click here for a list of all existing Templot documentation
Important Privacy Information cookie information pre-print options:    

click image to open Templot Club in a new tab
Templot club top logo
looking for Templot? - (free)



 you are not logged in  - Login | Join


receive all messages by email: info


Recent Topics
Front Page  Search  Image Gallery  Gallery Upload  My Account  Members  Open Source  TemplotMEC  Help  
make a donation  
please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors Templot Companion - User Guide
            messages archive on Yahoo
page trail:  Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Interconnected track - how to divide, and a better diverging arrangement
Templot web site

                                       Interconnected track - how to divide, and a better diverging arrangement
     
 Start new topic   Reply blank   Printer friendly 
  Rate this topic  
AuthorMessage
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
1st message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 08:01
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Good morning chaps!

I posted this question on RMWeb and Mr. Wynne suggested here might be more fertile ground for discussion. I've got a relatively simple arrangement of trackwork in my station throat, which I have divided for ease of construction into three meta arrangements of A, B and C:



I tink A and C are relatively straight forward - simple B6 crossovers though C has an extra B6 interleaved.

The issue appears to be with the formation at B - as Martin has pointed, it is not possible for both turnout routes to be occupied simultaneously (in model form) without there being a conflict.

Now, this isn't something that keeps me up at night: I'll be a sole operator and if not I find it hard to believe that this will be a frequent enough conflicting movement to cause problems (seeing as the bottom right road out of the junction is a carriage siding).

However, as I've yet to lay track and everything else is ramrod-straight B6's, I thought this might be an interesting opportunity to re-work them if they fit into the rest of the geometry.

Option 1 is to leave them as-is.
Option 2 is to replace them with B8 turnouts which works, but neccesitates an S-curve on the carriage road to bring it out to the correct separation (to be honest, this may be required anyway - I gather it would require a 10' way as opposed to the 6' way?)
Option 3 is to adjust the geometry with a more 'custom' layout.

Option 3 is something that Martin W. suggested using contraflexed (!?) turnouts to maintain the geometry and spacing, but it's way over my head.

I would be grateful for any advice or help - I have attached the plan with Option 2 in-situ, but as long as the top/rearmost track centre of formation A remains at roughly 15 to 16"  and formation C stays where it is - I'd be really excited to see what we can come up with for formation B.



__________
message ref: 26079
Attachment: godstonerd_b8.box (Downloaded 22 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
2nd message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 13:34
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
John Palmer
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
As I haven't seen the thread in which Martin drew attention to a conflict, I am not entirely sure what the nature of that conflict is.

What does seem clear is that a movement to/from what I take to be the carriage road (PL156) isn't going to be possible whilst a movement out of the platform avoiding line (PL184) is in progress, and vice versa.  Perhaps this is the conflict that has been identified.

If that's accepted then a posible solution would be to make the carriage siding exit part of a tandem.  That tandem can be formed either in TL139 or in TR177.

Here's a box file for one such option

__________
message ref: 26080
Attachment: Godstonerd_option_1.box (Downloaded 14 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
3rd message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 13:36
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
John Palmer
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
...and here's a box file for the other option.

Both of these are pretty rough and ready, as they are only intended to identify some possible options, but they might represent a basis for further development.

__________
message ref: 26081
Attachment: Godstonerd_option_2.box (Downloaded 15 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
4th message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 13:44
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks John, the issue was if TR173 (and the turnout below it - label blocked in my screenshot and I don't have templot at work unforutnately) were both set to the curved routes then stock could potentially physically hit each other. PL184 is the carriage road.

I'll check out your box files when I get home - thank you so much for looking into it for me.

While doodling on a napkin I wonder if PL156/PL184 should come off the same turnout as per a 'normal' goods yard - this would reduce the track congestion on the up main (PL153-TL139-TR113-etc.)
__________
message ref: 26082

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
5th message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 15:06
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
John Palmer
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
William Williamson wrote: ... the issue was if TR173 (and the turnout below it - label blocked in my screenshot and I don't have templot at work unforutnately) were both set to the curved routes then stock could potentially physically hit each other. PL184 is the carriage road.Ah, well in that case I would definitely think in terms of lengthening the leads on TL186 and TR260  so as to reduce the end throw on vehicles passing over these connections, as I would expect that to ameliorate or even eliminate such a conflict.  This may involve the toe of TL186 becoming repositioned adjacent to a platform face, which in turn could have implications for the signalling/locking of facing movements over these points.

