Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
I've just managed to track down (groan) my?track book (ref below). Remembering it is for British standard gauge practice in 1960s, there are two things said about the length of check rail and wing rail lengths: - a table?of lengths?for check rails at flat bottom turnouts shows?13' for crossing angles between 1 in 4 and 1 in 10; 15'6" for angles between 1 in 10.5 and 1 in 12; and 18' for angles of 1 in 13 to 1 in 21. I suspect NG practice would have been bit more 'rule of thumb', but many inspectors' reports survive for those with the patience to hunt them down and they may show otherwise. Nevertheless, as many NG turnouts are of the sharper variety, this suggests that 3-5 sleepers' worth of check rail would certainly suffice.
- when the curve?through the turnout is one that on plain track would require a check rail, that rail is made 'continuous' though there will have to be provision for the wheels following the other route, obviously.
Hope this helps, David H Ref: Hamnett, R A (Ed., 1964), British Railway Track: Design, Construction and Maintenance, Woking: The Permanent Way Institution.
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
I've just put a photo, by Fred Howes, into an album called Check Rails & Stuff.
Fred's message to me is as follows; "The attached photo shows a typical FR Bull Head turnout common crossing. I have not specified minimum lengths of check rails and wing rails, but as the photo shows, in principle, the wing rails should extend across at least one sleeper beyond the Vee nose and the flare ends of the check rails should be opposite the wing rail flare ends. The facing ends of the check rails should extend across the sleeper bearing the wing rail knuckles. The angle of the crossing and whether the 'main' leg is curved will influence the design but I think the track gauge is not a factor; the relationship between the track gauge / flange ways and the wheel dimensions is off course of great importance ( remember 2 foot gauge wheels through 23 1/2" crossings?!)."
This refers, of course, to an FR 'main line' point, almost certainly of 1 in 12 crossing angle and using components from the old FR Co. It will be both run over in both facing and trailing directions.
I think my conclusions are that we modellers sometimes make our check and wing rails a bit too long.
Adrian
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Hi Guys
My understanding is that the answer is far more pragmatic - simply that check-rails must be long enough to cover at least three sleepers for the sake of solidity and stability of fixings.?
Although I would concede that the growth of Health & Safety regulations probably means there are technical specifications now that weren't there then!
I look forward to seeing Fred's comments and hope I do not have to relay the track on Dinas Manod!
Cheers
David
From: "adrian@... [O14]"
To: O14@...
Sent: Friday, 31 October 2014, 23:44
Subject: RE: [O14] Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
?
A more careful consideration of the details David posted reminds me that they are H&S Executive and relate specifically to mining operations. If one thinks about this we are looking at a situation where vehicles are likely to be very short - mine tubs etc. - and turnouts could be very short radius.
Perhaps, therefore, it is wrong to try and interpolate the specs to surface running "main line" NG railways.
I have posed the questions to Fred Howes, the FR's P.Way supremo for many years and will share his answers when I have them.
Adrian
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
A more careful consideration of the details David posted reminds me that they are H&S Executive and relate specifically to mining operations. If one thinks about this we are looking at a situation where vehicles are likely to be very short - mine tubs etc. - and turnouts could be very short radius.
Perhaps, therefore, it is wrong to try and interpolate the specs to surface running "main line" NG railways.
I have posed the questions to Fred Howes, the FR's P.Way supremo for many years and will share his answers when I have them.
Adrian
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
I would doubt that the wheelbase length has anything to do with the length
of check rails etc., wholestick cane trucks here in Qld. Aust. were generally a
2’9” wheelbase, when mills went over to chopped cane they eventually went to a
4t. bin with a 4’ wheelbase, other mills went to a 5t. bin with a 5’ wheelbase,
and some mills went to a 6t. bin with a 6’ wheelbase,the check rails never
changed. Obviously there is a number of different sized turnouts used, at the
mill where I drive loco’s at the moment, on the older sections of line some of
the turnouts are quite small in radius, [about 15mtrs. with 42lb. rail], the
loco I drive is a converted Queensland Railways DH weighing 40t. with a bogie
wheelbase of 7ft., 16’10” bogie centre, and the loco is 33’ long over headstock
plates.
?
Brian
Qld.
Aust.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:14 PM
Subject: RE: [O14] Checkrail and crossing wingrail
lengths
?
Oh Arr - as we say in Somerset!
---In O14@...,
wrote :
Hi Noel,
I read it the same way. I was referring
to old long 4 wheel coaches and that dreadful 4w diesel railcar thing of more
recent years.
John
--
Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail. No virus found in this
message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus
Database: 4189/8472 - Release Date: 10/28/14
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Oh Arr - as we say in Somerset! ---In O14@..., <jclutterbuck2001@...> wrote : Hi Noel,
I read it the same way. I was referring to old long 4 wheel coaches and that dreadful 4w diesel railcar thing of more recent years.
John
--
Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail.
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Hi Noel,
I read it the same way. I was referring to old long 4 wheel coaches and that dreadful 4w diesel railcar thing of more recent years.
John
--
Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail.
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
I have been playing around with attempting to build mainline style points Ffestiniog/Rheidol/WHR/L&BR. All I do is just make sure that the check rails cover at least three sleepers. I would love someone to do scale drawings of typical points from the above railways to use as templates. I have tried Templot but still have not cracked it yet.
Keith HC ?
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
At the risk of being trivial ... I build my points for 2'6" from Markway kits and when cutting the rail to length there are always these little bits left over -- they generally look just about right for the checkrails. Do you think that there is a danger that I might be using the same method as real ng platelayers ... ... or was it all terribly serious with rulers and stuff - taking into account that cutting real rail is quite hard work and some people might not want to do it more than really necessary?
DvKV
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
John
I read this as referring to the wheelbase of the vehicle or bogie, in other words to each fixed wheelbase. ?So a bogie coach would only demand a checkrail only as long as one bogie whereas a rigid wheelbase wagon would need one as long as as the complete wheelbase. ?Does that make sense?
Noel ---In O14@..., <jclutterbuck2001@...> wrote : The one thing from David's mining track info that I would question (but from a layman's perspective) is that the check rail needs to be as long as the longest wheelbase. Does this rule apply to all track including standard gauge? Mine trucks will be short but some SG wagons and coaches were quite long - like that dreadful sprinter thing.
John
--
Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail.
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
The one thing from David's mining track info that I would question (but from a layman's perspective) is that the check rail needs to be as long as the longest wheelbase. Does this rule apply to all track including standard gauge? Mine trucks will be short but some SG wagons and coaches were quite long - like that dreadful sprinter thing.
John
--
Sent from my phone with K-9 Mail.
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Surely David has found the really important aspect in the text he rendered as bold. The design of permanent way is determined by the traffic to be carried by the railway - in terms of weight of materials to support the loads - and in terms of the vehicles that are expected to run over it. That is why there is such variation when one examines old, or even recent, photographs.
Adrian
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Michael, I can't find my UK track work book at the moment, but our Health and Safety Executive,?in a document about mine railways, has this to?say about turnout check rails: ? 158 At a crossing, the running rail is not continuous and an unguided wheel could enter the gap instead of crossing it, and strike the crossing nose. This is avoided by fitting a check rail to each stock rail, opposite the crossing vee. The vehicle’s wheel is then positively restrained from entering the gap by the back face of the opposite wheel on the axle as it bears against the check rail (see Figur e 24 item Q and Figure 31(a)).
159 The start position of a check rail should be such that it already controls the wheel well before the opposite wheel approaches the crossing. Check rails should also be longer than the longest wheelbase of any vehicle, or bogie, running over the crossing ( my emphasis).
160 Check rails should be flared out at each end to ensure that wheel flanges are guided into the flangeway. This can be achieved either by bending the check rail ends or by machining tapers on the check rail ends. ? The whole turgid document can be found at Of course it deals with standards now, and cannot be held as historically accurate for how things were once. If I discover my book and it has any more to add, I'll post it unless someone else beats me to it. ? David H, Wiltshire UK ?
To: O14@... From: O14@... Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 02:49:17 -0700 Subject: [O14] Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
?
I am designing some new sets of points for my 14mm gauge layout. Does anyone know the reasons for choosing the lengths of the checkrails and the wing rails on the frogs (crossing V's)? I have built several sets of full size 2ft gauge points for the Illawarra Light Railway (http://www.ilrms.com.au), but have always used existing, secondhand components. I'm sure there are some practical reasons for choosing the lengths of the checkrails and wing rails. I have outlined my own thoughts below, but would like to hear from anyone who can add light, comment or disagree with me. First, checkrails only have to hold the wheel set in alignment as they move past the gap in the frog. The lead ins have to be reasonably gentle so the vehicle does not lurch sideways when it engages the checkrail (having consistent wheel standards also helps here). How long does the checkrail have to be? Is there any advantage in a longer or shorter checkrail? I have always assumed that it should span at least 3 sleepers simply to give it support and stability. Second, I think a set of points look better if the wing and check rails line up. This, of course, is not a good engineering argument. The wing rail has to be long enough so that the weight of the wheel is transferred smoothly on and off the nose. Further, I assume that it should span a couple of sleepers to give stability. The whole assembly is also stronger if the wing rail is bolted to the crossing V in a couple of places. I would appreciate some comments on this. What dimensions do other people use? Does anyone have data for real 2ft gauge railways? I assume things vary considerably depending on the weight of rail used, the frog angle and the type of railway. Regards, Michael Milway PS, how about a follow article in the Review to John Clutterbuck's excellent trackwork articles, giving? examples of rail track in different situations,
|
Thanks Gary, I took so few photos on the day. I especially like the photo of your Lister in the quarry cutting - I might need to borrow it for any official photo shoot. And once I get it reassembled I'll be able to switch to DC for the main circuit so it can really stretch its legs.
John
|
Re: Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
Hi Michael,
I think you have probably have more experience of the real thing
than most of us and have articulated most of the points I could
have made. I confess most of my trackwork was based on what I
could see, more often than not from old photos rather the real
thing. Every railway in the UK was often quite different and those
that survived into preservation (or been rebuilt) have modern
trackwork quite different to their track of old. However, I agree
that a view from someone with professional trackwork experience
would be very welcome.
John
|
Checkrail and crossing wingrail lengths
I am designing some new sets of points for my 14mm gauge layout. Does anyone know the reasons for choosing the lengths of the checkrails and the wing rails on the frogs (crossing V's)? I have built several sets of full size 2ft gauge points for the Illawarra Light Railway (http://www.ilrms.com.au), but have always used existing, secondhand components. I'm sure there are some practical reasons for choosing the lengths of the checkrails and wing rails. I have outlined my own thoughts below, but would like to hear from anyone who can add light, comment or disagree with me. First, checkrails only have to hold the wheel set in alignment as they move past the gap in the frog. The lead ins have to be reasonably gentle so the vehicle does not lurch sideways when it engages the checkrail (having consistent wheel standards also helps here). How long does the checkrail have to be? Is there any advantage in a longer or shorter checkrail? I have always assumed that it should span at least 3 sleepers simply to give it support and stability. Second, I think a set of points look better if the wing and check rails line up. This, of course, is not a good engineering argument. The wing rail has to be long enough so that the weight of the wheel is transferred smoothly on and off the nose. Further, I assume that it should span a couple of sleepers to give stability. The whole assembly is also stronger if the wing rail is bolted to the crossing V in a couple of places. I would appreciate some comments on this. What dimensions do other people use? Does anyone have data for real 2ft gauge railways? I assume things vary considerably depending on the weight of rail used, the frog angle and the type of railway. Regards, Michael Milway PS, how about a follow article in the Review to John Clutterbuck's excellent trackwork articles, giving? examples of rail track in different situations,
|
?
?
DISCLAIMER: "Opinions, conclusions and other information contained in this e-mail that do not relate to the official business of Marlborough College shall not be understood as endorsed or given by the College. Any attachments are confidential and may be the subject of legal privilege. Any use, copying or disclosure other than by the intended recipient is unauthorised. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and any copies from your computer and network"
|
I'm ashamed to say that I got to Swanley, armed with camera and clipboard for 7mmNGA Trade Liaison purposes and determined to capture some shots of the PLR and Rhyd, only to discover that the camera battery needed recharging..... very, very?... :-( Fortunately, my mood was lightened by the many happy conversations I had with folk during the day.
Adrian
|
?
?
I clearly missed a very good exhibition. Thanks Andy for he
photos, and everyone who exibited and organised the show. Three cheers,
etc...
?
Tim?
?
I must admit I shared M Campbells 'problem' of too many distracting
friendly conversations... :D
thoroughly enjoyed the Exhibition with lots of friendly Exhibitors and
visitors...
Andy
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
?
I might have been there but didn't really see very much, so yes
please to the photos.
I had a very brief look at my fellow O14 layouts
as well as Crowsnest Wharf (correct 16.5) - all stunning and operated by the
nicest of people. I would like to think that comes with the
philosophy.
John
On October 26, 2014 3:44:37 PM GMT, "'Halket family' halketfamily@... [O14]" < O14@...>
wrote:
?
Hi everyone,
?
Sadly I couldn't make it to the show yesterday.
Does anyone have any photos or video to share?
?
Hope to be there again next
year!
?
Best wishes, Tim
?
?
?
?
?
|
I must admit I shared M Campbells 'problem' of too many distracting friendly conversations... :D thoroughly enjoyed the Exhibition with lots of friendly Exhibitors and visitors... Andy
On 26 October 2014 19:20, John Clutterbuck jclutterbuck2001@... [O14] <O14@...> wrote:
?
I might have been there but didn't really see very much, so yes please to the photos.
I had a very brief look at my fellow O14 layouts as well as Crowsnest Wharf (correct 16.5) - all stunning and operated by the nicest of people. I would like to think that comes with the philosophy.
John
On October 26, 2014 3:44:37 PM GMT, "'Halket family' halketfamily@... [O14]" < O14@...> wrote:
?
Hi
everyone,
?
Sadly I couldn't
make it to the show yesterday. Does anyone have any photos or video to
share?
?
Hope to be there
again next year!
?
Best wishes,
Tim
?
?
?
?
?
|
David Hughes
Noel
G Shearn