Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2872New to Templot - am I on the right lines?
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 27 Apr 2016 21:06

from:

RK
 
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,
I've put a couple of small O gauge layouts together in recent years, one using Peco track and points, the other using Peco track and Marcway ready-to-use point work. I'm now about to start on my big long term layout and have decided to take the plunge and have a go at hand-building all the scenic trackwork. Now this is something I've never done before, so I'm hoping somebody may be able to help and give me some guidance.

I've used Templot to draw out the track plan and make sure everything works, I'm lucky in having a large area to use, fortunately. But before I start spending time on the detailed aspects and actual building, would anyone be prepared to look over the Templot file for me and check for any major mistakes I may have missed?

Its things like: will signals fit between adjacent tracks, and whether coaches may catch on curves etc.. There are a few places where I have used diamond crossovers to represent double or single slips (or simply crossed straight tracks to represent crossings) because I'm not sure how to achieve slips, as yet.

Any help and constructive comments would be welcomed.

Rich

Edit: Added Templot File
Attachment: attach_2266_2872_160416-Marsh_Lane_Yard_Ver2.box     357
Last edited on 27 Apr 2016 21:15 by RK
posted: 27 Apr 2016 21:58

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
Hello Rich,

Welcome to Templot Club. :)

You have some close-spaced sharp curves there for a main-line layout in 0 gauge. For example the inner curve here is under 4ft-6in radius.

Templot has a dummy vehicle tool for checking clearances, and unfortunately as you can see you have some significant conflicts on these curves:

2_271638_330000000.png2_271638_330000000.png

It does depend on the actual size of your rolling stock of course. Short 4-wheel coaches may clear on these curves, but bogie stock would need to be very narrow to clear.

I notice also that you are using the traditional GOG-F track standard. Most track builders in 7mm scale have abandoned this nowadays in favour of the 0-MF standard (31.5mm gauge, 1.5mm flangeways). This gives much improved running through pointwork with modern wheels such as those supplied by Slaters, while still accepting older wheels without problems. See for example:

 topic 1811

 topic 1394

and lots of discussion on RMweb about 0-MF.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 27 Apr 2016 23:27

from:

RK
 
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,
Many thanks for your response, and for the welcome. Yes that was what I was afraid of. I'd used the make double-track option within the software to create the curves, and just assumed that it would be ok - but didn't want to rely on assumption! Can you tell me how I can get into the dummy vehicle simulator?

To be honest, I went for GOG-F as I thought being Gauge O Guild that was the standard, its only recently when reading up on track making and the like that I discovered 0-MF. I think its about time to start with a blank and redo it!

Does the make double track option within the software, when used on straight track, adhere to the 6ft rule? I'm conscious that there are semaphore signals to go in between adjacent lines in places and want to make sure the clearances are there for those, but again, I'm not sure how to do that, or the measurements that should be worked to?

Cheers
Rich

posted: 28 Apr 2016 02:07

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
RK wrote:
Does the make double track option within the software, when used on straight track, adhere to the 6ft rule? I'm conscious that there are semaphore signals to go in between adjacent lines in places and want to make sure the clearances are there for those, but again, I'm not sure how to do that, or the measurements that should be worked to?
Hi Rich,

The track spacing dimensions are template-specific. Each template has its own settings, according to the requirements of its position on the track plan. For example inside an engine shed you would expect the tracks to be more widely spaced than for a straight double-track running line.

Which means that normally before using the make double-track or the make crossover functions you should always set the required track centres dimension for the control template. Or at least check it. Click the tools > adjacent track centres... menu item:

2_272006_300000000.png2_272006_300000000.png

(In the next program update I will be adding a note of the current settings directly in the menu for convenience -- shown boxed red above. But it's not there yet. The current settings are always shown on the information dialog, but it's quite quick just to click the menu item above regardless.)

There are separate settings for the turnout side (TS) and main side (MS) of the track, as in prototype practice. (6ft and 10ft way, i.e. 11ft-2in and 15ft-2in centres). However the default settings in Templot use the same dimensions for both in keeping with traditional model railway practice for space saving. Knowledgeable users re-set them differently as required.

The switch-on defaults vary with the different gauge settings.

The "finescale" gauges such as EM, 0-MF, etc., default to the prototype minimum 11ft-2in centres. For 4mm scale that is 44.67mm centres. For 7mm scale that is 78.17mm centres.

The older gauges default to the established or recommended spacings. For example for 00-BF that is 50mm centres, for GOG-F it is the Guild-recommended 80mm centres.



But for sharply curved track the spacing needs to be increased to provide clearance for vehicle overhangs. For this purpose the adjacent track centres settings can be adjusted by mouse action, using the dummy vehicle tool to check the clearance. Here is a video showing that being done. Sorry it is in fuzzy MP4 format, remaking it in FBR format is on my to-do list:

 http://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=r6BdZWxz5kk5ye1ek-P-Ag2

You can see that I determined that a track spacing of 46.3mm centres would be suitable for this EM track at this radius, instead of the usual 6ft way (44.67mm centres). I could then have gone on to do tools > make double-track TS if I wished.

For more about using the dummy vehicle tool, see:

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

I'm sorry the screenshots on that page are a little out-of-date, I find it impossible to keep the help notes up to date as I develop the program.

Obstructions between the tracks such as signal posts can be represented using the background shapes functions, or sketchboard items. You can then check the clearance from the dummy vehicle (as for the signal box on the above page).

regards,

Martin.

posted: 28 Apr 2016 12:01

from:

RK
 
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. I thought I'd got a reasonable grip on Templot, but that reply makes me see I'm now where close!!! I'll go through a redesign of the layout into 0-MF and deal with the close curves and repost it, if that's ok. Let's hope I don't have too many queries along the way!!

Thanks again
Rich

posted: 1 May 2016 12:48

from:

RK
 
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,
Thanks for your advice. I've started to redraw the trackplan in 0-MF taking into account the bigger clearance for curves.

A couple of queries, if you dont mind, before i spend time putting the entire drawing together....

a) would you say I have solved the conflicts with spacing on the attached file?

b) Is there any process for going between the standard distance on double straight track and the amended difference on curves?

c) Could you point me in the right direction towards a tutorial or instructions for creating the crossover on the attached file, given that both lines are curving in opposite directions?  Its on the left hand side of the track diagram.

Cheers
Rich
Attachment: attach_2269_2872_160416-Marsh_Lane_Yard_Ver3.box     303

posted: 1 May 2016 14:24

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
RK wrote:
c) Could you point me in the right direction towards a tutorial or instructions for creating the diamond-crossing on the attached file, given that both lines are curving in opposite directions? It's on the left hand side of the track diagram.
Hi Rich,

That's the easy one. Starting from your posted file, click on the background template and then peg/align tools > make diamond-crossing at intersection menu item.

In this particular case Templot finds the wrong intersection first. Click the try other intersection option.

Then afterwards use F4 mouse action to extend the template into the gap.

As you can see, Templot doesn't do everything: :)

2_010937_130000000.png2_010937_130000000.png

You now need to shorten the original background template from under the diamond. And because the diamond is so short, there is quite a bit of timber shoving needed to tidy it up. For which ideally you would have a drawing for your chosen prototype. Short-angle diamonds vary a lot. But don't bother with timber shoving until you know you have your finalised track plan, otherwise it is wasted work if you make changes. 

Note that in your file you also need to reset geometry > centre-line options > main road (normal) before going much further. :)

I will answer your other questions when I have had a bit more time to look at them.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 May 2016 14:59

from:

RK
 
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
Many thanks for that and for taking the time. Much appreciated. I need to go and read up on timber shoving!!

Cheers
Rich

posted: 1 May 2016 15:05

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
RK wrote:
Many thanks for that and for taking the time. Much appreciated. I need to go and read up on timber shoving!!
Hi Rich,

By all means practice some timber shoving, but there is no need to bother with it until you know you have your finalised track plan. Otherwise it is wasted work if you make design changes afterwards. Timber shoving can get a bit tedious at times. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 May 2016 19:42

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
RK wrote:
a) would you say I have solved the conflicts with spacing on the attached file?
Hi Rich,

Yes, but.. :)

You have got in a bit of a muddle by not resetting the centre line after using the adjustments to find a clearance spacing. Always do this before creating the double track. The dummy vehicle is always on the centre-line location, so if that's not in the centre of the track it can get confusing:

2_011409_320000000.png2_011409_320000000.png

I will add an option to globally reset this on all background templates in one go.

The widest required clearance is on the smallest radius, so it makes sense to use that for measuring. I think you were rather overdoing it, a spacing of 92mm centres seems enough to give a clearance envelope around passing vehicles:

2_011413_550000000.png2_011413_550000000.png 

On the prototype 6ft and 10ft ways are alternated on pairs of multiple tracks. This is shown well on the cover of this book:

cvr_track_200px.jpgcvr_track_200px.jpg  2_011439_460000000.jpg2_011439_460000000.jpg

Although not essential on a model, it looks more prototypical to do the same, and allows space for signal posts, etc. So adding the same 4ft difference (28mm) to 92mm gives 120mm.

So for these tracks I set the TS spacing at 92mm and the MS spacing at 120mm:

2_011419_430000000.png2_011419_430000000.png

A slightly smaller spacing than 92mm would be possible on the larger radius tracks, but it's more practical to keep them the same to avoid errors in construction and tracklaying.

The .box file for this is attached below. If you adopt it you will need to realign the pointwork, but it's all good practice in Templot. :)

But you might want to wait for my next reply, because the best way to reduce the centres into straight track is to use transition curves.

p.s. a quick way to see which side is TS and MS on plain track is to put the timber numbering on: trackpad > trackpad background options > trackpad background templates detail... menu item. The numbers are always on the MS side.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2270_2872_marsh_lane_yard_0mf_2016_05_01_1902_49.box     325

posted: 2 May 2016 09:58

from:

RK
 
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 Martin,
I see what you mean about being more prototypical. Yes I'd misunderstood entirely. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I shall await your next message as suggested.

Richard

posted: 2 May 2016 13:49

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 Richard,

You didn't identify the purpose of these tracks. If the middle tracks are the up and down running lines, with slow lines or loops each side of them, the more usual arrangement would be 10ft way - 6ft way - 10ft way.  i.e. in this case 120mm, 92mm, 120mm centres. But that obviously takes up more space than having only one central 120mm spacing, so for this reply I will continue with that.

RK wrote:
b) Is there any process for going between the standard distance on double straight track and the amended difference on curves?
The usual way to do this is with transition curves, using the make transition function on each track separately. In other circumstances the slew functions can be used to increase or reduce the track centres spacing.

More about transition curves and slewing here:

 http://templot.com/martweb/gs_geometry.htm#transition

 http://templot.com/martweb/gs_geometry.htm#slewing

(those pages are 15 years old, but still mostly relevant)

In this case the first thing to do is set up some dummy templates at the required new spacing:

2_020736_530000002.png2_020736_530000002.png

These are at the standard spacing for straight track of 78.17mm, 106.17mm, 78.17mm (6ft and 10ft way). The .box file for this is attached below.

The length of these dummy templates doesn't matter, nor their vertical position on the screen. However, if you shift them horizontally to the right of the positions in the file, it may not be mathematically possible to create some or all of the transition curves. You can if you wish move them to the left a little, which will have the effect of increasing the length of the transition zones.

Now we need to use the make transition function to link each one to the curved track. After which the dummy template can be deleted. More about that function here:

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

(Another very old page.)

I have made you a quick bit of video showing that here:

 http://flashbackconnect.com/Default.aspx?id=udruXlLetMW8LAFfQcoNdQ2

Sorry it's so brief and poor image quality. I'm making some changes to automated boundary adjustments in the next program update, so I don't want to spend time making a video which will quickly become out of date.

Using the .box file below you can try following the video, and this should be the result:

2_020736_530000001.png2_020736_530000001.png

More next time.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2271_2872_marsh_lane_yard_dummy_templates.box     319

posted: 2 May 2016 14:19

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 Richard,

Assuming you got that far, the next thing is to insert your junction pointwork into the plain track templates. To preserve your existing alignments that requires the pointwork to be partially within the transition zones. That's not something the prototype would ever do, but in fitting a railway into a small space, needs must.

I have gone ahead and made a trial stab at this. I doubt you will want to use this as-is, but it will give you the idea. I changed your B-6 turnouts to mostly curviform B-7s for easier radii and better flow of the curves:

2_020736_530000000.png2_020736_530000000.png

It could be improved by moving the track through the diamond over to the left without its reverse curve, but that was not how you had it, and you may prefer the snaking effect of stock on the reverse curve.

No timber shoving has been done -- that's over to you. There is lots needed. :)

The .box file is below.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2272_2872_marsh_lane_yard_junction.box     312

posted: 2 May 2016 15:07

from:

RK
 
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 Richard,
You didn't identify the purpose of these tracks. If the middle tracks are the up and down running lines, with slow lines or loops each side of them, the more usual arrangement would be 10ft way - 6ft way - 10ft way.  i.e. in this case 120mm, 92mm, 120mm centres. But that obviously takes up more space than having only one central 120mm spacing, so for this reply I will continue with that.


Martin,
I really can't thank you enough for all your help with this. Very generous. I put admit I got a bit lost trying to take various things in with the instruction pages, but those couple of posts make sense!

I'll take a look and a try - it may be later in the week now, as work will get in the way from later today for a couple of days!

For reference, the lines on the left (i.e. those that end on straight track) are the Up and Down Main ( and will disappear into a lower level fiddle yard at the top end of the diagram ) while those two on the right (which finish with the point work) form the single track access into the loco depot. So as you look across the diagram, as in your screen shots above:-

Up Main
Down Main
Up Relief
Down Depot

Hence, having the single 10ft gap would to my way of thinking, be a logical prototypical layout.

Cheers
Rich

posted: 2 May 2016 15:12

from:

RK
 
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:

I have made you a quick bit of video showing that here:

 http://flashbackconnect.com/Default.aspx?id=udruXlLetMW8LAFfQcoNdQ2

Sorry it's so brief and poor image quality. I'm making some changes to automated boundary adjustments in the next program update, so I don't want to spend time making a video which will quickly become out of date.


Martin,
Please don't apologise! You've been incredibly helpful and I can totally understand what your doing and achieving. Through watching that I've learnt something else new!

Rich

posted: 2 May 2016 17:40

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 Richard,

Here's a variant to consider. I straightened out the road across the diamond, which looks a bit more prototypical. On the other hand you lose the effect of stock snaking through a reverse curve.

The middle turnout is B-5.5 curviform. The long straight turnout is C-10 regular.

2_021237_430000000.png2_021237_430000000.png

.box file below.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2273_2872_marsh_lane_yard_junction_mod.box     308

posted: 2 May 2016 19:37

from:

RK
 
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, I must admit, that looks a lot better. I must remember to change that top point to a diamond crossing, or else the Up Relief leads onto the Down Main! I'm going to try and have a look at some of these bits later tonight.

I see you've done one thing I thought about, but couldn't get to work, changing that bottom right point for a 'Y'! Thats was my original thought! The lines look far smoother now for freights to negotiate.

Thanks again

Rich

posted: 3 May 2016 00:41

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
RK wrote:
I must remember to change that top point to a diamond crossing
Hi Rich,

Oh I see. In that case I wouldn't recommend staying with the 1:10 angle. To be correct it would need to be done as a switch-diamond (movable K-crossings), which is probably not very prototypical for access to a relief line.

On the other hand in 0-MF you probably don't want to go flatter than about 1:7 for fixed K-crossings to avoid mis-tracking of wheels.

So here is an alternative design with the ladder crossover at 1:7. This also saves a bit of space at the top compared with a ladder at 1:10.

2_021926_510000000.png2_021926_510000000.png

.box file below.

And in my next reply a further mod to save a bit more space.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2274_2872_marsh_lane_yard_junction_mod2.box     266

posted: 3 May 2016 00:51

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 Rich,

Here is further option with the inner diamond-crossing integrated as a half-scissors (still at 1:7). This saves a little more space at the top of the main lines. And makes an impressive bit of track construction.  :)

2_021926_510000001.png2_021926_510000001.png

2_021926_520000002.png2_021926_520000002.png

.box file below.

No timber shoving done in any of these. Over to you if you decide to use them. :)

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2275_2872_marsh_lane_yard_junction_mod3.box     247

posted: 3 May 2016 01:23

from:

RK
 
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:
Over to you if you decide to use them. :)


If I decide! There's no question! Martin thank you (I always seem to be saying that on here!) the end result in far better and smoother than I could ever have come up with. I'm pleased I didn't get to spend time on it tonight or else I'd be starting again!!

I'll use that latest version as the base and see if I can put the point work together at the other end of the curve!

Looking forward more and more to actually building this! Always moved away from building trackwork, but seeing what you have done here actually makes me want to get on and make it!

Thanks again.

Rich
Last edited on 3 May 2016 01:24 by RK
posted: 5 May 2016 02:13

from:

RK
 
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 et all,
Thought i'd just post a quick update.  I decided to put the depot tracklayout in next.  As this is going to be quite a large layout, the depot will be built first, and the aim is to make it removable so that it can be displayed outside for photography and the like.

Hence i've used Martin's file as the base template and added the depot layout.  Ideally I would have liked a 12-20inch straight between the first point on the layout and the first point on the depot, to allow space for an exit signal and the like, but space is at a premium so that is one of the concessions.  When the depot is on its own I want to be able to portray a busy depot, so standing area has a higher priority.

All looks good to me - i just need to learn how to change the two overlaid points into a 3-way, but digging the instructions out on how to do that is a job for the weekend!

As ever, all comments are welcome.

Rich
Attachment: attach_2276_2872_marsh_lane_yard_0mf_2016_05_04_2210_23.box     233

posted: 5 May 2016 13:05

from:

RK
 
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
Had some time this morning, so started working out the pointwork at the other end of the curves.  All appears to look good to me ... any comments, suggestions or critisms from anyone?

Rich
Attachment: attach_2277_2872_marsh_lane_yard_0mf_2016_05_05_1253_39.box     238

posted: 5 May 2016 13:28

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
RK wrote:
Had some time this morning, so started working out the pointwork at the other end of the curves.  All appears to look good to me ... any comments, suggestions or critisms from anyone?
Hi Rich,

This V-crossing cannot be checked because there is no room for the check rail.

2_050827_280000000.png2_050827_280000000.png

The design of scissors crossovers needs great care to ensure full checking of all crossings.

Sorry this is brief, just home for some lunch in between election-day duties. :)

Martin.

posted: 5 May 2016 13:42

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
p.s. An interesting post on the merits of 0-MF here today:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110762-a-question-of-gauge/page-3#entry2296053

Martin.

posted: 5 May 2016 23:25

from:

RK
 
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:

This V-crossing cannot be checked because there is no room for the check rail.

The design of scissors crossovers needs great care to ensure full checking of all crossings.


Hi Martin,
Ah never thought about the check rails. I'll go back and check those tomorrow.

Thanks
Rich

posted: 8 May 2016 16:25

from:

RK
 
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,
I've been playing around with this, but keep hitting problems. Im assuming its a case of positioning the points far enough back to allow the check rails to work fine - or am I missing something?

Cheers
Rich

posted: 9 May 2016 17:49

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 Rich.
Where scissors crossovers are concerned the track spacing will also need to be taken into consideration (and adjusted) to allow the nose of the centre crossings acute of the diamond to be supported correctly on a timber as well as the longitudinal position of the turnouts. Only certain combinations will work and a degree of trial and error is needed to arrive at a workable solution. You would probably be better to practice on a straight scissors first to understand the effects of the separate factors involved.
Regards
Tony W.

posted: 9 May 2016 18:51

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 Rich,

Scissors crossovers are not straightforward, as Tony explained. There are two types. In a type 1 scissors, the V-crossings for the diamond are in the turnout curves. In a type 2 scissors, the V-crossings for the diamond are in extended crossing entry-straights on the turnouts. This has the result that all the crossings in the diamond have the same angle, making it easier to construct. The disadvantage on a curved scissors is that this reduces the turnout radius, requiring a longer turnout to compensate.

In finding space for check rails, the most significant factor is the track spacing. Unfortunately you are not able to do much about that in the available space, with the need for tight radii and a running clearance.

You may find that it helps to offset the diamond slightly towards one side. It is even possible to produce a hybrid scissors / outside slip arrangement like this:

53_301200_390000000.jpg53_301200_390000000.jpg

which allows a bit more scope in moving things about.

Having said all that, the easiest solution is of course two separate crossovers, rather than a scissors.

I will see what I can suggest.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 10 May 2016 02:13

from:

RK
 
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/Tony,
As ever thanks for your replies. I've read them several times and I think I'm starting to understand the process a little. I'm going to see if I can change the track layout the to be more of a single slip than scissor crossovers, as I think that would be easiest, not just for drawing but for also for building.

Cheers
Rich

posted: 10 May 2016 02:57

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
RK wrote:
I'm going to see if I can change the track layout the to be more of a single slip than scissor crossovers, as I think that would be easiest, not just for drawing but for also for building.
Hi Rich,

I was just looking at your plan when you posted this. There were some misalignments in your ladder track, so I was looking to recreate the diamonds:

2_092152_280000000.png2_092152_280000000.png

But if you are thinking of changing the track layout I will hold fire.

Are there any board joints to be avoided in positioning the turnouts?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 10 May 2016 09:18

from:

RK
 
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,
Thanks. What I'm thinking is to move the Up Main to Up Relief link up a little and have it feed into the Down Goods to remove that scissor. In essence the order at the top of that screen shot is Down Goods, Down Main, Up Main, Yard Transfer, Yard Access. On the left, working down is Down Depot, Up Relief, Down Main, Up Main and the straight at the bottom is the yard headshunt that feeds directly off the Yard Transfer line.

The Down Depot and Up Relief both merge into the Down Goods with both being connected to the Yard Access through that ladder track. My thought is to push the Up Main to Up Relief link back a little so it connects to the Down Goods instead, with the Down Depot to Down Goods point being above the point leading to the Up Main if that all makes sense. That way it gets rid of one point from the scissor. Then working across the ladder it would be single slip (up relief onto ladder) diamond crossing, diamond crossing, double slip.

Do you think that would work any better? There are no board joints as these baseboards will be built around the plan to avoid that issue.

Rich
Last edited on 10 May 2016 09:22 by RK
posted: 10 May 2016 19:28

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
Hi Rich,

I think I need a diagram to follow that. :?

In the meantime it was wet today so I have pushed ahead with what I started. This is a first result:

2_101418_020000000.png2_101418_020000000.png

2_101418_020000001.png2_101418_020000001.png

I think all the crossings can be checked -- a couple are a bit tight but doable. The diamond at A is 1:9 and will need to be a switch diamond. The diamond at B is 1:8 and I would recommend doing that as a switch diamond too. The other diamonds are shorter and can be fixed K-crossings.

I hope you enjoy building track. :)

I will wait for your comments before doing any more on it. Which if any of the diamonds will be slips?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 10 May 2016 19:56

from:

RK
 
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,
Haha! Oops, sorry if I confused you! You've actually ended up exactly as I was trying to describe! With one minor difference around diamond B, which looking at what you've done I've realise my proposal couldn't possibly have worked anyway - reminder to myself, don't work things out in my head!!

The top diamond on the right hand side (like the 2 o'clock position from your A marker) is the only slip, in this case a single slip going bottom left to top (le like your B to A does) as we're looking at these diagrams, although I'm now wondering whether its big enough to work?

I'm really looking forward to getting down and building all this - I'm sure its gone to be a real experience! Although my already receding hairline may have completely gone by the time i've finished it!!! Im just hoping I'm not being too adventurous.

I know what you mean by a switch diamond ... well i think i do - you mean where the blades that form the diamond move like on turnouts, to set the route? From a construction point of view do these have to be be constructed in any specific way?

Im so glad that I asked for help and guidance before taking the next step! Honestly Martin, many thanks for all you help and time.

Rich

posted: 10 May 2016 20:14

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
RK wrote:
The top diamond on the right hand side (like the 2 o'clock position from your A marker) is the only slip, in this case a single slip going bottom left to top
Hi Rich,

That diamond is only 1:3.9, so it will need to be an outside slip. Fortunately I think there is room, although the turnout above it will need to move further north to make space. I will see what can be fitted in.

I know what you mean by a switch diamond ... well i think i do - you mean where the blades that form the diamond move like on turnouts, to set the route? From a construction point of view do these have to be be constructed in any specific way?
That's right. In fact they are a lot easier to build, being little more than two short turnouts toe-to-toe. The only downside being the need for two extra point motors, fitted very close together. So some thought needed on the baseboard framing in that area.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 12 May 2016 11:19

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 Rich,

I managed to fit in an outside slip road, but it is down to 49" radius which is getting towards the sensible bottom limit for main line 0 gauge:
 
2_120606_510000001.png2_120606_510000001.png

2_120606_500000000.png2_120606_500000000.png

An outside slip involves far more partial templates than an inside slip, because it requires two additional V-crossings. I thought you may like to see how it is made up (.box file below).

If you hold down the SHIFT key, or put the CAPS LOCK on, and then run the mouse over the template labels, each partial template will highlight (and you can click the label to see its menu).

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2284_2872_rich_outside_slip.box     246

posted: 12 May 2016 15:05

from:

RK
 
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,
Thanks. I think that should be ok, as it will only be low speed and primarily only locos heading back to shed, or coming off shed onto trains.

I'm off to down load and investigate this outside slip box! Then see if I can get the sidings sorted out. At least this is the last of the complicated pointwork! I think the rest is all simple in comparison!

Rich

posted: 15 May 2016 23:51

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 Rich,

Sorry about the delay in coming back on this. Life has been getting in the way.

I will finish the partial templates for the half-scissors and post the .box file in a day or two.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 May 2016 12:35

from:

RK
 
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
No problem at all I'm very grateful for your help. I'm somewhat caught up at the moment, having ended up in hospital yesterday. Nothing too serious, but the bed rest is going to keep me away from modeling for a few days. Thank god for iPads!

Rich

posted: 31 May 2016 00:38

from:

RK
 
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,
Hope all is well. Im back onto things now, so am back working on the track plan. Before i go too far, i just wondered if you'd been able to sort the outside slip out on those sidings? No problem if not, I'm grateful for the help and assistance you've given so far.

Rich

posted: 31 May 2016 10:26

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 Rich,

I've completed the actual design, I just need to split out the partial templates and adjust the checking:

2_310525_050000000.png2_310525_050000000.png

However, it is a nice sunny day here, so I don't want to spend it on the computer. I will see if I can get it finished tonight.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Jun 2016 11:37

from:

RK
 
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,
Many thanks again for all your help. No, i totally agree, when the sun is shining get away from the computer and enjoy it!! There's no rush, and I really do appreciate your help. I'd never have got things so smooth and sorted without your input - thank you.

Rich

posted: 4 Jun 2016 20:16

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 Rich,

Here is your .box file attached below. I have finished the partial templates and adjusted the check rails, but note that no timber shoving has been done. Over to you for that. :)

2_041506_360000001.png2_041506_360000001.png

The diamond-crossing at A is 1:9 angle, so it will need to be a switch-diamond as shown.

The check rail end at B needs care. Make it as long as possible with a short filed flare. The back corner may need a bit of flaring too, if you have some coarser wheels.

2_041506_360000000.png2_041506_360000000.png

2_041506_360000002.png2_041506_360000002.png

.box file below. I hope I've got the track layout right. :)  Let me know if not.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2295_2872_marsh_lane_yard_0mf_unshoved.box     283

posted: 5 Jun 2016 00:27

from:

RK
 
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,
Thank you ever so much. That is far better than I could have achieved on my own, and yes the track layout looks spot on at that bit to me. I'll add the sidings and main lines at the top end over the next few days.

I've noted your comments about A and B. When it comes to building this, is your new that the long sweep from the left hand inner, across all the lines to the right hand outer track should be built as one, individual sections (i.e. scissor, outer slip, diamond, outer slip) or larger sections?

Rich

posted: 5 Jun 2016 16:14

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
RK wrote:
I've noted your comments about A and B. When it comes to building this, is your view that the long sweep from the left hand inner, across all the lines to the right hand outer track should be built as one, individual sections (i.e. scissor, outer slip, diamond, outer slip) or larger sections?
Hold on Rich. There isn't a second outer slip. There isn't a switch anywhere within this entire red area:

2_051054_590000000.png2_051054_590000000.png

It consists entirely of diamond-crossings, there isn't any means for trains to change from one track to another. If that's not what you wanted, the time to change it is now. (It does however require 2 point motors for the switch-diamond.)

As for building it you will get a lot of conflicting advice. Generally I think it is much better to build it in sections on a workboard on the bench. This allows you to turn it round to get at both sides, lift it up to eye along the alignments, and work comfortably in good light. Others like to build in one piece on the baseboard. It's a long way to stretch in 0 gauge, and difficult to make precise adjustments at arm's length.

You don't necessarily need to remove it from the workboard to transfer it to the baseboard. If you use say 6mm plywood and cork, you can transfer that onto the baseboard and screw it down ready-built in one piece.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Jun 2016 00:53

from:

RK
 
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:
It consists entirely of diamond-crossings, there isn't any means for trains to change from one track to another. If that's not what you wanted, the time to change it is now.


Hi Martin,
Sorry thats my bad description. What you have there is almost exactly the plan, the one exception, which i suspect is going to cause a major issue to implement because of space, was I'd hoped to make the diamond on the top end of the scissor a single slip to allow departures from the yard - as per the black line on the graphic. But I don't think there is room to allow that, so probably the best thing to do will be to make the 'A' diamond a single slip so that becomes the exit road instead.

I think building it in two or three sections makes more sense, given your comments - and i bow to your superior knowledge!

Rich
Attachment: attach_2297_2872_2_051054_590000000.png     639

posted: 6 Jun 2016 02:22

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 Rich,

I've managed to fit in a slip road between X and Y. Is that what you wanted?

2_052121_240000000.png2_052121_240000000.png

The slip switch at Y will have to be 1:24 ("A" size) because of the limited space, but in view of the contraflexure that will be ok. The slip road needed a bit of transition curve in it, but it's all good fun. :)

If you are quite sure this is what you want I will post the .box file.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 6 Jun 2016 23:27

from:

RK
 
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,
I think you should change your forum name to the Master or the Wizard! Thats magic, thank you! Absolutely spot on.

Rich

posted: 7 Jun 2016 17:54

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 Rich,

Here is the .box file for that (no timber shoving done).

Let me know if anything doesn't look right when you print it out.

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_2298_2872_marsh_lane_yard_0mf_2_unshoved.box     278

posted: 8 Jun 2016 01:33

from:

RK
 
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 Martin,
Will do! Seriously, many thanks.

Rich

posted: 26 Nov 2016 16:24

from:

RK
 
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,
Hope all is well with you. Im finally back on with things with the larger layout. A smaller depot layout to gain some experience building points and that has taken precedence recently, but I'm keen to start pushing on with things now.

Thank you again for all your help during the summer in sorting this track plan out for me.

Can I ask, you posted several, what I would term, simpler graphics showing the track plan with point blades etc (i.e. as per four posts above this) how can I screenshot or export from Templot in that style?

Thanks
Richard

posted: 26 Nov 2016 18:21

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
RK wrote:
Can I ask, you posted several, what I would term, simpler graphics showing the track plan with point blades etc (i.e. as per four posts above this) how can I screenshot or export from Templot in that style?
Hi Richard,

Glad to hear you are back on the layout.

That is an exported image file, or done via the sketchboard, as you prefer. The sketchboard allows you to add additional marks, diagrams, arrows, text, etc.

1. output > output drawing options > element options... menu item.

2. untick timbering, and anything else you don't want, perhaps track centre-lines.

(If you want more control over the options you could use the generator settings instead, and then rebuild the background templates. For example you might want the timber outlines but not timber centre-lines.)


A. For an exported image file:

3. output > export a file... menu item.

4. click the image boundary: > draw new rectangle button.

5. click and drag a rectangle over your track plan to select the required area.

6. click export image: > create image file... button.

7. Templot will suggest you change to diagram mode. Don't. Click the green bar.

8. and again.

9. go to 12. below.


B. For doing it via the sketchboard:

3. click the sketchboard button (top left).

4. click the green bar.

5. click the trackplan tab on the sketchboard control panel.

6. untick the in diagram mode box.

7. click the draw new rectangle on trackpad button.

8. click and drag a rectangle over your track plan to select the required area.

9. go to the sketchboard again.

10. add whatever additional markings you want.

11. on the sketchboard menus, click file > export image file... menu item.



12. set the required name for the file, or accept the suggested name, and click Save.

13. it may take a moment to create the file, after which click view image in Templot.

14. you should then be seeing something like this:

2_261250_180000000.png2_261250_180000000.png

The image is likely to be too large to upload directly to the Image Gallery here.

15. Click options > copy image menu item.

You can then paste it into your favourite image editor program, resize it down to a more suitable size, and do whatever else you want.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Nov 2016 18:57

from:

RK
 
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,
That's great, many thanks. Nice to be back designing in Templot again!

I know the basic guidelines for curves are to keep them as wide as possible, but is there a minimum radius that people would work as an absolute minimum when dealing with long wheelbase steam locos?

