Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 26 Jan 2008 22:39 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi good evening all, Moving on from my previous problems, I've managed to find myself in another predicament. OO gauge double slips more importantly K crossing check rail lengths? I've followed the tutorial in the companion, I had a look at the video also but found it easier to have next to me on a piece of paper and the process doesn't really take too much longer. Anyway I've put together a double slip fairly straight forward. However I got to the section that mention over sized flangeways etc so I checked and yes the K check rails were protruding through the slip rails, so I tried changing the size of the check rails after reading the help files, the problem is to fit them in they're down to a silly 60 or below inches almost hardly worth them being there at all at that size. Any advice (other than we've told you before how naff oo is for this kind of thing). Also there was not much difference between BF and SF with this one unless I'm doing something wrong. Just to add It's a 1:6. Dave |
||
|
posted: 29 Jan 2008 03:28 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: 00 gauge double slips more importantly K crossing check rail lengths?Hi Dave, A 1:6 slip in 00 gauge is just about the worst case. I've prepared some diagrams to illustrate the problem, and a few ideas. The problem is not only the wider than scale flangeways, but also the reduced 00 gauge means that the whole diamond-crossing is much shorter than scale. So even though 00-SF and EM share the same flangeway (1.0mm), the problem of finding room for the K-crossing check rails is much worse in 00-SF than in EM. Here you can see how much shorter is the 00-SF version: 00sf_em_slips6.png  Both are 1:6, using the 1:24 slip switches (i.e. deflection the same as a 9ft or "A" switch). But the EM version has a slip road radius of 60", whereas for 00-SF it's down to 48". In EM I reduced the K-crossing check rail length to 120", with the flare length reduced to 30". I also reduced the flangeway end gap to only 1.3mm. The result is that a working check rail can just about be made to fit. The check rail length is severely under-scale but it manages to look the part: em6_slip_k.png  But using the same settings in 00-SF produces a conflict. You might decide to live with this. It means filing the back of the check rails to fit, which looks a bit odd, but the check rails are still long enough to work: 00sf6_slip_k.png  A possible change is to use a shorter switch. Here I have used a 1:20 custom switch instead of the usual 1:24 slip switch. The 1:20 planing is equivalent to a 7ft-6in switch -- well down into industrial sizes, and it shows. But it eases the slip road radius to 65", and makes room for the check rail with only just the corner needing to be removed: 00sf6_slip_k_20sw.png  An alternative solution is to change to movable K-crossings (switch-diamond). This keeps the original switch (you might even manage a longer 1:32 switch), and allows the whole thing to be on a curve if necessary with no mis-tracking worries. Movable K-crossings have no check rails, which neatly gets round the problem of finding room for them.  The downside is the need for extra point motors:00sf_dslip6_movablek.png  Hope this helps. There isn't an ideal answer -- it's one of the disadvantages of 00 gauge.  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 29 Jan 2008 09:30 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, As a p.s. to that I have been having a play to see if we can improve matters a bit. I moved the switches (1:24) as close as possible to the V-crossings. That meant shortening the V-crossing check rails by 12", and inserting an extra timber to support the switch tips. And the slip roads are no longer a circular arc, but have a straight middle portion with 36" radius curves off the switches. The result is that the slip roads almost clear the 120" K-crossing check rails: 00sf6_slip_mod.png  00sf6_slip_mod_print.png  An important point to note is that there isn't room for both switch blades to be open at the same time between the wing rail fronts. All 4 blades at each end must move in unison. That's correct prototype practice when the slip is worked from a signal box. Sometimes with hand levers in a yard the slip switches can be worked independently, but that won't be possible with this design. Some care will be needed to set the open blade positions to clear flanges both sides. The 082d .box file is attached below, for 00-SF gauge (the file is not suitable for version 074b). I'm not convinced that this design is really any better than filing the K-crossing check rails to clear, but someone may care to build it and find out. (Some other settings have also been modified -- the check rail flares are reduced to 30", and the flangeway end gaps are only 1.3mm -- prototype is 3.5" = 1.17mm.) regards, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_221_324_00sf6_ds_modified.box 398 | |||
|
posted: 7 Feb 2008 19:16 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks for the advice. After searching through some fotopic sites I may well go for the switched Ks, there are several examples of this in the approach to kings cross, I know its not Birmingham based like my layout but compromises are needed. Just need to work out the placements for point motors so they don't conflict each other, the actually motors that is, and tie bars. Couple of links http://paulbigland.fotopic.net/p47165041.html http://trains.and.transport.fotopic.net/p5022128.html http://www.digitalanorak.fotopic.net/p42638855.html Dave |
||
|
posted: 8 Feb 2008 14:02 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Can I ask What the reason is for the additional sleepers when changing these slip diamonds to movable K's. Do I need to move and or remove certain ones? The 4 bunched up sleepers were not present on fixed diamonds. Dave |
||
| Attachment: attach_225_324_slip.gif 888 | |||
| Last edited on 8 Feb 2008 14:03 by davelong |
|||
|
posted: 8 Feb 2008 22:18 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
davelong wrote: Can I ask What the reason is for the additional sleepers when changing these slip diamonds to movable K's. Do I need to move and or remove certain ones?Hi Dave, Sorry about that. Templot assumes you are being prototypical and using movable K-crossings for longer diamonds, so it lays out enough timbers for that length. Unfortunately that doesn't work out too well if you use movable K-crossings on shorter crossings at 1:8 or below, especially if you are using 00 gauge. I need to look at this again, but in the meantime please use the shove timbers function to omit the "T" timbers. Changing to the real > rails > head and foot (flatbottom rails) menu option should improve the spacing of the "K" timbers. I will try to get a modified pug out as soon as possible, but it won't be today now, sorry. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Feb 2008 15:20 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks again. I've had a play with the timbers but not having much clue about prototype sleeper spacings, I tried 2 things. On the right the T1 and T2 were omitted and the 2 surrounding ones moved slightly closer but there seems to be a large gap, but then hey I need to fit a tie bar in there so it might be ok that way. On the left half of the diamond I left timber T2 in there and moved it around a little it looks ok but seems cramped in there though. Rails are set to FB already. Dave |
||
| Attachment: attach_226_324_slip2.gif 844 | |||
| 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. |