As being new to templot, found the video showing how to convert intersection into diamond.

Can you then convert the diamond into a double slip?
__________
message ref: 22274

Yes but depends on the angles being sensible of course.
__________
message ref: 22275

I'm trying it with the left one, and the angles are really shallow, but I think the one on the right will be tight. But it's only a single slip the 2nd.
__________
message ref: 22276

Here is some more info.





I am learning how to do the elements I need to design the layout, as there are other things I've yet to figure out how to get right. Like line up 2 different radius, so they meet without a flat edge / kink.

Can't attach the box bgs files... 

__________
message ref: 22277

Sorted, attached.
__________
message ref: 22278

Damien Morris wrote: As being new to templot, found the video showing how to convert intersection into diamond.

Can you then convert the diamond into a double slip?Hi Damien,

You can make double slips directly from the Tools>Make Slip>Make Double Slip menu option.

I suspect somebody may come and suggest you practice the basic aspects of Templot before jumping in at the deep end.

The track plan you have is from LNWR days ( no date but quite likely circa 1890 ) so you may want to consult later plans if you intend modelling the station in LMS or BR days.

Lovely location BTW.

Rob


__________
message ref: 22279

Rob Manchester wrote:I suspect somebody may come and suggest you practice the basic aspects of Templot before jumping in at the deep end.Hi Rob,

Who might that be?

I am in fact just making some screenshots to reply to this shortly.

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22280

Quoting is not easy on this forum, rich text editor is not making my life easier Martin.
You can make double slips directly from the Tools>Make Slip>Make Double Slip menu option.Yes true, but I decided to make a diamond from intersection as i'm going over a drawing. I have not yet figured out how to adjust the angles on all 4 parts of a slip. 

I suspect somebody may come and suggest you practice the basic aspects of Templot before jumping in at the deep end.  
Dunno, does this count?   

The track plan you have is from LNWR days ( no date but quite likely circa 1890 ) so you may want to consult later plans if you intend modelling the station in LMS or BR days.  

This image I found, shows a Bedford TJ series? in the background. So Circa 1958-1975, goods yard still there. 

__________
message ref: 22281

Hi Damien,

Welcome to Templot Club.

What you have there is an irregular diamond-crossing (crossing angles unequal). It's possible to add slip roads to an irregular diamond-crossing, but it would always be a special by the design office, where space constraints leave no choice. For example a cramped station throat, or a complex junction. It's very unlikely to find one in a goods yard.

Further, it is on a curve, requiring that the crossing angle with fixed K-crossings is not flatter than 1:7.5 -- that's a very common size for a slip. Flatter angles* than that require movable K-crossings (switch-diamond) with the extra complications that means in the rodding and interlocking. Again very unlikely in a goods yard, especially in this case where the slip is little more than a set of trap points leading to a short spur headshunt.

The NLS don't (yet) have any large-scale maps for this location, so we can't use the new background maps functions in Templot.

However, old-maps.co.uk do have a 25"/mile map. Dated 1960, which means it has 100m OS grid lines, making it easier to scale for 2mm/ft. That's the publication date, not the date of survey which is probably around the 1930s. Unfortunately being a commercial operation they require a subscription fee before you can access their maps at a reasonable zoom, and also their maps are scanned to a lower resolution quality than the NLS. I have turned this North for South to match your map:




© old-maps.co.uk

I tried matching this, but it required a diamond-crossing of around 1:12, which seems very unlikely. I suspect it may in fact be a pair of turnouts toe-to-toe. Do you have any more photos of the location? I found this one, but it is not clear enough to be sure:


© linked from http://historypoints.org

I found that a B-8 and B-9 turnout fits quite well:





Which strikes me as a more likely fit, assuming the map is accurate.

See also this topic:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3080&forum_id=22&jump_to=22272#p22268

* 1:8 is the maximum, and then only if both roads are straight.

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22282

__________
message ref: 22283

The 1900 is interesting Martin, wagon turn tabel and 2nd exit onto main line.
__________
message ref: 22284

Here is my current box bgs Martin.

I'm sure I should be doing some transitional curves in this.
__________
message ref: 22285

and shapes file.
__________
message ref: 22286

Hi Damien,

Thank you for the photo.

That's detailed enough to scale by counting timbers/chairs.

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22287

Goods shed gone before the end of steam traction. Photo by late I.Vaughan



I think the photo you added earlier shows the goods shed out of use as the doors appear boarded and the lorry is parked where the track was that ran through it.

Rob


__________
message ref: 22288

Martin I've uploaded 5 images to the gallery, really interesting.

Rob I have that photo also, and I think that is 70s? Looks like BMC lorry. 
All the lines nearly all up there. My post shows intact. Narrows it all down though

__________
message ref: 22289

What is really interesting is the diagram shows a pinch / narrowing, and so do the ariel photos in the gallery.

Now when I plot them in photoshop to measure, they appear to get too close to adjacent rail, as to block side by side carriage flow.


__________
message ref: 22290

Damien Morris wrote: Martin I've uploaded 5 images to the gallery, really interesting.

Rob I have that photo also, and I think that is 70s? Looks like BMC lorry. 
All the lines nearly all up there. My post shows intact. Narrows it all down though
Damien,

Steam had all gone by 1968 so it can't be later than that.

Rob


__________
message ref: 22291

I downloaded the shapes file and found it to contain 100 bytes only - something wrong there?

I think this case illustrates the dangers of excessive reliance on the accuracy of ordnance plans' representations of track layouts.  To my way of thinking, the photo in Damien's 18:39 post shows the yard track that ran alongside the Up Main diverging slightly from that running line the closer it gets to the Stephenson bridge, whereas the ordnance plan from old maps suggests instead that at this point the two tracks are converging.  If these tracks are, in fact, diverging at this point then the effect would be to increase the angularity of the diamond and make feasible the double slip configuration clearly visible.  Looking at the ordnance plan alone might lead you to believe that the crossing angle value is 1 : 8 or shallower.

Those curtain walls make a brilliant visual stop for a model!

__________
message ref: 22292

The OS maps you can see they are scans from paper, and the fold line is distorting / kink.

Look in the gallery for my areil photos.

What draw me to it John, also less to model. As it's nearly 4m wide.
__________
message ref: 22293

John Palmer wrote: I downloaded the shapes file and found it to contain 100 bytes only - something wrong there?Hi John, Damien,

Damien you need to upload also the .sk81 image file. The .bgs file contains only the size and position of the picture shape container. It just shows blank white without the matching image file.

From the photo you posted it is clearly a bog-standard 1:8 straight-over-straight double slip, and can be created with one click in Templot. tools > make slip. This also brings the goods loop to its proper 10ft minimum way from the running line, which the OS map didn't show correctly.

The first turnout into the yard is a very tight 9ft-1:5, presumably to keep the switch off the bridge waybeams:



regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22294

Thanks Martin.

I'm more inclined to trust the LNWR diagram I originally posted, as the ariel photos support it better.

The points into the signal depot is very tight, and the dummy vehicle doesn't fit.

I'm not clued up on goods rail spacing, is there a reason for 10ft?

I've attached the image background, resize to 3833.88mm to match DPI.

__________
message ref: 22295

Hi Damien,

Attach the .sk81 file from your background shapes folder.

regards,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 22296

I only see dummy text file in the folders.
Edit: NVM found it.

__________
message ref: 22297