
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
Ok let me try those pictures again ...
undefinedundefined

undefinedundefined

posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:14

from:

TPP
 
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 suppose I could go for 00 and Hornby Setrack instead

Attachment: attach_2041_2594_s_09_1in6_timbering.jpg     425
Last edited on 26 Jan 2015 10:18 by TPP
posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:19

from:

TPP
 
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
Second image here 
Attachment: attach_2043_2594_s_09_1in6.jpg     294

posted: 26 Jan 2015 10:22

from:

TPP
 
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
emplate generated at 10:21:23 on 26/01/2015 using Templot v:2.11.bscale = 7.0 mm/ft     scale ratio = 1:43.54track gauge = 9.0    flangeway gap = 0.85template: straightrail head and foot (flatbottom): rails vertical------------LH turnout: 9 ft.  straight heel left-hand switch (unjoggled)1 in 6.00 RAM ( 1 in 6.04 CLM ) regular V-crossingsquare-on timbering------------adjacent track centres main side = 25.0adjacent track centres turnout side = 25.0angle at TXP crossover mid-point (CTRL-5) = 9.46 degrees ( 1 in 6.0 RAM )angle at TVJP turnout road vee joint (CTRL-6) = 9.46 degrees ( 1 in 6.0 RAM )------------overall length = 261.7approach/exit track in  15" 26 foot panel ( rail length = 180.86 ):approach track length = 0exit track length = 23.26 ( 0 full rail lengths + 2 sleepers in 12.86 % of a rail length )
turnout-road centre-line radius (at turnout-curve) = 362.48
nominal switch-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 2419.2 (straight switch)turnout-curve radius (rail gauge-face) = 366.98switch-curve radial centre: X = [ -4162745.59]  Y = 99908314.26 (from CTRL-0)turnout-curve radial centre: X = 85.64  Y = 364.79 (from CTRL-0)V-crossing entry-straight (curve-end to fine-point) = 10.2
switch front (rail-joint to switch-toe) = 37.92virtual lead (switch-toe to fine-point) = 118.25actual lead (switch-toe to blunt nose) = 120.91blunt nose to timber A = 2.33width of blunt nose = 0.44
wing rail reach length (main-side) = 28.0wing rail reach length (turnout-side) = 28.0check rail overall length (main-side) = 91.0check rail overall length (turnout-side) = 91.0------------smallest radius on this template = 362 mm ( 14.3 " )total angular swing on this template = 0 degrees (in main road)------------nominal gauge :   custom-b    custom settings (b)------------template location on trackpad :
rotation :  X = 0   Y = 42.0   K = 0 degrees   shift :  X = 0   Y = 0rail-end :  X = 0   Y = 42.0
peg from origin :  X = 0   Y = 46.5   K = 0 degreespeg from notch :  X = 0   Y = 46.5   K = 0 degrees

track centre-line radius at peg = straight ( 3936811.02 " )internal geometrical radius = 656.97 ( 25.86 " )external geometrical radius (substitution radius) = 1651.55 ( 65.02 " )

posted: 26 Jan 2015 12:13

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
TPP wrote:
All very frustrating as this is obviously a very clever piece of software that is showing all too well that I am not very clever at all
I think you have been very clever to get that far, considering that you are doing something which I have never heard of anyone doing before -- modelling a 15" gauge miniature railway in 7mm/ft scale.

Especially from a standing start in Templot. The ability of so many users to throw themselves in at the deepest part of the deep end always amazes me. :)

In a previous post you said:
I am considering modelling something based on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway which is of course a 15" gauge railway. I will be be building in 1:22.5 scale using a model gauge of 16.5mm - probably using Peco code 100 rail.
There were the some posts about the prototype wheel profile and the prototype flangeway gap of 22mm, see:

 topic 2594 - message 17858

Have you now changed to 7mm scale and 9mm gauge?

If so we need to ask the same questions about which wheels you will be using, in order to set a suitable flangeway gap. On the face of it you would do better to adopt the S2 flangeway gap rather than N gauge, see the 2mm Association at:

 http://www.2mm.org.uk

But you can't do that with ordinary N gauge wheels.

I think it will probably be necessary to create a custom switch, rather than using one of the pre-set switches based on standard-gauge practice, and make some adjustments to the crossing. At present your turnout has a very sharp radius concentrated in a short space in the centre.

I will have a look at this for you shortly.
 
regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jan 2015 12:37

from:

TPP
 
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

Thank you so much for your reply

People have done this before - 15" in 7mm scale and they call it 09 ie 9mm gauge but to 0 scale. That said it seems that most of them are simply using Peco 009 trackwork - maybe with a bit of re-spacing on the straights. I would like something a little more prototypical.

I do feel like I am floundering in the deep end :-) , I never did know when to get out and dry off
Yes, after weighing up my various options I have now decided on 7mm scale for this project using 9mm gauge track.

I think I will stay with the normal N gauge standards as the wheels etc wont look too bad bearing in mind they are representing something in 1:43.5 but of course this will also make my life far easier in getting wheels, chassis parts, bogies etc and even the odd N gauge loco chassis to hack about.

I think you are right in saying that me bodging a N gauge turnout could end up looking all wrong. I don't know what seems like a sensible starting place - I thought an A6 ? ( remember though I don't have a clue what I am talking about )

I am trying to be a little generic but am leaning more towards a 'mainline' style layout - Romney Hythe and Dymchurch or Ravenglass and Eskdale but with the odd tighter section too. The biggest loco I would be running would be something like a Graham Farish N gauge Flying Scotsman - this is a good starting place for the RHDR Greenly designed Pacifics

I would be very grateful if you might have the time to help me with this first template - then I could get on and see if I can actually make a decent turnout in this gauge / scale combination.

I have never built any trackwork before so I have plenty to learn yet

Actually I just realised that without templot my project wouldn't even be possible
... Rob

Last edited on 26 Jan 2015 14:36 by TPP
posted: 27 Jan 2015 00:08

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 Rob,

How does this look?

I've guesstimated the likely prototype sizes from previous posts in this topic, and what I can see in the various picture links.

There seems to be two sizes of turnout, this is the smaller one which I think you said was a 7ft switch with 1:8 V-crossing. The V-crossing is generic, but you can change it to regular or curviform as you wish for track planning. The regular version is in the next post. The blunt nose is 1/2".

I set the rail section to match 30lb British Standard flat-bottom rail -- 1.5/8" head, 3" foot, 3.1/8" high.

In 7mm scale that equates to code 72 rail, with head width 0.037" or 0.95mm.

The switch heel offset is a guess at 3.1/4" (2 x rail head) which is conveniently doable with loose heels for your N gauge flangeway (0.85mm).

I set the timber spacing at 23 inches, as this fits conveniently for the 7ft switch. From the photos there appears to be no switch front section.

The check rails seem to be all sorts -- this is a copy of the best photo I can find.

.box file attached below. Over to you to do any timber shoving you think is needed, some of them look a bit short at present. Also the two toe timbers could be extended for the levers.

2_261853_450000001.png2_261853_450000001.png

2_261853_450000000.png2_261853_450000000.png

2_261853_450000002.png2_261853_450000002.png

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2044_2594_rhdr_0n15_for_rob.box     252

posted: 27 Jan 2015 00:29

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
p.s. Rob. Here is the version with a regular V-crossing. It saves a bit of length and is one timber fewer:

2_261927_580000000.png2_261927_580000000.png

File below,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2045_2594_rhdr_0n15_for_rob_regular.box     260

posted: 27 Jan 2015 10:02

from:

TPP
 
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

Those look brilliant - fantastic

I am just off to print those out ( now the phone has at last stopped ringing ) - I have a pile of work to do but I cant wait to see this printed out.

I will reply again once I have print out

THANK YOU

posted: 27 Jan 2015 11:23

from:

TPP
 
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 have now printed those out and these looks really good - so much better than N gauge geometry or the Peco 009.

I have made some test straight panels previously and have been using the Peco code 80 rail and 4mm wide sleepers ( in 1.2mm paxolin ) - I have spaced these at a scale 25.7 " centres.
I have based these dimensions on a combination and in some ways an average of the 3 orininal railways that I am trying to get a flavour of. Ravenglass has been relaid over the many years in many different ways - as has the RH&DR. I also like Duffield Bank and Eaton hall although these are a different flavour as was Blakesley. The Dimensions I have chosen are a compromise between these that looks very plausible. The RHDR original laying is quite unlike anything else and will stick out if try and run other stock on it I fear and I want to avoid this.
What I am trying to do is build the railway that a visitor to those 3 lines would have built after visiting all 3 and comparing the notes from all and using that data to build their own line ( in 1930 - 39 ish )
The rail I am intending to use has a head width of 0.63mm a rail height of 2.03mm and a foot width of 1.39mm ( Peco IL-4 )

Am I right in thinking that for a track building template all I need drawn is the foot ?
The spacing you have chosen for the sleepers looks great and I think I am right in thinking that the spacing in the turnouts would be quite 'correct' if spaced a little closer than my normal straight sections ?

I modified, in templot, the turnouts you did for me to match my 6.85 inch wide sleepers but now of course the nose of the crossing and the ends of the checkrails are now not supported properly
I printed both of the templates out and I can see one is longer than the other as you said but I can't really see why - what is different ?
Thanks again - I think its obvious to all that I couldn't have done this without your help




posted: 27 Jan 2015 12:45

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
TPP wrote:
Thanks again - I think its obvious to all that I couldn't have done this without your help.
Hi Rob,

I think you could. It's best to learn Templot first and a bit about trackwork before jumping in to your actual project. I say this many times but no-one takes the slightest notice. :)

What I am trying to do is build the railway that a visitor to those 3 lines would have built after visiting all 3 and comparing the notes from all and using that data to build their own line ( in 1930 - 39 ish )
It would have been helpful if you had said this from the start. There is little point in trying to copy the RH&DR in detail in that case. For example the check rails in my file don't make much sense starting from scratch. I was trying to copy the actual RH&DR photo.

To create a custom switch there are detailed notes in the program and also at:

  topic 1129 - message 6805

I have made some test straight panels previously and have been using the Peco code 80 rail and 4mm wide sleepers ( in 1.2mm paxolin ) - I have spaced these at a scale 25.7 " centres.
I set the timbers to 9" wide from your info, which scales to 5.25mm. Having them only 4mm wide may look a bit narrow. 25.7" isn't a spacing that occurs naturally on a tape measure. I think 25.3/4" or 26" is more likely.

The rail I am intending to use has a head width of 0.63mm a rail height of 2.03mm and a foot width of 1.39mm ( Peco IL-4 )
That seems a bit small. 0.63mm head width scales to only just over 1" which may look a bit narrow. 25lb/yd rail has a head width of 1.5". The settings are at real > rails > rail section data... menu item.

Am I right in thinking that for a track building template all I need drawn is the foot ?
You obviously haven't tried trackbuilding yet? :) You need the rail head shown so that you can correctly position the nose of the vee and other details. There isn't an option in Templot to draw the rail foot without the rail head.

The spacing you have chosen for the sleepers looks great and I think I am right in thinking that the spacing in the turnouts would be quite 'correct' if spaced a little closer than my normal straight sections ?
There isn't a "correct" spacing for a fictional design. Generally timber spacings in turnouts are the same as, or slightly closer than, plain track sleepers. Also the spacing in a turnout isn't usually constant throughout, frequently timbers are placed as close to the rail joints as possible.

I modified, in Templot, the turnouts you did for me to match my 6.85 inch wide sleepers but now of course the nose of the crossing and the ends of the checkrails are now not supported properly
No timber yard is likely to have supplied timbers 6.85" wide. Make them 7" or 6.1/2" to make sense. Enter the sizes at real > timbering > timbering data... menu item.

Generally it's best to design using sensible prototype sizes, even if you have to compromise at the construction stage to use available materials.

The size and position of the blunt nose is entered at real > V-crossing options > customize V-crossing > blunt nose... menu item. This is actually the starting point in any custom template design, because it affects everything else.

I printed both of the templates out and I can see one is longer than the other as you said but I can't really see why - what is different ?
The longer one has a generic type of V-crossing. The shorter one has a regular type of V-crossing. This is set at real > V-crossing options > menu items. The effect of the entry-straight in a regular crossing reduces the turnout lead length. The length of the entry straight can be adjusted by mouse action if desired to fix a specific lead length. A generic crossing is in effect one with an entry straight of zero. For more explanation of crossing types see:

 http://www.templot.com/martweb/gs_realtrack.htm#xing_types

but note that a "curved" crossing is now called curviform (name change only).

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Jan 2015 13:09

from:

TPP
 
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
Thanks for the detailed reply - even if now I feel more than a little bit guilty. You have gone to the trouble of producing the template for me and I didn't make it clear that I had changed some dimensions as per post #44. I can see now I didn't make it clear - especially as two threads have now merged into one ( which of course makes sense ) - sorry :-(

I used those dimensions to reflect the materials I would use on the model and what would be sensible when making my jig for straight rail. I can get 4mm sleeper material so I chose 6.85 rather than 7" - Anyway the estate carpenter will get the mill to cut exactly what I ask for if they want to keep their cottage.

I think now you have gone to the effort of producing those templates for me I will just change my plans to match that trackwork - I will just buy some more sleeper strip in 5mm rather than the 4mm I have now and space it all to match the pointwork.

These lines were laid in anything between 16lb and 35lb rail ( eskdale was actually laid in 'normal' rail simply regauged on the standard gauge sleepers at first ) - I got my rail information here - the interesting bit re rail profiles is on page 8 - very interesting.

http://o14group.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/O14_track_articles.pdf
Thanks again - now off to reconsider my sleeper material
Last edited on 27 Jan 2015 13:11 by TPP
posted: 24 Mar 2015 12:02

from:

rodney_hills
 
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
Brian Nicholls wrote:

TPP wrote:
Originally the line was laid with second hand 25lb rail that came back after WW1 - it was part American and part Belgian. I can't find the exact spec for that but similar 25lb rail  ...

Hi Rob / Martin,

Ahem!!, I also happen to have found the rail section profile of the RH&DR  25lbs/yd rail from the same source.  See attached PNG image.

All the best,

Hello

Somewhat belatedly....

I have in my possession an offcut of RH&DR FB rail from 1967 which matches the 25lb/yd rail cross section drawing in this posting.
It is about 8" long and has two 5/8" holes 4" apart in the web for bolting a fishplate, the end hole centre being 2" from the rail end.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the RH&DR used (uses?) staggered ("American") rail joints, not lined-up rail joints in both rails as is nomal UK practice.

Regards
Rodney Hills

posted: 15 Apr 2015 21:34

from:

roythebus
 
Aldington Frith, Ashford, Kent - 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 don't recall seeing any staggered joints on the RHDR.



Templot Club > Forums > Baffled beginners > Modelling 15inch gauge RH&DR
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