Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 458Converting a CJF track plan to EM
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 18 Jun 2008 13:41

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi all,

Just a query really. I have a track plan that a friend did for me in XtrkCAD. I don't have this program but I do have a pdf of it. As such, I was wondering on the best approach to take this plan and create my layout in Templot.

I am assuming that Templot will give me the advantage of fitting turnouts to curves etc that XtrkCAD couldn't do because it was using Peco Stremaline templates to create the track in the first place.

Should I import the plan in as a back ground image (I see plenty of help on this particular topic around the forum so I am not asking for assistance on this aspect - yet!) and then overlay templot EM track work to suit the general "feel" of the plan or is there a better way?

I do have C. Freezer's original track plan image too however it had to be compressed by 6" in one direction and 12" in another direction so it would not be simply a case of laying over the top anyway.

Thanks in advance, 

Paul.

posted: 18 Jun 2008 22:29

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Just a query really. I have a track plan that a friend did for me in XtrkCAD. I don't have this program but I do have a pdf of it. As such, I was wondering on the best approach to take this plan and create my layout in Templot.

I am assuming that Templot will give me the advantage of fitting turnouts to curves etc that XtrkCAD couldn't do because it was using Peco Streamline templates to create the track in the first place.

Should I import the plan in as a back ground image (I see plenty of help on this particular topic around the forum so I am not asking for assistance on this aspect - yet!) and then overlay Templot EM track work to suit the general "feel" of the plan or is there a better way?

I do have C. J. Freezer's original track plan image too however it had to be compressed by 6" in one direction and 12" in another direction so it would not be simply a case of laying over the top anyway.
Hi  Paul,

You have several options, although it's difficult to suggest which might be best without seeing the actual plans.



1. Use the original CJF track plan as a background design guide by scanning it and loading it into a picture shape. If it's 6" too big one way, and 12" the other, you can distort the aspect ratio to fit your space using the shift shape corner 2 mouse action. That means that the curves will no longer be true arcs of course, but you are using it only as a guide so the discrepancy will be lost in the new design.

There are some videos showing how to use a background guide over which you create a detailed track plan. Go to:

Video list page

Read the notes, then scroll down to "picture shape -- display a scanned track plan as a background guide". It's 39MB so suitable for broadband only, sorry. Other videos showing tracks being adjusted over a background guide are "overlaid track on a rough sketch" (a good beginner's guide to using the basic Templot adjustments), and "overlaid track on a scan" (a longer video showing a classic H0 layout).

Edit 2012 for Templot2: Templot now supports PNG and JPG files in addition to BMP files for picture shapes, and it is no longer necessary to save them first in the shapes folder. You can save them anywhere on your computer. The above videos and notes have not yet been updated to reflect these changes.



2. Same as above, but using the PDF image from XTrkCad as the design guide. Display it using the Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader or Nitro Reader, and then do a screen capture as a Windows bitmap. On a PC that simply means pressing the Print Screen key to put it on the clipboard, but I don't know if you have such a key on the Mac.

This approach means that any design constraints introduced by using commercial track in XTrkCad are going to influence your design, whereas working over the original CJF design gives you the full flexibility of Templot adjustments and curving. But you may be unwilling to discard your friend's design work.



3. XTrkCad can export DXF files, which can be imported directly into Templot's background shapes as a design guide. This has the advantage over a captured screen image in that you can zoom in without it becoming pixellated and so work to greater precision.

Your friend should be able to export the DXF file for you. On the other hand, XTrkCad is free and as far as I know works in Crossover or Parallels on a Mac or Linux. You could therefore get your own copy of XTrkCad and create the DXF file yourself from your friends XTC data file.

XTrkCad can be downloaded from:

  http://www.xtrkcad.org

There is a page showing Templot tracks designed over a DXF import from XTrkCad at:

  http://85a.co.uk/ision/rene_tandem.htm

Like this:

 rene_tandem4.gifrene_tandem4.gif

Note that the tracks shown in grey are background shapes imported from XtrkCad, they are not Templot templates and cannot be adjusted using the usual Templot controls.

The maximum number of background shapes which Templot can support is 32000. For this reason, when exporting a DXF file from a large XtrkCad track plan for use in Templot, it is very advisable to export the track centre-lines only, without the rails and sleepers (ties) -- i.e. not the full tracks as showing in this image.

XtrkCad puts all the track details in one layer in the DXF file. You need this layer to contain only the track centre-lines, not the rails or sleepers. So you must change the settings in XtrkCad first:

Turning off the sleepers is easy -- Options > Display > "Draw Ties" > None.

Turning off the rails is not so obvious. In Options > Display >, change "Two Rail Scale" to 0 (zero).

Then with only the track centre-lines showing, you can export the DXF file, and finally import it into Templot.

Edit 2012: XtrkCad is now called XTrackCAD .

regards,

Martin.

posted: 23 Jun 2008 11:19

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thank you Martin for the response and please excuse the tardiness in replying.

I guess I don't quite see the complete advantage in using the CJF when the design will be distorted by the resizing. In the 10' direction this would be a 10% distortion. I would doubt that the track layout is disctorted by 10% in the use of Peco templates versus smooth curves however it really is a mute point I imagine.

As such I wondered if there would be value in simply capturing pieces of the CJF plan, particularly where pointwork is at the most concentrated and using those as discrete back grounds.

I am assuming I may be best to create discrete pieces, probably no more than three or four looking at the plan and merge them into one background picture of the correct size and join them together so to speak with flexible track.

I am not sure how to copy the file into here but will attempt to upload the original CJF design to illustrate my question better.

Attachment: attach_291_458_Layout_01.jpg 6510
Last edited on 23 Jun 2008 11:24 by Paul Hamilton
posted: 23 Jun 2008 11:29

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
By the way, this plan is to be resized from 12' x 10' as shown down to 11'6" x 9'. As such I will relocate the upper station as shown as the high level track at the bottom of the layout. This will be moved 12" down to sit right on top of the lower tracks. This will compensate for the loss of 12" in the layout in a North / South direction and thus maintain original gradients.

The 6" loss over 12' I don't see as a big deal at all and it should have little impact on the overall project.

