Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 1892LNER 1930s crossover - rail lengths and timbering
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 30 Mar 2012 10:02

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This is perhaps a little esoteric, but perhaps one of you may have some info.
In templot we can set rail lengths to produce standard panels of plain track. We can specify switch lengths and crossings corresponding to REA and some pre-REA specs, but can we specify the rail length used to make up a turnout?
The straight stockrails of the C9's I'm making a crossover from appear to arrive with a joint approximately along with the joint for the switches and another a scale 60' further along the exit road. What would the lengths of blank rail supplied to a P-way yard/manufacturer be? I know 30'/45'/60' is a common measurement for plain track panels, but in what lengths was fresh plain rail supplied? (no bonus points for saying P4exactoL Stores say 0.5m through the post or 1.0m at shows!)

I'm trying to replicate an LNER 1930's spec crossover using the dimensions supplied by the NERA reproduction of the LNER P-way standards book. Templot turns out a respectable version of this with the timbers sized and shuffled about, but when I try to stitch it into plain track it gets complicated with overlaps. The prototype, though dead straight, is complicated by one road being in 30' panels and one in 45' panels. I've tried laying a closure panel to the more modern spec to joint into the 30' road but it does not make a great deal of difference to the overlaps between timbers and sleepers in the six-foot. Would the real thing have coped with this through moving the exit road joint away from the crossing nose and would the plain rail used have been in 45' or 60' lengths.

Cheers all
Steve

posted: 30 Mar 2012 12:55

from:

JFS
 
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 Steve,

Can you post a box file for us to see the issue please?

Regards,

Howard.

posted: 30 Mar 2012 15:00

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
ESJAYTEE wrote:
What would the lengths of blank rail supplied to a P-way yard/manufacturer be? I know 30'/45'/60' is a common measurement for plain track panels, but in what lengths was fresh plain rail supplied?
Hi Steve,

The normal contract with the rolling mill would be for rails to be supplied ready cut to say 60ft lengths, and also some batches of "short rails" (59ft-9in) for use on the inside of curves.

The contract would allow for a certain percentage of "shorts" from offcuts and where defects have been cut out. These would most likely go to the switch and crossing shop. I think it is unlikely that you would find any rail in pointwork longer than the current standard panel length.

On the other side of the pond the standard rail length was 33ft, and the common American switch sizes are 11ft, 16ft-6in, 22ft -- i.e. switch rails obtained by cutting a standard rail into halves and thirds.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 30 Mar 2012 17:02

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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 Howard,
hopefully this will prove straight forward and its just a case of me being thick.
The attached boxfile should have 4 templates in. Two are the turnouts (12A-C9 and 12B-C9)that form the trailing crossover and the other two are sections of approach track. With everything visible the upper track is the UP and is nominally in 30' panels while the lower is the Down and is in 45' panels.
The conflicts are:

"UpStraight to 12A" (A5-A8) with "12B-C9" (T13-T16)
"DownStraight to12B" (A30-A36) with "12A-C9" (T12-T16, X1,X2)

My untrained eye says that I could move the joint between plain line and point away from the crossing nose or widen the bed under that joint and carry the sleepering on interlaced with the opposing timbers.

Does that make sense?

Martin, thanks for throwing a little clarity on the supply situation. I hadn't thought that the standard component measurements could be derived from the standard supplied materials dimensions. Would the mills at one time have suplied in 45' lengths and extended as production techniques improved or was 60' production something derived from some ancient standard - like standard guage being 4'8.5" due to the track of cartwheels?

Cheers all
Steve
Attachment: attach_1401_1892_BL-12AB_turnouts_plus_exits.box 315

posted: 31 Mar 2012 20:41

from:

JFS
 
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 Steve,

I don't think that you need to change any rail lengths - my understanding is that vees were generally made a standard length for ease of replacement. So the issue is one of how to timber. There are about a million ways of timbering crossovers and all of them more or less unsatisfactory!! I think your problem in this case is made worse by the fact that your two points are on bare minimum track centres. This means that you cannot use through timbering as the crossing special chairs do not oppose. I think the most likely solution which the Real Thing would adopt is to push the track centres out by a couple of inches or so until the chairs do oppose and then block timber the whole lot (see box file).
Attachment: attach_1406_1892_HB_Through_Timbering_mod.box 301

posted: 31 Mar 2012 20:42

from:

JFS
 
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
In earlier times, companies seemed reluctant to pay for long timber, so then it was a case of nudging all the timbers to interlace them (see box file) leaving the ganger with an impossible task of keeping it all packed. Between these two extremes, any number of variations is possible. I think a worthwhile tip in these cases is NOT to just use the "default" track centre spacing but to play around until it makes the timbering easier - after all, with a 1:9 crossover, you only need an inch or two to make half a timber's difference.

Good Luck,

H.
Attachment: attach_1407_1892_HB_Timbering_mod.box 278

posted: 31 Mar 2012 20:58

from:

JFS
 
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
ESJAYTEE wrote:
Would the mills at one time have suplied in 45' lengths and extended as production techniques improved


Yes - 60' of rail takes a lot of handling when red hot and there was a limit to the weight of good quality raw stock which could be heated for rolling. Even today, I understand that rail is only rolled in 120' lengths and then flash-butt welded to make CWR.


H

posted: 3 Apr 2012 09:39

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
Howard,
thanks for looking at thoseso quickly - I've been working away so feel a bit quilty that you've taken time and I'm only just getting back to this. Anyway I've downloaded and will have a looksee at elevenses.
I will however without looking go with your theory of expanding the six-foot measurement. To the west of this crossover the rodding run ran down the six foot so I can expand to suit timbering. I'd only gone with the minimum since it matched the 1:500 OS (rescaled to match P4) almost perfectly.
Cheers
Steve

posted: 23 Aug 2012 18:34

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
evening all,
having had a slack day, and after talking to Tony Wilkins at the weekend, the momentum gained from Howard's talk at NAG the other week has hopefully paid of.......

Here's my attempt to make this work. I've increased the width of the 6' by 6" to allow for the rodding stools in ash and for the curve to the right (east) of this. Timbering and chair arrangement has been applied following the LNER p-way guidelines.


Attachment: attach_1481_1892_Bl_12xo_Print.box 292

posted: 23 Aug 2012 20:54

from:

JFS
 
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
Steve,

Quick question are you sure that the two timbers at the heel end of each point should be 10" wide? It looks a bit strange - being used to these being 12"

Best Wishes,

Howard.

posted: 24 Aug 2012 07:38

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
Howard,
well spotted .... I'd sort of unconsciously spotted it in so far as the construction template has 12" timbers sat on it at the moment, but I'll amend the file accordingly. The only thing left now is to determine whether the detectors require extended timbers and to "lower" "S1" to take a soleplate, then its filing time.

Martin - as a constructional question piece (as this is about to become) should carry on here, would you liek ot move the thread or should i begin a fresh thread?

Cheers
Steve

posted: 24 Aug 2012 08:16

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
ESJAYTEE wrote:
Martin - as a constructional question piece (as this is about to become) should carry on here, would you like to move the thread or should I begin a fresh thread?
Hi Steve,

Thanks for asking.

We don't bother too much about the forum headings here -- which probably means I have set them up wrong. :)

But if this will be mainly constructional, I will move it now to "Trackbuilding topics" and change the title, so you can carry on from where you are.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Aug 2012 23:55

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
ESJAYTEE wrote:
evening all,
having had a slack day, and after talking to Tony Wilkins at the weekend, the momentum gained from Howard's talk at NAG the other week has hopefully paid of.......

Here's my attempt to make this work. I've increased the width of the 6' by 6" to allow for the rodding stools in ash and for the curve to the right (east) of this. Timbering and chair arrangement has been applied following the LNER p-way guidelines.


Hi Steve.
I have been having a look at your box file. The track spacing for the turnouts is still set at 44.67 mm which is standard spacing. Having studied LNER / ER track pictures for researching my prospective layout I think the timbering would have been done as in the attached box file. The usual practice appears to be that Crossing timbers were only used as far as the special crossing chairs went and for a 1 in 9 crossing there were three after the wing rails. Any adjustments to allow timbering to fit would have been made to the adjacent plain track panels even if this meant adding an extra sleeper, but as Howard has already mentioned, there are many and varied solutions.
Tony.
Attachment: attach_1482_1892_LNER_crossover.box 284

posted: 27 Aug 2012 09:21

from:

JFS
 
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 Tony,

What would the chairing arrangements be with this form of timbering? Since both vees are fully supported on the special chairs, there would seem to be no need for the timbers to extend to support the non-existant stock rails beyond the check rails.

Best wishes,

Howard.

posted: 27 Aug 2012 09:26

from:

JFS
 
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
oop.s hit the button to soon...
And therefore I would have thought the timbering would have been as per the attached.

Attachment: attach_1483_1892_Steve's_crossover_2.box 262

posted: 27 Aug 2012 17:30

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
Hello Howard.
A very good question, especially with the timbers next to the crossing vee which serve no useful purpose. My only excuse is that it was late in the evening when I looked at it and I should have given it more thought. I think three consecutive non through timbers in the 4 foot is pushing it a bit and offer this solution. The full length timbers would have a standard chair on the crossover vee rail to hold things to gauge.
Tony.
Attachment: attach_1484_1892_LNER_crossover_2.box 258
Last edited on 27 Aug 2012 17:34 by Tony W
posted: 28 Aug 2012 11:07

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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 Howard and Tony for looking at this stage of the guesswork puzzle. I've gone back to basics and have started again making sure the ^' is set to 46.83 (allowing an extra 6' in there). I'll look at this figure again later on since I've been re-examining the prototype pics of the next crossover east which has revealed that between the two crossovers remained 30' track panels in ash ballast with a 6' wide enough to leave about 3' between the sleeper ends (8'6") sleepers. Examination of a pic of a crossover at Lartington which performed a similar function reveals that my previous guessed dimensions (C-9) may possibly be generous and may yet be reduced (any millimetres I can gain back in the overall length are very welcome).
Any way I'll post up some background info and pics later on.
Cheers All
Steve

posted: 22 Sep 2012 07:54

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
After another little delay (who invented working for a living?), here's another version.
I went back and started the whole scheme from scratch dong it to the original pre 1927 layout first and then incorporating the later changes so that hopefully the panel spacings are something like right (shows how little there was there, if thats the sort of detail I'm looking for). This has given  the attached version. I've put over-length timbers for the detectors but as yet have not worked out the wire run for the controlling signals so the timber lengths are abstract to be cut down to suit (they match the next point east which is double detected for two signals). thinking about it, since there is a signalled move from in rear of this crossover that then goes through another set of facing points (double detected) would the wire run for these signals go through detectors for both sets of switches? It would make sense but would it introduce to much drag into the wire run? It is a little abstract for a track forum, but it does influence track appearance.

Thanks again all for taking a look.
Steve
Attachment: attach_1506_1892_Bl_12xo_c10_wide_6foot_short_timbering_v1.box 213

posted: 22 Sep 2012 08:23

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I think the timbers under the crossover track between the turnouts should be full length, there is insufficient support for traffic crossing over at that point; might even cause spreading of the track.
Regards
Raymond

posted: 22 Sep 2012 08:55

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
Raymond, agreed it looks a bit odd, but it is to spec for a short timbered crossing as per the LNER P-way handbook of 1926. I've gone with that at this stage, since thats the spec I had to hand, and also I gather the North-East was traditionaly quite sparing with its use of timber. Does anyone have a spec diagram for full width timbered crossings?
Cheers
Steve

posted: 27 Sep 2012 10:49

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
Morning all,
firstly thanks for your patience along the way. This is simple stuff, but its not my area of expertise so its shuffling tiny steps with a guide dog for me and thanks to all who have offered their thoughts along the way.
Howard - I thought back over what you've said previously and your tone on Tuesday did hint that I seemed to be making an OCD mountain out of a molehill. Anyway... hopefully this is the home run. I went back and looked at what tweaking the 6' slightly would give me and was very surprised to find that 1" extra over the additional 6" allowed for rodding stools in ash in the 6' and any throw on the curve meant templot threw out a perfectly meshed straight c10 crossover first time! I've tweaked some timber lengths to match the handbook and to allow for detection (roughly still to be determined) but hopefully this will work and look right.
Cheers all
Steve
Attachment: attach_1508_1892_Bl_12xo_c10_wide_6foot_std_timbering_v1_construction.box 220

posted: 27 Sep 2012 11:13

from:

JFS
 
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
Hope you did not take it as a personal comment! Rather, just that that the timbering of the crossover might not be THE most significant aspect of your layout and I would not let the finer points stop you picking up tools to make a start!

After all, who will know if you are right or wrong?

Anyway, will have a look-see a bit later...

Best Wishes,

Howard

posted: 27 Sep 2012 15:00

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
no offense taken at all and agreed its not the most important part, I just don't like doing things over and over so if i can "get it down in one take" through planning and understanding then double bonus. Its not stopping me doing other things towards the project, its making me get it right, but sometimes yes the momentum has to gather and a start be made........ so the more prods the better.

Cheers
Steve

posted: 4 Dec 2012 11:59

from:

ESJAYTEE
 
Hinckley - 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
Right, having come up with a more conventional timbering pattern using long timbers interlaced through the crossover I come to another theory question......

Given a trailing crossover from down to up using a pair of C switches and 1:10 crossings (with a slightly expanded six foot) it is easy to determine a chairing pattern for the switches and the crossing (LNER p-way standards book, "Track Design, Mainteneance & Construction"), but what happens when the support of the rail in the crossover passes from being carried on the timbers of one road to the those of the other? Do I chair at every point I can fit an L1 or S1 chair on a timber (regardless of the road from which this timber originates)or do I miss one?

And were crossings cut to a standard length unit or could they vary to make the joints better positioned?
Last edited on 4 Dec 2012 12:02 by ESJAYTEE


Templot Club > Forums > Trackbuilding topics > LNER 1930s crossover - rail lengths and timbering
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