Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                            < back - search archive  browse archive images

     Make  Ladder Crossover

A ladder track is one which crosses running lines diagonally, comprised of a string of diamond-crossings and/or slips.

In Templot a ladder is created by clicking the tools > make ladder crossover menu item repeatedly, once for each diamond-crossing. This makes it possible to change the adjacent track spacing for each diamond-crossing (geometry > adjacent track centres... menu item) as necessary.

If slip roads are needed, they are added to the diamond-crossings afterwards.

There are two types of ladder track:

1. In a regular ladder, the diagonal-road has the same radius as the main-road (or both are straight), and all crossing angles are therefore equal. Regular ladder tracks are comprised of regular diamond-crossings, and are commonly seen in station throats, often as single or double slips.

2. In a curviform ladder, the diagonal-road radius and main-road radius differ, and all the crossing angles therefore differ also. Most commonly the diagonal-road is more sharply curved than the main roads, creating short diamond-crossings. The diagonal-road follows the initial curve of the turnout-road (or can in some cases be straight across curved main roads).

Curviform ladders are comprised of curviform diamond-crossings, and are often used to form running-line double-junctions, and to gain access across running lines to goods yards, engine sheds and industrial sidings. Slips are less common in curviform ladders because of the usually shorter crossing angles.

The type of ladder track is determined by the type of V-crossing which is currently set for the control template. To change it, cancel the ladder and first click the template > V-crossing options... menu item. Change the V-crossing type as required. Then click the tools > make ladder crossover menu item again.

For a regular ladder set a regular or generic V-crossing.
For a curviform ladder set a curviform V-crossing.

N.B. If you wish to create a curviform ladder from an initial template having a regular or generic type of V-crossing, do this:

1. tools > make simple crossover menu item.
2. tools > make diamond-crossing menu item.
3. template > V-crossing options... menu item, and change to a curviform type of V-crossing.
4. Adjust the V-crossing angle to create the required radius in the diagonal road (F9 mouse action).
5. tools > make ladder crossover menu item.

For more information about V-crossing types, click the button below.
____________
v: 0.93.a   ©

I quite like "irregular", but if you think that term is undesirable, how about "uneven"?

I'm minded to stop using the term "irregular" diamond-crossing because it has the potential to be confused with an error condition. Instead I'm thinking of calling them "curviform" diamond-crossings. We can't simply call them "curved" because of course a regular diamond-crossing can be curved.

to anyone who has had the anything to do with TEMPLOT and has read the references in Templot Club and elsewhere, the term has a distinct meaning.

Perhaps I should revert to "irregular" and just resign myself to explaining over and over again that there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps I should revert to "irregular" and just resign myself to explaining over and over again that there is nothing wrong with it?

I just checked up on what British Railway Track uses to describe such crossings and it seems to be the phrase "crossings of unequal angle" - a bit of a mouthful.

Jim.

Jim Guthrie wrote:

I just checked up on what British Railway Track uses to describe such crossings and it seems to be the phrase "crossings of unequal angle" - a bit of a mouthful.

Jim.

So what's wrong with calling them unequal crossings?

 

Peter

Why don't you simply make it a condition of getting support that they all join this group?

The term “curved crossings” should be known in the USA. In the book “Track planning for realistic operation” by John Amstrong is a picture on page 85 where a double track has  seven curved crossings in a row, and at the far end is even a curved turnout crossed . An impressive sight!

How about "irregular diamond"?    Everyone on here must surely know what that means by now, even if it goes a bit against the grain of prototype terminology.  It also fits with your suggested help page that already describes a regular ladder, so regular/irregular types of diamond seems to make more sense than regular/curviform.  Well, it does to me!

So I would suggest that the term irregular is a perfectly proper term to use.

I was out and about this afternoon. I asked several people if I said something was irregular, would they think there was something wrong with it? Everyone said yes.

I was out and about this afternoon. I asked several people if I said something was irregular, would they think there was something wrong with it? Everyone said yes.

Ken wrote:

The general sense of the replies you have received here is to stay with "irregular" and this is my vote.

Silly(?) suggestion -
Perhaps you could have a pop-up box that appears saying something like:

"An irregular crossing is merely one where the four crossing angles differ from one another.There are plenty of examples on the prototype."

or something to that effect. You might need a "Do not show this again" option as well.

You might need a "Do not show this again" option as well.

know there will probably be complaints from those of us too tired to press the "Don't show button"

Kenneth Beckett wrote: 

know there will probably be complaints from those of us too tired to press the "Don't show button"

Dead right. From one who hates popups!

I thought I would start a topic where I can report occasionally about what I'm currently working on in Templot. Comments and suggestions welcome, but don't leave it too long or I may have moved on to something else.

At the same time I'm adding a similar function to draw a platform edge alongside a template. I know many users are waiting for this.

To minimise changes to the generator engine, I'm deprecating the old adjacent tracks function. This will be available in future only via the main panel program menu, and if selected will replace the above functions in the generator. You can't have both at once.

