Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 812P4 test track
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 8 May 2009 00:17

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi all, I am thinking of building a test track in P4 of which I have made two plans but I can't decide which one to build, also I'm not sure about the timbering. I would be most greatfull of any help or advice. :thumb:
Thanks

Len Cattley

posted: 8 May 2009 09:18

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Len,
We need to be able to see the trackplans in order to comment on them.
Andy

posted: 8 May 2009 11:50

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Lets see if this works.
Attachment: attach_548_812_P4__&_Tebay_test_track.box 312

posted: 8 May 2009 11:51

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andy thanks for your reply. I thought I did download them but something must have gone wrong. It took ages for my message to appear but the files weren't in them so not quite sure what went wrong. Will try again.
Thanks

Len


posted: 8 May 2009 11:53

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Len,

There is an upload limit of 5MB.

If the files are larger than that, please send them to me and I will post them for you.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 May 2009 12:40

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
That's worked. Must have been really heavy traffic on the internet last night as it took at least 20 min for the message to arrive & I've got cable.

Len

posted: 8 May 2009 18:09

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Len,
I've managed to download and open the files.  Firstly timbering practice varies with company, though as the name Tebay is mentioned I presume that this will be LMS.  Hopefully on Monday night we'll be having the new turnouts on Slattocks Junction (Manchester - Rochdale) checked over by a track expert so I should be able to post images of what they are supposed to look like later next week.

Meanwhile, is this your first attempt at P4?  If so I'd be wary of starting with double slips, there is a lot of bits to get in a small space and cut accurately.  On the lower plan you could replace the slip with two ordinary turnouts toe to toe.

On the lower diagram I'm not sure about the necessity for either of the catch points.  The down main would be protected from the down siding by the double slip.  If this isn't considered satisfactory then you would also need a catch point on the down loop.  On the up siding the catch point is not protecting the running line, only the exchange sidings throat.

Must admit I can't work out the prototype scenario for the top one.  If it was a junction in steam days I would normally expect to see two tracks coming across from the branch to the main lines as seen here at Oxenholme.

Andy

posted: 9 May 2009 01:42

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andy,

Thanks for your comments, Tebay (the bottom one) is as you presume LMS though I model in the BR period.

Andy G wrote:
Meanwhile, is this your first attempt at P4? If so I'd be wary of starting with double slips, there is a lot of bits to get in a small space and cut accurately. On the lower plan you could replace the slip with two ordinary turnouts toe to toe.
I have done P4 before (2 Brassmasters Jubilees, 2 black 5's & a Rebuilt Royal Scot). The slip is there because that is where it is on the track plan.

On the lower diagram I'm not sure about the necessity for either of the catch points. The down main would be protected from the down siding by the double slip. If this isn't considered satisfactory then you would also need a catch point on the down loop. On the up siding the catch point is not protecting the running line, only the exchange sidings throat.
I must admit I'm not too sure why they are there as well but I have pictures of them and they are on the plans.

Must admit I can't work out the prototype scenario for the top one. If it was a junction in steam days I would normally expect to see two tracks coming across from the branch to the main lines as seen here at Oxenholme .
That one I made up myself. These two plans are not only for a test track but also to see if I can build double slips as well. I think I've got the timber arrangement right on the bottom one (Tebay) but not sure if it is correct on the top one. Like the pictures of Oxenholme got any of Tebay?

Kind regards

Len

posted: 20 May 2009 11:42

from:

newport_rod
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Len
I found this interestinmg as I'm currently designing a P4 test track for my local club.
One question - what is the purpose of the test track? To test your locos, stock, track-building technique?

posted: 20 May 2009 20:47

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
newport_rod wrote:
Len
I found this interesting as I'm currently designing a P4 test track for my local club.
One question - what is the purpose of the test track? To test your locos, stock, track-building technique?
Hi

The reason I'm building my test track is because I want to test all those things you talk about in your email. I haven't the space for a circular test track so the only way to find out if my stock will run through tight curves is to run them through turnouts. I used to belong to the North London Group which did have a circular test track which was great. Please feel free to email me if you need any further help.

Kind regards

Len Cattley

posted: 21 May 2009 08:34

from:

newport_rod
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
A few thoughts then ...

Good idea to include one double slip – if you want to test your track-building technique. But maybe two in one too many; the top plan is very dependant on them.

Good idea to include both facing and trailing crossovers to see how stock will run over them, although this will be limited by only having 340 mm to the left of the trailing crossover will limit its use. Although presumably you’re constricted by only having 8’ to play with.

What are the minimum radius and smallest turnout on which the tested stock will run? I would suggest that the both (or even something slightly smaller/tighter) be included here.

Taking you at your word, if this just a test track and not a piece of model trackwork, are you going to learn anything from either building or operating the catch points?

You wouldn’t see it on the plan, but do you want to include and obstacle course (e.g. steps, twists, gauge narrowing, etc.) on one siding to see how well stock copes with substandard track?

And well done on getting the blocked timbers on the crossovers – that’s a trick I haven’t managed yet.

Cheers

Rod

posted: 21 May 2009 10:00

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
And well done on getting the blocked timbers on the crossovers – that’s a trick I haven’t managed yet.
Rod,
I could be wrong in understanding what you are meaning here.  If you are referring to the timbers aligning through the cross overs please be aware that this did not always occur.  The important fact was the special chairs at the crossing.  These had to be positioned at specific spacings from the crossing nose and the timber locations were therefore determined.  The spacings are 2'6" or 10mm in P4 and as Templot places them by default.  Thus you should not be shoving the timbers along the turnout at the crossing.  What you may need to do is shorten or lengthen them.  There are plenty of examples of nearly aligned timbers meeting in the middle of the cross over, i.e. one timber supports one rail of the cross over and the other supports the other rail.  You do have to be careful to also account for check rail chairs, particularly the end ones which are angled for the flare and therefore also have their locations fixed.

If I'm not barking up the wrong tree and this isn't clear then I should be able to knock up a sample 'non-aligned' cross over.  B8s using a generic crossing should apparently align correctly, B7s wont, assuming standard track spacing.

Andy

posted: 22 May 2009 01:03

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Rod,
Good idea to include one double slip – if you want to test your track-building technique. But maybe two is one too many; the top plan is very dependant on them.
The top plan was just an idea.

Good idea to include both facing and trailing crossovers to see how stock will run over them, although this will be limited by only having 340 mm to the left of the trailing crossover will limit its use. Although presumably you’re constricted by only having 8’ to play with.

What are the minimum radius and smallest turnout on which the tested stock will run? I would suggest that the both (or even something slightly smaller/tighter) be included here.
B8 is the smallest turnout which I suppose is a bit large. The smallest loco I'll be running is a 2-6-4 tank so a small radius would not be required.

Taking you at your word, if this just a test track and not a piece of model trackwork, are you going to learn anything from either building or operating the catch points?
I'm not sure if I will use it as part of a track, it depends on whether I'll have room in the future.

You wouldn’t see it on the plan, but do you want to include and obstacle course (e.g. steps, twists, gauge narrowing, etc.) on one siding to see how well stock copes with substandard track?
Not sure about this for the reason above.

And well done on getting the blocked timbers on the crossovers – that’s a trick I haven’t managed yet.
Thanks for that.

Regards

Len

posted: 22 May 2009 09:02

from:

newport_rod
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andy

Blocked timbers – what at I was referring to (perhaps incorrectly) was the extension (e.g.) of the timbers from 39 Up Tebay mainline crossover under the first 100mm of 42 Down Tebay Main. I’m developing a plan for out own test track (I’ll try and attach the box file) and hadn’t addressed including that feature yet (nor have I done any timber shoving yet).

As an aside the (separate) layout that this is being developed for is based on BR(WR) practice ca 1955 and I’m assuming that (what I understand as) blocked timbers were used.

Len

You said that you want “to find out if my stock will run through tight curves”. You might want to include some sections of know fixed radius at the ends of some of the some of the lines, which you can then remove if you later want to expand the test track into something more ambitious. The same could go for an obstacle course.
Attachment: attach_552_812_nmrs_p4_test_track_2_09_05_15_1854_20.box 246

posted: 22 May 2009 13:14

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Rod, Len,
I think we are talking about the same thing.  Len has used a C8 with a regular crossing.  If he'd used a generic crossing then apparently the timbers should line up.  However, with a regular crossing they don't.  What Len has done is extend the X6 timber of the 'Down Tebay mainline crossover' across and under the 'Up mainline crossover'.  This would then support the 'D' chair of the up cross over.  However, this timber is only 28.18mm from the timber supporting the 'A' chair of the up cross over, i.e. 1.82mm (5.5") too close to the nose and would therefore not be able to support the D chair.  There is a similar problem with the X6 timber of the up cross over.  I think in reality the X6 would not be extended but instead shortened and an extra timber placed under the opposing turnout as shown below
tebay%20crossover.jpgtebay%20crossover.jpg

I'm also not sure of the blocking under the plain track on the exit from the down cross over (i.e. what would be to top left of the above image).  That would be an expensive use of timbers, though I am quite sure that some prototypes did it.  It would be more normal to shuffle the normal sleepers of the plain track along to sit between the timbers of the crossover.  Care would have to be taken so that the gap between sleepers wasn't too large and that there was space to get the fishplate in.

If you're modelling WR then be aware that as usual the GWR had its own way of doing things.  There is a book published by the GW Study Group by David Smith - 'GWR Switch and Crossing Practice'.  My interest is WR but I'm currently focussed on redesigning the trackwork for the club's layout based in north Manchester.  Thankfully we have someone on hand who worked on LMR trackwork and has been putting us right on a number of things (such as not shifting the timbers supporting the special chairs and identifying that the lead was too short on the regular crossing, hence discovering what the generic crossing was).

Hope that helps/is of interest

Andy

posted: 22 May 2009 14:02

from:

newport_rod
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andy

Yes it is of interest.

Looking at David Smith’s excellent book on page 86 there’s a diagram of a 1:7 crossover showing the two timbers that you have split as continuous, with a gap between the two middle timbers being about 4”. (Sorry I’m not au fait with the X6 type designations).The blocked section extends to the two timbers beyond the wing rail/closure rail rail joint. Was this typical of WR practice as opposed to LMR?

Len – sorry for hijacking your thread!

Rod

posted: 22 May 2009 14:10

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andy G wrote:
That would be an expensive use of timbers, though I am quite sure that some prototypes did it.
Hi Andy,

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: 22 May 2009 14:47

from:

Andy G
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,
I don't have the LNER book.  Dick who's helping us has an LMS book from 1930 something I think and also a BR equivalent covering all of the regions.  I had a feeling that it was the GWR that went in for the extra long timbers.  With regard to skewing them then yes I can see that being valid but we've found that there are multiple examples in the Manchester area where the timbers were split.  I've probably drawn the timbers too long, the length I think is relatively arbitrary so long as they can support the chair etc. and get enough support underneath.  However, would packing not normally be done from the side?  My experience is of the Welsh Highland, but most of the sleepers there are steel with the ends turned down and so possibly not relevant.

As you have said there are multiple ways of timbering so as normal a good photograph is recommended - I'd never have believed the split timber method had I not seen a photo of it.  Dick commented that it shouldn't be done on the main running lines, however, pg 84 of Smith's book shows an example of that occuring, though admittedly in a very complicated piece of trackwork where there may have been no option.

Andy

posted: 22 May 2009 23:12

from:

Len Cattley
 
Bracknell - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This thread is getting interesting as it seems that there is no standard for crossing timbers, the only true way to find out is photos but as we all know photos of track are few & far between.

I have a photo of this track formation & from what I can see all the timbers are long except for the 5th & upwards switch ones on the up main exchange siding point.

Regards

Len



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > P4 test track
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

back to top of page


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.
The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason. Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems