Regularity

Same as I said 24 hours ago...

They do sell varnish, yes, but usually it is spelt “Wilko”.

Talking about things not being small... http://themodelrailwayshow.com/LayoutDesign/?p=3609

I recall reading somewhere that the larger engines were used more on the western half of the joint, and were more likely to appear at places like Leicester. If I am correct - and I may not be - then a through working from Leicester via the Joint is a good excuse for one of these. As for the diameter, some turntables were “extended” without the need for a new well or table by the simple expedient of fitting longer rails to the turntable. Quite a few GER 45’ turntables were extended to 48’, and 42’ to 45’, by this manner. I suspect that this was the maximum extension possible, and the approach tracks probably had two very closely spaced sleepers at the very end of the rail. Having a 45’ table and well, with slightly longer rails, would be perfectly acceptable. What do I think? I think you have a variety of options based on prototype practice, but ultimately this is a Model Railway in less space than a real one would require, and running on an unknown gauge of 4’1.5” to boot, therefore you are at liberty to find as many unusual Pro typical exceptions to the usual as you are happy to accommodate!

Right, I dug out the December 1980 Model Railways re Warwick Bridge, and it referred me back to March 1979, re Wylam (an EM gauge layout built more than 40 years ago). I don’t know about the supply of tacks, but this is not dissimilar to Peter Denny’s method using old wood veneer, and is a very cheap but effective way to make track: the tacks even lift the rails slightly. One idea of the late reverend which I think was a good idea, was a small blob of filler on the inside of the rail, representing the smaller part of the chair.

Being pedantic, it is you’re, not your being a contraction of “you are”’ and not the possessive of “you”. Back in the pre-grouping days, those who were educated beyond primary school (and many with it) knew the difference. I think we should be held to those high standards. It is disappointing that a debate about “walking distance” (surely relates to how much one has imbibed?) has failed to notice this basic error...

My wife once described me as a “weirdo who watches the ‘Railway Children’ for the trains”!She has yet to come up with a similar explanation for why I watch “An American Werewolf in London” or “Walkabout”...

Battery power and remote control make that a possibility, but there is a risk of bits of foliage getting wrapped up in mechanisms.

OK Andy, I think we agree.

According to the rules of marital harmony, a wedding anniversary out ranks both, so although I was never going to visit Winchester (too far, and I am not an 0 Scale modeller) I was hoping to make it to Crawley Heath and see Jordan's layout.Edit: Which layout is it, Jordan?

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.

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.

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.

What's invisible and smells of hazelnuts? Squirrel f@rts. Sorry.

That's rather nice.Is there somewhere we can see more?

Just to be clear, are we talking about tiles (which typically overlap each other) or slates, which should have a slight gap between them?

Aye, definitely a "keeper".

The GWR had running powers into Exchange, regularly used, just to add an extra flavour into the mix.

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 bought the on-line version: it is easier to brighten up the screen. Yes, there could have been more light to the side of some of the scenes photographed, or some manipulation of the digitised images, but it is a very good book, and Arthur should be proud. One criticism of Crowood is that their e-books are not correctly set up. This is not the first of their books where I have the electronic version, and headings for a section of text are "orphaned" on the previous page. Something wrong with the style sheet, I think.

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.

Old pway info.

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! Other than spacing being reduced at rail joints, say 24" intervals, then the rest of the interlacing seems to be pretty much based on plain track spacing, juggled to fit. I will see if I can find a reference to an online drawing.

Many years back I was working for a small software company, and rather than saying "original equipment manufacturers" they kept saying "OEM". Neither meant anything to me at that point, but I did a quick web search on the abbreviation (not being easily pronounced it is not an acronym) and the first hit was "one-eyed monster"... if that doesn't appear on that other link, it should.

The GER used interlaced sleepers between the switch and the crossing, both of which used ordinary timbers. It is easy to do this in Templot: delete the timbers not required, and then use the align-over-template-on-peg functionality to overlay ordinary plain track on the main and turnout routes. Edit: http://www.oldpway.info/drawings/1900pc_pl07_GER.pdf There is a reasonable amount of information about pre-grouping practice, but it requires some detailed reading, a quantity of intelligent interpolation (the more reading, the better the guesswork) and not a little luck. Railway Inspectorate reports on new lines can shed some light on contemporaneous practice, but you have to allow for changing and evolving practice. There are sketches of crossings and switches in various sources: books (19th Century railway drawings), online and via various line societies, plus the Templot forum, where some have shared the templates they have created, e.g. for NER interlaced 1:8 turnouts, etc. There is also the layout and track design forum on RMWeb.