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             Search           remove page highlighting
Templot club top logo
    looking for help? -                         enjoy using Templot? -
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 > Tandem turnout in metre gauge 1:87 scale
Templot web site

                 Tandem turnout in metre gauge 1:87 scale
  Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page      
 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: 10 Jul 2019 17:50
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello Martin,

A friend of mine has tried to draw a three way point for me using Templot.

I have official data for the real point and it diverges 50m radius one way and 70m radius the other. I have seen the real point and the data plates on the blade sleepers confirm the radii.

My friend says it is not possible to draw the point using Templot.

Puzzled.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27211

 
 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: 10 Jul 2019 18:04
 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 Bernard,

Please clarify whether it is a 3-throw turnout, or a tandem turnout. More explanation here:

 http://templot.com/companion/3_way_tandem_turnouts.php

Given that the radii differ, I imagine it is a tandem turnout. Is the middle road straight?

What is the switch stagger? (The distance from the tips of the first switch blades to the tips of the second switch blades.)

Metre gauge at 1:87 scale is 11.5mm. Is that your model gauge? What size of flangeway gaps do you use?

cheers,

Martin.


__________
message ref: 27212

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 08:54
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello Martin,

I got the details about the point wrong.

I originally asked about this on the 18th October last year and the details are correctly stated there and there was a picture available of the point. The point has now been removed as part of station rebuilding.

There are two three way points one after the other and I particularly like this arrangement and would like to model it.

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3345&forum_id=1

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3344&forum_id=1&jump_to=25923#p25922

Apologies,

Bernard.


__________
message ref: 27222

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 09:13
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Please note that although the standard is metre gauge in fact there is slight gauge widening in the pointwork to 1003mm. The flangeway gap I am using is .86mm.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27223

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 09:18
 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 Bernard,

Thanks for the links and drawings. Those are tandem turnouts. I can't see any reason why they can't be created in Templot. For proto87 standards at least.

However, we do need some model info.

What is your model track gauge? Metre gauge at 1:87 is 11.5mm gauge.

What is your flangeway gap? The middle V-crossing in the tandem is very close to one running rail, and there may not be adequate clearance for wide model flangeways. The second switch needs clearance to open behind the first and may need greater stagger for wide model flangeways.

The drawings don't show any details for timber sizes or spacing?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27224

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 09:25
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: Please note that although the standard is metre gauge in fact there is slight gauge widening in the pointwork to 1003mm. The flangeway gap I am using is .86mm.Hi Bernard,

Thanks for that.

0.86mm is almost 3" in 1:87 scale, much wider than the prototype flangeway (1.75"/44mm?). Which may explain why your friend was unable to create an exact copy of the tandem.

What is your model track gauge?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27225

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 09:26
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
1003mm at 1:87 is 11.528 so 11.53 is best closest.

I can machine items to a thousanth of an inch here so effectively that is my best accuracy attainable. I have photos of parts of both points but not all of the point of either..

I`m really interested in knowing whether the metalwork is practical at 1:87.

Many thanks again,

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27226

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 09:42
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: 1003mm at 1:87 is 11.528 so 11.53 is best closest.Hi Bernard,

Is that the model gauge you are actually using for your layout?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27227

 
 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: 11 Jul 2019 10:04
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
It will be and I`m prepared to make the rolling stock accomodate the standard if it proves practical.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27228

 
 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: 13 Jul 2019 02:30
 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 Bernard,

Here is a stab at your 2 tandem turnouts.  .box file attached below.






linked from: http://www.bahnbilder.de
© Herbert Graf

I was unable to reconcile the details you gave with the drawing you posted, and the photograph.

These tandem turnouts are both the same. Based on the tandem drawing, i.e. 1:7 turnouts both sides, in this case left-hand first.

I have got them as close to the drawing as possible. I used CLM angles for a better match. the lead lengths and radii are close, but without some dimensions for the switches it's just a guess.

As best I can measure from the photograph, the double-track centres are 3220mm or 37mm in the model. I didn't have any information about the timber sizes or spacing, so this is just a guess. I see it needs some further work in places.

Track gauge is 11.53mm, flangeway gap 0.86mm. With that overscale flangeway the middle V-crossing wing rail will need some careful assembly to clear running flanges -- it just about clears, and the crossing is just about checked. Likewise space for opening the second switch is very tight and will need some careful work. Increasing the stagger would have caused problems with the middle V-crossing.

I assumed BS 80lb/yd flat-bottom rail, 2.5" head width, 5" foot width. The rail height for that would be 5.25" which scales to 0.060" (Code 60).

Let me know if this is what you were looking for. It was done using the make tandem function in Templot -- I'm quite pleased with the result, not having tried it on narrow-gauge before. :)

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27247
Attachment: bernard_tandems.box (Downloaded 24 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.
11th message | this message only posted: 13 Jul 2019 07:08
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello Martin,

Gosh, I`m impressed.

I didn`t make it clear previously. The two three ways are not identical. One has 80m radius in both roads with 1:5.5 and 1:7 crossings in that order and the second is 80m radius 1:7 and then 60m at 1:5.5.

I`m intending to use Micro Engineering Code 55 flat bottom rail with a head width of 26 thou plus or minus 0.002.

The standard track spacing on this railway is 4000mm and I believe that to be true at this location.

I`m only checking that the point details are correct as you mentioned they are the same. It was particularly the 80/60 one that intrigued me.

I have experience of silver soldering crossings in Code 70 rail with excellent results and this enables me to set the crossings `in stone` with no risk of them falling apart when soft soldering nearby. The flat bottom rail often has to have its foot worked on!

I really like this formation and really fancy having a go at it.

Very many thanks again.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27250

 
 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: 13 Jul 2019 08:33
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello again,

I have technical data for the rail used in the points.

Rail height 118mm (1.36mm 54.72 thou).

Foot width 92mm (1.05mm 41.6 thou)

Rail head width 54mm (0.62mm 24.4thou).

So the Micro engineering rail is slightly too wide. But that can be taken care of if necessary....

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27252

 
 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: 13 Jul 2019 11:48
 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 Bernard,

It would have been helpful if you had given me all the data you have at the start. If you knew the rail section data and the track spacing, why not tell me?

Do you have the timber sizes and spacing?

Do you have some drawings for the switches?

Are the check flares bent or machined? I assumed machined, but on a closer look at the photo I think they are probably bent.

You posted a drawing of a tandem with 1:7 angles both ways. It clearly needs to have the same angle both ways to create the parallel platform track, if both tandems are to match the drawing.

But you say they are different? Do you have a drawing of that -- I can see in the photo that the left divergence of the first one might be at a shorter angle than the right divergence, camera lens permitting.

If they are different, does the tandem drawing you posted have any actual relevance to this location?

Looking closely at the drawing I see the crossing angles should be RAM -- the angle specified is in grads (1/100th of a right-angle).

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27253

 
 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: 13 Jul 2019 16:07
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: I didn`t make it clear previously. The two three ways are not identical. One has 80m radius in both roads with 1:5.5 and 1:7 crossings in that orderHi Bernard,

It's not possible for the radius to be the same in both roads if the crossing angles differ. :?

Here is a tandem with 1:5.5 RAM for the first turnout, and 1:7 RAM for the second. The radii are approximately 60 metres and 80 metres respectively. Getting them spot on requires knowing some details of the switch design.

I have reduced the switch stagger as much as sensible, but it still means the middle V-crossing is very close to the running rail. The overscale flangeway means the wing rail will have to cut back to within an inch of its life:



It is just about possible to check that crossing with the lower check rail.

I will leave taking this further pending some info on timber sizes and spacings.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27258

 
 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.
15th message | this message only posted: 13 Jul 2019 18:42
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello again.

I did not intend to mislead you at all. Sorry.

I have an official publication that stated the two points are as stated in a previous message. It may of course be a misprint.

I really want to know if the metalwork is practical at 1:87.

I don`t have sleepering details nor drawings of switches.

Sorry again,

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27260

 
 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.
16th message | this message only posted: 13 Jul 2019 21:07
 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 Bernard,

Thanks for your email. However, I absolutely refuse to discuss Templot in private emails. It is here in public or not at all. See para 11 in the Templot terms of use:

 http://templot.com/companion/terms_of_use.php

Everything depends on what you are trying to do. If you want to create an exact 1:87 model of the prototype, then clearly the full drawings are needed.

However, that is physically impossible unless you use an exact-scale flangeway gap. It's very likely that the prototype flangeway gap is 44.5mm. The model equivalent of that would be 0.51mm.

It should be possible to increase that to the Proto87 standard of 0.55mm:

 https://proto87.org/standards/

But that requires that all your rolling-stock is fitted with Proto87 wheels.

If you want to use a flangeway gap of 0.86mm, presumably in order to use some other existing wheels, then it becomes impossible to follow the prototype drawings exactly.

And if you depart that far from the prototype on the flangeway, it makes sense to be more flexible on other dimensions too. Generally when using wider than scale wheels, such as commercial RTR wheels, it is necessary to reduce the track gauge in order to fit the wheels within a scale model. Hence 00, EM, 0-MF, etc.

In which case I would suggest a track gauge of say 11.0mm rather than your strict 11.53mm dimension.

Then in copying a prototype track plan, the usual practice is to stick to the prototype crossing angles as far as possible, but accept whatever changes in radius, lead length and switch openings are needed to suit the adopted model track standards.

There is a cab ride through Campocologno station available on Google Streetview:

 https://goo.gl/maps/YeSfxxk4autWGDea6

which shows that the station has been completely remodelled since your earlier photograph. Do you have any links to historic maps of the area? They could be used in Templot as a background guide to track planning.

If your data doesn't include any details of the timbering from the earlier track layout, we can simply make something up which might be typical. Or do you have any photos or Google links to other places on the route where the original timbering can be seen?

Please bear in mind that I know absolutely nothing about metre gauge, Swiss railways, or H0 scale modelling in general.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27262

 
 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.
17th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 06:55
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
I quite understand.

Thank you.

It would be easier to stick with the track standards as used by Peco and Tillig and Shinohara but I really fancied doing something in Code 55 which would look a lot more `real` in my opinion.

When my friend said he couldn`t draw the point with the stated parameters I was intrigued and puzzled.

I have a three way point from Ferro Suisse but don`t have to hand the radii in the roads.

Perhaps I could come back to this when I next have a big sort out and find the relevant documents please?

In the meantime thank you very much indeed for your thought and skill in assisting me to understand the subtleties of this formation.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27263

 
 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.
18th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 11:36
 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 Bernard,

You can certainly build something in code 55 to Peco, Tillig or Shinohara standards which matches the prototype closely, and looks far better than commercial pointwork. But using those standards it can't be an exact scale model.

I'm happy to produce the template for you, if you or someone else will tell me what those standards are?

And preferably a link to a photo of Swiss railways from which I can guess the timber sizes and spacings.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27264

 
 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.
19th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 11:49
 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.
p.s. Bernard,

I found this photo of model Swiss track:


linked from http://ferrosuisse.ch

which shows:

equalized timbering
crossing timbers wider than plain track sleepers
double timbers at rail joints
short check rails
machined check flares

and from which I can scale the timber sizes and spacings, if I knew the track gauge?

Anyone?

Assuming of course that it is a reasonably accurate model?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27265

 
 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.
20th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 13:32
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
alan@york
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
I think it is 0m as the website has a similar double slip product. See http://ferrosuisse.ch/ferro-flex-gleissystem/

But there is also H0m available under a similar name...
a@y
__________
message ref: 27266

 
 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.
21st message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 14:16
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
It is Om.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27267

 
 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.
22nd message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 16:26
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: It is Om.Thanks.

So the scale is?  1:43.5,  1:45,  1:48 ?

The track gauge is?

Martin.



__________
message ref: 27268

 
 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.
23rd message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 16:36
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
1:45

22.2mm gauge

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27269

 
 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.
24th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 16:42
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: 1:45

22.2mm gauge

Bernard
Thanks Bernard.

And the scale you want is 1:87?

Or 3.5mm/ft  (1:87.09)?

And the gauge you want is?

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27271

 
 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.
25th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 20:48
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
1:87.09 would be magic.

11.52mm please.

Thank you very much.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27272

 
 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.
26th message | this message only posted: 14 Jul 2019 21:33
 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 Bernard,

Thanks. And you still want 0.86mm flangeway?

As far as I can see the only published standard using that flangeway dimension is NMRA TT (on 12mm gauge). Does that correspond to your models? Will they run on 11.52mm track gauge?

I have just spent an hour trying to find some definitive published standard for Swiss metre gauge models, and I have failed. We have been here before, see:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1987&forum_id=1#p13076

This is the reason there are no narrow-gauge pre-sets in Templot -- it is just too difficult to find definitive information.

For the timbering sizes I will scale from that 0 gauge photo, now that I know the track gauge on it. Whether it is an accurate model of the prototype I haven't the faintest idea, but I have nothing else to work from.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27273

 
 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.
27th message | this message only posted: 15 Jul 2019 09:18
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Sorry, just posted in wrong way.

Yes please re flangeway gap.

The lack of published standards has often puzzled me as has the very generous `slop` in the track gauge compared to the wheels. When I tried 11.52mm and found it worked in prototypical raddii I was intrigured but did no more about it. Recently I have been looking at Campocolgno again and hence my reason to see if the real size of the two three way points could be achieved at 11.52mm gauge.

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27275

 
 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.
28th message | this message only posted: 15 Jul 2019 16:19
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
RogerW
Northampton, United Kingdom

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
I think that the downloadable pdfs from the MOROP website cover the dimensions

https://www.morop.eu/index.php/de/nem-normen.html


MOROP NEM 110-310
[size=Beiblatt 3 zu NEM 110/310 Lehre für Radsatz und Gleis der Spurweite 12 mm]

NEM 123-d
[size=NEM 123 Querschnitt des Bahnkörpers für Schmalspurbahnen



And I would be interested to see this 3 way  in 0m, 1/45 scale, gauge 22.2mm

RogerW
]
__________
message ref: 27279

 
 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.
29th message | this message only posted: 23 Jul 2019 07:52
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Did we ever get to the stage of establishing whether the two three way points were practical in HoM and Om please?

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27317

 
 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.
30th message | this message only posted: 23 Jul 2019 12:42
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: Did we ever get to the stage of establishing whether the two three way points were practical in HoM and Om please?Hi Bernard,

Thanks for the diplomatic reminder. :)

It's no good writing HoM and Om without telling me what they mean. Sorry -- I haven't the faintest idea.

I need to know 2 dimensions in designing track:

1. track gauge

2. flangeway gap

Prototype track can only be modelled exactly if those dimensions are scaled exactly. However it can usually be modelled reasonably closely with other dimensions.

For the model you suggested using 11.52mm track gauge with 0.86mm flangeway. I don't think that will work very well.

The only specification I can find for your wheels is the NMRA TT specification, for which the flange thickness is 0.5mm (RP25/79) and back-to-back 10.5mm. Do your wheels comply?

Such wheels won't run reliably on your suggested track without modifying the back-to-back dimension. That is not always possible for some RTR models.

If you reduce the track gauge, it would make sense also to reduce the flangeway gap, to maybe 0.7mm.

If you want to use existing TT wheels at existing back-to-back it is necessary to maintain the existing TT check gauge of 11.0mm (the check gauge is the critical dimension). With a 0.7mm flangeway that gives a minimum track gauge of 11.7mm. And a check span of 10.3mm.

So we end up with my suggested track standard for something finer for TT unmodified wheels would be:

track gauge:  11.7mm

flangeway: 0.7mm

check gauge 11.0mm (same as TT)

check span: 10.3mm

over checks clearance 0.2mm

plain track running clearance 0.2mm

flangeway gap clearance 0.2mm

Using a finer standard than existing TT means you will need gauge-widening on very sharp curves.

I'm happy to produce templates for your tandem turnouts using those dimensions, if you wish?

But I don't want to spend time creating something to other dimensions which I don't think will work.

If you prefer 11.5mm track gauge, you would need to reduce all your wheels back-to-back to 10.3mm.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27319

 
 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.
31st message | this message only posted: 24 Jul 2019 15:58
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Many thanks.

Can I accept the figures you suggest and request the drawings you are offering with my greatest thanks?

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27326

 
 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.
32nd message | this message only posted: 24 Jul 2019 17:05
 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.
Bernard Haste wrote: Can I accept the figures you suggest and request the drawings you are offering with my greatest thanks?OK Bernard, I will do that in a day or two. If I don't, give me a kick. :)

p.s. I expect you noticed that on reflection I edited my previous post from 11.8mm gauge to 11.7mm gauge. There is an unnecessary clearance of 0.1mm in the NMRA specs. It's not needed if wheel profiles have a reasonable flange root radius.

I assume you are happy with 11.7mm?

p.s. that's one reason for always referring to this web site, and not the notification emails, before replying. Over time posts get edited, amended and extended. Or at least, mine do. :)

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27327

 
 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.
33rd message | this message only posted: 24 Jul 2019 18:15
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
11.7 is quite alright.

Thank you,

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27328

 
 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.
34th message | this message only posted: 30 Jul 2019 11:37
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Bernard Haste
 

 

view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hello Martin,

Pretty please!

Bernard
__________
message ref: 27357

 
 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.
35th message | this message only posted: 30 Jul 2019 20:35
 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 Bernard,

Thanks for the nudge. :)

I will have a look at it later, just having a meal now.

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27375

 
 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.
36th message | this message only posted: 9 Aug 2019 19:33
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Bernard kindly sent me some pictures of the 3 way at Aylsham that he mentioned.







Rob


__________
message ref: 27477

 
 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.
37th message | this message only posted: 9 Aug 2019 21:49
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
And another from Bernard showing the vee's level with each other.



Rob

__________
message ref: 27480

 
 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.
38th message | this message only posted: 10 Aug 2019 12:20
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
....and the last 3 pics from Bernard.







Rob


__________
message ref: 27482

 
 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.
39th message | this message only posted: 10 Aug 2019 13:32
 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.
Rob Manchester wrote: ....and the last 3 pics from Bernard.

... ...



Rob
Hi Bernard, Rob,

That's a three-throw switch, not a tandem. Many thanks for posting. :)

Notice how the stretcher rods for the shorter switch blade run through holes in the longer switch blade.

Pictures here of an MR three-throw from Tony W:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=2839&forum_id=22#p19982

Here's a GER diagram of a three-throw switch:



The full-size scan can be seen by viewing this in the Image Gallery or by clicking:

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/gallery/2/original/2_280950_180000000.jpg

cheers,

Martin.

__________
message ref: 27483

 
 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.
40th message | this message only posted: 10 Aug 2019 18:49
 PM  Reply with quote  Reply blank 
from:
Rob Manchester
Manchester



view images in gallery
view images as slides
Hi Martin,

Thanks for the GER 3-throw diagram. I assume the first set of switch rails( nearest the toe ) would have been undercut as no joggle is evident on the diagram ? The second set has a joggle on both running rails with straight cut blades - which I guess one would measure from the running face of one stock rail to the running face of the opposite blade as per usual. There looks to be very little space between the two sets of switch rails in the area of the first switch heel although it may just be the way the blades are set in the diagram.

I can't tell from Bernard's pictures if the arrangement is the same :(

Rob




__________
message ref: 27484

 
This is topic ID = 3453     Page created at 01:22 (local time) Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page    
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 > Tandem turnout in metre gauge 1:87 scale
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