Douglas Lane Sidings & Works

[martin_wynne]

that is a very good tome to begin to understand the subject even though light on pre-1900 practices (important where pre-1900 PW and S&C lasted into the Edwardian and grouping eras).

Well yes, but that is hardly going to concern someone who has just put down the Peco catalogue. You have to bear in mind the general level of trackwork knowledge among many modellers. This book is essential reading for anyone wishing to get into proper track design, even if not modelling the GWR.

regards,

Martin.

 

[Osgood]

Aha, I was just about to ask if there was anything similar but not so Great Western oriented - so you would recommend this to a track novice like myself who is unlikely to be modelling GWR? I'd be leaning towards the ex. Midland or GER heritage (well someone has to).

Edit: OK, just ordered a copy!

 

[P-J.S.]

Thank you for sharing those links Graham.

Another set of numpty questions... what I always refer to as the frog is actually technically called the "Common Crossing"? And this is measured as a 1:4, 1:5 etc? Would these always be a 1:5, or 1:4 etc or would they be made up to suite a specific location? Using templot you can set them such as 1:4.75, 1:5.25, but all the Jigs seem to be in whole number ratios?

On the plan I have come up with so far (shared again below with notations on) the "common crossings" are 1:4.75 on turnouts B,C&D, 1:5.75 on A, and E is a 1:4.25, which give a minimum radius of 1400 mm on all bar D &E (which are 1800 mm and 1600 mm respectively). Whilst I understand that these may not be prototypical in branch line or sidings situations, could they have existed in an industrial setting?

 

[martin_wynne]

Aha, I was just about to ask if there was anything similar but not so Great Western oriented - so you would recommend this to a track novice like myself who is unlikely to be modelling GWR? I'd be leaning towards the ex. Midland or GER heritage (well someone has to).

Yes and no. The principles are much the same but the detailed prototype dimensions will obviously be wrong. The GWR did tend to do its own thing. However, I believe the relevant line societies for the MR and GER have trackwork drawings available. This book will help you to understand what you are looking at, and how to use them in designing your own track formations.

regards,

Martin.

 

[martin_wynne]

Whilst I understand that these may not be prototypical in branch line or sidings situations, could they have existed in an industrial setting?

Hi P-J,

Most companies went up in 1/2-unit steps for crossing angles. The GWR went up in 1/4-unit steps as far as 1:9. There is a lot more to be said on the subject but I'm sorry I have to go and prepare a meal now.

Prototype details for a range of industrial turnouts are here: http://templot.com/martweb/templot_forum.htm

regards,

Martin.

 

[Buckjumper]

However, I believe the relevant line societies for the MR and GER have trackwork drawings available.

As far as the GER Society is concerned, I'm afraid not. I have the sum total info available from the GERS Permanent Way co-ordinator which runs to a few sheets of A4, some of which simply lists info held elsewhere. It's an area which has had very little research expended on it by the Society since the early 70s.

The other resources for anyone interested in GER PW are:

• C.J. Allen's Modern British Permanent Way, some of which deals with modern GE practice from c1904-1914.
• A 36" x 24" portfolio held at the ERO, Chelmsford which has 59 official plans (code 50-LP-155).
• The transcript of E.E. Tratman's speech given to the American Society of Engineers in 1888 gives a limited snapshot of GE practice in that decade, but is by no means an in-depth study.

Osgood - if you're going to be at Sudbury at the end of June I can hand over some documents you may find useful.

 

[mickoo]

... who/what is WM?

West Mersea, a layout at the Sudbury, Suffolk S7 club. Not sure if the WM applies to just the layout or to the whole club and until recently was the sole 7mm layout there, but has recently been joined by Love Lane.

People just say "are you going to West Mersea this month" and one presumes that's to the layout or club, being as the layout is at 'one' with the premises the two are linked and synonymous.

Love Lane is portable so may be making appearances elsewhere in years to come.

 

[Osgood]

Thanks Adrian. Sadly that's yet another Sudbury Sunday I cannot manage. I'll be losing my car park space at this rate . I'll let you know when I can make it.

The G.E. Society has a very well set up website and some interesting material available for purchase and download, but no track info. Can't find much on Midland at the moment, will have another go at the Society website.

Apologies for the thread hijack.

 

[Dog Star]

Can't find much on Midland at the moment...

Try searching the MRJ on-line index, start with articles by Bob Essery and look for something about 7mm trackwork around 1990. There are two articles in consequetive issues and I recollect that Bob described MR practice with some MR drawings.

regards, Prof Barking in the Yard (library packed up at the moment for re-decoration)

 

[Dog Star]

... what I always refer to as the frog is actually technically called the "Common Crossing"? And this is measured as a 1:4, 1:5 etc?

Yes and yes (at least in the steam era)

[quote="P-J.S., post: 70372, member: 729"Would these always be a 1:5, or 1:4 etc or would they be made up to suite a specific location? Using templot you can set them such as 1:4.75, 1:5.25, but all the Jigs seem to be in whole number ratios?[/quote]
Crossing angles of 1:N etc. would be common to all railway companies... angles of 1:N.5 would be known probably within most railway companies... angles of 1:N.25 and 1:N.75 were used by some pre-grouping companies (GWR and LNWR at least) although not for all values of N. The range of "N" might not be the same for all railway companies.

When looking at turnout data for pre-group companies, the crossing angle can be expressed as "N x" where N is measured in feet and x is measured in inches (I have only seen values of 3, 6 and 9 for x). So 1:6 3 (or .3 or /3) reads as 1 foot separation (of Vee legs) at 6 feet and 3 inches from sharp point of Vee (which is a short distance in front of the blunt point of the vee).

Manufacture of filing jigs from the S7 Group is a process which involves milling, case hardening and grinding so filing jigs are made only for simple crossing angles like 1:5, 1:7 etc.. Manufacture of S7 Group crossing assembly jigs is done by CNC milling of paxolin hence the S7 Group is able to offer such jigs with 1:N.5 angles.

There are photos of S&C work set out in the Swindon PW shops which indicate that bespoke crossing angles were possible... I have seen no evidence that the GWR ever used bespoke switches.

regards, Graham

 

[P-J.S.]

Try searching the MRJ on-line index, start with articles by Bob Essery and look for something about 7mm trackwork around 1990. There are two articles in consequetive issues and I recollect that Bob described MR practice with some MR drawings.

regards, Prof Barking in the Yard (library packed up at the moment for re-decoration)

Issues 22 and 23 from 1988 (Written before I was born actually....) Anyway... I'd forgotten about MRJ... must raid my Dad's library of them when I get back.

 

[Osgood]

Thanks kindly. I've been collecting MRJ since the first issue, but failed to recall seeing the articles (well it didn't appear on my radar back then).

 

[Dog Star]

On the plan I have come up with so far (shared again below with notations on) the "common crossings" are 1:4.75 on turnouts B,C&D, 1:5.75 on A, and E is a 1:4.25, which give a minimum radius of 1400 mm on all bar D &E (which are 1800 mm and 1600 mm respectively). Whilst I understand that these may not be prototypical in branch line or sidings situations, could they have existed in an industrial setting?

If industrial means small factories / businesses / mines (and similar) then such industrial concerns are likely to have bought PW from "the trade"... my guess is that such stuff is likely to be crossing angles with integer numbers for N.

I have made a common crossing with an angle of 1:8.25, see here. This was not an easy task and not a task that I wish to repeat.

If you are starting out on the road of track construction then please cut your teeth on turnouts with integer numbers for the crossing angles as that shall allow you to use S7 Group products.

regards, Graham