Caledonian Railway Point Sleepering Practice

[waveydavey]

I've ordered the birch ply for the replacement for Longcarse West today and with construction being imminent I've started to look at finessing the Templot plan. Longcarse West and it's mk2 version are set rather loosely in the area of Alloa that was Caledonian territory and therefore, despite being set in 1975, should really have a few bits of trackwork that show a bit of Cally heritage.

The thing is I know nothing about CR p.way practices so could anyone answer the following questions...
1) Did the CR use interlaced sleepering on pointwork or the normal type?
2) What would the maximum sleeper length on pointwork be? I have a crossover where the non moveable timbers are in each others way and I could do with using a few 20 feet plus long timbers.
3) Would plain track be 45 foot or 60 foot rails and how many sleepers per length
4) Which of the comercially available chairs is closest to a CR one?

Thanks in advance

David

[John Duffy]

David I have been using standard sleepers of 8'6" for my pointwork, all interlaced. My understanding is that no long timbers were used but that the local ganger would make such adjustments to facilitate the fitting, especially where they end up in each others way. Plain track was 32' with 12 sleepers and the C&L 4 bolt chairs are the nearest.

Now of course in your time period much of that would have been changed over the years and the crossings might well have been replaced. The two interlaced points on the Waterloo branch exhibit that variation.

John

[John Palmer]

Allan Ferguson contributed an excellent photograph that illustrates Caledonian P&C practice at http://www.scalefour.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1826. This shows both a common crossing and what I take to be a Caledonian loose-heel switch forming a trap. If this is representative of the Caledonian way of doing things it reveals a difference from North British practice (with which I'm a bit more familiar), in that the Caledonian has, in this case at least, dispensed with Y and Z chairs at the crossing.

If you haven't already done so, you may find it valuable to take a look at the applicable section of the Caledonian Railway Association website at http://www.crassoc.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=6. Several relevant topics there.

Finally there are a couple of Caledonian drawings presented to the 1900 International Railway Congress that are available online at http://www.oldpway.info/opw_drawings.html#Worthington_1900_drawings.

[allanferguson]

There has been considerable discussion of this within the Caledonian Railway Association over quite a long period, since Tony Brenchley did some research for his model of Blairgowrie, and described it in the P4 journal long before the Scalefour society was thought of. It would be tedious to reiterate all the discussion, but a post I made in the Caledonian Association Journal perhaps summarises it.

We had quite a discussion about this some time ago, the conclusion being that the CR used interlaced timbers in new work, including main lines, right up to the turn of the century, and probably beyond. This would survive well into LMS days, and was to be seen in many yards right up until closure. Setting out the timbering was not, in my view, done on the Engineers desk, but was largely done by the ganger in charge, always bearing in mind certain principles;
1 There were certain points where special chairs were fitted (around the crossing, near the switch, etc). These were immovable, and had to have a timber under them
2 The rest of the track had to be supported and the maximum gaps between sleepers were laid down.
3 The timbers had to control the gauge on each line of rail, so they had to be used on each road, and as near as possible at right angles to that road
4 There had to be space to get a shovel in, for packing the sleepers

Sometimes these requirements were incompatible, in which case you fudge it! There's good precedent:

"One of his tales, very apposite in view of Alan Blackburn's recent talk, related how, before WWI, a friend had a problem with crossing timbers on a piece of complex trackwork. They were due to ride on the LNWR inspection train, and there duly put the problem before the district engineer. He admitted he had no idea which alternative configuration was correct, but added that they were shortly to be joined by the division's most experienced ganger. Since the LNWR with some justification boasted the best permanent way in the world, he would know the answer. The ganger duly boarded the train, was introduced all round and then informed that these gentlemen had a problem for him. He studied the drawing for some time, removing his bowler hat and scratching his head. At length he came up with the answer "Well sir, when we gets a problem like this, we fudges it!" "


By Cyril Freezer in 2000, writing about Percy Keen on the 90th anniversary of the MRC

Oh, and the standard sleeper length was 9 ft (possibly 8'9"), and the standard CR chair had four bolts (or trenails)

Allan F

[waveydavey]

Thanks for the input chaps, much appreciated.

It now looks like I'm OK with 24, 32 and 48' track panels and interlaced points where I want to have a bit of original CR track in the yard at Longcarse. Most of the track will be the more usual LMS/BR style although I'll also be doing a siding or two with concrete sleepers and two bolt chairs to represent some Modernisation Plan era bullhead track. Sadly though, as I'm modelling a run down goods yard at the back of beyond in 1975 I don't think I'll be able to justify any flat bottomed track for added variety.

Cheers

David

[Mark Tatlow]

David,

I remember seeing a fully interlaced turnout in Lairg goods yard in the early 1980s, so in a yard area you would be fine. In respect of a operating line, I think this is much less likely and at the most you could go for an interlaced turnout with full timbers under the crossing and switch.

i have always felt that in the more remote parts or in a yard, the precise nicities of sleeper spacing were rather more in theory than practise, so I wouldn't bother following them religiously!

[John Duffy]

There is apparently an interlaced crossover extant at Carstairs, albeit not on the mainline. Similarly one exists in the sidings on the approach to Glasgow Central, again not on a main running line, so your premise of a run down goods yard would be most suitable I think. I have not found out if these are fully interlaced or if the crossing had been replaced with long timbers. The two mentioned below in Aberdeen fit the interlaced but not fully type. In your situation I would probably go for the long timbers at the crossing and have the interlaced remaining through the switch rails.

John

[waveydavey]

i have always felt that in the more remote parts or in a yard, the precise nicities of sleeper spacing were rather more in theory than practise, so I wouldn't bother following them religiously!

You are correct Mark. In real life I am a train driver and some of the trackwork I see in yards can be extremely poor. Mismatched rail lengths, out of gauge and huge dips at rail joints and of course hugely variable sleeper spacing. If you modelled the track in one yard i have in mind firstly nothing would run on it and secondly you would be advised by concerned friends to give up on P4 trackbuilding and go back to using Peco Setrack.

cheers

David

[allanferguson]

With a proper Scottish eye to economy much equipment was reused again.... and again.... But the LMS in its wisdom did fit some timbers under crossings, though rarely under the full length of a turnout. They rarely replaced an entire turnout (in a yard) unless they absolutely had to, and BR carried on in much the same way until recent times. I have the impression that the LMS moved quite quickly to replace sleepered leads in the main lines.

Allan F