RTR track sleeper spacing

[Jonathan AllenParticipant]

I have been given a quantity of unused and unwanted EM track for my new layout. Some of it is Scaleway, the rest is K&L (forerunner of C&L). The thing is, the sleeper spacings are not the same and comparing both with the EM gauge society templates neither match.  Is it that one type is supposed to be mainline track and the other branchline? Which is best to use?

Jonathan

[Paul WillisParticipant]

Hi Jonathan,

The answer to that question would be “what is the prototype that you are modelling?”.  That will then dictate what the correct spacing would be.

I recall that the EMGS track was based on fairly modern 60ft track panels with a spacing to match that.  Other track may based on different prototypes, or simply “generic”.

Sleeper spacing and track panel length is more a function of period than purpose.  Rails were initially unable to be produced in lengths of more than 30ft.  I think that the LNWR were the first to produce 45ft rails, and technology went on from there.  Whether a piece of track is more mainline or branchline would be chiefly indicated by the weight of the rail (and thus the size of locomotives that can be borne) rather than anything else.

Best,

Paul

[Jonathan AllenParticipant]

Thanks for responding Paul,

I am working on a fictitious preservation line, using a track plan based on Aberearon in West Wales, so most of the trackwork would probably have been recovered from redundant track lifted elsewhere. The original line was built as a light railway, but  the GWR ungraded the track.

I am also thinking that the track wouldn’t sit on a lot of ballast, so maybe lay the track directly on the baseboard rather than a cork underlay.

[Bob AllisonParticipant]

Hi Jonathan.  I have yet to find ready to run track that matches prototype sleeper spacing, although I haven’t yet tried our own brand. Part of the reason is that spacing varied along the length of each panel (much closer near the rail joints) and there were at least three different lengths of panel in pregrouping days – 30ft, 45ft, 60ft.  Add to that the closer sleeper spacing used on relatively sharp curves and the manufacturers have a problem – if it’s right for one condition, it’s wrong for all the others.

I remove all the webs of mainline track and shuffle the sleepers along to match the template for my chosen length.  For sidings I take what is given on the basis that anything goes in such locations, and they are mostly buried in ash ballast anyway.

Regards

Bob

[Paul WillisParticipant]

On Jonathan Allen said

Thanks for responding Paul,

I am working on a fictitious preservation line, using a track plan based on Aberearon in West Wales, so most of the trackwork would probably have been recovered from redundant track lifted elsewhere. The original line was built as a light railway, but  the GWR ungraded the track.

I am also thinking that the track wouldn’t sit on a lot of ballast, so maybe lay the track directly on the baseboard rather than a cork underlay.

Hi Jonathan,

I think that given what you have said, I can do no better than point you at this discussion, which covers track of a preserved ex-GWR line 🙂

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/50815-gwr-siding-sleeper-spacing/

Best wishes,

Paul

• This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Paul Willis.

[Jonathan AllenParticipant]

Thanks Bob and Paul.

I have a copy of “Modelling GWR Branchlines”, so I’d better dig it out and have a read.

[Stephen FreemanParticipant]

If you want track GWR style there is, I am afraid no getting out of scratch building.

Possibly all you need to know is contained in the book by David J Smith. There should already be a pdf of the more modern panel length but it’s not too difficult to adapt to other early lengths in Templot.

[Author]

Posts