Jump to content
 

HIGHLAND RAILWAY TRACK


keidal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Can anyone please tell me if the Highland Railway normally used 40' 0" lengths of rail, which I believe they did and also, what the sleeper spacing might have been specified for a length of track ?

I have looked at many photographs of straight track and the number of sleepers appears to vary between eleven and fourteen - presuming that they were 40' 0" lengths, which I believe they were - or were they 30' 0" lengths as standard ?

Thank you for any suggestions.

Keith

 

Edited by keidal
more text
Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, 30' was a common rail length, capable of being carried on pairs of four wheeled wagons. Then, 45' was adopted as a common standard, followed in the 20th century by the now standard 60'. Paralleling this was the development of bogie flat wagons (more strictly, rail and timber wagons, aka bogie bolster wagons), initially around 45' long, then the 62' wagons capable of carrying entire panels of track.

 

Jim 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Highland lines were laid with shorter rails. The Dunkeld-Forres section had 24', 75lb/yd rails in 22lb chairs on larch and fir sleepers spaced at 3'; the Invergordon-Bonar bridge section had lighter 70lb/yd rail (from Joseph Mitchell's 1867 paper on the line's construction quoted in the 1955 SLS HR cententary history). The Sutherland Railway (1870) had 22' rails with sleepers at 2'9" spacing, fang-bolted directly to the sleepers and so presumably flat-bottom (from the BoT report on the line's opening).

 

After that I suppose it would depend on the renewal date and the contemporary HR practice. The HRS might have PW department records which would pin down exact details.

 

Regards

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really buy the relationship between wagon and rail lengths, as 720'-0" CWR was delivered on trains of four wheel bolster wagons. So I don't see any reason why 60'-0" rails could not have been delivered the same way, if the railway company had wanted to. Also I think 60'-0" rails became common before the longer bogie wagons did.

 

I seem to remember reading that the LNER used 45'-0" rails on minor lines in country districts, as the shorter rails could...

 

a)  Be produced as serviceable by cropping the old dipped ends off ex-mainline 60'-0" rails.

b)  The resulting 45'-0" long rails were easier for the smaller maintenance gangs used on such lines to handle.

 

Possibly the HR did the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trog said:

I don't really buy the relationship between wagon and rail lengths, as 720'-0" CWR was delivered on trains of four wheel bolster wagons. So I don't see any reason why 60'-0" rails could not have been delivered the same way, if the railway company had wanted to. Also I think 60'-0" rails became common before the longer bogie wagons did.

 

I seem to remember reading that the LNER used 45'-0" rails on minor lines in country districts, as the shorter rails could...

 

a)  Be produced as serviceable by cropping the old dipped ends off ex-mainline 60'-0" rails.

b)  The resulting 45'-0" long rails were easier for the smaller maintenance gangs used on such lines to handle.

 

Possibly the HR did the same?

The 1943 edition of the PWI's British Railway Track notes that "Until a few years ago the usual length of rails was 45 ft. though there are still a number of 30' and shorter rails in use. The standard length is now 60 ft. and 90 ft. rails coming into favour on some railways." That ties in with the way in which all four of the pre-nationalisation companies built fleets of 62-67 ft rail wagons in the mid- to late-1930s. Bogie rail wagons before that had, with a few shorter exceptions, been 45'. There were not many bolster wagons in the 30-35ft range, but rails of that length could be, and were, easily handled on pairs of four-wheeled single or double bolster wagons. Bogie wagons were themselves not that common until late in the Victorian era.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LNWR a railway admittedly noted for the quality of their permanent way started using 60'-0" rails in the mid 1890's. Although older rail forms would have persisted for many years particularly on branch lines. For example a couple of years ago I came across a length of track still using 45'-0" bullhead rails rolled in the 1920's in an ex LNER line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all these comments.

I'm particularly interested in the lines described in Peter Tatlow's book : The Dingwall - Skye Railway and specifically in the Achanalt station area. There appears to be 11 sleepers to a length of track which is on a very large radius curve.

Here, there is a short signal post with a large white painted S on the arm which presumably means "just start and then reverse on to the other loop" - the point is just beyond it on single track ? I've not seen that feature on other HR station photographs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trog said:

The LNWR a railway admittedly noted for the quality of their permanent way started using 60'-0" rails in the mid 1890's. Although older rail forms would have persisted for many years particularly on branch lines. For example a couple of years ago I came across a length of track still using 45'-0" bullhead rails rolled in the 1920's in an ex LNER line. 

The LNWR, who owned their own steelworks and rolling mill at Crewe were a long way ahead of their competitors in terms of using 60' rails. It took decades for the other railways to get beyond 45' rails.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, keidal said:

Thank you for all these comments.

I'm particularly interested in the lines described in Peter Tatlow's book : The Dingwall - Skye Railway and specifically in the Achanalt station area. There appears to be 11 sleepers to a length of track which is on a very large radius curve.

Here, there is a short signal post with a large white painted S on the arm which presumably means "just start and then reverse on to the other loop" - the point is just beyond it on single track ? I've not seen that feature on other HR station photographs.

The Great Western had similar signals that meant just that, ie to Shunt ahead into the section ahead without the token. There is, presumably, an advance starter (section) signal to define the limit of such a shunt move.

I wasn't aware of their existence on the Highland, but railways in the pre-BR era had a formidable array of special signals for unusual movements.

 

Jim

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a much taller Home and Distant signal just ahead of this S signal, which was sited just beyond the end of the platform.

There were no other signals before it.

The other part of the loop gave access to a single siding, via a Y point before the platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work on the basis that the Highland's track in late pre-grouping was in 30 foot panels. 

 

However, I suggest it is a mistake to presume that there is "one" answer to what was standard track to a particular company.  As has already been illustrated there were a variety of answers and, over time, these would have changed too.  The Highland in particular was very economically minded and would have gone for any deal going! 

 

With regard to the signal, this is a shunt signal.  It was used to control movements onto or off sidings and similar.  As such, you would find them on the running tack controlling movements onto either a goods loop or MPDs etch or the return journey.  You can see one of my signals that has a shunt arm here and my (now slightly superseded) signalling plan here - the shunt arms are the arms with crosses on them, for example arms 15 & 16.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Portchullin Tatty said:

With regard to the signal, this is a shunt signal.  It was used to control movements onto or off sidings and similar.  As such, you would find them on the running tack controlling movements onto either a goods loop or MPDs etch or the return journey.  You can see one of my signals that has a shunt arm here and my (now slightly superseded) signalling plan here - the shunt arms are the arms with crosses on them, for example arms 15 & 16.

Thank you - a sort of semaphore equivalent of the more modern ground disc signals, and quite different to the GW's Shunt Ahead signal. Pre-grouping signalling practice varied considerably between the companies, with much of it not being documented in the general press.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a few links to shunt signals on Am Baile:

 

Burghead - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26983&location=grid&asset_list=13876,27089,27896,27339,27963,27263,26983,27109,26965,27960,27887,6637,13706,30948,27447,27448,19898,19902,19913,19914,19988,19853,19859,19899,19915,19967,19978,20018,27212,27213,27500,27501,27510,27804,19961,20057,23729,23730,23731,23732,23734,19836,19840,19850,19963,26755,26880,27170,27480,27503&basket_item_id=undefined

 

The Mound - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=27965&location=grid&asset_list=2099,41188,2001,1481,1477,27622,27665,27965,13412,8173,10004,10002,9988,9669,9664,9638,5464,5466,12235,20134,20136,20137,20139,21591,26563,26567,26570,26763,26815,26908,26937,26942,26951,26952,26953,26959,26973,26992,27017,27023,27026,27027,27135,27183,27249,27257,27276,27281,27322,27324&basket_item_id=undefined

 

Dingwall - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26552&location=grid&asset_list=20138,11625,26552,26554,26557,26558,26559,26560,26561,26562,26564,26961,26962,27613,30947,31010,31041,31365,31540,11930,11427,20135,11652,11656,5934,5936,5938,5940,5943,8139,14431,20004,26868,27024,27045,27284,27494,27495,27496,27524,27615,27874&basket_item_id=undefined

 

Forres - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26561&location=grid&asset_list=20138,11625,26552,26554,26557,26558,26559,26560,26561,26562,26564,26961,26962,27613,30947,31010,31041,31365,31540,11930,11427,20135,11652,11656,5934,5936,5938,5940,5943,8139,14431,20004,26868,27024,27045,27284,27494,27495,27496,27524,27615,27874&basket_item_id=undefined

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/05/2019 at 00:20, jim.snowdon said:

The 1943 edition of the PWI's British Railway Track notes that "Until a few years ago the usual length of rails was 45 ft. though there are still a number of 30' and shorter rails in use. The standard length is now 60 ft. and 90 ft. rails coming into favour on some railways." ..................

 

Jim

I don't know where 90ft rails came into favour - they certainly didn't gain universal acceptance and the only 90' ones I recall were pairs of 45 footers welded together !

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

I don't know where 90ft rails came into favour - they certainly didn't gain universal acceptance and the only 90' ones I recall were pairs of 45 footers welded together !

That is rather what I would suspect, in the same way as there was some experimentation with pairs of 60' rails welded into 120' lengths. There was reference to 180' rails being created for use in tunnels, but there, expansion is less of an issue and the practicalities of maintaining fishplated joints in tunnels might have been the greater issue.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Portchullin Tatty said:

Here are a few links to shunt signals on Am Baile:

 

Burghead - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26983&location=grid&asset_list=13876,27089,27896,27339,27963,27263,26983,27109,26965,27960,27887,6637,13706,30948,27447,27448,19898,19902,19913,19914,19988,19853,19859,19899,19915,19967,19978,20018,27212,27213,27500,27501,27510,27804,19961,20057,23729,23730,23731,23732,23734,19836,19840,19850,19963,26755,26880,27170,27480,27503&basket_item_id=undefined

 

The Mound - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=27965&location=grid&asset_list=2099,41188,2001,1481,1477,27622,27665,27965,13412,8173,10004,10002,9988,9669,9664,9638,5464,5466,12235,20134,20136,20137,20139,21591,26563,26567,26570,26763,26815,26908,26937,26942,26951,26952,26953,26959,26973,26992,27017,27023,27026,27027,27135,27183,27249,27257,27276,27281,27322,27324&basket_item_id=undefined

 

Dingwall - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26552&location=grid&asset_list=20138,11625,26552,26554,26557,26558,26559,26560,26561,26562,26564,26961,26962,27613,30947,31010,31041,31365,31540,11930,11427,20135,11652,11656,5934,5936,5938,5940,5943,8139,14431,20004,26868,27024,27045,27284,27494,27495,27496,27524,27615,27874&basket_item_id=undefined

 

Forres - https://www.ambaile.org.uk/?service=asset&action=show_zoom_window_popup&language=en&asset=26561&location=grid&asset_list=20138,11625,26552,26554,26557,26558,26559,26560,26561,26562,26564,26961,26962,27613,30947,31010,31041,31365,31540,11930,11427,20135,11652,11656,5934,5936,5938,5940,5943,8139,14431,20004,26868,27024,27045,27284,27494,27495,27496,27524,27615,27874&basket_item_id=undefined

 

 

Thank you. The pictures make the purpose of these signals rather clearer.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/05/2019 at 10:28, jim.snowdon said:

The Great Western had similar signals that meant just that, ie to Shunt ahead into the section ahead without the token. There is, presumably, an advance starter (section) signal to define the limit of such a shunt move.

I wasn't aware of their existence on the Highland, but railways in the pre-BR era had a formidable array of special signals for unusual movements.

 

Jim

 

 

Jim - not all GWR shunt signals had signals in front to define the limit of a shunting move.  Fairford certainly did not.  Loco crews presumably were expected to know how far they could go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eastglosmog said:

Jim - not all GWR shunt signals had signals in front to define the limit of a shunting move.  Fairford certainly did not.  Loco crews presumably were expected to know how far they could go.

There were sometimes 'Limit of Shunt' boards to delineate station limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen any photographic evidence that a limit of shunt board was present at Fairford east of the road bridge - but that is not to say there definitely wasn't one (cue hoards of links to photos showing one).

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jim.snowdon said:

That is rather what I would suspect, in the same way as there was some experimentation with pairs of 60' rails welded into 120' lengths. There was reference to 180' rails being created for use in tunnels, but there, expansion is less of an issue and the practicalities of maintaining fishplated joints in tunnels might have been the greater issue.

 

Jim

 

120'-0" rails are not that rare, being used both to reduce the joint count in ordinary plain line, and sometimes on sharp curves with CWR ballast shoulders and a closer than standard spacing of concrete sleepers. The aim then being  to reduce the tracks tendency for the rails to straighten and for the alignment to resemble a 50p piece.* I have also seen a few 180'-0" rails often in older bullhead track usually over under bridges, I assume the aim being to avoid having joints on or near the bridge deck or its abutments.

 

I believe the use of jointed track rails longer than 60-0" was banned for new work some years ago. Due to problems caused by heat expansion in track that lacked the lateral resistance needed to restrain the longer rails.

 

* 3d bit if describing the same effect in bullhead rails

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, eastglosmog said:

Jim - not all GWR shunt signals had signals in front to define the limit of a shunting move.  Fairford certainly did not.  Loco crews presumably were expected to know how far they could go.

Quite possibly not. These sorts of signals represent the darker corners in signalling, about which there is not a lot published, unless presumably one is a dyed in the wool signal engineer.

 

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...