Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 1610Timbering Guidance Needed
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 29 Aug 2011 15:54

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
Hi All,

I need some guidance on the black art of timbering.

I am just about to embark on a mammoth timbering task, have placed most of my track-work in position using un-timbered rails only.

Having just started this task, I find that in many areas there is considerable overlapping of timbers, which clearly need be adjusted by either twisting or backward – forward movements to clear each other, but I am not quite sure how much movement (max twist or backward – forward) the critical timbers such as, A, B, C, D, X, Y & Z can be adjusted (moved).

Can anyone give me some guidance on the maximum movement of these timbers, and does anyone know if there is anything written down about this particular subject ?

I do know in general, T & S timbers can be shoved backwards, forwards and twisted to some considerable degree, although timbers S1 & S2 should not be moved too much, such that they infringe upon the clearance of the switch blades stretcher tie bar.

As to the timbers A, B, C, D, X, Y & Z these can be twisted too a small degree, but am not sure how much forward or backward movement can be tolerated, if any.
The same applies to timbers X, Y & Z.

Hope someone can enlighten me.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 29 Aug 2011 20:50

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 Brian

Each timber needs to support the full base of all the chairs that sit on it, ideally as close to the centre as possible and there should be sufficient space between timbers a good 12" or more ( Pt. Way operatives like at the very least enough room to get their shovel or these days a Kango with packing bit in, less than this leads to extremely bad language) between the timbers to allow them to be packed. In some cases this may be achieved by using a 14" wide timber in place of the usual 12" timber used under S & C. Other than this, in difficult situations there are no real hard and fast rules except that the timber must be packed directly under each chair. I have seen bits chopped off the ends of timbers so that they don't sit on top of each other and gaps down to about 6" with bad language to suit, I have a very good vocabulary when I have had to pack timbers in confined spaces :D.

HTH

Phil

posted: 29 Aug 2011 23:27

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

Hi Phil,

Many thanks for the response to my query.

You have certainly given me some excellent pointers to the gapping between the timbers which make perfect sense, bad language and all. :D

My particular problems are mainly due to Vee & knuckle timbers (and K) of adjacent turnouts and diamond crossings being more or less in line with each other, making it very difficult to clear the directly adjacent timbers.
The amount of twist required for the timbers not to overlap would be quite considerable and may not be achievable, it appears the solution would be to move one or both of the timbers either backwards or forwards to reduce the amount of twist to a more sensible amount.

I think you may have given me a possible solution by increasing the width of these timbers, and then moving both timbers in opposite directions plus some twist in opposite directions allowing the chairs to be fixed slightly off centre of the timbers, this may give me the clearance I need, hopefully without causing any bad language on gapping. :D

As a matter of interest Phil, in your experience, what is the maximum timber width that has been used, bearing in mind that my layout is based on pre-grouping era (1921 LNWR & MR practices) ?

Also still on this subject, what would be the practical maximum length of timbers ?

I’m sure I have seen reference somewhere, to timbers being 28 foot length, but would hate to be the guy that handles them.

Anyhow, many thanks again Phil for the information.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 30 Aug 2011 20:38

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:

As a matter of interest Phil, in your experience, what is the maximum timber width that has been used, bearing in mind that my layout is based on pre-grouping era (1921 LNWR & MR practices) ?

Also still on this subject, what would be the practical maximum length of timbers ?
Hi Brian


I am a GW man myself, but a lot of track work is similar and apart from some minor differences with other companies such as timbering usually being equalized incremental and differing check rails much of the practicalities remain the same.

I do not know of any cases where a wider than 14" timber has been used, but that is not a definitive answer.

As for length where a timber is not long enough I have known them to be lengthened with a scarfe joint at a convenient place where where it will not foul chairs reinforced with a fishplate or two chairscrewed to the timbers.

Wally may have a photo, I will send him an email as he is at the club tonight.

Cheers Phil

posted: 31 Aug 2011 00:31

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
Hi Phil,

Many thanks for the new information.

I’ve been trawling through old Templot postings and found the following message:

topic 720

See third message down by Martin Wynne, this more or less supports what you say, but does also mention much longer lengths.

I also found in one of my files, a note on LNWR timbering, which shows 20ft timbers being used on parallel crossovers, in fact it shows 4 of then (4 x 20ft) on the example illustrated.
Also in the notes it shows the use of 17ft, 18ft & 19ft being used on 3 Way Tandems.

So far I have tried to limit the length to 16ft with interleaving and short part timbering between the individual turnouts and crossings, but may have to use the longer lengths to complete, we will see how it goes.

At least now I know some typical information about LNWR practices which means I can still do the timbering to prototype standards as intended.

I would be interested in seeing a photo of a scarfe joint, if you find one, who knows, I may even model one of those. :D

Anyhow, many thanks again Phil for the further information, you certainly have helped. :thumb:

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.


posted: 31 Aug 2011 19:49

from:

R A Watson
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
undefinedundefined
1505_311445_460000000.jpg1505_311445_460000000.jpg
Brian,

Phil did email me and here is the evidence to prove it.

The scarfing is just carried out by putting the two timbers end to end and and cutting away the top of one and the bottom of the other until they overlap in a simple half joint. Sometimes chair screws are put through the timbers to hold the two together without any reinforcement, but as in this case they have been put through a fish plate to give extra resistance to movement.

1505_311442_420000000.jpg1505_311442_420000000.jpg
   

 
Apologies for the insertion sequence but this is the first time I've loaded picture onto this forum.

I should point out that we were surveying this set uop for retimbering at the time and the finished product is much tidier.

 

Wally 
 


posted: 31 Aug 2011 21:20

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

Hi Wally,

Many thanks for the reply posting and the excellent photo’s.

I must say, it’s most interesting to actually see one of these joints, and being a non railway person (that is in my occupational career, but have been keen on the railway all my life) I did not know that such joints were made due to the fairly large stresses put on the rails, fittings and timbers.

However, when you think about it, since both the timbers should be mounted on a solid firm base (i.e. well packed) then the only movement to worry about is either twist at the joint, or lateral being pulled apart, obviously the fishplate and screws therefore make it a reasonably stable joint for the service it is intended.

Many thanks again Wally for sharing your photo’s and making an interesting subject, it is very appreciated, and it certainly given me food for thought. :thumb:
I did joke to Phil about modelling such a joint, but at the end of the day, it my be viable to do just that !! :D

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 3 Sep 2011 19:55

from:

R A Watson
 
 

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

Hope that helps in the future, but, the following shows just why it is easier to put a small piece in rather than try to slide a complete timber in as a single replacement.

This job was done in just five days with only a small gang of blokes and a  J C B, preserved lines can't afford the machinery the big boys have.

1505_031445_400000000.jpg1505_031445_400000000.jpg


The long timbers are twenty footers!

undefinedundefined
1505_031450_560000000.jpg1505_031450_560000000.jpg


The view from Cranmore signal box showing the result of the weeks "playing".

Wally

 

Ps. the gent in the first photo modelling the latest in P W sartorial excelence is the famed Phil O.   

posted: 3 Sep 2011 21:32

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

Hi Wally,

Many thanks for the latest posting and the additional excellent photo’s.

I must say, you guys certainly get involved with heavy backbreaking work from what I see in the photos.

It’s great to see how these formations are put together, and it certainly gives one insight as to how to tackle our model track-work.
It’s not very often people like me get to see this sort of work, so photos like these can be of tremendous help.

I notice the prominent short piece of timber in the foreground of the second photo has a scarfe joint cut-out unless I’m mistaken.

I shall remember in future, to stick to reasonable length timbers and put short ones in if one can.
My dilemma is, if I have to split timbers across two or more different tracks (roads) of a formation, how often, along the length of the formation, can this can be safely done, and at what positions are they acceptable ?
I always wonder what the limitations are for doing this, in trying to avoid sideways creep, and hence forcing the rails apart !!
Are there any permanent way guidelines for split timbers across two or more tracks ?

Bye the way, when I say split timbers, I am not in this case refering to scarfe jointed timbers, but where you use shorter timbers (two) to go across the width of the formation at a particular point, which would require a much longer, than normal timber to bridge the span.

So that’s what Phil looks like, it’s nice to put a face to emails and message postings, mind you it does look as if he’s had a hard day’s work and needs a good cup of tea (or perhaps something stronger). :D


Many thanks again Wally for sharing your photo’s, it’s nice to see the finished product of an almost completed formation.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 4 Sep 2011 08:12

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:

So that’s what Phil looks like, it’s nice to put a face to emails and message postings, mind you it does look as if he’s had a hard day’s work and needs a good cup of tea (or perhaps something stronger). :D
Something stronger. :D :thumb:

Cheers Phil

posted: 4 Sep 2011 16:18

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
Brian wrote:
Many thanks again Wally for sharing your photo’s, it’s nice to see the finished product of an almost completed formation.


Is it true that under the ballast there is a full size Templot template?:D

posted: 4 Sep 2011 16:27

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

John Lewis wrote:
Is it true that under the ballast there is a full size Templot template?:D


Hi John,

I don’t know about the template for the formation in the photo, but I wouldn’t mind owning the printer that could print out such a template in one.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 4 Sep 2011 16:39

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I don’t know about the template for the formation in the photo, but I wouldn’t mind owning the printer that could print out such a template in one.
Until you needed to buy a new ink cartridge? :)

posted: 4 Sep 2011 18:23

from:

R A Watson
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
One day I might just post photos of the 2inch diameter by 6.5 inch long brass rivets we use, together with the four man operated three phase soldering iron !

Wally
Last edited on 4 Sep 2011 18:24 by R A Watson
posted: 4 Sep 2011 19:09

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
Hi All  Especially Phil and Wally,

Just to add a little more to this subject below is shown the particular problem of timbering I am dealing with at the moment.
I’m using the TDV, maily for the ease at which one can form the Irregular Diamond Crossing templates.

This group has been driving me crackers trying to get the timbers right. :?

But must persevere !! :)

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

1853_041405_130000000.png1853_041405_130000000.png

Please go to the Image Gallery to see full size image

posted: 4 Sep 2011 20:59

from:

Templot User
 
Posted By Email

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi there, I'm having the same problem too.

Sent from my HTC


posted: 4 Sep 2011 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
What's HTC ? :?

May I just mention again this note in every email from Templot Club:
Please use the above link to reply to this message. It is not possible to reply to this message by email.
It takes me a good 5 minutes to intercept such emails, re-format and post them here on a member's behalf. I'm willing to do this only if there is some good reason why it is impossible for you to post messages in the usual way and the email clearly contains your Templot Club user name .

Sorry to hijack Brian's topic.

Martin.

posted: 4 Sep 2011 21:34

from:

R A Watson
 
 

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

Sorry, I do not have the T D V, much too modern for me, but Phil has and can probably help.

Martin,

I believe H T C is make of mobile phone with 3g capabilities, also too modern for me. I have only recently learnt how to put together full size bullhead track.

 

Wally 

 

posted: 4 Sep 2011 23:28

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
R A Watson wrote:
Sorry, I do not have the T D V, much too modern for me, but Phil has and can probably help.
Hi Wally,

Thanks again for your input, I’m sure Phil, being the expert on the subject would solve the problems in a flash. :)

I did not post the box file of the formation because I did not necessarily wish to take up any ones valuable time, but am willing to do so if someone would like to have a go.

I think in general, Templot users and modellers like myself, who have had no real railway experience regarding the permanent way, always find great difficulty in correctly timbering the templates of our design formations.

To put it in a nutshell, I think the main problem is knowing where to put the timbers, and in particular, as I previously mentioned, how much tolerance and movement can the timbers be pushed (or should I say Shoved) out of initial alignment.

One of the main problems I have is knowing how far can I move the particular timbers, since if you consider the proto world, the chairs and fittings usually come in finite sizes and dimensions, so the timbers must be placed in positions to accept correct fitting, and hence functionality, of the chairs.
This, I’m sure, particularly applies to timbers associated with the Vee nose, knuckle and K crossing chairs, where, if the timber is moved too far of line, the chairs won’t fit the timber and the formation would fail.


Fortunately, most of the timbers at the toe of a turnout never seem to give real problems, and the sliding chairs and heel fixings can usually be catered for quite well.

Another particular problem of mine is, as I’ve stated before, where and how do (or can) I fit two timbers in place of a much longer one to avoid very long timbers, I am trying to keep my timbering down to a maximum length of 20ft which, according to an LNWR document I have, is the usual max. length that they used on any of their formations, and I have no other information that states otherwise.

Occasionally, one comes across a particular railway companies drawing of formations showing timbers in position, but it always seems to be that the drawing does not, or cannot represent the specific formation you are making at that time, and you cannot timber as shown in the drawing.  Well that’s life isn’t it. :)

One might argue of course, that we are only modelling the track and the chairs can be fitted anywhere for convenience, but in my book, that’s not what fine scale modelling is, we should strive to follow exactly what was done in the prototypical world, that’s why I am having difficulty with such formations.

Bye the way, a word of advice, one thing I have learned the hard way is, do not initially construct most of your layout with all your templates in rails only form as I did to get the flow right, because when you come to put the timbers in, you find horrendous timber conflicts and most likely have to redo and move some (or many) templates, you should complete a formation before moving on to the next part (just like the proto is done).

Martin,

There is no need to apologise, I appreciate some of our postings cause you more work than we should.
However, on the very point you make about email input, it would also be nice to know who is chipping in on the subject, as it is difficult to address a Mr or Mrs Templot User, particularly if you can give them an answer or advice.


All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 5 Sep 2011 01:14

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:
However, on the very point you make about email input, it would also be nice to know who is chipping in on the subject
Hi Brian,

In that case the email was unsigned. Len Cattley has since put his hand up. :)

See these topics of Len's:

topic 1597

topic 1617

I've written about timbering so many times I don't think I can add much more. There simply isn't a stock answer which fits all situations. However, I think it is quite unlikely that the track geometry would be changed just to get the timbering to fit. For the chairing, maybe. Usually an arrangement can be found which puts wood under all the chair positions, even if it does mean annoying the p.w. gang by putting timbers side by side.

This topic may help:

topic 1109

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Sep 2011 17:15

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 Brian

I would start by putting in the timbers in under the noses of the nose and K crossing first and then extend these to your 20ft max and see how it looks, also try giving the various timbering options ie square to main road equalized incremental etc. to see how they look, if you're still getting grief you're welcome to send me the box, but you may have to wait awhile before you get it back, it will also feature some GW influence if your really lucky. :D

Cheers Phil

posted: 6 Sep 2011 17:59

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
Martin Wynne wrote:
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I don’t know about the template for the formation in the photo, but I wouldn’t mind owning the printer that could print out such a template in one.
Until you needed to buy a new ink cartridge? :)

I find that most liquids for P. Way work come in firkins or multiple's there of and a good gang will see one off in an  evening. :D :thumb:

posted: 6 Sep 2011 20:34

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
Hi Martin,

First apologies for not responding sooner, had a busy day yesterday and today, hardly looked at the PC.

However, many thanks for your message, have looked at the links you suggested, the one at the bottom of the list, seems more involved with track joint breaks than timbering, but never mind every little helps. :)

Regarding me changing the track geometry to fit timbers, the changes would be quite small and subtle, just moving the template along the track line up to a maximum of half a timbering gap (i.e. space between two adjacent timbers), in order to stop a conflict.
The change in turnout road would also be quite small depending upon curvature, fortunately most of the curves at the moment are gentle, and result in a change of less than half a rail width at most.

Having just read Phil O’s following message, I think he has hit the nail on the head by starting at the nose and knuckle first, this is where my problem mainly occurs with this particular formation, this can be seen in Figures 1 below.
Initially, the timbers overlap between the upper turnout Vee and the toe area of the lower turnout going to the right.

If I try to lengthen the upper Vee timbers as shown in Figure 2, these end up at the toe of the lower turnout, being considerably skewed, making it awkward to fit the slider chairs at the toe area, also the lengths of the two timbers would be 20.5ft & 21ft respectively to span the distance. However, it is the twist to the slider chairs that would be the main problem.

I appreciate, that one could “straighten” the two timbers, but you would then have be aware of fouling the stretcher bar and rodding movement of the lower switch.

The crux of the matter here is, can the two upper Vee timbers be moved sideways (forwards or backwards when shoving timbers) some short distance, and by what amount, before you run into trouble with the block chairs not fitting correctly ?

In essence Martin, I agree with what you say there should be some arrangement where all timbers are clear of each other, even if sitting closely side by side to some degree, and in reasonably the correct position for the chairs to fit, but the trick is to find that arrangement.

As I have stated just above, because I, and perhaps others, don’t fully understand the limitations of how much we can shove things around (prototypically speaking), where a seasoned railway person would, then I have trouble in getting the arrangement of timbers right and need some little help in sorting things out.
I am sure I’m not alone in this dilemma.

However, I shall plod on and try different approaches, until I get the formation right.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

Figure 1

1853_061527_180000000.png1853_061527_180000000.png


Figure 2

1853_061528_130000000.png1853_061528_130000000.png



 

posted: 6 Sep 2011 21:01

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

Hi Phil,

Many thanks for the response.

I agree, it is best to start at the Vee nose and get those timbers right, however as I’ve explained to Martin, my real problem is knowing how much the Vee timbers can be moved sideways (forwards or backwards when shoving timbers) some short distance, and by what amount, before you run into trouble with the block chairs not fitting correctly ?

As I have said before, I am also trying to keep the length of timbers down to a max. of 20ft as one of my LNWR documents states.

I thank you most sincerely for your kind offer to take a look at my box file, I will post it with this message, but to be honest, I do not won’t you to waste any of your valuable time on it, as I shall try other ways of solving the problem once I know how much I can alter the positions of the particular timbers.

