Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 This picture appeared in Peco's annual summary the other day. Not sure if it is of a production model or the Warley prototype but might be of interest. Peco page-crop.jpg Where the heck did they get the idea that the timbers should be at an angle to the straight stock rail? Even their own existing range has the timbers perpendicular to the straight stock rail. If it doesn't look as good as this: I won't buy it. Image originally on this thread.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 Where the heck did they get the idea that the timbers should be at an angle to the straight stock rail? Even their own existing range has the timbers perpendicular to the straight stock rail. If it doesn't look as good as this: post-1131-0-44170700-1451119594.jpg I won't buy it. Image originally on this thread.... Hi Dr Try the Great Western Railway with their 00 track. Many pre grouping railways and the GWR well past 1923 aligned their timbers on a center line from the crossing v to the middle of the two stock rails at the heel of the switch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 This picture appeared in Peco's annual summary the other day. Not sure if it is of a production model or the Warley prototype but might be of interest. Peco page-crop.jpg The equalized sleepering would not be my preference but I could live with that. More difficulties with the sleeper spacing around the crossing. But above all, the Peco "standard geometry" is a deal breaker for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 Where the heck did they get the idea that the timbers should be at an angle to the straight stock rail? That's standard practice in many cases, according to the traffic density over each route, or the prototype origin. It is also normal (in fact essential) practice for diamond-crossings and slips. I've written reams of stuff about this in the past so I won't regurgitate it all again. However, such equalized (skewed) timbers are normally centralized, rather than having the length increments all on one side as in Peco's pre-production drawing. Peco also use skewed timbering for their 0 gauge bullhead pointwork, although in that case it is to enable them to use the same moulding for the crossing section in both LH and RH turnouts. For REA crossings the timbers should be 12" wide at 30" centres. Or in 00 gauge 4mm wide at 10mm centres. That means the gap between them should be 6mm, i.e. 50% wider than the timbers. The drawing certainly looks spindlier than that, although it is impossible to say whether that is because the timbers are too narrow or the spacing too wide. The sleepers at the end should be 10" wide (3.3mm), with a noticeable difference in width from the long timbers. It's not obvious that that is the case. Timbers at the switch end are closer than that, typically 28" centres. Between the heel of the switch and the crossing the spacing varies, because it is necessary to fit a whole number of timbers within the lead length. But it's not more than 30" centres. Where there are fishplated rail joints the timbers are closed up to 24" or 25" spacing. There should be 3 such closed-up spaces in a typical REA turnout, but none appear to have been replicated in the drawing. But give them their due -- they haven't replicated the ludicrous bent timber on the end of their flat-bottom pointwork. Martin. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Where the heck did they get the idea that the timbers should be at an angle to the straight stock rail? Even their own existing range has the timbers perpendicular to the straight stock rail. If it doesn't look as good as this: post-1131-0-44170700-1451119594.jpg I won't buy it. Image originally on this thread.... This drawing is from about 1940 and is of a standard turnout used for British military railways. It is FB, military logistics made the extra transport needed for chairs undesirable (sleepers and timbers could normally be sourced more locally) for overseas use. It follows the Committee on British Standard Permanent Way practice except that "crossing sleepers" were to be of the same cross section as ordinary sleepers (normally 10" by 5") rather that the larger 12" by 6" cross section of civil practice. Most of the actual drawings I've been able find from before pointwork was largely prefabricated do have the bearers splitting the angle between the diverging tracks particularly around the crossing. There does though seem to have been a lot of variation and this would surely have depended on the practice of individual railways as well as the engineering requirements of each situation with factors such as the relative traffic across each branch being taken into account. I wonder if there's not sometimes a desire by modellers to seek a single "correct" answer on prototype practice that doesn't really exist. Martin I suspect the oddly angled "bent" sleeper at the end of Streamline pointwork was put there to strengthen it and supposedly represents the first separate sleeper on each branch beyond the crossing. Fortunately, a few seconds with a craft knife will remove it. Peco's previous "Pecoway" points were straight timbered throughout. Edited February 3, 2017 by Pacific231G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Martin I suspect the oddly angled "bent" sleeper at the end of Streamline pointwork was put there to strengthen it and supposedly represents the first separate sleeper on each branch beyond the crossing. Fortunately, a few seconds with a craft knife will remove it. Peco's previous "Pecoway" points were straight timbered throughout. Interesting diagram, wonky ties do look odd to me but there they are on the diagram. Did this die out as track laying became increasingly mechanised, I wonder? Your reference to the Peco 'bent' sleeper reminded me of this excellent comparison you had previously posted, hope you don't mind the repost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 My copy of the LNER version of the REA standards shows the timbers perpendicular to the straight through stock rail except for the last few beyond the crossing where the tracks diverge. The diverging track then has timbers perpendicular to itself but interleaved with the running timbers of the straight line. So in that regard, the existing standard Peco arrangement is not so far out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 American steam era turnout Ties perpendicular to straight stock rail, ties increase in (regular) sizes until normal trackage resumes beyoond the turnout, ties closer together to support the crossing and guard rails Nothing at all to do with Peco bullhead, but hopefully of interest. US railroads were early proponents of standardised prefab turnouts, and ruthlessly eliminated 'tricky track' as far as possible. Modern era turnouts follow similar principles, just massively scaled up for weight of modern rolling stock. Anyone got UK turnout diagrams like this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 3, 2017 My copy of the LNER version of the REA standards shows the timbers perpendicular to the straight through stock rail except for the last few beyond the crossing where the tracks diverge. The diverging track then has timbers perpendicular to itself but interleaved with the running timbers of the straight line. So in that regard, the existing standard Peco arrangement is not so far out. Hi REA (LNER, LMS and SR) point work and later BR standard points do have the timbers perpendicular to the straight rail. The GWR did not. When he P4 Track Company introduced is wonderful kits there was a moan by GWR modellers that it was to REA standards not GWR. Track manufacturers are going to be wrong which ever they do as the potential modeller will want the other one. Perhaps some modellers would still be better off waiting for DCC to introduce their points. I am still dreaming of the day when there is RTR track flatbottom with Mills Clips and point work with ST clips............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 REA (LNER, LMS and SR) point work and later BR standard points do have the timbers perpendicular to the straight rail. The GWR did not. This is silly. ALL companies used both arrangements. The standard drawings are shown square-on simply because they are easier to draw that way as a "typical" timbering layout. The actual decision on which timbering layout to use is based on site conditions and weight and speed of traffic over each route. And lots of other considerations such as degree of prefabrication. Peco's choice of equalized incremental timbering is entirely suitable for steam-era bullhead pointwork with hand-packed timbering for all companies, and is typical of station throats and junctions, and also yards and sidings. Not so good for trailing crossovers in running lines out in the country, but you can't have everything. Martin. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pint of Adnams Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Peco's choice of equalized incremental timbering is entirely suitable for steam-era bullhead pointwork with hand-packed timbering for all companies, and is typical of station throats and junctions, and also yards and sidings. Not so good for trailing crossovers in running lines out in the country, but you can't have everything. That'll do for me 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure whether I should post this. I don't want to be unfair to Peco, and it is derived from their copyright pre-production artwork. Perhaps Andy Y can give a ruling. Based on their artwork, the Peco bullhead turnout is a surprisingly close match to an A-6.25 turnout with curviform crossing. More so than their flat-bottom range, so it would seem that Peco have tweaked the internal rail alignments while maintaining the overall footprint size and the 12-degree exit angle. Here is a bit of their drawing (solid brown timbers) with an REA A-6.25 turnout overlaid (hatched orange timber outlines): The timber spacing is a good match for the Z - Y - X - A timbers but the B - C - D timbers are more widely spaced than scale. The closed up timber spacing at the Z timber for the wing rail front joint is completely missed, but disregarding that the closure timbering is then correctly spaced one from another. The check rails are clearly too short (and barely fully-functional in checking the knuckle gap), while the wing rails are a bit too long. All in all it has the look of a pre-grouping design (pre-1923) rather than an REA design (introduced 1925). Of course this is all based on the assumption that the published artwork accurately represents the final product, which may prove to be far from the case. The discrepancies are likely to become non-obvious when ballasted and painted, and of course it is a vast improvement on the code 75 flat-bottom pointwork to represent bullhead track. Martin. Edited February 3, 2017 by martin_wynne 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guillemot Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 The DCC concepts track seems to have gone very quite at this moment in time and there has not be a great deal in the modelling press ...possibly people are awaiting point work to appear before making any firm commitments into either camp. I stopped by the DCC concepts shop to pick up a couple of items recently and asked them about the points. They hope to have a prototype ready to show at the Alexandra Palace show in March. The flexible track looks very nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Roy Langridge Posted February 3, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 3, 2017 This is silly. ALL companies used both arrangements. The standard drawings are shown square-on simply because they are easier to draw that way as a "typical" timbering layout. The actual decision on which timbering layout to use is based on site conditions and weight and speed of traffic over each route. And lots of other considerations such as degree of prefabrication. Peco's choice of equalized incremental timbering is entirely suitable for steam-era bullhead pointwork with hand-packed timbering for all companies, and is typical of station throats and junctions, and also yards and sidings. Not so good for trailing crossovers in running lines out in the country, but you can't have everything. Martin. Fully agree. I just spent time on google earth and examples of both cases exist today. I mainly looked in yards where older track work exists. Roy 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Where the heck did they get the idea that the timbers should be at an angle to the straight stock rail? Even their own existing range has the timbers perpendicular to the straight stock rail. If it doesn't look as good as this: post-1131-0-44170700-1451119594.jpg I won't buy it. Image originally on this thread.... Brings back some memories and mislaid it for a while during my house move. The main issue other than wider timber spacing's is also the timbers are wider than plain sleepers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Interesting diagram, wonky ties do look odd to me but there they are on the diagram. Did this die out as track laying became increasingly mechanised, I wonder? Your reference to the Peco 'bent' sleeper reminded me of this excellent comparison you had previously posted, hope you don't mind the repost. post-6882-0-12845200-1443025256.jpg Not at all Doc. I'd noticed that SMP effectively had the same bent timber though on the plastic version the two sleepers are sort of separated but improbably cut down. The angle of chairs is even more improbable. .I couldn't agree more with Martin and aren't we always told with rolling stock not to assume that the diagram is the same as the real vehicle but to look for actual photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just how widely available is this track........I couldn't find any at the Stafford Model Railway show yesterday 4th Feb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andytrains Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I had to ring the dealers that were at the Longfield show before to order the track and only one had it in stock, (10 lengths), so it seems to be selling well. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Midland Mole Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Just how widely available is this track........I couldn't find any at the Stafford Model Railway show yesterday 4th Feb. We've got about 5 boxes of the stuff at the shop, I keep meaning to buy some myself. Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 We've got about 5 boxes of the stuff at the shop, I keep meaning to buy some myself. Alex What shop is that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Midland Mole Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 What shop is that? Footplate, in Kidderminster. The track is not currently on the website, but if you want some give us a ring and we can do an order over the phone. Alex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Footplate, in Kidderminster. The track is not currently on the website, but if you want some give us a ring and we can do an order over the phone. Alex You were at the Stafford show at the weekend......I told my pal( who wants some of it) that you were a good bet to have some on your stall. He told me later there was non at the show, I assume he came and asked on your stand.??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Midland Mole Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) You were at the Stafford show at the weekend......I told my pal( who wants some of it) that you were a good bet to have some on your stall. He told me later there was non at the show, I assume he came and asked on your stand.??? I'm not sure, I am not one of the ones who goes to shows with the stand unfortunately. It is possible we took some but sold it, although I think our entire stock of it is at the shop. When I am back in on Thursday I will ask my boss about it. Alex Edited February 6, 2017 by Midland Mole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Budgie Posted February 12, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) When do you think Peco will bring out bullhead track with concrete sleepers? For the prototype see Model Rail 232, p.43. Edited February 12, 2017 by Budgie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Clive Mortimore Posted February 12, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 12, 2017 When do you think Peco will bring out bullhead track with concrete sleepers? For the prototype see Model Rail 232, p.43. I cannot see why not. C&L already do an E1 or E4 sleeper for bullhead track. Concrete sleepers and bullhead track was quite wide spread, the LMR had a habit of laying on branch lines then closing them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts