Wooden sleeper bullhead track to new flat bottom concrete turnout

[Foden]

Hi guys.

 

Prototypically, if you had a secondary branch line, or sidings which was older bullhead track on wooden sleepers, and there was then to be built a newly laid section of sidings off this track, but by this point the materials used were flat bottom rail and concrete sleepers, how would this transition from the main running line (older) bullhead wooden sleeper to new flat bottom concrete sleeper work?

 

I’m aware of transition joints between bullhead and flat bottom rail, but I’m wondering if a section of the running line would be effectively cut out, and replaced with a flat bottom concrete turnout, with transition joints either side on the running line.

 

Or in model terms would it be Peco bullhead - C75 turnout (concrete) - Peco bullhead, or is it more complicated than that?

[davefrk]

More likely a bullhead point would be added, there are still places where bullhead has been newly laid.

A thread on here last year showed photos of new bullhead, okay some components may have been secondhand but for sidings I doubt a new concrete turnout would be used.

 

Dave Franks.

[Foden]

Thank you Dave, I wasn’t aware new, or even reclaimed bullhead was being relaid at all within the last few decades to be totally honest.

[Ben Alder]

Here is the thread about contemporary bullhead track - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126094-remaining-sections-of-bullhead-railway/

[SED Freightman]

If a new connection is to be inserted into a run of BH track on wooden sleepers it would appear to make sense for the new turnout to be installed on hardwood timbers whether it is constructed from BH or FB rail.  This would also eliminate any problems arising from the need to avoid creating a 'Hither Green Joint' by having two wooden or concrete sleepers either side of the joints.

[Pete the Elaner]

I have only ever seen concrete bearer pointwork on main lines between sections of concrete sleeper FB track.

The first time I saw concrete bearer pointwork was Paddington's station throat, early this century.

[ejstubbs]

Here is the thread about contemporary bullhead track - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/126094-remaining-sections-of-bullhead-railway/

 

And another one here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131328-bullhead-on-the-main-line/

[Trog]

If a new connection is to be inserted into a run of BH track on wooden sleepers it would appear to make sense for the new turnout to be installed on hardwood timbers whether it is constructed from BH or FB rail.  This would also eliminate any problems arising from the need to avoid creating a 'Hither Green Joint' by having two wooden or concrete sleepers either side of the joints.

 

Or you could just employ competent staff who abut the concrete bearer S&C to a panel of concrete sleepered flatbottom track, the far end of this panel to have two hardwood Pan11 sleepers, before the weld joining this panel to a short panel of new bullhead on hardwood track. This spreads out the changes in track behavior, avoids the need for a set of flatbottom bullhead step and junction fishplates. (which you can be assured will break at 3am on a rainy February morning), and when and if the adjoining plain line is relayed there will be something to run the new work out into. If there is an IBJ off the fronts or at the crossing joints the avoiding making that joint the junction between the two rail sections becomes even more important. Unless you really hate the local maintainers, who will no doubt at some really inconvenient time, have to find a set of new FB to worn BH IBJ plates with the right step, in a hurry and pouring rain.

 

I did know of a supervisor who had an 113lb FB (not 113A) to 97 1/2lb BH IBJ on his patch, such an odd combination that he could only get the wooden Permalli plates for it which lasted about a week. Why he did not arrange a job to change enough chairs and baseplates to use a modern shop made 113A IBJ I will never know.

 

I think it is also true that for the period 1965 - ~ 1975 the only concrete bearer lead on BR was used to provide a connection from a goods line to coal yard sidings.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Trog

[jeff mcghie]

Trog,

 

If you really hate the local TME then its a CEN60 concrete layout butting onto the bullhead siding with a (short) IBJ transition rail between.....

[Ncarter2]

Trog,

 

If you really hate the local TME then its a CEN60 concrete layout butting onto the bullhead siding with a (short) IBJ transition rail between.....

Or a RT60 single slip with Wood Sidings, short section of CEN60 curved jointind with a hybrid CEN60/CEN56 breather switch just to make it all the more interesting.

 

Thankfully CEN60 S&C is on it’s way out.

[Southernman46]

Thankfully CEN60 S&C is on it’s way out.

Alle - bloody - lujah !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Utter carp - especially the obtuses - were the bane of my life as a TME

[Ncarter2]

Alle - bloody - lujah !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Utter carp - especially the obtuses - were the bane of my life as a TME

I have a couple of switches that last 6-9 months before completely done. It was so bad we had to get derogation to weld repair them every couple of months. Thankfully we now have a HP set, that was a massive headache getting that signed off. So far I’ve lost two turnouts back to 113/56E1.

[phil-b259]

 

Thankfully CEN60 S&C is on it’s way out.

 

What has it been replaced with? because my understanding is that CEN 60 / RT60 is still the new standard for ALL new work (as in major relays like complete replacement of Earlswood (Surrey) south junction S&C with modular S&C and 'In Barer' type Clamp Lock mechanisms)

[jeff mcghie]

Are you perhaps thinking of NR60 mk2 which is (allegedly) the same footprint as vertical 113A layouts but in NR60 rail?

[phil-b259]

Are you perhaps thinking of NR60 mk2 which is (allegedly) the same footprint as vertical 113A layouts but in NR60 rail?

 

Might be, I am not a P-Way person.....

 

When NR60 / CEN60 was installed we were told the Free Wheel Clearance between the stock and switch rail had to be a minimum of 60mm instead of 50mm for previous, smaller / lighter rail types

Edited April 11, 2018 by phil-b259

[Ncarter2]

Might be, I am not a P-Way person.....

 

When NR60 / CEN60 was installed we were told the Free Wheel Clearance between the stock and switch rail had to be a minimum of 60mm instead of 50mm for previous, smaller / lighter rail types

Going back to good old 113 or in new money 56E1.

 

Southampton was a major S&C renewal a couple of years back, it was replaced with 113. Same for Fareham and Northam and as I say a Cen 60 layout was replaced with 113 approx two years back. Shawford junctions is planned next year, 113.

 

RT60 and is successor NR60 is no longer the standard at least on our route, but I’m lead to believe it is also no longer going to be the preferred option for future renewals, just replaced as required under maintenance.

[Trog]

113A please gentlemen 113lb FB rail is the older 1940's section which is taller and has a thinner web.

 

Let us PW engineers set a good example to all these drivers, signalmen and the staff of the lesser departments.

[jeff mcghie]

Up here its been 113A S&C unless a long switch (greater than F) for a long time however the new RAM has apparently decided that if the book say NR60 for higher cat lines then NR60 S&C it will be so.

[Ncarter2]

Up here its been 113A S&C unless a long switch (greater than F) for a long time however the new RAM has apparently decided that if the book say NR60 for higher cat lines then NR60 S&C it will be so.

I remember when the H switch was installed at Rugby with the Hy-Drive, 125mph equal split. We all thought it was great but lasted 5 years before replacing was needed