Southern Turnout Timbers

[martin_wynne]

Absolutely no idea what to do here to turn the diamond into a double-slip (tried following the Templot tutorial again) and I'm completely lost on what the sleeper arrangement should be to sort out the mess of overlapping timbers

Where turnouts connect to diamond-crossings and slips, it is a very great help to change the turnout timbering to equalized incremental instead of square-on. That's in the real > timbering > menu items.

Early versions of Templot had equalized as the default. I changed it to square-on somewhat against my better judgment because so many users kept telling me it was wrong. Right or wrong, it does make timbering layouts a great deal easier, and in many prototype cases it is in fact right.

I don't know which slip tutorial you are following, but there is an updated one available directly from within Templot at help > watch a video > single slip menu item.

Or you can watch it (in much poorer MP4 image quality for web video) at:

FlashBack Connect

regards,

Martin.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

These crossover layouts are intended for use in yards and sidings, etc., minimizing the use of long timbers for economy.



Martin.

You are correct Martin, of coarse and I would say that it's doubtful if the cross over roads in a station run round would beB6's more likely 8's or 9's ?

Col.

 

[martin_wynne]

I would say that it's doubtful if the cross over roads in a station run round would beB6's more likely 8's or 9's ?

Hi Col,

1:6 is very unlikely in a running line.

If connected to diamonds or slips having fixed K-crossings they are likely to be 7.5 or 8 (the flattest angle allowed for fixed K-crossings is 1:8, and then only if all 4 legs are straight).

Otherwise likely to be 9 or 10, and very likely with C switches rather than B.

Run-rounds at a small branch terminus might be shorter.

regards,

Martin.

 

[Pencarrow]

You are correct Martin, of coarse and I would say that it's doubtful if the cross over roads in a station run round would beB6's more likely 8's or 9's ?

Col.

I agree B6 is a short turnout but the walls in my room mean I have a choice of either:

Using B6 turnouts and just managing a loop long enough for my intended train lengths or...

Using B8 turnouts and reducing train lengths further.

The resulting layout is a balanced compromise?

 

[daifly]

A timber which runs from one side to the other side of a formation (within reason, generally spanning two adjacent tracks). A "blocked through" timber does not have to be a single piece of wood... horizontal or vertical splices are possible.

Graham
Thanks for the explanation. It was an expression that I did not recognise.
Regards
Dave

 

[simond]

Life's a compromise....

 

[Pencarrow]

Life's a compromise....

Indeed. As much as I'd like to use prototypical length and angle turnouts, it just doesn't work for me in the space I have.

Quickly redrawn with B8s in AnyRail using C&L templates:

Doesn't look to bad until you look at the finer detail such as the goods shed road being too close to the other siding to fit the road in front of the shed, and the board joints falling in the wrong places on several points. It could work by perhaps deleting the (already built) grain store off the end of the layout and taking the track to the end but improved track would give me a much poorer overall scenic setting. Hence my reference earlier to balance and compromise.
I suspect using C10 turnouts and double slip wouldn't even fit on the board length I have!

 

[martin_wynne]

I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use B-6s on a model, just answering the previous question.

You don't have to go all the way to B-8, a B-7 looks better than a B-6 and doesn't take up too much extra space. Also a 1:7 slip is a lot easier to build than a 1:6 slip. Slips at 1:6 are a devil to find room for the K-crossing check rails unless you use scale flangeway gaps.

Using AnyRail doesn't necessarily show the full possibilities -- using handbuilt track you can adjust lengths and angles to make things fit, and close up the distance between turnouts.

regards,

Martin.

 

[Pencarrow]

I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't use B-6s on a model, just answering the previous question.

You don't have to go all the way to B-8, a B-7 looks better than a B-6 and doesn't take up too much extra space. Also a 1:7 slip is a lot easier to build than a 1:6 slip. Slips at 1:6 are a devil to find room for the K-crossing check rails unless you use scale flangeway gaps.

Using AnyRail doesn't necessarily show the full possibilities -- using handbuilt track you can adjust lengths and angles to make things fit, and close up the distance between turnouts.

regards,

Martin.

I fully agree Martin, that's why I'm using Templot after doing a quick guide sketch in AnyRail - the B8 version of my trackplan took just over a minute to edit. AnyRail is useful in that it quickly enables you to work out might work given some fiddling in Templot but it is very basic and lacks essential tools such as custom curved turnouts. Templot is a fantastic tool and superb if you're building your own track.

 

[Pencarrow]

OK, it's persisting today outside so I thought I'd persist inside. 8 hours of of trying and re-trying and working through the Templot tutorial and I have this:

Do the rails on this look OK??

 

[Pencarrow]

Next question is what to do with the timbering?:



The above is with the RH turnout having square on timbers.



And the above is with incremental timbers suggested by Martin.

In both cases we have sleeper overlap of the sleepers (Z Y X A B C D) that S-Club-7 mentioned I shouldn't move. I'm also slightly confused as the Bodmin North photos seem to show timbers 'blocked through' (to quote Dog Star) perpendicular to the mainlines rather than sloping...

 

[Pencarrow]

The timbering alterations on the RHS appear to work...

 

[Dog Star]

The timbering alterations on the RHS appear to work...

David is correct to say that for the common crossing "the Z Y X A B C D etc chairs are designed to be specific distances apart; they simply will not fit at any other spacing".... however, those chairs have a degree of variance to accommodate:-

* small deviations from the intended crossing angle (please do not ask what is "small");
* timbers which are CLM or RAM.

So in this post I think that you can adjust the timbers between the two right most crossings so that there is one set of blocked timbers to support the Vee legs of the two crossings. You have shown five blocked timbers, try adding a sixth blocked timber to the left of that group (and remove the sleepers from the plain line to the right of the slip) and then rotate those timbers clockwise slightly until the formation looks pleasing.

 

[Pencarrow]

Do you mean like this?:

 

[Pencarrow]

And taking it a bit further:

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

It's been an interesting discussion thus far.

Did the British companies adopt a standard sleeper spacing at crossings or alter it to fit?

I was trawling through some of my P48 notes and see, in the drawing extract below, the DRGW altered the tie spacing along the switch. Standard spacing was 21'' to 21 1/2'' then they closed it to 18'' under the frog.

 

[Pencarrow]

OK, this is where I'm up to. I think all the sleepers/timbers are now in places that look about right:







Comments and observations welcome. (0-4000mm is the scenic section, 4000-4300mm is the fiddle yard).

 

[Pencarrow]

Slight tweaks to the slip timbering following a good look at photos:

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

I've noticed when looking at track, the sleeper spacing closed up slightly at the track joints which is what I tried to emulate on my layout. Whether this occurred in station/yard areas I don't know. My sleeper spacing may have gone slightly awry as I cut the webbing away from the C&L track.

 

[Pencarrow]

The different spacings are deliberate Dave.

There will be examples of the following on the layout:



Mostly the SR 60' panels with a few SR 45' panels in the yard. I'm going to sneak in a few remnants of the LSWR spacings at the end of two sidings. Nobody will notice but I will know they are there!