sleeper spacing

[vac_basher]

I've had a good idea for a really intresting layout (more about that tonight ) but as it's going to be small I want to have really detailed track on it, however I don't want to convert to EM or P4 as it would be too expensive and too much trouble to convert all my stock, plus I still have my main layout anyway. So I'm going to stick to OO gauge for this one.

 

Now, what I'd like to know is on the real railway how far apart are the sleepers (concrete) placed?

[Oldddudders]

I've had a good idea for a really intresting layout (more about that tonight ) but as it's going to be small I want to have really detailed track on it, however I don't want to convert to EM or P4 as it would be too expensive and too much trouble to convert all my stock, plus I still have my main layout anyway. So I'm going to stick to OO gauge for this one.

 

Now, what I'd like to know is on the real railway how far apart are the sleepers (concrete) placed?

I can't answer your question directly, but if you want to make OO flexible track look a little better with more realistic sleeper spacing, this chap has an affordable product to help you.

 

http://www.phd-design.co.uk/

[Edwin_m]

As usual the answer is "it depends". The attached shows two sets of concrete sleeper track at Curriehill, identical traffic and speed just different direction of running. The nearer track is more recent and appears to be the product of one of the track replacement trains, and its sleepers are distinctly closer than on the other track. I had a straight down photo from the footbridge but unfortunately seem to have mislaid it - this pic doesn't show it so well but it is still evident if looked at closely.

[Sharpey]

It would depend on what sort of line and when, but there would be 26, 28 or 30 to the length (60 feet).

 

Main lines were generally 28, but in the last 10 years or so that has increased to 30.

 

I am sure some PWay type will clarify, as I am only a mere signal engineer!!!

[bertiedog]

I can't answer your question directly, but if you want to make OO flexible track look a little better with more realistic sleeper spacing, this chap has an affordable product to help you.

 

http://www.phd-design.co.uk/

 

Superb for track, but don't forget that RTR points are difficult to alter, a friend had started re-spacing Peco and then realised he would have to alter the points or build more scale ones like C&L etc.

[vac_basher]

Thanks.

I'll probably go with 28 to the legnth. One more, or one less either way probably isn't too noticable.

PHD have some intresting products. Thanks for that!

[ClikC]

A "Typical" 60ft panel may contain upwards of 5 different sleeper spacings.

 

For a typical jointed flat bottom 60=ft panel with 24 sleepers (Dated from 1969): 318mm + 675mm + 712mm + 751mm + 17 x 788mm + 751mm + 712mm + 675mm + 318mm

 

Bullhead track work, or CWR would both be different again.

 

If your interested in accurate track work vac_basher, i can highly recommend Martin Wynne's Templot program and joining Templot club, as well as perhaps one of the finescale societies such as the Scalefour society. Being a member of one doesn't mean you have to model in their particular track/ wheel standards, but you'll find lots of help and useful information.

 

Regards

 

Matt

[Pete the Elaner]

I agree that this makes a great difference to the appearance of trackwork which is why I am re-spacing the sleepers as I lay the track on m current layout.

 

It sounds like a good excuse to go out & observe the real thing to me...B)

If you can find a station where you will see something you have a model of (eg. Mk 3 at Chelmsford) then count the number of sleepers beneath it.

I did this from a pic of a Mk3 in a book, then worked out spacing & made 2 templates from plasticard. The PH product looks great though. I wish I had seen it before!

The spacing I have used requires 21 sleepers to be removed from each length of streamline.

I am very pleased with the initial results. I have not weatheres & ballasted the trackwork yet, but I have done a short length of track first & I think it looks good.

 

I did not worry about pointwork. My points have wooden bearers as I feel concrete ones were not too common for my layout's era. Bearers are often closer on pointwork than sleepers are on standard track, so I feel I can get away with this.

[zarniwhoop]

I know nothing about concrete sleepers (although they probably got mentioned in the article on the previous forum). Instead, I'll warn what can go wrong: gauge (sleepers can twist), sleepers not holding the rails, curves that aren't (even using a tracksetta gauge). Is it worth doing ? probably.

 

Someone here, maybe Kenton, mentioned he was cutting off all the excess webbing so that he could slide jigs between the sleepers. Good, if you can stand the tedium, but not especially helpful for curves. On my own test track (oval) I started out by marking the sleeper positions on the front part, and adjusting the sleepers by eye, then leaving the track with a tracksetta and a weight on it. Many sleepers moved. I didn't try trimming _all_ the webbing off, only enough to move the sleepers further apart. Later, I made some small templates to slide between the ends of the sleepers. My templates are by no means precision - on the straight track this has mostly helped, but still some sleepers have moved. On the curve (18" radius on 00) I could only use short (straight) templates perhaps 5 sleepers long, and setting the sleepers was still very much by eye.

 

For me, my first attempt was "disappointing" - one section has pulled out of the sleepers on a curve, which requires periodic attention with a pair of pliers - I tried replacing some sleepers with copperclad and using multicore solder, but that hasn't held. At its best, it looks much better, but for the 00 I did some of it at 9.5mm pitch, some at 9mm, some at 8.5mm and the rest as-it-comes (7.1mm for Peco, I think). For the 8.5mm spacing I'm not wholly convinced it was worth it.

 

For 009, worth doing, and wheelsets are usually over-narrow, so no problems!

 

Summary: consider laying a test section, to see if you have the patience and to review what can go wrong. I'm inclined to suggest an offcut of thin ply, unframed (with bulldog clips for power if you like) to see how it works out, and to ballast it so you can see if the effect is worthwhile (I find my attempt, on my running-in loop, looks much less moticeable now it's ballasted).

 

After that test run, of course, you can then go and do it perfectly if you aren't as inept as I am

 

ĸen

[Gordon A]

Re-spacing the sleepers is visually well worth the effort.

 

I might be able to help:

As concrete sleepers have been around for a reasonably long time:

What period is your model?

Type: Main line / Secondary line / Branch or freight or freight?

Rail: Flat bottom or bullhead?

When was the track likely to have been laid?

 

The next step is to build your own pointwork which will very much improve the track appearance, and can under certain circumstances help to improve running.

 

Gordon A

Bristol

[Trog]

It would depend on what sort of line and when, but there would be 26, 28 or 30 to the length (60 feet).

 

Main lines were generally 28, but in the last 10 years or so that has increased to 30.

 

I am sure some PWay type will clarify, as I am only a mere signal engineer!!!

 

 

You can also still find 1960's concrete sleepered track at 24 to the length in both flat bottom and bullhead.

 

In the 1980's and early 1990's the south end of the WCML was relayed at 28 sleepers in 60' on the fasts, and 26 in 60' on the slows.

Now both are done at 30 to the length, with 28 to the length generally being used on more minor lines.

[Kenton]

Now both are done at 30 to the length, with 28 to the length generally being used on more minor lines.

At this rate even Peco will be prototypical one day

[vac_basher]

What period is your model?

Type: Main line / Secondary line / Branch or freight or freight?

Rail: Flat bottom or bullhead?

When was the track likely to have been laid?

 

Gordon, I'll answer your questions:

 

1. Let's say 1985 - 1990.

2. Main line

3. Flat bottom

4. I believe late 1970s/early 1980s.

[James]

Gordon, I'll answer your questions:

 

1. Let's say 1985 - 1990.

2. Main line

3. Flat bottom

4. I believe late 1970s/early 1980s.

 

In 00 don't get too hung up on the number of sleepers per length; go for what looks right as I think it'll get what the effect you want anyway.

 

I'd say concentrate on the P-Way and S&T details - things like loc. boxes, troughing, (cosmetic) point motors and their associated cabling and maybe even markings left by techs from a previous tamping shift?! Looking at the timescale you've given I think they'll help the look more than sleeper spacing on its own.

 

Just my opinion though!

[RedgateModels]

In 00 don't get too hung up on the number of sleepers per length; go for what looks right as I think it'll get what the effect you want anyway.

 

I'd say concentrate on the P-Way and S&T details - things like loc. boxes, troughing, (cosmetic) point motors and their associated cabling and maybe even markings left by techs from a previous tamping shift?! Looking at the timescale you've given I think they'll help the look more than sleeper spacing on its own.

 

Just my opinion though!

 

 

Agreed, as the gauge is "wrong" there is no real way of determining what is "right" for sleeper spacing, or sleeper length for that matter. We have had lots of debate on this matter over the years, sometimes heated, sometimes not. The general consensus is that using prototypical sleeper length and spacing will not work with OO track as this makes the track took too "narrow gauge". So accepting this some form of compromise with shorter sleepers and closer spacing might be considered to get the track to look right.

 

 

Best thing to do as has been said is to experiment and find out what looks right to you. Once the track is buried in ballast the spacing is not so much of an issue IMHO

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest stuartp]

Looking at the timescale you've given I think they'll help the look more than sleeper spacing on its own.

 

Agreed. I've walked along an awful lot of railway lines during my career and never conciously noticed that the last 4 sleepers were at gradually reducing spacings. (I'm not a PW bloke for those of you getting worried about competency !). The things that make 00 track look 'right' for me are the details - loc boxes, orange piping (or absence of depending on period), cable runs, not too neat and tidy etc.

 

For example, and slightly off the subject, the thing that really kills a pre-privatisation deisel layout for me is not the track spacing or the flangeways, or eaven the hook and bar blunderbus under the buffer beam - it's blue (or grey) deisels with Bachmann tango-suited hard-hatted PW men straight out of the packet. Without any offence intended to PW types, your typical blue deisel era PW man is a scruff in a donkey jacket and jeans with a hi-viz tied round his waist. He might have an orange bib and braces on if he's feeling dressy, but hard hats and head to toe day-glo orange are very much a post-Railtrack-era thing.

 

[Edited following Redgate's comment. Post-Railtrack]

[James]

Once the track is buried in ballast the spacing is not so much of an issue IMHO

 

You could always model one road after a ballast drop - sleeper spacing wouldn't be an issue at all then!

[RedgateModels]

head to toe day-glo orange are very much a Railtrack-era thing.

 

 

Actually mandatory wearing of orange trousers only came in last year hard hats only a couple of years ago (ish)

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete Harvey]

Buy the way guys my sleeper spacing tool is available for you to order from my web site

 

It can be used on any make of track not just Peco track.

 

Pete

[GRUNFOS]

These are my efforts on my new layout based on the diesel shed at Wigan.Will be starting a blog soon. Pete if these are any use you are more than welcome to use them.

Paul

[Pete Harvey]

Thanks for posting your results what you have achieved looks very good it will be good to see your layout when you have progressed some more.

 

Pete

[Pete the Elaner]

Best thing to do as has been said is to experiment and find out what looks right to you. Once the track is buried in ballast the spacing is not so much of an issue IMHO

One of many aspects which all go to help the overall appearance. It slows down the process of track laying but I am happy that the extra effort was worth it.

 

Experimenting with a piece of test track is always a good idea. I am currently trying different rail & ballast colours then I'll get the airbrush out before deciding exactly what I'm going to do on the layout.

[Andy Y]

I knocked up a photo plank/bank at the weekend; part of the reason was to see if I could get Code 75 to look acceptable for forthcoming works. The sleepers had their spacing increased so that 6 sleepers filled the space previously occupied by 7 sleepers. Ballast spray fixed with Johnsons Klear. The sleeper colour was muted right down and the rails painted in Tamiya Nato Brown, a wash of Nato Black over that and Tamiya Rust weathering powder.

 

It's up to the user of course but it'll do for what I want on the next layout.

 

 

Click for full screen.

[Guest jim s-w]

Thats looks bang on Andy - Petes sleeper spacing does too.

 

Just need some HO stock so you dont spoil it.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Grimleygrid]

Thanks for sharing that with us Andy, very helpful. The increased spacing certainly does make a difference.

 

I think I will purchase one of Pete’s jigs to help me when I am ready to lay track.