I think it’s a great idea to introduce Platform Edge to the rail profile templates.

I do have a question though, will “Overthrow” and “End Throw” be automatically allowed for (standard clearances) at whatever scale we are working at, or will we have to define these parameters in, given the large variation of types of rolling stock that can be used on our layouts?

My next point here is, in my layout case (and perhaps many others) I have platforms either side of multiple through roads ( 3 and 4 adjacent curved tracks) and it would seem I would need both Platform Edge and Adjacent Tracks at the same time, will this be a problem?

I thought I would start a topic where I can report occasionally about what I'm currently working on in Templot. Comments and suggestions welcome, but don't leave it too long or I may have moved on to something else.

Are you planning to deal with flat bottom rail in your current work session?

Sorry, no. That will have to wait.

In addition I've been working on saving program settings between sessions. That's a can of worms if ever I've seen one.

... and you forgot to mention irregular diamonds.... Best Regards, Howard

There is also a new Print Now! single click function which prints directly to the printer using the current defaults and by-passing all the preview, setup and calibration options.

I have also started an interactive beginner's guide within the program itself, i.e. "click this and see what happens". I have concluded that this is the only way to get some folks started -- quite a few have freely admitted that they won't read manuals, web pages or watch videos. They expect to just dive into a program and stumble about until it all becomes clear. The chances of getting the best from Templot that way are almost nil, so I think a helping hand is the only way. But it's a big task to write.

At the same time I'm adding a similar function to draw a platform edge alongside a template. I know many users are waiting for this.

To minimise changes to the generator engine, I'm deprecating the old adjacent tracks function.

I have also been working this week on the Sketchbook feature. [snip] It also provides an EMF file in passing, which can be opened in most photo editor programs, and then re-saved in GIF or PNG format (or JPG if you must). This means I no longer need to provide a separate raster image output in these formats, which has saved quite a bit of work.

regards,

Martin.

Will we be able to save the output from the Sketchbook? If so what format? (PDF, DXF?)

I very much doubt that you are using the adjacent tracks function, which draws the adjacent rails as part of a single template (without any timbering).

You can try it by clicking the generator > generator settings > adjacent tracks menu option:


2_041550_070000000.png


This function is now hardly ever used. It was provided in the early days of Templot as a design aid, but other functions have made it largely redundant. It is sometimes useful when adjusting long S-curve transitions.

regards,

Martin.

I've been using adjacent tracks a lot recently. I find them essential for setting out crossovers and the like on transition curves. But I guess the answer is not to upgrade? Then I'll retain the feature.

In addition I've been working on saving program settings between sessions. That's a can of worms if ever I've seen one.

Why? Aren't there more important needs dealing with the actual functioning of Templot

Anyway can't you already go straight to printing by right clicking on the template you wish to print?

Richard Spratt wrote:

I've been using adjacent tracks a lot recently. I find them essential for setting out crossovers and the like on transition curves. But I guess the answer is not to upgrade? Then I'll retain the feature.

Hi Richard,

The adjacent tracks function will still be available if required. I was thinking of hiding the switch in the program menu, but if it is being much used I may leave it in the generator menu where it logically belongs. Perhaps I can give it a different name ("adjacent rail guides" ?) to avoid confusing beginners looking for the normal double track functions.

regards,

Martin.

Well it's pretty well hidden at the moment. I think I remember that it was Baldrick's cunning plan to hide something by calling it something else? I can never find where to turn it off and usually resort to starting Templot again instead. Can I suggest 'Display adjacent rail guides' would be a good menu name.

What do I mean menu? I should have said Ribbon.

Richard remarked:
"What do I mean menu? I should have said Ribbon."


What we need(?) now is for someone to invent the anti ribbon - lets call it the "Railway Line" with the options accessed via "switches". If you make a mistake you will get a single, or even double, slip message.

Richard Spratt wrote:

Well it's pretty well hidden at the moment. I think I remember that it was Baldrick's cunning plan to hide something by calling it something else? I can never find where to turn it off and usually resort to starting Templot again instead. Can I suggest 'Display adjacent rail guides' would be a good menu name.

Hi Richard,

You turn it off where you turned it on:

2_071533_520000000.png
regards,

Martin.

To that end I needed a computer which had never had a printer installed, so I have been trying Windows 7 for the first time. This is my first "new" Windows since XP -- I skipped Vista entirely.

The "Aero" interface is attractive, but by requiring an alpha channel (transparency) it has clobbered all software compiled with older compiler versions. I'm very disappointed to see that this means Templot has reverted to the old common controls and looks very dated as a result. The XP themed controls are no longer supported.

Do people *have* to use the Aero interface under W7?

And I still haven't solved the "no printer" problem.

The "Aero" interface is attractive, but by requiring an alpha channel (transparency) it has clobbered all software compiled with older compiler versions. I'm very disappointed to see that this means Templot has reverted to the old common controls and looks very dated as a result. The XP themed controls are no longer supported. How come no-one mentioned this? I rely on members here to tell me about such things.

It seems also that I need to adjust all the client widths to accommodate the ugly wider borders now on dialog windows.

The "Aero" interface is attractive, but by requiring an alpha channel (transparency) it has clobbered all software compiled with older compiler versions. I'm very disappointed to see that this means Templot has reverted to the old common controls and looks very dated as a result. The XP themed controls are no longer supported.

Is this what you want?moz-screenshot-17.pngmoz-screenshot-18.png

It seems also that I need to adjust all the client widths to accommodate the ugly wider borders now on dialog windows.

I can't recall having any problems with this. What ugly wider borders?  Can you give me an example?

The "Aero" interface is attractive, but by requiring an alpha channel (transparency) it has clobbered all software compiled with older compiler versions. I'm very disappointed to see that this means Templot has reverted to the old common controls and looks very dated as a result. The XP themed controls are no longer supported. How come no-one mentioned this? I rely on members here to tell me about such things.

The error message I get on trying to quit says it can't create E:/programs/TEMPLOT/boxrmu.txt. The file does already exist.

I mean, since when did you become concerned with making Templot conform to Windows "standards"?

I will post a few example screenshots shortly.

Length - measurements along or parallel to the running rail

Width - measurements perpendicular to the running rail

Height - measurements above the running rail

Depth - measurements below the running rail

I hope that this helps

Hi Martin

I think you're making this more complicated than it needs to be! Templot is a 2D program, and people are used to width being across the screen and height being up the screen, aren't they? The word "height" as you think it might be interpreted has no meaning in Templot, unless you want to be able to export the graphic as a 3D object.

Hope this helps

Head scratching time again.
 
In most graphics programs the image is described by its horizontal width and vertical height on the screen.

But for the sketchboard I can't help feeling this might get confusing for plan views of solid objects. Describing this dimension as the height of a signal box is surely counter-intuitive:

The snag though is that I can't think of a more suitable word to use on the dialogs. Neither "length" nor "depth" seem to fit. "Breadth" is possible but looks a bit odd. Logically this is in fact the width of the signal box, and the dimension shown as the width is the length. Until you turn it through 90 degrees?

Suggestions for a way out welcome.

First let me say, I hope I’ve not thrown a spanner into the works regarding me image files (it appears I might have) my only thought was to make things look as realistic as one can, after all, this is what we modellers always try to achieve.

Hope I haven’t thrown another spanner in the works.

Hmm.

I would have agreed entirely until I tried actually using the sketchboard with Brian's excellent graphics. When designing a layout I found myself thinking and visualising the sketchboard items as physical models, not as graphics images. Then when I go into the dialog and see "Signal Box, height: 56mm" it feels entirely wrong to describe its plan dimensions that way.

Perhaps if it was just a plain rectangle symbol labelled SB it wouldn't jar, but Brian's graphics are almost photo-realistic. For me they change the mind-set when working on the sketchboard. I had assumed that most users would want the sketchboard to show the trackplan in diagram-mode, but now I'm not so sure about that either. Brian's graphics clearly deserve the full detail-mode track detail to do them justice.

Hmm.

Use action → mouse actions: geometry → move peg (8) to align this templates peg over the peg for 4.27 Main stock.

There is no such option in the drop down menu ‘action → mouse actions: geometry’

CTRL F8 is available but does not work.

I have today changed the default sleeper length from 9ft to 8ft-6in.

When I originally set the default 30 years ago, a goodly number of finescale layouts, perhaps even the majority of them, would have called for 9ft sleepers. i.e. pre-grouping layouts, and layouts representing secondary lines, stations and yards during the later "big four" era. Sleeper renewals for running lines are typically every 20 years, but much longer in sidings and yards. Which means 9ft sleepers remained in use for many years after grouping in 1923, and could still be found in yards and sidings to the end of the traditional steam railway.

Now three decades later, I think a majority of finescale layouts are representing the BR era or later, where the vast majority of sleepers will now be 8ft-6in long. So this change in Templot is perhaps overdue. I have avoided changing it until now, because Templot marks the 8ft-6in end positions on 9ft sleepers anyway.

As I understand it, the GWR "default minimum" length for check rails on simple turnouts was based on 4 chairs, not the Templot default of 5. Was wondering if it would be possible if a user selected say one of the GWR switches to change the default to 4. Could avoid GWR turnouts being built with 5-chair check rails by mistake. Just a thought.

For myself, I found it both difficult and time consuming to meet both requirements - it was relatively easy to catalogue a huge pile of requirements, pruning that mass back to make some prospect that the result would get read all of it entirety often took a lot of effort.

If there's a problem in understanding perhaps a pointer to this site would help? In these days of fairly ubiquitous broadband, embedding a link to an on-line, more 'chatty' version, easily updated, maintained and open for your users to contribute/moderate could be an option?

I wonder, how are such things described by the permanent way engineers who designed track formations? would that not be a sensible starting point for definitions?