16.5mm traditional OO gauge. Classic steam era pointwork.

[The Stationmaster]

But in a technical discussion it is surely better that everyone agrees what the words mean?

 

Otherwise you can end up with results like this:

 

 

 

Martin.

That has nothing on a discussion involving a lifelong Bristolian on the subject of radio coverage, suitable sites for aerials, and what area they would cover

[Pacific231G]

This is not true. Educated railwaymen have always used the term "points" to mean the moving blades. For the obvious reason that they are pointed. Hence almost always in plural and the terms "a set of points" or "a pair of points". And on signal box lever plates it is always "Points No. 3", not "Point No. 3", connected to the rodding.

 

There are various other terms for an entire turnout. In the early years it was often called a "single-junction" (compare with still current "double-junction"), and on the GWR it was a "lead". But never a "point" for an entire turnout by anyone who knew what they were talking about.

 

Martin.

From my OED "point (usually in plural) Brit, a junction of two railway lines with a pair of linked tapering rails that can be moved laterally to allow a train to move from one line to the other" So according to that definition "points" includes the switch rails but can't be a junction between two lines until they've separated so it must include the crossing. Turnout doesn't appear at all in a railway context, though as a technical term I wouldn't necessarily expect it to, and "points" is or are the common Brit. English usage. 

The dictionary does define "frog" as "a grooved piece of iron at a place in a railway where tracks cross (19th C: orig unknown) so you're clearly right that it originated in Britain, went to America along with British words like "Railroad" but got lost in Britain before returning.

 

I'd be genuinely interested to know the earliest British reference you've found to the use of the word "turnout" in this context? I can't trace it to earlier than the 1930s so wondered whether it might have arrrived with the US Miltary RRs during the First World War? 

 

Update

I've just found this intriguing passage from Sir Arthur Heywood's 1894 book "Minimum Gauge Railways" and as a very educated man I'm sure he would have used the terminology then current among railway engineers.

 

"The rails for the points are rivetted on to flat-topped cast-iron sleepers, and were built up in my workshops and forwarded ready for laying down. A set of points   with seven sleepers carrying them and with lever, counterweight, base-plate and the necessary rods, weighs about 4 cwts and costs £7 15s 0d. All the switches are planed out of the solid and the crossings are of cast steel."  (my emphases)

[Joseph_Pestell]

When my train is not delayed or cancelled due to a signalling failure or leaves on the line, it is often due, according to the station announcer, to a "points failure".

[gr.king]

I think I can cope with people calling the components, and the whole, anything they like, so long as the overall appearance is markedly better that the current leading ready made offering.

 

I keep thinking about practical possibilities for minimum effort home-built points/turnouts, as well as the "we want a better ready made product" campaign. Anybody got any winning strategies to suggest on that front?

[martin_wynne]

When my train is not delayed or cancelled due to a signalling failure or leaves on the line, it is often due, according to the station announcer, to a "points failure".

 

Yes, they are the things that have failed, the moving points. It is very unlikely that an entire turnout would fail.

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Anybody got any winning strategies to suggest on that front?

 

A good strategy might be to wait and see what DCC Concepts are planning to introduce. Their Legacy track templates are online. It is very likely that their ready-made track will correspond to these. See:

 

(These are large files, slow to load, can be zoomed-in for high-detail):

 

http://www.dccconcep...-Turnout-A5.pdf

 

http://www.dccconcep...-Turnout-B6.pdf

 

http://www.dccconcep...-Turnout-B7.pdf

 

http://www.dccconcep...-Turnout-B8.pdf

 

http://www.dccconcep...-Turnout-B9.pdf

 

Notes:

 

http://www.dccconcep...late-turnout-a5

 

http://www.dccconcep...late-turnout-b6

 

http://www.dccconcep...late-turnout-b7

 

http://www.dccconcep...late-turnout-b8

 

http://www.dccconcep...late-turnout-b9

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

I didn't suggest that a frog could only be a casting.

 

Simply that after being out of use in the UK since the early days, the term "frog" is being used again here in connection with modern cast crossings. All part of globalisation.

 

There is also a nice argument that correctly a crossing consists of a frog plus a pair of check rails. Discuss.

 

Martin.

If you define pointwork as switches and crossings then quite possibly and that certainly seems to be Network Rail's preferred terminology as in this engineering video from 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuR5QTlfOzk. I think it also demonstrates why everyone except PW engineers just use the word "points" generically.

 

 

A term that only seems to be used by railway modellers these days is  "common crossing" and a google search for it referred mainly to Rmweb, Scalefour.org and finescale.org.uk.  It seems to now be archaic but it does appear in this fascinating and very informative LMS film unit documentary from around 1936  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjraY7L9Jig

 

I rather like the French term coeur de croisement (heart of the crossing) or coeur de traversée for a K crossing though rail protecteur for check rail is a bit dull

[martin_wynne]

I'd be genuinely interested to know the earliest British reference you've found to the use of the word "turnout" in this context? I can't trace it to earlier than the 1930s so wondered whether it might have arrrived with the US Miltary RRs during the First World War?

 

Hi David,

 

The REA bullhead designs in "Standard Railway Equipment" of 1926 make full reference to turnouts.

 

This is from Hepworth & Lee, Manchester, 1922. It doesn't give the impression of being a new term:

 

 

 

For Irish practice, this is from the W. H. Mills classic "Railway Construction", London, 1905:

 

 

 

Earlier American references I have found are this from C. Frank Allen, Boston, 1899:

 

 

 

And this from Frederick J. Prior, Chicago, 1908:

 

 

 

Finding and scanning those was an an amusing interlude for a Christmas Eve.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Pacific231G]

Hi David,

 

The REA bullhead designs in "Standard Railway Equipment" of 1926 make full reference to turnouts.

 

This is from Hepworth & Lee, Manchester, 1922. It doesn't give the impression of being a new term:

 

turnout_1922.jpg

 

 

For Irish practice, this is from the W. H. Mills classic "Railway Construction", London, 1905:

 

turnout_1905.jpg

 

 

Earlier American references I have found are this from C. Frank Allen, Boston, 1899:

 

turnout_1899.jpg

 

 

And this from Frederick J. Prior, Chicago, 1908:

 

turnout_1908.jpg

 

 

Finding and scanning those was an an amusing interlude for a Christmas Eve.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

This is fascinating Martin.  In the 1905 W.H. Mills book, turnout clearly refers to the whole siding including its trap points and run off and that does seems to accord  with its original pre-railway American meaning of a lay by.   Fig 356 refers to a "set of runaway points" with the diagram showing a complete turnout leading to a runaway siding; this agrees with Heywood's reference to a set of points meaning the entire assembly of a switch and a crossing rather than just the moving point or switch rails .

 

The two American references show that turnout was the established term used in America which comes as no surprise but also that frog was the established word for what we would call a crossing.

I've got a couple of much earlier British books in digital form so must plough through them perhaps on boxing day.

 

In the meantiime have a very Happy Christmas

[hayfield]

I've just compared my SMP 36" radius point kits and several other brands with a current Peco medium radius point and the divergence angle and distance are, so far as I can tell, identical so far as the timbering goes (obviously if building your own, even from a kit, it's up to you where you cut the rail) . I've posted this comparison before but it may be useful here

3 ft turnouts compared.jpg

 

The original BRMSB spec for "standard" OO gave 50mm as the centre to centre for both main lines and sidings so presumably that's what everyone producing track to BRMSB standards including Peco used though I assume the final standard where "scale" OO was 16.5mm (and 18mm had become EM) included the same 45mm spacing for main lines. No manufacturer in OO or H0 has AFAIK ever produced points or crossovers to suit both mains and sidings.

 

By the way  MOROP and the NMRA both specify a minimum spacing of 46mm for mains (and 52mm for sidings for MOROP) so pretty much the same as BRMSB and a tad wider than scale for a 2m "six foot way" but n

 

 

David

 

Thanks for putting this shot of the selection of turnouts together. For me there are 2 main things that stick out immediately from this photo and strangely enough the 2 earlier offerings from Peco looks the best by miles. Great pity a Templot plan/built turnout is not put along side, as this would give an example to aim to

 

The first item is the bent sleeper, this would be totally un-prototypical due to the length of cut ends (in the middle) being too short. I do understand that this is to allow crossovers and other formations to be built, but its wrong

 

The second thing is something which looks to be nearer 4 mm sleeper/timber spacing, though without checking the timbers look a bit narrow which either over emphasises sleeper spacing or the gaps are too large. I guess the SMP timbers may be nearer scale width, however the timber spacing is too uniform

 

What this photo proves is that the Peco code 75 & 100 turnouts look wrong

[MikeTrice]

Great pity a Templot plan/built turnout is not put along side, as this would give an example to aim to

Like this? A4.5 turnout used.

 

Have adjusted the Peco plan as well.

[hayfield]

Mike thanks, we now have a scale plan to compare with the other offerings.

[gr.king]

It would be of some interest (to me anyway) to see, added to the above, a representation of either the A5 or the "3 foot radius" item in two forms:

 

1. HO scale throughout, with HO "British steam era" dimensions to the timbering

 

2. Same again but with timbers extended to conform to the BRMSB 32 mm sleeper length.

 

No need to ignite a dispute over the way to resolve conflict between gauge and scale, but the visible effect of having the two matched up could then be judged. I imagine that the result of 2. would be much as per the SMP item, but with slimmer sleepers than the copperclad example.

[coachmann]

I may use Peco points, but I would never dream of using less than the largest radius on the scenic parts of my layout. To my mind, 36" radius points undermines the serious intent for more realistic British chaired track whether it be 00, EM or P4. 

[gr.king]

I'm sure there was once a time when use of radii as large as 36" was regarded as one of the hallmarks of a first class model railway. Even if best standards had already advanced to a higher level 25years ago, my layout planning at that time relied on many 36" radius points as the only way to fit a reasonable system into something like 12' x 14' of loft space, yet that was a huge expanse compared to anything I'd ever had available for a layout previously. I'd still use such points in certain scenic locations now, but as per larger points they would have to have timbering and chairs appropriate to the era and in proportion to the gauge. I feel there will be plenty of modellers who would use better track if they could, but who will be struggling to fit points in even at the 36" radius which may be regarded by others as unacceptably small. If the 36" radius doesn't form part of a ready to use range then many potential customers' needs will not be met. Most modellers don't have the space to allow full scale radii on their railways, especially if they want to be able enjoy continuous running.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

       Here is a link I posted on Martins Templot site. From "The Premier Line"http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=2620&forum_id=11&highlight=LNWR+track+drawings

The point is made very clearly,(Lovely pun)

trustytrev.

[trustytrev]

Hello,

        Ho B****r I hope it doesn't start another fight.I have just read what followed.

Peace and goodwill etc.

trustytrev.

[hayfield]

It would be of some interest (to me anyway) to see, added to the above, a representation of either the A5 or the "3 foot radius" item in two forms:

 

1. HO scale throughout, with HO "British steam era" dimensions to the timbering

 

2. Same again but with timbers extended to conform to the BRMSB 32 mm sleeper length.

 

No need to ignite a dispute over the way to resolve conflict between gauge and scale, but the visible effect of having the two matched up could then be judged. I imagine that the result of 2. would be much as per the SMP item, but with slimmer sleepers than the copperclad example.

 

 

I( don't know if this is something of a comparison you were after, a hastily produced comparison of a Peco large radius and either an A6 or a copy of the Peco large radius to 00 standards which Martin produced a while ago. The main impression is the sleeper spacing not being so busy

 

 

Overhead view, timbers start at a length of 32 mm

 

 

Never had time to weather it properly as the rails and chairs would look better with a slight rust tint, as per the Peco (which was a s/h buy). Might be slightly unfair as the Peco turnout is code 100

 

 

Closer view of the crossings

 

 

The switches

 

00sf, but that matters not as its in 4 mm scale. If it is an A6 then its close to a 48" radius

 

I take notice of the comment of those with continuous layouts and if space is at a premium then perhaps scale turnouts may not be appropriate under a certain size

[polybear]

 

Never had time to weather it properly as the rails and chairs would look better with a slight rust tint, as per the Peco (which was a s/h buy). Might be slightly unfair as the Peco turnout is code 100

 

 

All that time spent on Ebay looking for the latest bargain that everyone else has missed takes it's toll, doesn't it John....  

[Clive Mortimore]

I( don't know if this is something of a comparison you were after, a hastily produced comparison of a Peco large radius and either an A6 or a copy of the Peco large radius to 00 standards which Martin produced a while ago. The main impression is the sleeper spacing not being so busy

 

180.JPG

 

Overhead view, timbers start at a length of 32 mm

 

181.JPG

 

Never had time to weather it properly as the rails and chairs would look better with a slight rust tint, as per the Peco (which was a s/h buy). Might be slightly unfair as the Peco turnout is code 100

 

182.JPG

 

Closer view of the crossings

 

183.JPG

 

The switches

 

00sf, but that matters not as its in 4 mm scale. If it is an A6 then its close to a 48" radius

 

I take notice of the comment of those with continuous layouts and if space is at a premium then perhaps scale turnouts may not be appropriate under a certain size

Hi John

 

You seem to have taken a backwards step with this comparison. We all know that Peco (and Tilling) track is not good visually. That is why Joseph has stated he is going to have a go at producing visually better 00 track that has those other faults that Peco track has, you know it can be taken out the packaging, have the rail joiners applied, attached to either other points (turnouts) or plain track, have wires attached and trains running with no assembly, and it will work and be reliable. He has also indicted that they may not be too expensive compared to other systems. When Joseph's ideas come to fruition they will be hopefully welcomed by those of us who cannot. will not, and never will make our own track. Those who do make their own and enjoy doing so can carry on doing so.  

[MikeTrice]

It would be of some interest (to me anyway) to see, added to the above, a representation of either the A5 or the "3 foot radius" item in two forms:

 

1. HO scale throughout, with HO "British steam era" dimensions to the timbering

 

2. Same again but with timbers extended to conform to the BRMSB 32 mm sleeper length.

 

No need to ignite a dispute over the way to resolve conflict between gauge and scale, but the visible effect of having the two matched up could then be judged. I imagine that the result of 2. would be much as per the SMP item, but with slimmer sleepers than the copperclad example.

 

Not certain if this new comparison helps or not.

 

So what you have is an A5 turnout to P4 standards on the far left as produced from Templot. Next in is the same turnout but to OO/HO Universal standard. Note that Templot makes adjustments for the reduced gauge and flangeways and uses sleeper/timber length starting at 32mm. Third one in is the P4 template that I have scaled to match 16.5mm gauge. This is purely to allow a visual comparison of "scaled" timber spacings. Finally a humble Peco Medium Radius Turnout.

 

In all cases the turnouts have been aligned on their respective crossing vee Intersection points.

[Pacific231G]

I'm sure there was once a time when use of radii as large as 36" was regarded as one of the hallmarks of a first class model railway. Even if best standards had already advanced to a higher level 25years ago, my layout planning at that time relied on many 36" radius points as the only way to fit a reasonable system into something like 12' x 14' of loft space, yet that was a huge expanse compared to anything I'd ever had available for a layout previously. I'd still use such points in certain scenic locations now, but as per larger points they would have to have timbering and chairs appropriate to the era and in proportion to the gauge. I feel there will be plenty of modellers who would use better track if they could, but who will be struggling to fit points in even at the 36" radius which may be regarded by others as unacceptably small. If the 36" radius doesn't form part of a ready to use range then many potential customers' needs will not be met. Most modellers don't have the space to allow full scale radii on their railways, especially if they want to be able enjoy continuous running.

 

The incorrect bent timber should be the easiest departure from prototype to correct as the rail isn't fixed to it but just sits on it.

Points with a nominal radius of 36" (or a frog angle of 11-12^o ) do seem to have been a virtual norm for modellers building their own track through the 1950s and 1960s and AFAIK it was and still is the only size available as a plastic based point kit from SMP (though the copper clad kits are also available in 24" and 48" radius). 

 

David

 

Thanks for putting this shot of the selection of turnouts together. For me there are 2 main things that stick out immediately from this photo and strangely enough the 2 earlier offerings from Peco looks the best by miles. Great pity a Templot plan/built turnout is not put along side, as this would give an example to aim to

 

The first item is the bent sleeper, this would be totally un-prototypical due to the length of cut ends (in the middle) being too short. I do understand that this is to allow crossovers and other formations to be built, but its wrong

 

The second thing is something which looks to be nearer 4 mm sleeper/timber spacing, though without checking the timbers look a bit narrow which either over emphasises sleeper spacing or the gaps are too large. I guess the SMP timbers may be nearer scale width, however the timber spacing is too uniform

 

What this photo proves is that the Peco code 75 & 100 turnouts look wrong

 

For OO they are over-sleepered but they are of course built to H0 scale* .

 

The Pecoway and Individulay sleepers are around 3.3-3.5 mm wide by 32.3mm long, compared with the BRMSB standard OO size of 32x3.5 (which for some reason was the same as their standard sleeper size for scale H0) which is 10.5 inches by 8ft  in OO scale

The geometry and timber spacing of the ready built Pecoway points and the Individulay templates are identical but some of the timbers in the fibre base are wider.

The PCB strip used for timbers in the SMP points is 4mm wide which is of course 12 inches in  OO scale  

 

 

* I had thought that Peco's use of a 600mm sleeper spacing in H0 scale represented only the busiest modern main lines so  was a bit oversleepered for most steam era lines but I've just found an article in a 1949 edition of Loco-Revue on sleeper spacing that gives 600mm as already then the standard SNCF spacing for main lines (category I & II) with track panels 18 and 24 metres long using 46kg/metre and 56kg/metre FB rail. The interesting comment in the context of this topic is that for Category III lines- branch and freight only lines effectively- there is a great deal of regional variation on sleeper spacing and that the majority of this rail is chaired bullhead (double champignon). I do sometimes wonder whether Peco Streamline was originally modelled in H0 based on French prototypes, perhaps with an eye on European exports.

[MikeTrice]

Templot based on Universal HO/OO gives B6 as 32.7" radius and B6.5 as 39.1" radius

[martin_wynne]

Templot based on Universal HO/OO gives B6 as 32.7" radius and B6.5 as 39.1" radius

 

Hi Mike,

 

If using Templot to create commercial track comparable to Peco it is better to use all the available adjustments.

 

Using A and B switches does not give the easiest radius with crossings shorter than 1:7, especially in the 00 gauges. Size A-5 in particular is an unpleasant size which is not suitable to represent anything other than itself -- in other words a turnout intended for cramped goods yards and industrial sidings.

 

Try changing to the 9ft straight switch in Templot, and you will find not only easier radii, but also save a bit of length. You can ease the radius further by changing from a "regular" type V-crossing to a "generic" type of crossing.

 

You can ease the radius even further by using the non-prototypical "short model switches" in Templot. Which would be entirely justified if comparing with Peco.

 

To match toy set-track in Templot, use a "gaunt" turnout and set the gaunt offset to zero.

 

I suggest templates 1 and 2 below as suitable for Peco-type commercial track:

 

 

Martin.

[MikeTrice]

I think what all this is proving is that whoever goes forward with trying to produce an alternative to the Peco product is going to have to make many decisions in coming up with a specification. I don't envy them