click here for a list of all existing Templot documentation
about Templot Club cookie information pre-print options:    

click image to open Templot Club in a new tab
Templot club top logo
looking for Templot? - (free)



 you are not logged in  - Login | Join


receive all messages by email: info


Recent Topics
Front Page  Search  Image Gallery  Gallery Upload  My Account  Members  Help  
make a donation  
please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors Templot Companion - User Guide
            messages archive on Yahoo
page trail:  Templot Club > Forums > Tips and tutorials > Help with a space issue on my plan.
Templot web site

             Rating                           Help with a space issue on my plan.
     
 Start new topic   Reply blank   Printer friendly 
  Rate this topic  
AuthorMessage
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
1st message | this message only posted: 23 Jan 2012 02:23
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Folks,

I've been adjusting my track plan for Emmyton and after a bit of a lightbulb moment adjusted the crossovers but for some reason I didn't seem to gain the space I expected.

The old arrangement is below, I figured id I swapped the crossovers I might gain space.. but I didn't.. (we are talking about the blue section NOT the pink)



I know why now, the facing crossover has shunted across one points worth so while platform 1 (the top) has gained, the bottom sidings haven't changed at all...

But I'm sure we can adjust the pointwork to gain a few inches which I'd like to do for a couple of reasons.

1) Currently the two carriage/parcels sidings can't quite store 4 coaches but another couple of inches they can.
2) I have the space :P

The platform capacities are as follows :-

Platform 1 - 5 coaches ( 6 short bogey stock ) can run around without any back-up moves and using the nearest/logical crossover. Can probably squeeze 7 in for an outbound train.
Platform 2 - 5 coaches outbound, 4 incoming
Platform 3 - 3 coaches.

I guess the simplest option is a double slip.. but not sure if my track building skills are up to that!!!.. are there simpler options..

If we're talking something complex ( like a DS ) I really would appreciate someone helping me out as I've tried a DS in the past and never really been happy I got it right, despite following the tutorials.

I've attached the latest box file.. Note I need to shift the release crossover about 2-3 inches so I can shorten the station roads slightly as I overshot and not happy with the room for the passengers to get round the buffers between platforms 1 and 2/3.

Thanks :)
__________
message ref: 11663
Attachment: emmyton_12_01_23_0107_32.box (Downloaded 129 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
2nd message | this message only posted: 23 Jan 2012 12:03
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
mike47j
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
I would have thought a sissors crossover would be an option, but I don't know if its easier to build in 3mm than a double slip.

Or use both, but perhaps that's going too far.

Mike
__________
message ref: 11664

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
3rd message | this message only posted: 23 Jan 2012 12:48
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi Katier,

If you revert to your original design you can make the access to the sidings as a tandem turnout. This will gain you quite a bit of space in the sidings and platform 3. A tandem turnout is easier to build than a double slip, and in any event your crossing angles are too short for a double slip.

Does it have to be double-track? When space is tight most modellers settle on a single-track design. In the space you have available I think it would be quite difficult to have trains arriving and departing simultaneously. :)

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 11665

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
4th message | this message only posted: 23 Jan 2012 13:21
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks both,

I have attached the previous BOX file. Not sure how to make a tandem point (either in reality or in Templot) so some help would be appreciated. Doing it this way does limit the length of Platform 1, but I guess what I lose in P1, I gain in P2?

I am thinking normal trains would be 2-5 coaches and only excursions would be longer, so having to squeeze the longer 6/7 coaches in would be rare.

Also need to add the catch point to this plan ( although don't know how).
__________
message ref: 11666
Attachment: emmyton_12_01_23_1305_13.box (Downloaded 112 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
5th message | this message only posted: 23 Jan 2012 13:26
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Oops missed a bit - regarding the double track.

This is intended to be a town similar to scarborough with the addition of a port which resides at a lower level to the station due to topography. As such a short, tight, branchline connects the port with the goods facilities, which reside below the level of the passenger lines. The Branch being represented by the 'passing loop' in the pink goods lines. If I had the room ( oh for another 8 feet!!!) the goods facilities would climb up to connect to the mainline.