Rich

posted: 26 Nov 2016 19:18

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
RK wrote:
I know the basic guidelines for curves are to keep them as wide as possible, but is there a minimum radius that people would work as an absolute minimum when dealing with long wheelbase steam locos?
Hi Richard,

Everything depends on the loco, the wheels, axle sideplay, etc., and of course any applied gauge-widening in the track.

Most modellers in 0 gauge tend to regard anything below about 1500mm (5ft) as too tight for running lines, but if that's all you have room for...

1250mm (4ft) is probably the sensible bottom limit for curves in 0 gauge.

For 0-MF in Templot the warning comes on below 1750mm (5ft-9in), but of course you can change that to whatever you want.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Nov 2016 22:46

from:

RK
 
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 Martin,

You've confirmed my views on what I have been working with.

Cheers
Rich

posted: 3 Dec 2016 21:27

from:

RK
 
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
Evening all,
I've been back on with trackplan designing for my new 7mm 1960s era loft layout.  I'm very lucky in having an area of 21ft x 11ft, roughly to play with.  I was thinking of a four track section and six or seven road yard, but the more i played with the yard two things hit me, one was the complicated nature of the point work to build, the other was that some of the curves were getting very close to 4' radius, which i didnt want.

Hence, a complete rethink, and the attached plan.  Its over two levels, the fiddle yard (Bottom Level) and the scenic file (Top Level).  I've also attached a sketchboard plan of the top level showing which are single or double slips, etc, as they are just included as diamonds at the moment.

I have a couple of queries, if anyone can take a look?

a) Before I go any further can anyone see any problems initially?

b) The three roads at the top of top level plan are Yard headshunt, Yard Arr/Dep, and Up Goods.  I have been trying to come up with a way of providing a connection from the Yard arr/dep and Up Goods, to the Goods Yard (centre) that will work and be reasonably prototypical, but im struggling?  Any ideas?.  This is only going to be 4 or 6 wheeled steam tanks/diesel and 4 wheel stock, so the sharpness of the current curve should be ok.

c) The pointwork for the goods marshalling sidings (centre right) seems quite spread out, can anyone suggest any way of tightening it up?

all comments/thoughts welcomed.

Rich
Attachment: attach_2344_2872_Arksey_(Scenic).box     298

posted: 3 Dec 2016 21:29

from:

RK
 
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
Annotated Sketchboard
Attachment: attach_2346_2872_arksey_(scenic).sk9     256

posted: 3 Dec 2016 21:31

from:

RK
 
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
Fiddle Yard Level
Attachment: attach_2348_2872_Arksey_(Lower_Level).box     253

posted: 4 Dec 2016 20:41

from:

John Preston
 
Lethbridge - Canada

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




Hi Rich




Wow, what an ambitious
project.  Your Templot plans fit a 19 by
12 foot space whereas your space is roughly 11 by 21 feet.





Just a couple of
comments regarding the baseboard construction and the challenges it presents.





How much separation
are you planning between the two levels? 
Keep in mind that the baseboard depth for the upper level must give you
sufficient space to reach under to the lower level for maintenance, deal with
derailments etc.  If you plan on a 4%

grade the change in elevation is 4 cm. per meter of track.  This applies as well to the track in the
center of the upper level.  Where do your
grades start and end?





The lower level should
be completed before any baseboards are put in place for the upper level, as it

is almost impossible to install track, wiring etc. after the upper baseboards

are in place.  Further complicating
matters, the incline between levels is seriously in the way of anything that

requires to be done behind it.  How much
wiring etc. will be underneath the upper baseboards and how easy is it to

install and maintain?





Where is the access to
the room?  I presume you come up through
the floor somewhere in the middle. Does this conflict with your plan?  Consider there are places, particularly in
corners that you will nor b able to reach to on the lower level.


Regards

John






posted: 4 Dec 2016 22:35

from:

RK
 
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
John Preston wrote: 
Hi Rich
Wow, what an ambitious project.  Your Templot plans fit a 19 by 12 foot space whereas your space is roughly 11 by 21 feet.

Just a couple of comments regarding the baseboard construction and the challenges it presents.

How much separation are you planning between the two levels?  
Keep in mind that the baseboard depth for the upper level must give you sufficient space to reach under to the lower level for maintenance, deal with derailments etc.  If you plan on a 4% grade the change in elevation is 4 cm. per meter of track.  This applies as well to the track in the center of the upper level.  Where do your grades start and end?


The lower level should be completed before any baseboards are put in place for the upper level, as it is almost impossible to install track, wiring etc. after the upper baseboards are in place.  Further complicating matters, the incline between levels is seriously in the way of anything that requires to be done behind it.  How much wiring etc. will be underneath the upper baseboards and how easy is it to install and maintain?

Where is the access to the room?  I presume you come up through the floor somewhere in the middle. Does this conflict with your plan?  Consider there are places, particularly in corners that you will nor b able to reach to on the lower level.

Regards

John


Hi John,Thanks for the reply and your comments.  I should also state that the subject should have been 7mm Track Plan, but the stupid PC keyboard went wrong, the autocorrect change the spelling and I never noticed!!!  Back on my Mac now, far better! 

Yes, it is a bit ambitious, but to be honest, I've done two or three smaller layouts that I've never finished, because shuttling up and down a small board just didn't hold my interest level.   Back as a kid, I had a large OO gauge layout in the loft with my Dad and that kept my amused for hours, so I'm going back to my roots!  The aim being that is a build, operate and keep principle!

My idea also is that being a 'round-and-round' if wanted, I can just sit and watch the trains go by, or I can shunt in the yard (something else I love) or in the goods warehouse sidings (middle bit) so there is variety.  The layout itself will be DCC operated, for which I've got some big plans for the signalling side too!

Answering your comments in turn, do shout if I'm missing something or you think I'm wrong!  Interesting your comment about the space, I'll have to check that as I specifically drew my boards and running area between the loft beams in Templot before starting.  Im going to have to get the tape measure out again!

In terms of separation, I'm going for six inches between the boards to account for being able to get in, also point servos under the top boards etc.  That should need a grade of around 13ft, and I've got about 16ft, so I think that should be ok.  I've done a few tests with different things and found that the double motors in O gauge locos should be able to handle that ok - also the grades are all in the open, bar for the first/last couple of feet, so I can get at them if needed.

The grades are both on the left hand side of the plan. Looking at the fiddle yard plan, they will start gently, just before the last point (bottom right) leading onto the single track, and end on the scenic plan, on the right hand middle to top, where the single becomes double, being level before the goods warehouse connection comes in.   The other line is the adjacent double track dropping down.  That one will be a little shorter on the grade, which shouldn't be an issue downhill, and uphill, trains will be running so its not like a standing start.  Keeping the inclines together on the left of both plans, also means that with the exception of the loop -> fiddle yard single track which is plain line, there's no wiring or access needed around, underneath or behind the inclines.

The bottom level will be done first, I'm currently planning on copper clad point work for that lot, all powered by servos, with the straight track probably being PECO for quickness as it will be out of sight.  Im also planning on a DCC feed every 12 inches - totally un-necessary for the electrics, but I'm hoping that should a wire come off, each road will have several connections so it shouldn't disrupt running.

Access is through a trap door in the floor, situated bottom left on the plan in the space above the fiddle yard (bottom level) and to the left of the goods warehouse sidings (scenic plan), and that should be fine as I've purposely left the area above clear!

I'm hoping Martin might come up with some superb looking, simple way to access to the goods warehouse sidings (centre on the scenic plan) from the Yard Access/Down Slow lines (very top of the scenic plan) as I'm struggling with that!

Thanks again John, I'm intending on keeping the construction progress online, both through a blog on my own website, and rmWeb on the 7mm modelling forum, so I hope you'll follow along and keep contributing thoughts and ideas!

Cheers
Rich

posted: 5 Dec 2016 10:12

from:

RK
 
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
Taking another look at the plans last night, I have a suspicion there are a couple of places where coach overhang could cause a problem :(. Thank god for the dummy vehicle option!

So will take a look at that, and the overall size of the plan, tonight hopefully.

Rich

posted: 6 Dec 2016 13:27

from:

RK
 
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 et all,
I got a little confused the other day when I posted the new layout design, and put it in the Templot talk section rather than on here. Martin, if you have 10 mins any chance you could take a look and see if there are any obvious cock-ups for me?

No problem if your busy and don't have time.

Rich

posted: 8 Dec 2016 20:11

from:

John Preston
 
Lethbridge - Canada

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


I have taken the liberty to put two double slips in the right side of your Scenic plan where your Sketchboard file indicates.


It is, however, not possible to build a double slip on the left of your plan as the V crossings are less than 1 in 6.  The check/guard rails get in the way.


I have, instead, eliminated the crossing and inserted what I hope is a suitable switch.

Take a look and if this works for you, use it.


John


Attachment: attach_2349_2872_Arksey_(Scenic)_JP4.box     198

posted: 9 Dec 2016 22:12

from:

RK
 
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 John,
Many thanks - very kind of you. I'm thinking that left hand double slip, might need to be an outer slip instead. I need to have a play!

Cheers
Rich
Last edited on 9 Dec 2016 22:12 by RK
posted: 15 Dec 2016 00:47

from:

RK
 
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
Evening all,
Well after discovering the problem of the curves being too close together, I have spent all of this evening redrawing the plan, to try and solve it - together with dealing with a couple of issues I had with the layout. Tomorrow's task is to redraw the storage yard!

Martin - I am struggling to get the diamonds on the top left to all sit and meet right. Is there any chance, if you have a few minutes, you could take a look please? I know its sharp pointwork etc, but it will only be six wheeled shunters and 4-wheeled wagons moving over that at slow speed so I think it will be ok.

John - thanks for adding those double slips in previously. I need to find out how to do those and 3-way points!

Rich
Attachment: attach_2359_2872_Arksey_ver2_(Scenic).box     219
Last edited on 15 Dec 2016 00:48 by RK
posted: 16 Dec 2016 08:10

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,
Just dropped by for a quick look. I think that the problem with the diamonds is that you have made them with curviform vees, which is quite OK of course but the associated curved turnouts are regular. I've altered them according and using snake through peg I think they are now better lined up. There probably is a better (more correct) way to do it though.

I've also tinkered with the turntable down to a single rail.
RK wrote:
Evening all,
Well after discovering the problem of the curves being too close together, I have spent all of this evening redrawing the plan, to try and solve it - together with dealing with a couple of issues I had with the layout. Tomorrow's task is to redraw the storage yard!

Martin - I am struggling to get the diamonds on the top left to all sit and meet right. Is there any chance, if you have a few minutes, you could take a look please? I know its sharp pointwork etc, but it will only be six wheeled shunters and 4-wheeled wagons moving over that at slow speed so I think it will be ok.

John - thanks for adding those double slips in previously. I need to find out how to do those and 3-way points!

Rich

Attachment: attach_2360_2872_high_road_2016_12_16_0805_09.box     183

posted: 16 Dec 2016 20:55

from:

RK
 
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,
Many thanks for looking at that for me. I've been back and reassessed a few minor areas today, after double checking the measurements of the loft space and needing to make a couple of adjustments. I believe all is now ok.

Martin - I note you havent commented at all. I hope all is well with you and that I havent upset you in anyway? Your feedback (along with that of everyone else is extremely valued.

Im hoping to make a start on building the copper clad storage yard trackwork in early January. I've not done copper-clad before, having kept to wooden sleepers and chairs, so any advice would be welcomed.

Cheers
Rich

posted: 16 Dec 2016 20:56

from:

RK
 
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
Helps if i attach the two new BOX files doesnt it!

Upper level - scenic.

Still need to learn how to convert diamonds into double slips and set up 3-way points!

Rich
Attachment: attach_2361_2872_Arksey_ver2_(Scenic).box     185

posted: 16 Dec 2016 20:58

from:

RK
 
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
Lower level - Storage Yard

I am aware the 'Y' point at the very bottom right is currently showns as two overlapping plain tracks I need to change that to a proper Y point.

Rich
Attachment: attach_2363_2872_Arksey_ver2_(Lower_Level).box     200
Last edited on 16 Dec 2016 21:21 by RK
posted: 16 Dec 2016 21:00

from:

RK
 
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
John Preston wrote:
Hi Rich
Wow, what an ambitious project.  Your Templot plans fit a 19 by 12 foot space whereas your space is roughly 11 by 21 feet.
Regards
John

John,
Thanks for flagging that up, I went back up yesterday and remeasured the entire loft.  Templot plan was right (apart from it 18.75 feet long, so a minor adjustment. My 'remembering' of the space was totally wrong!

Rich

posted: 16 Dec 2016 22:09

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
RK wrote:
Martin - I note you haven't commented at all. I hope all is well with you and that I haven't upset you in anyway? Your feedback (along with that of everyone else is extremely valued.
Hi Rich,

Thanks for your concern. I'm fine thanks, just a bit busy lately. I'm not upset about anything.

Currently in between everything else I am trying to get a Templot program update finished because it is now over 12 months since the last one. Unfortunately over the months I have created rather a lot of unfinished loose ends.

Generally on here I always try to answer questions about how to use Templot itself.

But for discussions about track and layout design I tend to leave it to others in the first instance. Generally there is no "right" answer and a full appraisal can take a lot of time, including printing out bits of it to look at full size, and staring out of the window for inspiration. :)

Preparing screenshots and writing down all the ifs and buts can take the best part of an evening.

Also it is now several months since I wrote this page, which is clearly crying out for a lot more:

 http://templot.com/companion/4_where_do_i_start.html

How did I get into all this? :?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Dec 2016 01:21

from:

RK
 
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,
Ah that's fine! As long as I've not offended you, and you're keeping well! Yes can totally understand and agree with your comments.

I'm not sure how you got in it, but on behalf of many Templot users and modellers, can I say we're glad you did! Templot may drive me round the twist at times when I can't understand how to do something ... But it's far better than the alternative!

Keep going :)

Rich

posted: 17 Dec 2016 11:22

from:

Judi R
 
Sutton-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
RK wrote:
... on behalf of many Templot users and modellers, can I say we're glad you did!
I agree absolutely! Templot is fun and so satisfying when a tricky bit of design comes together. Now all I have to do is to start building ...

Judi R


posted: 18 Dec 2016 20:33

from:

RK
 
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
Spent today tweaking a few section of the track plan, decided it looked awful and came back to the last version posted on here! As there's been no other comments from anyone, I'm assuming those who have looked at it haven't found any cock-ups! With that in mind, Im going to start printing the point templates off next week with a view to starting on them over Christmas.

Martin, I get the concept of timber shoving, and how to do it ... but I haven't come across anything that says how things should look? Ie are 'vees' suspended, or on sleepers, should the ends of check rails be on sleepers? etc.. I'm assuming given your attention to detail that you would have written something down as to how the sleepers should be positioned around the various parts ... could you possibly advise or direct me to where it is?

Rich

posted: 18 Dec 2016 21:47

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 Rich.
The track spacing between turnout 25 and the adjacent track is too close on the scenic section and between templates 105 and 108 on the lower level.
For detail of timber positions, take a look at those on any template generated by Templot as these will be correct. The basic rules are that the nose of the crossing must be supported as must the tip of the switch blades. The spacings from those timbers are set at predefined distances for instance a 1:8 crossing has, working away from the switch end, Y X A B C & D chairs spaced at 2' 6" centres, the A chair being under the crossing nose. These cannot be changed without destroying the geometry as each crossing angle has an individually designed set of cast chairs. Switches are similarly predetermined. In between there is much more flexibility, but it can be very difficult to arrange timbering to meet this ideal situation in many situations and a great deal of ingenuity is sometimes required.

Regards
Tony W.

posted: 18 Dec 2016 21:52

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
RK wrote:
Martin, I get the concept of timber shoving, and how to do it ... but I haven't come across anything that says how things should look? Ie are 'vees' suspended, or on sleepers, should the ends of check rails be on sleepers? etc.. I'm assuming given your attention to detail that you would have written something down as to how the sleepers should be positioned around the various parts ... could you possibly advise or direct me to where it is?
Hi Rich,

The special chairs (i.e. any other than ordinary chairs) will fit the rails in only one position, so you must have some timber under those positions. For example the "A" chair fits one position only under the crossing nose:

2_181643_360000000.png2_181643_360000000.png

2_181643_590000000.png2_181643_590000000.png

You can change the actual position of the "A" chair relative to the vee nose to match your prototype at real > V-crossing options > customize V-crossing > blunt nose... menu item.

Check rails have special left and right-hand end chairs for the flared ends, but generally check rails can be extended or shortened as necessary so that those chairs come over a timber. If you change from square-on to equalized timbering, Templot moves the check rails accordingly.

I have written a lot in the past, but I'm too tired tonight to find it all, sorry. Here are some links:

  message 2272

  topic 2628 - message 18087

  topic 1153 - message 6920

regards,

Martin.

posted: 18 Dec 2016 21:57

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 Rich.
Also have a look under the TEMPLOT COMPANION heading to the right of the screen under REAL TRACK. There is a lot of useful information there.
Tony.

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:00

from:

RK
 
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 W wrote:
Hi Rich.
The track spacing between turnout 25 and the adjacent track is too close on the scenic section and between templates 105 and 108 on the lower level.
For detail of timber positions, take a look at those on any template generated by Templot as these will be correct. The basic rules are that the nose of the crossing must be supported as must the tip of the switch blades. The spacings from those timbers are set at predefined distances for instance a 1:8 crossing has, working away from the switch end, Y X A B C & D chairs spaced at 2' 6" centres, the A chair being under the crossing nose. These cannot be changed without destroying the geometry as each crossing angle has an individually designed set of cast chairs. Switches are similarly predetermined. In between there is much more flexibility, but it can be very difficult to arrange timbering to meet this ideal situation in many situations and a great deal of ingenuity is sometimes required.

Regards
Tony W.
Hi Tony,Oh what an idiot, I never actually thought about looking at an existing template! (Hits head against brick wall hard!)   Thanks - also thanks for the comments bout those two points .. I'll go look at those.

Thanks also for the background info, thats useful.

Rich

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:03

from:

RK
 
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:

I have written a lot in the past, but I'm too tired tonight to find it all, sorry. Here are some links:

  message 2272

  topic 2628 - message 18087

  topic 1153 - message 6920

regards,

Martin.

Hi Martin,
No problems at all thats fine, thanks for the pointers and links, I've obviously been searching the wrong keywords, but now I know its definitely there, I'll go delve again over the next few days!

Also thanks to Tony for the additional info.

Cheers guys

Rich

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:21

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
Tony W wrote:
Also have a look under the TEMPLOT COMPANION heading to the right of the screen under REAL TRACK. There is a lot of useful information there.
Tony, thanks for helping Richard.

Here's the link: http://templot.com/martweb/gs_realtrack.htm

Martin.

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:25

from:

John Preston
 
Lethbridge - Canada

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

Again, I have taken the liberty, this time, to superimpose the upper and the lower plans (jpg file attached).  You will notice I have the lower plan in blue and the upper plan in red.  I have the following concerns regarding the lower and left side of the combined plan.

It would appear that some of your upper grades are coming down directly over lower level trackwork, particularly in the lower left corner.

It appears the lower level ramp up to the upper level needs to come back down to arrive at the turntable and fiddle yard.  Clearances here look rather tight.

I would suggest that ramp elevations from the lower level are calculated and put on the plan, keeping in mind that the maximum clearance between lower level rail height and underneath of upper level baseboards is likely to be about 5 inches (125 mm.) unless you are using rather thin baseboards.

Regards

John
Attachment: attach_2366_2872_Arksley_combined_Version_2.jpg     289

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:28

from:

John Preston
 
Lethbridge - Canada

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 superimposed track plan
Attachment: attach_2365_2872_Arksley_combined_Version_2.jpg     277

posted: 18 Dec 2016 22:38

from:

John Preston
 
Lethbridge - Canada

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 jpg file
Last edited on 18 Dec 2016 22:42 by John Preston
posted: 9 Jan 2017 00:34

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:
I will add an option to globally reset this on all background templates in one go.
This will be in the next program update:

2_081929_110000000.png2_081929_110000000.png

Martin.



Templot Club > Forums > Baffled beginners > New to Templot - am I on the right lines?
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