Also I am compressing things slightly in terms of width of the alyout around the room, limiting my design to 24" maximum as seen in the East and West sections of the layout. This impacts on the sidings where the goods shed is shon in the North but little overall impact. The South area as mentioned will now be only 12" wide as the station will be moved down as discussed.

posted: 24 Jun 2008 04:15

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul
I think you'll get problems with gradients if you do as you suggest and have the hidden loops under the upper station. This is because the loops start to rise to the left somewhere in the middle, and also the station line starts to descend to the left not far from the middle, so that, in both cases, the gradient change occurs while one is over the other. If you shift the gradient changes to where the tracks aren't over each other, you're going to end up with much steeper gradients.
If you really like the basics of the plan, I'd suggest thinking about a more radical approach to the details to see if you can avoid the problems.
cheers
Nigel

posted: 24 Jun 2008 14:27

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nigel,

Thanks for the response.

Sorry, upper station means in height not at the top of the plan. My mistake in description. By shifting the station shown at the bottom of the plan which is at a higher level than the rest down the page by a foot I preserve the existing gradients and as such am able to reduce the width of the layout at that point too. Is that better?

posted: 24 Jun 2008 15:09

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Sorry, upper station means in height not at the top of the plan.
Hi Paul,

I think Nigel meant the south station. The gradients to the west on both the branch and main lines commence near the page staple. If you move the whole south station over the lower tracks, you won't be able to preserve the clearances there. Also building an entire station including pointwork over hidden tracks requires a greater clearance for carpentry than just having the single track on the right over the lower tracks, so there would be no gain in gradients from the longer branch runs. I think you would do better to retain the overall design as-is, and try to tweak the gradients as far as possible. The east gradient up to the south station is the most severe, and you may be able to angle the south station across into the bottom right corner a little more with the aid of transition curves to disguise the tighter radius resulting there.

It's an attractive design with the complex junctions east and west. As with all CJF designs, using "proper" pointwork tends to require far more space than he allowed for, and the usual advice is to increase the space available rather than to reduce it. So fitting all this in your space, and in EM too, is going to be an interesting challenge. The radii could get decidedly tight for EM.

I will have a quick trial with it and see what might fit. Now that you have posted the plan I expect a few other Temploteers will have a go too! :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 24 Jun 2008 23:30

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I wrote:
I will have a quick trial with it and see what might fit. Now that you have posted the plan I expect a few other Temploteers will have a go too! :)
Hi Paul,

Here's a preliminary try. :)

paul_cjf1.pngpaul_cjf1.png

I shrunk the CJF plan to fit 11ft-6in x 9ft and moved the south station down towards the bottom right corner to regain some length for the eastern approach gradient.

Assuming the south station is 50mm above the level of the north station, and the hidden main lines are 25mm below the level of the north station (giving a difference of 75mm = 60mm running clearance plus 15mm construction depth where track is directly above track), and allowing 400mm each end for the vertical curves:

A to B branch gradient is 1:55

C to D branch gradient is 1:45

Minimum radius is 850mm (33").

It's tight for EM, but just about doable I think. I will try adding some more and see how it goes. Anyone else?

There is increased room for the visible area of the eastern junctions, which should look very impressive. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 25 Jun 2008 06:42

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Wow! Thanks Nigel and Martin!

Some previous work on this design was developed by others primarily with a focus on prototypical MR/LMS period operations (ie minimimum facing points etc) and suggested the following schematic.

This eliminates the slip and simplifies the details 2A and 2B with the inclusion of simply catch points also at these locations.

I will eliminate the short siding from detail 3 and altered the pointwork slightly in detail 1 from what was originally shown.

 

Attachment: attach_292_458_RevisedLayout.JPG 2036

posted: 25 Jun 2008 06:55

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Additionally the following has been developed to aid operational planning and signalling with work having commenced on the construction of the operational and illuminated semaphores in line with the diagrams. There is a small area to finalise signalling wise on the the Matlock diagram but nothing that holds up construction.

2563267801_322ed787a1_o.jpg2563267801_322ed787a1_o.jpg

Hightor is the upper level station shown at the bottom of the track diagram.

2608529477_3ddc4fa78e_o.jpg2608529477_3ddc4fa78e_o.jpg

East Tor is the east junction shown on the trackplan with the dotted lines indicating the hidden track work and 8 & 10 representing the catch points.

2563267813_ff19ca303d_o.jpg2563267813_ff19ca303d_o.jpg

Matlock represents the main station shown at the top of the track plan but with the signal box moved from its location shown to the west on the CJF original to its new position closer to the pointwork at the east end of the platforms.

posted: 25 Jun 2008 07:12

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul

Was wondering whether CJF expressed an ideas as to what sort railway scene it was meant to depict, and whether or not you've got a particular scenario in mind, as this would influence what sort of traffic you'd run, and how it would use the facilities? My first reaction was that the junction was intended to be the meeting of a main line, probably a secondary one, with a cross-country line, and was sited out in the country. Then I thought that maybe it was the meeting of two cross-country lines, one important enough to be double track, or a cross country line with a couple of branches. Finally I realised that it could be all in a urban setting, if that's what one wanted.

I rather like the out in the country approach. In fact there were plenty of junctions sited where the only reason for a station was that lines met there, rather than local demand.  Such stations often had limited or even no local goods facilities, but probably had several sidings for routing traffic, plus reasonable loco servicing facilities. One thing which struck me about the plan was that space for storing stock is limited; with the sort of junction I've outlined it might be possible to improve that.

What I suggest might be worth considering is replacing the goods yard by a smaller one up in the north east corner. You'd then have space for a slightly larger loco facilities plus at least a couple of sidings for holding traffic in transit where the goods yard was. You might find it a good idea to have an additional trailing crossover between the inner and middle loops at the east end of the junction to make manouvering a bit easier.

At the same time I'd see if the terminal road and run around at the top of the plan could be curved a bit to be parallel with the wall; that would give a bit more room for a scenic background, which is currently very tight. You could also, by replacing the engine release road by a crossover, shove in a short siding, e.g. for an end loading dock; it could also serve as a head shunt for the goods yard.

Also, in the north west area of the layout there's a sort of short bay road, which strikes me as a bit odd, partly as it might have to be on a gradient. I'd be tempted to run it off the adjacent double track road instead, as say a short bay for parcels traffic.

A few other ideas. If things are tight you could remove the southmost hidden loop, which might help; it also gets rid of hidden turnouts (which I hate). You could change the look of things and maybe get a bit more flexibility with the curves if you singled the double track. By the way, none of these ideas stops the setting being urban if that's what you want.

Hope some of this helps!

cheers
Nigel

posted: 25 Jun 2008 07:15

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
....A to B branch gradient is 1:55

C to D branch gradient is 1:45

Minimum radius is 850mm (33").

It's tight for EM, but just about doable I think. I will try adding some more and see how it goes. Anyone else?....

Martin, Thanks for all that. I do not HAVE to build this in EM if the plan is better suited to 00 for instance. I have made little investment in EM at this stage in terms of rolling stock locos and the like so if there is a good reason not to persue it I am comfortable with this.

The 33" is approx. what we came up with using the XtrkCAD version of the plan shown below so it is still tightish even for 00 in my mind hence why I thought if it is going to be tight it might as well be right!

2508199408_ccdd69d3a5_o.jpg2508199408_ccdd69d3a5_o.jpg


posted: 25 Jun 2008 07:58

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nigel Brown wrote:
Hi Paul

Was wondering whether CJF expressed an ideas as to what sort railway scene it was meant to depict, and whether or not you've got a particular scenario in mind, as this would influence what sort of traffic you'd run, and how it would use the facilities? My first reaction was that the junction was intended to be the meeting of a main line, probably a secondary one, with a cross-country line, and was sited out in the country. Then I thought that maybe it was the meeting of two cross-country lines, one important enough to be double track, or a cross country line with a couple of branches. Finally I realised that it could be all in a urban setting, if that's what one wanted.

I rather like the out in the country approach. In fact there were plenty of junctions sited where the only reason for a station was that lines met there, rather than local demand.  Such stations often had limited or even no local goods facilities, but probably had several sidings for routing traffic, plus reasonable loco servicing facilities. One thing which struck me about the plan was that space for storing stock is limited; with the sort of junction I've outlined it might be possible to improve that.

What I suggest might be worth considering is replacing the goods yard by a smaller one up in the north east corner. You'd then have space for a slightly larger loco facilities plus at least a couple of sidings for holding traffic in transit where the goods yard was. You might find it a good idea to have an additional trailing crossover between the inner and middle loops at the east end of the junction to make manouvering a bit easier.

At the same time I'd see if the terminal road and run around at the top of the plan could be curved a bit to be parallel with the wall; that would give a bit more room for a scenic background, which is currently very tight. You could also, by replacing the engine release road by a crossover, shove in a short siding, e.g. for an end loading dock; it could also serve as a head shunt for the goods yard.

Also, in the north west area of the layout there's a sort of short bay road, which strikes me as a bit odd, partly as it might have to be on a gradient. I'd be tempted to run it off the adjacent double track road instead, as say a short bay for parcels traffic.

A few other ideas. If things are tight you could remove the southmost hidden loop, which might help; it also gets rid of hidden turnouts (which I hate). You could change the look of things and maybe get a bit more flexibility with the curves if you singled the double track. By the way, none of these ideas stops the setting being urban if that's what you want.

Hope some of this helps!

cheers
Nigel

Hi Nigel, seems we were both posting at the same time so sorry for the crossovers in the thread.

All your points and queries are of course quite valid and I do appreciate the input greatly. Significant effort has been put into ensuring signalling of the layout is done in a prototypical manner and my entire approach is to create a quality layout as opposed to a treainset on a board so to speak so I am happy to take on all constructive comments.

CJF suggested the junction station at the top of the layout (I call it Matlock) would be urban with its main loco servicing "off scene" as you rightly point out it would have a more significant servicing and goods yard area that currently is not supported in the plan. My intent was for this to have an urban back scene of retaining wall with low relief warehouses frontages and a decent station building servicing the up and down main and branch terminus lines.

I had intended the upper level station at the bootom of the page (I call it Hightor) to represent a country stop with the sidings servicing the local cattle and milk industries.

I had not intended a massive deal of operations to be performed with the layout more designed for watching trains that shunting yard loads of wagons hence the double main concept I guess.

For storage I had thought of a lower level storage facility under the Matlock station with say 4 tracks that came up at a fairly steep 4% grade and joined up to the hidden lines under Hightor at the bottom of the layout thus providing some fiddle yard type terminus storage. Bench work is complete at a constant height around the entire room and the track subroad bed of 12mm plywood will be supported on soft wood risers as required in the vein of US based L girder construction styles. Photo showing that I am not just arm chair modelling :)

2568967751_d3b198c064_o.jpg2568967751_d3b198c064_o.jpg


posted: 25 Jun 2008 17:17

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:

2608529477_3ddc4fa78e_o.jpg2608529477_3ddc4fa78e_o.jpg

East Tor is the east junction shown on the trackplan with the dotted lines indicating the hidden track work and 8 & 10 representing the catch points.
Hi Paul,

Catch* points forming traps* are normally used only on goods lines. The inner branch appears to be a passenger running line?

:) *Before the argument breaks out again -- in bullhead days, "catch points" is the p.w. term for the physical object; "trap points" is the signalling term for the purpose it serves. There are other means of providing "trap points" apart from a set of catch points, e.g. a sand drag or short ramped spur.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 25 Jun 2008 17:25

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Noted regarding terminology thanks for that Martin. As there are a couple of sidings on this line and as CJF had the traps shown on his original I included them in the revision.
I guess the object of the exercise at the moment is to not alter the current mimic / signal diagrams too much from what the current planning has developed into unless it is purely impossible to get the layout to work in EM or 00 at all.
I do see the need to continue the work that you have started on the overlay of the Templot trackwork ontop of the plan as it is the only way the pointwork templates will be developed at all the key junctions and crossovers.
I guess that is my next task is to develop the skills necessary to continue this process onwards.
I have heavily relied upon the help and assistance of various well known forum members in the development of the planning to date and as such it does appear that everyone has their own slant on how the original CJF plan should be developed/adapted/simplified/expanded upon. I personally have no real preference as to the final outcome other than the desire to have multiple levels (for interest sake) and the ability to have double main line running to be able to watch trains run with a little bit of interest developed by the ability to run cattle and dairy related wagons / stock as I like them!

posted: 25 Jun 2008 17:45

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I do not HAVE to build this in EM if the plan is better suited to 00 for instance. I have made little investment in EM at this stage in terms of rolling stock locos and the like so if there is a good reason not to pursue it I am comfortable with this.
Hi Paul,

Only you can decide that. :) I think the minimum radius may need to go down to 750mm/30" in places, which is generally regarded as the practical minimum for kit-built and scratch-built stock using functional side-buffers, i.e. for most EM layouts.

