Templot Club Archive 2007-2020                             

topic: 117Fremington North Yard
author remove search highlighting
 
posted: 29 Jul 2007 05:44

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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

This is my first post in the new forum, and very nice the forum is too. I'm much preferring the denizens of such places to those that lurk on lists, I think perhaps it's because actual modelling is being done on the fora :)

I started this topic to discuss the challenges of going from a layout sketch to a workable plan, and I have a specific plan in mind. Martin has very kindly offered to help with this so I created the topic so we can talk about it, hopefully this will be of great utility to other members.

The layout in question is a P4/Demu challenge layout. For those not familiar I have a thread on a different forum discussing the construction of the layout, I'll keep this thread mainly for the specific topic of the track work. The challenge is described in some detail in the first post of the topic, together with a wonderful link to a youtube film that has a signalman from the Barnstaple - Exeter line discussing the state of the Railways in the early 1980's.

The layout construction discussion can be located here:

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6010

For actual construction I'm planning to use PCB strips and bullhead rail. It's my first P4 layout and I've been asked elsewhere why I'm not using the P4 track co kits. The answer is straightforward - it's not an LNER layout so having that level of fidelity is pointless (if you'll excuse the pun). I've also noticed that I never notice solder blob chairs at exhibitions, so I'm fine with this method of construction. The method of construction will also (I hope) stand the rigors of being dragged on a 747 from the US where I live to wherever scaleforum is in 2008 where I hope to exhibit the layout.

The choice of P4 is solely to conform to the rules of the challenge. Given my druthers I'd probably plumb for EM or OO, since my track construction has been limited to those areas using C&L bits from the excellent Brian Lewis.

The Bullhead choice is a little odd, I admit, since if this location had actually have been constructed it would almost certainly have been FB rail. The choice is largely driven by the fact that I have a set of the portsdown models jigs that I use for filing blades, vee filing and crossing construction, and I have a quantity of bullhead rail on stock (rail is tricky to get shipped internationally).

The trackplan for the layout is as follows

frem150.jpgfrem150.jpg

Martin had some comments about this as drawn that may mean some changes would be desirable.
Last edited on 29 Jul 2007 05:53 by Rextanka
posted: 29 Jul 2007 11:39

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 Nick,

Welcome to Templot Cub. That's some "challenge" -- it's intended to get to Scaleforum in the back of a car. You bring a layout on a flight from the US. Bonus points should be awarded I think! :)
Martin had some comments about this as drawn that may mean some changes would be desirable.
Yes. As often with Iain's plans, getting everything to fit as drawn can be a problem. :) Especially in P4!

The problem is the single slip. Iain has drawn a 1:4 inside slip. That's next to impossible in P4 (or the prototype), the radius is just too tight. The slip road is needed because without it there is no run-round capability for the loop.

I tried changing it to an outside slip (a very attractive formation, and also a favourite of Iain's), but there just isn't room. It would mean widening the spacing between the loop and the main by so much that the DMU platform length all but disappears.

So I have tried a couple of other ideas. As always there are trade-offs, pros and cons. The first thing to decide is what needs to remain fixed, what can be moved. I think the DMU platform in the bottom left is probably in the fixed category. Also we have to steer clear of the hinged board joint, and preferably cross it only at a right angle. In P4 crossing a board joint at a skew angle requires some precision carpentry to avoid misalignments. A slight gap between the boards (due to an uneven floor perhaps) can be crossed square, but not at an angle.

The first idea is to replace the slip road with a separate crossover, using a tandem turnout in the main:

fremington1.pngfremington1.png

Pros: Maintains the existing run-round length. Tracks cross the joint square. Clear length in the platform road is increased a little while using the main road to head spur.

Cons: The head spur for running round is very short, only about 12" clear. Just room for a loco only. The design looks cramped and more typical of an inner-city terminus than out in the sticks.

In the second idea I moved the turnout to the other side of the board joint:

fremington2.pngfremington2.png

Pros: Looks more natural and as Iain intended. The head spur is long enough to be usable as a siding and the platform length is also increased quite a bit.

Cons: The length within the run-round loop is much reduced -- just two or three wagons. The crossover road is crossing the board joint at an angle.

So there's a start. Further inspired ideas welcome. If you would like to try it, I have attached below the .bgs file and the  picture shape .bmp file (zipped together -- unzip into your SHAPE-FILES folder and reload fremington300.bgs).

regards,

Martin.
Attachment: attach_35_fremington_bgs_bmp.zip 443

posted: 29 Jul 2007 12:57

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:

In the second idea I moved the turnout to the other side of the board joint:

fremington2.pngfremington2.png

Pros: Looks more natural and as Iain intended. The head spur is long enough to be usable as a siding and the platform length is also increased quite a bit.

Cons: The length within the run-round loop is much reduced -- just two or three wagons. The crossover road is crossing the board joint at an angle.

So there's a start. Further inspired ideas welcome. If you would like to try it, I have attached below the .bgs file and the  picture shape .bmp file (zipped together -- unzip into your SHAPE-FILES folder and reload fremington300.bgs).

regards,

Martin.
Martin,

You could place the turnout across the baseboard join to give a bit more room on the loop,  and also stay closer to the original plan.   With the baseboard join somewhere between the switch heel and the crossing nose,  it gives less angularity to the turnout road.   It's no big deal to do this if you are building your own track.

Jim.
Last edited on 29 Jul 2007 13:01 by Jim Guthrie
posted: 29 Jul 2007 14:58

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
Jim Guthrie wrote:
Martin Wynne wrote:

In the second idea I moved the turnout to the other side of the board joint:

fremington2.pngfremington2.png

Pros: Looks more natural and as Iain intended. The head spur is long enough to be usable as a siding and the platform length is also increased quite a bit.

Cons: The length within the run-round loop is much reduced -- just two or three wagons. The crossover road is crossing the board joint at an angle.

So there's a start. Further inspired ideas welcome. If you would like to try it, I have attached below the .bgs file and the  picture shape .bmp file (zipped together -- unzip into your SHAPE-FILES folder and reload fremington300.bgs).

regards,

Martin.
Martin,

You could place the turnout across the baseboard join to give a bit more room on the loop,  and also stay closer to the original plan.   With the baseboard join somewhere between the switch heel and the crossing nose,  it gives less angularity to the turnout road.   It's no big deal to do this if you are building your own track.

Jim.


Hi

To extend the run round loop using any of the previous ideas by moving the 1st turnout to the fiddle yard and use the cassette or sector plate to replace it as the loco will go off scene anyway.


Cheers Phil
Attachment: attach_37_Fremlington.PNG 1860

posted: 29 Jul 2007 15:35

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 Jim,

Jim Guthrie wrote:
You could place the turnout across the baseboard join to give a bit more room on the loop, and also stay closer to the original plan. With the baseboard join somewhere between the switch heel and the crossing nose, it gives less angularity to the turnout road. It's no big deal to do this if you are building your own track.
Many thanks. Yes, I tried that. But it doesn't flatten the diamond enough to make a slip road feasible. As shown the the angle is 1:6.5 which is still tight for a slip in P4. It might work if the angle down the platform road is much reduced, but that changes the scenic treatment at the end and also shortens the clear lengths in the platform and the head spur. May be worth a try to see how it looks.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 29 Jul 2007 20:29

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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 & Everyone,

Thanks so much for looking at this, this is one of the great things about Templot because for every layout to this point I've always been a little frustrated when, having roughly laid out a couple of C&L templates and convinced my self a plan will work, when the actual track goes down, it either looks wonky or doesn't quite match the plan.

I'll fire up templot tonight and look at the files Martin posted (It's 7:30am here), but I have to take the kids to "Thomas' day out" at a local preserved railway

http://www.roaringcamp.com/thomas07.html

And when we get back I'll be putting together a ton of IKEA furniture for a good few hours. So this means I may not be able to reply in detail until you are all asleep :)

Thanks for all the replies, Martins second suggestion combined with having 2 roads go under the road bridge might be the best suggestion, or I'll just need to live with a "too short" runaround. I need to put my thinking cap on.

Thanks!!
Last edited on 29 Jul 2007 20:31 by Rextanka
posted: 3 Aug 2007 02:54

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
I finally got set up and down loaded the files that Martin posted, however I get an error message when I try to load them.

I placed the files in the following folder:

C:\TEMPLOT\SHAPE-FILES

I can load the bacground shape but the track Martin drew is not visible, is this correct, or should I expect to see the track (I'm assuming that the track would have needed to be in a box file, in which case this behaves as expected).

Can someone please confirm the above is correct behaviour, or if there is a way to see the track, let me know.

Many thanks!!

Nick


posted: 3 Aug 2007 14:56

from:

Alan Turner
 
Dudley - 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 had a go at Fremington. You can get a 1:6 single slip in if you scrifice some platfrom length.



 

Attachment: attach_38_Fremington.JPG 2366

posted: 3 Aug 2007 16:47

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:
Hi Jim,

Jim Guthrie wrote:
You could place the turnout across the baseboard join to give a bit more room on the loop, and also stay closer to the original plan. With the baseboard join somewhere between the switch heel and the crossing nose, it gives less angularity to the turnout road. It's no big deal to do this if you are building your own track.
Many thanks. Yes, I tried that. But it doesn't flatten the diamond enough to make a slip road feasible. As shown the the angle is 1:6.5 which is still tight for a slip in P4. It might work if the angle down the platform road is much reduced, but that changes the scenic treatment at the end and also shortens the clear lengths in the platform and the head spur. May be worth a try to see how it looks.

regards,

Martin.
I've just had a go at putting the point across the baseboard join and then trying to make the slip an outside slip to preserve the crossing angle of the original plan.  But I've given up since the outside slip was getting to such a size, to keep radii reasonable,  that you would be lucky to get a one coach motor train in the platform :-)

Iain usually attends RailWells, which is next weekend,  so it might be worth paying a visit and asking him how he thinks this plan should work :-)

It's worth visiting RailWells in any case - one of the better exhibitions with lots of high class layouts.

Jim.

posted: 4 Aug 2007 21:53

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
Rextanka wrote:
I can load the background shape but the track Martin drew is not visible, is this correct, or should I expect to see the track (I'm assuming that the track would have needed to be in a box file, in which case this behaves as expected).
Hi Nick,

Sorry, I should have made clear that the file I attached was simply your scan suitably scaled as a picture shape.

I didn't upload the track because it wasn't in any way a finalised design, just a few templates tried in place to see how things might fit. I thought others would like to have a go at it, as Alan has done. Thanks Alan. You can see the problem clearly on Alan's design -- even with a 1:6 slip (which is tight in P4) the clear length in the platform is far too short.
I finally got set up and down loaded the files that Martin posted, however I get an error message when I try to load them.
Do you mean you tried to load the files as .box template files? In which case you would certainly get an error. If you received some other error message, could you please tell me exactly what it said and what you were doing at the time?

Have you had any more thoughts about the design problem? Which is the more important -- the length of the platform or the length of the run-round? If you adopt the "two tracks under the bridge" idea, will you still have room in the fiddle yard? It would also mean losing the tandem turnout -- an attractive formation and typical of Iain's designs. On the other hand, not building it makes the trackwork a bit simpler, bearing in mind that you may already have a single slip.

My inclination would be to go for my first design -- because if you are building your own track you may as well make the most of its advantages over ready-made track. That design trades the slip for a second tandem turnout -- turnouts are always easier to build than than diamonds. On the other hand, it's not my project -- it's yours. :)

regards,

Martin.

posted: 5 Aug 2007 01:52

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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:
Rextanka wrote:
I can load the background shape but the track Martin drew is not visible, is this correct, or should I expect to see the track (I'm assuming that the track would have needed to be in a box file, in which case this behaves as expected).
Hi Nick,

Sorry, I should have made clear that the file I attached was simply your scan suitably scaled as a picture shape.


I thought that might be the case, and I've had some more time to play with it and am coming to an understanding of how pictures in Background shapes work. So no problem here this all works "as expected".

I didn't upload the track because it wasn't in any way a finalised design, just a few templates tried in place to see how things might fit. I thought others would like to have a go at it, as Alan has done. Thanks Alan. You can see the problem clearly on Alan's design -- even with a 1:6 slip (which is tight in P4) the clear length in the platform is far too short.


Completely understand re: track. I just wasn't sure if I was missing something, but having played with the background shapes feature I Understand it now. Thanks for plotting out the track Alan, as can be see the platform is too short to really be useful. I was reminded of the phrase putting a quart into a pint pot. Indeed this is a problem.

Have you had any more thoughts about the design problem? Which is the more important -- the length of the platform or the length of the run-round?


The platform needs to take a 2 car DMU. So I think that is the only restriction there. Ideally the run around needs to be long enough to allow everything to be worked so I think the two tracks under the bridge is the only viable alternative. The fiddle yard for exhibiting will of necessity be very primitive, likely two cassettes.

If you adopt the "two tracks under the bridge" idea, will you still have room in the fiddle yard? It would also mean losing the tandem turnout -- an attractive formation and typical of Iain's designs. On the other hand, not building it makes the trackwork a bit simpler, bearing in mind that you may already have a single slip.


As mentioned the fiddle yard is extremely basic.I'd like to retain the tandem turnout, but keeping it, along with the other details that fall out from actually implementing this, would make the run around almost absurdly short, so I think that this will need to be sacrificed.

Thanks for all the feedback Martin and Alan and others. Obviously a bit more challenging than perhaps I had first thought, but I think something workable is possible here.

Let me know if that clarifies things.

Thank you!

Nick

posted: 5 Aug 2007 02:02

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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

My inclination would be to go for my first design -- because if you are building your own track you may as well make the most of its advantages over ready-made track. That design trades the slip for a second tandem turnout -- turnouts are always easier to build than than diamonds.


After cogitating on this for several days I'm inclined to agree. I think the first design is workable and it gives a nice complex piece of track to gawk at. The siding above the platform would likely be used for motive power storage, and possibly for refuelling so I think I can live with it being shortened to this degree.

Thanks!

Nick

posted: 7 Aug 2007 07:33

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
Hi Nick,

Here's another variation. This preserves the original lengths of the run-round and the head spur. At the expense of the DMU needing to cross the loop, possibly conflicting with shunting in progress:

fremington3.pngfremington3.png

fremington4.pngfremington4.png

The top left track is a private siding, so to reflect this the turnout for it is right-hand with contraflexure. It's moot whether the lower turnout in the crossover should be similarly right-hand too. I've left it as left-hand, but if the head spur is the remains of a truncated through route, it would more likely be right-hand.

The crossover can be moved a little further to the right, merging the lower V-crossing into the diamond -- which would make a more impressive piece of trackwork -- and lengthening the head spur. If you do that, however, you lose the 6ft way between the crossover road and the platform road, which might further conflict with shunting activity during DMU movements.

This design looks mostly straight, but in fact it is on a gentle reverse curve as drawn by Iain.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 7 Aug 2007 09:22

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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:
Here's another variation. This preserves the original lengths of the run-round and the head spur. At the expense of the DMU needing to cross the loop, possibly conflicting with shunting in progress:
 fremington3.pngfremington3.png
This looks really good! I think the DMU needing to be held during shunting is fine, the timetable from Barnstaple to Exeter had (actually still has) trains every two hours, so that would leave time in real life to make whatever shunting moves were needed. I like the fact that this allows the siding lengths to remain as intended.

Also this seems to preserve much of the runaround loop which I believe would allow for the tandem turnout at the throat of the layout, would you concur?

I think the fiction surrounding this location was that the Yard at Barnstaple needed to be closed to allow the B&Q superstore to be built on what was becoming higher value land, being just across the river Taw from the retail area of the Town. Freight traffic was seen as desirable to take lorries off the North Devon Link road (A361). The NDDC in conjunction with BR applied for a regional development grant to allow a part of the former Bideford line to be reopened. Due to the heightened value of land in the vicinity of Fremington Quay, with it's stunning views of the Taw estuary, the terminus of this spur was moved slightly towards Barnstaple, to a new location at Fremington North Yard.

Fremington Quay is here:

 Fremington Quay

I think the location of Fremington North would be round about here:

 Fremington North

So it's likely that this would have been a greenfield site, and whilst much of the run to Barnstaple may have on the former Bideford road, this site may not have been, so the head spur is probably not a truncated through route.

All of which might make a bit of a nonsense of using bullhead track, but if the first bit of fantasy is held as fact then who can argue with Bullhead :) I figure a first P4 layout is not the place to be learning how to make FB P&C work.

If this was constructed in the early 1970's then Bullhead probably would have been chosen, from photographic evidence it seems the Exeter Barnstaple line was not relaid with FB until the mid to late 1990's, when the Freight yard at Barnstaple was finally decimated. Anyway that's a sidetrack, but hopefully this might give background.

Thank you!

