Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 19 Jun 2013 15:16 from: TonyHagon
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Contributors to rmweb may know that I am building a P4 model of Brighton MPD and the double track from the station to Hove tunnel, and have so far managed to complete all the basic track layout. null  Full-size image: gallery/1876/original/1876_191411_190000000.png The station throat (bottom right hand corner) is not yet completed as, in phase 1, this will not be modelled, simply being a fiddle yard beyond the station canopy front. Baseboard shapes are shown in red. Although the yard is not electrified, the two running roads to the left of the image (where they dive into Hove tunnel - another fiddle yard) are and I've been trying to find on the club and other topics how to arrange the timbering to accommodate the conductor rail. I can't remember if they timbers were lengthened only on the conductor rail side or if they were longer to hold the insulators - or not! I notice that the running lines were relaid to flat bottom (109lbs?) sometime in the 1950s so will need to be so installed as the period of the layout is 1955- 1962. As ever, any help or, indeed any comments on the above plan, gratefully received. Best regards Tony Hagon Caithness, Scotland |
||
|
posted: 19 Jun 2013 16:01 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony As far as I am aware the 3rd rail is supported on standard timber ends, about every sixth one if memory serves me right, there might be a difference on S & C and at 3rd rail end ramps. Southern and Underground modellers will have more details. Phil |
||
| Last edited on 19 Jun 2013 16:02 by Phil O |
|||
|
posted: 19 Jun 2013 16:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony, This web page by Russ Elliott is choc full of 3rd rail info: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/russelliott/3rd-4th.html See also: topic 699 p.s. OS maps are ok if published more than 50 years ago (1963). regards, Martin. |
||
| Last edited on 19 Jun 2013 16:56 by Martin Wynne |
|||
|
posted: 19 Jun 2013 19:08 from: TonyHagon
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
...that's good to know, Martin. I found the authority for that here: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/licensing/copyright/crown-copyright.html so I'll publish the Templot map over the 1:2500 Thanks T p.s. thanks for the leads, Phil and Martin |
||
|
posted: 19 Jun 2013 19:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
That's looking great, Tony.  I have added a link to your message for the full-size image in the Image Gallery: gallery/1876/original/1876_191411_190000000.png regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Jun 2013 17:52 from: wally click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The third rail sleepers were definitely standard ones. Many years ago we bought a quantity of second had sleepers for patching on the E S R the ons we got had Pandrol baseplates on them which we had to strip off to replace with G W R 2 bolt chairs. About every sixth one had the remains of a juice rail pot on them showing this delivery was ex Southern third rail. Wally |
||
|
posted: 20 Jun 2013 22:22 from: TonyHagon
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Many thanks for that Wally. I have to report that I have now hit a brick wall...  I had hoped to be laying templates on to the plywood by now but alas... I am having to attack Google to find out how the SR/BR(SR) arranged timbers under crossings. Were they (like the GWR) square to the end of the crossing or, in the case of a crossover, square to the main line throughout? Do the exit roads on the main line interlace with the turnout road etc etc. I realise that I don't have as many photos as I thought I had and no reference books like the excellent one published for the GWR. I admit I have only spent an evening trawling the Topics here.... Surely this is a path oft trodden by Templotists? HelP! |
||
|
posted: 20 Jun 2013 22:45 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony, I don't think you should assume that SR and BR(S) had a fixed timbering style. Everything depends on the individual site conditions and traffic. Here's some text that I have posted a few times. Timbering style is a frequently asked question, because there is no clear answer. Generally speaking, equalized timbering was the norm in the pre-grouping period (before the 1920s), and square-on timbering is the standard now. Between then and now you get both. The change was gradual and varied in pace according to local practice. For much of the post-grouping steam era it would be common to see square-on used for main running lines, with older equalized timbered turnouts predominating in yards, sidings and branch lines. (Except on the GWR, where there is evidence of the exact opposite! Early turnout drawings show a square-on style, but when the flexible switches were introduced in 1930, the drawings show equalized. In many cases it seems simply that the preference of the local relaying inspector was the deciding factor.) There are several factors at work here. The main reasons for using a square-on timbering style are: 1. The main road is "stronger" in the sense that it is held to gauge with timbers at right-angles to the rails. This is always desirable for robust track. If timbers are skewed to the rails there is a much greater risk of gauge-spread, especially on curves. So if the main road of a turnout is a running line (and especially if it is on a curve), and the turnout road is a low-speed crossover or branch line, it makes sense to use the square-on arrangement to concentrate strength in the more heavily used road. On the other hand, if both roads are running lines of similar importance, you would want to have some strength in both roads and an equalized timbering arrangement is then the best option. 2. Where pointwork is prefabricated in the works, dismantled and delivered to site as a kit of parts, with the rail-fixings already attached to the timbers, it is much easier to set out the timbers at the correct specified spacings if the timbers are all parallel to one another and square to the main rails. 3. For modern mechanised maintenance and tamping equipment, it is essential that the timbers are parallel to one another and square-on. The disadvantage with square-on is that some rails are at a significant angle to the timbers. The chairs or baseplates at the V-crossing must fit the rails at the specified positions. This means that it can be difficult to position square-on timbering to support all the rails in the proper place, and occasionally extra timbers or wider ones have to be used to ensure that no chair screws are too close to the edge of a timber. Which explains why equalized timbering was used in the first place, in the days when pointwork was laid out and assembled on site by the local gang. It makes it much easier to get all the chairs properly supported, and it doesn't matter too much if an odd timber is an inch out of position. It also means that the two check rails are both in the same position relative to the V-crossing (frog) for traffic on each road. Nowadays check rails are quite long, so that doesn't matter so much. Diamond-crossings and slips are always equalized, as it is practically impossible to get all the K-crossing rail-fixings in the correct place if the timbers are square-on to one of the roads. Complex junctions and station throats often require considerable ingenuity in laying out the timbering, to ensure that all rail-fixings are in the correct place on the rails, and properly supported, and that all timbers can be tamped. The timbering design of a complex layout was something of a black art. And with Templot's Shove Timber functions you can learn all about it!  Having decided on square-on or equalized style, you then need to decide between in-line or centralized timber ends. More about that in this group message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/773 There is also a lot of further discussion about timbering in this group sequence: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/messages/2053?expand=1 Apart from equalized-incremental and square-on, Templot also has two further timbering styles - equalized constant and angled-on. These are intended for use when you are using superimposed partial templates, as an aid to subsequent timber shoving. (Equalized constant is also used for half-diamonds, of course.) I'm not aware that either of these styles would ever be correct for a single turnout - unless anyone knows otherwise? Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Jun 2013 22:56 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony, This is (hopefully) trackwork for the then new Continental Depot at Hither Green 1960?undefined I hope it is of some use. John |
||
| Attachment: attach_1613_2232_HGrn1960.jpg 437 | |||
|
posted: 21 Jun 2013 00:02 from: TonyHagon
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thank you Martin and John, both oracles of their expertise... amazing funds of knowledge! The principle of square timbers is obvious when you explain it like that, and I shall have lots of fun shoving timbers! Brick wall now demolished. Ah Hitler Green... when I was ASM at Hastings I had a Chief Clerk whose left and right fingers got mixed up on the typewriter, so I was often presented with memos for signature addressed to the 'Despot Managre, Stewrats Lane, or Passnegre Shuntre Hastnigs.' My favourite which was the only one that didn;t get sent back for spelling was to the 'Dray (i.e. Yard) Managre, Hitler Greeg.'. That was about three years before you and I first met, John! But now another problem looms... I was looking at two photos just now of the yard throat, here is one of them.. null  The <horror> of this photo is in the bottom right hand corner. I took that photo in around 1962 and I had thought that by then both the two running tracks were laid to FB, and whilst the nearest track is clearly FB, the other seems to be BH. The photo isn't too clear, so what do you think? Are they chairs or baseplates?? Even blown up to large resolution doesn't help..... I hope that the up track IS FB as I have just spent an hour before dinner changing both running tracks to 109lb, and the timbers to 8'6"! The yard is obviously BH and I wouldn't be surprised if the sleepers are still 9'! That concrete stop block is notable as it was the final straw after the rail built b/stop had been demolished about a hundred times (I exaggerate but not much!). Photos taken in 1956 show the rail stop still in place but I only remember the concrete one. The point is that it is a small headshunt which was used by every loco coming off the shed and over to the turntable or more usually the other way round and the law of averages applies. It was a very short headshunt and drivers of long tender engines had to tuck the loco right up to the blocks in order to clear the double slip just to the bottom left of the photo. Note the dummy signal pointing at the d/slip. This was the main signal to let locos off shed. In the background are the offices of the works, both long since gone.. TH |
||
|
posted: 24 Jun 2013 22:22 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony. I would say that both roads are FB rail and probably ST baseplates with screw clip fixings. My reasoning for this is that the fixings on the visible outer side of the rails are far too small the be keyed chairs ala BH. Tony W. |
||
| 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. |