Updated 4th July:- to include information from Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers – relating to a paper on the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways, 17th February 1885.
22nd February 2010 is an important date in the evolving story of Basilica Fields, this is the day when the world of Artillery Lane was laid before all as an integral part of life in the (amended) history of the East End of London. Some sort of celebration seems to be in order and Adrian has decreed that the occasion be marked in an honourable fashion. So here we present a part of the railway infrastructure for the first section of the Basilica Fields development ‑ a brief outline of Metropolitan Railway track in the period 1895 to 1905 as shall constitute the permanent way of the Inner Circle Extension and the Extended Widened lines in the vicinity of Artillery Lane.
This post is unusual by comparison with many of the entries of the Basilica Fields journal in that the content here is either fact or an hypothetical statement for which we continue to seek evidence. There are other categories of the Basilica Fields journal where the reader has to either recognise and separate fact from the writer’s distortion of history (to present a more enjoyable picture of nineteenth century life in the east end of London) ‑ or accept the diary entries as written.
The Research Sources
Thanks and acknowledgement are due to Leslie Bevis-Smith, HMRS steward for the Metropolitan Railway, for providing information without which the task of building the track would be much more difficult. Where this post provides information as historical fact in regard to “Met” track then the source of that information is Leslie (unless otherwise stated). Unwittingly and without intent, Leslie caused us to take an unexpected diversion in our research into “Met” PW practices, a diversion which has proved to be of inestimable value and yet has caused us to rethink some of the preparatory work for the permanent way of Artillery Lane. A message from Leslie contained an extract from a Board of Trade Accident Report and upon realising that such reports are a source of contemporary information we have been reading similar reports (see the Railways Archive web site). Apart from contributing to our understanding of the permanent way practices of the Metropolitan Railway, several reports have given an insight into the identities of locomotives to be found working the tunnels in the Basilica Fields time period and provided, for some services, details of passenger train formations and the identities of the coaching stock (see posts in the Passenger Services category).
Other research sources, which provide “visual” information on “Met” track, are the photographic collections of the London Transport Museum (LTM) and the Railway Archive (RA) which is a small part of the Transport Archive (TA). The RA/TA collection features the work of SWA Newton which one might think of as being biased towards the Great Central (MS&LR as was) – however, the London Extension of the Great Central Railway formed a junction with the Metropolitan Railway at Quainton Road and at West Hampstead. As a consequence of those junctions, there are a number of Newton photographs which feature Metropolitan scenes of circa 1900. These collections are searchable, on-line, resources; however, choose search parameters with care… for example: – using “Metropolitan Railway” on the LTM web site produced almost 600 thumbnails for viewing. Those images which are from the Victorian and Edwardian eras provide much material for late-night sessions of sleeper counting.
A pleasant consequence of writing posts for the Basilica Fields journal is that reader’s comments on the content of a post often provide either additional material related to the original content or suggestions for other avenues of research. Such has happened in relation to the infrastructure of the Metropolitan Railway in that a comment from Kit Williams has given pointers to a new research resource in the form of the on-line archive of the Institute of Civil Engineers. The Minutes of Proceedings of the “Civils” has revealed a discussion between the George Owen (engineer for Hounslow and Metropolitan Railway) and Joseph Tomlinson (Engineer and Locomotive Superintendent – Metropolitan Railway) in which those gentlemen review contemporary practices in regard to permanent way.
