Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 275Proofed house junc
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 4 Dec 2007 15:19

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I've been planning a layout based on Proof house junction on the approach to New street set in the period 1985-1988. First I designed the layout in Xtrkcad, however as it became evident that I needed to hand build the majority of the track I purchased a templot license. Fantastic software I wouldn't have been able to do the layout justice without it.

Anyway I've posted a folder in files section on the yahoo group with a couple of pictures and the box file if anyone wishes to view. Please do, I'm no genius with the program yet but think I've done a satisfactory job with my design. The curves are probably the thing I find the most difficult to judge considering I was working to an Xtrkcad DXF template, which due to the nature of the diamond crossings I've had to modify the track plan away from the xtrkcad backdrop (which incidently is the xtrkcad image in the files folder).

Any tips or alterations I'd love to hear your views.

nb the open point at the top of the plan is like that intentionally as it will lead to a lower level fiddle yard.

Kind regards

Dave Long

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/files/Proof%20Housed%20Junc/

posted: 5 Dec 2007 10:39

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
Hi Dave,

Thanks for posting your plans. You've made some rapid progress there! :)

I noticed that in a few places you have made diamond-crossings where the crossing angle differs between the two half-diamonds. That will produce a dog-leg in the diagonal road through the K-crossings. Getting diamonds to run nicely is always tricky in 00, so it's best to keep the same angle both ends. That's easy to do -- starting with one of the half-diamonds as the current/control template, just click the tools > make diamond-crossing menu item. I think if you change the angle to be the average of the two existing angles you will find that you can get everything to fit. If necessary you can use a different radius at each end (keeping the peg in the centre at CTRL-3 while you do it).

You have used a mix of straight and REA semi-curved bullhead switches. For your prototype in the 1980s you ought really to be using flat-bottom turnouts for the running lines. There is a range of curved switches for BS-113A flat-bottom turnouts in the list at template > switch options... menu item (scroll down the list). Changing the switch will alter some of your alignments slightly, but only enough to need small corrections. Of course you can build flat-bottom rail on the bullhead templates if you prefer, and you may feel that when everything has been so compressed to fit your space, the difference is not significant.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 5 Dec 2007 13:16

from:

davelong
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for the advice Martin.

I was a little concerned that the diamonds may be a problem, thanks for the tip I shall have another closer look at them. A quick question then, so it's advisable to keep the size of the half diamonds the same but the curving radii on each half can be different without too many problems is that correct?


re the BH points, yes I was a few in to the design before spotting the error, I may well go back and correct these. I had originally thought that after selecting FB rail that might have been an automatic change.

Will post back soon

kind regards

Dave

Last edited on 5 Dec 2007 14:03 by davelong
posted: 7 Dec 2007 04:06

from:

davelong
 
 

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

All the diamonds are now the same size and I've converted the majority of the points to FB templates, except for the crossing in the middle as this is planned to be a non operating crossing ie disused. I've tidied up a few of the curves as well. already looking better.

Please pass on any comments you have, file attached.

Kind regards

Dave L.
Attachment: attach_174_275_Proofed_house_2.7.box 390
Last edited on 7 Dec 2007 04:07 by davelong
posted: 13 Jan 2008 01:04

from:

davelong
 
 

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 made some changes and was wondering if people could cast an eye over both designs and see which is preferable if possible?

The file attached here id the original design.

 

Dave
Attachment: attach_207_275_Proofed_house_2.8.4.box 393

posted: 13 Jan 2008 01:06

from:

davelong
 
 

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 is the reworked version, which gives me wider curves on the right hand side and generally more prototypical length pointwork.

 

Sorry to all who dislike no name labels, will changed in due course. Along with timber shoving etc.

Dave 
Attachment: attach_208_275_Proofed_house_rework_2.1.box 384

posted: 13 Jan 2008 22:10

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 Dave,

Thanks for uploading your plans. It's looking good but I think it would help folks to comment if you could describe the prototype junction and which tracks go where. (You can use marker colours in the file to show that.)

Most of the left-hand half of your diagram appears to be unchanged. Looking on the right: 

proofed_rework.pngproofed_rework.png

The three turnouts at at A are using old-type loose heel 12ft and 15ft bullhead switches, which I think is very unlikely in a running line for your period. If that route is bullhead, I think the equivalent REA B and C flexible switches are more likely.

The turnouts at B are in contraflexure with right-hand deflection, which is fine if the route at A is the lesser of the two routes, which your use of bullhead suggests. But there are some misalignments in their exits.

I think the two diamonds at 1:7.5 angle would be safer constructed as switch-diamonds in 00-BF rather than fixed K-crossings, especially as you have a change of radius at the centre of them. But you have them in the file with fixed K-crossings.

The curves at C have truncated transitions. It's best to normalize these to avoid confusion on the diagram. Or better still replace them with a full easements  into the junction. Also these  four curved tracks seem to be evenly spaced. It would be better and more prototypical to have them in two distinct 6ft pairs, with a wider 9ft or 10ft way down the middle.

Hope this helps. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Jan 2008 01:43

from:

davelong
 
 

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

Thanks for the comments.

Regarding turnouts at A I took these from the list at the top of the switch options which said BH or FB so I thought I'd use a couple for variety may be. I'll change them accordingly.

Please forgive me I'm good with the software but poor on advanced (to me) techincal terms. Agreed I'd printed out a couple of templates and can see the alignment errors at B turnouts.

To help, the prototype is proof house junction approaching New street station which would be to the right hand side of the layout. Starting from the top line on the plan is the Derby down then the Derby up, then the lower 2 lines are the Stour down and up lines. These are the main lines.With the branch/mains to walsall/Bescott and X-city lines making the tighter inner curves going away on the right hand side.

I was hoping not to have to use switched diamonds, do you think that I'd be hard pushed to get reliable running even with 00-SF? As the prototype aren't like that, would there really be switched diamonds on lines such as this, I know I've compromised a lot on the prototype and I guess it wouldn't matter too much. ( I could probably get them down to 7's with out too much bother)

Finally regarding the curves at C these I do struggle with, I can't get my head around the curves in templot sorry, a problem with my software I think! Anyway If you could point me in the right direction I may be able to have a go at fixing the curves.

 

Kind regards

Dave

posted: 14 Jan 2008 15:37

from:

davelong
 
 

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

I've had a redesign this morning.

The turnouts at A have been changed to match the rest of the layout FB points.

The turnouts at B have been swaped and are now left hand deflections, I finally understood this morning, so I changed their deflections. I've managed to get the misaligned joints a better fit and so shouldn't have any problems, may well need to check them again after a print out, (Unless any can correct these for me?).

I'm not sure I have the brain power at the moment to create full easements at the C curves, although I have clicked normalise transitions from under the geometry menu. I hope that is what you meant Martin.

I've managed to space the rails out a bit more prototypically on the right hand side without losing much more radii on the curves and points. It looks better for it too!

File attached of latest update.

Kind regards

Dave
Attachment: attach_209_275_Proofed_house_rework_2.4.box 383

posted: 15 Jan 2008 02:10

from:

davelong
 
 

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

Do you think I'd struggle with these Fixed K's even in 00-SF?

Dave

posted: 15 Jan 2008 02:59

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
davelong wrote:
Do you think I'd struggle with these Fixed K's even in 00-SF?
Hi Dave,

In truth I don't know. :(

EM and 00-SF are mostly in the same boat here. EM modellers have been building 1:8 fixed diamonds for years with not too much trouble, although such diamond-crossings have always been known to be the trickiest formation to get just right. But in the vast majority of cases they would have been built on EMGS or commercial templates which are all straight diamonds.

With Templot we can follow prototype practice and put diamonds on curves if necessary. But then it seems obvious that we should also follow prototype practice in restricting fixed K-crossings to a limit lower than 1:8. Especially bearing in mind that our curves have a habit of being much sharper than the prototype. Switch-diamonds can then be used for the flatter angles.

The question is how much restriction and at what radius? And there I don't have an answer. It would need a lot of testing to find out. For 00-BF we can look to NMRA/H0 practice, where 1:6 is generally regarded as the flattest for fixed K-crossing, even on the straight. With the narrower flangeways of EM and 00-SF we can do better than that -- but not necessarily when curved.

You should also bear in mind for 00-SF that you might have a mixture of different makes of RTR wheels, whereas in EM wheels are much more consistent. 00 wheels which run happily though 00-SF turnouts might need more tweaking to run through fixed K-crossings. If you remember that the Peco "long crossing" is actually only 1:4.7, you can see how much more you are asking to get reliable running through 1:8.

If I was building your layout there is no question in my mind that I would use switch-diamonds for those crossings. They are easier to build and almost foolproof in operation. You have already been forced to make a lot of compromises on Proof House Junction to fit it in your available space. This is just one more small compromise. And having made it, you are then free to change the radius or the angle to whatever fits best, without any worries.

But it's not my layout, it's yours. :) If you are feeling brave and go for fixed 1:7.5 K-crossings on curves, please do keep us updated on how it works out. Couple that with flat-bottom rail, and you are definitely at the pioneering end of the hobby. :)

Unless anyone knows different, of course. Anyone?

regards,

Martin.         

posted: 15 Jan 2008 03:31

from:

davelong
 
 

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 for your most informative replies.

I know I've made many compromises in this design but generally I'm happy with them. I'm tempted to just print out a couple of these diamonds as fixed K's and give them a go as an experiment to help me settle this matter.  Keeping things posted on a work bench feature soemwhere between here and RMWeb. I'd prefer the K's purely cosmetically but I don't wont to spend every waking moment fiddling and adjusting them.

Just out of interest though re: EM are my curves to tight to model in EM with out any more 'small' compromises do you think, just a thought to over come some of these hurdles, (would also mean I wouldn't have to cut down to size all these C&L dowmac and wooden sleepers I have to fit 00-BF/SF.

One more, re: switched diamonds, what do you suggest/ whats prototypical for the placement of tiebars in the middle, could you see any problems with using certain point motors? 

kind regards

Dave



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Proofed house junc
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