Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 14 Feb 2012 22:39 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have just completed my 1st single and double slip in 00-SF. If possible could someone check them to see if they are OK. I have a couple of issues with them. 1. The K crossing check rail is going through the switch rail. As this is 00-SF is this the best that I can get. Is it best to leave the K crossing check rail in the plan and make the correct length to the K crossing when the slips are built. 2. When I convert turnout to half diamond the timbers always go on an angle. I am sure in the last version (I am using TDV) it was possible to square all the timbers in one go instead of using shove timbers. Is there a setting I can use that I have not found or missed. If there is any problems with the 2 slips any help correcting them would be most grateful. Regards Alan |
||
|
posted: 14 Feb 2012 22:43 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry forgot to include box file. Alan |
||
| Attachment: attach_1352_1830_Single_&_Double_Slip_Test.box 239 | |||
|
posted: 14 Feb 2012 23:31 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Alan, You have used the slip switches intended for 1:8 slips, but these are 1:6 slips. This has caused the switches to be unnecessarily too far from the V-crossings. If you use the slip switches intended for 1:6 slips (A-type) you will get an easier radius in the slip roads, and less conflict with the K-crossing check rails. 1:6 slips are always a problem in this regard for 00 gauge. For more about this, see: topic 324 Note that since that was written, in TDV it is much easier to adjust the K-crossing check rails, now by mouse action. The timbers in diamond-crossings and slips are almost always equalized (skewed) as drawn. It is difficult to arrange the K-crossing chairs if timbers are square-on. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2012 06:36 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for the reply Martin. These these were ment tobe 1:8 slips. Will redo again tonight. Any info on the the timbers. Alan |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2012 06:38 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry Martin did not read last part of reply about timbers. Alan |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2012 17:26 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin I have updated the slips again. Is this any better. Have I made any serious issues. I have reduced the K crossing length to 30 using the mouse option and the end gap to 1.6mm. Is this is to narrow or will RTR stock be OK with this measurement. I am not too happy with the timbering is there anything I should do. Now for a 3 way and outside slip. Regards Alan |
||
| Attachment: attach_1353_1830_Single_&_Double_Slip_Test.box 243 | |||
|
posted: 16 Feb 2012 20:55 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Alan. I presume you are refering to the timbering under the K crossings. For non-scale trackwork this needs to be changed using "Real > Timbering > Half-diamond timbering > Timbering as model" menu option rather than timbering as prototype. This option is perhaps not as well know as it should be and is one that I only discovered myself relatively recently, it saves much timber shoving. I have done this for you see attached file. Also make sure that your switch units are the highest number templates or the blade end marks will not be visible as they will be hidden under the timbers. (Thanks Martin.) The ends of the K crossing check rails will be alright as they taper to the back of the running rail and do not have a square end for the wheels to catch. When it comes to construction I would make the switch blades flex up to where they meet the ends of the check rail as you will not achieve sufficient clearance between the Stock rail and the back of the Switch blade for the wheel flanges if you only allow 6 slide chairs for the blade movement. Tony. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1354_1830_Single_&_Double_Slip_Test_1.box 223 | |||
|
posted: 17 Feb 2012 15:55 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony Thank you for the tip about the timbers. If possible can you explain a bit more about the last bit on your reply ( When it comes to construction I would make the switch blades flex up to where they meet the ends of the check rail as you will not achieve sufficient clearance between the Stock rail and the back of the Switch blade for the wheel flanges if you only allow 6 slide chairs for the blade movement). Regards Alan |
||
|
posted: 20 Feb 2012 23:24 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
alangdance wrote: Hi TonyHi Alan. Yes, this topic has been touched on before, but I am not sure under which thread. Templot uses prototype data to create it's templates. This means that if you follow the prototype dimensions and for instance build a B-6 turnout, the B switch has 6 slide chairs and the switch rail is held firmly in place by the 7th chair for a flexible spring type blade. If the correct switch opening of a scale 4.25 inches is used, the switch gap will narrow toward the heel end before widening again producing a gap slightly wider than a scale flangeway at the narrowest point. The backs of the wheels should NOT touch the back of the switch blades. This is OK with scale track systems such as P4 or S7 standards, but with track standards that use wider than scale flangeways, these dimensions need to be increased or the minimum gap will be insufficient for the wheel flanges to pass smoothy through between the back of the switch blade and the stock rail. When building B switches in EM, which has 1mm flangeways, I increase the opening dimension slightly to 1.5mm (scale 4.5") and allow 2 extra slide chairs so the length of flexing is greater allowing for a wider minimum gap. This is about where your obtuse crossing checkrails end next to the curved switch rails, hence my comment above. As your switches are A type and only have 5 slide chairs, this will produce an even stiffer blade. If you are using pivoted blades, this may be less of an issue, but you still need to ensure that there is sufficient clearance between the stock rail and the open switch blade. O gauge fine uses 1.75mm flangeways whereas S7 uses 1.05mm, so this needs to be considered. Hope this explains my reasoning. Tony. |
||
|
posted: 21 Feb 2012 16:06 from: alangdance click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony Thanks for the info. I had already decided on opening the dimension to 1.75mm from a comment Martin made on RMWeb using a 20 pence piece. Alan |
||
| 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. |