Once that’s under my belt, I should not have further problems with timbering (I hope, saying it with everything crossed).

Well GWR or not, so long as the job looks right and is right, I don’t mind.

Many thanks again Phil.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_1170_1610_New_Street_Station_1921_509d49_Comp_J.box 243

posted: 6 Sep 2011 21:03

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
Hi Phil,

I thought the P.Way liquids came in “hogsheads” not those small firkins.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.  :D

posted: 6 Sep 2011 21:28

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:
The crux of the matter here is, can the two upper Vee timbers be moved sideways (forwards or backwards when shoving timbers) some short distance, and by what amount, before you run into trouble with the block chairs not fitting correctly ?
Hi Brian,

You can't move the crossing chairs at all. They will fit the rails only in one specific position. But they don't have to be in the middle of the timber. I have seen instances where the corner of a chair is overlapping the edge of the timber and only 3 chair screws have been fitted. A long way from ideal, but if needs must, they must. There is a difference between timbering a station throat where all speeds will be low, and timbering a high-speed junction subject to heavy stresses.

For the check rails and their angled end chairs, they can usually be moved along to wherever the timbers happen to come, provided there is still full checking opposite the knuckle.

For your diagrams, I think I would split those two timbers in the middle, and do most of the remaining timbering of the upper crossing by extending the switch timbers northwards.

If you post a .box file of just those few templates (save group) I will have a go and see how it looks.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Sep 2011 22:22

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:
If you post a .box file of just those few templates (save group) I will have a go and see how it looks.
Hi Martin,

Sorry about the haste, just had a phone call I must deal with urgently, will respond properly to your message shortly.

Please find attached the grouped templates you asked for, and thanks for taking a look at then.

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.
Attachment: attach_1171_1610_New_Street_Station_1921_Sample_1.box 232

posted: 6 Sep 2011 23:16

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 Brian,

Thanks for posting your file. I think I might timber it like this:

2_061807_400000000.png2_061807_400000000.png

Not necessarily right or wrong, just one possible way.

By the way, if you're modelling 1921, using the REA switches is wrong -- they were introduced about 1925 for renewals. You need instead the LNWR chairing data. Which may of course change the relevant positions of the chairs, and so also the timbers.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Sep 2011 01:17

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
Hi Martin,

Whilst drafting a reply to your previous message, I noted your latest with an image of a possible solution to my current problem.

Gosh that looks the business, I like the very tidy manner in which the timbering has been done, is that really my original templates ?

When I looked at them, I could not see where nice neat straight timbers would fit, just shows you how experience counts for a lot.

I also note, that you have managed to maintain my limit of 20ft timbers by using, in several places, short timbers, which split across the crossing road and the two adjacent roads.
This I might add was where I had one of the problems, in determining where such short timbers should be put, and it did surprise me that one of the short timbers is that for the Vee nose chairs, I was under the impression that, that particular timber should fully span both the roads at the Vee nose crossing point.

I will now “fiddle” with the templates here and see if I can match your fine effort, then try a follow that sort of pattern for other templates as I progress further.
Thank you for this Martin, it certainly gives me lots to think about, and has been of tremendous help. :thumb:

Regarding the last point in your latest message, I was not aware that I had used RAE switches, I had been using the older style switches such as, 9ft, 12ft, 15ft straight heel types.
However, this did make me wonder if in fact these were correct for the period, in particular since I’ve noted in past postings, a reference to them as being possibly GWR type switches.

Also on this point, you suggest I need the LNWR chairing data, but can this be found in Templot ?

Now to respond to your detailed reply to my former previous message.

I understand that crossing chairs will only fit rails in certain places, and should not be moved at all, it’s just a question of knowing where those places are for the particular formation. :?

I have, quite recently, received some track drawings from the LNWR society, and am expecting more to arrive shortly.

Of those drawings I have viewed, there are some dimensions noted which give the spacing between the centres of adjacent chairs for various sized and angled crossings. Unfortunately, none as far as I can see, give a datum starting point where the dimensions should be taken from.
Clearly, the dimensions are centred (that’s figuratively speaking not actually having a datum line on the drawings) around the nose of the Vee, but this seems to vary by some amounts depending upon the crossing size and angle.

The somewhat tedious way of placing the chairs for a particular size and angle of crossing plus all the other chairs associated with turnouts and diamonds, would be to follow the drawing and actually measure each chair position in turn using the spacing dimensions detailed on the drawing, but as stated above, there is no datum point from which to work. :(

Now this raises a question in my mind, which you may not wish to get involved with, but since these chairs appear to have, one might say, finite spacing dimensions, you must have put this sort of information in the program for the turnouts and diamonds that we glibly generate, and hence used some datum from where to start.
I can only assume, that the centre lines of the timbers shown when we first call in a template are the prearranged positions of the centre line of the chairs, that is before we start shifting things.

If I am not mistaken, I seem to remember reading somewhere in past postings, that you took this data, for the chair positions and timbers, from the Southern Railway and some from the GWR, but little or none for LNWR.
If this is the case, then it looks as if I have a long haul ahead of me measuring and placing each and every chair and timber for all non plain track templates (the plain track being catered for through the plain track options menu, then selecting rail lengths and sleeper spacings).

I’m sure however, you will have another option available for me in Templot, which I yet need to discover (showing my ignorance again). :)

I agree with your point about the dynamic stresses not being as severer at the throat of the station, where the speed of trains is much slower than that of the faster main running line junctions, in my case for New Street, the throat speed is limited to 10 mph and in the station area it slows to 5 mph for the very curved areas (mainly the Midland side of the station as it was commonly known).

Well, many thanks again Martin for your terrific effort regarding my templates timbering, it is most appreciated and has been of great help. :thumb:

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

 

posted: 7 Sep 2011 03:55

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
Brian Nicholls wrote:
I also note, that you have managed to maintain my limit of 20ft timbers by using, in several places, short timbers, which split across the crossing road and the two adjacent roads.
This I might add was where I had one of the problems, in determining where such short timbers should be put, and it did surprise me that one of the short timbers is that for the Vee nose chairs, I was under the impression that, that particular timber should fully span both the roads at the Vee nose crossing point.
Hi Brian,

Well ideally yes, to ensure no gauge spread at the check rails. But the ideal arrangement often isn't possible. I did retain long timbers at both ends of the check rail. In practice I imagine old fishplates would be chair-screwed across the gaps in the timbers to prevent them spreading and hold the check gauge. Or not. If you are modelling 1921 it's quite likely these tracks were last renewed around 1900 and the only way to know about local p.w. practice at the time is to look at old photos. Bear in mind that in those days there wasn't the same dread of regular maintenance work that we have nowadays, and if something needed regular packing or adjustment, the labour force was available to do it.

Regarding the last point in your latest message, I was not aware that I had used REA switches, I had been using the older style switches such as, 9ft, 12ft, 15ft straight heel types.
Apologies. I had another copy of Templot running at the same time and got confused. Easily done these days. :( You are using old-pattern straight switches, which are the best option in the absence of specific customized LNWR switches.

Also on this point, you suggest I need the LNWR chairing data, but can this be found in Templot ?
Unfortunately no. Even if it was available, there is no way Templot could contain the data for every pre-grouping company. I included the GWR data because I had it available and it is a popular company to model. Templot includes full customizing options for the switches, so the idea is that users create their own company templates from the prototype data. And hopefully share them around other users. :)

Of those drawings I have viewed, there are some dimensions noted which give the spacing between the centres of adjacent chairs for various sized and angled crossings. Unfortunately, none as far as I can see, give a datum starting point where the dimensions should be taken from.

I can't see your drawings, but usually the chair centres start from the blunt nose of the vee. The distance from there to the centre of the A chair is usually given, typically 3", 4" or 5". And then all other chair centres follow on from the A chair. Before any timber shoving takes place the assumption is that the timber will be placed centrally under the chair centres.

There is a mechanism in the shove timbers dialog to set zero on any timber centre, and enter the spacing(s) to the next timber(s) from there. There is a setting in the real menus for the initial blunt nose to A dimension. REA is 4", GWR is 3", later flat-bottom is 5". LNWR is ?

The default in Templot is for REA spacings. That means 4" from the blunt nose and all other crossing timbers spaced at 30" from there.

If you are intending to get every chair and timber in exactly the right position for New Street in 1921 you have a mammoth task ahead of you. :) I doubt that such information could now be fully compiled or ever existed, bearing in mind the piecemeal renewals which would have taken place at various times.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Sep 2011 17:32

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
Hi Martin,

Many thanks for your detailed, or I should say, extremely detailed, explanations to my queries in my last message, but, hey !!, I did not intend that you should stay up until 4 am in the morning to answer them, I finished my posting at 01:17 am, then went straight to bed.
You know, some times it worries me that we cause you an awful lot of extra work, and it would seem, loss of sleep as well, I say, don’t over do it !! :)

Your responses, are just the ticket and exactly what was wanted, whether positive or negative, at least I now know what I need to do in future and have learned a lot more about railway practices. :thumb:


Martin Wynne wrote:
 If you are modelling 1921 it's quite likely these tracks were last renewed around 1900 and the only way to know about local p.w. practice at the time is to look at old photos.

Your not too far out with the date, in actual fact from some sparse records I have, the tracks started being relayed and upgraded in 1895, which was also the time they changed the length of rail to 60ft with 24 sleepers per length, this length was recommended at that time to replace all running tracks, until other changes were made during the LMS days after 1923.. Additionally, in 1905 -1906 the sleepers were changed from using 12” x 6” timber to the, as then, new 12” x 5” timber size, this at least, gives me a fair bit of detail on the plain track sections.

It’s not easy finding older photographs, I am still on the hunt for them, particularly any around the Birmingham area and New Street station, and have just come across a book, called L & NWR WEST MIDLANDS ALBUM which contains 48 pages of early 20th century photos (1902 – 1905), but would like to get many more as detail is sparse for this period, and have the added problem of blitz damage during WW2 which drastically “changed” a lot of the buildings in and around New Street station from that time.


Templot includes full customizing options for the switches, so the idea is that users create their own company templates from the prototype data. And hopefully share them around other users. :)


I must get to grips with this customization for switches and look into it very carefully, and then start producing the correct template patterns. :?

I would be only too happy to share any custom LNWR switches with other users once made, the Scalefour Society has a small variety of custom templates (not known if any are LNWR), that members have made over the years and added to, one might say, a kind of collection, but this source is very limited and only contains types of railway companies that the particular member was modelling at the time. I think they do have plans, or hopes, to extend the collection.

On this point is it possible to make a library up for such customized templates, or will it be a question of putting them in a local (on our own PCs) BOX file and distributing that file, as and when requested by other members, so that individuals can load the box file and then copy out whatever customized templates are in there and however many they like ?
The danger with this latter approach is, if a member who has generated some custom templates, for whatever reason, is no longer in the Templot club, then those custom templates could be lost forever.


There is a mechanism in the shove timbers dialog to set zero on any timber centre, and enter the spacing(s) to the next timber(s) from there. There is a setting in the real menus for the initial blunt nose to A dimension. REA is 4", GWR is 3", later flat-bottom is 5". LNWR is ?


I shall make a very concerted effort to determine what the dimension is for the LNWR Permanent Way.

I have today received a flash drive memory stick from the archivist of the LNWR Society with, it is hoped, more track-work drawings (I’ve not had time to look at it yet), and still have more to come, when I have assessed those on the memory stick.
I am trying to build up a collection, or may be I should say library, of LNWR permanent way track-work practices.
I already have a number of drawings, but these have been badly copied and some of the data is unreadable or missing, however, I am trying to track down the source of these drawings and, hopefully, get replacements.


If you are intending to get every chair and timber in exactly the right position for New Street in 1921 you have a mammoth task ahead of you. :) I doubt that such information could now be fully compiled or ever existed, bearing in mind the piecemeal renewals which would have taken place at various times.



 

As you say Martin, it is indeed a mammoth task, but I must give it, at least a try, and if I can produce the custom templates then, it may not be so daunting. :roll:

Regarding the information (or data), as I have described above, there are drawings out there and a number of copies do exist, but I can understand you sentiment, as I do know, from a NetworkRail archive source, that a lot of LNWR information was lost in the blitz when London (Euston LMS permanent way offices) and Birmingham New Street to say nothing of Crewe, were hit in air raids and records destroyed.
However, I am of the opinion, that we must try and recover what we can for future generations, after all, if palaeontologists can work out what the dinosaurs looked like and did all those millions of years age, what’s a couple centuries regarding the railways. !!

Anyhow Martin, I cannot thank you enough for giving me insight to more railway practices and for that matter, additional Templot guidance, albeit at 4 am in the morning. :thumb:

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

 

posted: 9 Sep 2011 15:02

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 Brian.
Having put my head above the parapet so to speak, I would firstly like to thank you for an interesting thread. I remember talking to the late Derek Genzel (see the S4 digest) about timbering and remarking that it seemed to me to be more of an art than a science. His reply was that in many respects this was the case, as long as the timber spacings were maintained around the crossing and switch areas where the special cast chairs are the rest were less critical as long as the maximum gap between adjacent chairs did not exceed about 2'6". I am not sure the pway dept would condone more than about two non continuous timbers in the 4 foot, and I can guess your response, "well what is your solution then?" I have downloaded your file to see if I can find an alternative solution. I am somewhat busy at the moment, but will post my attempt shortly.
Tony.


posted: 9 Sep 2011 15:31

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
Tony W wrote:
I am not sure the pway dept would condone more than about two non continuous timbers in the 4 foot
Hi Tony,

I agree, but bear in mind this is 1895 p.w. practice in a cramped low-speed station throat. It's very difficult to put yourself in the mind of a p.w. designer at the time. How about if Brian adds a couple of wrought iron tie-rods and a turnbuckle or two? :)

Looking forward to seeing what you can make of it.

p.s. Brian's file is from TDV. If you load it into an earlier version, the diamonds will be in a mess.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 9 Sep 2011 16:51

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 Martin.
Re your PS. Yes, I have just discovered that. Guess I will have to download the TDV to try it. I am afraid that will have to wait till monday. I accept fully your suggestion especially in view of the dearth of good photographic evidence of that time period, although it is remarkable what has come to light these days.
Tony.

posted: 9 Sep 2011 18:51

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
Tony,

If you are talking about the late Victorian era,  the sleeper pitch could be more than 2' 6" in pointwork when the weight of locos and rolling stock was much less.  I have some drawings of Caledonian pointwork from the turn of last century where the pitch can be over 3' 0" in some of the interlaced sleepering.  On plain track the sleepers could also be quite widely pitched which can be checked from photographs when you have a good reference like a wheel of known diameter.

Jim.
Last edited on 9 Sep 2011 18:52 by Jim Guthrie
posted: 9 Sep 2011 21:12

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 Jim.
Yes i'll conceed that one. Early railway history is not something I know a great deal about I must confess. Post grouping things certainly changed and of course Derek's career in Pway would have largely covered the post war period. If anything this should make timbering complex layouts a bit easier as you can allow more room in the victorian era and they certainly liked there complex arrangements. I am also not convince from personal observation that the 2'6" rule was necessarily followed religiously in more modern times either, especially in sidings.
Tony.

posted: 9 Sep 2011 23:48

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

Tony W wrote:
Hi Brian.
Having put my head above the parapet so to speak, I would firstly like to thank you for an interesting thread. I remember talking to the late Derek Genzel (see the S4 digest) about timbering and remarking that it seemed to me to be more of an art than a science. His reply was that in many respects this was the case, as long as the timber spacings were maintained around the crossing and switch areas where the special cast chairs are the rest were less critical as long as the maximum gap between adjacent chairs did not exceed about 2'6". I am not sure the pway dept would condone more than about two non continuous timbers in the 4 foot, and I can guess your response, "well what is your solution then?" I have downloaded your file to see if I can find an alternative solution. I am somewhat busy at the moment, but will post my attempt shortly.
Tony.



Hi Tony,

Sincere apologies for not responding sooner, but have been busy tosay, and only just viewed the club messages.

I take your point about your discussion with the late D Genzel, that is why I referred to timbering as a black art at the start of this topic. :)

As I have said in a previous message, it is a topic that, not only I, but other modellers have problems with so, it’s good to get some serious expert advice and learn more on timbering.

Regarding the next comment that was made, I am striving to produce templates that are as close to the prototype as can be possibly done.
Earlier today I did manage to get a squint at some original LNWR track- work drawings that were sent from the archives of the LNWR Society, when looking at 9ft, 12ft & 16ft turnout drawings, it appears the chair gap distances vary along the formation lengths and in some cases, there are three sequential chairs, i. e. two adjacent gaps which are spaced  at 2ft 6in, however, the next gap either side of the outer chairs are back down to 2.0ft.
There are also a number of different spacing along the lengths, these range from 2.0ft in inch increments up to 2ft 7in and including two of the switch chairs on the 9ft spaced at  2ft 4.1/2ins, most peculiar.

Many thanks Tony for downloading my box file, please don’t break your back over this, but I will appreciate, as will others, a second independent version, although as I stated before, Martins effort was great, very neat and tidy.

Thanks again for your input and, as you say, sticking your head above the parapet. :)

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.

posted: 10 Sep 2011 00:00

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:
How about if Brian adds a couple of wrought iron tie-rods and a turnbuckle or two? :)
Hi Martin,

Funny you should mention that, regarding the LNWR drawings I mentioned in my reply to Tony, all three, the 9ft, 12ft & 16ft turnouts had an extra tie-bar (or stretcher as the drawing states) just in front of the S1 timber across the stock rails.
The drawings also showed, two further stretcher bars at the front tips of the switch blades fixed to the blades between the S1 & S2 timbers (chair positions).

All the best,

Brian Nicholls.



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Timbering Guidance Needed
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