Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Almost twelve hours and no response... clearly the Blue Brigade are conserving their energy for Telford.
Hartley Hills, LNWR c1900 - buffer stops, how do you build yours?
- Thread starter Dog Star
- Start date
Ressaldar
Western Thunderer
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Wagonman
Western Thunderer
Ten hours and ten minutes... the quote counts as a response
Just in case it was my post that triggered this, I'd better add that I am strictly colour-neutral...
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
No, no - you are blameless although lessons in colour-bias can be arranged. The exchange a few posts back is the norm for WT.Just in case it was my post that triggered this, I'd better add that I am strictly colour-neutral...
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
So how does one approach the task of building turnouts to LNWR pre-1900 Switch and Crossing practice when there are so few details in the railway press? Not that easy and a task which has occupied my time since before the beginning of the year. I guess that there has been something like 40 to 50 hours peering at photos ( circa 3000 images on the LNWRS website and Warwickshire Railways website) and then the same amount of time in trying different timber arrangements to (a) match the photographs, (b) fit with contemporary switch practice and (c) achieve rail lengths which match photographs and align with the details on the single crossing drawing.
And then going back a few steps when a drawing appeared which gave the timber width as 14" for all timbers (rather than the expected 12" width).
And then going back a few steps more when it became clear that some of the photos showed turnouts with interlaced sleepers rather than straight through timbers.
Oh, did I mention that the length of timbers, circa 1900, increased in steps of 12" rather than the expected steps of 6"?
What with all of the revisions to my ideas of just what the LNWR was doing in the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods some of the turnout timbering on Hartley Hill has been laid and then lifted more than once, or twice in the case of those turnouts which are to represent earlier practice. Finally, in the last couple of months, and after some meaningful discussions with Jol Wilkinson and Brian Nicholls - both with deep interests in LNWR PW matters - I have enough confidence in the details as to the arrangement of the first couple of turnouts for Hartley Hill.... witness the earlier photos of the first common crossing in position.
The Vee and wing rails were made from a LNWR drawing which was submitted to the International Railway Congress meeting in 1900.... so the details are Victorian and probably circa 1895. The same drawing gives the timber width as 14" throughout the crossing. Apart from the shape of the wing rail alongside the vee and the large radius of the knuckle there is little to note in regard to the crossing.. although one might observe that the crossing is rather short from end to end (just six timbers).
The switch is a different matter... the full-size plan of the layout has been drawn using the equivalent of the REA C8 turnout in respect of lead length and switch planing - there any similarity to the model ends. First problem is to set out the 14" timbers so that the rail joints for the stock, closure and switch rails are reasonable given photographic evidence and the "standard" rail length of 30'0" circa 1895. All I had at this time was:-
(a) LNWR drawing of 20'0" switch as submitted to the 1900 IRC meeting.... useful in given indications of LNWR practice in regard to timbering of the switch and of rail lengths;
(b) LNWR drawing of "typical" turnout arrangements circa 1909.... useful in showing rail joints for a number of switch / crossing combinations;
(c) photos in Pilcher (op cit) which show all of what I believe to be a 9'0" switch (pg. 52).
(d) Dimensions of Pre-Grouping Points and Crossings, Millard, HMRS Journal; Vol. 15. No. 1, pgs. 18-25.
Generally, the details of rail lengths in (d) seem to be similar to the few photos of Victorian LNWR turnouts although I have yet to resolve timbering arrangements for the 12'0" switch - the turnouts on Hartley Hill use 15'0" or 18'0" switches (with 9'0" for the trap in the carriage siding). So the rail lengths in (d) along with 30'0" stock rails (LNWR standard rail length pre-1900) work for the switch end of the turnout. All that remains is to join the switch and the common crossing with the closure rails.... ah, not so easy since the required length for the closure is greater than 30'0". Fine, use a 30'0" rail adjacent to the switch rail and then insert a short length against the common crossing... which is what can be seen in many photographs.
Now to the chairing. I have shown in a previous post how I have built up the block chairs for the common crossing and the example is based upon the 1900 IRC switch drawing. Study of photographs suggested that the LNWR did not have or did not use widely a L1 or "Bridge" chair before circa 1900. This cause some puzzlement because I could not see how to chair the stock and closure rails in the vicinity of the switch heel.... using standard chairs here is not possible because the footprint of the chairs on adjacent rails overlaps. Back to the photographs....
Initially I was going to use interlaced sleepers for the closures so as to remove the need for bridge chairs and eventually found a photograph of interlaced turnouts at Stetchford on the West Coast Main Line. This discovery was made by Albert before he eloped and is covered in this issue of the Hartley Hill Examiner where there is a link to the photograph. Given that I was having problems with the arrangement of chairs and timbers close to the switch heel of most of the turnouts and that I could find very few photos of interlaced turnouts I concluded that there had to be "another way". At this time Brian Nicholls made the observation that the LNWR had a narrow version of the standard plain line chair.... Bingo, reason for the 14" timbering!
Pilcher pg. 52 had been worrying me for some time because I could not understand why the chairs looked to be out of kilter across the turnout. Now I had the answer... this photo showed that a number of the chairs under the closure were placed on the very edge of the timber thereby leaving enough space for the stock rail to have a separate chair on the same sleeper. The photo in question is for a 9'0" switch whereas Hartley Hills needs 15'0" switches.... now I knew what I was looking for in regard to chairing it was not too difficult to work out, from other photos, how many slide / block / narrow chairs were required for each turnout on the layout.
Finally... straight cut, loose heel, switches have switch rails which are supported on a number of slide chairs and one block chair (adjacent to the heel joint). This arrangement is not going to work in 7mm with the Exactoscale ABS locking fishplates that are used elsewhere on the model (what stops the switch rail from becoming detached from the closure?). Thankfully Exactoscale offers the locking fishplate in lost wax brass and I shall use one of those items to join the switch and closure rails... the fishplate will be soldered to the switch rail and pinned to the closure rail thereby allowing some lateral movement in the switch rail as the switch opens / closes.
Enough for now, hope to get the closure and switch done in the morrow.
And then going back a few steps when a drawing appeared which gave the timber width as 14" for all timbers (rather than the expected 12" width).
And then going back a few steps more when it became clear that some of the photos showed turnouts with interlaced sleepers rather than straight through timbers.
Oh, did I mention that the length of timbers, circa 1900, increased in steps of 12" rather than the expected steps of 6"?
What with all of the revisions to my ideas of just what the LNWR was doing in the late Victorian and early Edwardian periods some of the turnout timbering on Hartley Hill has been laid and then lifted more than once, or twice in the case of those turnouts which are to represent earlier practice. Finally, in the last couple of months, and after some meaningful discussions with Jol Wilkinson and Brian Nicholls - both with deep interests in LNWR PW matters - I have enough confidence in the details as to the arrangement of the first couple of turnouts for Hartley Hill.... witness the earlier photos of the first common crossing in position.
The Vee and wing rails were made from a LNWR drawing which was submitted to the International Railway Congress meeting in 1900.... so the details are Victorian and probably circa 1895. The same drawing gives the timber width as 14" throughout the crossing. Apart from the shape of the wing rail alongside the vee and the large radius of the knuckle there is little to note in regard to the crossing.. although one might observe that the crossing is rather short from end to end (just six timbers).
The switch is a different matter... the full-size plan of the layout has been drawn using the equivalent of the REA C8 turnout in respect of lead length and switch planing - there any similarity to the model ends. First problem is to set out the 14" timbers so that the rail joints for the stock, closure and switch rails are reasonable given photographic evidence and the "standard" rail length of 30'0" circa 1895. All I had at this time was:-
(a) LNWR drawing of 20'0" switch as submitted to the 1900 IRC meeting.... useful in given indications of LNWR practice in regard to timbering of the switch and of rail lengths;
(b) LNWR drawing of "typical" turnout arrangements circa 1909.... useful in showing rail joints for a number of switch / crossing combinations;
(c) photos in Pilcher (op cit) which show all of what I believe to be a 9'0" switch (pg. 52).
(d) Dimensions of Pre-Grouping Points and Crossings, Millard, HMRS Journal; Vol. 15. No. 1, pgs. 18-25.
Generally, the details of rail lengths in (d) seem to be similar to the few photos of Victorian LNWR turnouts although I have yet to resolve timbering arrangements for the 12'0" switch - the turnouts on Hartley Hill use 15'0" or 18'0" switches (with 9'0" for the trap in the carriage siding). So the rail lengths in (d) along with 30'0" stock rails (LNWR standard rail length pre-1900) work for the switch end of the turnout. All that remains is to join the switch and the common crossing with the closure rails.... ah, not so easy since the required length for the closure is greater than 30'0". Fine, use a 30'0" rail adjacent to the switch rail and then insert a short length against the common crossing... which is what can be seen in many photographs.
Now to the chairing. I have shown in a previous post how I have built up the block chairs for the common crossing and the example is based upon the 1900 IRC switch drawing. Study of photographs suggested that the LNWR did not have or did not use widely a L1 or "Bridge" chair before circa 1900. This cause some puzzlement because I could not see how to chair the stock and closure rails in the vicinity of the switch heel.... using standard chairs here is not possible because the footprint of the chairs on adjacent rails overlaps. Back to the photographs....
Initially I was going to use interlaced sleepers for the closures so as to remove the need for bridge chairs and eventually found a photograph of interlaced turnouts at Stetchford on the West Coast Main Line. This discovery was made by Albert before he eloped and is covered in this issue of the Hartley Hill Examiner where there is a link to the photograph. Given that I was having problems with the arrangement of chairs and timbers close to the switch heel of most of the turnouts and that I could find very few photos of interlaced turnouts I concluded that there had to be "another way". At this time Brian Nicholls made the observation that the LNWR had a narrow version of the standard plain line chair.... Bingo, reason for the 14" timbering!
Pilcher pg. 52 had been worrying me for some time because I could not understand why the chairs looked to be out of kilter across the turnout. Now I had the answer... this photo showed that a number of the chairs under the closure were placed on the very edge of the timber thereby leaving enough space for the stock rail to have a separate chair on the same sleeper. The photo in question is for a 9'0" switch whereas Hartley Hills needs 15'0" switches.... now I knew what I was looking for in regard to chairing it was not too difficult to work out, from other photos, how many slide / block / narrow chairs were required for each turnout on the layout.
Finally... straight cut, loose heel, switches have switch rails which are supported on a number of slide chairs and one block chair (adjacent to the heel joint). This arrangement is not going to work in 7mm with the Exactoscale ABS locking fishplates that are used elsewhere on the model (what stops the switch rail from becoming detached from the closure?). Thankfully Exactoscale offers the locking fishplate in lost wax brass and I shall use one of those items to join the switch and closure rails... the fishplate will be soldered to the switch rail and pinned to the closure rail thereby allowing some lateral movement in the switch rail as the switch opens / closes.
Enough for now, hope to get the closure and switch done in the morrow.
Caggers
Western Thunderer
Graham,
Like others I am finding this thread really interesting especially as I had first hand experience early on.
As you know I am starting to plan a 7mm layout and have aquired some 0 Gauge Peco track but...
So prior to joining the Blues and Greens in the chairs at the back of the class I am in a quandary, do I keep going with Peco, and therefore end the conversation about 'the right track' or do I buy some rail and sleepers, and steal some of these chairs the B&G guys are sitting on and jump up to S7 and proper track.
As you know I have seen the research effort you have put in for this project and am not sure I am up to the job, then after all my effort (if I go that way) to be told every time I show the layout I had got something wrong would be a bit disheartening...
Thoughts?
Like others I am finding this thread really interesting especially as I had first hand experience early on.
As you know I am starting to plan a 7mm layout and have aquired some 0 Gauge Peco track but...
So prior to joining the Blues and Greens in the chairs at the back of the class I am in a quandary, do I keep going with Peco, and therefore end the conversation about 'the right track' or do I buy some rail and sleepers, and steal some of these chairs the B&G guys are sitting on and jump up to S7 and proper track.
As you know I have seen the research effort you have put in for this project and am not sure I am up to the job, then after all my effort (if I go that way) to be told every time I show the layout I had got something wrong would be a bit disheartening...
Thoughts?
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
Simon... I think that I have remarked several times... your interest lies in the North East and the North Eastern / London North Eastern / BR(NE) were not known for wasting the oncers so much of the track off of the East Coast main line was to NER practice from circa 1910 through to circa 1960. Now the reason for mentioning this here is that the North Eastern Railway Association has published a reasonably complete set of drawings for NER trackwork so the need for research into PW matters is reduced significantly and there is much less chance of Egg-spurts telling you that the "bit over there" is wrong (or put another way, you will get great satisfaction in swinging the NERA tome at the bonce of same pseudo-geek).
Your choice is of three options...
[1] Peco;
[2] Handbuilt to 0-FS standards;
[3] Handbuilt to S7 standards.
Happy to help you with options [2] or [3].
regards, Graham
Your choice is of three options...
[1] Peco;
[2] Handbuilt to 0-FS standards;
[3] Handbuilt to S7 standards.
Happy to help you with options [2] or [3].
regards, Graham
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
What might not be clear from the exchanges between Simon and myself is that Simon, when a memebr of the Basingstoke MRS and living near to the centre of activity (Oakley), has been helping with the preliminary work on Hartley Hills trackwork.... such as filing the vees of crossings and making track panels of sleepers and one rail for laying on the curves. Yes, Robin, I shall thake some photos of this as we go further round the bend.
Graham
Graham
Tony West
Western Thunderer
Simon,
I am in much the same boat as you on this and like you find the concept of S7 very appealing...but perhaps 31.5mm is a more practical (cheats!!) way of obtaining better clearances through crossings etc ( prepare for incoming !!) without altering any stock you may have built up.
As to accuracy, well lets just say that 'certain' companies records survived better than others and the likes of the GWR, LNWR, MR and others are well served and the known practices can be followed with some confidence. For all my sins I have been a student of the GCR for nearly ...too long now !!...for which the vast majority of records perished in the blitz and so trying to copy the prototype is a real struggle.
The "exhibition expert", what can I say !!!, we've all seen them..and( some of us ) been on the receiving end of them...generally the louder they are , the less credible they are and most couldnt even attempt to acheive what youve spent hours creating.
So join the rest of us basking in the back row deck chairs ( summer issue!!) and follow Mr B's journey...something for everyone to learn from ,before deciding upon which path you want to follow.
Cheers Tony.
I am in much the same boat as you on this and like you find the concept of S7 very appealing...but perhaps 31.5mm is a more practical (cheats!!) way of obtaining better clearances through crossings etc ( prepare for incoming !!) without altering any stock you may have built up.
As to accuracy, well lets just say that 'certain' companies records survived better than others and the likes of the GWR, LNWR, MR and others are well served and the known practices can be followed with some confidence. For all my sins I have been a student of the GCR for nearly ...too long now !!...for which the vast majority of records perished in the blitz and so trying to copy the prototype is a real struggle.
The "exhibition expert", what can I say !!!, we've all seen them..and( some of us ) been on the receiving end of them...generally the louder they are , the less credible they are and most couldnt even attempt to acheive what youve spent hours creating.
So join the rest of us basking in the back row deck chairs ( summer issue!!) and follow Mr B's journey...something for everyone to learn from ,before deciding upon which path you want to follow.
Cheers Tony.
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
I do hope that you can explain why working to 31.5mm track gauge is a "more practical way" of "obtaining better clearances" ... more practical than what? better clearances than what? I have no problem with people working to other than "scale" dimensions, suggesting that any one way forward is better than something else does need the baseline to be understood.
I agree that information on GWR PW and S&C practice is available for the 20th and 21st century (maybe the bullhead turnouts which are being installed currently at Exeter Riverside are being done to "GWR" geometry)... and the same can be said for the MR and NER. I hope that I have explained in earlier posts that there seems to be very little (aka close-to-nothing) for 19th century LNWR... and as a result I have had to go through a long drawn out induction into the "LNWR" way of doing things. Even more so with the GCR than with the NER I suspect that the "remote / separate" nature of the LNER (GC) section ensured that GCR trackwork remained and GCR practice continued to the end of steam. Photographs and a basic understanding of turnout arrangements are a good starting point and in this matter GCR-ites are well served with the works of SWA Newton. The online archive by the Leicester City Museum is a tremendous resource and even turned up a decent photo of a 1883 Metropolitan chair, the type with two fastenings arranged on the diagonal (requried for Basilica Fields).
regards, Graham
Rob Pulham
Western Thunderer
Thanks Graham
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
I remember you asking how the plain line track jig produced "curved" track... whilst I am taking photos next please tell me if there are any other PW snaps which you would like.Thanks Graham
regards, Graham
Dikitriki
Flying Squad
Easy Peasy
32mm is a flawed standard, and cannot provide support for the wheel treads through the crossing.
31.5mm is the appropriate standard for the industry standard F/S wheel profile.
31.5mm means you don't have to regauge your stock. Anyone can run their stock on your layout and you can still run your stock on normal 32mm.
S7 is more prototypical of course, but you need to rewheel all your stock.
This could run and run, so if it gets exciting, perhaps a separate thread may be in order
I have abbreviated a lot of the arguments and assumptions, though I could go on at great length about the one true (31.5mm) standard
.......and often do.Regards
Richard
john lewsey
Western Thunderer
Wagonman
Western Thunderer
Easy Peasy
32mm is a flawed standard, and cannot provide support for the wheel treads through the crossing.
31.5mm is the appropriate standard for the industry standard F/S wheel profile.
31.5mm means you don't have to regauge your stock. Anyone can run their stock on your layout and you can still run your stock on normal 32mm.
S7 is more prototypical of course, but you need to rewheel all your stock.
This could run and run, so if it gets exciting, perhaps a separate thread may be in order
I have abbreviated a lot of the arguments and assumptions, though I could go on at great length about the one true (31.5mm) standard
Regards
Richard
While I follow your arguments, and at risk of starting a flame war (Heaven forfend), on a semantic note I have to insist that the one "true" standard is S7. Anything else is compromised to a greater or a lesser extent. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with compromise...
Richard K
Tony West
Western Thunderer
Thanks to the two Richards !!!....of course S7 is the most "pure" of the compromises available...no arguement there but on the back row 31.5 mm does have its attractions and lets face it 'we' make compromises in our daily lives every day and this hobby is no exception...remember this is supposed to be FUN !!!!.
Cheers Tony.
Cheers Tony.
Dog Star
Western Thunderer
After a hearty lunch in the local up the High I spent a few hours down by the lineside at Hartley Hill and I recognised a fellow S7 member who was firing on a LNWR Special Tank... so I obliged with my improved Daguerrotype and the resulting image is now in use as a member's avatar, (see post no.#189).
Apart from the tank there were a few interesting workings this afternoon and I shall be posting illustrations of the services as soon as the prints are dry.
regards, Graham
Apart from the tank there were a few interesting workings this afternoon and I shall be posting illustrations of the services as soon as the prints are dry.
regards, Graham