Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 02:24 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin and fellow Templotters, still making good progress and finally cracked how to draw a double slip. Simple question however. When converting a turnout from say a B7 to a half diamond the various gaps and check rails all seem in place at the centre of the crossing. When I select a C10 turnout though and convert to a diamond crossing, the rails at the centre of the crossing are all together and no gaps exist. (Apologies for not knowing the technical terms for the various component parts of a crossing). Does this mean you cannot build a conventional double slip using a 1:10 crossing? Do you have to generate a completely different form of double slip? | ||
| Last edited on 20 Dec 2007 02:25 by Gordon S |
|||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 02:39 from: Paul Boyd
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Ah-ha - I had this the other day! The fix is very simple. From the menus, it is 'real'=>'K-crossing options' then click on 'Fixed K-crossings'. That's the easy bit - the difficult bit, I think, will be making a double slip work at a 1:10 angle... |
||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 02:44 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for that Paul. Somehow I thought that 1:10 slip would have a larger radius on the slip roads and therefore allow long wheelbase locos such as 9F's to run through more easily. From your comment, I assume there is more to it than I first thought.... | ||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 02:54 from: Paul Boyd
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Somehow I thought that 1:10 slip would have a larger radius on the slip roads and therefore allow long wheelbase locos such as 9F's to run through more easily. From your comment, I assume there is more to it than I first thought....Actually, ignore my comment - I've just knocked up a 1:10 double slip in P4 (in Templot!), and it works fine! It's shorter angles I was thinking of that will give a problem  The K-crossing bit is still valid though  |
||
| Last edited on 20 Dec 2007 02:59 by Paul Boyd |
|||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 03:05 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon, Some confusion here.  The presence of slip roads is irrelevant. The question relates to the K-crossings forming the centre of the base diamond-crossing.I strongly recommend that you don't try to build 00 gauge K-crossings as flat as 1:10 with fixed K-crossings. On the prototype the flattest angle allowed for fixed K-crossings is 1:8. With the sloppier flangeways in 00 gauge you ought to consider 1:7 or even less as the flattest allowed for fixed K-crossings. Build flatter angles as movable K-crossings (switch-diamonds). They are actually a lot easier to build, although of course need extra point-motors. There are some detailed notes about all this in Templot -- click the real > K-crossing options > ? K-crossings - help menu item. Here's what it says: About K-crossings A K-crossing is also sometimes called an obtuse crossing or an elbow crossing. Two K-crossings are used at the centre of a diamond-crossing formation, one in each rail. There are two types of K-crossing, fixed and movable. Movable K-crossings are used for crossing angles flatter than 1:8 in straight track, and for sharper angles in curved track. In a movable K-crossing the diamond point rails move into contact with the stock rails in a similar way to ordinary switch blades. A diamond-crossing with movable K-crossings is sometimes called switch-diamond. If the REAL > K-CROSSING OPTIONS > AUTOMATIC menu option is selected, Templot will set the type of K-crossing to movable if the crossing angle is flatter than 1:8 and fixed otherwise. You may need to override the automatic setting on curved track, according to the following rules: In radius down to: the flattest angle for a fixed K-crossing is: 60 chains ( 3960ft )........1:8 30 chains ( 1980ft )........1:7.75 20 chains ( 1320ft )........1:7.5 15 chains ( 990ft )..........1:7.25 12 chains ( 792ft )..........1:7 10 chains ( 660ft )..........1:6.5 below 10 chains............1:6 This information is dated 1943 for the GWR, and similar rules can be assumed for other companies. However, in models we often need to use sharp curves to represent the easier curves of the prototype. In this circumstance the choice of K-crossing type should be based on the known or likely prototype radius, not the full-size equivalent of the model radius. Otherwise nearly all the K-crossings on the model would be movable, which is not typical of the prototype where the majority of K-crossings are fixed. Check rails (guard rails) are used only for fixed K-crossings in which the diamond point rails are fixed. Check rails are not required for movable K-crossings because the wheels see no break in the rail. K-crossing point rails are blunted to a tip width 1/8" less than the corresponding V-crossing blunt nose, which can be set by clicking the REAL > CUSTOMIZE V-CROSSING > BLUNT NOSE... menu item. -------------------------------- regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 03:22 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks again guys. Having printed off a 1:10 template I can see the possible problem. The gaps across the centre crossing are pretty large and I can visualise wheels dropping in the gap. No problem, as I can soon substitute 1:7 or 1:8 crossings. | ||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 03:55 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Thanks again guys. Having printed off a 1:10 template I can see the possible problem. The gaps across the centre crossing are pretty large and I can visualise wheels dropping in the gap*. No problem, as I can soon substitute 1:7 or 1:8 crossings.Hi Gordon, No, don't do that. If you want 1:10, build 1:10. But make them switch-diamonds with movable K-crossings. Here's a couple of images to help explain. These are diamond-crossings, but you can add slip roads to make them into slips, just as for fixed K-crossings: switch_diamond_10bh.jpg  © PWI switch_diamond.jpg  © PWI Notice that in a flat-bottom switch-diamond (lower photo) the switch tips (points) are carried on two separate timbers. In a bullhead switch-diamond (upper drawing) both switch tips share a common wider centre timber. *If you use the proper width wheels for 00-BF they can't "drop" into the gap. But they can, and will, take the wrong road on fixed K-crossings of very flat angle. Using movable K-crossings for flat angles prevents this. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Dec 2007 10:27 from: John Lewis
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Paul Boyd wrote: That's the easy bit - the difficult bit, I think, will be making a double slip work at a 1:10 angle... It should have movable K-crossings? John |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2007 22:04 from: Templot User
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
----- from Andrew Jukes ----- Martin Wynne wrote: On the prototype the flattest angle allowed for fixed K-crossings is 1:8.Hi Martin Was this always true? Obviously, the geometrical properties haven't changed but were people perhaps a little less risk-averse in earlier times? The 1:8 rule is certainly what is quoted by the PWay Inst. going back to the early 1940s but what rules were applied by the pre-group companies? I only ask because the geometry of the track layout I'm looking at seems to indicate a slip with 1:8.5 obtuse crossings and the photographic evidence is that the crossings were definitely fixed. It's LNER/GNR I'm interested in, of course. Regards Andrew Jukes |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2007 22:32 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andrew Jukes wrote:On the prototype the flattest angle allowed for fixed K-crossings is 1:8.Was this always true? Obviously, the geometrical properties haven't changed but were people perhaps a little less risk-averse in earlier times? Hi Andrew, For pre-grouping all bets are off. A much-used V-crossing angle at one time was 1:9 (still is in continental Europe). It can be reasonably assumed that 1:9 fixed diamonds and slips were made to match -- and more than assumed for the GER:C. J. Allen (1915) lists angles up to 1:9 for GER obtuse crossings (fixed K-crossings) -- see: obtuse_ger.jpg  No doubt the 1:8 rule was arrived at from practical experience of derailments on flatter angles. For GWR in 1943 we have these rules: In radius down to: the flattest angle for a fixed K-crossing is: 60 chains ( 3960ft )........1:8 30 chains ( 1980ft )........1:7.75 20 chains ( 1320ft )........1:7.5 15 chains ( 990ft )..........1:7.25 12 chains ( 792ft )..........1:7 10 chains ( 660ft )..........1:6.5 below 10 chains............1:6 The current Network Rail rule states "the flattest fixed obtuse crossing is 1:6.25 , exceptionally 1:8.25 when all four legs are straight". regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 22 Dec 2007 23:23 from: Templot User
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
----- from Andrew Jukes ----- Thanks, Martin - very helpful. It makes sense of the plan I'm working from but I'll be wondering what it'll do for reliability when it finally gets built. At least both roads are straight. Regards Andrew |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 01:21 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Would you recomend I slightly alter a fixed diamond I have currently 8.25 and all roads are curved. FB rail. Dave |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 02:33 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote:Would you recomend I slightly alter a fixed diamond I have currently 8.25 and all roads are curved. FB rail.Hi Dave, As you are using 00-BF standards I think you would do better to regard say 1:6 as the flattest angle safe for fixed K-crossings. Use switch-diamonds for the flatter diamonds and slips. There is so much slop in the 00 gauge standards that wheels can very easily take the wrong road in flat-angle fixed K-crossings. You could consider tightening things up by using 00-SF instead of 00-BF -- see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF In fact a switch-diamond is quite a bit easier to build than fixed K-crossings, the only disadvantage being the need for additional point motors. Prepare the moving diamond points by first bending the end like this, so that the tip is solid metal at x: switch_diamond_points.png  (Diagram shows the rail head in yellow and the web in orange. The rail foot for FB is not shown.) regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 18:35 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks for the reply, I'm not so sure on OO-SF, I've re read several of the RMweb topics on this and I myself am not too much of a fan of OO either scale but there are a few reasons why, I don't jump to atleast EM and/or P4. I'd rather lower the size of the diamond as the prototype doesn't have switched diamonds. Dave |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 19:02 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: I'm not so sure on 00-SF, I've re read several of the RMweb topics on thisHi Dave, RMweb may not be the best place to look for a balanced view of 00-SF. For some reason any mention of 00-SF on there raises the temperature several degrees! It's a mystery to me why that happens.I wrote a summary of the 00 gauge standards at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF/message/254 regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 19:46 from: Peter Salathiel
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, For some reason, and I'm thinking of a mainline double junction, I was under the impression that the crossing angle of the turnout and the crossing angle of the crossover needed to be the same. Not so? Given a model track mainline radius in the region of 36"-40" and B-8 or C-9 turnouts could one use a fixed K-crossing angle of say 1:7 without problems? Regards Peter |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 20:47 from: Ashley click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: RMweb may not be the best place to look for a balanced view of 00-SF. For some reason any mention of 00-SF on there raises the temperature several degrees! It is really simple why this raises people temperatures. Not everybody likes to build track. Some people would rather watch paint dry than build track. Some people are frightened by the thought of building track. Xmas rant mode on... However you slice it, not everybody is fascinated by building track. For me it is a necessary evil, otherwise I can't run my wagons. I love building wagons. Building locomotives is less fun, but doable. Track leaves me cold. I thank god for the P4 Track Company. For me, and for countless others, modifying wagons, coaches and locomotives is fun, but track building is not. Therefore to posit building track to a gauge that is even narrower makes no sense at all to me, or people who share my view. Now to you, and people who share your view, building track is bouncy, bouncy, fun, fun, fun. Good on you. You posit that modifying locomotives, wagons and coaches, by changing the wheels back to back is too difficult for the average modeller who buys RTR. You argue that these RTR enthusiasts can take advantage of track model making "bunnies" to lay the club track for them. Therefore ending up with better running on the club layout. I argue that that the RTR "bunnies" should badger the manufacturers to produce models with correct back-to-back setting using a uniform and recognised set of standards for wheels and track. For instance like those promulgated by the NMRA. Xmas rant mode off... I like Templot as it allows me to design a layout that can be built, but it is just a means to an end; a place for me to run the wagons I build. Ashley |
||
|
posted: 23 Dec 2007 21:25 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote:RMweb may not be the best place to look for a balanced view of 00-SF. For some reason any mention of 00-SF on there raises the temperature several degrees!Hi Martin I presume your P**o (I use P**o advisedly, as the last time I used the full name a well known gentleman on this group proposed that I should be taken out and hung. I don't think he was joking.) is the code 100 stuff. As a matter of interest, where would P**o code 75 fit? My guess is that it would be somewhere around DOGA Intermediate. cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 24 Dec 2007 15:45 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi You ideas regarding OO-SF have a lot of merit for me, however as I mentioned I do like the standards of em/P4 etc ie correct sleepers size and a more realistic gauge. However I'm stuck because I have friends who like a lot of people are more interested in running rtr and not bothered with track standards, and we share stock from time to time, and the space I have I have a couple of curves down in the mid 26" radii. Also I look after a lot of my Dads Lms stock and he wouldn't be happy if I changed all of his wheels. Is it just due to wheel flanges on rtr that cause all these problems? Is there no other way of adapting turnouts/diamonds to work/look better with out changing the 16.5 gauge? I Think after reading your comments on DOGA fine that wouldn't be an option either as I'm untilising old peco turnouts in the fiddle yards, Plus if I had to change BTBs I'd go EM/P4. Dave |
||
|
posted: 1 Jan 2008 04:29 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Peter Salathiel wrote: For some reason, and I'm thinking of a mainline double junction, I was under the impression that the crossing angle of the turnout and the crossing angle of the crossover needed to be the same. Not so?Hi Peter, At present Templot supports only "regular" diamond-crossings. That means that the V-crossing angles at both ends are the same, which further means that the radius in both roads is the same. So you can have straight crossing straight, or say a curve of 1200mm radius crossing another curve of 1200mm radius. But not curve crossing straight, or crossing a curve of different radius -- a situation which often arises in a double-junction. That is an "irregular" diamond-crossing, in which the V-crossing angles differ. Such irregular diamonds will be available in a future pug version of Templot. If you are planning a large layout and need irregular diamonds, I suggest leaving the design as crossed plain tracks in the meantime. By the time you need the full template for track building, the required functions may be available in Templot. I discussed this at greater length with a preview screenshot at: topic 18 If you need a full irregular diamond template right now, it is possible to do it using multiple partial templates. Here is an example of such a double junction containing an irregular diamond-crossing on a transition curve: http://www.templot.com/samples/irreg_double_junct.box (Right-click and Save As...) To see how it is made up, hold down the Shift key or put the Caps Lock on, and then run your mouse over the template name labels. Here are the relevant notes: Only for Templot pug versions 077a or later. Sample P4/S4 double-junction with irregular diamond-crossing. Up main on transition to straight from 40 chains (10560mm) radius. Up branch on transition from 1500mm radius. 7ft way between tracks (48.67mm track centres). Turnouts C-9. Irregular diamond-crossing angles approx 1:7.25, 1:5.25 and 1:4.25 . Plain tracks 45ft rails, joint positions arbitrary. Given a model track mainline radius in the region of 36"-40" and B-8 or C-9 turnouts could one use a fixed K-crossing angle of say 1:7 without problems?Normally a simple crossover or regular ladder crossover requires all the V-crossing angles to be the same. So a B-8 turnout would lead to a 1:8 diamond-crossing. You can vary matters by using a curviform V-crossing in the turnout and introducing curved track, or track curved at a different radius from the main road(s), in the crossover road. But I can't say how that might fit your intended site without seeing your track plan. Why not post a screenshot or upload your .box file as an attachment? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 2 Jan 2008 05:32 from: Peter Salathiel
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Why not post a screenshot or upload your .box file as an attachment?Hi Martin, Please find attached my attempt to replicate Bridgend circa 1950/55. I have used the 1940 1:2500 OS map together with RA Cooke's invaluable track diagrams and the SRS signal box diagrams. The layout will be constructed as an island (mandated by a railway room with 5 doors!) with the centre of the doughnut accessible via a duckunder. Attempts to eliminate this pushed the minimum visible radius down to 24". Comments from the Templot Club caused me to revise this and the minimum visible radius is now somewhere around 30"-36", the 24" radius curves being consigned to tunnels on the branch with workings by Bachmann 0-6-2s and no turnouts. A divider will separate the inner branch which will represent the Bridgend valley branches and the Vale of Glamorgan Barry line plus any 'offline' storage. Control will be via panels located where the signal boxes used to be: Bridgend East (bottom right), Bridgend Middle (bottom left), a combined Cowbridge Road/Tremains panel (top right) and an inner panel. The idea is to have South Wales Main Line action for visitors with walkaround radio control (DCC) for one man operation with the alternative of branch line operation. The station (to scale) is at the bottom centre. It has double junctions at either end. After a lot of shuffling around I finally decided to put the Coity junction (left) on the straight around the corner and the Barry double junction crossover on the curve at the right hand end which is the current problem. All the benchwork is complete. Tracklaying (00-SF) is about to commence. My main concern is whether I can I make the Barry double junction work! Comments invited; help appreciated but no major revisions PLEASE! Regards Peter |
||
| Attachment: attach_180_288_Bridgend_123_08_01_02_0611_25.box 407 | |||
|
posted: 4 Sep 2010 13:03 from: TonyHagon
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Help fellow tracklayers... I know this is a stupid question that everyone else would understand but I just need clarification... when the phrase' flatter angle' is concerned, exactly what does this mean? Does it mean that every angle from 1:2 to 1:8 would automatically be set as a switch diamond, and every angle from 1:8 to 1:999 be set as a fixed K crossing, or is it the other way round? If the latter, would a 1:5 crossing over a main line normally be set as a fixed crossing or could it optionally be set as a switch diamond? The logic in my mind would suggest that a 1:10 crossing would have a longer gap at the nose of the crossing so be more 'dangerous' to the passage of an express train. OTOH, my gut feel suggests that the flangeway in a 1:4 crossing ought to be closed with movable elbows. I hope this is the case as my layout requires a 1:4.5 single slip crossing over the main lines and I fancy the idea of making movable diamonds... Best regards Tony |
||
|
posted: 4 Sep 2010 13:42 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
TonyHagon wrote: I know this is a stupid question that everyone else would understand but I just need clarification... when the phrase' flatter angle' is concerned, exactly what does this mean?Hi Tony, I use the term "flatter than 1:8" or "longer than 1:8" or "gentler than 1:8" to mean angles from 1:8.1 to 1:20 and up. Such K-crossings are almost always switch diamonds (movable K-crossings). I use the term "sharper than 1:8" or "shorter than 1:8" to mean angles 1:2 to 1:8. Such K-crossings are usually fixed K-crossings, if both roads are straight. Below 1:2, I use the term "short-angle crossings". If one or both roads are curved, see the help notes in the program at real > K-crossing options > ? K-crossings - help menu item, from which: In radius down to: the flattest angle for a fixed K-crossing is: 60 chains ( 3960ft )........1:8 30 chains ( 1980ft )........1:7.75 20 chains ( 1320ft )........1:7.5 15 chains ( 990ft )..........1:7.25 12 chains ( 792ft )..........1:7 10 chains ( 660ft )..........1:6.5 below 10 chains............1:6 This information is dated 1943 for the GWR, and similar rules can be assumed for other companies. my layout requires a 1:4.5 single slip crossing over the main lines and I fancy the idea of making movable diamonds...Movable K-crossings sharper than 1:6 would be very unusual and unnecessary, and it may not be physically possible to find room for the moving switch rails. A single slip at 1:4.5 will need to be an outside slip, and the additional V-crossings in the diamond legs will make it practically impossible to fit movable K-crossings. It would be totally unnecessary and unprototypical at 1:4.5 anyway. You may find this book helpful: GWR_Track_200px.jpg  A must for GWR modellers, and very helpful for everyone modelling bullhead track. Available from: http://www.ukmodelshops.co.uk/gwsg/GWRSG_Publications.html regards, Martin. |
||
| 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. |