If you are using RTR stock with centre auto-couplings/buffers then you can of course go down to much sharper train-set curves, although you will need to provide gauge widening for both 00-SF and stock converted to EM.

For 00-BF gauge-widening isn't needed, but the problems with functional side-buffers on curves may be worse.

You might find the 00-SF group helpful in deciding between 00 and EM. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF and http://00-sf.org.uk

regards,

Martin.

posted: 26 Jun 2008 13:44

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin,

Thanks for the info, I think the original XtrkCAD version had minimum radius of 30" and that was with out the flexibility to customise the turnouts the way Templot allows so I would be comfortable trying Templot out further to see what plan can be built before making the decision to go back to 00.

posted: 26 Jun 2008 18:36

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul,

I have added a few more ideas to your plan.

I re-instated CJF's original west junction because a) it looks impressive, :) and b) there isn't room for separate crossovers without using very short turnouts with very sharp curves. If you need the crossover facility it would be possible to make the diamond a trailing single slip, but CJF didn't show that so I haven't added it. It would make the junction look slightly less railwaylike, because slips aren't usual in running line junctions away from station areas.

I moved the main lines through the platforms further north to allow for easier transition curves, and this also makes room for the central bay platform at the west end. It would now be possible to have the main station building on the island platform, possibly with a road overbridge for access. (An overbridge always makes a layout look larger, as the trains "disappear" into the distance under it. :) ) That in turn would make it possible to extend the outer branch bay and run-round further into the top left corner.

The bay platform is going to be on a gradient, which is a little unusual but I'm sure a prototype can be found. Fortunately it is facing the right way, down to the buffer stops.

It's unfortunate that you have completed the signal box diagrams before the track plan, it seems an odd way round of doing it? :?

Just ideas, feel free to shoot them down in flames: :)

paul_cjf2.pngpaul_cjf2.png


paul_cjf3.pngpaul_cjf3.png

regards,

Martin. 

posted: 28 Jun 2008 11:47

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
No shooting anything, in flames or otherwise - that's all fantastic Martin and many, many thanks indeed for caring so much to help like this - amazing people in this fine hobby really!

I fully concur with the slip instead of the crossover and this was noted during the early days of the track plan and we represented this albeit with a crossing on the XtrkCAD version. Scary bit of pointwork for me to make now!

I was thinking of leaving out the parcels siding due to the gradient issue but it does add interest so if it fits I will run with it I think.

No real issues with changing the signaling diagrams as we thought we had nailed the layout design when I started drafting the signalling plans. Originally of course this was going to be built in Tillig track before I was exposed to the finer oints of EM by my Perth based mentor! As such I was aware that some changes would be likely although not on a wholesale basis and at this stage it would appear that we can achieve a quite successful design and stay true to CJF's original concepts.

Where to from here Martin? Should I obtain the parent file from you and continue on your fine work, posting progress images for comment as I go and in the meantime continue to develop my constuction skills building a couple of B7 points for my test track (vee and wing rails made but waiting on delivery of my EM roling gauge set before cracking open the fine bottle of fumes called MEK!)

posted: 1 Jul 2008 08:33

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Where to from here Martin? Should I obtain the parent file from you and continue on your fine work, posting progress images for comment as I go and in the meantime continue to develop my construction skills building a couple of B7 turnouts ...
Hi Paul,

I have in fact continued to work on this, although I have probably strayed further from the original CJF design than you might want to follow:

paul_cjf4.pngpaul_cjf4.png

As you can see it looks very track-happy :(, although I think that was inevitable when you said you were going to take a CJF design and try to do it in a reduced space!

Here it is again using the CJF trick of making things look more spacious by drawing the tracks as a single centre-line instead of the actual rails, and without some of the extra carriage sidings which I added above:

paul_cjf8.pngpaul_cjf8.png

I enlarged the outer branch facilities at the junction as the original was extremely cramped. I see that you did the same in the XTrkCad design. I commandeered the top left corner for the MPD area (or a diesel refuelling area) with a turntable to allow the use of tender engines on the branches. That released the top right corner for the goods yard. It's really too far to reach across comfortably, but there isn't room on the inside with your reduced board width. So it will need auto couplings such as Alex Jacksons to shunt the yard.

I imagine a girder overbridge for the station access road as shown. The station building could be an impressive two-storey structure on the platform with access at the upper level.

At the branch station the kink in the platform will need some scenic explanation. For example a church and/or graveyard may have prevented the railway taking a straight route through the town. The real reason for the kink of course is to maximise the length of the gradients on the left, and to reduce the area requiring minimal construction depth over the tracks below.

There is room bottom left for some scenic treatment, but otherwise this layout is going to be all railway in the old style -- tracks, tunnels and retaining walls. And bridges? An underbridge would be in keeping with the presence of gradients -- maybe a canal below the junction on the left?

This layout design has extremely limited hidden stock storage, so I have sprinkled the first plan above with some extra carriage sidings and long spurs (coloured orange above). They give you somewhere to hold rolling stock, but they do add to the cramped look. You might not want all of them.

I have set most of the double track to 7ft way (48.67mm centres) which I think should be adequate for running clearance at these radii, but you might want to do some tests with your actual long rolling stock. I suggest you keep the height difference to no more than 75mm where the tracks cross. The trains will need 60mm clearance, so that leaves you 15mm for the construction depth above the lower tracks. If you make the split as 45mm rise on the branches, and 30mm fall on the main lines, the gradients are around 1:45 on the branches, and 1:70 on the main lines. If you can reduce the construction depth, for example by using a metal plate rather than wooden track base where the tracks cross, the gradients could be eased.

Access from the main lines through the platforms to the outer branch is via a single slip. So I have added trailing crossovers at each end of the station. There is no choice but to have them in the sharp curves, which means they have to be very long crossovers to keep the radii within bounds.

For the junction on the right, CJF showed a double slip. That was quite impossible at the crossing angle of around 1:5.5 through the diamond. In any case inside slips are not common in running line junctions. I've replaced it with a half-scissors on the branch side. An outside-slip might be an alternative.

