Castle Aching

[Regularity]

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I think your sleeper spacing is too tight, and you don't have enough room to keep the turnout road sleepers close to square-on to the rails.

Interlaced turnouts are more common in earlier days, when sleep spacing was greater than later on. Have a look at the links I have just posted.

[Compound2632]

The plan is to stick cork to the board and then Don W's print-out to the cork and build in situ, which might help?

 

That's what I did except that this was sufficiently long ago that I drew my point template by hand on paper and then by hand directly onto the cork!

 

This is based on the "intelligent interpolation", but there are - luckily - only a few principles to remember.

 

Firstly, to keep the switch section working properly, you need to have a full length turnout after the rail joints between the switch and the closure area. The first interlaced sleeper will appear almost immediately after this, in between the last timber and the sleeper which replaces what would have been the next timber, if you see what I mean.

 

Secondly, the spacing of interlaced timbers at the crossing will ce very regular, e.g on each route they will be evenly spaced, say at 30" intervals. On the wing/knuckle rails, there will be chairs on every sleeper, spaced equally, say at 15" intervals. One of the sleepers will be placed to support the crossing nose using exactly the same principles as on a timbered turnout. I think this is usually the "main" route, and from this you can set the other crossing sleepers. Edit: if you look at this link, you can see that the point is supported on the turnout route!

 

Amazingly enough, the diagram of the crossing on the linked NER drawing looks very like my memory of what I built - alas I have no photos. I was very pleased with how the pointwork looked though it was never really put to the test beyond rolling wagons through it.

 

I remembered to have a gap for electrical isolation in the (closure?) rails between the crossing and the switches.

 

I'm not sure but the sleeper spacing may have been a scale 3' on the middle section of the point.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Compound2632

[Regularity]

One other point (!). Timbers were usually 12" wide, but interlacing used normal sleepers 10" wide. Some railways used wider (12") sleepers at rail joints, and 14" wide timbers under the crossing nose.

 

Read up on your chosen company, where possible.

[Donw]

The change of rail but retaining the original interlaced sleepers could be that the rail was too light for newer engines (possibly any GER visitors)  sounds believable to me anyway.

 

There is a simple trick if the timbering is awkward and something needs a little extra fixing a brass pin/nail push in as close to the rail as possible solder the rail to it  paint it black and hide it with ballast. However if the wing rail nose assembly is fixed with some scraps of etch it will hold together fine. Of course we do not have 50ton or so of loco to support.

 

Don

[Donw]

One other point (!). Timbers were usually 12" wide, but interlacing used normal sleepers 10" wide. Some railways used wider (12") sleepers at rail joints, and 14" wide timbers under the crossing nose.

 

Read up on your chosen company, where possible.

 

I have suggested using the timber tracks sleepers these come in a back 450 10 in and approx 50 12in, I believe the 0.8 mm ones will be the best match for SMP 

 

Don

[Hroth]

On Topic?

Well, there's a hazelnut in every bite....   oh, on TOPIC.  yessss, railways and such.....

I was looking at a very old copy of "The Railway Modeller" (definitely a "The" then), from Sept/Oct 1951, the lead article being a description of An OO Layout For The Average Home.  In order to save money, the author described how he laid his own track.  This involved

• Laying coarse grade sandpaper glued directly to the baseboard as the trackbed ballast
• The sandpaper being painted with a mixture of turps and creosote to stain it brown.
• Brown paper, painted with indian ink cut into sleeper sized pieces
• Glueing the paper sleepers into place with seccotine*
• Hammering brass screws into the baseboard
• Soldering n/s rail to the screw heads

Btw, its a Trix Twin layout, so there's a third rail to hammer in too!

Point making is not described, though it is controlled by the wire in tube method or, as the author specifies, with a Bowden cable.  I have visions of surplus choke controls dangling beneath the baseboard!

The author acknowledges that track laying "takes some time". I suppose that even the most enthusiastic must give thanks that we're not reduced to such practices nowadays!

 

* Seccotine is the wonderful fish-based universal glue of the pre-60s era

edits for minor typos....

Edited October 1, 2017 by Hroth

[BG John]

Laying coarse grade sandpaper glued directly to the baseboard as the trackbed ballast

• The sandpaper being painted with a mixture of turps and creosote to stain it brown.
• Brown paper, painted with indian ink cut into sleeper sized pieces
• Glueing the paper sleepers into place with seccotine*
• Hammering brass screws into the baseboard
• Soldering n/s rail to the screw heads

............

 

The author acknowledges that track laying "takes some time". I suppose that even the most enthusiastic must give thanks that we're not reduced to such practices nowadays!

It seems a great idea where track is ballasted over the sleepers. Just cut out steps 2 and 3! Of course you could use your Templot plan to help position the screws and rails. Tape it down to the sandpaper, and rip it up when the rail has been soldered. Not sure about the creosote though!

[Talltim]

Point making is not described, though it is controlled by the wire in tube method or, as the author specifies, with a Bowden cable. I have visions of surplus choke controls dangling beneath the baseboard

Funny, I associate Bowden cables with planes

[corneliuslundie]

Or bicycle brakes.

I note the suggestion of brass shim under the actual crossing. If you are not using pcb for the sleepers at the crossing I would strongly recommend that instead. You really do need some strength in this area.

My son once made a complete turnout using plastic sleepers and chairs. It held together OK but was decidedly flimsy. Mind you he only did it to see if he could.And thanks to all who have provided info on early track. I had not seen them.

One other issue is whether to have straight switches or not. This was going out of fashion by the turn of the century but might still have been present in sidings.

Jonathan

[Caley Jim]

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I think your sleeper spacing is too tight, and you don't have enough room to keep the turnout road sleepers close to square-on to the rails.

Interlaced turnouts are more common in earlier days, when sleep spacing was greater than later on. Have a look at the links I have just posted.

I noted that too.  In any examples I've seen the sleepers were always at right angles to the line of rails i.e. they are radial to the curve of the diverging track.  The only exception is on a tandem turnout where the sleeper supporting the nose of each crossing is parallel with those on the main road.  This does result in some quite wide sleeper spacing in places as can be seen in the photo in my earlier post.  (Way back on page 217)

 

Jim

[NCB]

Or bicycle brakes.

I note the suggestion of brass shim under the actual crossing. If you are not using pcb for the sleepers at the crossing I would strongly recommend that instead. You really do need some strength in this area.

My son once made a complete turnout using plastic sleepers and chairs. It held together OK but was decidedly flimsy. Mind you he only did it to see if he could.And thanks to all who have provided info on early track. I had not seen them.

One other issue is whether to have straight switches or not. This was going out of fashion by the turn of the century but might still have been present in sidings.

Jonathan

 

My 3mm finescale layout has been built entirely using plastic sleepers and chairs. Solid as a rock. Seen here in its early days about 8 years ago:

 

Think people underestimate how strong plastic construction can be. I did it as I reckoned following the usual advice and sticking in PCB sleepers was an unnecessary complication.

 

Nigel

[St Enodoc]

* Seccotine is the wonderful fish-based universal glue of the pre-60s era

I can smell it now!

[Regularity]

My 3mm finescale layout has been built entirely using plastic sleepers and chairs.

That's rather nice.

Is there somewhere we can see more?

[Regularity]

On Topic?

Well, there's a hazelnut in every bite....  

 

* Seccotine is the wonderful fish-based universal glue of the pre-60s eraedits for minor typos....

I can smell it now!

What's invisible and smells of hazelnuts?

 

Squirrel f@rts.

Sorry.

[Donw]

I noted that too.  In any examples I've seen the sleepers were always at right angles to the line of rails i.e. they are radial to the curve of the diverging track.  The only exception is on a tandem turnout where the sleeper supporting the nose of each crossing is parallel with those on the main road.  This does result in some quite wide sleeper spacing in places as can be seen in the photo in my earlier post.  (Way back on page 217)

 

Jim

 

One of the problems with interlaced sleepers was as the weight of locos increased particularly around the turn of the century the sleeper spacing was reduced to bear the heavy loads. This caused problems with interlaced sleepers in that it reduced to room for ballast to a degree where there was insufficient ballast around the sleepers to hold them properly. I don't see CA hosting large locos with the possible exception of a Claud. Personally I think the fairly new Clauds would be unlikely to feature at CA whereas a T26 2-4-0 would be more likely with a route availability of 2 compared with the Clauds 5.

However should Edwardian obtain a Claud rule 1 would apply.

 

Don

[Donw]

On Topic?

 

Well, there's a hazelnut in every bite....   oh, on TOPIC.  yessss, railways and such.....

 

I was looking at a very old copy of "The Railway Modeller" (definitely a "The" then), from Sept/Oct 1951, the lead article being a description of An OO Layout For The Average Home.  In order to save money, the author described how he laid his own track.  This involved

• Laying coarse grade sandpaper glued directly to the baseboard as the trackbed ballast
• The sandpaper being painted with a mixture of turps and creosote to stain it brown.
• Brown paper, painted with indian ink cut into sleeper sized pieces
• Glueing the paper sleepers into place with seccotine*
• Hammering brass screws into the baseboard
• Soldering n/s rail to the screw heads

Btw, its a Trix Twin layout, so there's a third rail to hammer in too!

 

Point making is not described, though it is controlled by the wire in tube method or, as the author specifies, with a Bowden cable.  I have visions of surplus choke controls dangling beneath the baseboard!

