Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 15 Apr 2016 09:15 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
On a Railway History course, Dr. David Amos of Nottingham University showed the enclosed photograph of bullhead rail on stone sleepers at Over & Wharton (Winsford, Cheshire) on the LNWR. 2201_150413_300000000.jpg  David thought that the bullhead rail had been laid in place of old tramway track, on stone blocks which originally supported fishbelly rail. But when I started to research this it appeared there was no tramway at this location. A local historian (Tony Bostock) has no knowledge of a tramway near the station; and there seems to be no obvious reason why a trammay should be so close to the town. There were extensive salt workings, but these sent the salt down to barges on the navigation by chutes. When the railways came there were works sidings which came directly off the branch lines, not via the station. I found an article in which Paul Hurley says that the LNWR used stone blocks experimentally instead of sleepers, so can anyone else support this statement, or were these simply old tramway blocks being re-used at this site? Using stone blocks seems a very strange way to lay track. There is nothing to stop the track spreading. This might have not been much of a problem for 3 ton wagons hauled by a horse at walking pace, but it would seem much more risky with 8 and 10 ton wagons and loco haulage, even in a siding. Another interesting point in the photo is the apparent absence of fishplates. It looks as if the rail joint simply rests in the bullhead chair (look at the third chair from the camera). With expansion, contraction and locos braking, wouldn’t the rail move and risk leaving the joint un-supported? It would certainly be an interesting subject to model, but I would be most grateful if anyone could throw any light on whether the LNWR freshly mined stone for chairs and how extensively this was used, or was it a case of this location simply re-using redundant tramway stone blocks? undefined |
||
|
posted: 15 Apr 2016 11:52 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Arthur, I can't comment on the LNWR's possible re-investigating stone sleepers but you can run locos along stone sleepered track. No different to concrete pots of which there is a discussion somewhere else on the forum. It is of course more likely that this is reused material for the same reason that concrete pots were tried. And either powered capstan or horse shunted. The lighter style of chair looks a little like the types used for double headed rail. There should be tie bars somewhere but they may not be obvious. By the later use of stone blocks the tie bars were fixed below the chair. And the block with the rail joint looks like the inner side from the chair to the edge has been grooved to take one of those. Again see the concrete pots discussion. There wer a number of variations for tie bars and there appears to be some bars across the track further back up towards the lead. The none fishplates joint was standard till around the early 1850's. They could be scarfed jointed with a pin through it or butt jointed with a special iron wedge, which this looks like. Sometimes they would use a special joint chair. The last method was used on the Sydney to Parramatta line extension to Penrith in 1857. But the next order of rail was with fishplates. (The first type of track laid from Sydney to Parramatta was Barlow). All this was changing constantly as more was understood about the dynamics of track under loading, with an ability to cope with the increasing weight and speed required. And the ever present issue of costs. Anyway they appear to be using it successfully in the photo. Regards, Matt M. |
||
|
posted: 17 Apr 2016 20:25 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Matt, Thanks for your reply and the link to concrete pots. However, engineered concrete pots (in WW2) are one thing and were designed so that tie-bars could be incorporated. Re-using old stone blocks which look fairly roughly hewn would seem rather more difficult. They would all have to be drilled to take new chair fixings and also drilled horizontally for the width of the block if you wanted to install tie-rods. There is certainly no sign of a flat plate on top of the stone blocks. The suggestion that tie-bars need only be used on every second or third chair would certainly reduce the work - if indeed they were installed at all. The objects further down the siding are quite large and appear to lie between the blocks, but I cannot make out any detail on the photo. There does not appear to be anything across the track that is closer to the camera, unless it is completely buried. I also wonder how you would fix the chairs to the blocks. Chemical anchors would not have been available and I would have thought expansion bolts were not available either, so how would you make a secure fixing into stone? Some sort of ragged stud fixed in mortar? From experience of gate hinges pulling out of stone pillars I know that, even today, it is not always easy to get a secure fixing into stone. The dates you give for non-fishplated joints are also interesting. This line opened in 1882, which is a lot later than the 1850's (UK) and 1857 (for the Parramatta line) that you mention for non-fishplated joints. Arthur |
||
|
posted: 18 Apr 2016 02:00 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Arthur, Development of the Permanent Way during the early 1800's is a complex and fast developing subject. A lot of it was by trial and error. And it changed a lot over a 40 year period. Don't make the error about materials. Stone sleepers were engineered too. The only difference is the material chosen. There were multiple reasons that stone sleepers were fairly standard until the mid 1830's. 1. Due to the hang overs of the Napoleonic Wars, (which only finished in 1815), timber was still expensive. Especially the good stuff. Stone work was comparatively cheap. Though this would change by the mid to late 1830's. Also the engineering 'thoughts' behind the design. See number 3. 2. Till the development of pressure injected creosote treatment of wood in 1832, timber sleepers tended to rot a little faster than was economically feasible. Stone sleepers on a main line had a life expectancy of 10 years. Especially with the habit of burying the PW to the head of the rails. 3. The design of early Permanent Way was about building unyielding foundations, like a house. The rails used to break due to the original elliptical style of rail, (which limited the spacing of the stone sleepers which worked much like bridge abutments), as it took a while for the penny to drop that the track work needed to be resilient rather than rigid. Double headed rail grew out of the belief that the deflection had to be minimised or stopped. A lot of metallurgical testing techniques had there development started at this point. Some of the conclusions were wrong though. There had already been a move to parallel rail, (T-rail with the flat bit on the top) and symmetrical shapes or double parallel (the most common being double-headed), becoming the most used. Chairing also made preparation of the stone sleeper quicker as, in answer to one of you queries, it meant that the only area of the stone required to be flat was the chair's mounting point. Some early methods didn't even bother with that using things like felt pads to try to level off the chair. One of the advantages was it allowed different spacing of the sleepers. Usually further apart to save money. Of the various methods for fixing chairs to stone sleepers used, the tapered oak tree nail through the chair base into the stone proved to be the most durable. The chair was cast with a taper in the mounting holes which caught the head of the nail. Tie rods on main lines with stone sleepers were every 10 foot, but as this is a siding....? What appears to be extra cross bracing in the distance could well be to deal with vehicles coming off the curves from the lead. The chair with the butt joint would be a special casting. It does look like the stone has been cut with a grove to take a tie rod there. As does the one on the opposite side. There were various methods used for tie rods. Either they were affixed to the actual rails, or to the chairs. Not to the sleeper. Sinkage of the stone sleepers was also an issue during early railway building as the understanding of what we call soil mechanics was very basic. I don't think that this is a new formation. The works in the photo look brand new, and may well not be entirely finished. The earthworks look very fresh. It has probably been dug up somewhere and used in this siding as it had life in it. The Barlow rail used by the Sydney Railway Company was still in use in the 1890's in some sidings where it had been set in the mid 1850's. Requirements for sidings are not the same as main lines. The 72 and a half pound per yard steel rails that were used by the NSWGR for main line work in the 1880's are still in use. Including being used for the Perisher Ski Tube Rack Railway opened in 1988. But I doubt that the track being used in the photo is anything other than stuff that had been put into revenue service back in the 1830's. With exception of the rails which were possibly steel made anytime from the mid 1850's. Hence the butt joints, light chairs and stone sleepers. Regards, Matt M. |
||
|
posted: 18 Apr 2016 21:17 from: Trevor Walling
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello,I also wonder how you would fix the chairs to the blocks.Perhaps pouring molten lead around a peg of smaller diameter in the hole than the fixing itself which could thin be driven in after the peg was removed? Regards. TW |
