Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 20 Feb 2011 17:21 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
In his report on behalf of the Board of Trade into an accident on the Metropolitan widened lines in 1892, Major-General Hutchinson gives the dimensions of the sleepers as 10' x 10" x 5" with some (presumably those either side of rail joints) as 10' x 12" x 6". See p.38: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_FarringdonStreetKingsCross1892.pdf I've not seen reference to 10' sleepers on normal track in any period of railway history. How likely is this to be the true length, or is it more likely to be a mistake? Adrian |
||
|
posted: 20 Feb 2011 17:45 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Adrian Marks wrote:I've not seen reference to 10' sleepers on normal track in any period of railway history. How likely is this to be the true length, or is it more likely to be a mistake?Hi Adrian, Presumably that's why they were called "Widened Lines"?  In the absence of any confirming evidence, I would be inclined to regard it as a mistake. An extra foot on every sleeper is an awful lot of unnecessary timber to pay for. There must be some photographs of these tracks from which we could compare dimensions? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Feb 2011 21:44 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
And there was me thinking it was Brunel's influence...  It is a strange dimension, and one I'm very close to dismissing as having been given, transcribed or printed in error. Tratman (ASCE Transactions 388 vol. xviii, June 1888), mentions the usual 8' 11" and 9' lengths, as well as an 8' 6", but no 10' lengths. However, Tratman's work encompassed only a small percentage of the Railway Companies of the period, and the Metropolitan was not one of them. Other evidence indicates that the Met. lines proper used 8' 11" sleepers so it would seem odd that its widened lines would be any different. I'm just loathe to dismiss it completely without having exhausted all possible avenues. Trying to find photos taken in 1890s/1900s which corroborate or otherwise has been a task in itself, and that's not for the want of trying. Where I've located photos of the contemporary period, very little data of the PW can be extrapolated. Most books and articles on the subject (and I've read quite a few now!) have plenty of photographs of later periods. There's a photo taken in the vicinity of Ray Street gridiron in 1915 which appears to show 9' sleepers, but it's unlikely the sleepers of the early 1890s were still in situ then as the area was prone to serious flooding. Although I don't know the life expectancy of sleepers on the line, contemporary engineers were estimating between an average of ten years on the GNR to an average of sixteen years on the L&Y (Tratman, ibid), both of which had well-drained formations. |
||
|
posted: 20 Feb 2011 22:39 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Adrian Marks wrote: mentions the usual 8' 11" and 9' lengths, as well as an 8' 6", but no 10' lengths.Hi Adrian, I have some drawings showing 8ft-11in sleepers and I have read the usual explanations about import duty on 9ft timber. But I've never found any documentary evidence for this strange tax -- do you have any sources? My feeling is that the sleepers were intended to be 9ft nominal as rising, and quoted as "8ft-11in minimum" in specs and supply contracts to allow for the usual cutting tolerance at the mill and also the saw kerf. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 21 Feb 2011 13:43 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've also been unable to find any documentary evidence for this import duty breakpoint of 9'. It may be true, or it may be one of those suppositions that once appeared in print, has since gone viral and is now taken as gospel. Tratman's monologue (the research for which was conducted by written correspondence with the engineers of several railways) states specific lengths: 8' 11" GNR, 9' L&Y, 8' 11" M&GWR(I), 8' 11" GNR(I), 8' 6" WR&GR, 9' GS&WR(I), 9 IoWR. However, an article in The Engineer in 1883 states 8' 11" for the GER, but Tratman (and later Allen in 1915) both state 9'. Anyway, back to the 10' query, someone over on the Trackwork Yahoo group has suggested the SECR used 10' sleepers - more BoT reports to chase up... |
||
|
posted: 21 Feb 2011 22:57 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Adrian, Have you looked at "Metropolitan Railway Rolling Stock" by James Snowdon (Wild Swan)? On Pg 2 there is a photo of a train bound for Verney Jn.taken in a rural part of the Met at the turn of the (20th)century. There are 8 sleepers/rail length with the chairs on either side of the fishplates apparently touching them. Somewhat oddly there does not appear to be much/any ballast between these pairs of sleepers and their ends are generally exposed, unlike intermediate sleepers. It is a 3/4 view of a train and I would not like to hazard a guess as to the length of the sleepers. Opposite page 1 there is a picture of Neasden Works with some wagons being shunted over what looks like old track. I don't know if this would be of any help. John |
||
|
posted: 21 Feb 2011 23:26 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John Yes, Graham Beare and I have studied the photos in Jim's book, as well as those available online at the London Transport Museum and Railway Archive. Graham has trawled through far more photographs of the Metropolitan Railway's PW than I, and his conclusions are that some (but not all) of the Metropolitan's rural surface lines had 8 sleepers per 24' rail, and we know for certain (from the HMRS) that the specifications for the Aylesbury extension of 1892 was for 9 per 24' rail. The sleepers here were 8' 11", as were the original Metropolitan lines in the City during this period. It's just this section of the widened lines in this period which has (possibly) thrown a spanner in the works; that the SECR used 10' sleepers, and the LCDR (and therefore later the SECR) had running powers over this stretch of line adds to the uncertainty. In passing, Graham has also identified many instances where the chairs are not tight to the fishplates, and where we've been able to measure it, sleeper spacing appears to be somewhat inconsistent. All in all it's rather perplexing, but an interesting challenge! |
||
|
posted: 24 Feb 2011 13:35 from: roythebus
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I put a link to this page on the District Dave website and the following answer so far: http://districtdave.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=History&action=display&thread=15941&page=1 |
||
|
posted: 24 Feb 2011 20:17 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Interestingly there's a guy who's building a Scale 7 model based on the Widened Lines just before the turn of the 20th century, the layout going under the name of Basilica Fields and his latest post is all about the Metropolitan Railway permanent way at that time. If you follow the following link, you'll find some interesting information on the subject. http://basilicafields.wordpress.com Regards, Dave |
||
|
posted: 24 Feb 2011 20:26 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
roythebus wrote: I put a link to this page on the District Dave website and the following answer so far:Where the sole reply so far says: The only thing I can think of is that they were to accommodate the GWR broad gauge despite the fact that only the original Metropolitan lines were broad/dual lines. Ironically perhaps the report is dated 1892, the last year of the broad gauge.And the GWR ripped up the broad gauge on the Metropolitan many years earlier in 1869. Adrian |
||
|
posted: 24 Feb 2011 20:39 from: Adrian Marks click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
David Yates wrote: Interestingly there's a guy who's building a Scale 7 model based on the Widened Lines just before the turn of the 20th century, the layout going under the name of Basilica Fields and his latest post is all about the Metropolitan Railway permanent wayat that time. If you follow the following link, you'll find some interesting information on the subject. That will be me then... That post was written by Graham Beare who has offered to build and document the building of the track, but just as he was drafting that post, a BoT report threw up the 10' sleeper curveball on the Widened Lines hence the OP. |
||
| Last edited on 24 Feb 2011 20:40 by Adrian Marks |
|||
|
posted: 24 Feb 2011 20:50 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
For more on Basilica Fields see http://basilicafields.wordpress.com/ |
||
|
posted: 9 Mar 2011 21:59 from: Emma Haywood
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Out of curiosity I was wondering if this puzzle has been solved? Although I am also modelling the Widened Lines in S7 my layout is a bit later (late 1920's early 1930's) and a bit further east of the accident (Aldersgate to Moorgate) Emma |
||
|
posted: 11 Mar 2011 14:08 from: phileakins
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Ok, it's confession time. The SECR 10ft idea apparently came from me  on an RM Web thread a while ago. For the record, I can find nothing in my notes other than references to 8ft 11in to 9ft sleeper lengths. Mea culpa - I've sentenced myself to the penance of re-building all my S7 pointwork, only this time I'll do it properly! Phil |
||
| 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. |