Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2552Just starting- working out geometry of turnouts
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:04

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 have read much of this forum now and learned an awful lot, but with a huge amount more to learn about this complex tool. I have experimented and designed several "looks about right" goes at a junction, but I feel I am now ready to look at doing it 'properly', but I need help.
If I may explain what I am doing: I have been away from modeling for [cough] years and have never modeled beyond finescale oo. However, having seen what can be achieved with Templot, I am going to go for P4. I have quite an ambitious layout in mind (35ft- and no, you can't talk me out of it!). I am going to build a number of smaller modules to gain experience and re-gain practice etc. What I am trying to do is to plot the trackwork now so that I can best decide how to make my trial modules first.
I have a specific junction that is causing me trouble; I just can't work out what the geometry should be of the points. The photos I have attached are of the station throat. They are both in perspective and so I can't gauge what they should be- I think it comes down to an experienced eye. If I can find out what ONE of the turnouts should be then I can gauge what the others should be. It is that starting point...
Keen railwaymen and railway modelers will recognise it as Whitby Town. I knew the station before rationalisation and my late Father (with whom I planned to build this) was based there as a fireman and driver for some years.
I would really appreciate any guidance on this junction. I am not expecting anyone to do the hard work for me (that would lessen the challenge) I just don't know how to start this bit.

Many thanks
Derek
Attachment: attach_1974_2552_stationthroat1.jpg     577

posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:06

from:

DerekStuart
 
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
Attachment: attach_1975_2552_stationthroat2.jpg     547
Last edited on 15 Oct 2014 19:08 by DerekStuart
posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:23

from:

Raymond
 
Bexhill-on-sea - 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
Since you know the location and era, it ought not be difficult to obtain a track plan, which you can then use as the basis of overlaying a track plan and that would give you as near as possible the correct geometry for the layout..  If you have such a plan, I'll be happy to help you.
DerekStuart wrote:
Hello everyone.
I have read much of this forum now and learned an awful lot, but with a huge amount more to learn about this complex tool. I have experimented and designed several "looks about right" goes at a junction, but I feel I am now ready to look at doing it 'properly', but I need help.
If I may explain what I am doing: I have been away from modeling for [cough] years and have never modeled beyond finescale oo. However, having seen what can be achieved with Templot, I am going to go for P4. I have quite an ambitious layout in mind (35ft- and no, you can't talk me out of it!). I am going to build a number of smaller modules to gain experience and re-gain practice etc. What I am trying to do is to plot the trackwork now so that I can best decide how to make my trial modules first.
I have a specific junction that is causing me trouble; I just can't work out what the geometry should be of the points. The photos I have attached are of the station throat. They are both in perspective and so I can't gauge what they should be- I think it comes down to an experienced eye. If I can find out what ONE of the turnouts should be then I can gauge what the others should be. It is that starting point...
Keen railwaymen and railway modelers will recognise it as Whitby Town. I knew the station before rationalisation and my late Father (with whom I planned to build this) was based there as a fireman and driver for some years.
I would really appreciate any guidance on this junction. I am not expecting anyone to do the hard work for me (that would lessen the challenge) I just don't know how to start this bit.

Many thanks
Derek


posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:38

from:

Rob Manchester
 
Manchester - 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
Derek,

Does this help you ?

http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=173

Rob

posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:40

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 Raymond,
Many thanks for your offer to help.
I have ordered an Alan Godfrey map from our local bookshop (if it ever arrives) but I believe at the size available it will be only any good for general location of items rather than getting the geometry of the crossing correct.

But once I've got the map I will have a look and see for myself. I know there will always be a bit of a compromise when studying historic records.

Thanks
Derek

posted: 15 Oct 2014 19:44

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 Rob
EVERYTHING helps, thank you. This diagram supports an old photo I once saw about the crossing (scissor?) which in 1980's photos has been separated into two ordinary crossings.
Rob Manchester wrote:
Derek,

Does this help you ?

http://www.signalbox.org/diagrams.php?id=173

Rob


posted: 15 Oct 2014 22:58

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 Derek,

Welcome to Templot Club. :)

That's a single-sided tandem turnout -- and you are in luck because most of the main road is straight, and you can count the timbers in the photo.

Which means you may be able to find the crossing angles and lead lengths using Gimp to remove the perspective. See:

  http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/gimp_track.htm

More detailed notes about using Gimp this way:

 http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/gimp_example.htm

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Oct 2014 16:27

from:

DerekStuart
 
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
Thank you Martin. You're a Gent.

I tried to remove the perspective using several programmes, but none seemed to help (maybe I need a bit more practice at using them?).

[EDIT: Somehow I didn't see the link to your gimp tutorial and accidentally opened the top link twice- I will try that again tonight. Thanks again]

Mr Hey kindly sent me a hi-res version which helped to count timbers, but still not exactly.

I spent until 0515 this morning (insomnia and stubbornness) trying many different combinations and I always find the last bit to go in didn't quite work- doglegs.

Broadly speaking I used two methods

1. 3 parallel curved roads, using the "add to TS or MS side" and then tried to work the geometry out at the throat.

2. Lay the points out so that they look right, but then the three roads are all over the place and not parallel, unless I have a dogleg in platform 2 (or a short curve of 700mm radius).

I think this is a case of keep experimenting and sooner or later I will get it, then perhaps ask for experts here to cast an eye over it to see if it works.

Again, many thanks to all for advice and sorry for my long posts.
Last edited on 16 Oct 2014 16:29 by DerekStuart
posted: 17 Oct 2014 17:14

from:

Hayfield
 
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
Derek

Without further info (and if the experts cant tell you by looking no one can) I would go one of 3 ways

1/ Download the track plan that's coming and overlay track

2/ Download a modern plan to get the rail radii on the remaining track, then work backwards building up the track plan

3/ layout all 3 running lines to the correct radii and then build the tandem over them

Good luck as it looks very interesting

posted: 17 Oct 2014 19:32

from:

Trevor Walling
 
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,
        Is there a library in Whitby?The reference section of local libraries are usually a gold mine of historical information and documents.
Regards.
Trevor.

posted: 17 Oct 2014 20:10

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 chaps.

I have since found perhaps 100 photos of the general scene and from a couple of them I have been able to work out which turnouts to use (mostly B8 and C8- which surprised me as I'd have thought a short slow branch... but it was once busy).

I have used google maps to trace certain KNOWN positions and as you say, working backwards from there. At the moment I really just need an idea of the trackwork that will cause me hassle later on as my skills are insufficient at present.

I am now on version 50+ in Templot trying to get it to "look" right as well as geometrically working. It's always the same thing though- one photo shows a straight section and another photo shows it as a curve- both can't be right (in fact some parts were re-aligned but most is as original NER).

I dare say a trip up to Whitby is in order- I am **assuming** that the old run around loop (unless lifted by NYMR when new one built) will identify the points and I suspect most on the main running lines will be the same.

Whilst there I can look in the library again- there was nothing about track plans, but quite a lot of photos of buildings etc.

Thanks again for advice chaps- it is really appreciated. I am off to Peterborough tomorrow to bombard the C&L chap with questions next... should prove to be expensive with all the startup bits!

posted: posted: 17 Oct 2014 23:24

from:

DerekStuart
 
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
A quick update. Thanks to Martin's comments, I realised that even comparatively close items were suffering from larger than expected perspective issues.

In other words the camera DOES lie. I have something that sort-of works in Templot (still a few dog legs). Unless someone has very good photos to contradict me, I think I have it fairly accurate now and certainly good enough to represent Whitby.

Thanks again for everyone's ideas.

17 Oct 2014 23:24

from:

DerekStuart
 
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
A quick update. Thanks to Martin's comments, I realised that even comparatively close items were suffering from larger than expected perspective issues.

In other words the camera DOES lie. I have something that sort-of works in Templot (still a few dog legs). Unless someone has very good photos to contradict me, I think I have it fairly accurate now and certainly good enough to represent Whitby.

Thanks again for everyone's ideas.

posted: 18 Oct 2014 09:14

from:

Hayfield
 
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
Derek

You will find Peter very helpful at C&L. As you will be working in P4 and seem to want to do a proper job I would use Exactoscale products.

Firstly as the chairs are newer and there for a bit crisper, but mainly because they have the special chairs. (check rail, common crossing,(additional) switch chairs, bridge chairs, obtuse and slip chairs.

As for timbers/sleepers I again would go for Exactoscale, either the newer laser cut Ply 0.9 mm or 1.6 mm or in plastic the Exactoscale 1.6 mm timbers, with these plastic ones you not only get more sleepers(62) but the longer ones are much longer at 86 mm, these are perfect for long timbers in crossings and can add up to 14 extra sleepers.

Do keep away from the thinner plastic sleepers, as they tend to curl up over time as the solvent thoroughly (months not days) dries out as I think its because it is applied to one side only

If using flexi track Go for the Exactoscale fast track system as you can buy both normal P4 and gauge widened.

Another benefit of using 1.6 mm timbers is if you prefer using copperclad for the main parts of the crossings, by using 0.5 mm piece of copperclad strip or metal shim you can add cosmetic chairs and keep the sleepers at the same height. If doing that buy a set of D D Wheelwrights block gauge with crossing alignment aid, makes the process so much easier

Whilst on gauges do try and get a set of Brooke Smith track gauges, and with 3 point and roller gauges check that the rail slots are not too deep, so the rail head can rotate into the slight cant position

John

posted: 18 Oct 2014 12:54

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
I don't know what period you are after but have you had a look at OLD MAPS they list maps from 1852 to 1982.

http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html

Go to search type in Whitby, you get three options, one of which is in Yorkshire.

Then move the pin to the bit you want and the list comes up on the right.

HTH

Phil

posted: 20 Oct 2014 01:57

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 John

Thanks for your further comments and advice. I was hoping to speak to Peter in person at the Peterborough show, but he was unwell and missed it (though I spoke to some incredibly helpful chaps from Scarborough and District MRC with their "Rumbling Bridge" layout- very good it was and they were very knowledgeable).

I am going to order a sample of different parts from C&L and the exactoscale range- including BH75 and FB etc.

I am going to order a point kit. To be awkward I have decided to steer clear of plastic sleepers and will use plywood. After one or two kits I hope to be proficient to make my own from scratch- though for time reasons I will likely keep on with kits- but it is important to me that I KNOW HOW to make them from scratch.

You obviously really know what you are talking about. I am lacking in the technical terms, which is not helping me- but I'm sure I shall learn them as I go along. In addition to track gauges (which I hope to get from C&L) I am going to use a set of ready made Ultrascale wheels to stick into a newly acquired Bachmann 40 (purchased specifically for its long wheelbase bogies) if that can run through track then I am sure anything will.

I have designed a couple of "planks" in Templot- starting with simple straight track, then curved track, points and then escalating to slips and finally a tandem- all in the right order to start on the simple bits first. Tell me, would you have an opinion on what the radius of a curve should be before you start adding a checkrail to it? And also increasing the gauge on curves- what sort of radius would you need before this is a problem? Despite flange squeal on the real line out of Whitby, the radius looks pretty mild at 3300mm (12.4 chains) until you get past new bridge, where it is fitted. I am going up there in a couple of weeks time to do nothing but take photos of a pair of points and the curves.

Thanks again for your guidance it really is appreciated.
Derek


posted: 20 Oct 2014 02:23

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 Phil

Thanks for that suggestion. I had initially dismissed OM for not being accurate enough to plot "engineering diagrams" from. However, I have had another look and they have answered several questions about the space between the station and Endeavour wharf, that together with photo's and other engineering data, have been extremely valuable- thank you.

Also it confirmed that I am NOT entirely mad. I remember my Dad showing me where the turntable pit had been filled in years earlier and never reconciled that with the photos I have seen later. However, according to the maps, it was moved in the inter-war years from the W to E side of the line... so I did in fact see the filled in turntable pit.

Again my thanks for the help. This is such a helpful forum, everyone has been so kind with advice. I hope in the future I can do the same for other newbies.

Derek
Phil O wrote:
I don't know what period you are after but have you had a look at OLD MAPS they list maps from 1852 to 1982.

http://www.old-maps.co.uk/index.html

Go to search type in Whitby, you get three options, one of which is in Yorkshire.

Then move the pin to the bit you want and the list comes up on the right.

HTH

Phil


posted: 20 Oct 2014 08:41

from:

Hayfield
 
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
Derek

Before you bite the bullet there are a couple of things you need to decide/order.

C&L sell both their own turnout kits and Exactoscale's both have plastic sleepers, Exactoscales come in ready formed units with pips to attach the chairs to (my friend built one without any gauges), all rails cut to length and formed and the switch rail bonded to the stock rail. Where as the C&L one has the common crossing built and the switch rails formed, and can come with and without gauges. Both could be used with wooden sleepers and I am certain peter would exchange the plastic ones with lengths of ply timber strip. The Exactoscale kit also comes with Bridge, check rail, common crossing and additional switch chairs. Where as the C&L kits just come with standard and slide chairs. Whilst these are designed for the Exactoscale kits can be used with C&L and scratch built turnouts and crossings
This link explains http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=17

Rail is the first thing you must decide on, Exactoscale comes in steel only, C&L do both steel, Nickelsilver & HiNi(nickelsilver) which is less yellow.You either like steel or hate it, it needs more work to stop it from rusting

Gauges, you need roller, 3 point (though I do like the Exactoscale gauge widened roller gauges)wing and check rail gauges, most have to be brought from the P4 or EM gauge societies

Exactoscale plans

You can download the plans for switches, common crossings, diamond crossings and slips (this is the switch one http://www.finescale.org.uk/pdfs/RH%20Switches.pdf But I also have a full set of Exactoscale turnout and crossing plans (not C&L) which come with the Exactoscale point kits as a cross reference for using the special chairs

Good luck whilst there are many far more competent modellers on the site in both knowledge and building skills I use these products a lot in building turnouts and crossings, feel free to ask questions that's the way we all learn, someone will know the answer or offer advice

posted: 20 Oct 2014 12:23

from:

LSWRArt
 
Antibes - France

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Derek
One comment, if you are using ply sleepers, as I did - C&L say that you can use Butanone with wood or plastic sleepers, but I found it did not work at all well on the wooden sleepers.  I used a Uhu twist and glue, which held well, but which you could split off the sleepers with a scalpel if you made a mistake.
There may well be better glues, but the range in France at the time was very limited.  If you do use this, note that it is water soluble even after it has dried.

Two other comments:
- I found it is really helpful to have 4 gauges so that I could align more of the point in one go.
- make sure that you are exactly to gauge at the end of the planing on the point blade.  I made one point where the planing was only touching part way along its length and it threw out the whole point geometry.

Hope that helps
Arthur 

posted: 20 Oct 2014 17:12

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - 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
DerekStuart wrote:
I have designed a couple of "planks" in Templot- starting with simple straight track, then curved track, points and then escalating to slips and finally a tandem- all in the right order to start on the simple bits first. Tell me, would you have an opinion on what the radius of a curve should be before you start adding a checkrail to it? And also increasing the gauge on curves- what sort of radius would you need before this is a problem? Despite flange squeal on the real line out of Whitby, the radius looks pretty mild at 3300mm (12.4 chains) until you get past new bridge, where it is fitted. I am going up there in a couple of weeks time to do nothing but take photos of a pair of points and the curves.
Hi Derek.
As you are modelling a real station then I would follow the prototype rules.
On the prototype Ministry of Transport rules required that for passenger carrying lines, all curves with a radius of 10 chains or less must have a check rail fitted to the inside rail of the curve. In some cases curves of a greater radius than 10 chains are provided with check rails often where experience has show that rapid ware of the outer rail occurred previously.
Gauge widening is as follows:
Curves between 10 and 7 chains radius + 1/4",
Curves between 7 and 5 1/2 chains radius + 1/2",
Curves under 5 1/2 chains + 3/4".
The nominal flangeway clearance of 1 3/4" must be increased by the same amount as the gauge is widened to maintain the  dimension of 4' 6 3/4" between the bearing surface of the check rail and the running face of the high rail.
In practice if you are using a triangular track gauge this will automatically give you a degree of gauge widening as the radius of the curve decreases provided it is used with the single point toward the centre of the curve.
If you are using a set of Exactoscale track roller type gauges, these come as a set of four, one for each different width. An unmarked roller gauge for standard P4 gauge and the other three have one, two or three grooves turned into them to indicate whether they have 1, 2 or 3 scale 1/4"s of gauge widening added to the nominal track gauge. These are intended for use with track constructed using functional chairs only as they have no outer jaw to hold the rail instead relying on the chair to do this.
Regarding Whitby, I was there earlier this year and they were restoring the track to platform 2 for the North Yorkshire Moors Railways use. You are probably aware of this already, but for some years Whitby was reduced to a single platform track with no round round so the relayed track may not bear much if any relation to the arrangement in photos although the track spacing will have to be very similar. I would not want you to have a wasted journey.
Regards
Tony W.

posted: 20 Oct 2014 18:02

from:

DerekStuart
 
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
Tony
Many thanks for that.

I am really thinking I should model Whitby as it has been since 1991 as it's easier.

I think the runaround loop at Bog Hall is still there- at least it was according to the Whitby Gazette as NYMR had a mishap there. If not I am sure I will find what I am looking for at Grosmont or Pickering (even if I have to take a hi viz and just make myself look "official" as I wander onto the track)

posted: 21 Oct 2014 12:46

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
LSWRArt wrote:
Hi Derek
One comment, if you are using ply sleepers, as I did - C&L say that you can use Butanone with wood or plastic sleepers, but I found it did not work at all well on the wooden sleepers.  I used a Uhu twist and glue, which held well, but which you could split off the sleepers with a scalpel if you made a mistake.
There may well be better glues, but the range in France at the time was very limited.  If you do use this, note that it is water soluble even after it has dried.

Two other comments:
- I found it is really helpful to have 4 gauges so that I could align more of the point in one go.
- make sure that you are exactly to gauge at the end of the planing on the point blade.  I made one point where the planing was only touching part way along its length and it threw out the whole point geometry.

Hope that helps
Arthur 

Quite agree about the gauges.

As for using butanone, I have had excellent results by first painting the timbers and sleepers with acrylic paint.

Simon

posted: 21 Oct 2014 17:16

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
Adding my experience to Simon's, I use Len Newman's chairs made for the S scale society, so they have the same makeup as the Exactoscale ones. I use Butanone on ply sleepers and I apply a slight amount of pressure on a chair after the Butanone has been applied along with a slight to and fro horizontal movement which seems to bed the melted plastic into the ply. I use a set of tweezers to do this with a point on the chair on each side of the rail. I then apply weight to a section of the rail after its chairs have been glued for a minute or two. The chairs stick very well but can still be separated with a razor/scalpel blade if any adjustments are required.

Jim.

posted: 22 Oct 2014 07:00

from:

Hayfield
 
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
LSWRArt wrote:
Hi Derek
One comment, if you are using ply sleepers, as I did - C&L say that you can use Butanone with wood or plastic sleepers, but I found it did not work at all well on the wooden sleepers.  I used a Uhu twist and glue, which held well, but which you could split off the sleepers with a scalpel if you made a mistake.
There may well be better glues, but the range in France at the time was very limited.  If you do use this, note that it is water soluble even after it has dried.

Two other comments:
- I found it is really helpful to have 4 gauges so that I could align more of the point in one go.
- make sure that you are exactly to gauge at the end of the planing on the point blade.  I made one point where the planing was only touching part way along its length and it threw out the whole point geometry.

Hope that helps
Arthur 
I have no problem using Butanone with ply sleepers, though prior to using Butanone I tried other makes with mixed results. I now use C&L laser cut timber strip, which may have finer grain than the sawn ply they first sold, but both worked equally well. From what I can see the plastic melts into the grain of the wood and all that is needed is a quick bit of pressure from above (finger) whilst the solvent starts to set. The exceptions are when either the rail is under tension and or gauging two rails together, when the time varies from a few mins to a few hours

posted: 22 Oct 2014 19:08

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 again for all the advice.

However, I'm still stuck with the blasted station throat geometry and feel unable to move on to actually DOING anything until I've sorted it.

I have probably dozens of photo's but can't piece them together to get an overall picture of how it should be laid out. Still not sure what is perspective and what is natural curvature.

Or am I getting a bit obsessed with trees and overlooking the forest?

posted: 23 Oct 2014 00:14

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - 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 Derek.
I have been playing around with your Whitby Tandem. Trying to reproduce the general look and proportions of it from the pictures has resulted in the box file attached. I would doubt very much if the second turnout would be a C-8 as the C switch combined with a B-6 does not give sufficient clearance  for the 1 in 6 crossing. From the photo I suspect both switches are Bs and the second switch follows hard on the heals of the first. I think you are correct in that the crossing angles are 6 and 8, but the 1 in 6 crossing will need to be curviform for the geometry to work. Do you know what the track spacings were and the radius of the inner road?
Regards
Tony.
Attachment: attach_1981_2552_whitby_Tandem.box     206

posted: 23 Oct 2014 16:30

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 Tony
That is so very good of you. Everyone here has been so helpful, and it means a lot.

The inner curve scaled down is "smallest radius on this template = 4629 mm ( 182 " )" (I've put the whole line in as I'm not sure if that's the inner rail or centreline). It is overlaid on a google map- it seems about right scaling, but you can never be 100%. As John H suggested above I put the inner road in and then worked back outwards.

From photos it appears that the spacing was 6ft- I know it's on a curve and would have expected larger, but that's what it looks like (perhaps a couple of inches that wouldn't show up in model form).

From various photos it looks like the tiebar was between 7 and 10 sleepers apart (it is hard to tell as even the youngest photos are using 30 year old technology)

The box file looks really good. I have had a quick go at replicating it (so that I can see how it's done). Many, many thanks for that.

What I think I have made a big mistake that wasn't immediately obvious in google maps is that the platform has 4 different curvatures on the main road, not 3 as I first thought. I am trying to piece together where in relation to the turnouts that they change (but because of the photo age it is not accurate but "1.3 Deltic's away from XYZ" (taken from a railtour photo)

(sorry for my increasingly lengthy posts)
Derek

posted: 24 Oct 2014 17:36

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - 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 Derek.

The radius specified by Templot will be for the centre line.

Regards

Tony.

posted: 25 Oct 2014 00:37

from:

Tony W
 
North Notts. - 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 Derek.

I have had a go at the layout from the figures you gave me. It does not look quite right yet but is close. I have left all the discarded templates in the box file his time so you can see the steps I took and hopefully follow my logic. See what you think.

Regards

Tony.
Attachment: attach_1983_2552_whitby_Tandem_2.box     173

posted: 25 Oct 2014 13:09

from:

DerekStuart
 
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 Tony
Thanks very much again for your help. Using what I already had laid out (using John Hayfield's "plot in what you KNOW and then work backwards") I found that your B6/B8 dropped straight in almost perfectly.

I am still finding that the road 1 to tandem is not quite aligning (I think I need to look more closely at the curvature of road 1 at that point) and that road 2 should have a longer straight than it does currently. But thanks to you I have my starting point and I am nearly there I think.

I have downloaded from old-maps.co.uk (as per Phil's suggestion) which has proven to be far more help than I expected (I was looking at a preview on a small screen) and I am going to scan the PDF as a bmp/jpg/png and load back into Templot and look again at the curvature on road 1.

Derek



Templot Club > Forums > Baffled beginners > Just starting- working out geometry of turnouts
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