LNWR Society Forum

Forum (only) for members of the LNWR Society
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:40 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
Hi,

I'm looking for drawings and dimensions for LNWR Lineside Fencing and Un-climbable Iron Fencing.
I'm sure I've got them in my collection somewhere -but I can't find them. Can anyone offer advice on where I can find this information please ?

Many thanks.

Regards
Paul

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 250
Location: Edinburgh
Jack Nelson's book LNWR Portrayed (Peco Publications, 1975) contains scale drawings of various fences including (as he puts it) the "Crewe-made iron fence described optimistically as 'unclimbable'."

See page 183; there are also some station fences on pp135/6.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
Hi Harry,

Many thanks for the info.

Cheers
Paul

Harry Jack wrote:
Jack Nelson's book LNWR Portrayed (Peco Publications, 1975) contains scale drawings of various fences including (as he puts it) the "Crewe-made iron fence described optimistically as 'unclimbable'."

See page 183; there are also some station fences on pp135/6.

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:17 pm
Posts: 94
Knowing that John Wardle had studied LNWR Fencing, I asked him for his comments on the query. Here is his reply:


LNWR Boundary Fencing

Notes regarding Wooden Boundary Fencing – use with Jack Nelson’s drawing on page 183 of “LNWR Portrayed” published by Peco, 1975.

Although Jack Nelson includes a sketch of several fencing types in his book, there are no exact measurements included, only a scale bar below the drawings.

During 2004, I discovered a small section of original LNWR wooden fencing beside the trackbed of the Shropshire Union Railway, to the West of Gnosall, Staffordshire, at Map ref: SJ 37965 – 31940.
The following measurements were taken from the remaining boundary post and rail fence:
The main (slotted) posts were set on 96” centres and exposed around 61” above ground.level. Most of the main posts measured a minimum of 7” by 5” and had five slots machined into them. Each slot, rounded at top and bottom, measured 5 ½” by 1 ¾” to accept timber rails measuring 4 ¾ “ by 1 ½”.
The first rail slot was set at 6” from the top of the post: the second rail at 10 ½” below the standard (5 ½”) slot, the third at 7 ½”, the fourth at 5” and the bottom rail slot at 5”. The gap below the bottom rail and ground level is now a matter of conjecture – but if the gap had been 5” the posts would have stood 66 ½” above ground level.
Two additional vertical posts (measuring 4 ½” square) were added to strengthen the rail section, each post was fixed at 30” from the main posts, but they were not set into the ground. The tops of these posts protruded 3” above the top line of the timber rails.

In the background of plate 143 in The Railway Photographs of P. W. Pilcher by David J. Patrick, published by the LNWR Society in 2007, a train on Whitmore troughs is passing a section of fencing as described above. However, only the new section (lighter coloured rails) of fencing on the left of the photograph conforms to the ‘two supporting post’ description. The other darker section of fencing has only one supporting post, which appears to be set at the mid point of the sections between the slotted posts. I would suggest that this single post may also be of heavier weight material, perhaps 5” by 5” or thicker, and that the main posts may be set closer together, on this older fencing.
When the change was made from the earlier design to the “new” standard I have not yet been able to discover. I understand that David Pennington is collecting information regarding the locations and workings of Permanent Way Workshops, where the slotted posts may well have been manufactured, so more answers may yet come to light about the construction of LNWR boundary fencing.

Hope these notes help, JW.

5th January 2011.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:06 pm
Posts: 22
Jack Nelson states in Fig 17 - 5, that the view is from the railway side of the fence, this is incorrect (or in general this is incorrect). Any fencing has the supports, especially the intermediary vertical bars on the side of the land owner who erected the fence (Law of Boundaries :- in the case of fences with posts or struts on one side, the law presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for repairing the fence.).

These two views show typical fencing, one with 2 intermediate supports and the other with one.

51L or Wizard models do a 4mm kit for this style of fencing, which may be OK if the ground is level, however any undulations are not feasible as the intermediary posts are part of the horizontal bars fret - of course you can cut them out, but life is not infinite...... but if somebody wants a set of the etches for the cost of postage, contact me.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
Hi Edward and John,

Many thanks for such a detailed and interesting answer. I've just made 3 CAD models of LNWR fencing based on Jack Nelson's drawings. I did have to make some alterations because the measurements didn't quite agree with the scale and drawings as shown. CAD is very good (or bad depending on your view) at showing up errors on hand drawings) I'll measure up and see how close I got to the details shown above. I'll try and take a screenshot for you to take a look at.

From your notes - I think the vertical rail spacing was..........

6.375" / 11.25" / 8.25" / 5.75" / 5.75" / 5.375" where each / is a rail of 4.75" depth.

I also scaled a photo and using the scale depth of 4.75" for each rail (from your notes) the horizontal rail spacing was approx as follows :-

6" / 11" / 7.5" / 6" / 6" / ?

Which looks very close to the measurements you state. The bottom of the bottom rail is in the grass in the photo so was very close to the ground.

The vertical ties appear to protrude about 1" above the upper horizontal rail line - however I can't see how far they protrude below the lower rail. The ties are fixed on the track side of the fence.

Image

( I hope it is OK to show this photo in low resolution ? )

Cheers
Paul


Edward Talbot wrote:
Knowing that John Wardle had studied LNWR Fencing, I asked him for his comments on the query. Here is his reply:


LNWR Boundary Fencing

Notes regarding Wooden Boundary Fencing – use with Jack Nelson’s drawing on page 183 of “LNWR Portrayed” published by Peco, 1975.

Although Jack Nelson includes a sketch of several fencing types in his book, there are no exact measurements included, only a scale bar below the drawings.

During 2004, I discovered a small section of original LNWR wooden fencing beside the trackbed of the Shropshire Union Railway, to the West of Gnosall, Staffordshire, at Map ref: SJ 37965 – 31940.
The following measurements were taken from the remaining boundary post and rail fence:
The main (slotted) posts were set on 96” centres and exposed around 61” above ground.level. Most of the main posts measured a minimum of 7” by 5” and had five slots machined into them. Each slot, rounded at top and bottom, measured 5 ½” by 1 ¾” to accept timber rails measuring 4 ¾ “ by 1 ½”.
The first rail slot was set at 6” from the top of the post: the second rail at 10 ½” below the standard (5 ½”) slot, the third at 7 ½”, the fourth at 5” and the bottom rail slot at 5”. The gap below the bottom rail and ground level is now a matter of conjecture – but if the gap had been 5” the posts would have stood 66 ½” above ground level.
Two additional vertical posts (measuring 4 ½” square) were added to strengthen the rail section, each post was fixed at 30” from the main posts, but they were not set into the ground. The tops of these posts protruded 3” above the top line of the timber rails.

In the background of plate 143 in The Railway Photographs of P. W. Pilcher by David J. Patrick, published by the LNWR Society in 2007, a train on Whitmore troughs is passing a section of fencing as described above. However, only the new section (lighter coloured rails) of fencing on the left of the photograph conforms to the ‘two supporting post’ description. The other darker section of fencing has only one supporting post, which appears to be set at the mid point of the sections between the slotted posts. I would suggest that this single post may also be of heavier weight material, perhaps 5” by 5” or thicker, and that the main posts may be set closer together, on this older fencing.
When the change was made from the earlier design to the “new” standard I have not yet been able to discover. I understand that David Pennington is collecting information regarding the locations and workings of Permanent Way Workshops, where the slotted posts may well have been manufactured, so more answers may yet come to light about the construction of LNWR boundary fencing.

Hope these notes help, JW.

5th January 2011.

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
From the CAD model based on the Jack Nelson drawing the horizontal rail spacing is......

4" / 10" / 7" / 5" / 4" / 5" with rails of 5" depth.

I think given the evidence from your information and the photograph I think the Jack Nelson drawing might be inaccurate - however I'm sure there could have been lots of local variation ?

Cheers
Paul

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
The following CAD models pretty much follow the Jack Nelson drawings. The rail spacing on the lineside fencing doesn't look quite right ?

I've tried to give these fences a weathered / distressed look. But I don't know if the appearance is anything like the real items ?

Image

Image

Image

Cheers
Paul

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:11 am
Posts: 72
Hi Sandy,

Many thanks for the information and for some very nice detail photo's. It looks like you're also showing the older type single tie fence as well. I'd also not seen any of the fencing having the ties on the public side of the fence.
I think I'll have to amend the rail spacing on the CAD model.

Cheers
Paul


Sandy Croall wrote:
Jack Nelson states in Fig 17 - 5, that the view is from the railway side of the fence, this is incorrect (or in general this is incorrect). Any fencing has the supports, especially the intermediary vertical bars on the side of the land owner who erected the fence (Law of Boundaries :- in the case of fences with posts or struts on one side, the law presumes that the owner on that side owns and is responsible for repairing the fence.).

These two views show typical fencing, one with 2 intermediate supports and the other with one.

51L or Wizard models do a 4mm kit for this style of fencing, which may be OK if the ground is level, however any undulations are not feasible as the intermediary posts are part of the horizontal bars fret - of course you can cut them out, but life is not infinite...... but if somebody wants a set of the etches for the cost of postage, contact me.

_________________
Paul Springthorpe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 9:29 am
Posts: 126
The second photo in Sany Croall's reply is captioned "in the Penines". I think that it is a photo of the north eastern end of Chelford loops with the damaged locomotive (without chimney) from the Chelford accident pushed out of the way into the short trap siding at the end of the loop. The wagons in the foreground are probably PW wagons for removing the debris etc. The photo was taken from the north ramp of the road bridge. The accident wreckage was in the middle of the station which was immediately on the other side of the bridge.

Dave Pennington


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group