Liverpool and Manchester Railway Modelling

[wainwright1]

Hi All.

Now that we have manufacturers producing ready to run locos and rolling stock for the L & M R, has anyone given any thought to the other aspects of modelling this railway, such as the track ?

 

All the best

Ray

[Jeremy Cumberland]

What did it use? Wrought iron rolled fishbelly in chairs on stone sleepers? It's hard to see anyone producing that!

 

I know Robert Stephenson remained a fan of fishbelly rail long after other engineers had seen the advantages of parallel rail, because Lecount mentions it in his Practical Treatise on Railways (1839). Did the L&M use fishplates or joint chairs?

 

Most contemporary pictures appear to show the track ballasted up to rail level, so it probably doen't matter what you use.

[Nick Holliday]

Ambis Engineering offer this:

Not sure what sort of length each £3 pack gives you, though.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Wow!

 

They look cast iron, though, and from an earlier era. I don't know about the L&M, but the Stephensons used rolled wrought iron fishbelly for the Nantlle Railway in 1826. Rolled wrought iron rails had noticebly less pronounced bellies, and sat in chairs.

[Tony Cane]

According to EM Gauge Society's Permanent Way and Civil engineering book, The original L&M track used Birkenshaw type rail, 15 ft long, 35 lb/yd. This was laid on stone blocks except in Olive Mount Cutting where it was spiked to the solid rock. It then goes on to say that the rest of the line was laid on oak sleepers bound at the ends with iron hoops. The wrought iron rails had a 2.25 in wide head and the underside was a series of "fish-bellies" of 2.5 in to 3.5 in deep. Joints were supported in chairs. It was soon found that the chairs spiked direct to the rock in Olive Mount Cutting were breaking and sleepers in ballast were substituted.

[wainwright1]

Do we know what type of stone block sleepers were used. Were they laid out square to the track or in diamond fashion with the rail laid from corner to corner ?

The London and Greenwich Railway (1836) used stone blocks 2ft x 2ft square with the rails laid across the centre. I think that I seen images of rails used on other railways where the diamond format was used.

 

All the best

Ray

[Edwardian]

Short answer:

 

1. The L&M had a mix of stone blocks and timber sleepers from the first, with the former replaced within a few years.

 

2. Contemporary illustrations give the impression of top-dressing of ballast so the sleepering is not generally visible.

 

 

Long answer:

 

1. First rails were 15' lengths of rolled iron, fish-belly shaped, 35lb per yard.  These proved too light and had to be replaced as early as 1832.

 

2. 'From 1832 on, the L&M became a veritable experimental laboratory for testing various types and kinds of rail' (Donaghy 1972)

 

3. 1834 part of the line laid with parallel shaped rail (i.e. not fish-belly)

 

4. From 1835 the whole line was relaid with heavier rails.  This may have been both 55lb fish-belly rail and 60lb parallel rail

 

5. From the first wooden sleepers (oak) were used over sections of the line in places subject to settlement, e.g. Chat Moss, Parr Moss and embanked sections to a total of 13 route miles.

 

6. The remainder of the line used stone sleepers initially.  The rails were clamped to stones that were, in general, diamond shaped and set 2' apart. Note that, their size and shape meant that the corners just about touched. They were troublesome and sank into the ballast. Whenever replaced, it was with wooden sleepers. They were probably extinct on the line by 1838. 

 

7. By 1839, the whole line had been relaid using larchwood sleeper treated against rot by Ryan's Patent Process.

 

 

 

 

 

[wainwright1]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Short answer:

 

1. The L&M had a mix of stone blocks and timber sleepers from the first, with the former replaced within a few years.

 

2. Contemporary illustrations give the impression of top-dressing of ballast so the sleepering is not generally visible.

 

 

Long answer:

 

1. First rails were 15' lengths of rolled iron, fish-belly shaped, 35lb per yard.  These proved too light and had to be replaced as early as 1832.

 

2. 'From 1832 on, the L&M became a veritable experimental laboratory for testing various types and kinds of rail' (Donaghy 1972)

 

3. 1834 part of the line laid with parallel shaped rail (i.e. not fish-belly)

 

4. From 1835 the whole line was relaid with heavier rails.  This may have been both 55lb fish-belly rail and 60lb parallel rail

 

5. From the first wooden sleepers (oak) were used over sections of the line in places subject to settlement, e.g. Chat Moss, Parr Moss and embanked sections to a total of 13 route miles.

 

6. The remainder of the line used stone sleepers initially.  The rails were clamped to stones that were, in general, diamond shaped and set 2' apart. Note that, their size and shape meant that the corners just about touched. They were troublesome and sank into the ballast. Whenever replaced, it was with wooden sleepers. They were probably extinct on the line by 1838. 

 

7. By 1839, the whole line had been relaid using larchwood sleeper treated against rot by Ryan's Patent Process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many thanks Edwardian.

Not sure how you would represent the diamond shaped stone blocks on a model display. 

Would we know if the parallel rail was bullhead, flat bottom or other type ?

I wonder what the points would have looked like, if there are any images or records.

 

All the best

Ray

[Nick Holliday]

An unlikely source of information regarding L&M permanent way is the RCTS book, Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division.

It notes:

"The original London & Birmingham track was specified by Robert Stephenson and was the same as that  which the L&M had been persuaded to adopt in 1833 after the failure of its original rails. It consisted of 50lb per yard malleable-iron fishbelly rails in 15 ft lengths, the half-lapped ends of which rested in a joint chair; the joint and intermediate chairs, 3 ft centre to centre, were Stephenson's patent type with iron keys.  They were mounted on square stone blocks except on embankments liable to settlement, where wooden cross sleepers were used.

"By February 1835 the L&M found that this track was still too weak and ordered 60 lb rails of parallel form; ten months later 75 lb parallel rails were adopted as standard."

By the time the L&B actually opened it had 10 miles of fishbelly, 25 miles of 65 lb parallel (in 16 ft lengths) and 77½ miles of 75 lb parallel (in 15 ft lengths).

The top of the rails was 2½ inches wide, and they were 4½ and 5 inches deep, respectively.

Stone sleepers were 2 ft square and 1 ft deep, or 1 ft 3 ins for some joint chairs.

On the L&B the stone sleepers took a long time to disappear.  A survey in February 1847 revealed that of 194½ route miles, there was still 40½ miles of 75 lb rail on stone sleepers! The last stone blocks during the 1850's.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

I mentioned Lecount earlier and his Practical Treatise on Railways (1839). Lecount worked for the London and Birmingham Railway and appears to have been very much a supporter of Robert Stephenson. Improvements in railways were happening at a rapid pace, and some of the ideas presented in the book appear rather outdated for 1839, although to be fair to Lecount, it seems he did try to include all the new ideas he knew of, even ones he didn't like.

 

The book is freely available online, and there is an extensive section on rail, beginning with the L&M here:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuo.ark:/13960/t6d21x38m&view=1up&seq=93&skin=2021

 

The earliest parallel rail he shows is 42 lb/yd T-rail from the St. Helen's and Runcorn Railway. No date is given, but it opened in 1833. He then shows 64 lb/yd and 75 lb/yd London and Birmingham parallel rail, which are both double-head. I particularly like the comment: 

• These rails were both laid down contrary to the opinion of the engineer, Mr. Stephenson, and have entailed a vast expense on that company.

Bridge rail and flat-bottom are both mentioned later on, but there is no mention of bullhead as far as I can see, so presumably it hadn't then been invented.

 

Later on, around page 84, there is mention of sleeper spacings (four and five feet were tried!) and quite a lot of mention of stone blocks. It seems that, in Lecount's view at any rate, the whole purpose of using heavier rail was to increase the sleeper spacing, but I'll not quote any more. It is fascinating reading.

 

Points and crossings begin on page 117, although after spending so much time on plain rail, Lecount doesn't have much to say about them. Go back a couple of pages for some pictures of T-rail and double-head chairs, with various types of key, if "key" is the right word for some of them.

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jeremy C

[wainwright1]

Hi All.

 

Plenty of useful information to scrutinise there.

 

With regard to square as apposed to diamond stone sleeper blocks. Our club used to own a layout that showed different time periods for the London and Greenwich Railway. This was primarily an overhead railway carried entirely on a viaduct and initially had track carried on stone sleeper blocks. It did no last very long due to the noise and vibration caused by trains running over this track and was replaced by timber sleeper track.

I thought of incorporating one section with the original stone sleepers. This would just have been straight plain track, so I did not have to worry about point work. The way I thought of doing it was by using copper clad sleeper strip, cutting pieces the required overall length of sleeper, then scribing the inside width of the stone sleeper blocks. These could then be attached to appropriate rail by perhaps using some PECO Steamline of similar, cutting the web between the plastic sleepers and soldering the copper clad to the under side of the rail. You would need to do this using track gauges and gradually moving the plastic sleepers along to get the spacing of the stone blocks right. You would also need to put some packing under the copper clad sleepers as they would be slightly shallower than the plastic sleepers. Once the track was complete, the ends of the strips (Under the blocks) could be glued down on the baseboard, probably using something like Evostik or epoxy to get a good grip, then when it was dry, cutting through the score marks and removing the centre bits just leaving the blocks themselves on the rails. Once ballasted I think that this would give a fairly good basic representation. Obviously, some additional chair detail could also be added to finish off.

There was only one problem. The copper clad sleeper strips were as far as I am aware only available in up to 7mm width, whereas ideally you would need 8mm to obtain the correct 2ft x 2ft sleeper blocks. But perhaps one of the manufacturers might be willing to cut some slightly wider ones.

Diamond sleeper blocks would be another game altogether, perhaps a job for the 3D printers ?

 

All the best

Ray

 

Now just need to time to consider perhaps making a small demonstration layout. Don't hold your breath.

Edited February 9, 2022 by wainwright1
Extra info

[Edwardian]

On 08/02/2022 at 11:06, wainwright1 said:

 

Many thanks Edwardian.

Not sure how you would represent the diamond shaped stone blocks on a model display. 

Would we know if the parallel rail was bullhead, flat bottom or other type ?

I wonder what the points would have looked like, if there are any images or records.

 

All the best

Ray

 

With reference to the London & Birmingham, it did not absorb the L&M until, IIRC, 1846, so, for example, note the differences in the spacing of L&B stone blocks recounted by Nick (3') from that said to have obtained in the same period on the L&M (2'). Likewise, the statement that stone blocks persisted on the L&B as late as 1847 is not, of course, inconsistent with the information that the L&M had removed all theirs by 1839. 

 

We know that the L&M systematically relaid their line from 1835 and I think we can be fairly confident about the use of 55lb fish-belly rail and 60lb parallel rail because these types were identified in a contemporary report. IIRC, the parallel rail was found better suited to curves than fishbelly. 

 

So I think the main remaining question was the very one you identified, what did this "parallel rail" look like?

 

I wish I could tell you.  The only picture I have seen of L&M is said to show the original 1829 fishbelly rail, which does not assist.

 

The closest I can get is the page on 1830s rail in Alan Prior's book, which shows examples of both fishbelly and  parallel chaired rail, though not specifically L&M rail.

 

 

Given that all 1830s illustrations of the L&M, regardless of illustrator, appear consistent in showing track with no visible sleepering or chairing anywhere on the line (someone will now unearth an exception!) I would be inclined to use something like code 75 FB, with or without chairs and inset the track to show only the rail tops, using card or plaster to clover the sleepers, perhaps with plaster or, say, chinchilla dust, to give the texture of fine ballast.  

 

Above and below, two views of Parkside

 

 

It's a Health and Safety Nightmare!!!!!!!

 

 

[Dana Ashdown]

Anthony Dawson has done several books on the Liverpool & Manchester. I've only seen some excerpts from one or two of them, but was wondering if there is anything in them that might be helpful?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

5 hours ago, Edwardian said:

The closest I can get is the page on 1830s rail in Alan Prior's book, which shows examples of both fishbelly and  parallel chaired rail, though not specifically L&M rail.

 

There is definitely a joint at every chair in the right hand picture, and there appears to be a joint at every chair in the left hand picture, too. Does Alan Prior give a source? That right-hand rail looks almost impossible to manfacture by rolling, and I might have said it was cast, but no one would cast a parallel rail like that and then sit it in chairs to boot. In fact, with such short lengths, all the advantages of parallel rails (easier to make, chairs can be anywhere and being able to cut to any length) disappear. Admittedly, the bit about being able to cut to any length might not have applied in the 1830s with their lapped joints, although I suppose that they could be chiselled on site. I wonder when fishplates were invented.

 

Just guessing, but the pictures look like they were drawn by someone reasonably familiar with cast iron rail, who had been told about wrought iron rails in chairs, but who hadn't actually had a chance to see them up close.

[Nick Holliday]

9 hours ago, Edwardian said:

So I think the main remaining question was the very one you identified, what did this "parallel rail" look like?

 

I wish I could tell you.  The only picture I have seen of L&M is said to show the original 1829 fishbelly rail, which does not assist.

 

The 1839 that @Jeremy C pointed at contains these sections of parallel rail on the London and Birmingham

 

64 lb on the left, 75 lb on the right.

[sem34090]

It should, of course, be noted that if the intention is to build a layout to run a Hornby or Rapido Lion or the Hornby 'L&MR' coaches on then Bullhead track laid in the manner of the LMS in the 1920s/30s would probably be most appropriate given they represent a loco as rebuilt in the 1930s and coaches built in the 1930s.

 

For Hornby's Rocket probably concrete sleepered Bullhead as found on most heritage railways would probably be the most accurate given that it is a model of the 1970s replica.

[Dana Ashdown]

13 hours ago, sem34090 said:

It should, of course, be noted that if the intention is to build a layout to run a Hornby or Rapido Lion or the Hornby 'L&MR' coaches on then Bullhead track laid in the manner of the LMS in the 1920s/30s would probably be most appropriate given they represent a loco as rebuilt in the 1930s and coaches built in the 1930s.

 

For Hornby's Rocket probably concrete sleepered Bullhead as found on most heritage railways would probably be the most accurate given that it is a model of the 1970s replica.

I can't disagree with you so far as accuracy is concerned, in which case 1920s/30s LMS would be most appropriate.

 

However, I would really like to have mine run on something as close to the Liverpool & Manchester's track as possible... even if it winds up being flex-track covered almost entirely ballast. I think the real challenge will be turnouts.

[Edwardian]

On 12/02/2022 at 15:42, Dana Ashdown said:

I can't disagree with you so far as accuracy is concerned, in which case 1920s/30s LMS would be most appropriate.

 

However, I would really like to have mine run on something as close to the Liverpool & Manchester's track as possible... even if it winds up being flex-track covered almost entirely ballast. I think the real challenge will be turnouts.

 

Very much my approach; if I ever get around to it.

[Annie]

On 13/02/2022 at 04:42, Dana Ashdown said:

I think the real challenge will be turnouts.

Wild & Parson's switch in Colburn looks too late for the period.  Would some species of stub point be what was used on the early L&M?

[Edwardian]

3 hours ago, Annie said:

Wild & Parson's switch in Colburn looks too late for the period.  Would some species of stub point be what was used on the early L&M?

 

Agree.  I suspect Alan Prior's drawings may represent L&B practice.

 

The L&B certainly had stub points and I think it a reasonable guess is that the L&M would have had them, too. 

[Annie]

A considerable amount of 19th century trackwork drawings can be found here, but nothing that's old enough unfortunately.

 

https://www.oldpway.info/opw_drawings.html#Brit

[Annie]

Pen & Sword's 'Early Railways' by Peter Chatham and Stephen Weston has drawings of the L&B stub points among other varieties of stub points and early point designs.

[Dana Ashdown]

Andrew Dow, The Railway: British Track Since 1804 (Pen & Sword Transport, 2014), Chapter 4, has information on early switches. Here is a link to a Google preview:

 

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Railway/kmBtBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+Railway:+British+Track+Since+1804&pg=PA236&printsec=frontcover

 

 

[Dana Ashdown]

This plate from S.C. Brees' Railway Practice (1836), shows the London & Birmingham's sleepered and blocked permanent way.

 

Conclusion: It doesn't really matter what track you have under the ballast, because its going to be completely covered. Just so long as you maintain clearance for the wheel flanges.

 

[Compound2632]

2 hours ago, Dana Ashdown said:

Conclusion: It doesn't really matter what track you have under the ballast, because its going to be completely covered. Just so long as you maintain clearance for the wheel flanges.

 

One could have a bit of maintenance under way, with the ballast dug out from around a couple of sleepers or blocks, as seen in some of the lithographs, IIRC.