Sleeper Spacing

[844fan]

Hey all got a small question I need a straight answer on so I can make a proper scale drawing based off a photo my good friend Sam (Sir_Douglas) found me and a few I've found myself and with the help of other members. Anyway I need to know Sleeper Spacing for two eras. One is Victorian circa 1866 the other is during the Big Four formation and up till BR LMS region. 

 

With these in mind I should be able to gauge (Pardon me not intended) the wheel base of the engines and make a reasonable replica drawing. 

 

 

[Siberian Snooper]

It would help to know which pre-group company you're interested as they all tended to use different track standards, this would include the S & C.

[Gordon A]

Also what length of panel / rail was used.

This very much depends on the company / era / location.

 

As Siberian Snooper said each company, certainly pre grouping had its own standards.

As an example of sleeper spacing, the first sleeper would be 1ft from the end, the next sleeper 2ft then followed by sleepers spaced at 2ft 3inches until you reached the other end.

Depending on period and company full panel lengths could be 30ft,40ft,45ft or 60ft, also odd lengths to fit with point and crossing work.

 

Gordon A 

[844fan]

It would help to know which pre-group company you're interested as they all tended to use different track standards, this would include the S & C.

 

 

Also what length of panel / rail was used.

This very much depends on the company / era / location.

 

As Siberian Snooper said each company, certainly pre grouping had its own standards.

As an example of sleeper spacing, the first sleeper would be 1ft from the end, the next sleeper 2ft then followed by sleepers spaced at 2ft 3inches until you reached the other end.

Depending on period and company full panel lengths could be 30ft,40ft,45ft or 60ft, also odd lengths to fit with point and crossing work.

 

Gordon A 

Hmmm that may be a tough one to get then as the line I'm in particular about is a industrial line "Grays Chalk Quarries Co. Ltd" I have no idea on the panel length though. Perhaps a photo can help? I've attached the one Sam linked before beyond that I'd say LMS region is the easier of the two to figure.

[Siberian Snooper]

Looking at photos of the chalk pit some of the track is laid on trunks. I would say 30 ft panels and 11 or 12 to the panel, guesstimating from the picture.

 

For the LMR, some more detail is required, as that will influence what sort of track would be in use. Mainline, secondary line, branch line etc.

[844fan]

Looking at photos of the chalk pit some of the track is laid on trunks. I would say 30 ft panels and 11 or 12 to the panel, guesstimating from the picture.

 

For the LMR, some more detail is required, as that will influence what sort of track would be in use. Mainline, secondary line, branch line etc.

Ok silly question how many feet between the visible chairs would you say the Chalk Pit had (Like in the above photo.) as I'd hope that you could say the chairs are centered on the sleepers and knowing their spacing would allow me to scale. Think of it like how most diagrams show buffer centers and distance between. 

 

Also I did not say LMR. I already know the sizes of the two engines I wish to model from there. (Gazelle and Gordon respectively) I said LMS London, Midland and Scottish Railway from grouping till the days of BR. I'm not sure how to narrow it any further.

[Compound2632]

Hmmm that may be a tough one to get then as the line I'm in particular about is a industrial line "Grays Chalk Quarries Co. Ltd" I have no idea on the panel length though. Perhaps a photo can help? I've attached the one Sam linked before beyond that I'd say LMS region is the easier of the two to figure.

 

Well, you're certainly not going to get very far scaling off the two engine crew there!

 

A more reliable dimension than sleeper spacing might be height of buffer centre line above rail level, which was typically around 3'4" - 3'5", but I don't think that helps in his case either - those dumb buffers look too low and too close together, possibly designed for dealing with chaldron wagons?

[Siberian Snooper]

Your picture has the loco standing on a turnout and thus the timbering will vary due to the need to support the common crossing with special chairs.

 

I looked at these images

 

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/0908/0000/0125/belmont_castle_mid.jpg

 

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/0801/0000/0206/chalk_quarries_grays_and_west_thurrock_c_1920_mid.jpg

 

 

30ft panel -2ft (1ft each end) = 28ft / 11 gaps 12 sleepers = 2.54 or 2ft 6 1/2ins near enough. or may be

30ft panel -2ft (1ft each end)= 28ft / 10 gaps 11 sleepers = 2.8 or 2ft 9ins. closer examination on a larger screen I think it's only 10 per panel

 

Depending on location and time the track for the mainline will be the standard of the time, for other lesser lines the track will have been cascaded down from the mainline, at around 10 year intervals. lightly used sidings may have still been in pre group track even in BR times.

 

edit cos I forgot to add the extra sleeper.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Siberian Snooper

[Poor Old Bruce]

Most BR plain line with 60ft rail and timber sleepers used 24 sleepers per rail length. With heavier axle loads in the late 60s (ish) and using concrete sleepers this was increased to 26 sleepers per 60ft. Not sure if that helps with scaling your little tank engine though. Your picture does look as if it has an overscale driver and an underscale 'lad' perched on the front buffer beam.

 

Edited to add: Would 'The Cronicles of Boulton's Sidings' give you any clues?

Edited August 1, 2017 by Poor Old Bruce

[844fan]

Your picture has the loco standing on a turnout and thus the timbering will vary due to the need to support the common crossing with special chairs.

 

I looked at these images

 

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/0908/0000/0125/belmont_castle_mid.jpg

 

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/assets/0801/0000/0206/chalk_quarries_grays_and_west_thurrock_c_1920_mid.jpg

 

 

30ft panel -2ft (1ft each end) = 28ft / 11 gaps 12 sleepers = 2.54 or 2ft 6 1/2ins near enough. or may be

30ft panel -2ft (1ft each end)= 28ft / 10 gaps 11 sleepers = 2.8 or 2ft 9ins. closer examination on a larger screen I think it's only 10 per panel

 

Depending on location and time the track for the mainline will be the standard of the time, for other lesser lines the track will have been cascaded down from the mainline, at around 10 year intervals. lightly used sidings may have still been in pre group track even in BR times.

 

edit cos I forgot to add the extra sleeper.

 

Ok I'm still a bit slow minded at the moment (Just had three teeth pulled today) So I'll try to work the math out tomorrow. Hmm may I Pm you if I get stuck on calculating it my friend? Math was never my best subject as writing is my true calling alongside my Railway love of course.

Most BR plain line with 60ft rail and timber sleepers used 24 sleepers per rail length. With heavier axle loads in the late 60s (ish) and using concrete sleepers this was increased to 26 sleepers per 60ft. Not sure if that helps with scaling your little tank engine though. Your picture does look as if it has an overscale driver and an underscale 'lad' perched on the front buffer beam.

 

Edited to add: Would 'The Cronicles of Boulton's Sidings' give you any clues?

I need to look into that book honestly since it may give insight on my loco as well. Have to check Abesbooks. As for the info you gave that could be useful later on but again I'm not after BR, Highland, or Calidonian I'm looking for LMS spacing. I know BR took a lot of LMS' ideas and ran with them but we keep missing the station here.

[Siberian Snooper]

Yes you can PM, me.

 

Which pre grouping company was it before it was LMS?

[EddieB]

A useful dimension could be the driving wheel diameter (though there would be variations due to tyre wear) or, even better, the coupled wheelbase. I'm struggling to identify the builder of the loco in the picture, as I'm unable to find an exact match in the list of locos known to have worked for Grays Chalk Quarries. Does the photo show the worksplate more clearly? (Failing that, where did the photo come from?)

 

Ok, I've since "rediscovered" the thread in which the photo first appeared. Apparently it was taken in the Middlesbrough area and is similar, but is not one of the Grays Chalk Quarry locos.

Edited August 2, 2017 by EddieB

[Compound2632]

A useful dimension could be the driving wheel diameter (though there would be variations due to tyre wear) or, even better, the coupled wheelbase.

 

Circular, if you'll pardon the expression. It's the wheelbase the OP wants to determine!

[844fan]

Yes you can PM, me.

 

Which pre grouping company was it before it was LMS?

 

Thank you very much my friend I'll give you a message if I run into a wall on figuring the Chalk Works Spacings.

 

As for the LMS side of things the loco I'm trying to figure out with the sleeper spacing there is from the G&SWR. A odd engine in that the only two photos I have of it is during the LMS ownership the engine is subject in one of my other prototype threads. I'd link you but I am on my mobile and if I even think of changing tabs on it I lose all my typed replies that have not posted.

A useful dimension could be the driving wheel diameter (though there would be variations due to tyre wear) or, even better, the coupled wheelbase. I'm struggling to identify the builder of the loco in the picture, as I'm unable to find an exact match in the list of locos known to have worked for Grays Chalk Quarries. Does the photo show the worksplate more clearly? (Failing that, where did the photo come from?)

 

Ok, I've since "rediscovered" the thread in which the photo first appeared. Apparently it was taken in the Middlesbrough area and is similar, but is not one of the Grays Chalk Quarry locos.

Honestly if I had the engines' wheel diameter I would be very happy as all I'd need to do is scale it down and I can easily find scale ratios and convert them. But as far as I'm aware I have no source on that either. Infact that is why I want to figure the spacing of the sleepers in that photo so I have some form of measurement to go off of and make the scale down easier.

 

Also had a feeling it was a brother to the engine I'm using it as a reference to.

Circular, if you'll pardon the expression. It's the wheelbase the OP wants to determine!

Did I say that? *looks over first post* ah yes I did. Well in truth I may have been misleading there then. I'm really trying to find any thing in that photo that I can use as the proverbial yardstick and figure out it's scale. As mentioned above the buffers are far too low for the standard hight guideline to apply, The two crew members are of wildly different sizes in terms of tallness so the average hight of enginemen of the era can't be taken into acount (Again Sam told me the info of average hight of victorian era enginemen) and besides the tracks nothing is level with her like rolling stock or anything to have another reference point.

 

 

By the by I asked Sam about this too but once I convert all my drawings to a scale close to Gauge one/G scale I was thinking of posting them here for anyone to use. I think it be a nice way to give back to you guys for all the help. But I have no clue if there is a proper place on the forum to post scale drawings in or not and Sam said the same so if you like the idea point me to the place to post and once ready I'll be giving some resources out.