Location, location, location…
In the original post for Artillery Lane the plan of the area shows the lines and facilities in that part of the Ward of Basilica Without, and is reproduced below:
The tracks which enter top-left and exit bottom-right are the property of the Metropolitan Railway; those tracks are used by Extended Circle services of the Metropolitan Railway and passenger / goods services of the Great Western Railway. The tracks which enter bottom-left, pass under the Metropolitan lines, and exit top-right are also the property of the Metropolitan Railway although not used by that company; those tracks are used by Extended Widened Lines services of the Midland Railway, the Great Northern Railway, and railways from south of the River Thames. Although financial contributions were made by the main line companies, the Metropolitan Railway was responsible for the building and maintenance of both these lines and the track work reflects contemporary Metropolitan Railway practice. Bottom right of the map, between Union Street and Fort Street, can be seen the connection from the Extended Circle into the small GWR Depot (known as Gun Street depot and lies adjacent to Gun Street and Union Street). Research into the Minute Books of meetings of the General Managers (held under the auspices of the Metropolitan and Great Western Joint Committee) has revealed that the property and land of Gun Street depot belonged to the GWR, hence that company was responsible for the installation and maintenance of the permanent way within that depot. Much to the chagrin of the GWR, the connection into the depot was made from the up line of the Inner Circle Extension and so the GWR had to pay the Metropolitan Railway to install and to maintain the required PW and S&C fittings together with the necessary signalling (and hence a contribution to the wages of the signalman in the nearby Metropolitan signalbox).
The Information
The historical record for details of Metropolitan Railway permanent way is poor for the period from the early days of the “Met” to beyond the timescale of Basilica Fields. What is presented here is courtesy of the HMRS company steward.
- From the early days the track was built with iron rails weighing 62lbs per linear yard, of a “Vignoles” section, and laid on longitudinal sleepers. By 1866 the rails were made of Bessemer steel and weighing 86lbs per linear yard, still “Vignoles” section, and now laid upon transverse sleepers. Bullhead rail supported by chairs was introduced after 1872.
- Circa 1876, the track at Aldgate was bullhead rail of 86lbs per yard, in 24ft. lengths. The rail was supported in cast iron chairs, weighing 39lbs, and retained with outside keys. The sleepers were of red fir and laid on a 12inch ballast bed.
- The extension to Willesden Green (1879) had plain track as per Aldgate (1876).
- The extension to Aylesbury (1892) was as per Willesden and Aldgate with sleepers specified as 9ftx10inx5in, 9 per length. Steel sleepers were used for 5 miles of the extension.
- The extension line widening of 1901 used 30ft rails (presumably with more than 9 sleepers per rail length). Finchley Road was provided with Manganese steel rail of 95lbs per yard for switch and crossing work.
- [Out of the time period for Basilica Fields, the Stanmore line was laid with rails of 45ft length and weighing 95lbs per yard (circa 1931)]
Official reports into railway accidents can be an useful information source if a report describes the construction of the permanent way. Alan Blackburn (of the Model Railway Club), has provided some relevant details:-
- July 1892 ‑ Accident at Farringdon, 87lbs Bullhead rail 24ft, 40lbs cast-iron hairs. Sleepers 8’11”x10”x5” and 12”x6′,’ 9 sleepers to the rail length. (Chairs) fixed with 2 bolts, nut on top as GWR, well ballasted.
Of real interest in this report is the reference to sleepers of 8’ 11” length ‑ not 9’ 0”, as most modellers think and most historians believe, for track which was laid before circa 1914. The tax on imported timber appears to have been related to the length of the timber and that there was a breakpoint at 9’ 0”, that is, timber at 8’ 11” incurred a lower import duty than timber at 9’ 0”. The reference to sleepers of 12” x 6” section suggests that the Metropolitan Railway used wider sleepers each side of a rail joint or that the rail joint was supported in a “joint” chair. There is at least one photograph which shows a pre-WW1 Metropolitan passenger train on track which includes a joint chair. Finding a joint chair in photographs of “Met” track work is marginally easier than spotting 12” wide sleepers with ballast up to the top of the sleeper; however, a Topical Press photographer was on hand to photograph some repair work at Aldgate during WW1 and this photograph appears to show the use of 12” wide sleepers on either side of a rail joint.
Finally, the HMRS company steward has provided a drawing of a Metropolitan cast-iron chair, dated 1883, which shows that the chair was fixed to the sleeper with two, square-headed, bolts into threaded plates under the sleeper. The bolts were arranged diagonally, bottom left corner and top right corner when viewing the chair from above (with the rail running top to bottom). After almost 130 years we rather felt that seeing an example of this chair was very unlikely…. however, whilst looking for something else (is not that always the way?), an interesting and relevant photo presented itself. The provenance is correct, the date is reasonable… and there is a good probability that this photograph from the TA shows a chair of the “Met” 1883 pattern.
