This week, I started to get everything ready to begin laying track. I began by staining all of the sleepers using diluted tyre black and I reckon they've come out pretty good. They've got that silvery-grey look about them so I'm pleased with that. Next, I went back and looked at various articles in ARHS Australian Railway History to look at the track dimensions. The March 2008 issue has a great article on sleepers and their dimensions which has left me more confused than anything. Aside from the varying sleeper lengths and widths the bit I'm confused about is the sleeper spacing. According to the article, sleepers were spaced at 2'6" centres which is a pretty big gap except at joints which were spaced at 1'8". Joints were also parallel initially and later went to the staggered joints that I'm familiar with but the big problem is I don't know when. The State Library photo of Hilltop circa 1910 shows the track definitely with parallel joints.
But back to the sleeper spacing, the 2'6" spacing, or 18 sleepers per 40ft rail length, was standard until the 1930's after which the number of sleepers per 40ft rail length was increased to 20. This appears to be the standard up until the 1960's at least. The problem is that I have a number 6 point template from AJRM that has the sleeper spacing much closer so does that mean that sleepers were closer under points? Also, commercial track is much closer like the point template so now any track laying is on hold while I work out what the story is with the sleeper spacing. I've place an order with Greg Edwards for his Track Work Datasheets so hopefully, that will shed some light on my dilemma.
6 days ago
.jpg)
Rob, you hit the nail on the head with the Data Sheets. I found that the spacing changed also between mainline and branches also, with up to 3 foot spacing. A couple of years ago I did a week touring about with a good mate along many closed branchlines, and by far the most common spacing was 2 and a half feet. The joins also rarely had an extra sleeper from what we saw, most of the time a sleeper was put down on an angle, so that the fishplate lay across the ends of the closer together ends. I've got a few photos if you'd like to see them, just let me know, all the best with the trackwork!
ReplyDeleteRob, turnouts had much closer timbers (sleepers) than plain track, as the forces exerted on turnouts were much more than was exerted on plain track. Btw, I have been preparing the photos of your rollingstock that I took at the early days convention. They have come up very nicely indeed!
ReplyDeleteJames McInerney
Rob
ReplyDeleteThe sleeper diagram in AJRM is incorrect,the alignment is wrong. You will find the data sheet is right and you will see the difference when you get it.
Andrew
Hi Geoff,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info, interesting cost cutting measure laying the sleeper on an angle at rail joints! Seeing I'm doing mainlines, I expect that they didn't compromise with track standards and would have layed the track to the highest standards. I'll see what the data sheets say and get back to you reagarding the photo's. And thanks for the offer, much appreciated.
Cheers,
Rob
Hi James,
ReplyDeleteStands to reason that points were built with higher stresses in mind. Thanks for clearing that up. And looking forward to seeing the photo's of the models!!!
Cheers,
Rob
Hi Andrew,
ReplyDeleteNever trust everything you read or see it seems. Except for Greg Edward's Datasheets and other modellers in the blogosphere!
Greg said he'd try and print the plans tomorrow so hopefeully they'll get here by the weekend and I can start laying track.
Thanks,
Rob