Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 19 Feb 2011 09:31 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear All, My latest Magnum Opus requires a tandem turnout in a very tight spot. The closest prototype formation that I know of (although opposite hand) was at the Railway Megalopolis that was Brighton Kemp Town - fortunately on the same company as my fictitious example. http://www.semgonline.com/location/pics/im_kemptn-8.jpg The consequences are that the two common crossings are very close together and that the switch rails have to be very short with a continuous lump check. 1129_181823_010000000.png  Although real railways would obviously avoid such formations where they could - the construction would be very much a "special" (the Kemp Town example is all block chairs) - there must have been plenty of other examples, perhaps especially in pre-grouping days and where operations were complex or space was tight. Fenchurch St and Charing Cross perhaps being examples. My question is: can anyone either upload or provide links to further pics or drawings of this or other examples as I would like to know how it would have been built in practice, especially in terms of the fixing of the end of the check whilst still leaving the switch free to hinge. Just a Templot question: how can I "force" joints to appear where I have artificially shortened the rails - for example between the switch and the crossing above? (I am hoping that there is a better answer than the feared "custom switch" dialogue box - though that of course is exactly what I am creating!) Many thanks, Howard. |
||
|
posted: 19 Feb 2011 10:27 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Howard, A pic from the Scalefour Society web site: chairs04.jpg  © Scalefour Society Linked from and more excellent pics at: http://www.scalefour.org/resources/trackdetails.html There are details and a drawing of GWR check lumps on pages 42-43 of David Smith's bible: http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/gwsg/GWRSG_Publications.html The lump rail and closure rail ends are planed to half-thickness and spliced together at the loose-heel joint. The two are held together by the joint fishbolts. The location of the loose-heel is shortened back to the virtual heel position (where the heel offset is 4.1/2" -- rail width + flangeway). To add extra track joints to a template, the quick way is to draw them on manually, as background shapes (main > draw with mouse menu item). To do it properly create a short bit of rail containing a joint mark as a partial template, align it over the rail and snake it into position. (Don't use no timbering, as this also removes the rail joints. Instead, remove the timbering using omit all on the shove timbers functions.) regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 19 Feb 2011 11:53 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin (I thought you were offline, but many thanks anyway!!!) Many thanks for this - I should have pointed out that I already had this example as I am an S4 member and it has been linked here before - very sorry about that. This one is an "easy" example in that there are a full four sleepers between the two crossings. When you have less than that, you run out of room to fit in one side of the "A" chair at the first nose - the Kemp Town example uses a block here as well. Your detail on the lump check is useful and I shall continue searching for pics - it is a pity that the Kemp Town pic does not cover a slightly larger area. In the last bit you provide a little gem - "no timbering" explains why I could not make joints appear on the many partial templates which are just bits of rail!!! Easily fixed. I know I am being too cheeky to ask if it might be reasonable to change this functionality in the new PUG, now only days away... Many thanks and very best wishes, Howard |
||
|
posted: 19 Feb 2011 13:05 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
JFS wrote:In the last bit you provide a little gem - "no timbering" explains why I could not make joints appear on the many partial templates which are just bits of rail!!! Easily fixed. I know I am being too cheeky to ask if it might be reasonable to change this functionality in the new PUGHi Howard, The timbering layout and rail joint positions are interdependent, so they are linked together for some of the joints -- wing rail fronts and plain track. But it's more than 10 years since I made it work that way. I'm sure I had good reasons at the time but thinking about it again now I'm not so sure. Rail joints can now be omitted individually at do > omit rails and joint marks, so the need for blanket removal with the timbering is not so evident. However, those joints are easily retained if you omit all on the shove timbers functions, so there isn't any great urgency to make a change -- I will have a think about it. now only days away...Hmm.  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 19 Feb 2011 13:17 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
.. luckily we neither of us said how many days.... I remembered this other example of an interesting formation at Clapham junction, which shows some detail of a lump check - again I would be interested to see any further pics of this ... 1129_190811_060000000.jpg  .. this pic from the S4 site. Regards, Howard. |
||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |