Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 00:13 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi all, Would one of you kind experts please advise me on timbering for crossovers in adjacent straight parallel tracks as shown in the attached BOX file. I cannot make up my mind if the timbers around the two crossing rails areas, of each crossover, should go right across to, and including, each of the main road sides of the of each of the crossovers (only across two straight roads, not all four I might add). Also if anyone has a photo showing such timbering of this type of formation, that would be very appreciated. At this time I am only interested in the crossovers situated in the four track roads at slightly the right of centre and towards the top of the box file, all other formations are not yet quite ready for finishing, but if anything in other areas is seen to glaringly wrong, I would appreciative your advice. As a point of interest, the proto track work was originally laid by the LNWR and would have followed their procedures. As you will see from the Box file, I have elected to put the tinbers at right angles to the main roads, I think at least that part is correct. Any and all input will be gratefully received. Many thanks in anticipation. Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
| Attachment: attach_977_1370_New_Street_Station_1921_GSNC-CR_492scale_AZ.box 212 | |||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 11:42 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
38_150638_340000000.png Hi BrianI would go for the extended crossing timber option in this case as trying to fit long timbers would be difficult to pack, If your track centers were further apart then standard timbering would be used. The area in the red box covers the area which will have block timbering. The plain sleepers in the adjacent track will the be interlaced with the crossing timbers. HTH Phil |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 12:04 from: Judi R
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Depends on which era you are modelling. In BR days we would never interlace sleepers because it made them impossible to pack. The crossover section would be timbered right across until the turnout timber would have been 11ft, at which point two timbers were installed. Judi |
||
| Last edited on 15 Feb 2011 12:05 by Judi R |
|||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 12:06 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote:I have elected to put the timbers at right angles to the main roads, I think at least that part is correct.Hi Brian, You have the timbers "square-on", but you have the timber ends "centralized". I don't know about specific LNWR practice, but with square-on timbering the timber ends are usually/normally/often set to "main-side ends in-line" -- which certainly looks a lot neater.  real > timbering > timber ends in-line menu option. Templot doesn't make this change automatically for square-on timbers, but perhaps it should? In nearly every case where I see a screenshot showing square-on timbers, the user has the timber ends centralized instead of in-line. That may be by intention of course, but I suspect it's unintended in many cases. More on this subject at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/773 regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 12:25 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, See this topic: topic 812 - message 4872 Do you have the NERA reprint of the LNER 1926 track standards book? It includes several drawings showing timbering layout for crossovers, etc. There were significant differences in timbering practices between companies. The LNER drawings in the above book show only a few long timbers under crossovers. The GWR drawings for "blocked crossing work" show a much greater use of long timbers and heavier timbering layout generally -- see the drawings in David Smith's book. There is also the consideration of timbering style -- whether timbers are "square-on" or skewed ("equalized"). The latter generally allows fewer long timbers to be needed. See this message for more detailed notes about this subject: message 2272 Often in a case such as Len's the most likely arrangement is for a long timber to be skewed slightly, so that it comes under the correct crossing chair positions for both turnouts. Placing short timbers end-to-end, or long timbers side-by-side makes it much more difficult for them to be packed and tamped. Skewing timbers is called "twist" in Templot's shove timber functions, using the twist mouse action or the cw and acw buttons -- which rotate the selected timber by 1 degree of angle for each click, or each press on the C and A keys. For the LNER book, NERA is at: http://www.ner.org.uk The publications list is at: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/m.h.ellison/nera/saleslst.htm Scroll down to Diagram Books -- Standard Railway Equipment, Permanent Way, 1926. They also have the NER 1912 track standards book. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 13:41 from: mike47j click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Perhaps its worth contacting the London and North Western Railway Society. http://www.lnwrs.org.uk/Modelling/guide04.php Mike Johnson |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 16:04 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Phil, Many thanks for your response and input. It’s a bit of a minefield this timbering lark, I find this the most difficult part of any track design, it’s not the Templot shoving timbers operations that bothers me, it’s the how and where do the timbers fit in to try to meet proto standards. (Oh! for a time machine to be able to travel back and look at the site as was). Regarding wider track centres, for this four road formation, I had to make a small concession due to the fact that in following exactly the drawn plan rail lines, I found that the tracks where just a tad to close together and were contravening the minimum adjacent track centre dimensions. So I had to start at the centre of the roadways and space each road apart to the correct minimum adjacent track centre dimension. This resulted in the tracks being a little off centre to the drawing (it was only a millimetre or so) and also meant that I had to shave off 1 – 2 mm from each of the platform running edges at either side of the formation. Therefore to stick as close to the plan a possible it will not be possible to move these tracks further apart, otherwise I will seriously have to move the platforms which would have further serious knock-on effects. Thanks again Phil, your input is very appreciated. All the best, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 16:31 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Judi, Thank you for your response, that is indeed of some help. Just for information, my original intention was to model New Street Station circa 1938, and after considerable research I finally managed to acquire a copy on an old LNWR layout plan of the station dated 1921, and after further research determined that this plan would be valid right up to 1945 when changes were made, mainly due to the blitz during WW2 and the increase in use of lager diesel powered loco’s. At this time I am pressing on with the track design according to the plan, but cannot now make my mind up whether to finally model it for 1938 (LMS), or go for the earlier period of 1921 (LNWR & Midland R), which ever I decide, I know the track layout will be correct as it remained the same throughout. Many thanks again for the input. Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 18:19 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, Thank you for your two responses to my query, they are very much appreciated. As I have stated to Phil O in my response to him on the subject, “I find this the most difficult part of any track design, it’s not the Templot shoving timbers operations that bothers me, it’s the how and where do the timbers fit in to try to meet proto standards”. Clearly a lack of knowledge of the topic on my part.  Martin Wynne wrote: You have the timbers "square-on", but you have the timber ends "centralized". I stand corrected for my terminology regarding the situation of the timbers. Templot doesn't make this change automatically for square-on timbers, but perhaps it should? I think it could be useful if you added another step down menu when one selects for “square-on-timbers”. The step down menu should give to choice of either: 1.) "centralized" 2.) "main-side ends in-line" That would then put the ends exactly where the user wants them, or at least make them think about it (sorry more work for Martin). I did read the yahoo thread and the 85a articles you mentioned, and followed the subsequent threads therein, hence a little more knowledge gained. Unfortunately I do not have copies of any of the books that you mention. I would dearly like to get them so will be shopping around on the sites you have noted. Perhaps if I did have these books in the first instance, I would have a better understanding of the topic and would not have to waste your time and that of others by asking these questions, still, I suppose that’s the way the world turns.  I shall now get back to positioning more track-work on the plan and worry about the timbering a little later on. Thanks again Martin, for your very detailed and most enlightening input, it is very much appreciated.  Kindest regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2011 18:33 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
mike47j wrote: Perhaps its worth contacting the London and North Western Railway Society. Hi Mike, Thanks for the link to the LNWR society, I had forgotten about them. I did contact them around the middle of last year, regarding information about the turntable at New Street, but unfortunately, although I did get a reply from their archivist, they new nothing of the turntable. I did have a quick look at the site and there appears to be some very interesting documents that I may be able to get copies of, will most certainly follow up on this. Many thanks again, Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
| 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. |