||
|
posted: 18 Apr 2016 21:35 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
If a hole can be drilled, perhaps the easiest fixing would be to drill a through hole, and use a bolt from below, GWR-style. This would also allow gauge tie-bars to be fitted below the stones, covered in ballast to provide an unobstructed walking space for horses. When track is laid in ballast, it doesn't need a flat underside -- unlike model track. For example crossing timbers are usually 6" thick, as opposed to plain sleepers being 5" thick. Martin. |
||
|
posted: 19 Apr 2016 00:04 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
As far as I'm aware chair fixing was done using tree nails. They did drive screws into those initially but that was not a success as Arthur pointed out with his gate mounting example. The wood collapses around the screw and the plug becomes loose in the hole. Amazingly, oak tree nails are very robust. I can't say what they were doing in the photo from the 1880's with the sleepers, but there is a lot about the original stone sleeper work and short rail lengths that we just don't know at this stage. The handling of curves, which in all the contemporary drawings seem very smooth. Given the materials lack of lateral flex you would expect as series of short straights tacked together. And it may have well been the case. It is known the process of laying these out was laborious. It involved lifting and dropping the stone multiple times using a counterbalanced fulcrum. New material was put underneath each time till the right level was reached and it stopped compacting that material further. This was critical to the process. These stones weigh in the range of 140 to 195 pounds. It must have been a real joy to line up the chairs. Some versions of chaired track didn't have enough clearance to slip the rail in from the top and so had to be threaded through multiple stone sleeper sets. Also a lot of fun. In the period where stone sleepers were used the permanent way was covered to just below the top of the rail head. Including horse drawn tramways. There was no obstruction till you came to diverging track. Which in horse drawn tramways are rare. In the 1880's horse shunting was done with a rope from the 6 foot, not the 4 foot for safety reasons. There is a big difference between a horse in shafts moving a single wagon with funny wheels and reasonable weight and getting multiple 8 ton plus wagons started and stopped. I know it isn't the best photo but the rails and chairs look second hand, not new. I do seriously doubt that they are doing any special modifications to the track before re-laying it. It was probably dug up from some site were a long siding was. It was checked to make sure the chairs were still firmly fixed, the rail head was still usable and transported to were it could be reused. Given the obstructions across the track further back towards the lead I also don't think they are that worried about burying the tie bars, (gauge bars if you prefer that term). They could always rebury it to rail top height like it was originally, and many yards were. Most fixings are designed to be easily got to. And it is much simpler to run tie bars from rail to rail or chair to chair. I also don't think this is a photo of the finished work. In the 1880's I would expect to find the ballasting to be up to the level of the top of the stones, at least. I think they wanted a record of this and it was done so you could see the sleepers clearly. Regards, Matt M. |
||
|
posted: 19 Apr 2016 19:58 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi guys I must admit I have always assumed this photo to be of track work in the goods yard at Winsford on the WCML not at Over and Wharton. There are several stone block sleepers on the up end of the down platform at Winsford and at one time there was a sign saying they had been uncovered during renewal work (I think). The engine shed at Over as shown in the attached image is similar to the building in the original shot but is panelled so not the same one. Also the track plan doesn't seem to match the available OS maps. Regards Mike |
||
| Attachment: attach_2258_2870_image.jpg 996 | |||
|
posted: 19 Apr 2016 22:28 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Mike, That makes sense. Being in Australia I am unfamiliar with a number of stations in England so rely on other Templot members knowledge. The photo definitely has that staged feel to it. A quick archaeological style dig and photographic recording would explain a lot. I don't know how much of the company records survive, but there should be a mention of this somewhere. Matt M. |
||
|
posted: 20 Apr 2016 04:20 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