__________
message ref: 26083

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
6th message | this message only posted: 13 Nov 2018 15:28
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
William's original RM post is here for anybody interested.

Rob


__________
message ref: 26084

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
7th message | this message only posted: 15 Nov 2018 07:35
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks Rob! The more I think about it, the more I reckon that a consolidated entry to the 'old goods yard' (i.e. a CCD siding and a carriage siding) makes more sense. I don't want to bring the front-left tracks too close to the front, but I wonder if a large S curve will give me the geometry I need.

Life has gone a bit mad in the last couple of days, but I think that may be my next port of call.

The added benefit is that I'm introducing some curved turnouts, which are sooo pretty.
__________
message ref: 26096

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
8th message | this message only posted: 15 Nov 2018 16:10
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi William,

There are a few issues with your plan:



Omitting switch timbers isn't generally an option because they need to be at specific locations for the special switch chairs to fit properly. Where you want to insert a switch close into the back of a V-crossing like this, some ingenuity in the timbering is needed.

In this case you have a turnout with a regular type V-crossing, so you can lock the V-crossing in place (CTRL+4 peg position) and then change the lead length of the turnout by adjusting the crossing entry straight a little. By such means you can get the switch timbers interlaced between the crossing timbers on the turnout above to avoid the conflicts. Then a bit of skewing or shortening of those timbers (without losing the special chair positions on them) should provide a usable result:




Here you have replaced a B-6 turnout with a longer B-8 turnout, but without making extra space for it. The result is that you have lost the minimum 6ft way (see the orange spacing-ring tool), and you have a severe misalignment at a template boundary:

 

The turnout in that screenshot appears to be forming a crossover between running lines. In such a situation it would be better as a right-hand turnout, so that the main road forms a smooth running line, and the turnout road forms the crossover road.

Your intended track plan seems to be in a state of flux. If you can post a finalised design intent, we can help you fix issues such as these.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 26097

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
9th message | this message only posted: 15 Nov 2018 20:40
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Apologies, I didn't realise my trackplan needed to be in flux until your kind advice that there would be a crash if certain moves were done in parallel.

Rather than trying to fit both the bottom and second-to-bottom sidings directly, I've reworked so they both come off a single road - I think this looks more realistic and definitely adds some breathing room.

Since I'm laying my own pointwork, I made the two leftmost turnouts curved rather than ramrod straight - I think it looks nice but not sure of how practical it would be to lay and how the stock would fare over it. Here's a birds eye view of the plan:


TR218 formss the entrance to 'the old goods yard', withTR227 dividing it into the coal depot (bottom) and carriage siding (middle). The carriage siding now has a 10' way between it and the platform road.


TL235/236 are the curved entrance turnouts which weren't strictly required but I think I want to include just to smooth the geometry out a bit and to look nice with stock snaking through

The idea with PR240 is to have it leading towards the baseboard front to represent the rest of the area with the coal bins/etc. on the 'aisle' side.

The only part of the plan I'm not really excited about is the S-curve created by PL239 and PL232 - it's required to get the requisite clearance for the gravel shed (ablve TL236) and so far built of separate 'constant radius' curves. I'm sure there's a better way but I don't know how to do it.

The timbers around TL186 remain unchanged but I'm sure they need work...


__________
message ref: 26098
Attachment: godstonerd_staggered2.box (Downloaded 14 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
10th message | this message only posted: 16 Nov 2018 00:19
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
John Durbetaki
Gaston, Oregon USA



view images in gallery
view images as slides
From an aesthetic point of view, it would seem to me that if you moved TL190 to the right along the curve, that will bring the exit up some and you can straighten out PL2332 and PL231. Might not be much of a move, maybe 5-ish ties just eye-balling it...

John
__________
message ref: 26099

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
11th message | this message only posted: 16 Nov 2018 09:59
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi William,

Your first turnout on the left (TL235) has a turnout radius of 27" which is distinctly sharp for EM. Generally when curving turnouts with similar flexure, you need to start with something larger than a B-6.

