Love Lane, B.R. (E) c.1956-59

[Heather Kay]

Most modellers would extend the wing rails to form the check rail. I don't think there's anything in the rules to stop the real thing having separate checks installed, even if they are cobbled together with string and sticky tape!

Edit for a PS: I agree with Richard. That building is absolutely stunning.

 

[Peter Insole]

The more you look, there's more to find?

Right in the centre of the crossover, a sleeper looks like it is partly covered in ballast (between the running rails). I applied a ruler to the original image, and found that it is in fact two separate sleepers end to end - and with a sizable gap where there should be wood!

But it was not that, or indeed the jointed check rail that first caught my eye...!

Pete.

 

[Peter Insole]

Sorry JB, your enlargement is slightly to the right of the gap!!!

Down a bit, left a bit...!

Pete.

 

[Osgood]

FB one side, BH other side of point?

 

[Peter Insole]

Thank you Richard and Heather, but the station building is a team effort. I'm only doing the icing - it is a splendid cake underneath!

I am very concerned that as this building will sit snugly between two examples of some of the best scenic modelling we are likely to find, (the stationmaster's and staff cottage gardens) the bar has been well and truly raised!

Pete.

 

[Dog Star]

In regard to Peter's initial comment on the PW, I understand now what He is saying... a situation that I spotted, some years back, in GER / LNER / BR(ER) photos which were provided for a layout that I built. See this topic:-

Gaps in "GER" trackwork.

Interesting comment from Osgood since I spotted, last month, something similar in a Fort William yard, see this topic .

 

[Peter Insole]

Great isn't it Osgood? Who would credit it?

FB is taller than BH, so it really shouldn't be bolted to the same sleepers?

OK, it might be just about acceptable on a light siding, but here it is at the junction of running lines!!

Pete.

 

[Peter Insole]

I see it now Dog Star!

Looks like the gap was common practice on the GER! The geometry of interlacing sleepers meant there was no alternative at that point?!

But then, they still didn't mix FB and BH like this one!

Pete.

 

[JimG]

Right in the centre of the crossover, a sleeper looks like it is partly covered in ballast (between the running rails). I applied a ruler to the original image, and found that it is in fact two separate sleepers end to end - and with a sizable gap where there should be wood!

Peter,

Having a sleeper gap in the four way was practice in the US like this PDF shows

https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public...cuments/up_pdf_nativedocs/pdf_up_std_5000.pdf

Scroll down to the last page on the PDF.

I used this on my own switching layout and I thought it might have only been practice in the US. But I remember a discussion on another forum - maybe the Templot one - of similar instances in UK trackwork. I can't remember which forum but mentioning Templot could get Martin Wynne involved and he might know.

The practice does make laying out timbering on a crossover a bit easier and cuts down on the use of very long timbers.

Also the small amount of interlacing after the crossing of one of the turnouts was probably there for the same reasons - i.e. making the timbering a lot easier. Pre-Grouping railways used a lot of full interlaced pointwork so using the practice to help out with the layout would not be unknown to later era PW gangs. In fact fully interlaced turnouts remained in use in Scotland well into BR days.

Jim.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Short timbering and interlacing was quite common on LNER area P&C work, as for a mix of F.B. and B.H. rail in the same formation it don't surprise me but I cant answer why they did that.

 

[Osgood]

I suppose any height differential between FB and BH could be accommodated by dialling a wee bit of super elevation into the chargehand ganger's level

 

[Peter Insole]

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating comments!

I can understand that interlacing shorter timbers may well have been cheaper - and would even make the job of a model maker a whole lot easier too. It just seems to defy logic when bearing in mind how much attention is required to keep track in constant alignment.

Looking at those drawings, there are many points where there is little or no ballast around the sleepers, especially in the critical areas around the chairs. Would it have been a nightmare for the gangers to ensure that the crossing's vital geometry was maintained? Long, continuous timbers must surely have been far more stable and reliable in the end?

Pete.

 

[Scale7JB]

Do remember though that only 1 in 4 sleepers is required to maintain gauge on the full size, the rest are there as belt and braces..

JB.

 

[Peter Insole]

Indeed Osgood, a bit of "super elevation" appears to be exactly how 'twas done here.

At least a couple of sleepers can be seen with their ends jammed hard up under the BH rail foot, but then there are long timbers mixed in too!

I can only assume that there were a whole load of packing pieces beneath various chairs to compensate?

What a lot of fun someone had?!

Pete.

 

[john lewsey]

Hi Peter I've just been catching up on this and the station building is superb and I do like the way that you've done the roof
John

 

[Ian@StEnochs]

Thanks to everyone for the fascinating comments!

I can understand that interlacing shorter timbers may well have been cheaper - and would even make the job of a model maker a whole lot easier too. It just seems to defy logic when bearing in mind how much attention is required to keep track in constant alignment.

Looking at those drawings, there are many points where there is little or no ballast around the sleepers, especially in the critical areas around the chairs. Would it have been a nightmare for the gangers to ensure that the crossing's vital geometry was maintained? Long, continuous timbers must surely have been far more stable and reliable in the end?

Pete.

The Scottish pre grouping companies used interlaced timbers. Normal points are easy to build, and a bit quicker than if point timbers are required, especially if using the Brook Smith method as I did on 'Auchlin'. However when I needed a three way turnout I just couldn't fathom how the timbers were arranged so used full width timbers. Your picture shows that I should have just placed ordinary sleepers end to end. Simples! Next time perhaps.
I have a little experience of full size track maintenance, on a preserved railway, and it is difficult enough to pack ballast under sleepers to maintain levels using a shovel. Just how did the old time gangers pack under interlaced sleepers where in places the sleepers virtually touch side to side?
Ian.

 

[Peter Insole]

Thanks John and Ian. I'm sorry it has taken me a while to reply.

Although they are rather lame excuses, I have been a bit preoccupied lately; including dodging downpours on the driveway while trying to fix my failing motor car, and entertaining my Grandson...!

It was even a bit "touch and go" whether I would be able to paddle or swim through the storms to Love Lane for today's session. Fortunately I was able to find a mooring and tie up my little freshly licensed, four wheeled amphibian Fiat, and in an unusually aquatic part of Hertfordshire!

This now must surely be the penultimate posting on this particular roof saga?

Painting in earnest has begun...



Here are the colours chosen for the suitably sooty ceramic tiles:

160; "German camouflage red-brown", 61; "Flesh", 53; "Gunmetal" and some specially posed "kcalB ttaM" ;EE !



Having reduced the file for this post, I have just observed a strange optical illusion going down the muck dribble line:

The tiles are level, honestly! They don't wobble like that in real life - at least, not in that particular area!

Mind you, if as a viewer you have imbibed, such pleas are unlikely to be believed anyway, so it doesn't really matter?



The hips still need a bit of blending in, and the "clean" sections revealed by broken or missing tiles will require a touch of light feathering...

But that will have to wait until next week!



I had made a start on the orangey main roof ridges, but two starving JB's (yes, both were there in the same room today) wanted their dinner, so I had to take a deep breath, hold on to my hat and dive for the dinghy!



I think the bottom corner hips will need a bit of reinforcement if they are going to survive much more handling?

Fitting a couple of those curly iron "end stays", or "stops" (whatever they are called?) would be appropriate, and briefly look good, although I fear they would be equally vulnerable and end up misshapen rather too soon?!



Getting there...

...and the gutters, specially designed, proper "Ogee" ones, are on order....!

Pete.

By the way, you all might be thinking that I have been over egging the jokes about the weather...? On the way home, I had to cross quite a few new "puddles". My wee motor is rather lightweight and very low slung, so what might be nothing other than a bit of a splash for most motorists requires a rather more cautious approach for me! Taking the umpteenth "lake" nice and slow, I realised that this time it was a bit deeper than I had anticipated. Suddenly the engine revs rose...

..."Oh heck!"

So it would seem that a Fiat really can float!

But then, I expect it is more likely to be that damned clutch slipping again..?!

 

[BrushType4]

Stunning Pete.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

Having seen Pete at work on this yesterday I can honestly say that it is possibly the best roof "in the world", it gave me a lot of inspiration and I hope I can get close to Pete's level with the damp, fog bound roofs of Bow Creek.

Col.

 

[jonte]

Inspirational, Pete.

Roof and colour shading extremely well observed.

Regards,

jonte