"The photo definitely has that staged feel to it." Why would anyone have the slightest interest in staging that photo? |
||
|
posted: 20 Apr 2016 05:19 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Andrew, By 'staged' I don't mean fake. I mean that it has been set up to show something reasonably clearly. To me there are many issues with the photo's subject to be comfortable saying, "This is the way it was". A number of things just don't gel. As a record it doesn't fit finished practice for the type of permanent way it is supposed to be. The ballast is beautifully levelled, but at the wrong height. The issue of the missing tie bars. If this is track being laid 1880's they would be reusing track work that is around 40 years old. That isn't impossible, I gave a sample that I am aware of. But it is a little unlikely with this form of track. 1830's track wasn't the best even when new. If what Mike has suggested regarding discovery during renewal is correct, then a decision has been made to record what was found. And the site has been prepared to give the best viewing result. And this makes sense. Especially if you understand the difference between the modern way of recording industrial archeology and what was done then. Likewise if it is just being relaid a similar decision has been made. I have been doing research into early permanent way here in NSW, Australia, for a number of years. The problem you find is the photographic record is terrible for the early period. Not only are there fewer photos, but mostly they are of the locos and trains, the buildings and occasionally the people. When you get to see track, the interesting bits of the formation are usually off to either side of the picture. Or someone has parked a loco on what you really want to see. Or very commonly with early permanent way, the track work is buried to the head of the rail with the exception of the area around slide chairs. (Research into the early V crossings used is a very slow job because of this). Or tantalizingly out of focus or range in the distance, even when you are lucky enough to find the original glass plate for ultimate clarity of the original image. Most of the really early stuff is pictured in drawings. Which is useful. But you have to treat the information from the artistic drawings very carefully. There are a number of items that I would love to see in a photo record, even one that is staged. I also happy to be told I'm wrong if someone can give actual facts regarding what is happening here. It will give me a chance to learn something new. I'm very open to that. Regards, Matt M. |
||
|
posted: 20 Apr 2016 17:18 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for the clarification Matt. I see what you mean about the ballast. It's surprising how often that postcard shows up on the internet. I googled "old permanent way on stone blocks, winsford" and got a lot of hits. Didn't help to explain what's going on though. Regards, Andrew |
||
|
posted: 21 Apr 2016 19:32 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
One of the stone blocks on Winsford station. Not the best photo I know, taken through the window of my train to work this morning. Regards Mike |
||
| Attachment: attach_2259_2870_image.jpg 520 | |||
|
posted: 22 Apr 2016 18:12 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Mike, Thanks for the photo. Now all we need is a mini archaeological dig to see if the holes go all the way through, or if there is any sign of lead or other fixings (preferably without getting arrested  ).I am going to expand this discussion on to the HMRS web site to see if any of their experts can help. I think you might be right about this being Winsford on the WCML. If Wikipedia is right that was built in 1837, so much more likely to have re-used stone block at that time. However, a Google search failed to unearth any old photos or track plans of Winsford to confirm this, hence my posting on the HMRS site. Arthur |
||
|
posted: 22 Apr 2016 18:45 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
LSWRArt wrote:Hi Mike, Thanks for the photo. Now all we need is a mini archaeological dig to see if the holes go all the way through, or if there is any sign of lead or other fixings (preferably without getting arrested Hi Arthur If you have a look at old OS maps website and go for an early 1:2500 map, search for Winsford then find the station which is to the east of the town. Go north and you will find the goods yard. That's where I think the photo is taken. Regards Mike |
||
|
posted: 22 Apr 2016 18:56 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
In fact if you search for Wharton Bridge you go straight to it. Choose the 1874-1881 1:2500 and the goods yard is to the right of the main running line which is the up side. Regards Mike |
||
|
posted: 23 Apr 2016 04:24 from: Matt M.
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Arthur and Mike. Thanks for the photo Mike, It was clear enough. Can't help with the when research, or track plans. If it was built in 1837 they well may have laid new components. The change over to timber cross sleepers is a gradual process over a couple of years. I have been going through my various resources on early track and can only find one reference to fixing using lead. That was on a horse tramway many years earlier. The following I paraphrase from Nicholas Wood's "A practical Treatise on Rail Roads....' which was first published in 1825. ....................... After going through the issues of placing the stone sleeper on a well compacted base, (and on the Liverpool to Manchester line there were 3,520 stones a mile), and happily alined, came time to affix the rails. When the blocks are seated it has been stated by engineers at the time that they should not "be moved in the least degree" has that has the potential to destroy the seat of compacted material with detrimental results. This is possibly more important on a main line than a siding. A perfectly level seat is made on top of the block and at the same plane as the base of the block, upon which the chair is set. Holes are drilled into the stone. These are about two inches in diameter. Oak plugs are driven into these and then bored out with a three-eight inch auger. Once the chair is placed on the block an iron pin is driven through the hole in the chair into the wooden plug. To get a more uniform seating a times a felt pad was laid between the chair and the sleeper block. The Stockton and Darlington Railway used chairs with four pins. There was a design For fastening the chair to the block which required two holes, at two inches diameter, drilled two inches upward from the bottom of the block. The rest of the block is drilled through at three quarters of an inch. Two bolts of that size are place heads downwards with the other ends passing through the chairs. Keys are driven through the ends of the bolts wedging the chair to the block, which can be tightened at any time. The only disadvantage is that if anything happens to the bolt it can only be replace by removal of the block. In all old railways, the plan of fastening the chair to the block was by the means of an oaken pin; and this plan was adopted for the Newcastle and Carlisle railway. According to Mr Wood and other commentators, after two or three years working life, this seems to "answer quite as well, if not better," than the spiked version. The iron pin is kept in its place by the compression of the wood against the pin. But during the boring out the wood is "much shattered" and the driving in of the pin adds to this problem. As there are only fragments of wood keeping the pins in compression most of the pins first used on the Liverpool to Manchester railway had worked loose. In the wooden pin only method the pins are three quarters of an inch in diameter, and inches long. The hole in the block is three quarters of an inch in diameter which means that when the plug is driven "it sustains considerable compression". "The hole in the chair is an inch deep, bevelled upwards, or three eighths of an inch larger in diameter on the upper than the under side". "The plug has an enlarged head to keep the chair firmly in its place." "These plugs are all engine-turned, and made octangular, and of old oak, or the heart of the oak, well dried; when driven, they cannot be forced out again, the ragged nature of the blocks, and the expansion of the plugs, securing them within the block, quite tight and firm. The objection, which most naturally suggests itself, against this plan, is, the probable decay of the plug within the chair. We find, however, plugs remaining quite good, upon old railways, which have been in use upwards of twenty years. Little doubt can, therefore, exist as to their durability within the blocks; and the heads being cut off, level with the top of the hole in the chair, and covered with tar, if made with good oak, they will be found very durable." ...................... It is interesting to note that in his 1855 treatise 'The Practical Railway Engineer' G, Drysdale Dempsey barely mentions any of this as he brushes over fixing rails to stone blocks in about three lines. The information is correct but not comprehensive. There is no mention of the oak treenail alone method. And that does seem to have become the standard method. Barely twenty years had passed and the knowledge is already diluting and fading away. Regards, Matt M |
||
|
posted: 23 Apr 2016 14:09 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Matt, Thanks for all that information. Very interesting. Mike - can you give me the web link that you are using? If I go to OS maps then you seem to have to pay to zoom in to see any detail. The National Library of Scotland says it has historic maps 1892 - 1960, but I cannot see the station on these. Thanks. Arthur |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2016 20:01 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Arthur This is the link http://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/366169/367547/12/100093 It is the 1874-1881 1:2500 edition. Regards Mike |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2016 20:07 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Am I allowed to post a screen shot from old OS maps? Don't want to upset and copyright rules. Regards Mike |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2016 20:47 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
mikewturner wrote: Am I allowed to post a screen shot from old OS maps? Don't want to upset and copyright rules.Hi Mike, If you mean the old-maps.co.uk web site, it would be better to post a page link like this: http://old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/385495/255552/11/101160 Instead of an actual screen shot with the old-maps.co.uk watermark. If you mean old OS maps generally, they are out of copyright if more than 50 years old. But only if you scan them yourself -- if you post someone else's scan, they own the copyright on the scan. However it's a very grey area, we have been here before. Rather than the old-maps.co.uk web site, try to find the same thing on the NLS web site (they are better-quality scans anyway). They don't charge for viewing at any zoom, and don't watermark images. A screenshot from there is probably ok providing it is not for commercial gain and duly credited. See for example: http://maps.nls.uk/view/117917112#zoom=4&lat=2376&lon=5667&layers=BT regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 27 Apr 2016 20:59 from: mikewturner click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks for the info. I posted a link in an earlier email but have looked at the NLS site and they have a 6" map for the area so to I have screenshot the appropriate area which should help people navigate to the right place using my link. Thanks to NLS. The goods shed is under the N! Regards Mike |
||
| Attachment: attach_2265_2870_image.jpg 737 | |||
|
posted: 28 Apr 2016 17:17 from: LSWRArt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for your help and these postings, Arthur |
||
|
posted: 18 May 2016 22:55 from: DM
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Just a thought but could the photo be of old track opened out ready for relaying? If it was about the last of its kind that could be what attracted the photographers attention. | ||
|
posted: 19 May 2016 09:47 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, I know Arthur knows this but perhaps others don't as the matter has also been discussed on the GOG Forum. 1) The Goods Depot on the Main Line opened 1837 and closed circa 1925 (Railways across Mid-Cheshire, Map on Page 8, which shows the vast railway complex which served Winsford) I'm sure the author (Alan Wilkinson) would be able to give you chapter and verse but sadly he is no longer with us. I know he planned a second Volume but it was never to be. 2) I know the stone blocks in the garden at Winsford Station were originally used on the main line through the station and were found when the station was modernised and the platforms were re-built. The information was supplied by a (now-retired, I would think)BR employee who was the regular stationmaster (if that is still the right description) at Winsford. I used to travel regularly to work from the station to Liverpool in the early 90's and would often have interesting conversations with him about the local railways, whilst waiting for the train. In my early years we also lived in Station Road and could just see the trains thundering through (well that's how it appeared to a five year old. Proper trains I mean, not these new fangled things that run on electric or diesel.  |
||
|
posted: 13 Jul 2016 08:22 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have come across this very useful resource which not only shows the track plan but just about everything else of interest in the UK of the period being the online OS 6 inch map courtesy of the National Library of Scotland here is the link. You'll probably have to scroll to the North West a bit as it was originally posted in response to a query on the Coalville area on MREMAG. I seem to have left it in the Sandbach area so hopefully you won't need to move it too much. |
||
| Last edited on 13 Jul 2016 08:24 by Stephen Freeman |
|||
|
posted: 13 Jul 2016 08:27 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Clearly Winsford Station did have it's own seperate very small yard at one time on the other side of the road bridge. The building in Arthurs photo is marked as being Wharton Bridge Goods Shed a separate facility bit further north. | ||
| Last edited on 13 Jul 2016 08:29 by Stephen Freeman |
|||
|
posted: 13 Jul 2016 09:39 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Borg-Rail wrote: I have come across this very useful resource which not only shows the track plan but just about everything else of interest in the UK of the period being the online OS 6 inch map courtesy of the National Library of ScotlandHi Stephen, NLS are currently doing the same with the larger-scale 25-inch maps, which are far more useful for use in Templot for track planning. There are over 40,000 sheets to scan so it is taking them a while, but so far they are about half-way through the project, having started from the south coast. Here is the current extent of the sheets available, coloured over. Click and zoom in to find the sheet you want: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/find/#zoom=7&lat=52.6770&lon=-2.0197&layers=64&b=1&point=0,0 For most areas there is a selection of 25-inch sheets available at different dates. Some of the early ones are attractively coloured. Press F11 in your browser to go full-screen and see more of the map. Following along behind the scanning of individual sheets they are providing the seamless geo-referencing option, so that you can cross-fade to and fro between the old map and the current maps or aerial views. I posted a short bit of video recently showing the great possibilities of that in model track planning, see: http://flashbackconnect.com/Default.aspx?id=8Du_Kizucpvgbsfe2rGw4g2 Here is the current extent of maps available for that: http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=8&lat=51.9262&lon=-1.8334&layers=176 Zoom in and then move the transparency slider from side to side. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Jul 2016 14:31 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, I saw the reference to the larger scale maps but didn't investigate further as they haven't reached the North West yet and what they have done already answers a few questions in connection with the original enquiry. Should have looked further up the thread shouldn't I? |
||
| Last edited on 13 Jul 2016 15:39 by Stephen Freeman |
|||
| 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. |