Concrete Sleepers

[Rich]

I am looking at creating a new layout to 4mm OO-SF standards. Ideally I’d love to go down the EM route, but at this moment in time i don’t want the hassle of changing wheels and rebuilding/amending loco bogies. My ideal hobby is the signalling and operations side of railways, but I don’t want to use Peco track on the scenic areas, so I am looking at Code 82 flat bottom rail and building by hand.

The layout would be representational of a section of the WCML in the North West around 1989, primarily four track, with a handful of turnouts/crossings, nothing too complicated. Given that the WCML would have been concrete sleepers at this time, I am looking at drawing up some concrete F40 sleepers, with a view to 3D printing a batch and seeing if something is viable, as a way of securing the rail, but representing Pandrol(!) e clips. My problem is that I am struggling to find any accurate dimensions for either the sleepers or the ‘e’ clips? Can anyone help?

Also, with working to OO-SF, can anyone point me in the right direction as to the precise distance in mm between the inner edge if the left rail, and inner edge of the right rail? I am assuming there is a standards drawing or table of measurements somewhere, but various Google searches haven’t found it.
Edit: ignore the OO-SF info query, I hit post and then thought oh do a search on here, and up it appeared|

It might turn out to be a total failure, but I’ll never know if I don’t try|

Richie

 

[Andy_B]

Hi Rich,
Basic dimensions for an F40 sleeper shown here (middle of page 4): https://www.turkington-construction...ions/brochure/Railway_Sleepers_Brochure_0.pdf
There are dimensions of an e-clip here - http://www.railway-fasteners.com/news/what-is-an-elastic-rail-clip.html - which ought to be good enough for 4mm scale.

Did your spell-checker come up with 'Pandora' instead of 'Pandrol'? - https://www.pandrol.com/product/e-clip/

Andy

 

[Stephen Freeman]

Peco don't do code 82 anymore just 83. If you definitely want to use code 82, I'd check out the head dimenions first, some of them are on the narrow side. Karlgarin do code 82 but it is really for Narrow Gauge use and the foot is just a little too wide for Peco Pandrols, code 83 fits no problem.

 

[Rich]

Thanks Andy, I presume it’s the 5F40 sleepers? That’s great, I’ll see what can be drawn up from them. Yes the infamous autocorrect hit and I didn’t notice!

Stephen, I’ll bow to knowledge from somebody like yourself anyday. To be honest I’d looked around and Code 82 was the only flat rail that came up with C&L. Is the Peco Code 83 a better option in your view, or is it all person opinion? No offence intended with that last comment, a genuine question.

Richie

 

[KHC1]

Also have a look on Rmweb there is an ongoing thread looking at a flatbottom turnout that also might be of help.

Keith

 

[Rich]

Also have a look on Rmweb there is an ongoing topic looking at a flatbottom turnout that also might be of help.

Keith, thanks is that this thread?
Richie

 

[KHC1]

Yes that’s the one I was thinking of.

Keith

 

[Rich]

Interestingly, looking at this image (from Flickr) of Warrington Bank Quay in 1990, the southbound WCML line still appears to be wooden sleepers, while the northbound has been replaced with concrete. So maybe there is another aspect to be modelled of the different sleeper types.

https://flic.kr/p/2iVoLY3

 

[Stephen Freeman]

Thanks Andy, I presume it’s the 5F40 sleepers? That’s great, I’ll see what can be drawn up from them. Yes the infamous autocorrect hit and I didn’t notice!

Stephen, I’ll bow to knowledge from somebody like yourself anyday. To be honest I’d looked around and Code 82 was the only flat rail that came up with C&L. Is the Peco Code 83 a better option in your view, or is it all person opinion? No offence intended with that last comment, a genuine question.

Richie

Sorry I have only used the Peco products for FB since they stopped doing code 82, so cannot say other than that some code 82 is known to be a bit on the narrow head side. 82 would be better if the head width matches code 75 BH.

 

[Phil O]

Interestingly, looking at this image (from Flickr) of Warrington Bank Quay in 1990, the southbound WCML line still appears to be wooden sleepers, while the northbound has been replaced with concrete. So maybe there is another aspect to be modelled of the different sleeper types.

https://flic.kr/p/2iVoLY3

I could understand the up and down mains/fasts, being concrete and the slows being timber, but the south's/ ups being concrete and the north's/downs being timber is a strange combination.

It would definitely need some research to find out whether the S and C is on concrete bearers or timbers. At your period concrete bearers were only used on straight turnouts and may well still be the case. The reason for that is that it's easy to cast straight concrete bearers, but curved turnouts require bespoke bearers and are therefore uneconomical to cast.

 

[Rich]

Hi Phil,
Yes I thought that definately was an odd combination for the time. But looking back at some other images .. there is this view from 1983 which suggests its been that way for a while

https://flic.kr/p/2kJ3AMe

and this view from 1989 shows it better

https://flic.kr/p/2iMYGZg

But nobody really seems to have done a telephoto shot coming north through the point work to answer your other query.

Richie

 

[Rob Manchester]

Hi Richie,
Interesting project. Flatbottom rail sold in the UK is a bit of a minefield as the head width should be 0.91mm for 4mm scale. Many sellers used to offer FB rail with a narrower head width, usually around 0.7mm or a little wider. This was really made that size as a HO scale rail of about the right dimensions for 1:87 scale rather than 1:76. This narrower rail looks a bit skinny under a class 31 or 86 loco. Peco used to do a nice scale rail ( IL-115 ) with the correct head width but they discontinued it a few years back. The 'finescale' societies sell code 82 rail with the correct head width. If not a member you can buy from their sales stands at shows. I am unsure of the dimensions of C&L FB rail, the Peco code 83 is probably what they use in the HO scale american line of track and will probably have a narrower width.

Are you aware that the Peco Pandrol clips are overscale ? I don't know about the foot sizes on the above rails in terms of how well they fit. You have to cut and shut the standard chairs to make turnouts and crossings.

Going to EM gauge shouldn't be too tricky given you loco and rolling stock options for your chosen modelling period. Diesel/electric era is usually easier than steam as at least you haven't got valve gear/crossheads/pony and bogie trucks etc to deal with.

What couplings are you thinking of using for the stock ? What about the catenary - that takes some thought.

Rob

 

[Rich]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for your message and the background detail. I am a member of the Scalefour Society, so will check their shop out. Yes I had picked up the Peco Pandrol clips were overscale, I am working on an idea for a 3D printed jig to make them out of wire, with the rail being glued to sleepers. Not sure if it will work or not yet though. The whole FBR scenario is taking a bit of working through. Hopefully I’ll get somewhere with it!

EM gauge is an option and I have been a member of the EM Society in the past, many years ago now, but it was the wheelset changes that put me off for this project, more because of the added cost. The price tag associated with new wheelsets on (for example 2x30 HAA wagon sets is substantial!) even though I’d prefer better looking EM track to OO-SF.

As for OHL that is one area I really need to look at, I think the WCML version is achievable but I haven’t put much thought into how. With having a fixed layout however it should be easier than portable. If the first part of the layout works out, I have the ability to build an extension to it which would introduce a station (waaay in the future!) something similar to Stafford I am thinking, fairly simple but added operational interest. But the OHL needs to be adaptable to this.

As for couplings within fixed carriage sets it will be Kadee, fixed wagon sets like the HAAs will be three link, but end vehicles and locos I am currently debating between DG couplings and Dingham but yet to reach a total conclusion.

Richie

 

[Stephen Freeman]

peco pandrols are overscale but they work. As I understand it 3D printing may be an answer but I don't think concrete sleepers are in sight just yet. Pandrol clips possibly I tink may come first but probably cosmetic and have to rely on superglue. Just my view. I think Code 83 has a similar head width to code 75BH.

 

[Cransford]

I could understand the up and down mains/fasts, being concrete and the slows being timber, but the south's/ ups being concrete and the north's/downs being timber is a strange combination.

It would definitely need some research to find out whether the S and C is on concrete bearers or timbers. At your period concrete bearers were only used on straight turnouts and may well still be the case. The reason for that is that it's easy to cast straight concrete bearers, but curved turnouts require bespoke bearers and are therefore uneconomical to cast.

From memory of the time of photograph the S&C at the location in photograph would have been on timber - probably because of the two levelling required on baseplates due to diverging curves and need to have a single timber rake.
If it helps, some detail on concrete bearers might help. Designed for 113A FB vertical design, the choice was limited for a number of years to 'standard' turnout types (e.g. CV9.25, DV15, etc.). Bearers were cast with Pandrol shoulder inserts in the required position with pads glued to the bearer. Bearers are in fact all 'straight', curved layouts have bearers laid radially on the centre line of main line. Although mechanical point operation is possible, usually either clamp locks or point machines (extended bearers) are specified. Longest bearers were in order of 6 metres and very heavy/awkward to change if needed!
Technology has moved along hugely since the original design, not least the move to CEN60 rail (NR60 inclined switch design) and inclined CEN56 (new designation of 113A FB), and bearers are still straight but now with inserts for chairscrewsto hold baseplates (and so the wheel turns!), which are positioned by computer and simplifies manufacure enormously. Also, the other major change was the advent of the S&C train, which allows bearers upto 3.2 metres (if memory serves) to be carried in panel form to site. Longer bearers are created by cutting and fitting jointing sleeves. This would also aid replacement if needed. Point operation has also moved on with in-bearer clamp locks and 'Hy-drive' being used.

Hope the above helps.

Paul

 

[Rich]

I have had it confirmed that the Code 83 FBR available from the EMGS has a rail head width of 0.94mm and a height of 2.07mm (should be 2.08, but whats 0.01mm between friends), while the foot of the rail is 1.9mm, so around 0.07mm over scale, I can live with that!!

So at least with those details now I can start some CAD modelling work when I get chance.