S&D Track

[johnofwessex]

Looking at photo's, as far as I can see in the BR era, the S&D had all conceivable track combinations, flat bottom & bull head on concrete or wood sleepers, but was there any continuously welded rail?

[RailWest]

...to which list one might add - did they have any metal sleepers or the 'pot' type?

Edited December 19, 2018 by RailWest

[johnofwessex]

...to which list one might add - did they have any metal sleepers or the 'pot' type?

 

Ah!  Good thinking 

[geoffers]

Where I was around Bailey Gate on the southern section of line it was all bullhead with metal (not wooden) chocks and both wooden and concrete sleepers.

[phil_sutters]

On 12/19/2018 at 7:02 PM, johnofwessex said:

Looking at photo's, as far as I can see in the BR era, the S&D had all conceivable track combinations, flat bottom & bull head on concrete or wood sleepers, but was there any continuously welded rail?

It seems unlikely as continuous welded rail was only introduced on British Railways in 1960, according to a Hansard record in 1969.

[Trog]

On ‎02‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 20:44, phil_sutters said:

It seems unlikely as continuous welded rail was only introduced on British Railways in 1960, according to a Hansard record in 1969.

 

Hansard reports the words of MP's so probably a lie.

 

Given that BR set up four depots to flash-butt weld CWR in 1955, after various experiments dating back to the late 1930's with increasing lengths of welded rail. The London Underground apparently was an early user of CWR, with a train designed to carry 300' rails being put into service during WW2.

[TheSignalEngineer]

On 18/02/2019 at 19:38, Trog said:

 

Hansard reports the words of MP's so probably a lie.

 

Given that BR set up four depots to flash-butt weld CWR in 1955, after various experiments dating back to the late 1930's with increasing lengths of welded rail. The London Underground apparently was an early user of CWR, with a train designed to carry 300' rails being put into service during WW2.

Did BR set them up in 1955 or was that when the Kremlin gave authority to do it? The BTC didn't issue Civil Engineering Handbook No.11 relating to the installation of CWR until 1962.

 

A report by Major Rose on a number of CWR derailments in the late 1960s (see  http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_CWR1969.pdf ) gives the impression that there was very little actually installed prior to 1960. 

This is extract for track distortions in jointed and CWR track from 1958 to 1969 shows the relative lengths of each in service by year.

 

 

[Trog]

According to Andrew Dow in The railway British track since 1804 Page 377 Note 47. The flash-butt welding machines were purchased in 1955.

 

I would assume that there was then an experimental stage with test lengths being laid and experience gained. Until say 1960 when they were sure what worked and that CWR was the best thing since sliced rail. Then once it was decided what they were going for handbook 11 could be written, checked and agreed for issue in 1962. That might also fit with the figure of 117 miles in 1958, buy the machines in 1955, in service 1956 and start cautiously installing test lengths, with more and longer ones installed as the earlier ones proved serviceable.

[Quintus]

There was no CWR on the S&D. I was a fireman at Templecombe until the line closed in 1966 so regularly worked the whole of the route.

[johnofwessex]

I have just been ;looking at 'The Somerset & Dorset in Colour' by Mike Arlett & David Lockett

 

There are two pictures taken at Shepton Mallett on 6.8.62 which show Flat Bottom rail on concrete sleepers on the down platform.  This appears to be welded into lengths greater than 60ft but still jointed..............

 

 

[Trog]

On ‎04‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 10:06, johnofwessex said:

I have just been ;looking at 'The Somerset & Dorset in Colour' by Mike Arlett & David Lockett

 

There are two pictures taken at Shepton Mallett on 6.8.62 which show Flat Bottom rail on concrete sleepers on the down platform.  This appears to be welded into lengths greater than 60ft but still jointed..............

 

 

 

Although its creation is now banned due to the risk of track buckles LWR (Long welded rail) as opposed to CWR (Continuously welded rail) was sometimes used, and pre-existing examples can still be seen. Where the PW thought it might be a good idea to avoid having a joint. Examples included under bridges where a pair of 120' rails might be used to avoid having a joint on the bridge or over the bridge abutment, and I have used them myself on a sharp curve to help avoid the thrupenny bit effect that can occur as the rails straighten under traffic, the longer rails being easier to lay in a nice curve. You do however have to consider the effects of expansion and to help counter this I used two extra concrete sleepers per length and a CWR ballast shoulder. 120' rails were the most common form of LWR but 180' could also sometimes be found.