The details above, as far as we know, are the sum of the written record; from here we need to peer into the dark corners of photographs (which were taken, mostly, to show some other railway feature). There are several books on Metropolitan Railway services and branches, published in the last decade, which feature photographs similar to this of the “Met” in Victorian and Edwardian times. Often those books provide us with detailed captions which include the date (or decade) of the photograph along with a location for the photograph – such photos and captions can offer support for and interpretation of the written word, for example:-
Memories of the Met & GC Joint Line, Clive Foxell, published 2002, ISBN 0 9529184 3 9. Pg. 25 shows “Met Tank” No.34 on a down Harrow service, the location is given as “past Willesden” and the date as pre‑1905. The track under the engine has nine sleepers per rail length and whilst the angle of the photo does not help to estimate the rail length the photograph is probably representative of Metropolitan Railway practice in the period 1890-1900.
Metropolitan Railway Rolling Stock, James Snowdon, Wild Swan, published 2001, ISBN 1 874103 66 6. Pg. 18 shows “Met Tank” No.59 on a down Rickmansworth service, the location is thought to be Northwood and the date as circa 1890s. This picture gives a very clear impression of “Met” track with 9 sleepers per rail length (although the angle of the train does not enable confirmation of the expected 24’ rail length).
The Application to Artillery Lane
In case you think that all is “tickety‑boo” with the arrangement of plain track panels, let us review the “accepted” wisdom and then step back a bit. From the written record and photographic evidence a picture emerges of the “Met” employing 24’ rails with nine sleepers per length from circa 1876 and 30’ rails with eleven(?) sleepers per length being available from 1901 (at the latest). There is photographic evidence to support the idea of “24’ rails and 9 sleepers per length” as being the standard for Metropolitan Railway plain track on new lines in the period to be represented by Basilica Fields. Given the potential for corrosion from the atmospheric conditions in the tunnels and the wear resulting from the passage of trains then replacement of rails every few years, with replacement of sleepers at a slower rate, is likely to have ensured that the permanent way of the Extended Widened Lines was maintained to contemporary specification. For now, “contemporary specification” means that the track work for the Extended Circle Lines on Artillery Lane shall be a representation of bull-head rail, in two-bolt chairs on 8’ 11” sleepers (10” wide generally and 12” wide on each side of a rail joint), using 9 sleepers per 24’ rail length, with clipped fishplates fastened by four bolts/nuts. As to the ballast, therein lies a problem for although we know that the “Met” included late night paths in the working timetable for “Ballast trains” to/from Aldgate the trains seem to have run at times when photography was not possible, hence the material and riddle size is a mystery at the moment.
However, the well known saying “Spanner, works, throw”, attributed to Mr. Murphy (or Mr. Sod, your choice), now comes into play. As well as Victorian and Edwardian photographs showing the “24’ rails and 9 per length” standard for plain track there are a number of photographs from circa 1895-1900, reproduced in Jim Snowdon’s book, which show that the “Met” was particular to plain track of a “24’ rails and 8 per length” arrangement. At this time the balance of evidence falls in favour of 9 sleepers per panel for tunnel lines – and hence for Basilica Fields – with the 8 sleepers per panel probably used on the surface lines.
In passing, the Metropolitan Railway acquired, circa 1900, a number of single bolster wagons which, coupled in pairs, were able to carry rails of 45ft. length ‑ a sure indication that the Metropolitan Railway was using, or intended to use, rails of that length (as was, for example, the Great Western Railway).
As to the arrangement of sleepers, the details from an accident report (above) give us:-
- 1 of 12” wide sleeper adjacent to the rail joint;
- 7 of 10” wide sleepers;
- 1 of 12” wide sleeper adjacent to the rail joint.
The spacing of the nine sleepers along a 24’ rail length would appear to be anything but consistent. Met A-Class No. 18 and Met A-Class No. 27 are probably the best photographs which we have located so far for the purpose of estimating the spacing of the sleepers along the rail length. If we look at the PW practices of a main‑line railway company, the Great Western for example, then the central sleepers of a typical 44’ 6” track panel circa 1900 would be spaced at X’ Y” centres and the whole panel arranged as:-
- first sleeper from rail end so that chair against end of inner fishplate;
- next sleeper at less than X’ Y” centres;
- (say) fourteen sleepers at X’ Y” centres;
- next sleeper at less than X’ Y” centres;
- last sleeper from rail end so that chair against end of inner fishplate.
What is clear from those photographs of Metropolitan track where the full length of a rail and all of the chairs are visible is that the prototype spacing of sleepers was not maintained to a standard. The best which can be said about sleeper spacing on the “Met” circa 1890-1900 is:-
- Chairs are not tight to fishplates, rather the spacing between the chairs at each side of a joint is similar to the spacing between chairs in the middle of the panel.
- Sleepers are spread “uniformly” along the rail length although the spacing is “approximate” rather than “accurate”!
In conclusion – for now
Now those of you who have got this far may well be thinking “What about the Switch and Crossing practices for the turnouts?” and that is a very good question… a question which has not escaped us. At this time we have not been able to find details of the Metropolitan Railway specifications for turnouts; so, for example:- we do not know the preferred crossing angles; we do not know the preferred switch blade lengths; we do not know how the turnout was “timbered” – so any contributions on this subject shall be welcome. Unfortunately a request for any information by Adrian from the London Underground Railway Society was received with ‘panic’ by the secretary (he had never received an enquiry of that nature in over twenty years), and laughter by the Society’s ‘leading historian’.
Until we have sufficient to say on the subject of “Met” turnouts, the next step is to build plain track panels as representations of the Metropolitan Railway standard circa 1895-1905 for Artillery Lane – and that is to be part 2 of this topic.
And finally…
The details of track at Farringdon, circa 1892, quoted above are as provided by the HMRS Company Steward – these details are in conflict with an accident report, here, for an accident at Farringdon Street in January 1892 where C. S. Hutchinson, the inspector on behalf of the Board of Trade, took evidence from William H Gates, responsible for the permanent way of the Metropolitan Railway, that sleepers in that location on the Widened Lines were of 10 feet in length. Accepted wisdom is that sleepers were 9 feet in length until circa WW1 when a change was made to 8 feet and 6 inches. Until further information is forthcoming about this subject then the track for Artillery Lane on both the Extended Circle and Extended Widened Lines is to be with sleepers which are 9 feet in length.
February 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Thanks for that Graham. It seems to me that all your hard work researching for this post is moving us ever closer towards unearthing the definitive specification for Metropolitan track of the period (despite the apparent spectre of the 10′ sleepers on the Widened Lines), something the various line and historical societies are presently unable to do.
This is just the sort of result I hoped the blog would achieve.
Graham has offered to build the track for Artillery Lane and document his progress here, so his next instalments are going to be equally fab (I would have said riveting, but that’s a pun too far…)
So then, anyone know anything about the 4-wheel suburban coaches of the GNR?
February 23, 2011 at 12:08 am
What are you wanting to know about GNR close-coupled sets of four-wheel coaches?
February 23, 2011 at 12:35 am
Where to obtain (GA preferably) drawings would be a good start. There are none in the NRM lists, and the GNRS has none. Apparently a Third and brake third drawing appeared in the Constructor many years ago, but I’ve not seen either.
February 23, 2011 at 10:16 am
“An Index to Railway Model Drawings”, S.A.Lelux, Oakwood Press, 1972 may provide some answers as to what appeared where.
What other coach stock for Basilica Fields require information for modelling?
February 24, 2011 at 6:13 pm
As is always the way, something comes along after the event and in this instance that something is a “Newton” photograph, so the quality is there. The subject of the photograph is the Met near to Quainton Road and the photograph shows what is thought to be a chair of the 1883 pattern… and one can see how the chair fixings are arranged “on the diagonal”.
The original post has been revised to include this information.
March 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Well, having started the hare running I ought to at least say where Adrian and I stand on the matter… the hare being the 10 feet long sleepers that are mentioned in “And Finally” above.
We face a quandary here for the generally accepted wisdom is that the primary source is correct… and to be trusted. The initial post has provided a link to a website page which contains a printed version of the Accident Report as written by the Inspecting Officer. So unless the Inspector was given in-correct evidence or had a faulty tape-measure – and I presume that the Inspecting Officer and Gates (Metropolitan Railway Engineer) would have queried a reference to “10 feet” as the sleeper length given their (assumed) familiarity with the contemporary standard used by other companies – then the evidence ought to stand. At least until proven to be wrong. And this is where we start to have trouble for the section of line upon which the referenced accident occurred is the Widened Line between Farringdon and Kings Cross and much of that line is in tunnel and not conducive to photography at that time. So we have to fall back on the primary sources of Inspection Reports, Accident Reports and any ancillary documents which specify the construction of the track at the place and time of the accident.
The Railways Archive, referenced above, has a time-ordered list of reportable accidents and there are many entries, for the Inner Circle and/or Widended Lines, for which no accident report has yet surfaced. Maybe one day, hopefully soon.
As to Inspection Reports, that means accessing material held at the National Archive. Not going to be this week, or next, or the week after…
Until recently I would have had little hope of anything existing in the way of a written specification for permanent way. However, “London’s Metropolitan Railway”, (Alan Jackson, David & Charles, 1986), describes how much of the Metropolitan archive came to be saved. What needs to be done here is to locate the archive and then establish what has survived. The first step seems to be to contact the Library of the London Transport Museum.
May 18, 2011 at 2:32 pm
A description of the methods used for modelling the Permanent Way of Basilica Fields has been posted in the “modelling” category, (see here).
regards, Graham
June 16, 2011 at 9:43 pm
[I’ve copied Kit’s useful comments on Metropolitan trackwork from the About page to here as it seems to be a more appropriate area for them to be in. Adrian]
I’ve followed the story of Basilica Fields for a while and I’m interested in the permanent way discussions. I haven’t found much on pre 1900 Met practice but it is worth looking at the picture on page 28 of Bill Simpson’s Met Railway Vol 1 – it shows several pre 1905 Met turnouts at Aldgate. Timbering seems to be perpendicular to a curved centre line, not interlaced. Study of the original photo (or a good copy) might reveal whether the stock rail is joggled – it doesn’t look like it. Switch blades are clearly shown in the turnout in the right foreground – probably “old type curved” in GWR terms. Foreshortening always makes photos of permanent way difficult to “measure” but I would guess the crossing at 1:5 or even less.
There are some interesting illustrations at http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/cdm4/bridges_viewer.php?ptr=3510&view=co. These offer some insight into early Met civil engineering practice, in particular, plan drawings/layouts by Fowler’s office for Smithfield Market and Mansion House (as a terminus station). The track geometry is of interest even if there is no detail. Since it would be impossible to design a station like Mansion House and get the columns and so in in places where the trains won’t run into them, we can assume that Fowler’s designers set out the basic track geometry sufficiently accurately for the engineer on site to make it all fit. From these and other similar illustrations such as the Baker Street layout on page 20 of Bill Simpson’s book, it appears that Met practice make great use of interlaced turnouts and did not much favour slips or double slips. Incidentally, there are some dimensions on the Baker Street drawing which, if legible, would allow calculation of the crossing angles.
See also turnouts in photo at http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=L1642&searchitem=overbridge&mtv=L1&pnum=4 which is “Met & Gt Central Rly junction at Neaden” in about 1905. Again, perp timbering and a rather GWR look.
June 17, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Thanks for your comments and observations Kit, much appreciated. Graham tells me he’s going to source himself a copy of Simpson so he can see for himself.
The document at the digital library is worth its weight in gold, especially as much of the civil engineering around Ray Street Gridiron (upon which Artillery Lane is based) is discussed and illustrated. I’d never dared imagine this material existed, so I’m over the moon about it. Thank you!
June 18, 2011 at 1:35 am
[I’ve copied Kit’s useful comments on Metropolitan trackwork from the About page to here as it seems to be a more appropriate area for them to be in. Adrian]
I was looking for some information on another matter at the Institution of Civil Engineers and came across some “proceedings” dating to 1885 – in fact a record of “Discussion on Metropolitan Railways” some of which touched on the permanent way of the District and Metropolitan. Engineer Owen reports that he had recently been building the Hounslow and Met Railway and had adopted the standard used on the District which, he adds, used one of the heaviest PWs in the world consisting of bull-head rail of 87lbs and a chair of 47lbs on a 12 x 6 cross sleeper. He invites Joseph Tomlinson (Resident Engineer and Locomotive Superintendent to the Metropolitan Raillway 1872 – 1885) to state whether the Met used the same. Tomlinson states that the Met had adopted the same standard in 1874, doing away with the Vignoles rail, but that the Met now went even further placing points and crossings on timbers 14 x 7 spaced 2 feet apart. Main line sleepers were placed at intervals of 2 ft 8in. He adds that the chair was not so heavy as the District chair at only 39lbs.
I have a copy of similar discussions dating to 1876 which is mainly about the properties of iron and steel rail of various kinds and qualities. It gives some interesting statistics. For instance, a Mr Langley describes traffic on the Blackwall branch of the Great Eastern where there were upwards of 300 trains per day, each train weighing about 150 tons. This section of permanent way therefore carried a staggering 45,000 tons daily. Elsewhere in the paper, Tomlinson (from the Met) comments that small scantlings seem to be the cause of higher levels of wear to rails and notes that the Farringdon to Moorgate section of the Met had been laid in 1866 on sleepers of 10 x 5: he adds that it gave so much trouble that he began relaying it with 86lb rail at the newest end of the road.
June 18, 2011 at 12:25 am
[I’ve copied Graham’s reply to Kit’s useful comments on Metropolitan trackwork from the About page to here as it seems to be a more appropriate area for them to be in. Adrian]
I have done just as Adrian has stated… and the result is a short post on the matter, please see here.
As for Adrian being over the moon about the Gridiron, I am pretty chuffed about the drawing of the GWR goods depot at Smithfield…. showing mixed gauge track to boot.
June 27, 2011 at 8:36 am
Some very interesting information now emerging, and it’s particularly pleasing that material from the Engineering institutions and publications is bearing fruit, as I’ve found these to give excellent contemporary background in other fields. My thanks for passing on the results of all the persistence and lateral thinking in your project.
Specifically, looking through the Lehigh link to bridges and structures has not only been interesting reading on the Metropolitan and MDR – it’s helped me with new images of the Gas Bridge over the River Lea. This structure is in the footprint of a tramway diorama I’m designing and complements what I’ve already found in the LMA.
Finally, while searching for material on Met Saloon Stock, I came across an image with some Met. track in shot. Although 1916, hope it’s of interest.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/3437458/Hulton-Archive
July 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Glad to hear that you’re enjoying the fruits of our labours and benefiting from the discussions on here. Graham has been particularly tenacious in ferreting out much useful information from contemporary accounts, but we wouldn’t have got half as far with this without the suggestions mooted on here or in private by those of you who follow this journal.
For example, only nine months ago I erroneously came to the conclusion that we had exhausted all possible avenues to understanding better the PW of the MetR, and a year ago I was bemoaning the lack of information on the Great Northern suburban stock, but in the last few months or so we’ve had fantastic breakthroughs in both these areas from leads suggested by visitors to this site.
Thanks for the link to the Getty site – some fascinating images of the MetR there, which suggest that there were many changes made in the decade or so leading up to 1916.
July 10, 2011 at 11:35 pm
More on MET pw… This article… http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/R/RAI/railway-27.html…. has an illustration of a rail chair with the diagonal offset fastenings which was mentioned in the posts above (offset to reduce splitting of timbers?). Notably, it is a chair specified for the New South Wales Railway by Sir John Fowler – no need to explain who he was. I wonder, in the absence of any better information, if this is the same (type of) chair used on the MET?
As an aside, my treasured copy of ‘Molesworth’s Pocket Book of Engineering Formulae’ for 1905 (left to me by my Grandfather) suggests that over-length sleepers – more than 9′ on standard gauge track – produces rocking. According to Molesworth, 10′ sleepers were only standard on the 5’6″ gauge railways. This doesn’t provide any answer to the length question but is interesting nevertheless.
For those interested in the track layouts of the early MET, there is a layout for Farringdon Street (as a terminus) in ‘Great Western Engine Sheds 1837 – 1947’ by E Lyons and E Mountford (Oxford Publishing). Also one for an early Hammersmith joint MET/GWR station.
July 21, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Thanks for your input again Kit, much appreciated Unfortunately your link to the 1902 encyclopaedia is broken (caused by the three periods after the link) here it is again:
http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/R/RAI/railway-27.html
Interesting info in Molesworth on sleeper width and the repercussions of being over-length. Physics is not a strong point – does it explain why this might occur?
I don’t have that book on GW engine sheds, but I’m sure I’ve seen a plan of the Farringdon Street as a terminus…I just can’t recall where.
July 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm
Adrian – thanks for correcting the link. Molesworth doesn’t go into the physics of sleeper lengths but if you consider one rail rather than two, then the sleeper – or bearing, as they were often called – would best be arranged symmetrically either side of the single rail so that the load is equally distributed from the rail to the bearing and then to the ballast or sub base. Significant asymmetry would lead to an unequally distributed load, asymmetrical ballast compaction and tend to produce rocking. The 9′ sleeper length is approximately twice the gauge – 113″ as opposed to 2 x four foot eight and half which is 108″. There are some other variables such as super-elevation and the type of chair employed and not all loads on railway track are vertical – there is often a horizontal component as well – but the arrangement of 9′ sleepers for standard gauge is a reasonably symmetrical one.
Molesworth is a great source of reference material and was in common drawing office and engineering office use in its day – my Grandfather has added all sorts of data on Woodruff keys and similar mechanical stuff. There is an extensive section on railways. For instance, it includes a table for standard gauge points and crossings which states that facing point junctions should be 1 in 12 , 81 foot long and with a radius of 20.5 chains or 1 in 10, 67.6 foot long and 14.5 chains. For 6 wheeled coaches and engines, 1 in 8, 54 foot and 9 chains or 1 in 7, 47.3 foot and 7 chains. Slow speed sidings can be 1 in 6, 40.6 foot and 5 chains. It gives the appropriate switch lengths for each crossing. In the absence of other information, I have used this table (and others from Molesworth) as a basis for MET O gauge pointwork of the 1890s period. It also has fairly simple geometric setting out methods for turnouts of equal and unequal radii, curves running from reverse curves and so on.
Whilst idly studying pictures in Frank Goudie’s book “Metropolitan Steam Locomotives” the other day, I noticed one (page 15, top photo) in which there are a large number of crossing assemblies waiting to be delivered and fitted. I must have looked at the photo a hundred times and never noticed the track parts! The photo is credited to Lens of Sutton and neither dated nor placed but the loco featured is No 9 – one of the Beyer Peacock locos – and most of a van labelled “breakdown van”. Behind the loco, there is a stack of something that looks like… maybe rail chairs. If they are MET track parts, it suggests that the MET were fabricating and assembling pointwork from standard parts, much as other companies did (although could have been supplied by an outside contractor). I don’t know if better eyes and more informed detectives can glean anything useful from the photo!
What a marvellous website – it’s rapidly becoming an encyclopaedia….. I hope you will publish it all as a book some day!