Regards

Nick

posted: 14 Aug 2007 17:12

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
Rextanka wrote:
this seems to preserve much of the runaround loop which I believe would allow for the tandem turnout at the throat of the layout, would you concur?
Hi Nick,

Yes, I think you can retain the tandem rather than running two tracks under the bridge. If you are happy with the design I will firm it up and get the timbers shoved around. I see from RMweb that you have finished the baseboards and will soon be ready to start trackbuilding. However, I have a feeling progress will come to a full stop in two weeks time. :)

A suggestion -- before you finalize the baseboards, think about making the hinge pins removable. This will allow you to separate the boards and make them much easier to work on. If you grind or file off the ends of the pins you can punch them out and replace them with a suitable piece of longer bar bent to a L shape. (Or ideally for international transport thread the bar ends and put on lock nuts for transit.)

My experience of hinged boards is not good -- maintaining alignment as the wood ages and moves can be a pain. For P4 baseboard joint alignment is critical, especially in this case where you have a skew track crossing the joint. I would be inclined to regard the hinge pins as there for transit only. To be removed and replaced with conventional dowels and bolts between the boards when setting up. In your design you could bolt through the hinge blocks -- as close to the track surface as you can get.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Aug 2007 19:40

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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,

Thanks for the reply.

Martin Wynne wrote:
Rextanka wrote:
this seems to preserve much of the runaround loop which I believe would allow for the tandem turnout at the throat of the layout, would you concur?
Hi Nick,

Yes, I think you can retain the tandem rather than running two tracks under the bridge. If you are happy with the design I will firm it up and get the timbers shoved around. I see from RMweb that you have finished the baseboards and will soon be ready to start trackbuilding. However, I have a feeling progress will come to a full stop in two weeks time. :)


I am happy with the design now, thanks! The one question I had is about the catch points Iain put in in three spots. Do these make sense in terms of placement and if so would the slip on the loop not be similarly protected towards the station end? Of course this layout is a bit like squeezing a quart into a pint pot so having looked again, that would be overdoing it. The question is more one of interest.

The other thing I need to get my thinking hat on about is signalling. Unless I'm missing it I do not think this is covered in the diagram. I'd like to get at least one ex LSWR semaphore, the Barnstaple line seemed to keep its semaphore signals until the very end of the 1980's/Early 1990's. A mix of colour and semaphores, together with a scattering of ground signals seems like the way to go.

Hopefully I'll get an hour here or there to make progress with the track work.

A suggestion -- before you finalize the baseboards, think about making the hinge pins removable. This will allow you to separate the boards and make them much easier to work on. If you grind or file off the ends of the pins you can punch them out and replace them with a suitable piece of longer bar bent to a L shape. (Or ideally for international transport thread the bar ends and put on lock nuts for transit.)

My experience of hinged boards is not good -- maintaining alignment as the wood ages and moves can be a pain. For P4 baseboard joint alignment is critical, especially in this case where you have a skew track crossing the joint. I would be inclined to regard the hinge pins as there for transit only. To be removed and replaced with conventional dowels and bolts between the boards when setting up. In your design you could bolt through the hinge blocks.


This is something I have been mulling over for both this layout and for for the Elan layout. In many ways Elan has been a test bed for Fremington, at least as far as baseboards are concerned. My layouts previous to these have been a great deal more "traditional". I'll start experimenting with this on Elan and take the results to Fremingotn. Many thanks for these comments, it is much appreciated (as you can probably tell these are the first "finescale" layouts I've worked on, everything previous to this has been using premade track.

Regards

Nick
Last edited on 14 Aug 2007 19:42 by Rextanka
posted: 14 Aug 2007 20:33

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
Rextanka wrote:
The one question I had is about the catch points Iain put in in three spots. Do these make sense in terms of placement and if so would the slip on the loop not be similarly protected towards the station end? Of course this layout is a bit like squeezing a quart into a pint pot so having looked again, that would be overdoing it. The question is more one of interest.
Hi Nick,

Catch points to protect passenger lines are provided in goods lines where vehicles remain stationary. They are not (usually -- there's always an exception :) ) provided in passenger lines. Also, although the physical track item is called a set of catch points, functionally these are called trap points in signalling terms.

So the two trap points drawn by Iain are correct. But in this case we now have a passenger line crossing the goods loop on a diamond-crossing. So in theory this needs further trap points on both sides of the diamond. Given the close proximity of all the pointwork it could begin to look overdone.

In a very cramped design like this I think it's only necessary to nod to the regulations, you don't have to follow them to the letter. For example the goods loop should be spaced 10ft way from the main. But if you do that it would take up so much space for the crossovers that there would be no room left for the sidings. I've settled on 7ft way just to show that we do know it should be more than the 6ft way of running lines. I hope that's ok.

regards,

Martin.

posted: 14 Aug 2007 21:21

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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
In a very cramped design like this I think it's only necessary to nod to the regulations, you don't have to follow them to the letter. For example the goods loop should be spaced 10ft way from the main. But if you do that it would take up so much space for the crossovers that there would be no room left for the sidings. I've settled on 7ft way just to show that we do know it should be more than the 6ft way of running lines. I hope that's ok.


Absolutely, that sounds like the right thing to do.

Thank you!

nick
Last edited on 14 Aug 2007 21:23 by Rextanka
posted: 17 Aug 2007 06:36

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 Nick,

Here's the full track layout. If this is ok I will get the timbers shoved and do a full set of partial templates for the tandem. The diamond-crossing is 1:7 and now straight. I moved the head spur alongside the platform track. This is slightly longer and looks more natural, and allows better scenic treatment. As drawn there was no room for the fence between the tracks.

fremington5.pngfremington5.png

Let me know if this is ok and I will get it finalized in the next couple of days. If this is modern I assume you want 60ft lengths, 8ft-6in sleepers, square-on and in-line?

regards,

Martin.

posted: 17 Aug 2007 07:16

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

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:
Here's the full track layout. If this is ok I will get the timbers shoved and do a full set of partial templates for the tandem. The diamond-crossing is 1:7 and now straight. I moved the head spur alongside the platform track. This is slightly longer and looks more natural, and allows better scenic treatment. As drawn there was no room for the fence between the tracks.


I like the change with the head spur, it makes sense to do this.



fremington5.pngfremington5.png

Let me know if this is ok and I will get it finalized in the next couple of days. If this is modern I assume you want 60ft lengths, 8ft-6in sleepers, square-on and in-line?


Correct.

Thanks so much Martin, this looks great!

Best regards

Nick

posted: 20 Aug 2007 05:06

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 Nick,

I've completed the tandem turnout and a suggested timbering layout. I added an extra set of catch points inside the oil depot turnout, just for effect! :) There should be some more catch points in the yard, but it would all look too much in such a cramped space, I think. The .box file for Templot is attached, so you can get it printed out and see how it looks on the boards. Let me know if anything needs changing.

fremington_print_b1.pngfremington_print_b1.png

fremington_print_b2.pngfremington_print_b2.png

fremington_print_b3.pngfremington_print_b3.png

fremington6.pngfremington6.png
All images © 2007 Martin Wynne. They may be freely linked from this server ( templot.com ) but not copied to any other publicly accessible server.

regards,

Martin.

p.s. You are welcome to link to these images on your web site or in your topic on RMweb if you wish (but please credit my copyright :) ).
Attachment: attach_40_fremington_north.box 407

posted: 20 Aug 2007 07:20

from:

Rextanka
 
Scotts Valley - California USA

click the date to link to this post
click member name to view archived images
view images in gallery view images as slides
This looks splendid. I'll get this printed up and let you know if I see any problems, but I think this looks great.

Thank you so much for your help Martin, I really appreciate it.

Regards

Nick

posted: 21 Aug 2007 11:49

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 Nick,

I thought you might like to see a few images of your Fremington track plan in 3D, taken from 3rd PlanIt. I added a few typical structures to create some perspective. I have also produced a short moving video of the same.

fremington_3d1.pngfremington_3d1.png

fremington_3d2.pngfremington_3d2.png

fremington_3d3.pngfremington_3d3.png

fremington_3d4.pngfremington_3d4.png

fremington_3d5.pngfremington_3d5.png
All images © 2007 Martin Wynne. They may be freely linked from this server ( templot.com ) but not copied to any other publicly accessible server.

A 100-second video of the same is available for downloading. It's in the usual Templot executable format, but to keep the file size down the frame rate is slower than usual. You can safely open it and ignore any warnings. Press the spacebar to start and stop the playback.
(30MB so broadband only, Windows only.)

Click to download: Fremington 3D video

regards,

Martin.



Templot Club > Forums > Templot talk > Fremington North Yard
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