Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 5 Apr 2012 21:56 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Since I posted my layout plan for Staircliffe Exchange Sidings earlier this week, I've found it necessary make adjustments to the sidings headshunt, which means that the scissors crossing as originally conceived needs to be adjusted. I've spent the best part of a day trying to make the necessary adjustments, but with no success, so once again I'm appealing for help from the more enlightened among you to come to the rescue. The attached plan shows what I'm trying to achieve, the crossover at present being represented by two straight rails each connecting a pair of the diagonally opposite points. Can anyone out there, who fully understands what's involved, please come to my rescue and do what's needed to give me what I'm aiming for, or as close to what I'm aiming for as possible? Many thanks, in anticipation of someone saving my sanity! Regards, Dave Yates |
||
| Attachment: attach_1417_1901_Staircliffe_Exchange_Sidings_v14_05-04-12_Dev).box 414 | |||
|
posted: 6 Apr 2012 00:41 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi David. Not an easy one to solve as you are trying to combine a constant radius curve one side of the diamond with a transition curve on the other, however I think this may work, but the timbering will need tidying up and the top right turnout may have to be moved slightly to allow the timbering to line up better. I will have another look at it tomorrow. Tony. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1418_1901_staircliffe_junction_2012_04_06_0034_37.box 375 | |||
|
posted: 6 Apr 2012 02:11 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Tony, Dave, Using a transition seems a bit of an overkill. If the turnouts are snaked a mm or two, fixed curves will fit. If the turnout toe positions are critical, the leads can be adjusted by changing the crossing entry straights (SHIFT+F11). File attached, but it still needs the partial templates, timbering and check rails done.  regards, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1419_1901_staircliffe_junction_diamond.box 350 | |||
|
posted: 6 Apr 2012 14:44 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi David. I have had another go at your problem and result is attached. Hope you approve. Thanks for your input Martin, but I had more or less decided on my plan of attack, although alternatives are always appreciated. Tony. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1420_1901_staircliffe_junction_2012_04_06_1435_00.box 410 | |||
|
posted: 7 Apr 2012 10:59 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Tony W wrote:Hi David. Hi Tony, Martin, Just a quick thank you to both of you for taking the time and trouble to review my original plan and make the necessary adjustments, so that my original vision can now become a reality. Track construction can now begin. Once again many thanks. Dave |
||
|
posted: 9 Apr 2012 14:40 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi David. My pleasure. You still have some timber shoving to do with some of the other pointwork, I left it in case you had not yet finalised the design. I presume you are happy to do it. Best wishes. Tony. |
||
|
posted: 9 Apr 2012 15:18 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Tony W wrote:Hi David. Hi Tony, Once again thanks for your help in sorting out my track geometry problems. Regarding the timbering, I am more than happy to undertake that task. If only sorting out track geometry problems was as simple as timbering! Best Wishes, Dave |
||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2014 14:23 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A CRY FOR HELP. Way back in April 2012 I posted a track plan for my layout, Staircliffe Exchange Sidings, (please see attached box file) which had evolved with the help of numerous Templot Club members. Now over two years on, the layout is 2/3rds built (I will post pictures as soon as I am able). However at this late stage, there is an improvement I would like to incorporate from the original plan. A study of the plan will show that there is a fan of three sidings which are accessed via the diamond crossover. At the present time, the plan shows these sidings are accessed via two points, which necessarily means the second and third sidings have reduced capacity. If the two points were replaced by a 3 way point, I believe siding capacity would increase as well as giving the layout a more prototypical appearance. I have spent weeks trying to replace the existing arrangement with a 3 way point, all to no avail. Hence my 'cry for help'. Is there any Templot Club member out there who would like to attempt what I'm trying to achieve? Many thanks in anticipation of someone coming to my rescue. Dave Yates |
||
| Attachment: attach_1909_1901_Staircliffe_Exchange_Sidings_v27_25-10-12.box 329 | |||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2014 15:23 from: Ian Allen
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
David, See if the attached box. file suits your needs. Ian |
||
| Attachment: attach_1910_1901_staircliffe_exchange_2014_08_11_1521_46.box 309 | |||
|
posted: 11 Aug 2014 17:25 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Ian Allen wrote: David, Hi Ian, Firstly many thanks for taking the time to make the alterations to the track plan to incorporate a 3 way turnout as requested. Unfortunately, possibly due to me not being clear enough in my request, you have created a 3 way turnout in the wrong area. It is the group of 3 parallel sidings at the top of the track plan to which I was referring, although having said that the alterations you made in what is the locomotive servicing area of the plan may well be worth incorporating in the plan. Many thanks for your input so far. Best wishes, Dave Yates |
||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2014 17:10 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, Is this what you are looking for ? I have produced a 3 way tandem to the upper sidings. Please note I have left all your original templates in the box file so you will need to have a clear out when you have completed. I have not done any timbering on the tandem, as I wanted your opinion first. Hope it helps. All the best, Brian |
||
| Attachment: attach_1912_1901_staircliffe_exchange_BN_Sample_v1.box 296 | |||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 00:49 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote: Hi Dave, Hi Brian, Many thanks for taking the time and the trouble to answer my plea for help, you've produced exactly what I was looking for and I'm extremely grateful. Regarding the timbering, I'm quite prepared to undertake that, unless you feel that you want to finish the excellent job you've done so far. I'll leave that decision entirely in your hands. Once again many thanks to both yourself and Ian for your input. Best wishes, Dave |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 12:04 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, You are very welcome, I am glad to be of help.  By all means complete the timbering yourself, as it will give you more insight on how to complete it. I did have one slight concern regarding the first switch (turnout) of the tandem ( the one going to the upper siding), that's why I did not timber the formation. The slight concern is that the minimum radius is rather tight and I wondered if it would properly suite your requirement. To increase the radius of that switch (turnout) it would need to be changed to a 1:8 crossing angle, but this does give some issue with the third vee being very close to the other crossing rail, particularly the wing rail end. I have taken a screenshot of the possible change, if you think it is necessary, see images below. The image is of the overall effect of changing to a 1:8 crossing angle. The YELLOW track shows the possible change. Please let me know what you would like to do and I will act accordingly. All the best, Brian 1853_140702_050000000.png  |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 12:33 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote:The slight concern is that the minimum radius is rather tight and I wondered if it would properly suite your requirement.Hi Brian, You can make a small but worthwhile increase in radius without changing the 1:7 angle: 1. put the peg on CTRL-4 FP. 2. real > V-crossing options > generic V-crossing 3. real > switch settings... and change the switch to a GWR old-type 12ft switch instead of the straight 12ft switch. That will increase the turnout radius from 1804mm (71.0") to 1921mm (75.6"), without significantly affecting anything else. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 12:59 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, Thanks for the additional info. I purposely used the turnouts Dave had in his box file, just in case he had a particular turnout type he wanted to use, thus keeping them common. But as you rightly say, changing the type of turnout could help the radius. Many thanks. All the best, Brian |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 17:38 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, Having looked more closely at your original attempt and having read your subsequent response, changing to a 1:8 crossing angle would certainly be beneficial, particularly as I'm working to Scale7 standards and at some stage I would like to be able to run 0-8-0 locomotives into those sidings. Whilst Martins suggestion would certainly work, your assessment of the situation and the assumption that I would prefer to keep the crossing types common is correct. Accordingly I would be very grateful If you could change the arrangement to a 1:8 crossing angle as highlighted in yellow in your post timed at 12:04. Many thanks to yourself and Martin for your input. Best wishes, Dave |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 17:41 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, Just to be safe, and for my own peace of mind, I have produced a second version of the 3 way tandem which has the first switch (turnout) with a crossing angle of 1:8. ( See attached box file) This makes sure all the radii of this 3 way formation are above your set lower minimum radius setting. I think it would be better to use this version which should guarantee you will not have radius problems. I have left all the templates of my version 1 still in the box file just in case. Again, I will leave you to do the timbering. All the best, Brian |
||
| Attachment: attach_1913_1901_staircliffe_exchange_BN_Sample_v2.box 312 | |||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 19:17 from: David Yates
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, Many, many thanks for all the work you've done to make my vision a reality. I was never happy with those three sidings as I originally conceived them, I always viewed them as the weak part of the overall design, but now, thanks to you I have a design with which I'm completely happy. It's just a small matter now of building the rest of the track! Sincere thanks, Dave |
||
|
posted: 14 Aug 2014 20:06 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, Again your very welcome, our posting almost crossed last time round. Now your real work begins !! If you need further help with the layout design, please do not hesitate to post a message. Good luck with the build, and enjoy the result. All the best, Brian |
||
| 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. |