Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 763More modern PW at stechford
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 15 Mar 2009 13:03

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I'm now looking into designing Stechford just along the wcml from Birmingham new street with a handy little junction to Aston and beyond. I've been using the planning portal images in Templot and I've got a plan in there, although it doesn't quite match up consistently along the image, i'm firstly interested to know if I've got the pointwork to a correct size. This will be P4 and I'm looking to create a spot on copy as much as is possible. So it would be nice to work out what the pointwork actually is. Now with FB rail the main station exit to junc crossover that seems to fit the pp plan works at out a CF17. Fantastically long points the crossover itself works out at a little over 4' long. I thought I might not be able to build the layout if the crossover was that big, but I can get a scale model of the section I want to model on a set boards 19' long.

I've added a couple of photos to see if anyone could identify what the pointwork is. Not great photos at the moment, but I'll be going back in the next few days to get some better images from the other platform.  

I'll add a few files here to show you how its going.

Kind regards

Dave
Attachment: attach_515_763_2009_03130075.jpg 1020

posted: 15 Mar 2009 13:06

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here is a slightly closer one, again I should really have gone over to the other platform but I was pushed for time that day.
Attachment: attach_516_763_2009_03130078.jpg 1064

posted: posted: 15 Mar 2009 13:10

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here are the templot box file and the planning portal background image.
Attachment: attach_517_763_p4_stechford_09_03_13_0917_04.box 514

15 Mar 2009 13:10

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here is the ngs file with the pp image. Is there a reason that at certain points zooming in on the templates that the background image distorts or disappears altogether? Only had it happen with this large image. Could it be a file size issue?

Anyway the bgs and box should match up. There are still a few errors in there, the main crossover isn't correctly aligned to nearby track. I've found it difficult to match the pp image the templates correctly. Would the pp images be that accurate anyway for the main track outlines?

 

Kind regards

Dave
Attachment: attach_518_763_p4_stechford_09_03_12_2315_53.bgs 468
Last edited on 15 Mar 2009 13:14 by davelong
posted: 15 Mar 2009 19:26

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 Dave,

You need to upload the map .bmp file in addition to the .bgs file. It's likely to be a large file, so please zip it if possible. The upload limit here is 5MB.

The turnouts look to be modern RT60 inclined 1435mm turnouts on concrete bearers, with UIC60 main rails, UIC60B or UIC54B switch rails, and UIC33 check rails.

These need to be created as custom templates in Templot. For circular-curve turnouts the natural sizes are:

RT60-C switch with 1:8.25 CLM V-crossing
RT60-D switch with 1:9.5 CLM V-crossing
RT60-E switch with 1:12.5 CLM V-crossing
RT60-F switch with 1:15.75 CLM V-crossing
RT60-SG switch with 1:20.25 CLM V-crossing
RT60-G switch with 1:23.5 CLM V-crossing
RT60-H switch with 1:31.25 CLM V-crossing
RT60-J switch with 1:44.5 CLM V-crossing

(Transitioned turnouts are longer.)

I will try to post some more help when I've seen the .bmp file. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 15 Mar 2009 21:28

from:

davelong
 
 

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 info, sorry I forgot they weren't linked. Should be attached.

Dave
Attachment: attach_519_763_ppp.zip 471

posted: 15 Mar 2009 21:31

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This may help, was posted on my rmweb thread

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=67250

posted: 15 Mar 2009 22:46

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
davelong wrote:
This may help, was posted on my rmweb thread

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=67250
Hi Dave,

Those are not the same turnouts. They have been renewed since, although probably on the same alignment.

Those are BS-113A vertical 1432mm turnouts on timbers.

Which date are modelling?

Thanks for uploading the .bmp file.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 15 Mar 2009 23:12

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Um While I've been away that thought crossed my mind that they weren't the same turnouts as I was thinking about how I'd go about building those points.

Really I should be modelling the one in the link with the 310 unit. As the layout period is mainly the first half of the 80s.

Sorry for the confusion.

posted: 16 Mar 2009 00:05

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
Hi Dave,

The Planning Portal map shows the 6ft way track spacing widening in the section passing the branch turnout, and that seems to be confirmed by MS Virtual Earth:

stechford.pngstechford.png

That may be to provide overhang flank clearance on stock coming on/off the branch, or it may be related to the design of the bridge structure below.

Whatever, you haven't included that extra track spacing in the templates. Is that by design or an oversight? The question is -- was it the same at the time of the earlier picture? I've looked at it long and hard, and it is very difficult to say. :?

On balance, I think probably not, based on the extent of the train's shadow. Anyone else willing to hazard an opinion?

p.s. I checked the map sizing and you are spot on. :)  48 pixels per 10 metres on the map, image 2904 pixels wide, scales to 7939.6 mm wide at 4mm/ft.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Mar 2009 10:07

from:

davelong
 
 

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 pointing that out, I hadn't spotted it yet. Its not easy to see from the photos even the current ones. I've been trying to look through all the research I have to see of any mention of the track widening but can't find anything. Unfortunately there seems to be only 1 other photo of the crossover from the early 80s, however its covered in snow!

http://tonyhuntertrains.fotopic.net/p2895088.html

posted: 17 Mar 2009 19:03

from:

davelong
 
 

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:
davelong wrote:
This may help, was posted on my rmweb thread

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=67250
Hi Dave,

Those are not the same turnouts. They have been renewed since, although probably on the same alignment.

Those are BS-113A vertical 1432mm turnouts on timbers.

Which date are modelling?

Thanks for uploading the .bmp file.

regards,

Martin.


Hi

sorry a silly question now. I've looked through the template info in the ones in the box file above and nothing seems to resemble 1432mm at all.

How do I input these in to Templot. What is the 1432mm a reference for?

 

Thanks

Dave

posted: 17 Mar 2009 19:11

from:

Martin Lloyd
 
Middlesbrough - 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
Sorry to interupt this thread, but does 4ft 8 1/2 inches ring any bells?

posted: 17 Mar 2009 19:16

from:

davelong
 
 

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

Martin Lloyd wrote:
Sorry to interupt this thread, but does 4ft 8 1/2 inches ring any bells?

See I told you it was a silly question.

posted: 17 Mar 2009 19:59

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
davelong wrote:
Martin Lloyd wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this thread, but does 4ft 8 1/2 inches ring any bells?
See I told you it was a silly question.

Hi Dave, Martin,

:)

1435mm is 4ft-8.1/2in.

1432mm is 4ft-8.3/8in.

From about 1970 to about 2000 the UK track gauge for renewals was reduced to 1432mm, and a range of turnouts to that gauge with vertical rails was introduced.

In the latest RT60 turnout designs the gauge has now returned to 1435mm, and the turnouts again have rails inclined at 1:20, as in the traditional pre-1970 track.

The vertical 1432mm switches are not directly available in the switch list in Templot, they need to be created as custom switches. I will post some data about that soon.

If you are modelling in P4 you need to decide whether to use18.83mm (1435mm) or 18.79mm (1432mm) track gauge. :) The difference is measurable -- it's about equal to the thickness of greaseproof paper.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Mar 2009 20:15

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I'd known about the difference in gauges between 1in20 canted rail and vertical rail through pointwork, but I'm just not used to seeing fullsize gauge being decribed in mm.

I'm not sure how the track gauges would work for building P4 at 18.79. I've been looking at Colin Craigs website recently but he offers a gauge but that has the 1in20 cant in the gauge. I'd been looking at using his PAN11 cosmetic clips for the pointwork, which should be ok for Vertical pointwork I reckon, being cosmetic.

 

Thanks for the help.

posted: 17 Mar 2009 22:28

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
Martin Wynne wrote:
If you are modelling in P4 you need to decide whether to use18.83mm (1435mm) or 18.79mm (1432mm) track gauge. :) The difference is measurable -- it's about equal to the thickness of greaseproof paper.

But is it visible without a micrometer?

John

posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:35

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Right I've redone some of the trackwork. Still finding it difficult to stick to the planning portal plan. However except for the spacing widening at the junction, (I've stuck to the plan as best as possible) I believe from the linked photo above and from Martin has said, that this wasn't there in the 80s.

I've attached the box file, the shape file and image file are still the same as posted above. On this version I've added a couple of extra sidings to the plan, which aren't on the planning portal maps anymore, but as can be seen on my rmweb research thread were there and used in my time period:  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40122&start=75

So far I've only been able to match the pp plan crossover in Templot with the CF17 turnouts, which work out at a around a scary 4'6". If anyone can let me know if CF17 turnouts are likely to have been used or not please let me know.

I'll also add a few photos of mine below of a few interesting bits of trackwork.

 
Attachment: attach_525_763_p4_stechford_09_03_19_1533_09.box 419
Last edited on 19 Mar 2009 16:46 by davelong
posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:38

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Derelict FB double slip, although the sidings it led to were still are partially BH.

 
Attachment: attach_526_763_fb_slip.jpg 913

posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:39

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
more of that double slip

 
Attachment: attach_527_763_FB_Dslip.jpg 896

posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:40

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Concrete troughing under a disused siding, seems as though it was like this when still in use also:

 
Attachment: attach_528_763_troughingsiding.jpg 894

posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:42

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Another view of the crossover today.

 
Attachment: attach_529_763_cross1long.jpg 897

posted: 19 Mar 2009 16:43

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Last one for now, slightly closer shot of the crossover

 
Attachment: attach_530_763_cross1close.jpg 916

posted: 19 Mar 2009 17:04

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
davelong wrote:
So far I've only been able to match the pp plan crossover in Templot with the CF17 turnouts, which work out at a around a scary 4'6". If anyone can let me know if CF17 turnouts are likely to have been used or not please let me know.
Hi Dave,

Very unlikely. CF switches are natural at 1:20, and the other standard combinations are 12, 13, 14, 16, 18.

A 1:17 crossing would only be used with them if space constraints made it unavoidable.

But those turnouts at:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/download/file.php?id=67250

aren't BS-113A inclined turnouts anyway, so the CA - CF range of FB switches isn't appropriate.

They are almost certainly BS-113A vertical turnouts (pandrol clips are the giveaway, not to mention cast crossings), and as it's a facing running-line crossover they are quite likely to be transitioned turnouts. They need to be created as custom templates in Templot. I have all the data here, and as I mentioned I will post it soon and create them for you to match the PP map.

But at present I'm desperately trying to get a Pug done with Save Preferences implemented as promised. :(  Give me a few days?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 19 Mar 2009 17:23

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
No please take as long as you need, I know your extremely busy at the moment.

Many thanks for explaining again a little further.

Kind regards

Dave

posted: 25 Jun 2009 16:16

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
With thoughts turning to getting started on Stechford I was wondering in relation to the cast crossings, would Andy Reichert's Proto 87 Cast crossings be useable in P4? I know he doesn't advertise above a #12 but a commission maybe, unless anyone knows of anyone willing to create a cast crossing (Mr Lewis?)

I know your still working hard on the updates Martin, if there is anywhere with info regarding the vertical crossings then I could have a bash at it myself. It's hard working with the not so smooth lines of the PP image, and I'm not totally convinced of its accuracy with regarding the layout, but that may just be me. Obviously its missing the extra sidings and pointwork.

 

Kind regards

Dave


Edit may have found the answer, I believe that the proto 87 flangeways work out at 1mm. However mentioned in this old rmweb thread of a 3 piece solder up proto87 crossing which might be too tight for P4? But I can't find reference to it on their website. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4273&p=59642&hilit=+cast+crossings#p59642
Last edited on 25 Jun 2009 17:02 by davelong
posted: 26 Jun 2009 07:52

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
davelong wrote:
Edit may have found the answer, I believe that the proto 87 flangeways work out at 1mm. However mentioned in this old rmweb thread of a 3 piece solder up proto87 crossing which might be too tight for P4? But I can't find reference to it on their website.
Hi Dave,

Try asking Andy on his own support group:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ACCU-TRAK

He has discussed making FB stuff for the UK market on several groups recently.

p.s. The pic in your RMweb link seems to show a US-style rail-bound crossing, not a cast crossing:

homepage.jpg?type=snhomepage.jpg?type=sn

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jun 2009 09:15

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I'll try and join that later. It's hard to tell for me anyway, from the few photos that are available, there's this one from 1989
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3052875660/sizes/o/


As you've had a look through the rmweb, could I ask whether you believe that the mainline tracks through there in the 80s photos are wooden or concrete sleepers?

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40122&start=100

 

Thanks again Martin.

Dave


Last edited on 26 Jun 2009 10:23 by davelong
posted: 26 Jun 2009 09:34

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
davelong wrote:
As you've had a look through the rmweb, could I ask whether you believe that the mainline tracks through there in the 80s photos are wooden or concrete sleepers?
Hi Dave,

Do you mean this picture?

file.php?id=69504file.php?id=69504

I tried zooming in (see below) and I'm fairly sure those are concrete sleepers. Pandrol clips on wooden sleepers require a baseplate and screw fixings -- I can't see any. Also the centre part of of the sleepers seems to be chamfered in the concrete style.

Sorry, your Flickr link appears to be truncated and broken. :( (edit: found your link via your post on RMweb).

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_581_763_stechford_sleepers.jpg 806

posted: 26 Jun 2009 10:30

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I wasn't 100% sure about the pandrols, and looking closer at this image and although the sleepers closest to the platform are in shadow you can make out the chamfer on the sleepers.

(c) Leekman rmweb thread.

file.php?id=67257file.php?id=67257

I've amended the broken flickr link in the above posting, this does look like standard(?) FB frog instead of cast/rail bound crossing or am I mistaken?

 

Thanks again

Dave

posted: 26 Jun 2009 10:40

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
davelong wrote:
I've amended the broken flickr link in the above posting, this does look like standard(?) FB frog instead of cast/rail bound crossing or am I mistaken?
Hi Dave,

Those are cast crossings.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jun 2009 15:02

from:

lippydavies
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
davelong wrote:
With thoughts turning to getting started on Stechford I was wondering in relation to the cast crossings, would Andy Reichert's Proto 87 Cast crossings be useable in P4? I know he doesn't advertise above a #12 but a commission maybe, unless anyone knows of anyone willing to create a cast crossing (Mr Lewis?)

I know your still working hard on the updates Martin, if there is anywhere with info regarding the vertical crossings then I could have a bash at it myself. It's hard working with the not so smooth lines of the PP image, and I'm not totally convinced of its accuracy with regarding the layout, but that may just be me. Obviously its missing the extra sidings and pointwork.

Kind regards

Dave

Edit may have found the answer, I believe that the proto 87 flangeways work out at 1mm. However mentioned in this old rmweb thread of a 3 piece solder up proto87 crossing which might be too tight for P4? But I can't find reference to it on their website. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4273&p=59642&hilit=+cast+crossings#p59642

We have used P87 cast crossings on our EM layout Roundtrees 2

Have a look at these links

http://roundtreessidings.fotopic.net/p50362500.html

http://roundtreessidings.fotopic.net/p50362498.html

http://roundtreessidings.fotopic.net/p57738145.html

They where designed by John H Wright from Washington Tyne & Wear then cast by Dave Alexander (North Shields) for Andy. We bought them from the US to use on our layout based in North Shields!!!

HTH

Lee

posted: 26 Jun 2009 15:28

from:

davelong
 
 

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

The rmweb link in the quote of mine in your post links to a little bit of info about the pointwork you guys are doing on Roundtrees 2, which is where one of your guys mentions that they'll work in EM as the flange is 1mm, too big for me in P4. Unless the guys developing these crossings will do a P4 piece, the other problem I'm facing is the crossings I'll need will be a very high number model wise, I know they're wrong and I shouldn't work from them for this project but using templot standard FB templates I'm up around the 1:17 area. 

So if the guys who designed and cast them live in the NE then it may be a long drawn out process asking Andy for a commision?

 

Thanks guys
Last edited on 26 Jun 2009 15:29 by davelong
posted: 26 Jun 2009 16:08

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
lippydavies wrote:
Have a look at these links

http://roundtreessidings.fotopic.net/p50362500.html
Hi Lee,

That pic appears to show a US-style rail-bound crossing (frog), easily recognised by the row of bolts along the wing rail web, and the "swollen" appearance. Such frogs are made by sandwiching a cast vee insert between wing rails made of standard FB rail section. See:

rail-bound frog   (click the image to see a large hi-res version).

As far as I know, such rail-bound crossings are not used in the UK. The two types of cast crossing used in the UK are centre-block crossings and monobloc crossings. In a centre-block crossing, short lengths of rail are welded onto the casting at the factory to receive the fishplate connections. A monobloc crossing is longer -- the entire thing is a casting and the closure rails are fishplated directly to the legs of the casting.

Here is a monobloc cast crossing (frog), called "boltless" in the US in contradistinction to rail-bound crossings: 

monobloc cast frog   (click the image to see a large hi-res version).

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jun 2009 16:22

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin if it was you, what would you do to make the frogs at Stechford, would you find someone to try and cast a set for you or would you think something along the lines of model it as a standard (model) crossing and say pack the the flangeway gap with some sort of modelling clay or filler?

The one in this photo from flickr doesn't look like the new modern ones like in the high res image that you linked to.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3052875660/sizes/o/

posted: 26 Jun 2009 16:35

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
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
davelong wrote:
Martin if it was you, what would you do to make the frogs at Stechford, would you find someone to try and cast a set for you or would you think something along the lines of model it as a standard (model) crossing and say pack the the flangeway gap with some sort of modelling clay or filler.
Dave,

I believe that a lot of North American modellers build their crossing noses with rail as normal then literally flood the assemblies with solder then clear out the flangeways with something like a hacksaw blade to give running clearances.  This gives a fair representation of a monoblock type of cast crossing nose.

Jim.

posted: 26 Jun 2009 21:55

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
davelong wrote:
Martin if it was you, what would you do to make the frogs at Stechford, would you find someone to try and cast a set for you or would you think something along the lines of model it as a standard (model) crossing and say pack the the flangeway gap with some sort of modelling clay or filler?
Hi Dave,

I think I would make up a conventional crossing from FB rail, and then modify it to look like a casting. The two most noticeable features of a cast crossing are:

1. Solid infill between the vee rails. Should be possible to represent with a solder fillet.

2. The wing rail reach lengths alongside the vee are much thinner than the rails -- the castings don't have unnecessary metal where it's not needed. This can be represented by filing or grinding away the outer rail head on the wing rails.

For the flangeway infill, I would try getting some small nickel-silver strip and filing it to be a sliding fit between the rail webs. Then a little solder cream and a flash with the micro blowtorch should do the job. Take care with 00 or EM to leave sufficient clearance depth for the wheel flanges.

I haven't actually tried any of this, you understand. :)

Here's a diagram showing what I mean:

improvised_cast_crossing.pngimprovised_cast_crossing.png

The one in this photo from flickr doesn't look like the new modern ones like in the high res image that you linked to.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16749798@N08/3052875660/sizes/o/
The very long lens effect makes it very difficult to see the details there. For the 1980s I would guess they are centre-block crossings rather than monobloc.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Jun 2009 08:48

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 Dave,

Here is a data sheet for Corus Cogifer cast centre-block crossings with welded BS113A rail legs:

http://www.coruscogifer.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Corus_Cogifer_Vertex_datasheet.pdf

Some bumf about them is here:

http://www.coruscogifer.com/file_source/StaticFiles/Business%20Units/Corus%20Cogifer/Corus_Cogifer_Manganese_Vertex_Brochure.pdf

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Jun 2009 09:12

from:

davelong
 
 

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 info Martin.

The cast diagram you've made will no doubt come in handy however I construct the frog.

