|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 5 Apr 2019 11:52 from: Alan Kettlewell
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've spent a couple of weeks re-learning the basics of Templot (and became slightly addicted in the process!) and have cobbled together the attached plan to help determine the feasibility for an O gauge (OMF) layout in my shed. There's 31.5 x 13.5ft available. I'm happy with my overall plan and would appreciate it if experts could cast an eye over it and advise of any errors in how I've used the templates and of any improvements that could be made. A lot has been achieved using 'Shift and Join' and I appreciate there may be better ways. Please ignore the storage yard area as I'll probably use some Peco points and track there as it would be hidden. I'll post my .box file here and follow on with .bgs and .sk9 files. Many thanks … Alan |
||
Attachment: attach_2814_3408_O_Gauge_Layout_5_Apr_19.box 170 | |||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 11:53 from: Alan Kettlewell
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Shapes file for the above .. | ||
Attachment: attach_2815_3408_O_Gauge_Layout_Shed_Shape.bgs 139 | |||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 11:55 from: Alan Kettlewell
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sketch file for the above ... | ||
Attachment: attach_2816_3408_o_gauge_layout_buildings.sk9 200 | |||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 13:32 from: wcampbell23
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Alan I have had a quick look at your design. My main concern would be the width allowed for platforms - in particular the island platform for the main station. I don't think it would be wide enough for a footbridge or subway entrance. You may also get comments about the use of a double slip in a running line - would this be accepted practice for the area in which your line is based? Best wishes. Bill Campbell. |
||
Last edited on 5 Apr 2019 13:32 by wcampbell23 |
|||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 14:21 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
2 Main areas for concern immediately in addition. Diamond crossings on a curve can be a source of problems. Best to build some of the it fairly tight (0SF). On the Left hand side the outermost track is too close to it's neighbour - bit more clearance required (well quite a lot really). Double Slips in main line station areas not unknown. More clearance on curves may be required depending on stock being used. |
||
Last edited on 5 Apr 2019 14:23 by Stephen Freeman |
|||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 14:22 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Alan, Thanks for posting your plan. A few things I noticed: 2_050902_130000000.png The K-crossing angles on this diamond-crossing do not match. On the left the K-crossing is 1:6.35, and 1:7.25 on the right. Where necessary you can get away with small differences in K-crossing angle, but not this much. To create matched K-crossings, use the tools > make diamond-crossing function, or the make diamond-crossing at intersection function. In this situation on a sharpish curve, I would strongly recommend building this as a switch-diamond, that's at real > K-crossing options > movable K-crossings menu option. 2_050902_130000002.png Here as you can see, the clearances are a bit tight. There seems to be plenty of room to ease the track spacings a little. Also the use of a B-6 turnout seems unnecessarily sharp, with room to use something longer -- unless a baseboard joint is a factor? 2_050902_130000001.png Obviously this area is a work in progress, as there clearly isn't a running clearance here. Use the dummy vehicle tool to check (as above). cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 15:44 from: wcampbell23
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi again Just noticed something else that may give you problems. The turnout leading to the inner fiddle yard loops has a very tight minimum radius. As it stands it is a left-hand turnout - re-draw the inner track as a constant radius and then insert a right-hand turnout in place of the LH. Adjust the angle of the V to give a smooth alignment into the second loop. Regards. Bill. |
||
posted: 5 Apr 2019 17:11 from: Alan Kettlewell
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Many thanks for the comments. Well spotted about the big curve being too close, I hadnt noticed it had changed since I did it as it wasn't tight like that. I reckon I must have changed it while tinkering about at the other end of the curves. I'll have a closer look at platform widths and clearances generally and another go at the diamond crossing arrangement at the top left. Some of the terms used I don't understand so I'll do some reading up. Please note, as mentioned in my opening post, to ignore the storage yard area and approaches as I would probably use Peco turnouts and track there. Many thanks again, the observations are very useful. Cheers ... Alan |
||
posted: 7 Apr 2019 14:47 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
The barest minimum between the platform edge and any structure is 6ft and at busier locations 12ft is recommended. Phil. |
||
posted: 7 Apr 2019 16:18 from: Alan Kettlewell
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Phil. I've since widened both platforms to around 20ft. Cheers ... Alan |
||
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. |