Castle Aching

[St Enodoc]

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

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you didn't get a nasty surprise!

[Edwardian]

Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure you didn't get a nasty surprise!

 

Yours is an entirely fair point.  On the basis that I want (a) BH points with chairs and (b) interlaced sleepers, the BH points look set to be complete mongrels: Timber Tracks ply sleepers, SMP Code 75 NS BH rail and C&L plastic chairs! 

 

FB track and points will be SMP Code 75 FB, soldered directly to SMP PCB sleepers, and the BH plain track will be SMP Scaleway ready-to-lay plastic sleepered and chaired.

 

So, I am prepared for the need to make the odd adjustment!

 

This hotch-potch at least seems very West Norfolk to me!

[DonB]

The 3mm scale range of track parts includes a FB rail which whilst not shown in the dimension tables is listed in the text as Code 80. It occurs to me that this size might well represent the lighter rail which could had been used before the swap to BH rail. The rail is described as having narrow head giving a scale appearance.  Available from:-

 

(Lifted from http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/324-3mm-scale/ )

 

" http://www.3mmsociety.org.uk/ They have a huge list of kits, parts, track, accessories, wheels and also a used/second hand store. Also a must join society with excellent advice from some dedicated modellers.
http://www.3smr.co.uk/ Etched and WM Kits, Accessories, secondhand TT, motors/gearboxes and track including made to order/RTR pointwork. "

 

I have (once) dealt with 3smr and had rapid service.

 

As i understand it, the code number refers to the rail height. So may represent the lighter rail used by WNR in the 1880s ?

[uax6]

At risk of making things too complicated, but is the point into the yard going to be a half and half one? Ie the main line in B/H and the yard in F/B?

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

At risk of making things too complicated, but is the point into the yard going to be a half and half one? Ie the main line in B/H and the yard in F/B?

 

Andy G

 

Good point (ahem).  This is the very question that I had not dared to ask due to my embarrassing lack of knowledge of how such transitions were handled on the prototype..

 

The first point we come to (working right to left) is, as you note, the point to the yard: BH ahead to the platform road, but off to FB sidings.  I had wondered about the exact point (ahem) at which spiked FB would prototypically take over?

 

Latterly I decided that the shed road would also retain FB, so the point forming the loop is likewise BH ahead to the run-round loop and FB off to the shed road.

 

So I have 2 out of the 3 BH points affecting transitions to FB.

 

Bearing in mind that the FB was there first, the BH represents the renewal work and your question prompts consideration of the exact of the new BH track.

 

See diagram below, which lacks something of the flow of DonW's plan, but which suffices to show all the right bits in all the right places:

[Regularity]

Just to throw another idea into the mix...

 

When the WNR was built, they were very short of money, and they "paid" the contractor partly in shares. Unfortunately, when it came to purchasing rails and sleepers, etc, they were still financially embarrassed, and "bought" materials from the contractor via more shares, as a "temporary" measure. As time progressed, the track in regular use (the "main line") deteriorated, and after some minor derailments the railway inspectorate required the WNR to upgrade the main trackage. Fortunately this coincided with some major upgrades on the big railway companies, so quantities of secondhand bullhead rail and chairs and sleepers became available at a good price, and the WNR purchased enough to upgrade the running lines.

 

So far, this ties in with everything discussed. So here's the twist...

 

The purchase included point timbers, plus the appropriate chairs, for normally timbered points, so that track upgraded to bullhead rail was timbered, but the remaining track - sidings, run round loops, even maybe the track at the platform end - remained as flat bottom/vignoles on sleepered points.

 

Thus is just a suggestion, but it would be a nice difference, and add to the "back story" of the WNR.

[Regularity]

At risk of making things too complicated, but is the point into the yard going to be a half and half one? Ie the main line in B/H and the yard in F/B?

 

No. Not really possible, and never done that way.

Think of two turnouts placed together in any configuration that has one on the "main" and the other on the secondary route. The latter would be FB, and the former BH. Packing is required to raise the FB turnout to the right height, but otherwise nothing else is difficult.

[uax6]

For what its worth (I'm no P-way man by any means) and looking at this drawing (caley) http://www.oldpway.info/drawings/CalR_ilace_ctchpnt_12ft_1in10.pdf

 

I would expect the change to FB occur at the first fishplate on the diverging route. This then keeps the cost of the new material down.

 

Andy G

[Compound2632]

For consistency of appearance (and a possible timesaver), could you use lengths of the SMP bases for the sections of interlaced plain line between the switches and crossings of the BH points?

[Edwardian]

Just to throw another idea into the mix...

 

When the WNR was built, they were very short of money, and they "paid" the contractor partly in shares. Unfortunately, when it came to purchasing rails and sleepers, etc, they were still financially embarrassed, and "bought" materials from the contractor via more shares, as a "temporary" measure. As time progressed, the track in regular use (the "main line") deteriorated, and after some minor derailments the railway inspectorate required the WNR to upgrade the main trackage. Fortunately this coincided with some major upgrades on the big railway companies, so quantities of secondhand bullhead rail and chairs and sleepers became available at a good price, and the WNR purchased enough to upgrade the running lines.

 

So far, this ties in with everything discussed. So here's the twist...

 

The purchase included point timbers, plus the appropriate chairs, for normally timbered points, so that track upgraded to bullhead rail was timbered, but the remaining track - sidings, run round loops, even maybe the track at the platform end - remained as flat bottom/vignoles on sleepered points.

 

Thus is just a suggestion, but it would be a nice difference, and add to the "back story" of the WNR.

 

Good idea, good story.

 

The Devil in me says, however, "in for a penny, in for a pound", and wouldn't it just be so much more fun to have interlaced sleepers on my "newbie" OO Gauge RTR-bodge of a layout? 

 

[sound of Don W sighing]

[uax6]

No. Not really possible, and never done that way.

Think of two turnouts placed together in any configuration that has one on the "main" and the other on the secondary route. The latter would be FB, and the former BH. Packing is required to raise the FB turnout to the right height, but otherwise nothing else is difficult.

That's not what I'm getting at, I'm looking at one point, and the main route is laid with BH and the diverging route goes to FB. The switch rail toes and the stock rails will be BH for both routes, but the diverging route stock rail can change to FB at the first joint, even if the switch rail stays BH right to the crossing, although I'm guessing that even the crossing could have a mix of BH one side and FB the other...

 

Andy G

[Regularity]

OK Andy, I think we agree.

[Edwardian]

That's not what I'm getting at, I'm looking at one point, and the main route is laid with BH and the diverging route goes to FB. The switch rail toes and the stock rails will be BH for both routes, but the diverging route stock rail can change to FB at the first joint, even if the switch rail stays BH right to the crossing, although I'm guessing that even the crossing could have a mix of BH one side and FB the other...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would expect the change to FB occur at the first fishplate on the diverging route. This then keeps the cost of the new material down.

 

 

 

 

 

That sounds jolly sensible.

 

Looking at the diagram to which you linked, if the track joins are where I think they are (they look close together, but allowing for sleeper width and intervals, they are probably about 30-35' apart),  the change in rail-type would be staggered on the diverging line, which would probably look rather interesting and attractive in model form.

[uax6]

In the stock of the diverging route, theres a fishplate marked FJ, I would use the fishplate at the 25 sleepers in from the left for the switch rail change.

 

Andy G

[Edwardian]

In the stock of the diverging route, theres a fishplate marked FJ, I would use the fishplate at the 25 sleepers in from the left for the switch rail change.

 

Andy G

 

If I understand correctly, you are counting 25 sleepers to the right of FJ?  If so, that makes sense to me.

 

On the other side, how far right of the 'V' would there be a joint in the rail?

 

Of course, the problem will be that a staggered transition in rails will (a) make any necessary packing quite interesting, and (b) will make the transition from ply and glued chair sleepers to soldered PCB sleepers impossible! 

[Tom Burnham]

The change from FB to BH rail was essentially what happened on the Kent & East Sussex.  The original Rother Valley Railway section (Robertsbridge to Rolvenden) opened in 1900 was laid with spiked FB rail (often on rather roughly shaped sleepers judging by surviving examples).  When the extension to Headcorn (opened 1905) was built, second-hand SE&CR BH rail was used, and the original section was relaid in similar material as far as the running lines were concerned.  Most sidings remained in FB rail (up to eventual closure under BR in 1961 in some cases).

Couple of photos scanned from John L Smith's "Rails to Tenterden" (pub 1967), both at Rolvenden, the first by Dr Ian C Allen in 1934 and the second by S C Nash in 1947.

 

[BG John]

The change from FB to BH rail was essentially what happened on the Kent & East Sussex.  The original Rother Valley Railway section (Robertsbridge to Rolvenden) opened in 1900 was laid with spiked FB rail (often on rather roughly shaped sleepers judging by surviving examples).  When the extension to Headcorn (opened 1905) was built, second-hand SE&CR BH rail was used, and the original section was relaid in similar material as far as the running lines were concerned.  Most sidings remained in FB rail (up to eventual closure under BR in 1961 in some cases).

Couple of photos scanned from John L Smith's "Rails to Tenterden" (pub 1967), both at Rolvenden, the first by Dr Ian C Allen in 1934 and the second by S C Nash in 1947.

If those photos don't help Edwardian, they help me!

[Compound2632]

Good view of the interlaced timbering at a crossing vee in the foreground of the first photo.

[NCB]

That's rather nice.

Is there somewhere we can see more?

 

Here's a recent snap of a fairly complete bit. Still quite a bit to be done; I'm a slow worker, easily side-tracked by building yet another bit of rolling stock...

 

[nick_bastable]

having spent the afternoon correcting my dodgy sleepers I offer this by way of atonement

 

 

 

Nick

 

 

 

[Echo]

Nice example of old-fashioned pointwork with straight cut point blades, a distinctive set in the rail for the diverging road and even maybe a very slight joggle on the main. 

[Caley Jim]

 

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

I beg to differ.  That depends on which department you are working in.  To a PW engineer the formation where one track diverges from another is a turnout.  The movable rails whose position determines which track a train approaching from the facing direction takes are the switches and the tips of the tapered ends of these are the points.

 

On the other hand, an S & T engineer (and a signalman) is only concerned with moving the 'points', so they refer to points and on signal diagrams and signal box lever identifiers they are referred to as points.

 

 

 

Screen snip from here.

 

I rest my case M'lud.

 

Jim

[Caley Jim]

For consistency of appearance (and a possible timesaver), could you use lengths of the SMP bases for the sections of interlaced plain line between the switches and crossings of the BH points?

That's exactly what I did using Easitrac sleepers with the web cut away as necessary.  See my earlier posts again.  This also avoids the need to gauge the closure rails off the stock rails as the chairs on the sleepers do that for you.

 

Jim

[Donw]

That's exactly what I did using Easitrac sleepers with the web cut away as necessary.  See my earlier posts again.  This also avoids the need to gauge the closure rails off the stock rails as the chairs on the sleepers do that for you.

 

Jim

 

I find it useful to put one of the easitrac sections on the ends of the rails while building the turnout. I can pull or push the rail through to get it all lined up and it will generally stay in place whilst I start fixing chairs down. 

 

Don

[Edwardian]

Reduced to 'phone camera at present, so I apologise for the poor image quality.

 

In the pause between baseboard construction and track laying I should be attending to the village or to rolling stock.  Instead I have been distracted.  Whatever is Edwardian up to now?!?

Edited October 3, 2017 by Edwardian