[roythebus]

How about scaling from the brickwork on the building behind? Brock sizes by the time of the photo would have been a bit more standardized.

[Gordon A]

Back to sleeper spacing, the said spacing could vary depending on the axle loading the line was designed for.

 

Gordon A

[Compound2632]

Going back to the OP, I really think dimensioning from sleeper spacing is a bit optimistic. I think you can only be confident of the spacing on plain line of one of the major companies where you have good information about their standards and some indication of the date of laying - remembering there's no such thing as 'LMS infrastructure' etc. - only 'LNWR infrastructure' or 'Midland infrastructure' or 'Caledonian infrastructure' etc. with a thin veneer of LMS standard items - which only really began to appear from the late 20s/early 30s. If one knows that much about the track, one will undoubtedly have other reliable sources of information about any item of rolling stock standing on it!

[Il Grifone]

Really there is nothing in the photo to take as an accurate reference, but approximately we can surmise:-

It is an industrial line, so likely to be lightly laid with rather a large sleeper spacing (possibly 3' or so). Probably the rail height is about 5 inches (possibly even less). This would give a wheel diameter of about 2' 6" (in accordance with the rule of thumb of 1' of circumference per spoke), a buffer centre line of about 2' (about right for chaldron wagons, though the buffer spacing seems too wide for these and the wagons in the background appear to be 'normal' height) and the brake standard around 3' high. This would make the man standing next to it about 6' tall (he does appear well built). The lad comes out at only about 4', but people were shorter and started work at an early age back then.

 

Wheel flanges are a fairly constant size but unfortunately the photo is too indistinct to measure this accurately and the dimension is too small for accuracy in any case.

[Trog]

Delete idea had fatal flaw.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Trog

[EddieB]

Really there is nothing in the photo to take as an accurate reference, but approximately we can surmise:-

It is an industrial line, so likely to be lightly laid with rather a large sleeper spacing (possibly 3' or so). Probably the rail height is about 5 inches (possibly even less). This would give a wheel diameter of about 2' 6" (in accordance with the rule of thumb of 1' of circumference per spoke), a buffer centre line of about 2' (about right for chaldron wagons, though the buffer spacing seems too wide for these and the wagons in the background appear to be 'normal' height) and the brake standard around 3' high. This would make the man standing next to it about 6' tall (he does appear well built). The lad comes out at only about 4', but people were shorter and started work at an early age back then.

 

Wheel flanges are a fairly constant size but unfortunately the photo is too indistinct to measure this accurately and the dimension is too small for accuracy in any case.

I don't think it is the same loco (the plate would be a different shape), but Boulton's constructed a geared loco in 1856 with 2'6" diameter wheels - and I came to a similar conclusion that such a dimension would scale the people and other parts of the loco about right.  Would it not be possible to make a dimensioned drawing based on the assumption that driving wheels are 2'6" and re-scale should any further information subsequently come to light?

[Il Grifone]

I don't think it is the same loco (the plate would be a different shape), but Boulton's constructed a geared loco in 1856 with 2'6" diameter wheels - and I came to a similar conclusion that such a dimension would scale the people and other parts of the loco about right.  Would it not be possible to make a dimensioned drawing based on the assumption that driving wheels are 2'6" and re-scale should any further information subsequently come to light?

 

It would seem a good starting point. The two figures appear to about the normal limits regarding height (possibly why they were chosen?), so 2' 6" is not going to be far off the correct dimension for the driving wheel diameter.

[jim.snowdon]

Designers tend not to like odd dimensions unless there is a good reason, on which basis, a starting point could be to assume that the wheels are likely to be either 2' 6", 2' 9" or 3' 0", and see if any of those brings the wheelbase out at a dimension that is close to a multiple of 3". Similarly, the timber used for the buffing blocks is likely to be a round number, such as 12", 9" or possibly 7.5" - anything smaller than that I would think unlikely, and 7.5" not too likely either.

 

Jim

[844fan]

I don't think it is the same loco (the plate would be a different shape), but Boulton's constructed a geared loco in 1856 with 2'6" diameter wheels - and I came to a similar conclusion that such a dimension would scale the people and other parts of the loco about right.  Would it not be possible to make a dimensioned drawing based on the assumption that driving wheels are 2'6" and re-scale should any further information subsequently come to light?

 

 

It would seem a good starting point. The two figures appear to about the normal limits regarding height (possibly why they were chosen?), so 2' 6" is not going to be far off the correct dimension for the driving wheel diameter.

 

 

Designers tend not to like odd dimensions unless there is a good reason, on which basis, a starting point could be to assume that the wheels are likely to be either 2' 6", 2' 9" or 3' 0", and see if any of those brings the wheelbase out at a dimension that is close to a multiple of 3". Similarly, the timber used for the buffing blocks is likely to be a round number, such as 12", 9" or possibly 7.5" - anything smaller than that I would think unlikely, and 7.5" not too likely either.

 

Jim

Well a better starting point is always what I'm after so I'll try these sizes and scale em down till the loco looks proper. Thank you all I know the attempt with the spacing was way too out there but I thought it worth a shot.