As such - single track 'feels' wrong?
__________
message ref: 11667

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
6th message | this message only posted: 2 Feb 2012 21:35
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Katier wrote: Thanks both,

I have attached the previous BOX file. Not sure how to make a tandem point (either in reality or in Templot) so some help would be appreciated. Doing it this way does limit the length of Platform 1, but I guess what I lose in P1, I gain in P2?

I am thinking normal trains would be 2-5 coaches and only excursions would be longer, so having to squeeze the longer 6/7 coaches in would be rare.

Also need to add the catch point to this plan ( although don't know how).
Hi Katier.
Thought I had better go back to the original thread. Attached is my latest attempt at the tandem turnouts for your layout. I have also adjusted the Turnout at the top left that had a rather stange geometry, so I hope you haven't built it yet. I have also added the catch / trap points where they are needed. I have done some timber shoving around the tandems but will leave you to do the others. Hope this does what you wanted. If you step through the templates in the storage box you may get a better idea of how you build up partial templates in layers.
Best wishes Tony.

__________
message ref: 11800
Attachment: emmyton_12_02_02_2127_19.box (Downloaded 140 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
7th message | this message only posted: 3 Feb 2012 01:30
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Tony,

Thanks so much, your a star. As for timber shoving.. I literally don't have a clue about that so just go with the flow.. which probably makes my trackwork rubbish but don't know any better :(.

The 3 ways look fantastic just the job, gonna print them out later :)

What was odd about the top left point? (and no it wasn't built - and in fact what I have made for the top is being replaced).
__________
message ref: 11801

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
8th message | this message only posted: 3 Feb 2012 03:04
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
As you can see the lower 3-way has done the trick perfectly. Plenty of room now and 3 trucks (probably 4 at a push) can easily be shunted into the coal drops.


__________
message ref: 11802

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
9th message | this message only posted: 3 Feb 2012 16:08
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Katier wrote: Hi Tony,

What was odd about the top left point? (and no it wasn't built - and in fact what I have made for the top is being replaced).
Hi Katier.
The turnout I was refering to toward the top left of the plan, the diverging road had a rather strange reverse curve in it which I have managed to  cure by changing the switch and crossing angle without changing the overall length very much. It just looks better. If you wish to try timber shoving for the control template hit Shift + F10, select the timber you want to change by placing the mouse pointer over the timber number so it turns green and left click. The selected timber turns red, then you can see what the different options do. Previously shoved timbers are shown in blue.
Tony.

__________
message ref: 11806

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
10th message | this message only posted: 3 Feb 2012 17:56
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks Tony,

The question about timber shoving is mainly why when and where :)
__________
message ref: 11807

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
11th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 13:50
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
LSWRArt
Antibes, France

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
My thoughts would be:-
Why - to support the rail and its chairs and to keep the rails the correct distance apart.
So, for example, you cannot move the sleeper which is located under the crossing nose which must be supported there , although you can rotate the sleeper to a different angle, which you might need to do for a crossover where the sleepers have been extended to cross both tracks.

Why would you extend a sleeper across both tracks at a crossover? One answer might be because if you butt up two short sleepers a chair would be sitting on the joint.

You also need to support the chairs for parts of the points such as check rails, so you need sleepers along the middle and at each end of the check rail. etc.
You also do not want the end of your point blade floating in space over a gap where it could get damaged, so the blade ends over a sleeper and the tie bar fits between the first two sleepers after the tip of the point blade.

From reading the Rorum I have learnt that all the railways were different up to nationalisation (and probably kept to old practices thereafter) so if possible look at pictures of the line you are modelling to see how they laid out their sleepers.

Tony corrected my plan for Kingsmere. He said that where possible the sleepers were interlaced with only the critical ones being extended across two tracks (presumably to reduce cost and to use standard parts?) so if you compare the sleepering round the station throat in my original plan and after Tony has tweaked it you will see the improvements he has made.
I hope that is of some help.
Arthur
__________
message ref: 11809

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
12th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 21:06
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Katier wrote: Thanks Tony,

The question about timber shoving is mainly why when and where :)
Hi Katier.
Not an easy question to answer as there are so many variations. This topic has been touched on in several other forum enquiries. With a single turnout / point, the standard practice for more recent times has been to put an extra full length timber after the crossing vee joint and then interleave the ends of the ordinary sleepers until the tracks diverge sufficiently for this not to matter any more. However earlier practice was to begin interleaving ordinary sleepers as soon as the special crossing chairs ended with varations in between. I guess from your earlier reply you have a method of getting round the timbering problem when you build it and if that works for you then that is all that matters.
Tony.

__________
message ref: 11813

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
13th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 22:13
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
[user=2151]I guess from your earlier reply you have a method of getting round the timbering problem when you build it and if that works for you then that is all that matters.


Yeah.. I guess it could be summarised by 'botch it and hope nobody notices'.. AKA not really knowing any better.

Thanks both, very enlightening. I'm happy to figure the conflicts as I build the points, but at least now I know what is more or less prototypical.
__________
message ref: 11814

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
14th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 22:31
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Nigel Brown
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
The real engineers in practice had to fiddle around to get things to fit, so following that is prototypical practice!

I notice there's a timber intruding on the tie-bar area of your turnout 65. Whether this actually matters depends on how you're doing your tie-bars. I'd be inclined to extend the timbers on either side of the tie-bar so that they serve the adjacent track as well, and use long timbers, suitably angled where necessary, between there and the 3-way.

Nigel
__________
message ref: 11815

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
15th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 23:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Nice spot nigel.. took me a while to find the timber but I see what you mean now. Then respective angles don't help!!!

Had a fiddle with the timbers and also tweaked the 3 sidings to reduce the 'S' onto the coal drops.

Can you take a look see please and tell me if they look good to you?

How much of that formation would you make in one go, looks like the triple, crossover and first siding point need assembling together.
__________
message ref: 11816
Attachment: emmyton_12_02_04_2302_21.box (Downloaded 115 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
16th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 23:27
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Nigel Brown
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
I'd be inclined to try to get rid of the single sleeper in the V (between the siding point and the 3-way). You've got four timbers there which if you steadily alter their angles would fill the gap. Not saying the single timber is wrong.

Think the triple, crossover and siding point would go together nicely in one go.
__________
message ref: 11817

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
17th message | this message only posted: 4 Feb 2012 23:39
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
allanferguson
Fife, United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides

Nigel Brown wrote: The real engineers in practice had to fiddle around to get things to fit, so following that is prototypical practice!
Nigel
I  think  it  was  originally  somewhere  in  this  forum  that  I  picked  up  the  following  apposite  comment,  reputedly  by   Cyril  Freezer  in  2000,  writing  about  Percy  Keen  on  the  90th  anniversary  of  the  MRC.......
"One of his tales, very apposite in view of Alan Blackburn's recent talk, related how, before WWI, a friend had a problem with crossing timbers on a piece of complex trackwork. They were due to ride on the LNWR inspection train, and there duly put the problem before the district engineer. He admitted he had no idea which alternative configuration was correct, but added that they were shortly to be joined by the division's most experienced ganger. Since the LNWR with some justification boasted the best permanent way in the world, he would know the answer. The ganger duly boarded the train, was introduced all round and then informed that these gentlemen had a problem for him. He studied the drawing for some time, removing his bowler hat and scratching his head. At length he came up with the answer "Well sir, when we gets a problem like this, we fudges it!" "

 

Allan  F

__________
message ref: 11818

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
18th message | this message only posted: 5 Feb 2012 00:02
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Katier wrote: Nice spot nigel.. took me a while to find the timber but I see what you mean now. Then respective angles don't help!!!

Had a fiddle with the timbers and also tweaked the 3 sidings to reduce the 'S' onto the coal drops.

Can you take a look see please and tell me if they look good to you?

How much of that formation would you make in one go, looks like the triple, crossover and first siding point need assembling together.
Hi Katier. Just had a quick look at your file. You now have two options for that area. The timbering as I had done it would not be a problem in that prototypical situation, but as Nigel points out, if you are using a sleeper type operating tye bar then it could be a problem. The changes you have made would work as it is only in sidings at not on the main line. One of the things you have to guard against is too long a length of unsupported rail and you look to be getting close to the limit where you change back to ordinary timbers after the last extended timber. It is always better to have more sleepers closer together than not enough in these situations. As you say, as the angles increase it becomes more problematic and sometimes wider 14" timbers are used if the chairs are at too much of an angle and the fixing holes would otherwise be too close to the edge of the timber.
As for the construction, it would certainly be better to assemble the formation as one block to ensure accuracy of alignment, but this does not mean that it has to be one physical unit. With a little planning it is quite possible to put the rail breaks in such that it can removed in several pieces even if this means that the last solder joint or two is made after it has been laid where opposing sections share a common timber. Also when I build threeway turnouts I make the two crossings closest to each other one unit electrically and make the third crossing a separate unit. I have marked the breaks in red in the picture, the other crossing vee break is beyond the end of the check rail and not visible in this picture. To see it full size go to the image gallery and view it.
Tony.

__________
message ref: 11819

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
19th message | this message only posted: 5 Feb 2012 00:37
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks Tony,

Currently I have been using sleeper tie-rods although I am debating ordering some purpose made ones from 3SMR to try them out.

the 3 way will be a challenge either way, first piece of complex pointwork I'll have made.. unless cross-overs count!!
__________
message ref: 11820

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
20th message | this message only posted: 5 Feb 2012 12:43
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Katier.
If you can build an ordinary turnout you can build a tandem as it is essentially made up of the same units, you just have an extra common crossing to cope with. A few tips. I work from the crossing end of the turnout toward the switch end and from the centre outwards. I put the vees in first. Tack solder the nose and the point and splice rails at the outer ends. Check alignment with a steel rule. Adjust if required and solder in. Then the wing rails. Tack solder the wing rail in a couple of places and check the alignment and flangeway gap, adjust if necessary, only when happy with it solder the rest of the joints.The only really tricky bit is forming the wing rail for the second crossing so that the nose of the vee for the third crossing is correctly aligned, and filing the end of the wing rail to allow clearance for the flangeway. Next I fit the stock rails, then the switch blades and finally the remaining check rails.
Remember, practice makes perfect. Don't be afraid to reject anything that is not good enough and have another go.
Tony.

__________
message ref: 11821

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
21st message | this message only posted: 5 Feb 2012 14:26
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hehe I'm with you on the 'practice' side - you can definitely tell the difference between my early points and my later ones.

Mmm wonder if there's any 'mileage' in dismantling old points and re-using the rail.. nothing like being 'green'
__________
message ref: 11822

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
22nd message | this message only posted: 5 Feb 2012 16:24
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Tony W
North Notts., United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Katier wrote: Mmm wonder if there's any 'mileage' in dismantling old points and re-using the rail.. nothing like being 'green'You certainly wouldn't be the first to do so although cleaning off any excess solder can be a bit of a pain, but it can be less work than making new.
Tony.

__________
message ref: 11823

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
23rd message | this message only posted: 6 Feb 2012 15:02
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Katier
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks Tony, part way through building this monster!!!

dismantled 4 early points I had made and some spare rail and sleeper I had.. this thing is a resource monster!!!

Should look great when it's finished though :)
__________
message ref: 11829

 
This is topic ID = 1804     Page created at 01:44 (local time)  
You can type a quick reply to this topic here.

Click in the box to begin.


But to reply to an individual message, or to include images, attachments and formatted text, use the reply buttons on each message above.

To start a new topic in this forum, click the Start new topic button below.
To start a new topic in a different forum, click the Forum Jump drop-down list below.

             Start new topic 

 click to jump to a different forum:     Back to top of page

Templot Club > Forums > Tips and tutorials > Help with a space issue on my plan.
about Templot Club

list recently active topics Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Old Templot Companion Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines only

back to top of page


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.

The small print: All material submitted to this web site is the responsibility of the respective contributor. By submitting material to this web site you acknowledge that you accept full responsibility for the material submitted. The owner of this web site is not responsible for any content displayed here other than his own contributions. The owner of this web site may edit, modify or remove any content at any time without giving notice or reason.
Problems with this web site? Contact webmaster@templot.com.   This web site uses cookies: click for information.  
© 2017  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems