Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2326Yeovil Pen Mill in EM - curves of varying radius
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 3 Oct 2013 21:36

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Everyone

I've been trying to get nice flowing curves on this plan that I'm proposing to build with a degree of success but I'm not completely happy with the result. You can see clearly the dogleg at the double junction top centre left of the plan and I am wondering if there's a recognised way of dealing with this varying type of curve in Templot 2. The track is just 2 templates so far, and I've used a transition curves in both to get to this stage.

I've been wondering if I need to split up the main lines into smaller sections to have greater control as the radii changes, or will that just produce more doglegs at every join?

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Many thanks

Andrew 
undefinedundefined
2787_031623_180000000.png2787_031623_180000000.png


posted: 4 Oct 2013 14:18

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew

I would would start a new template from about halfway between the double junction turnout and the cross over turnout and curve the template to about half way the curve and then geometry expanding transition to get a tangent with the existing curved template, the template may not be exactly over the drawing but the way it is drawn you will not get a smooth transition.

HTH

Phil

posted: 4 Oct 2013 14:34

from:

Ian Allen
 
Milton Keynes - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew, can you post the files on here ?

Ian

posted: 4 Oct 2013 18:16

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Designing track over a background guide is always tricky and time-consuming, with much trial and error. You need to be well-versed in Templot's various functions, because quite often you need all of them. :)

A freelance plan is much easier because you can use only as much Templot as you are comfortable with. So I would always recommend getting plenty of Templot track-planning experience before creating tracks over a picture shape background. Also, it is much easier to see what you are doing without an image in the way, and panning and zooming are much faster.

For a hand-drawn plan it is often a choice between nice smooth curves, or matching the plan exactly.

The usual way of working is to align a couple of dummy templates of fixed radius at each end of a section, and then use the make transition function to create the curve between them. You didn't upload your image file, so I have worked roughly over your screenshot.

First the sketchboard view for clarity:

2_041351_540000000.png2_041351_540000000.png  
2_041236_330000000.png2_041236_330000000.png

The two dummy templates are in white. These can now be deleted once we are happy with the S-curve transition alignment between them in red. On the left the radius is 1100mm, on the right between the platforms there is an opposite curve of 20 metres radius. The new template in red can now be extended at each end and will follow the original templates to whatever length we need, and double track can be created off it.

More about aligning dummy templates here:

 http://templot.com/companion/index.html?swell_function_ctrl_f10.htm

You can see that the red template is not a perfect match to the background plan. Some further trial and error might get it closer, or you might decide that you like it as it is. Hand-drawn plans can really only be regarded as approximate guides, dimensional reality tends to get in the way. :)

If it is important to match the background more closely, you could split that template in two, and use the slew (nudge) functions on each half to create a better match. But then you wouldn't have such a smooth curve.

As it stands, the double-junction falls within the transition zone. That's not very likely prototypically -- on the other hand the prototype isn't trying to fit an entire railway in 21ft.

If you are not happy about that, what you can do is slide the peg along the transition (CTRL+F8 mouse action) and read off the radius at each location. You could then replace the transition, or part of it, with several short sections of fixed radius curves linked together. This would be more prototypical for the double-junction section, and also make it easier to create the diamond-crossing part using the irregular diamond functions.

Whatever you do, you should never get any actual dog-legs, because Templot aligns each template with its neighbour.

That's a great plan by the way -- a traditional model railway with lots of tracks and trains. You can only get so far with the modern "less is more" ideas. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Oct 2013 23:28

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Firstly thank you to all of you for your replies.

Martin what you written is food for thought. I'm new to Templot and knowing all its ins and outs is obviously going to take time. I'm following a plan because, although much compressed it is more or less the way the track was laid at Yeovil Pen Mill in 1922 and although 21x10 feet is a pretty generous space by my standards its still pretty cramped for the site. Iain Rice (the designer) and I almost came to blows over the minutiae of what would and wouldn't fit in, what would look too crowded or be too tight a radius, in short there are blood and tears in this plan and I'm loath to change it by more than a few mill if I don't have to.

You talk of using a couple of dummy templates of fixed radius at each end of a section and then with the "make transition " function, make a curve between them. Search as I might I can't find that function?

Later you refer to the Slew & Nudge function, and having read the bit on the link you sent about "swelling" I wondered if I could use that to good effect instead of Slew & Nudge to push the "up main line" out where it crosses the river on two separate over bridges(the line used to single) and the lines get significantly further apart for a while?

Later still, in referring to the junction where I have the "dogleg"(incorrectly named I see now - its actually a sharpening of the curve) you refer to moving the peg along the curve and reading off the radius (which I can now do with F6 curve function hooray!) and then replacing the transition curve with some fixed radius sections. Firstly I've not found a way of turning off transition curves once created (Id like to know how if its possible)
and secondly I've not found a way to interrupt them at will either. If, as you say doing this does make it easier to create the diamond at the centre of the crossing then perhaps I should consider it?

I've uploaded the box file which I hope is the correct file that Ian mentioned with this message and you can see the progress that I've made over the weekend. 

Once again you help would be much appreciated.

Kind regards

Andrew

 

 
Attachment: attach_1662_2326_Yeovil_Pen_Mill_v3_Scaleforum_2013.box     356
Last edited on 7 Oct 2013 23:34 by Andrew Duncan
posted: 8 Oct 2013 09:23

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew

Andrew Duncan wrote:


You talk of using a couple of dummy templates of fixed radius at each end of a section and then with the "make transition " function, make a curve between them. Search as I might I can't find that function?


 Firstly I've not found a way of turning off transition curves once created (Id like to know how if its possible)


Kind regards

Andrew

 

 
The Make transition function is in the PEG/ALIGN TOOLS. when you click on a second template without saving the control template a menu list appears on the left of the screen.

To remove a transition go to GEOMETRY and click on STRAIGHT or CONSTANT RADIUS.

HTH

Phil

posted: 8 Oct 2013 10:32

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
You talk of using a couple of dummy templates of fixed radius at each end of a section and then with the "make transition " function, make a curve between them. Search as I might I can't find that function?
Hi Andrew,

I entered "make transition" on the Templot site search, and it produced 6 pages of results. They are here:

 http://templot.com/zoom/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22make+transition%22&zoom_page=1&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0&zoom_xml=0

The most significant is this one, the make transition tutorial:

 http://templot.com/companion/index.html?info_files_make_trans.htm

Admittedly it is 10 years out of date and lots of things could now be done differently, but the basics are still the same.

Also, this old video shows how to use the make transition function in the second half: 

 parallel platform using transition curve  (5 mins, 5MB)

(Press the spacebar to start the playback.)

Andrew, please can you post your background image file? If it is a hand drawn track plan I'm afraid you may have to settle for some variations of more than a few mm if you want smooth curves. If you can post your file we may be able to see how best to replicate it in Templot.

Trying to match a background track plan without first learning the basics of Templot really is jumping in at the deep end. I keep saying this to new users. Please, please, first learn to use Templot by creating lots of freelance track plans so that you know what can be done and how things work. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Oct 2013 10:57

from:

Ian Allen
 
Milton Keynes - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew,

Sometimes, it is easier to make adjustments to a section of track by copying it and working on the copy. That way you can adjust it in any way without affecting the original. This can also help when inserting points and diamond crossings.

I have adjusted your box file and re-posted it, and you can see that there is now a point and a diamond crossing in roughly the right area that you need on the transition curve.

Firstly, you need to make your other running line, With the transition curve selected (Wipe to Control), TOOLS > Make double track TS and then store that template. Then returning to the original transition curve template do this, TEMPLATE > insert point into plain track. Then, if the handing is correct, ACTIONS > Roam turnout along length, until you get it to the desired location. Adjust as necessary the crossing vee angle and the switch blade length. Then, TOOLS > Make ladder crossover. This will insert a diamond crossing. I found that I had to make the second half of the diamond straight, GEOMETRY > straight, and then TEMPLATE > invert handing. Next ACTIONS > mouse actions: control/geometry > rotate around peg, to align with the outer running line. Then it is just a case of adjusting the crossing vee and K crossing angles until you get the desired crossing. Hope this helps.

Ian 

 

 

 

 
Attachment: attach_1663_2326_Yeovil_Pen_Mill_v4.box     380

posted: 8 Oct 2013 11:15

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Ian,

I know you are trying to help, but a diamond-crossing in which the K-crossings are 1:6 on one half and 1:4.5 on the other half simply won't work. The K-crossings at the centre of a diamond-crossing must all be the same angle, or very close.

The way to do this is with the irregular diamond functions.

If Andrew can post his image file, we may be able to get a better result.

It is possible to use "make diamond-crossing at intersection" on transition curves, but it requires a bit of extreme Templotting. That's why I suggested inserting a length of fixed radius within the transition over the length of the double junction. Which would also be the most likely prototype solution.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Oct 2013 11:35

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Here are updated screenshots:

2_080630_370000000.png2_080630_370000000.png


2_080635_220000000.png2_080635_220000000.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Oct 2013 11:46

from:

Ian Allen
 
Milton Keynes - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Apologies,

I'd forgotten about the irregular diamond crossing function.

Ian

posted: 8 Oct 2013 18:00

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Phil I thought I'd tried everywhere....!

Kind egards

Andrew

posted: 8 Oct 2013 21:30

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Andrew Duncan wrote:
You talk of using a couple of dummy templates of fixed radius at each end of a section and then with the "make transition " function, make a curve between them. Search as I might I can't find that function?
Hi Andrew,

I entered "make transition" on the Templot site search, and it produced 6 pages of results. They are here:

 http://templot.com/zoom/search.cgi?zoom_query=%22make+transition%22&zoom_page=1&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=1&zoom_sort=0&zoom_xml=0

The most significant is this one, the make transition tutorial:

 http://templot.com/companion/index.html?info_files_make_trans.htm

Admittedly it is 10 years out of date and lots of things could now be done differently, but the basics are still the same.

Also, this old video shows how to use the make transition function in the second half: 

 parallel platform using transition curve  (5 mins, 5MB)

(Press the spacebar to start the playback.)

Andrew, please can you post your background image file? If it is a hand drawn track plan I'm afraid you may have to settle for some variations of more than a few mm if you want smooth curves. If you can post your file we may be able to see how best to replicate it in Templot.

Trying to match a background track plan without first learning the basics of Templot really is jumping in at the deep end. I keep saying this to new users. Please, please, first learn to use Templot by creating lots of freelance track plans so that you know what can be done and how things work. :)

regards,

Martin.


Martin

First of all many thanks for your full and patient replies. I feel a bit of a twit for not thinking of using the search function.....! So point noted and I will do some homework over the next few evenings.

I also note your plea about not walking before I  can run, which I duly note, but at a gut level want to ignore! Time will tell and as I try to introduce turnouts and more complex crossings into  the mix, either I'll give up or you'll all get fed up with my questions. I can take a no ok if I'm taking too much of your time.

I also thought that Ian's idea of taking a copy and working on that, was a good one in this context. I must say that so far I've retained the initial excitement that I had when I did the first exercise of the small terminus about a month or six weeks back. I frankly thought that I'd fall at the first hurdle and not get up again. So I'm amazed that I've got this far.

I hope the background image of the layout is ok to see. Please let me know what you think.

Kind regards

Andrew
Attachment: attach_1665_2326_Scan_Yeovil_8-10-13.jpg     565

posted: 8 Oct 2013 21:33

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Ian Allen wrote:
Andrew,

Sometimes, it is easier to make adjustments to a section of track by copying it and working on the copy. That way you can adjust it in any way without affecting the original. This can also help when inserting points and diamond crossings.

I have adjusted your box file and re-posted it, and you can see that there is now a point and a diamond crossing in roughly the right area that you need on the transition curve.

Firstly, you need to make your other running line, With the transition curve selected (Wipe to Control), TOOLS > Make double track TS and then store that template. Then returning to the original transition curve template do this, TEMPLATE > insert point into plain track. Then, if the handing is correct, ACTIONS > Roam turnout along length, until you get it to the desired location. Adjust as necessary the crossing vee angle and the switch blade length. Then, TOOLS > Make ladder crossover. This will insert a diamond crossing. I found that I had to make the second half of the diamond straight, GEOMETRY > straight, and then TEMPLATE > invert handing. Next ACTIONS > mouse actions: control/geometry > rotate around peg, to align with the outer running line. Then it is just a case of adjusting the crossing vee and K crossing angles until you get the desired crossing. Hope this helps.

Ian 

 

 

 

 


Hello Ian

Just a quick note to thank you very much for all the work you put in on my plan. It was really generous and kind of you. I'll try our some of you suggestions along with those Martin makes in the next few days or so.

Thanks again

Andrew

posted: 8 Oct 2013 21:53

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for posting your scanned track plan. :thumb:

Now that I can see it properly, I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the alignment which you originally posted. It seems that the double-junction is essentially a Y-formation with straightish exits, presumably based on the prototype, and the curve on the left is a model compromise to fit it in the space. In which case I'm not sure that you would want that curve to run back through the junction?

Can you clarify where you think there is an unwanted dogleg? Do you have any prototype pictures of the junction which you can post here?

Is the run through the main platform dead straight?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Oct 2013 22:05

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
To answer my own questions: :)

Yes, the platform is straight, and:

6785292266_255510349e_b.jpg6785292266_255510349e_b.jpg
Activity at 1953 Yeovil Pen Mill by MrGloverman, on Flickr

From which it seems clear that the branch exit to the right is a sharper curve than the main lines to the left, so ideally that difference needs to be preserved. The exits are not straight as drawn.

Martin.

posted: 8 Oct 2013 22:31

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

There is a large scale 1886 map at 1:500 of this junction available from http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html

COORDINATES:  356936   116204

I have grabbed the screen and will attempt to overlay it on your track plan.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 9 Oct 2013 00:47

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Looking at the photo I think the tracks are more than 6ft way at this junction. Here is the 1886 map (in red) scaled to 7ft way and overlaid on your track plan:

2_081923_560000001.png2_081923_560000001.png


And again as a transparent overlay:

2_081923_550000000.png2_081923_550000000.png


Here is a B-6.5 turnout aligned over it:

2_081940_340000000.png2_081940_340000000.png

It seems that finding space for the crossover under the bridge could be tricky. That is often the case with hand-drawn track plans -- pointwork is drawn too short.

I will see if I can work this up into a proper plan. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 9 Oct 2013 21:50

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martinundefinedundefined


Once again thank you very much for the time and trouble you are putting in to helping me out
undefinedundefined
2787_091641_190000000.jpg2787_091641_190000000.jpg

I've attached a couple of photos that may also be of help. The first is a slightly more of a birds eye view of the junction that seems to me to emphasise the steady curve going right the way through the junction itself. Do you think that's the case or would it in fact have straightened out going through the crossings of both the diamond and the turnouts?

So far as the crossing going back under the bridge is concerned, the turnout on the up line was under the bridge and perhaps we might push it north a little to accommodate the longer than expected junction formation? It's true though that it cant go more than maybe half a turnouts length before it starts to interfere with the platforms.

The other photo is of the over-bridges that lie just beyond the junction and cross the river. I presume that there are two because the line was originally broad gauge and single line which was doubled in 1858, So I supppose that they built a second bridge then. The result is a very large "way" between the tracks, 10' or maybe more in narrow gauge. It's there that I was thinking of using the "swell" function as opposed to the slew to push the up main out sufficient to create the gap?

I imagine that the 7' way that you refer to at the junction itself maybe the result of being an ex broad gauge line might it not?

2787_091634_310000000.jpg2787_091634_310000000.jpg


Thanks again for you help and enthusiasm

Kind regards

Andrew


posted: 10 Oct 2013 22:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for uploading the pics.

I've had a bit of a dabble and got somewhere near:

2_101731_590000001.png2_101731_590000001.png

2_101731_580000000.png2_101731_580000000.png

2_101731_590000002.png2_101731_590000002.png

I will post more later, I'm a bit pushed for time now.

regards,

Martin.





posted: 11 Oct 2013 09:36

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin
Many thanks for this ....the flow of the junction in particular looks really beautiful if that isn't a slightly strange decription for some bits of wood steel and castiron....
Andrew

posted: 12 Oct 2013 00:40

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

I have dabbled on a bit further. I adjusted the shape of the island platform to better match the photographs:

2_111918_200000001.png2_111918_200000001.png

2_111918_190000000.png2_111918_190000000.png

2_111917_460000004.png2_111917_460000004.png

2_111917_450000001.png2_111917_450000001.png

2_111917_460000002.png2_111917_460000002.png

2_111917_460000003.png2_111917_460000003.png

2_111917_450000000.png2_111917_450000000.png

2_111934_380000000.png2_111934_380000000.png


This is all very cramped. There was a trailing crossover on the right which was ludicrously sharp as drawn. To ease it I have moved the running lines and the goods shed further into the corner. Unfortunately this means that the trailing connection across to the down line has forced the down platform much shorter. It is now barely 4ft long. That connection may have to go. :)

I will post the files shortly. 

regards,

Martin.

posted: 13 Oct 2013 10:41

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

I'm no longer happy that I have the island platform correct. This picture:

1569212_d5595de5.jpg1569212_d5595de5.jpg
Yeovil Pen Mill somerights20.gifsomerights20.gif
© Copyright Roger Cornfoot and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

and many others taken from the road bridge tend to exaggerate the kink in the up side and suggest that the main part of the platform is tapered. See also:

http://www.time-capsules.co.uk/picture/number1059.asp

However, it must be an optical illusion, because an aerial view shows that the island platform is parallel and the curve at the south end is quite normal:

http://goo.gl/maps/BC21N

So I will rework the  plan before I post the file.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 13 Oct 2013 11:23

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Andrew,

I'm no longer happy that I have the island platform correct. This picture:

1569212_d5595de5.jpg1569212_d5595de5.jpg
Yeovil Pen Mill somerights20.gifsomerights20.gif
© Copyright Roger Cornfoot and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

and many others taken from the road bridge tend to exaggerate the kink in the up side and suggest that the main part of the platform is tapered. See also:

http://www.time-capsules.co.uk/picture/number1059.asp

However, it must be an optical illusion, because an aerial view shows that the island platform is parallel and the curve at the south end is quite normal:

http://goo.gl/maps/BC21N

So I will rework the  plan before I post the file.

regards,

Martin.

Hello Martin,
First of all I am once again amazed at the time and trouble that you taken over my plan. Thank you very much indeed.


Thanks also for your thoughts in general and the platforms in particular. One point to bear in mind is that the island platform was extended in the mid thirties(the period I'm modelling is 1922/3)when the north and south signal boxes were replaced by a single box at the north end(right had side of th plan )of the island platform. And I think at that time the trailing cross over (hope that's the correct term?) from the down island platform to the Goods shed line  was removed and at some point the platform extended to the extent that it started to follow the curve as it does now. I'm 99% sure the platform in its original state was shorter, straight  and that is how it would have been in 1922 and it had the lovely overall roof. I'll post a picture of my model of it, albeit not yet finished, shortly sitting on my current 16.5mm model of Pen Mill.

Kind regards

Andrew


 

posted: 13 Oct 2013 12:03

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
(the period I'm modelling is 1922/3)
Hi Andrew,

If you are modelling it as in 1922, the pointwork would have been all GWR old-type loose-heel switches (the GWR introduced flexible switches only in the 1930s -- the 1953 photo of the junction shows flexible switches).

This is all a bit moot, because a) your track plan is severely compressed, making it impossible to use scale equivalent sized pointwork, and b) it is in EM gauge anyway, so the scale lead lengths wouldn't apply even if it was not compressed.

So I worked the plan with REA switches (not normally used by the GWR). This also makes the plan usable by others as a generic layout track plan, rather than a specific model of anywhere.

But only you can decide. I can rework the plan with old-type GWR switches if you prefer? You don't necessarily have to model them with loose heels if you decide that flexible construction is easier and more reliable, but retain the old-type geometry (which can often save some space).

regards,

Martin.

posted: 13 Oct 2013 19:22

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin
Thank you for your thoughts and I'm sorry if I hadn't made it clear the period I was modelling was 1922.
There is a large part of me that wants to say lets go for GWR loose heel switches as I'd like the track to be as typical of the railway and the period as I can make it. I'm further encourage down that route by the thought that I might also be saving a bit of space as well.


So I think on balance that I'd rather use the correct type of switch for the period albeit I may not actually model the loose heel itself unless I can work out how to do reliably or someone has already done it and there's a recognised method in 4mm?


So if I may I'd like to take you up on your offer to change it the old type switches. So far as other people possibly using the plan are concerned, can you save a copy in it's current form so that either  is available?
Talking of Great western permanent way, do you know of a good book on the subject? Until I started using your program I knew very little about it and in reality that is still the case, however my appetite has been wetted and since I spend ages making locos and rolling stock that are2787_131400_090000000.jpg2787_131400_090000000.jpg
 specific to that period I'd like to try to apply the same thing for the trackwork as well now.

Thank you again
Andrew

PS included are a couple of photos of the station building platforms and overall roof which are making slow but sure progress toward completion on my current version of Pen Mill set in only 12 feet of space in 16.5mm gauge.2787_131415_330000000.jpg2787_131415_330000000.jpg

The station building is Iain's work, the overall roof mine so far as it goes. I must do something about the droopy awning...


posted: 13 Oct 2013 19:53

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Talking of Great western permanent way, do you know of a good book on the subject?
Hi Andrew,

The book you need is:

cvr_track_400px.jpgcvr_track_400px.jpg

from: http://gwsg.org.uk/GWSG_Publications.html

I tend to assume everyone modelling the GWR has a copy. :)

For plain track see also: http://templot.com/martweb/pdf_files/gwr_track_panels.pdf

Thanks for posting the pics.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 15:34

from:

Steve Stubbs
 
Taunton, Somerset - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just realised this thread is going in.     I am part of a group also doing Pen Mill in4mm but to scale as far as possible using the trackwork circa 1939 after the realignment.   We are now into track laying using Exactoscale / C&L components.

The single line through between the main and island platform has a distinct reverse curve at the southern end of it, and the main platform tapers right down and into the overbridge.   There was a 10 mile an hour restriction through here because of that.

I can provide you with a CD with several dozen photos taken of Pen Mill, showing all that in glorious detail!    I am attaching a file of the .box containing our track templates.   

However I am having trouble making the diamond on the north side into the necessary single slip and despite numerous attempts to follow the single slip tutorials have failed dismally here.

Any help there would be welcome. 

Steve Stubbs

Attachment: attach_1666_2326_yeovil_pen_mill_working_30_July_2013.box     277

posted: 14 Oct 2013 15:37

from:

Steve Stubbs
 
Taunton, Somerset - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Should have added that that diamond (that should be a single slip with the slip on the top side of it) is about 15.5 ft right of datum and about 6.5 feet above the datum on the file.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 15:47

from:

Steve Stubbs
 
Taunton, Somerset - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Here's a quick look at a photo that shows it well.
Attachment: attach_1667_2326_IMG_0099.JPG     535

posted: 14 Oct 2013 16:06

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Steve,

Thanks for uploading your .box file.

I'm a bit puzzled by the track standards which you are using. :?

The turnouts at the south end of the station are 16.5mm track gauge with 0.9mm flangeways. I'm not aware of any 00 standard with such fine flangeways. Most commercial RTR models have wheels to the NMRA/110 standard with flanges 0.8mm thick, so you are getting close to the limit. Also of course the back to back will need increasing to at least 14.8mm to span the check rails. The fine 00 standards use 1.0mm flangeways as in EM.

At the north end of the station you have gone to the other extreme, using 1.5mm flangeways matching the old coarse 00 universal standards. The diamond-crossing which you mention is set to this standard. I would strongly recommend against building a diamond-crossing with fixed K-crossings at 1:7 angle with such wide flangeways. Mis-tracking of stock is almost certain, especially when propelling. The solution is to build it with movable K-crossings  (switch-diamond) or use much narrower flangeways.

I'm puzzled how you will be able to run stock on this layout with such a mix of track standards. I would suggest adopting 00-SF or 00-BF standards -- for some old notes of mine about the 00 standards, see:

 message 567

I will change the diamond to 00-BF and add the slip road for you.

Changing it to 00-SF would be preferable, but the 16.2mm track gauge would shorten the existing lead lengths and alignments.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 17:12

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Steve,

Here is your single-slip in 00-BF -- delete the existing diamond-crossing and add... the attached .box file.

2_141201_410000002.png2_141201_410000002.png

2_141201_410000000.png2_141201_410000000.png

2_141201_410000001.png2_141201_410000001.png

As you can see, it was necessary to shorten the K-crossing check rail very significantly to clear the slip road rail. This is always the case with 00 gauge slips, although the narrower flangeway in 00-SF would have eased matters a little.

That's why it is much better (and easier to build) to use switch-diamonds in 00 gauge slips -- movable K-crossings don't have check rails. :)

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_1668_2326_00bf_7slip_for_steve.box     248

posted: 14 Oct 2013 17:18

from:

Steve Stubbs
 
Taunton, Somerset - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin, yes we are actually building the trackwork with a 0.9mm flangeway and using a 14.8mm back to back, I turned up all the gauges on my lathe. This is because the rest of the group wanted to keep their OO gauge stock at 16.5mm to use elsewhere while I wanted to do it in P4, but lost..... It also meant widening the check rail gauge. 0.9mm prevents the dreaded 'wheel drop' even with RP25 flanges and widths, and I hope will work with the 'K's. The templates are as always a guide to sleeper positioning, also the nose of the vee and the switch positions (GWR heel switches in practice), but the gauges do the work. I couldn't go to 16.2mm, it's even more narrow gauge!

regards

Steve

posted: 14 Oct 2013 17:28

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Steve Stubbs wrote:
yes we are actually building the trackwork with a 0.9mm flangeway and using a 14.8mm back to back, I turned up all the gauges on my lathe. This is because the rest of the group wanted to keep their 00 gauge stock at 16.5mm to use elsewhere while I wanted to do it in P4, but lost.....
Hi Steve,

But they won't be able to use it elsewhere after widening to 14.8mm back-to-back. :?

"EM minus 2" -- 00-SF 16.2mm really is far and away the best solution for 00 fine-scale track. RTR stock runs without wheel-drop straight from the box. Finer wheels work equally well. Because you are not modifying the wheels, the stock remains compatible with all other 00 gauge layouts. Precision gauge tools are available from Brian Tulley: http://00-sf.org.uk

But each to his own.  :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 18:16

from:

Steve Stubbs
 
Taunton, Somerset - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
All the stock with 14.8mm back to back runs quite happily on the trackwork at Bath Green Park ...... At least my 75 - odd wagons do. I blame Normal solomans trackwork ......:D
regards
Steve ( studying the double slip - thanks for that)

posted: 14 Oct 2013 19:39

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Steve Stubbs wrote:
All the stock with 14.8mm back to back runs quite happily on the trackwork at Bath Green Park ...... At least my 75 - odd wagons do.
Hi Steve,

I can't respond to that without knowing the track standards on Bath Green Park. :)

But RTR wheels set to 14.8mm BB will have a BEF of 15.6mm (0.8mm flange thickness).

On 00-BF and 00-SF track the check gauge is 15.2mm, so you would have a 0.4mm conflict between the wheel flange and the nose of the vee on such track. That would almost certainly lead to bumps and derailments, especially on curved turnouts. On Peco track with 15.1mm check gauge the situation is even worse with 0.5mm conflict.

Even on DOGA-Fine track with 15.5mm check gauge you have a 0.1mm conflict. RTR wheels on DOGA-Fine need to be set to 14.7mm BB max. But you can't do that with 0.9mm flangeways because they would jam across the check span.

Even with the finest 00 wheels with thin 0.5mm flanges, you still have 15.3mm BEF leading to 0.1mm conflict on 00-BF and 00-SF track.

If it works for you that's fine, but I'm reluctant to see the idea rest on Templot Club for others to follow without more details of your wheel profiles, etc.

To my mind 00 gauge only makes sense if you use models as supplied. As soon as you start changing wheels or modifying the back-to-back you may just as well be building EM or P4.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 22:14

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin and Steve,
I found myself in a similar situation to you Steve in that I wanted to go EM(which I regard as a pragmatists P4) when we built my current layout (Maiden Newton and YeovilPM)but with curves of 2'6" at each end that was impossible for mainline stock so 16.5mm it had to be. We used 1mm flange ways as in EM and a 14.85mm back to back which has worked pretty well getting rid of hunting from side to side to quite an extent and better through crossings.
But, and its a bit of a big one, I can't run anyone else's stock on my layout as they won't go through the point work.
I found it rather isolates me. And so that's been a good bit of the reason for going to EM.
Kind regards
Andrew

posted: 14 Oct 2013 22:28

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
with curves of 2'6" at each end that was impossible for mainline stock so 16.5mm it had to be. We used 1mm flange ways as in EM and a 14.85mm back to back which has worked pretty well getting rid of hunting from side to side to quite an extent and better through crossings.
But, and its a bit of a big one, I can't run anyone else's stock on my layout as they won't go through the point work. I found it rather isolates me. And so that's been a good bit of the reason for going to EM.
Hi Andrew,

Had you used "EM minus 2" (00-SF 16.2mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways) you would have achieved the same quality of running but without modifying any wheels BB. So everyone else's stock would still run on your layout and your stock on everyone else's layout.

The 00-SF standard has been in Templot from the beginning, and was used by me 30+ years ago when I was building pointwork to order -- see (written 6 years ago):

 message 565

More info: http://00-sf.org.uk

Martin.

posted: 14 Oct 2013 22:33

from:

Simon Dunkley
 
Oakham - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello Martin
Thank you for your thoughts and I'm sorry if I hadn't made it clear the period I was modelling was 1922.
There is a large part of me that wants to say lets go for GWR loose heel switches as I'd like the track to be as typical of the railway and the period as I can make it. I'm further encourage down that route by the thought that I might also be saving a bit of space as well.


So I think on balance that I'd rather use the correct type of switch for the period albeit I may not actually model the loose heel itself unless I can work out how to do reliably or someone has already done it and there's a recognised method in 4mm?

Try MRJ issue 113 for an article on making straight-cut switches.

Simon

posted: 14 Oct 2013 22:48

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Simon Dunkley wrote:
Try MRJ issue 113 for an article on making straight-cut switches.
Hi Simon,

Oh not again. :(

They are "straight" loose-heel switches.

"Straightcut" means "not undercut" i.e. for use with a joggled stock rail, and applies equally to flexible switches. It refers to the way the switch rail is planed to fit the stock rail at the tip, not the geometry of the switch. "Straight" switches can be straightcut or undercut.

Ever since that article appeared I have seen this misunderstanding repeated in print countless times.



An REA semicurved flexible switch with undercut-pattern blades and a plain set in the stock rail (no joggle):
 
joggle-3.gifjoggle-3.gif

rea_no_joggle1.jpgrea_no_joggle1.jpg

rea_no_joggle2.jpgrea_no_joggle2.jpg
__________________________________

A GWR curved flexible switch with straightcut-pattern blades and joggled stock rails. The very much more robust nature of the blade tips in this case is very evident:

joggle-1.gifjoggle-1.gif

gwr_joggle1.jpggwr_joggle1.jpg

gwr_joggle2.jpggwr_joggle2.jpg
__________________________________

Notice that in the undercut switch (upper two pictures) the blades are not shiny on top at the tip -- they serve only to guide the wheel flange, not to support the wheel, at the tip. In the straightcut switch (lower two pictures) the shiny tops run all the way to the tip, supporting the wheel along the full length of the planing. This is the way to identify switches in photos. If the open blade is shiny all the way to the tip, it is almost certainly a straightcut/joggled switch.



More info: message 8209

regards,

Martin.

posted: 18 Oct 2013 08:43

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

I'm sorry I haven't replied further to this. My Templot time is currently nil because of a serious family illness. Sorry.

Martin.

posted: 18 Oct 2013 09:58

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin

Many thanks for your message. It sounds like a pretty serious situation that you're going through so all I can say is that I hope that things turn out as you would wish. If not, that you and your family find the strength to cope with it.

With kind regards

Andrew

posted: 24 Oct 2013 22:46

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin

I hope things are getting better for you. In the meanwhile I attached a couple more photos of my current attempt of Yeovil Pen Mill in 16.5mm. 2787_241656_490000000.jpg2787_241656_490000000.jpg
This was taken 2 or 3 years ago showing the jigsaw scenery pretty clearly. Most of what you see here is demountable including the cutting side, bridge, station and forecourt platforms etc. Some of them cover electrics and point motors. There is no wiring under the layout at all, it's all surface mounted, which has both advantages and disadvantages. On balance though I'm quite a fan of top mounted point motors in particular as long as there's the room to hide them naturally as its so much easier to maintain them.2787_241709_050000000.jpg2787_241709_050000000.jpg


In this view of the MPD at Yeovil PM the two tenders that you can see, but whose locos are off scene or in the shed belong to a Dean Goods(left and based here) and a Mogul (4322?)in the shed, which was based at Weymouth. There's an 1813 pannier (behind the Buffalo) converted from a Finecast 1854 class, an 1854 (Finecast again)class ,built as intended, another Buffalo to the rear of that going off scene which is another Gibson kit with the later etched footplate. Its surprising how much lower it sits as a result of the footplate's thinness and how much closer to reality it is than the one with cast footplate! Stuck in the shed facing forwards is a Weymouth based Aberdare built from a NuCast kit I think. Its a bit crude in casting quality beside a good Finecast or Cotswold kit, but it very heavy and is pretty unstoppable, so earns its keep. Lastly there's an interloper in the form of the Prairie on the turntable.  Converted to a 31xx by hacking about an old Mainline(?) plastic body. I used a Finecast chassis in this loco with a large Maxon motor High Level gear box and Zimo chip....mouth wateringly slow and graceful. Having said all that I'm not sure they ever came down the Weymouth line?

As I've decided to move out into the garden and a much larger site and move to EM these will all have to be converted. At present I'm building a 43xx in EM to see how I get on with the clearance between the crossheads and the crankpins on the leading wheels which I imagine is the biggest challenge of going closer to scale.

Kind regards

Andrew

posted: 30 Oct 2013 11:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your kind thoughts.

I'm afraid I haven't had time to do any more with this, and that will probably be the case for several more weeks.

I've attached below the .box file as a work-in-progress. No timber shoving has yet been done, all timbering is raw, as you can see on the irregular diamonds from the down platform to the goods shed. All switches are currently REA pattern, I'm sorry I haven't had time to change them to GWR types.

I have now made the island platform parallel corresponding to the aerial views, even though it looks tapered in many photographs.

I did this originally simply as an example to show how to combine various radii as in your topic title. I'm not expecting that you will actually want to use this trackplan as it stands. :)

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_1670_2326_yeovil_pen_mill_rea.box     445

posted: 30 Oct 2013 23:32

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin

Many thanks for this file and please don't be concerned about time and what you may or may not have done as yet. I was going to say that you've given me  a great start, in actual fact you've done a great deal more than that and I'm extremely grateful.

I don't know the details of what you're going through but I remember all too vividly two years ago when my wife had breast cancer, it was pretty pre occupying!! Happily she's come through it well, learned a great deal from it, and is now leading a somewhat less demanding and more normal life and is so much happier for it. So whatever it is that you face over the next few weeks or months I wish well and hope you get lots of support. I feel you deserve it, if the degree of support you give us on this forum is anything to go by...

On the subject of the box file you downloaded this morning, earlier this evening I was playing with it and converted a couple of switches to GW loose heel types. Sure enough they were shorter by a few sleepers than the REAs and with a small amount of fiddling they seem to fit in ok? I was a bit surprised that I'd managed to do it and am actually wondering if I'm missing something? Anyway I'll do a few more in the next day or two and post the file for someone to look at, and we'll see how I've done!

Very best wishes to you and thanks again.

Andrew

posted: 6 Nov 2013 21:29

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
undefinedundefined
Hello everyone

I've converted a number of switches from REA types to GW loose heel type and I'd appreciate it if anyone would check what I've done to see if it hangs together ok? The majority of converted switches are on the right hand northern side of the plan around the platforms and goods yard.

The problem that I am having is with the curve in the goods yard/ exchange sidings. As you can see I've created a curved line to connect both ends and  inserted a switch at one end(left end) but that this doesn't match the line coming off the down line. In addition I can't now add in any more switches on this curve as the program "greys out" the option to add a switch( do I need to split the template?). I'm a bit stumped at this point.

I'd really appreciate any thoughts you may have.

Many thanks

Andrewundefinedundefined

Attachment: attach_1682_2326_Yeovil_-_Martin_with_some_GW_switches_gds_yrd_started_badly.box     336

posted: 7 Nov 2013 22:49

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello again

I've made some progress this evening with the exchange sidings opposite the platforms? Not quite sure how I got rid of the dogleg that's on yesterdays version but with some fiddling it seems to have gone and I've gone ahead and split the long curved siding up to enable me to add two lots of turnouts that follow it's curve.

The problem that I'm left with is that the point work coming off the down line at the far left hand end of the station just before the bridge seems to be taking up a lot of room compared to my drawn plan and indeed the prototype.

If anyone has any ideas as to how to start the point work earlier and possibly shorten their length then I'd be grateful for some help here. My ruling radius is 36".

Many thanks

Andrew

Attachment: attach_1684_2326_Yeovil_-_Martin_with_some_GW_switches_gds_yrd_started_abit_bette_rv3.box     260

posted: 7 Nov 2013 23:01

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
And here's the background plan I'm working against...

Andrewundefinedundefinedundefinedundefined
2787_071800_460000000.png2787_071800_460000000.png

undefinedundefined


posted: 8 Nov 2013 12:15

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew,

I had a quick look at your box file last night and I thought that you might get the left hand end of the station sorted out, avoiding the use of a tandem in the crossover, by moving the double junction to the left far enough to allow the down road half of the trailing crossover to fit in on its own. There might be just enough wiggle room to do this and keep you radii within your limits. The MPD might get a bit cramped.

You are suffering from an over-optimistic layout planner whose representation of that crossover is much too short - and it looks it on the plan :D You will find that this has been a problem for some time and there have been a few threads in the past dealing with converting track plans into practical layouts. :D

Jim.
Last edited on 8 Nov 2013 12:16 by Jim Guthrie
posted: 16 Nov 2013 12:13

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Jim Guthrie wrote:
Andrew,

I had a quick look at your box file last night and I thought that you might get the left hand end of the station sorted out, avoiding the use of a tandem in the crossover, by moving the double junction to the left far enough to allow the down road half of the trailing crossover to fit in on its own. There might be just enough wiggle room to do this and keep you radii within your limits. The MPD might get a bit cramped.



Hello Jim

Many thanks for your thoughts.  

I'm not sure however how I would move the junction over to left for two reasons. Firstly the bridge seems to me to stop me taking the trailing turnout for the goods sidings (opp the platforms) off any further to the left(south) as any long coaching stock would swing across and hit the bridge side which is a problem that I currently have with my 16.5mm model. Secondly I'm reluctant to reduce the MPD as loco building is one of my favourite parts of the hobby and I want to be able to show off as many locos as possible!


I have tried with very little success so far to make the second turnout in (in the goods yard)come off earlier so that I get a few more inches of siding space. But have failed to get the curves to flow. I've attached my latest effort so that you can see what I mean. Not great I fear!! 2787_160708_330000000.png2787_160708_330000000.png

I hope that this image illustrates the problem that I see with bridge and running clearance? If I could a turnout in immediately coming off the three way point then that might help a little perhaps?

Kind regards

Andrew
Attachment: attach_1689_2326_Yeovil_-_Martin_with_some_GW_switches_gds_yrd_started_abit_bette_rv2a.box     303

posted: 16 Nov 2013 13:20

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Andrew,

Your TR579 is impossible -- you have the switch overlaid on the underlying V-crossing.

In my version, change the crossing type on that turnout from curviform to regular.

Then make branch track, insert a turnout in it, and roam it into alignment with the siding:

2_160813_030000000.png2_160813_030000000.png

Split off the exit track and repeat for the other sidings.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Nov 2013 17:12

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Many thanks for your thoughts.  

I'm not sure however how I would move the junction over to left for two reasons. Firstly the bridge seems to me to stop me taking the trailing turnout for the goods sidings (opp the platforms) off any further to the left(south) as any long coaching stock would swing across and hit the bridge side which is a problem that I currently have with my 16.5mm model. Secondly I'm reluctant to reduce the MPD as loco building is one of my favourite parts of the hobby and I want to be able to show off as many locos as possible!

Andrew,

I just had a quick go at your double junction to get more room for the crossover and came up with the attached file.   The crossing angles in the turnouts in the junction are down to 1:6 which is a bit tight for mainline P&C work,  but might be acceptble in a model.  The down side turnout of the crossover now fits in on its own.  I haven't had to touch the MPD at this point.    However,  I would probably look at tightening the branch curve so that I might be able to relax the crossing angles on the junction.   I haven't finished off the rest of the formation - I'll leave that to you if you want. :D

What your going through is what I think a lot of us have to - especially where we are trying to shoehorn a prototype location into too small a space.  It's a case of tweaking templates all over the place to get things to fit in and pulling every trick in the Templot book to do it. :D   As I said earlier,  trying to make a practical layout from a layout plan can be even worse since a lot of layout designers have an over-optimistic idea of the dimensions of turnouts, etc. :D

And if you are worried about clearance at the bridge,  move the bridge. :D

Jim.
Attachment: attach_1690_2326_AdjustedJunctionSuggestion.box     269

posted: 17 Nov 2013 18:42

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Jim Guthrie wrote:
Andrew,

I just had a quick go at your double junction to get more room for the crossover and came up with the attached file.   The crossing angles in the turnouts in the junction are down to 1:6 which is a bit tight for mainline P&C work,  but might be acceptble in a model.  The down side turnout of the crossover now fits in on its own.  I haven't had to touch the MPD at this point.    However,  I would probably look at tightening the branch curve so that I might be able to relax the crossing angles on the junction.   I haven't finished off the rest of the formation - I'll leave that to you if you want. :D

What your going through is what I think a lot of us have to - especially where we are trying to shoehorn a prototype location into too small a space.  It's a case of tweaking templates all over the place to get things to fit in and pulling every trick in the Templot book to do it. :D   As I said earlier,  trying to make a practical layout from a layout plan can be even worse since a lot of layout designers have an over-optimistic idea of the dimensions of turnouts, etc. :D

And if you are worried about clearance at the bridge,  move the bridge. :D

Jim

Hello Jim

Many thanks again for your thoughts and work on the problem I have. At risk of sounding ungrateful, my feel on the junction angles is that it's lost some of its grace and gentle curvature which I'm loathed to let go of, as its such a feature of Yeovil. But you got me thinking and I've redone the junction turnouts with GW loose heeled 9' switches as I'm using elsewhere (as I get round to converting Martins original work), which does save a few precious inches. However according to GWR Switch & Crossing practice a crossing angle of 1:7.25 should use 12' switches, rather than 9',  so I'm little concerned at this? And then Ive been able to squeeze in the down -up crossing as in the prototype and a separate turnout for the goods yard. That is very sharp though at 1:5.5 and still uses little more space then my previous version with the three way. So overall I'm unsure whether I've actually got anywhere practically with this?

This all started with a desire to start the yard point work as early as possible and so gain two or three inches of extra siding space...perhaps this is being a bit too obsessive?

Thanks for your words of wisdom on this being something that all Templotters go through, it is some comfort to know this. Incidentally I can move the bridge a little bit, but there is a strong relation between the end of the up platform which ends right up against the retaining wall of the bridge, so I don't feel it can go very far with it.

I've attached the revisions described above in the file below

Thanks again,

Andrew

 
Attachment: attach_1691_2326_Yeovil_-_Amended_AVOIDING__three_way_point_.box     293

posted: 25 Nov 2013 22:07

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Everyone

I've been taking another look at the trackwork under the bridge and in particular the need to introduce the goods yard turnout as early as possible after/under the bridge so as to get maximum length to the sidings. so taking Jim's suggestion of moving the bridge a tad to the left(south)I've reintroduced the the three way point.

So following the video I think I've almost achieved a proper three way, although the two leading(lefthand end)crossings maybe a bit too close together longitudinally?
But I've still got rails going right through central crossing and can't work out how to shorten them. There maybe other things wrong with it as well timbering apart which is hidden at present. Advice on any aspect of it would be most welcome.

Kind regards
Andrew
Attachment: attach_1694_2326_Yeovil_-_Amended_three_way_point_and_goods_yard_pointwork_v2.box     308

posted: 26 Nov 2013 12:21

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

I've had a brief go with it, not perfect but it's a start. To do 3 ways involves quite a few partial templates
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello Everyone

I've been taking another look at the trackwork under the bridge and in particular the need to introduce the goods yard turnout as early as possible after/under the bridge so as to get maximum length to the sidings. so taking Jim's suggestion of moving the bridge a tad to the left(south)I've reintroduced the the three way point.

So following the video I think I've almost achieved a proper three way, although the two leading(lefthand end)crossings maybe a bit too close together longitudinally?
But I've still got rails going right through central crossing and can't work out how to shorten them. There maybe other things wrong with it as well timbering apart which is hidden at present. Advice on any aspect of it would be most welcome.

Kind regards
Andrew

Attachment: attach_1695_2326_yeovil_revised_2013_11_26_1204_19.box     282

posted: 26 Nov 2013 22:34

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Stephen
Thank you very much for redoing my 3 way, it does now look the part and I've just noticed that you've redone the other three way at the other end of the platform. It's really very kind of you, so thank you again. Very much appreciated.
Kind regards
Andrew

posted: 13 Jan 2014 23:06

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello everyone
I've been trying to complete the basic plan for Yeovil by putting in the track for the MPD at the left hand end of the layout, but two things have defeated me.

Firstly the completion of the three way point and secondly getting the diamond to curve correctly plus getting rid of extraneous bits of rail that shouldn't be there!

Any help or advice on either of these problems would be most appreciated.

Many thanks
Andrew
Attachment: attach_1713_2326_Yeovil_-_Experimental_Dec_26th_2013_v9.box     221

posted: 14 Jan 2014 09:39

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

Does this help? I've left some timbering for you to do and hope that I haven't moved anything around too much.

Stephen
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello everyone
I've been trying to complete the basic plan for Yeovil by putting in the track for the MPD at the left hand end of the layout, but two things have defeated me.

Firstly the completion of the three way point and secondly getting the diamond to curve correctly plus getting rid of extraneous bits of rail that shouldn't be there!

Any help or advice on either of these problems would be most appreciated.

Many thanks
Andrew

Attachment: attach_1714_2326_yeovil_revised_2014_01_14_0935_01.box     258

posted: 18 Jan 2014 16:14

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Stephen,

Thank you very much for making these amendments, the three-way is much better. The diamond you certainly got to work but unfortunately it's lost the flowing curves between the turntable and the water tank road (just above the three-way on the plan) and the very subtle curve from the three-way to the turntable. When I tried it I couldn't work out how to get the diamond to curve in both roads accurately?

Do you know of a video that would work in Templot2 that explains curved road diamonds fully?

Thanks again
Andrew

posted: 18 Jan 2014 16:25

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,
It's dead easy just start with curved tracks where you want them and use peg align option. I'll have another look at it for you.

Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello Stephen,

Thank you very much for making these amendments, the three-way is much better. The diamond you certainly got to work but unfortunately it's lost the flowing curves between the turntable and the water tank road (just above the three-way on the plan) and the very subtle curve from the three-way to the turntable. When I tried it I couldn't work out how to get the diamond to curve in both roads accurately?

Do you know of a video that would work in Templot2 that explains curved road diamonds fully?

Thanks again
Andrew


posted: 25 Jan 2014 16:13

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Borg-Rail wrote:
Hi,
It's dead easy just start with curved tracks where you want them and use peg align option. I'll have another look at it for you.




Hello Stephen
Well I'm not sure I beleieved you when you said it was easy, but I have, in the end, been able to get a nice flowing curve and made the diamond as you suggested with Peg alignmment\ Make diamond at crossing intersection. Compared with the method I was using before it was a doddle, so many thanks for your advice.

Three way points are still completely defeating me however and I think in fiddling around I got one piece of the three way out of place and so far havent worked out where it came from. If you had time to take a quick look I'd appreciate it. Can you tell me where to look to extend or shorten individual rails?

 
On another topic altogether does anyone know if its possible to print off a track plan with the background plan included?

Attachment: attach_1723_2326_Yeovil_-_Jan_25th_2014_with_loco_depot_3_way_diamond_v1.box     217

posted: 25 Jan 2014 17:22

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

Don't know where it went but was easy to fix. Shortening individual rails. Hmm if you mean check rails that's easy enough see real adjust check rails or something like that. Ordinary rails are a little more difficult, basically you have to use partial templates using omit rails etc.

Forgot to mention about background plan. When you get to the print dialogue there is an option to print pictures/shapes, it is off by default.

Stephen
Andrew Duncan wrote:

Borg-Rail wrote:
Hi,
It's dead easy just start with curved tracks where you want them and use peg align option. I'll have another look at it for you.




Hello Stephen
Well I'm not sure I beleieved you when you said it was easy, but I have, in the end, been able to get a nice flowing curve and made the diamond as you suggested with Peg alignmment Make diamond at crossing intersection. Compared with the method I was using before it was a doddle, so many thanks for your advice.

Three way points are still completely defeating me however and I think in fiddling around I got one piece of the three way out of place and so far havent worked out where it came from. If you had time to take a quick look I'd appreciate it. Can you tell me where to look to extend or shorten individual rails?

 
On another topic altogether does anyone know if its possible to print off a track plan with the background plan included?


Attachment: attach_1724_2326_yeovil_revised_2014_01_25_1717_50.box     175
Last edited on 25 Jan 2014 18:01 by Stephen Freeman
posted: 2 Feb 2014 00:06

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Stephen

Thanks for your help with these questions.

I don't know if you have the patience to have a look at my latest plan in which I've subtly changed the curve from the turnout in the goods shed road that crosses, via two curved diamonds to the down platform road and the three way point to made up for me a few weeks ago. The purpose was to make it a more gentle radii which I achieved by reducing the radius on the turnout in the goods shed road and re-aligning the line between it and the three way. Unfortunately that meant removing the two diamonds that Martin made for me a couple of months ago.

As you've probably guessed the Peg align\ make diamond function didn't work because the curve is on a transition. Can you point me in the right direction as to how to build these quite challenging Diamonds so that I don't loose my sexy curve!?

On another subject can you tell me which menu controls the 'shapes'. I think Martin put most of them there when he drew up this plan. Some seem to be connected to the three ways and maybe the others are just to do with the platforms? Anyway I can't find a way of modifying them at all?

Thanks again for all your help to date.
Kind regards
Andrew
PS I couldn't get the hand drawn track plan to print despite trying various options on the print dialogue box. Not the end of the world, but a nice to have...any idea what I've done wrong?
Attachment: attach_1736_2326_Yeovil_-_Jan_25th_2014_ATTEMPT_at_Gds_Yd_Diamonds_north_end_v6.box     200

posted: 2 Feb 2014 01:56

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
PS I couldn't get the hand drawn track plan to print despite trying various options on the print dialogue box. Not the end of the world, but a nice to have...any idea what I've done wrong?
Hi Andrew,

To include background picture shapes on the printed templates, click this option on the picture shapes tab of the print preview dialog:

2_012050_210000000.png2_012050_210000000.png

Make sure you click the ? help button and read the notes. The very large magnification involved means that you need a well-specified computer system, a modern version of Windows, a compatible printer, and plenty of ink. It's not for the faint-hearted. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 2 Feb 2014 09:33

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

Like this below?

I see Martin has answered the query on shapes and pictures.




Stephen
Attachment: attach_1737_2326_yeovil_revised_2014_02_02_0930_15.box     200
Last edited on 2 Feb 2014 09:34 by Stephen Freeman
posted: 2 Feb 2014 10:31

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin

Many thanks for your explanations. Thats why my printer sat there thinking when I tried the other day. I assumed it had gone to sleep...perhaps not. I'll try a higher spec machine and see if that overcomes the problem

Kind regards

Andrew

posted: 2 Feb 2014 10:34

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Borg-Rail wrote:
Hi,

Like this below?

I see Martin has answered the query on shapes and pictures.




Stephen

Hello Stephen

Very many thanks once again for the time and trouble you've taken. Very much appreciated...looks lovely!

Kind regards

Andrew


posted: 2 Feb 2014 10:46

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello again Martin

Can you tell me what the shapes are that you introduced mainly around the platform areas and the bridge when you first laid out my plan in November last year? One of them at the north end of the down platform in fact crosses the line that I've just realigned with help from Stephen.  I'd like to understand how to adjust them?

 And a question that I've been meaning to ask you since early on is about the lots of little crosses that you used when making up the track plan. Is it something to do with laying out curves?

Kind regards

Andrew

posted: 2 Feb 2014 10:55

from:

Stephen Freeman
 
Sandbach - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi,

No problem, only took a minute or two.

posted: 2 Feb 2014 21:16

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Andrew Duncan wrote:
Hello again Martin

Can you tell me what the shapes are that you introduced mainly around the platform areas and the bridge when you first laid out my plan in November last year? One of them at the north end of the down platform in fact crosses the line that I've just realigned with help from Stephen.  I'd like to understand how to adjust them?
Hi Andrew,

Do you mean the platforms? They are not background shapes, they are part of the track templates:

2_021604_040000000.png2_021604_040000000.png

They look messy on the trackpad because the hidden edges show as dotted lines (so that you can see them while adjusting them). But they don't show on the finished output, and if you make them overlap on each template you can build up platforms of any shape between the tracks:

2_021604_040000001.png2_021604_040000001.png

Click the real > platforms... menu item to adjust them or switch them on/off (delete to the control template first, as for any other design changes).

And a question that I've been meaning to ask you since early on is about the lots of little crosses that you used when making up the track plan. Is it something to do with laying out curves?
Do you mean the radial centre marks? Templot always adds those to the templates on the trackpad (unless you turn them off). You can put the peg on them for shifting onto the notch, if you are working CAD-style. By default they are not included on the finished output because often they would cause otherwise blank pages to be printed.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 2 Feb 2014 21:59

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
You can put the peg on them for shifting onto the notch
Oh no you can't. :)

There is a separate function for that -- geometry > shift/rotate > shift radial centre to notch menu item. For a transition curve template you are then asked which of the two radial centres you mean.

The peg position within the template is not affected.

There is a reason it is done that way, but it is so many years now since I wrote it that I can't remember the reason (until after I click Send). :?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Feb 2014 18:17

from:

Andrew Duncan
 
Reigate - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hello Martin,
A belated many thanks for your clear explanations.
Kind regards
Andrew



Templot Club > Forums > Baffled beginners > Yeovil Pen Mill in EM - curves of varying radius
about Templot Club

Templot Companion - User Guide - A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors.
indexing link for search engines

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.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems