La Cathedrale
Member
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Hello all,
I've realised that my layout plan for Minories, set in the 1890s on the LNWR would not be using REA B switches, and instead using straight cut loose heel switches. I have also established (albeit "secondary research" from forums) that if not interlaced, the timbers would be 14" wide along the length of the turnout using narrow chairs side-by-side instead of bridge chairs. The timbers would also be in 12" increments instead of the more usual 6".
However, I've got myself into a right pickle trying to decode the actual LNWR Pt. Way drawings and how they relate to Templot BH of RB xft Straight Heel Switch.
Example from 1909 LNWR pw diagram
Tweaking the timbering data from a 12' straight heel switch has given me what looks like (to me!) a fairly unique looking turnout:
BH 9' heel switch with a 1:6.8 crossing angle
However interesting and unique looking, the Templot crossing doesn't actually match up with the drawing. I'm not sure if it's a nomenclature thing, but the length of the points between the joint and the tip noted on the diagram, does not seem to correspond to the description of the switch type in Templot, i.e. for a 9' heel switch, the point(?) is more like 11':
I double checked this and for a BH or FB 12' straight heel switch, that distance is more like 17'6" - clearly I am misunderstanding something! Checking the diagram using pixels per inch with track gauge as reference, the 'points' measurement between those dotted lines is correct.
The other thing which is confusing me a little is that the timber spacing under the blades is on a 2' pitch, and those either side of the heel joint and stock rail joints on a 1'9 pitch, and those under the closure rails on a 2'8" pitch
This is 100% a limitation on my ability to input the correct data into Templot, but before I try to reverse engineer from drawings, has someone already done this?
Thank you,
William
I've realised that my layout plan for Minories, set in the 1890s on the LNWR would not be using REA B switches, and instead using straight cut loose heel switches. I have also established (albeit "secondary research" from forums) that if not interlaced, the timbers would be 14" wide along the length of the turnout using narrow chairs side-by-side instead of bridge chairs. The timbers would also be in 12" increments instead of the more usual 6".
However, I've got myself into a right pickle trying to decode the actual LNWR Pt. Way drawings and how they relate to Templot BH of RB xft Straight Heel Switch.
Example from 1909 LNWR pw diagram
Tweaking the timbering data from a 12' straight heel switch has given me what looks like (to me!) a fairly unique looking turnout:
BH 9' heel switch with a 1:6.8 crossing angle
However interesting and unique looking, the Templot crossing doesn't actually match up with the drawing. I'm not sure if it's a nomenclature thing, but the length of the points between the joint and the tip noted on the diagram, does not seem to correspond to the description of the switch type in Templot, i.e. for a 9' heel switch, the point(?) is more like 11':
I double checked this and for a BH or FB 12' straight heel switch, that distance is more like 17'6" - clearly I am misunderstanding something! Checking the diagram using pixels per inch with track gauge as reference, the 'points' measurement between those dotted lines is correct.
The other thing which is confusing me a little is that the timber spacing under the blades is on a 2' pitch, and those either side of the heel joint and stock rail joints on a 1'9 pitch, and those under the closure rails on a 2'8" pitch
This is 100% a limitation on my ability to input the correct data into Templot, but before I try to reverse engineer from drawings, has someone already done this?
Thank you,
William
message ref: 3234