Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 2875Problem with slips when modifying Freezer layout
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 12 May 2016 22:51

from:

FraserSmith
 
Dundee - 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
For the purists out there please be gentle with someone who wants a layout that allows long trains to run around their loft.I am trying to amend a Cyril Freezer plan to make it a bit less regimented than it would be with preformed track. The track plan from JMRI is shown below.

terminus.pngterminus.png
I have produced a Templot plan layout.pnglayout.pngthat is a reasonable match to the original and I show below the complex of slips at the station throat. These are all 1:6 and give an overall length that suits. There are some wobbles in the tracks but I now know where I made the mistakes that caused them.
terminus_straight.pngterminus_straight.png
Box file for straight arrangement
It looked a bit better but it was still looking like a Peco plan. In an attempt to make it a bit less regimented I thought I would add some curvature to the 4 main roads. The turnouts at the left and the diamonds at the right were still 1:6 but as the diagonals crossed the inner roads the angle dropped dramatically. The central crossing was less than 1:1.5.
terminus_curved.pngterminus_curved.png
Boxfile for curved arrangement
I had a play with one of the lower value crossings to see what would happen if I tried to add the slips. There are problems straight away as the predefined slips only go down to 1:6. There is also the problem with how to deal with the different V crossings each side. I have been reading as much as I can about irregular crossings and slips and have a better idea of how to put them together now but I can't see how I can get around the low value crossings. On the "inside" of the crossing the slip road had a very tight radius that I guess would require an outside slip to work.

Anyone any ideas as to how I can make it a bit curvey but still within a reasonable length?

Thanks in anticipation

Fraser
Last edited on 12 May 2016 22:54 by FraserSmith
posted: 14 May 2016 22:51

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 Fraser.
The only useful suggestion I can make to ease the situation would be to slide the two turnouts to the left such that the switch part enters the curved approach producing turnouts of contrary flexure. You can use longer turnouts and this will make the angles of the crossings flatter and hopefully the slip roads more practical. The angle of the centre diamond is largely immaterial as there are no slip roads.
If you can post a copy of your boxfile of that section rather than a picture, it would be more helpful as I could show you what I mean, unless of course you wish to have a go at it yourself first.
Regards
Tony.

posted: 14 May 2016 23:21

from:

FraserSmith
 
Dundee - United Kingdom

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

Thanks for your reply and your kind offer to have a look at the problem. I had some thoughts after I posted and have tried a few new arrangements with less curvature in the four main roads and this one seems to be working. I appear to have saved my attempt just 3 minutes after your posting! Perhaps it's a good job you didn't manage to download the box files before.
new_curvey.pngnew_curvey.pngBox file for new curvey arrangement

The blue link just above gets the box file for this arrangement as did the links on my previous post. There was a slight problem with the central crossing previously in that Templot doesn't make diamonds less than 1:1.5. Not an insurmountable problem but not ideal. Now I think they all work with radii on the slip roads no worse than the two double track entries into the station from the outer loops. 

posted: 16 May 2016 23:46

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 Fraser.
It hadn't occurred to me that the blue text under the pictures was anything more than a caption! Usually the box file is attached at the end of the message, you live and learn. I have now downloaded your latest version and it certainly looks much better. You obviously have some tiding up to do as there are breaks in the track in places, but I must commend you on what you have already achieved. The top left turnout has bent checkrails whereas all the rest are machined. Your track spacings have been widened from standard on your curves, something many people overlook. I note that you have chosen to use switched crossings on 1:6 diamonds. Since I have found that 1:6 fixed crossings work reliably in EM which also uses a 1mm flangeway, I would have thought they would do so in 4-SF. However I do not blame you for taking the safe option and without practical experience of 4-SF would not counsel otherwise. You have much timber shoving to do but wait until you are happy with your tack plan before doing that as further mods will usually mean having to redo it. I note also that the inner slip roads to both the right-hand double slips are just under 24" which is still rather tight in my view, but if they are acceptable to you fair enough. I have probably just become too used to larger radii after years of working in P4.
You seem to be managing pretty well so far, but if you need any further help, just shout.
Regards
Tony.

posted: 12 Oct 2016 17:11

from:

FraserSmith
 
Dundee - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
A summer of inactivity on my planning is now past and I'm back to the computer for some more Templot trial and error. I have now tried a slightly different layout but time to think about it has raised a lot of questions in my mind.

The plan now looks like throat.pngthroat.png

3137_121136_060000000.png3137_121136_060000000.png

Click here for BOX file

Questions

1) The diamonds are obviously quite different in angle and length and also different in their two halves. I assume it would be more prototypical to use the same angle for all of them? Would making the crossing roads away from the central crossing as curves rather than straights help?

2) I want to make the six outer ones into double slips. I have done this as shown in my efforts in my previous postings but I have been thinking about the blade sizes to use. The defined blades only go to 1:6 whereas some of the angles are coarser than that. Does it make any difference if I use the 1:6 blades on a 1:5 crossing?

3) Would I be better sticking with the single curvature as per the plan in my post of the 14th May?

As an aside I have made myself an excel spreadsheet to calculate the 10ft way centres to cope with  the tighter curves in my plan rather than guessing a number, making the track  then using the roll vehicle only to find that it was too wide or not wide enough. I use the formulas on page 27 of Track Design Handbook. It looks like a very useful document for other details too.

Fraser

posted: 14 Oct 2016 18:38

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
FraserSmith wrote:
2) I want to make the six outer ones into double slips. I have done this as shown in my efforts in my previous postings but I have been thinking about the blade sizes to use. The defined blades only go to 1:6 whereas some of the angles are coarser than that. Does it make any difference if I use the 1:6 blades on a 1:5 crossing?
Hi Fraser,

You're a glutton for double slips!

Unfortunately your slips are falling between two options.

An inside slip shorter than 1:6 is all but impossible, especially in 00 -- unless you are going down to Peco geometry. A 1:5 inside slip would have an excessively sharp curve in the slip roads, and even the usual short 1:24 blades would be too long.

On the other hand, for an outside slip you would normally want a diamond shorter than 1:5, otherwise it is going to be very long, and you would have trouble finding space for the switches.

Instead of having all your diamonds around 1:5 or 1:6, I suggest changing the diagonal road to a gentle curve, so that some crossings are shorter, and some longer:

2_141304_090000000.png2_141304_090000000.png

Here I changed the turnout at A to a B-6.5, and moved it back a little way round the curve. I made a gently curving branch track from it.

Then the diamond at B is around 1:4 and suitable for double outside slip roads. There is just about room between the main roads for the switch. My recent video about moving switches close behind the crossing may help.

The diamond at C is about 1:10, so will need to be a switch-diamond, making an interesting double slip. Then the final diamond at D is around 1:6.5 and just about long enough for a conventional inside slip in 00.

I imagine the same idea could be applied to the other diagonal road.


rather than guessing a number, making the track then using the roll vehicle only to find that it was too wide or not wide enough
You shouldn't need to guess, you can now adjust the track spacing by mouse action with a dummy vehicle present. That way you can find the spacing needed:

2_141321_450000000.png2_141321_450000000.png

Put a copy of the dummy vehicle in place first, and then roll it to the conflict position. Then the mouse action adjusts the spacing until it is clear.

That was added in 213a. :)  See para. 13 at:

 message 19148

and this bit of scruffy video:

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

regards,

Martin.

posted: 16 Oct 2016 08:04

from:

FraserSmith
 
Dundee - 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 for your response. It has given me some confidence to carry on with this alternative track plan. All I need now is to get to grips with outside slips. I assume that it's a case of multiple partial templates. I did a quick search for outside slips but didn't see any reference to any tutorial or video so far but I'm guessing that the only difference between an inside and outside slip are their extra V crossings. Oh and that their noses must be on a timber which I presume must dictate what radii are possible. It will make for an interesting winter project.

I had used your roll vehicles check for centres but I had missed the bit about being able to set and adjust another one on an adjacent track without the track being there. As with all powerful programs there is just so much that can be done but it does require a lot of time and effort to get on top of it all. I am really enjoying using it and look forward to mastering another area (I hope!).

Thanks again

Fraser

posted: 16 Oct 2016 08:53

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
FraserSmith wrote:
All I need now is to get to grips with outside slips. I assume that it's a case of multiple partial templates. I did a quick search for outside slips but didn't see any reference to any tutorial or video so far but I'm guessing that the only difference between an inside and outside slip are their extra V crossings. Oh and that their noses must be on a timber which I presume must dictate what radii are possible.
Hi Fraser,

No, I don't recall doing a tutorial or video for outside slips, although after all these years of Templot I'm now getting very forgetful about what I have and haven't done. :)

But I did write recently about the basics of outside slips -- see this topic:

 topic 2931 - message 20789

Generally for any complex formation the rail design is done first, and then the timbering is designed to fit under it, rather than the other way round. Occasionally the rail design might be adjusted slightly to get a better or easier-to-maintain timbering layout.

I had used your roll vehicles check for centres but I had missed the bit about being able to set and adjust another one on an adjacent track without the track being there.
It must seem counter-intuitive to have a "track centre-line" which can be adjusted to be elsewhere than in the centre of the track. But I don't know what else to call it, bearing in mind that for 99% of the time it is in the centre of the track. :?

See the options at geometry > centre-line options > menu items. When it is moved to an adjacent track centre, the dummy vehicle goes with it (unless the dummy vehicle is on the turnout road).

regards,

Martin. 

posted: 8 May 2017 09:55

from:

FraserSmith
 
Dundee - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I can't believe that it's been a year since I started this thread but I have been working on this problem on and off since than and eventually I seem to have a solution. It's not been tidied up yet, there is much timber shoving to do still, but I am reasonably happy with the final result. Martin's suggestion above to change the entry turnout and have a curving crossover track was the answer but the interaction with the other crossover track was a lot more difficult to deal with than I thought it would be. I now have an outside slip, long switched slip and a host of other standard inside slips. Well almost standard slips as I had to make transition curves on some of the slip roads or use slip roads of slightly different radii from each switch meeting at a common tangent point at about the mid point on some of the others.
throat_with_all_slips.pngthroat_with_all_slips.png

Throat with all slips. Click this for Box file

I can't remember how many different configurations I tried but most had complications like the central crossing being too tight to the second track down or that one or more of the slips ended up in the no mans land of 1:5 - 1:6 so neither inside or outside slip would fit.

Anyway it's done now - until someone points out something wrong!

Fraser
Attachment: attach_2424_2875_throat_with_all_slips.box     240



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Problem with slips when modifying Freezer layout
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