 

The author acknowledges that track laying "takes some time". I suppose that even the most enthusiastic must give thanks that we're not reduced to such practices nowadays!

 

* Seccotine is the wonderful fish-based universal glue of the pre-60s era

 

edits for minor typos....

 

Worth reading Peter Denny's methods in the Books he wrote.

 

However not quite to today's standards

 

Don

[Regularity]

Back on topic, twenty two years ago I used C&L 4mm scale chairs, solvent welded to wood sleepers with "Daywat Poly" (butanone). There was a strip of metal joining the wing rails to the vee, but only for electrical purposes. Although the layout has long since passed out of my hands, it still exists and although there was some rebuilding about 15 years, the same method was used. One reason was how difficult it was to remove the chairs!

 

The only things I did which might be seen as different was to pre-paint the sleepers with acrylic paint, and to put a small weight on the rail whilst the solvent finished evaporating: the initial bond was almost instant, but a bit of weight helped whilst the base of the chairs re-hardened.

 

Oh, and yes, it was interlaced but at the time there was very little info available, so I more or less made it up as I went along, with reference to a few photos. I "cheated" by paying for pre-machined blades and vees: with only 4 turnouts, it wasn't an enormous expense, but it meant that I was using post-grouping switches. (This was because I didn't know about such things at the time.)

 

At my first of 3 exhibitions, I had some pundit complementing me on accurately modelling NBR track with interlaced sleepers. I thanked him but pointed out that I wasn't modelling the North British. I was told that I must be, because of the sleepering. I told him that all Scottish companies, and quote a few English (and for all I knew, Welsh) pre-grouping companies, and that the sleepers were 8'11" long, as 9' and longer attracted higher import duty. "No, no," he said, "Only the North British did this: Ian Futers modelled it."

Well, I know Ian and I have also read his article on "Otterburn", where does indeed mention this as a facet of North British trackwork. Never did he say that only the NBR did this, and he would never be do dogmatic about such a matter where he knew what the NB did, but not necessarily others.

Anyway, I let him walk away feeling superior about his "knowledge" and that he had corrected an exhibitor, realising that further dialogue was pointless. Just as well, really, as I could only think of a one-word answer. Something similar to twit, rhyming with prat.

 

Re paper sleepers, John Wright did something like this on his Warwick Bridge EM NER layout, in the 70s, as the best way to represent the extremely well ballasted permanent way of the company and time. I will check up on more details, but to be frank, rather than making fatuous jokes about it, we might want to pause for thought and accept that someone whose modelling is better than most of us can ever hope to achieve was doing something similar 40 years ago... But then, I think he doesn't spend much (or any) of his time on forums, either.

[uax6]

I've all for interlacing, as this is something that harks back to the development of railways, and therefore the proper thing to do at this period.

 

As for the change to through timbering, this would be dependant of several things I think. Condition of the original timbers (I'm presuming that the Vignoles* rail is spiked directly to the timbers with no baseplates? This would then allow chairs to be fitted in bits of the sleepers that hadn't had holes put in them). Also the increase speed required across the point ** would have influence, if no increase why re-sleeper it?

 

* I take it that it really will be Vignoles rather than true Flat Bottom? I'm guessing that this is the first replacement of the original rail...

** They are, without doubt, points. And sets of points, point ends, crossovers etc. They are not turnouts.

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

I have suggested using the timber tracks sleepers these come in a back 450 10 in and approx 50 12in, I believe the 0.8 mm ones will be the best match for SMP 

 

Don

 

So, interlaced it is.

 

Thank you to DonW for his patient and sage advice; I am sorry that, in my ignorance, the issue of interlaced point sleepering was not brought up before the track plan was produced. Both in terms of prototype knowledge and point construction, it is a very steep learning curve for Yours Truly.

 

Thank you to everyone who chipped in on this issue and helped with the decision-making process.

 

To re-cap, we shall have bullhead on the running line - platform road and on the loop.  This involves 3 BH points.  All the sidings and any minor lines modelled in the future will be FB, involving 2 FB points at CA.

 

All points will have interlaced sleepers.  Ballast will be laid over the sleepers, thus, in the main, hiding the interlacing (!) but I hope that it will show through. 

 

 

I've all for interlacing, as this is something that harks back to the development of railways, and therefore the proper thing to do at this period.

 

As for the change to through timbering, this would be dependant of several things I think. Condition of the original timbers (I'm presuming that the Vignoles* rail is spiked directly to the timbers with no baseplates? This would then allow chairs to be fitted in bits of the sleepers that hadn't had holes put in them). Also the increase speed required across the point ** would have influence, if no increase why re-sleeper it?

 

* I take it that it really will be Vignoles rather than true Flat Bottom? I'm guessing that this is the first replacement of the original rail...

** They are, without doubt, points. And sets of points, point ends, crossovers etc. They are not turnouts.

 

Andy G

 

Yes, when talking of FB, I had envisaged Vignoles rail spiked directly to the sleepers.

 

 

One of the problems with interlaced sleepers was as the weight of locos increased particularly around the turn of the century the sleeper spacing was reduced to bear the heavy loads. This caused problems with interlaced sleepers in that it reduced to room for ballast to a degree where there was insufficient ballast around the sleepers to hold them properly. I don't see CA hosting large locos with the possible exception of a Claud. Personally I think the fairly new Clauds would be unlikely to feature at CA whereas a T26 2-4-0 would be more likely with a route availability of 2 compared with the Clauds 5.

However should Edwardian obtain a Claud rule 1 would apply.

 

Don

 

The West Norfolk is certainly not built for a modern, Twentieth Century, 4-4-0 express passenger loco, and herself possesses none.

 

In addition to the aspects of her permanent way mentioned, CA only has a 45' turntable.

 

In due course I plan to have visiting locomotives.  I do not see any of them as a problem, though some may overhang the TT slightly!

 

My first choice for the GE would be a No.1 Class 'Little Sharpie' 2-4-0.  My second choice would be a T26 'Intermediate' 2-4-0 (LNER E4).

 

For the M&GN, I think the ideal choice would be one of the Beyer Peacock A Class 4-4-0s. I have not checked to see if I can fit a Johnson 4-4-0.

 

If a Claud came, it would only be because it was on a Royal Train working, which would be a rare, if not unique, occurrence.  The Clauds were used to working the empty stock back tender first, as there was no turntable at Wolferton, so no problem there!

Edited October 2, 2017 by Edwardian

[uax6]

This talk of using brass slot head screws for chairs actually isn't that daft is it? They will lift the rail up off the sleeper and support at the same time. I suppose getting them in line would be a pain in the bum to keep the gauge right, as would be getting a supply of them these days....

 

That is the only drawback of soldering directly to the pcb sleepers. Talking of which, if you are soldering directly to the sleepers, do you use thicker pcb to allow the rail height to be the same as the plastic based plain track?

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

 

 

That is the only drawback of soldering directly to the pcb sleepers. Talking of which, if you are soldering directly to the sleepers, do you use thicker pcb to allow the rail height to be the same as the plastic based plain track?

 

Andy G

 

I haven't got as far as comparing the two, but, logically the BH will be laid first.  My working assumption is that, if the FB sits too low, then I can insert card to achieve the correct height.

[Compound2632]

When I built the (unproven) P4 points I mentioned previously, I used C&L's plastic sleepers and chairs throughout - the only soldering was for the dropper wires from each section of rail. As I recall, it all seemed perfectly rigid. (It's just possible I might have had a screw under the point of the crossing vee.)

 

But I can't see how you would avoid soldering to PCB sleepers for flat-bottomed rail - in this case surely the bottom of the rail rests directly on the sleeper - at least for the antique track Edwardian wants to represent?

[Edwardian]

 

But I can't see how you would avoid soldering to PCB sleepers for flat-bottomed rail - in this case surely the bottom of the rail rests directly on the sleeper - at least for the antique track Edwardian wants to represent?

 

Yes, exactly so.  Andy G's point, if I correctly follow, is that chaired BH might sit higher. I would hope that, if so, it would not take more than a thin sliver of card to equalise the height.

 

BH point sleepering will be ply with plastic chairs. (Timber Tracks and C&L Finescale respectively). BH plain track with be SMP/Marcway, 'Scaleway' plastic sleepered flexi-track.

 

I am indebted to DonW for advice on the finer points of point components.

[St Enodoc]

Yes, exactly so.  Andy G's point, if I correctly follow, is that chaired BH might sit higher. I would hope that, if so, it would not take more than a thin sliver of card to equalise the height.

 

BH point sleepering will be ply with plastic chairs. (Timber Tracks and C&L Finescale respectively). BH plain track with be SMP/Marcway, 'Scaleway' plastic sleepered flexi-track.

 

I am indebted to DonW for advice on the finer points of point components.

If you stick with one manufacturer for plain track and point components, then the rail top will be at the same height. If you mix and match it might not be. So SMP track and SMP copperclad points with the rail soldered direct to the timbers would be fine, as would C&L track with C&L point components. Mixing Timber Tracks, C&L and SMP might result in the need for some packing under either the points or the track.

[Edwardian]

If you stick with one manufacturer for plain track and point components, then the rail top will be at the same height. If you mix and match it might not be. So SMP track and SMP copperclad points with the rail soldered direct to the timbers would be fine, as would C&L track with C&L point components. Mixing Timber Tracks, C&L and SMP might result in the need for some packing under either the points or the track.

 

It might, but it seems the only way to get the combination that I want, given the starting point of SMP plain track.