Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 19 Jan 2012 14:24 from: ChrisO click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
As a new user, I think I'm finally getting to grips with all things Templot; with one exception. Although I understand and have largely figured out the 'shove timber' function and other associated bits, ultimately I've got no idea on prototype sleeper patterns, how they were laid etc. For example, I've created a nice, neat relativey simple straight double junction using B8 crossings, but how were the timbers laid? Should the sleepers go across both points/turnouts in one 'unbroken timber'? Do they remain perpendicular to the points as they go under the diamond, or do they alter to be perpendicular to the diamond itself? I've seen a few photos and delved into a couple of books, but clear images seem hard to come by. Thanks for any assiatance Chris |
||
|
posted: 19 Jan 2012 15:39 from: Les G click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Chris, A fair question; you will find that the arrangements for placing timbers varied with company, time of formation construction, in some cases, who was foreman in charge of laying the section of track. What you need to do depends upon your choices of what you intend to model, and how much historical accuracy you wish to achieve. Most railway historical societies are a good source of accurate information. Those of the NER and GWR in particular. Photographs of the prototype are also a valuable source. Take a look in the REAL Track section of the Tempot Companion for some useful pointers. The bottom line though, is that because it is your train set, [and therefore you are the chief executive, chief designer, and chief operations controller] you can decide for yourself.  Happy research, Les G |
||
| Last edited on 19 Jan 2012 15:41 by Les G |
|||
|
posted: 19 Jan 2012 20:38 from: ChrisO click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thankyou. I'm looking to model the 'BR blue' era: 1970-75ish, around the NW (St.Helens, Wigan etc.) Did BR continue to use LMS methods for sleeper placing?, if indeed the LMS had methods or standards; did any of the 'Big 4' or BR have standards for sleeper placing? Is there a minimum gap? I am aware of prototypical spacings; 24 or 25 per 60ft etc. and have seen the templates produced by the ScaleFour Society in their Digest sheets, but they cover plain track only. I intend to model in P4, and so would like to be as accurate as possible. Apologies for so many questions. I have seen 2 very good photos on 'Flickr', of Ravenhead Junction, St.Helens, which are about the best I've come across yet, but I am unsure as to the consequences of uploading someone else's photos onto the forum. Thanks again Chris |
||
|
posted: 19 Jan 2012 22:30 from: alan@york click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Standard minimum since the late '70's is 28 per length (650mm centres if you prefer metric) - on main lines it has been 30/length or 600mm spacing. Before then 26/length or 700mm spacing was common and there's still a fair amount of it in the track. alan@york |
||
|
posted: 19 Jan 2012 22:33 from: alan@york click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
PS: Try looking at http://mmrs.co.uk/technical/track.html (first published in the DEMU UpDate magazine) |
||
|
posted: 20 Jan 2012 00:09 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Chris. From the 1964 P Way Handbook, for plain Bull Head and Flat Bottom track standard sleeper spacing is 24 per 60ft length however this was increased to 25 where:- 1: Curves of between 40 and 20 chains radius. 2: Where water troughs are fixed. 3: In tunnels over 1/4 mile in length. 4: On soft formations. 26 sleepers were used on curves of less than 20 chains radius which is 5.28 metres or 17.32 ft in 4mm/ft scale, a large radius to most modellers. 28 sleepers are used with continuous welded rail (Flat Bottom) and are generally concrete. To get back to your pointwork question, the spacing of the timbers around the Crossing and Switch areas of turnous are fixed by the special chairs / Base plates required for that particular unit and are with few exceptions set at 2'6". These standard spacings are all preprogrammed into templot and should not altered. It is permissable to adjust the angle of the timber and the length, but not the spacing where the special chairs are positioned. See the Templot companion under prototype track > MISC you will find a list of Crossing angles and how many special chairs are required for for each angle. Outside of these and the switch chairs it is possible to make quite significant adjustments. For a double junction certainly in BR days it was often although not invariably the case that long timbers would be used to span both roads whether they be at 90 degrees to the main road or equalized, indeed, it will often be found easier to timber a double junction with equalized timbering as the timbering of the diamond will always be of this type. It should also be bourne in mind that the nose of the crossing of the inner turnout will be in advance of that on the outer road in order to allow for the track spacing to increase entering the curve. See the example below. Tony. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1321_1793_Double_Junc_EM.box 194 | |||
| Last edited on 20 Jan 2012 00:10 by Tony W |
|||
|
posted: 31 Jan 2012 23:58 from: DM
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Standard Railway Equipment Drawings showing timbering layouts for Bullhead Junctions. The drawings date from the mid 1920's so are good for the Big Four and early BR period. But it would be wise to double check before following them for a GWR / WR layout as they always did things differently. SREDrawing38B.jpg  SREDrawing38C.jpg  |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 17:15 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
As this contribution from DM arrived by e-mail, it included two links to photobucket pages which did not work :-(( Using Opera they did get to Photobucket and included a couple of annoying vibrating advertisements which discouraged me from looking further! |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 18:09 from: John Shelley
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