I've been having a closer look at the old and new photos of the crossing, and after talking to Jim SW last night we're sort of under the impression that the new crossing is longer and shallower than the 80s stuff. The current speed limit through the crossing is 40, while in the old photos you can just make out an old yellow 20 limit sign under the signal for the crossing, presuming and only a presumption that the crossing was sharper in my time period, and so the crossing isn't as long as it appears on the current mapping sites or planning portal. Not that I'm wholey convinced by the accuracy of the PP map though.

Jim wondered whether the crossing could be something like a BH6 if thats the correct term, as its hard to tell from the photos even counting the sleepers on the flickr cl50 photo.

 

Kind regards

posted: 27 Jun 2009 09:29

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
davelong wrote:
Jim wondered whether the crossing could be something like a BH6 if thats the correct term, as its hard to tell from the photos even counting the sleepers on the flickr cl50 photo.
Hi Dave,

Not sure what Jim means by BH6. I'm getting a bit confused -- could you provide links to which pictures you mean? It's no good referring to a cl50 because my knowledge of wheeled objects is nil. I've no idea what a cl50 is! :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Jun 2009 09:36

from:

davelong
 
 

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 was a 6H then, thats probably just me confusing you, I meant the flickr image posted above under your templot cast frog image.

posted: 27 Jun 2009 10:12

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
davelong wrote:
Maybe it was a 6H then, that's probably just me confusing you, I meant the flickr image posted above under your Templot cast frog image.
Hi Dave,

That picture is too much compressed by the long lens to get much info from it.

However, this one:

file.php?id=67250file.php?id=67250
© c/o Dave Long

may be suitable for gimping. The timbers in the foreground are distinct enough to pick the spacings from. Gimping might also clear up the mystery of the track spacing. It would be a help if you could tell me something about the wheelbase of the stock in that picture -- it's just possible to see where the wheels touch the rails at the far end of the first vehicle.

6H means the casting spans 6 heel timbers/baseplates (see the first column in the data sheet link I posted earlier). That matches the above picture and would make it a 1:13 crossover.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Jun 2009 10:24

from:

davelong
 
 

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 I'd spotted the H6 on the info sheet, its why I mentioned it. I've been needing an excuse to have a bash at gimp. The 310 dimensions are a little sketchy but the southern pride kit I've got states that the bogie wheelbase in 9' exactly.

Dave

posted: 7 Jul 2009 20:28

from:

m davies
 
 

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

The AM10 DTC has B4 bogies similar to Mk2 coaches, the wheel base is 8' 6", the motor coach however is 9' 0".

Hope that helps

Michael

posted: 27 Jul 2009 09:43

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Although I've been struggling a little with Gimp. I've managed to work out the track spacings from the 1980 OLE diagrams that I've kindly been given by a OLE engineer. Looking at the structure diagrams they have a vast array of measurements on them and one of those are the track centre line spacing figures.

The running lines through the station are exactly 11'2" and continue to be 11'2" until the area around the mast, station side of the rail overbridge towards brum which is where the RH turnout onto the Down Aston line just starts to diverge, this widens only slightly to 11'7", but then the line quickly returns to being 11'2" the other side of the overbridge. 

So Its hard to believe that those 5" would make the track look the way it does on the current mapping sites. There appears to be enough dimensions on the these OLE diagrams to work out very accurately the entire layout, except for working out what size these darn points are.

Dave

posted: 3 Aug 2009 10:37

from:

davelong
 
 

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 recently been given a few more photos of Stechford dating back to the late 1970s, so I'll just add the few that a track related. They're posted with kind permission of Graham Deaves.

 

Another better image of the start of the main crossing, anyone confirm what size/type it is?

629_030525_070000000.jpg629_030525_070000000.jpg


Definately FB on concrete then! 

629_030526_150000000.jpg629_030526_150000000.jpg


Showing the gentle sweeping curve through Stechford. 

629_030527_580000000.jpg629_030527_580000000.jpg

 

The point throw lever is actually what was left of a tandem into the goods sidings.

629_030530_080000000.jpg629_030530_080000000.jpg


There's some pretty derelict looking trackwork still in use there. There are later images showing trains in those left hand sidings.

629_030536_230000000.jpg629_030536_230000000.jpg



 

Dave



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > More modern PW at stechford
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