As you can see from the screenshots below, this is still very much a draft design. It needs a lot of further work. To check clearances, tweak crossing angles, analyse run-round capacities and clearing points, and not least shove all those timbers. It is also important to check that all switches are clear of the vertical curves at the top and bottom of the gradients. I'm therefore very wary of uploading the file in its present form. The last time I did that I made it very clear that it was a draft design as a starting point only, and still folks treated it as a finished track plan!

So I'm hoping I can find time to do some more work on this before I upload it. If fully completed it might make a good addition the the sample data files included with the Templot program.
     

paul_cjf5.pngpaul_cjf5.png


paul_cjf6.pngpaul_cjf6.png


paul_cjf7.pngpaul_cjf7.png

regards,

Martin.

posted: 1 Jul 2008 19:46

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Goodness!!

I am speechless! Must digest and revert with meaningful comments and ideas. It strikes me as operationally a fine layout but I am mindful of the less is more approach adopted by many finescale modellers too.

posted: 1 Jul 2008 20:42

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
but I am mindful of the less is more approach adopted by many finescale modellers too.
Hi Paul,

Very tactfully put! :)

One way to make more seem less is to adopt the CJF trick of drawing only the track centre-lines instead of the rails. I also removed three of the carriage sidings:

paul_cjf8.pngpaul_cjf8.png

Apart from the addition of the MPD top left, which could easily be scrubbed, that isn't significantly different from the original CJF design in terms of track complexity.

I think in order for "less is more" to work, you do need masses of hidden storage loops/fiddle yard/cassettes/whatever, and CJF designs tend not to provide that. Certainly this one doesn't. If you implement "less is more" without adequate stock storage, I think you will find operating sessions become mostly "crane" shunting -- physically placing and removing stock from the tracks. You may not have much stock now, and in CJF's time there wasn't much to be had which no doubt influenced his designs, but nowadays most modellers in 4mm scale soon find that they have so much stock that it is dripping off the edge of the baseboard!

If you find yourself being influenced by the current finescale approach, adopting a CJF design might not be the best starting point. At least, not without doubling the size. :) Here you have actually reduced the size, so a cramped-looking design is almost inevitable.

But the modern finescale approach isn't the only one. Here's a different approach to designing a model railway (groan from the back from those who know what's coming! :) ):

Paddington to Seagood

regards,

Martin.

posted: 8 Jul 2008 12:25

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Martin,

So much to think about. My ideas have now been a little better formulated I feel and I guess they are two fold. 1) My concept of what finescale is and 2) Track plan development & finalisation.

1) My limited exposure to the concepts of "finescale" and what it entails has convinced me of a few things. A somewhat cramped plan as you rightly suggest this CJF could be, particularly when compressed, can still look realistic or at least not as "toy-like" when using and applying the attributes of finescale modelling (ie correct spaced sleepers, hand laid pointwork etc). I think that the urban nature of how this layout will be modelled in the whole will look right with retaining walls and high density of track etc. As such I think there is fun to be had in retaining the concept of this plan.

2) With regards then to the plan, after much contemplation, my thoughts as per the letter references below:

A) Retained as per original

B) Remove the outer siding but retain the inner longer siding

C) Remove both crossovers that while prototypical are not really required for operation of this layout

D) I do like the turntable and feel it would be useful but feel it would be better situated at F which provides for the same number of engine moves (five moves) but is perhaps a little easier to reach? If it makes more sense for it to be where shown then that is fine with me.

E) Would there be a loco shed somewhere in this area? I am not sure of the structures that would need to be fitted in. I am presuming coal and water and maybe a pit. Could be tight but will have to play with a few templates I guess and cut-outs of structures.

F) Nice goods yard now, maybe one industry or two could be accessed here, very nice, might curve it away a little from the corner to see if I can squeeze in a curved back scene in the corner.

And it would appear from the text contained in the link present in your previous post that it is quite acceptable to build a layout and have it evolve over time as experience in operating is gained. Happy to do that :)
Attachment: attach_314_458_Hightor_Templot_Rev_B.png 1749

posted: 9 Jul 2008 11:52

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:

And it would appear from the text contained in the link present in your previous post that it is quite acceptable to build a layout and have it evolve over time as experience in operating is gained. Happy to do that :)
Paul,

Just thinking on something Martin remarked upon earlier in the thread - the lack of off stage storage - I've been pondering the possibility of putting storage under the main station and extending the lines hidden in the tunnels.  I think the gradients might just work and give enough clearance.  

Or a simpler idea might be to leave the hidden double track main as is,  and only split the hidden single line to go under the main station - or a better idea might be to leave the single line untouched and make the double main to do the burrowing act to storage.

It would be a right wedding cake of a layout with all the levels - but truly in the spirit of CJF. :)

Jim.

posted: 9 Jul 2008 13:12

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Jim,

Exactly what I have previously had in mind with a ladder of pointwork providing for about four to six 6' - 8' storage lines. I was thinking that they would be fiddle yard like in so much as they would be buffered and definitely off scene and not through running tracks. I am toying with the idea of a traverser under there too.

The only reason I didn't mention it is to see which way around the layout will be fitting in the room!

At the moment the original planning has the door opening into the room via a swing in segment of track work located at approximately the middle three feet of the west or left end of the layout as shown.

If pointwork dictates this then it may be better to place this at the other end of the layout by rotating the layout through 180 degrees so I haven't yet determined this.

If the crossover at 'C' is removed altogether and the complex crossover / slipwork below it is moved a little up the plan then it should all fit within the swing out section and all should be well.

I do like the idea of the single hidden connecting down there as it is currently only acting operationally as a passing loop of sorts.
Last edited on 9 Jul 2008 13:17 by Paul Hamilton
posted: 9 Jul 2008 17:18

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Dear all,

For more information and pictures of Paul's project see also his topic on RMweb at:

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=18267

regards,

Martin.

posted: 11 Jul 2008 11:27

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks for tieing the two together nicely Martin.

posted: 21 Jul 2008 08:04

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin, where do I go from here? I am so appreciative of the work you have done so far and would be happy to attempt to assist with taking this further. I am distracting myself with a loco kit at the moment but can't wait to get a crossover for my real layout out on a template and start building it! Particularly given that I joined the EMGS last week and have their manual which is great reading in bed I find!

posted: 21 Jul 2008 10:18

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Martin, where do I go from here?
Hi Paul,

Sorry not to have taken this further. I intended originally only to show you a few ideas, not actually to do a detailed design for you. I'm reluctant to post the .box file publicly in its incomplete state, but I will send you a copy -- providing you agree NOT to use it as it stands but simply as the basis for further development? :)

Give me a few hours to have another look at it and then I will send it to you.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 21 Jul 2008 11:54

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Yeah agreed, that's spot on Martin, I had never intended for you to do the detailed design either! You are a champ though. Some guidance will be useful as to what the next steps are in terms of clearances and tolerance checks, timbers, and other issues I don't probably even know about yet.

posted: 22 Jul 2008 05:57

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul,

I have sent you a private message with download details for the files. I will write again shortly with some notes about them.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 23 Jul 2008 09:38

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Thanks Martin,

I managed to download the files successfully. Please do not feel obligated to rush anything on my behalf! I appreciate everything you have done and will continue to enjoy your support throughout the project.

Cheers mate,

Paul.

posted: 27 Jul 2008 12:00

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Just updating. I managed to save the files into the Templot folder named BOX FILES and ran my parallels and managed to open it up. All good. :) 

Now I am overwhelmed!:?

For those using a Mac and Parallels you may like to know that the easiest way is to run the internet explorer within the parallels environment and then download and save the files into the target folder from there.

I did it initially from within the Mac environment and transferred them through the shared folder but for some reason the .BOX file only appeared as a txt format whne it was moved even though it still retain the .BOX suffix.

I guess it is now time to revisit the tutorials in a more comprehensive and unrushed manner to start actually doing something useful in here.
Last edited on 27 Jul 2008 12:08 by Paul Hamilton
posted: 27 Jul 2008 12:45

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Just updating. I managed to save the files into the Templot folder named BOX FILES and ran my parallels and managed to open it up. All good. :)
Hi Paul,

Save the .bgs and .bmp files in your SHAPE-FILES folder.

Then load the .bgs file in the main/control > background shapes dialog.

Have fun. :thumb:

I did it initially from within the Mac environment and transferred them through the shared folder but for some reason the .BOX file only appeared as a txt format when it was moved even though it still retain the .BOX suffix.
The .box files are mixed text and binary, which causes them to be mistaken as text in some software. Windows has a nasty habit of ignoring the file extension and going by the actual file content only. That's how a lot of viruses sneak in. :(

The answer is to right-click on them and select Save Target As... on the popped up menu.  

Martin.

posted: 29 Jul 2008 11:06

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ok will do Martin. Once I have done that, can you suggest what the very first thing I should do is?

posted: 29 Jul 2008 12:31

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Ok will do Martin. Once I have done that, can you suggest what the very first thing I should do is?
Hi Paul,

The first thing you need to know is whether the 7ft-way-equivalent double-track spacing which I used (48.67mm track centres) gives adequate running clearance on the sharpest curves.

Print out a chunk of templates on scrap paper and fit them together somewhere. Carefully stand your longest vehicles on them and check that the corner overhang on the inner curves clears the middle overhang on the outer curves. "Clears" means by several mm, to be safe.

If they don't clear sufficiently, the spacing needs to be increased. Which means re-working quite a lot of the track plan before you can proceed further. :(

It's difficult to know for sure just by calculation here, because it varies with your actual rolling-stock. The normal CJF spacing for 00 is 2" (50.8mm), which works down to about 24" radius, so we are closer than that, but not quite so sharp. :) Don't use a wider spacing than is really necessary because it takes up a lot of extra room for the pointwork. The prototype minimum is 6ft-way (44.67mm centres).

regards,

Martin.

posted: 29 Jul 2008 13:26

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides

Martin Wynne wrote:
Print out a chunk of templates on scrap paper and fit them together somewhere. Carefully stand your longest vehicles on them and check that the corner overhang on the inner curves clears the middle overhang on the outer curves. "Clears" means by several mm, to be safe.


I'm sorry, I had to laugh when I read that as I have one 8Te 4 wheeled coke wagon in EM at the moment :D. Not too many issues on clashing there I imagine!

As such, with a dose of seriousness, obtain a template of more typical coaching stock that I intend to run and have a play with some cardboard cutouts (or borrow some actual coaching stock from my "friends")?

Note to self - purchase some wheel sets and start converting some of my existing 00 gauge RTR rolling stock to EM.......

posted: 29 Jul 2008 20:21

from:

John Lewis
 
Croydon - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
For quickness buy some flexible track from C&L, pin that down on the templates and check using a couple of converted coaches (for this purpose you need only change the wheel sets).

I *think* you will find this is easier that playing around with card coach templates, because you need to factor in the coach length and wheelbase. You should use the longest coaches you have.

posted: 29 Jul 2008 20:38

from:

Phil O
 
Plymouth - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Hi Paul

As John has said


I *think* you will find this is easier that playing around with card coach templates, because you need to factor in the coach length and wheelbase. You should use the longest coaches you have.
I will add to that the widest coaches as well as the longest as the overhangs can vary by quite a bit.

Cheers Phil :D

posted: 30 Jul 2008 06:51

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Ok thanks for the ideas. I do have three lengths of EM flexi track but I haven't got any coaches at all as I didn't think I needed to buy rolling stock when I had so many other things to build like layout, track, DCC system, signals, loco kits etc etc. I will get hold of some though and work with them instead. Thanks for that.

posted: 30 Jul 2008 10:30

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I have one 8Te 4 wheeled coke wagon in EM at the moment :D. Not too many issues on clashing there I imagine!
Hi Paul,

If your total excursion into EM so far consists of just one wagon, I think it would be wise to build something simpler than this layout as a first exercise in EM. A 6ft "shunting plank" layout will give you some valuable experience before embarking on the full design. And some rolling-stock to test it with as you build it.

This CJF design is a complex layout requiring some precision carpentry and sharply curved pointwork formations. A sentence containing the words "walk" and "run" comes to mind. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 30 Jul 2008 12:26

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne wrote:
Paul Hamilton wrote:
I have one 8Te 4 wheeled coke wagon in EM at the moment :D. Not too many issues on clashing there I imagine!
Hi Paul,

If your total excursion into EM so far consists of just one wagon, I think it would be wise to build something simpler than this layout as a first exercise in EM. A 6ft "shunting plank" layout will give you some valuable experience before embarking on the full design. And some rolling-stock to test it with as you build it.