John Lewis wrote: As this contribution from DM arrived by e-mail, it included two links to photobucket pages which did not work :-((I use Thunderbird and a simple click on the URL worked fine, opened in Firefox - no adds. Copying the URL and pasting into Firefox also works fine and no adds. But I do have Adblock activated in Firefox. 8-)) But there isn't an indication of something being blocked. 8-( Cheers for now John from 33820 St Ciers sur Gironde |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 18:24 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi DM, First thanks for posting the drawings, they will be of great help to many, but is difficult to see all the data. Would it be possible for you to scan the timber layout drawings at a better quality, and say, make them a png file then put them on the image gallery so that they can be viewed at full size and others can then read all the data that they contain. Please ! All the best, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 19:16 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote:Would it be possible for you to scan the timber layout drawings at a better quality, and say, make them a png file then put them on the image gallery so that they can be viewed at full size and others can then read all the data that they contain. Please !Hi Brian, The drawings are from the NERA reprint of the LNER 1926 track drawings book. 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. For the LNER book, NERA is at: http://www.ner.org.uk The publications list is at: http://sites.google.com/site/northeasternrailwayassoc/home/sales-facsimile-publication Scroll down to Diagram Books -- Standard Railway Equipment, Permanent Way, 1926. They also have the NER 1912 track drawings book. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 19:19 from: DM
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The drawings are all existing scans of my originals which are 25 year old photocopies of photocopies from my younger days working in an LMR P-Way office. So the original quality is not all that good. The original scans are PDF files, on the basis that the least change probably gives the best quality. I will e-mail copies of the PDF's to anyone who wants them. I have converted the index page to a PNG which is attached below, and that I will put in the gallery in a minute, to see if that comes out better. Edit. It did come out better so timbering drawings added as well. SREDrawingIndex.png  |
||
| Last edited on 1 Feb 2012 19:36 by DM |
|||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 22:09 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DM wrote: The drawings are all existing scans of my originals which are 25 year old photocopies of photocopies from my younger days working in an LMR P-Way office. So the original quality is not all that good. Hi DM, Many thanks for posting the drawings, and list sheet on the image gallery, that’s absolutely first class, It’s very much appreciated. BTW, must have a chat with you one day soon about the LMS permanent way, maybe by Templot PM. All the best, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 1 Feb 2012 22:15 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: The drawings are from the NERA reprint of the LNER 1926 track drawings book. Hi Martin, Many thanks for the info, have already ordered a copy of the NERA 1926 permanent way book just over 10 day’s ago, am still waiting for it to arrive. All the best, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 9 Feb 2012 15:10 from: Clive Vaughan
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi All I find the LNER (NER) timbering arrangement drawings posted by DM very interesting. I have always thought that the practice of using what I will call half timbering, as shown in the actual crossover road, where the two running rails are chaired to separate timbers was only used as a last resort in complex formations. Yet here it is being used as a standard in straight forward crossovers. Now, as often it has been said, there were differences bewteen companies particularly in the pregrouping era but was this particular practice commonplace or was it a particularly NER thing? I have in getting to grips with Templot (a hobby in itself - thanks, Martin) and designing a minimum space layout (1950 BR(S)in 00-SF) I have rejected several promising formations because of the difficulty in getting the timbers in the right places without recourse to such 'fudges'. Perhaps I should revisit these. Before it gets pointed out that I am already employing a giant 'fudge' using 00 I can only say that the layout will be at around eye level with no end-on viewpoints, I have too much stock to contemplate conversion and I like hand-built chaired track. Regards Clive Vaughan |
||
|
posted: 10 Feb 2012 18:03 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Clive Vaughan wrote:Hi Clive. I used to think what you call half timbering was a typically NER thing, but reference to photographs of other LNER / ER locations suggests otherwise. It appears to have been common practice to use through timbers for the A, B, C, D and sometimes E timber (i.e. those carrying the special chairs) then change to interleaved standard sleepers. Timbering arrangements varied tremendously between the pre-grouping companies and is something I prefer to leave to those who have researched such things. Tony. |
||
| Last edited on 10 Feb 2012 18:12 by Tony W |
|||
|
posted: 10 Feb 2012 22:05 from: DM
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Clive Vaughan wrote: Hi All I have been told by someone I have been doing the scans for that the timbering layouts on my drawings are not the same as those on his LNER copy. Presumably as I obtained my copy while working on the LM region mine may be the LMS version. No doubt there would have been many on site variations especially on older layouts that had been retimbered a few times. The important thing to avoid and that I once saw done at 12" to the foot, is putting all the timber joints in a nice straight line down the middle of the crossover road 4'. Something else you sometimes saw that could be modelled is a timber joint with a couple of bullhead fishplates screwed down across it. |
||
| 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. |