Here I have used a B-7 instead, and eased the curving radius a bit, which gets the turnout radius to a more respectable 42":



I also changed turnout A to a right-hand turnout, so that the turnout road forms part of the crossover, instead of the running line. This allows the running lines to form the ruling curves, with turnouts branching from them, in a more prototypical manner.

Here I replaced the turnouts with plain track, to illustrate that. The grey tracks are your originals:



The curves include transition curves, which in some cases stray into the turnouts. That's not entirely prototypical, but in fitting a model into a small space is sometimes unavoidable. Once the template is printed, the fact that the curve through it is on a transition makes no practical difference to model construction.

Would you like me to finish this and post the .box file? There isn't much point if your ideas are still in flux. For example I am mystified by your reference to a gravel shed? I have the tracks entering on the left as running lines at normal 6ft way. However I have a horrible feeling the upper track is in fact a siding, in which case it needs to be at 10ft way, entered with a right-hand turnout.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 26100

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
12th message | this message only posted: 16 Nov 2018 11:01
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Thanks both!


Martin Wynne wrote: Hi William,

Your first turnout on the left (TL235) has a turnout radius of 27" which is distinctly sharp for EM. Generally when curving turnouts with similar flexure, you need to start with something larger than a B-6.

Here I have used a B-7 instead, and eased the curving radius a bit, which gets the turnout radius to a more respectable 42":



I also changed turnout A to a right-hand turnout, so that the turnout road forms part of the crossover, instead of the running line. This allows the running lines to form the ruling curves, with turnouts branching from them, in a more prototypical manner.

Here I replaced the turnouts with plain track, to illustrate that. The grey tracks are your originals:



The curves include transition curves, which in some cases stray into the turnouts. That's not entirely prototypical, but in fitting a model into a small space is sometimes unavoidable. Once the template is printed, the fact that the curve through it is on a transition makes no practical difference to model construction.

Would you like me to finish this and post the .box file? There isn't much point if your ideas are still in flux. For example I am mystified by your reference to a gravel shed? I have the tracks entering on the left as running lines at normal 6ft way. However I have a horrible feeling the upper track is in fact a siding, in which case it needs to be at 10ft way, entered with a right-hand turnout.

cheers,

Martin.
Gosh martin, your lines make mine look like total garbage :)

I have simplified the track plan further (in addition to the common entrance to the 'goods yard' I just couldn't find a proper justification for a gravel shed to be connected to a platform line! Maybe this is the power that Beeching craved? :)) and now I think I'm in a good position to move forward.


If you could use your magic to put those smooth lines onto the attached box, I think I'd be in business! That would be super helpful - or alternatively if you have any suggestions I would gladly hear them.


__________
message ref: 26101
Attachment: godstonerd_simplified.box (Downloaded 8 times)
 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
13th message | this message only posted: 16 Nov 2018 12:58
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
William Williamson
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Martin, I've decided to just do this in 00 for now to get SOMETHING down, and will revisit EM once I've got some time under my belt. The other boards for this layout would be great opportunities for 00-SF, but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

Thank you all again for your help and advice, and I'm sorry for disturbing you!

__________
message ref: 26102

 
 Clicked a link? Wrong message? Wait until the page has finished loading, click in the address bar and then press the Enter key. This is a timing bug in some browsers.
14th message | this message only posted: 16 Nov 2018 13:05
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Martin Wynne
West Of The Severn, United Kingdom



view images in gallery
view images as slides

Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email or PM.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
William Williamson wrote: Martin, I've decided to just do this in 00 for now, and will revisit once I've got some EM under my belt.Hi William,

OK. I think I mentioned flux. :)

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 26103

 
This is topic ID = 3353     Page created at 20:04 (local time)  
You can type a quick reply to this topic here.

Click in the box to begin.


But to reply to an individual message, or to include images, attachments and formatted text, use the reply buttons on each message above.

To start a new topic in this forum, click the Start new topic button below.
To start a new topic in a different forum, click the Forum Jump drop-down list below.

             Start new topic 

 click to jump to a different forum:     Back to top of page

Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Interconnected track - how to divide, and a better diverging arrangement
about Templot Club

list recently active topics 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.  
© 2019  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems