Tie spacing at staggered rail joints query

[Talltim]

In the UK, the sleepers are closer together at rail joints. However I've realised I don't know what happens in the US with staggered joints. Does the tie spacing stay even or is there a closer pair at every rail joint?

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Hardly conclusive proof, but not on the AZER which is the only old style track I've come across in recent years.

 

 

[Andy Reichert]

US plain track Tie spacing is the same at rail joints as elsewhere.  Up until the very recent switch to mechanized track laying trains, tie spacing wasn't very well controlled regardless, so it's quite varied at any point in the track, especially as it ages and gets maintained.

 

The exception is at turnouts. Ties are spaced closer at the throw bar, the point hinges and the joints around the frog. That's something that shows up from above, but is rarely included in RTR or modelled in traditional undetailed hand-laid track.

 

Andy

[Talltim]

I'd forgotten that the joint may also be ON the tie! The lack of differentiation in spacing makes it easier to lay flexitrack and the put the rail joints in later, without worrying about getting closer ties in the right place at the start.

[dave1905]

Up until the very recent switch to mechanized track laying trains, tie spacing wasn't very well controlled regardless, so it's quite varied at any point in the track, especially as it ages and gets maintained.

 

The exception is at turnouts. Ties are spaced closer at the throw bar, the point hinges and the joints around the frog. That's something that shows up from above, but is rarely included in RTR or modelled in traditional undetailed hand-laid track.

 

Those are kinda generalized statements depending on how one interprets "well controlled".  For example in 1887 the W&N Railroad changed its standard from 2288 crossties to 2816 crossties per mile.on the main track.  So there was a standard,   Most MofW rule books I have seen have standards (or multiple standards depending on type of track) for tie spacing.  I also know that the ATSF had different spacing standards because I was helping a friend lay ties on his layout and depending on whether it was a main track I used tie strips with different spacing.

 

Which brings us to the second paragraph, while I agree that commercial switches mostly don't have different tie spacing, there are some who handlay switches with varying tie spacing.  For example the friend I was helping has two different tie spacings, a little closer than normal for the majority of the switch and then much closer under the frog, per ATSF standards.  I lay switch ties on a template that is photocopied from a WW1 era MofW rule book so I use whatever spacing the real RDG/P&R/W&N used.

 

I believe that one of the reason most modelers don't have variable spacing is that they have never seen a prototype track diagram or have never gone out with a tape measure and actually measured  the tie separations.  Many of the previously published paper templates did not have variations in spacing.

[highpeak]

As Simon notes, practices varied by road and era. The NMRA reprint of the book "Railway Track and Maintenance" by E.E. Russell Tratman has a wealth of useful information regarding track construction and maintenance practices up to the mid Twenties. The notes below are from that book, which I believe is still available from the NMRA.

 

An example cited of closer tie spacing at joints is the NYC where the three ties at a rail joint were on 14.5 inch centres, while the rest of the rail was supported by ties spaced at either 21 or 24 inch centres depending on the class of track. Since rail and ties can both shift to some extent under the influence of traffic, either quite a bit of work was needed to maintain the relationship of ties to joints, or a road might decide that the relationship made no difference and didn't bother changing the spacing.

 

The common rail length at the time was 33' although the trend was towards 39' lengths. Relay rail might be cropped to remove battered ends and so would end up somewhat shorter since between 12 and 18 inches was usually cropped at each end. Tratman notes that the practice of respacing ties where a rail joint had moved due to relaying was being discontinued because it was very labor-intensive and didn't seem to offer any benefit, so you could at that period have seen closer tie spacing (assuming that was the road's practice at joints) where there had been a rail joint prior to relaying.

[Andy Reichert]

Practice varied by road and era: not sure when regular spacing regardless of joints came into general use.

 

PRR, 1909, had several different arrangements for number of ties, etc, depending on main/branch/siding/yard etc.All of these had closer spacing at at the rail joints, and yes, these were staggered. Page 24, Issue 75 of The Keystone Modeller tells you all...

 

Just a quick point re the article. "Rail Aligners" are not designed as, nor intended to be, reliable electrical connections.

[Andy Reichert]

Those are kinda generalized statements depending on how one interprets "well controlled".  For example in 1887 the W&N Railroad changed its standard from 2288 crossties to 2816 crossties per mile.on the main track.  So there was a standard,   Most MofW rule books I have seen have standards (or multiple standards depending on type of track) for tie spacing.  I also know that the ATSF had different spacing standards because I was helping a friend lay ties on his layout and depending on whether it was a main track I used tie strips with different spacing.

 

Which brings us to the second paragraph, while I agree that commercial switches mostly don't have different tie spacing, there are some who handlay switches with varying tie spacing.  For example the friend I was helping has two different tie spacings, a little closer than normal for the majority of the switch and then much closer under the frog, per ATSF standards.  I lay switch ties on a template that is photocopied from a WW1 era MofW rule book so I use whatever spacing the real RDG/P&R/W&N used.

 

I believe that one of the reason most modelers don't have variable spacing is that they have never seen a prototype track diagram or have never gone out with a tape measure and actually measured  the tie separations.  Many of the previously published paper templates did not have variations in spacing.

 

 

Here's an excerpt from the AAR diagrams I use.

 

From letters I have received from NMRA board members running the Achievment Program  (for their MMR qualification), it appears that the NMRA pro-actively encourages ignoring any awkward prototype information and instead recommends using uniform tie spacing and many other short-cuts, as their concept of "scale modeling" track and turnouts. So it's not really most modelers' fault that they remain ignorant of the real thing.

 

There may be overall standards of ties per mile, for obvious cost and weight carrying reasons. However, in my measurements of that practice, it doesn't seem to have translated into incredible precise equal tie spacing per each tie, if such a result was even possible.

 

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Once my pike (see The Eagle has Landed...) is up and running with Peco #8s, I shall be slowly working my way round replacing them with better looking turnouts bodged together with components from a variety of sources, including Mr Reichert's famous store.

 

 

This will featured ties correctly spaced closer together in the appropriate places.  It does make quite a difference to the appearance - subtle, but noticeable.