This CJF design is a complex layout requiring some precision carpentry and sharply curved pointwork formations. A sentence containing the words "walk" and "run" comes to mind. :)

regards,

Martin.
Paul,

I've got to agree with Martin on this point - especially if you are contemplating extending the tracks to have storage under the main station as was discussed earlier on.   The shunting plank,  maybe incorporating one of the complex junctions from the CJF plan, might be a better way to start to get some more experience.  With the experience gained,  the complex trackwork could then be incorporated into the CJF layout as your next project.

A lot of CJF's designs were very complex from the constructional point of view and were probably not really suited to the average modeller who CJF (or his magazine) purported to support :)

Jim.
Last edited on 30 Jul 2008 12:27 by Jim Guthrie
posted: 30 Jul 2008 15:05

from:

Brian W Lewis
 
Lakeland - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
HI Paul!

As you have so few locos, coaches, wagons etc to convert (lucky dog!), How about considering going "the whole hog" to P4. It really isn't (IMHO) any more difficult than EM, and there are occasional posts from EM-ers along the lines of "If I were starting again, I'd go P4" and "I've got too much stock to convert, otherwise I'd go P4"

If (and it's a big "if") in the fullness of time, you would want to go P4, this is the ideal time to do it.

I'm sure you'll make the best decision for you.

Regards,

Brian Lewis (Lakeland) [i.e. not the C&L one :)]

posted: 30 Jul 2008 16:13

from:

Nigel Brown
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Jim Guthrie wrote

A lot of CJF's designs were very complex from the constructional point of view and were probably not really suited to the average modeller who CJF (or his magazine) purported to support :)

Jim.
Hi Jim

Not sure I'd agree with this. CJF was (is) a pragmatist, and produced designs which worked, unlike many others produced around that time. Provided, that is, you followed the design to the letter. His RM plans were produced at a time when railway modellers tended to produce model railways, as opposed to scale models of a real bit of railway, and naturally thought in terms of getting as much railway in a given, usually restricted, space as possible, hence tolerances tended to be pretty tight. He did point out when he reckoned a design needed some experience and/or an extensive timescale to complete.

Now on to 00-SF/EM/P4 which others have raised. For this plan I reckon P4 is clearly out, even EM is being pushed to the limits. Now I reckon EM is probably fine as something which gives you a reasonably scale look but with more generous tolerances than P4, but on a plan of this nature I'm not sure that the scale look will actually come across, in fact a narrower gauge may look better on the sharper curves. I'd suggest 00-SF may be the best solution.

cheers
Nigel



posted: 31 Jul 2008 02:18

from:

Jim Guthrie
 
United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Nigel Brown wrote:
Not sure I'd agree with this. CJF was (is) a pragmatist, and produced designs which worked, unlike many others produced around that time. Provided, that is, you followed the design to the letter. His RM plans were produced at a time when railway modellers tended to produce model railways, as opposed to scale models of a real bit of railway, and naturally thought in terms of getting as much railway in a given, usually restricted, space as possible, hence tolerances tended to be pretty tight. He did point out when he reckoned a design needed some experience and/or an extensive timescale to complete.

Nigel,

With the recent interest in Cyril Freezer's designs,  I've had a quick look through my copies of Plans for Smaller and Larger layouts,  and I found that a lot of his "roundy-roundy" plans are quite complex in heights and gradients,  and it seems that the smaller ones tend to be more complex than the larger ones.   One of the obvious complexities is siting point motors for the upper tracks where, on a good few plans, there is trackwork directly under them.  A lot of the plans would also require a lot of detailed and accurate forward planning since they would have to start from the ground up,  and bad decisions in the early stages could bite you on the bum quite badly at the later stages.

He also didn't give a lot of construction detail on his plans - spot heights and clearances, for a start, would have been a great help in planning the baseboards and roadbeds,  like you would get in layout plans in the Model Railroader in the US.

However,  I'm not knocking Cyril.  His plans were great pipe dreamers and I would love to build one of his best ones some day if I ever got the space and the time. :)

Jim.
Last edited on 31 Jul 2008 02:18 by Jim Guthrie
posted: 1 Aug 2008 11:57

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Oh dear - I appear to have created a monster here!

I actually have no issue with any of the comments and suggestions put forward - which kind of doesn't actually help me a lot as I can't rule one out or the other one in so to speak! I agree with the merits of all of them and thanks all for taking the time to give.

A couple of points of my own that may provide some better insight:

A) As per the above images for those who may have taken the time to follow my thread fully both here and perhaps on other forums, considerable planning has gone into the layout so far. From CJF's original plan, through XtrkCAD, to signalling concepts and diagrams and on through to this phase in Templot and the move away from 16.5 to EM.

B) Benchwork is already installed as per photos above and on other forums; complex carpentry is not an issue for me (I do cabinet making, dovetailed drawers etc) as a hobby and this layout is not leaving the room so robustness is integral.

C) Time is of no matter here. I'm 37 have my 2nd child due in 3 weeks and my wife has resigned herself to the fact that the layout may well be finished before my 2 year old is a teenager - just!

D) I have built other 6 foot style layouts, albeit with Peco code 75 streamline products and point motors, before building this for exactly the purpose of learning about layout building. I have also built 2 N scale layouts previously so while not in the CJF league by any stretch of the imagination I am not looking at this project with rose coloured spectacles - this will be tricky, take time and require planning. Just what I have been doing for about 2 years so far on this project :) hehehe

E) I am currently (for those following my other threads elsewhere) building a whitemetal loco Fowler 4F complete with working lights, DCC, smoke and maybe sound, another working MSE LMS upper quadrant semaphore signal, a Brassmasters lever frame kit and waiting on my EM rolling gauge to tackle my first B7 straight point for my DCC test track, (Vee already made and wing rails too, assembly into a common crossing to come). The point? The idea of fabricating track to me while requiring patience, skill, understanding etc, etc, I see as no different to the processes applied to all the other items currently on my conjested workbench :)

F) Have just (literally) sold the last of my locomotives in 16.5mm, some of which I had invested in decoders and smoke generators etc, but was happy to see them go with a view to a fresh start in EM (or now maybe P4 or 00 FS maybe?). Went with EM mainly because I could start somewhere in finescale without the baggage of 100 locos sitting on the shelf behind me and the CJF plan would still work in it. Don't want to abandon the track plan just yet (refer to points above) but I have not ruled out finescale 00. I have nothing against any gauge, nor a preference for any. Suspension and springing doesn't scare me either, neither do fabricated hornblocks, finescale wheels and all the gubbins that goes around the finescale modelling arena. I am not adverse, in the interests of quality, to have some of the more complex sections of pointwork made by someone with greater experience and skill than me if that will result in a layout of a higher standard. I only want quality. Nothing will go on the layout that I don't think is good enough - made by me or anyone else for that matter, including RTR or kits, scenery, control systems etc.

Now, does that give folk a better understanding of where my thinking is at? I am a novice and I know nothing yet but I am more than prepared to take as much time as is necessary to achieve my goal here. If building a 6 foot plank is generally agreed upon as being the only sensible step forward to achieving a quality layout then fine, I will do it, but I must admit I don't see anything scaring me yet (except mastering Templot that is - hahaha)

posted: 1 Aug 2008 12:34

from:

Martin Wynne
 
West Of The Severn - United Kingdom

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Paul Hamilton wrote:
Oh dear - I appear to have created a monster here!
......
Hi Paul,

I wish you had written all that at the outset! :)

It's so difficult to advise folks without knowing where they are in the hobby. You rather threw me by saying that your total output in EM was one wagon. :)

If you have sold all your 00 stock then there is no reason to go 00-SF.

If it's all kit and scratch-building then the choice is EM or P4. The radii in this design are such that P4 will be right on the limit, but you can get anything round any radius if you are building from scratch and make enough compromises. Given the sharply curved steep gradients and shortish vertical curves, I think compensation/springing of the steam locos will be either essential or very desirable in either gauge. So the actual work in P4 may be no greater than EM if you have the necessary carpentry skills for a P4 trackbed, which you say you do.

The biggest mystery of this design is why you have chosen a scheme with so little hidden storage? It's difficult to see how a running session will work with nowhere to run stock off-stage? :? Jim's idea of running down to storage tracks under the junction station is going to involve some very tricky carpentry to keep the construction depth under the whole station area to an absolute minimum. There won't be enough clearance to handle stock physically under there, so it would mean either fixed rakes of trains, or auto-couplings of some kind.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 4 Aug 2008 17:49

from:

Paul Hamilton
 
 

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
Martin Wynne
I wish you had written all that at the outset! :)

Response - Sorry :? wasn't aware at the outset that that level of information was required :D

Martin WynneIt's so difficult to advise folks without knowing where they are in the hobby. You rather threw me by saying that your total output in EM was one wagon. :)

Response - Sorry again. I had never built up a massive stable of stock (12 locos plus several cattle / milk style stock items from my previous 00 ventures with no coaching stock. Always looked at spending money on (to me) the fun stuff like Digitrax items, signals, tools etc :D

Martin WynneIf you have sold all your 00 stock then there is no reason to go 00-SF.

Response - Exactly my thoughts. I discovered that much of my ready to run rolling stock would have needed to be re-wheeled and the trackwork needed to be hand made anyway to work properly from a design perspective and as such the move to EM tended to offer the opportunity for a complex track plan such as this one to work in my space while affording all the benefits of finescale modelling. I have nothing against or for P4 other than the local club here in Perth I don't believe has a P4 layout but does have 00-SF and EM.

Martin WynneIf it's all kit and scratch-building then the choice is EM or P4. The radii in this design are such that P4 will be right on the limit, but you can get anything round any radius if you are building from scratch and make enough compromises. Given the sharply curved steep gradients and shortish vertical curves, I think compensation/springing of the steam locos will be either essential or very desirable in either gauge. So the actual work in P4 may be no greater than EM if you have the necessary carpentry skills for a P4 trackbed, which you say you do.

Response - Fully concur. Layout is a version of an open grid, L-girder construction and risers etc popularised in the US. This gives relatively simple gradient control using plywood subroad bed. But I do think I will stick with EM due to reasons outlined above.

Martin WynneThe biggest mystery of this design is why you have chosen a scheme with so little hidden storage? It's difficult to see how a running session will work with nowhere to run stock off-stage? :? Jim's idea of running down to storage tracks under the junction station is going to involve some very tricky carpentry to keep the construction depth under the whole station area to an absolute minimum. There won't be enough clearance to handle stock physically under there, so it would mean either fixed rakes of trains, or auto-couplings of some kind.

Response - You are quite correct here Martin and this highlights my lack of experience from an operational perspective. I guess I thought that as it was a published track plan and not a Paul Hamilton special that those kind of operational aspects were inherently included in the design and thus not for me to worry about! I fundamentally wanted a layout that allowed trains just to run rather than a timetabled operating session. This meant that it was about continuous loops with a little bit of shunting depending on the mood I was in with a greater focus on the actual construction elements of the layout and not necessarily its operability (for better or worse).

To address this issue I see that the under station storage is probably, however tricky, the only real solution. As such I think that acess could be solved by installing a drawer style traverser under there that allows access to stock and storage of rakes at the same time. The track plan suggests to my untrained eye that a rake of say 5-7 coaches would probably be the maximum practical length of train with most probably consisting of something like a suburban style 3 coach train behind a 2P or later Fowler 2-6-4T style of thing with a few freights servicing my imagined industries of cattle, milk, creamery / dairy operations and a little mineral traffic perhaps?

The shorter length of most of the trains that would look "right" on this layout also helps with things like approach gradients from the traverser up to main track level with experiments conducted in the past albeit with RTR stock that a 15-20 wagon freight (as opposed to a more prototypical 50 or so) quite easily climbs up a 4% grade (1:25) particularly when fitted with a quality TCS decoder with back EMF (I played with the Woodland scenics riser kits for this experiment back on my older layout). This by the way is detailed in my layout specification which is a document I wrote (and continue to add to) that captures all of the aspects of the layout so that a) I don't forget how I did something and b) provides for repeatability when constructing.

I trust this reveals fully where my level of thinking is at in an honest manner and hope this facilitates further discussions, help and assistance that the members of this forum have unselfishly offered throughout the last few months.:thumb:

Thanks for all the help and may it continue......:specs:



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Converting a CJF track plan to EM
about Templot Club

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.  
© 2020  

Powered by UltraBB - © 2009 Data 1 Systems