Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 00:31 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, I'm new to Templot and have been discussing with Martin a fairly large terminus plan which is an adaptation of a CJ Freezer terminus plan published nearly 20 years ago. I've reached the grand old age of 59 and will be retiring from my job at the end of this year so will have plenty of time on my hands. I have been a modeller for most of my life and now that my kids have all left home, I'm lucky enough to have a space available of 18' square. The room is the converted loft space above a double garage and has been fully fitted out with a proper staircase, heating and lighting to eventually house a multi layer 00 layout. The lower level is under construction now and will have 12 through storage roads, each about 30' long. The lower level will be about 18" below the scenic level which will allow full access to the storage roads for track cleaning and point repair etc. Joining the two levels will be a spiral at a gradient of 1:100 which takes three complete circuits of the room before emerging at the upper level. The scenic side will be mainly urban with brick cuttings and retaining walls. Period will be late '60's, ECML in the transition from steam to diesel. (Don't worry about the US stock shown in the pics!) Progress so far is here. railway1fa0.jpg  railway2vp4.jpg  Lower level track is all Tillig for ease of laying with all visible track being SMP flexible plus hand made points using pcb strip and code 75 bullhead rail with 1mm flangeways. I had around 50 points from a previous layout but have now learned how to build my own customised pointwork. I'm very pleased with this development as I had never built a point until a few months ago as I thought I would never have the skills to do so. Following encouragement from other members of RMWeb, I attempted my first a couple of months ago and was amazed when I was able to produce a finished article that worked! Since then, I have been well and truly hooked and have now built curved points, a double slip and two 3 way points so feel comfortable that I could build most combinations if required. I have standardised on B7 straight points, C10 curved points and 1:7 double slips. Minimum curve radius is 3', but in reality most are 4' plus. I have recently bought Templot and as such I am very much a beginner. I have had WinRail for a year or so and have been able to produce a plan which will give an indication of what I am trying to achieve. I want to run main line trains of 7/8 coaches plus freight of 30 wagons plus. My interest is watching trains move at scale speeds with representative formations. Freight will be of the through variety and will have its own upper storage loops (or goods yard) which has yet to be finalised. The freight storage loops shown in green is simply a representation and may be changed if better alternatives can be found. The lower level is shown here. lowerlevelsem2.jpg  ...and the upper level here. upperlevelsrotatedxy5.jpg  I have adapted the CJ Freezer plan to add some carriage sidings and a diesel shed/refuelling area. I believe I can get the pointwork in place but the length of the platforms is being compromised. The actual space available for the terminus is 18'4" long and approximately 3'6" wide. As this sits above the lower level the width is dictated by a combination of height from the floor and the eaves of the sloping roof. It could be made slightly wider by cantilevering the front edge so that it protrudes forward rather than in line with the lower level. (Apologies, I have just realised there is a small error on the above plans, the red line linking the lower level to the upper level has stopped short. They should be joined). The problem I am facing is that the length of the platforms is being compromised by the complex approach pointwork which at present is all standard straight points and double slips. Martin has suggested this could be much improved by customising the pointwork and building new curved points to move the entry further back, even moving it onto the adjacent board through 90 degrees. The problem I have is that I'm still really learning Templot and this is really throwing me in the deep end! Martin has very kindly drafted the basic plan but has suggested I place the plans on the Templot forum to see if you fancy a challenge! Of course if you really feel brave, any main line terminus design would be seriously considered. It should have 5 platforms of at least 8' length, parcels area, limited goods facilities and a comprehensive loco shed area for both steam and diesel locos. It is only the terminus, approach and carriage sidings that I require. All the rest has been completed and track is already in place. I fully realise this is a very daunting task and once my own Templot skills improve, I hope I will be able to contribute. Right now I don't know where or how to start so would be very grateful for any guidance you can provide. |
||
| Last edited on 9 Nov 2007 13:36 by Gordon S |
|||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 03:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon, Welcome to Templot Club.  Great to see an ambitious main line project. You're right that it's a challenging design, because you want to include as much as possible of your existing pointwork while hopefully creating a flowing "Templot" design for new handbuilt curved pointwork. Before you began handbuilding you sent me some scans of your existing 00 pointwork, which I matched for you in Templot. The straight turnouts were a good match to A-7, and the diamonds matched 1:7 too. The curved turnout was near a C-10, but not such a good match: gordon_scans.png  gordon_scans_a7.png  I tried using these for the CJF terminus plan, and managed to fit it within your 5400mm space, without losing any platform length. The goods yard access needed a changed design to keep a long enough head-shunt, but otherwise it's a straight conversion to 1:7 angle of CJF's original design. But it does look rather angular, and the sharp approach curves look very cramped. It would obviously be much more attractive and create a longer-look effect to put the station throat on a gentle curve transitioning into the approach curves. It would probably allow slightly longer platforms too. But doing that with your existing straight turnouts will be quite a task. Even more impressive would be to have the whole terminus on a gentle curve. But that would add the challenge of building a curved train shed.  Perhaps a straight train shed with curved platforms beyond it would be a sensible compromise?cjf_terminus2.png  cjf_terminus2a.png  cjf_terminus2b.png  (Slip roads not added.) So the first question is how many of these straight A-7 turnouts and straight 1:7 diamonds and slips do you have? If only a few could be fitted in this plan to allow it to be all to be on a curve, do you have any other use for the remainder? In the fiddle yard perhaps? I'm sure many Templot users will remember this CJF terminus plan from the 60s. It will be fascinating to see a full Templot design develop. Unless it's already been done of course! Anyone?regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 13:22 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin for your input, invaluable as always. Just undertaken a stock check and completed points are as follows. C10 Curved point RH - 4 C10 Curved point LH - 7 A7 Point LH - 24 A7 Point RH - 26 1:7 Double slip - 4 1:7 Single slip - 1 3 way asymetric point - 2 3 way tandem RH - 1 I'm not really worried if I have points left over as they will be either sold or saved for another day. Equally so, with SMP kits freely available and at reasonable cost, I'm quite happy to build new ones to achieve a smooth flowing design to the terminus approach. I also have sufficient Tillig points for the storage roads. These have proven to be very reliable and derailments are few and far between. The thought of a long gentle curved terminus is very attractive and boards could be made to suit. It might steal some space from the proposed freight storage but that would be a compromise I would be willing to make. That area has still to be thought through in detail, so ignore it for design purposes at this stage. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 14:23 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: The thought of a long gentle curved terminus is very attractive and boards could be made to suit. It might steal some space from the proposed freight storage but that would be a compromise I would be willing to make. That area has still to be thought through in detail, so ignore it for design purposes at this stage.Hi Gordon, Thanks for that. Does that include the train shed overall roof? Or would you prefer that part to be straight? In theory you could have curved platforms under a straight roof, but it might look a bit odd. Changing the subject, you mentioned using 1mm flangeways. I assume this means you are using the DOGA Fine track gauges and will be widening all your wheel back-to-backs to 14.7mm accordingly? If you haven't already done that you might want to consider 00-SF instead, which avoids the need to adjust the wheels. There is more about that at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/00-SF and some notes from me at: topic 124 - message 567 Orders for 00-SF track gauges are now being taken and if you get in quick you might be in time to get some. It does have a slight bearing on the design process in that 00-SF turnouts are a fraction shorter than DOGA-F. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 17:08 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Food for thought! I have just done a quick calculation and based on 18' length, fixing the platform end as is and moving the loco shed end of the board say 2' to the right, would require an 82' radius curve. This will allow curved platforms without the normal gap that you often see with long coaches and tight curve platforms. Building a train shed on that curve would be challenging but not impossible. I have also investigated my track gauges as my test locos Hornby, Bachmann, Kato and Romford wheeled Comet Chassis stock all run through the new points without problem. The gauges are definitely 16.5 with 1mm flangeways. Common sense says if that is the case, stock with B to B's less than 14.5 should bind on the checkrails. The fact that they don't led me to investigate further. The track slot in the gauge is 0.91mm and the check rail gap definitely 1mm. However when I measured SMP bullhead rail it is actually 0.82 so there could be some lateral movement of the rail within the gauge, which in some cases could allow the rail gauge to be 16.68mm or the back to back to be 14.32. I suspect there is a combination of all these factors that means the 1mm flangeway is a nominal measurement and hence is allowing all stock to run freely. No doubt a combination of tolerances and tight B to B measurement will enevitably mean one piece of stock may be a problem but I can deal with that at the time. Thanks for the note about 16.2mm gauge Martin. I'll give it some further thought.. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 18:04 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon,The gauges are definitely 16.5 with 1mm flangeways. Common sense says if that is the case, stock with B to B's less than 14.5 should bind on the checkrails. The fact that they don't led me to investigate further. The track slot in the gauge is 0.91mm and the check rail gap definitely 1mm. However when I measured SMP bullhead rail it is actually 0.82 so there could be some lateral movement of the rail within the gauge, which in some cases could allow the rail gauge to be 16.68mm or the back to back to be 14.32.Good grief! It's no wonder 00 gauge is such a mish-mash of conflicting experience and reports of poor running. I don't want to be too pessimistic, but I think you need to get this sorted outed before continuing. A large complex layout is going to be a nightmare to run and maintain if you continue with this situation. 0.1mm slop between the rail and the gauge tool is just crazy. Please ditch this narrow rail if you can't get a gauge which fits it properly. It is under scale width anyway at 0.82mm. Scale BS-95R bullhead rail should be 0.92mm wide. At the very least get a proper check gauge tool. The 00-SF check gauge tool is interchangeable with 00-BF, and with a bit of luck Brian on the 00-SF group has a few left. Then get your rail from C&L or Exactoscale or EMGS or S4 Soc and check that it fits the gauge tools snugly. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 18:21 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've just checked all 4 roller gauges which I think were C & L and all are OK with the rail gap at 0.91/0.92 and 1mm flange gap. The SMP rail section is definitely 0.81/0.82 so unless my digital vernier is rubbish (unlikely) the issue is with the rail section not the gauge. I'll order some rail from C & L... | ||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 20:25 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: I've just checked all 4 roller gauges which I think were C & L and all are OK with the rail gap at 0.91/0.92 and 1mm flange gap. The SMP rail section is definitely 0.81/0.82 so unless my digital vernier is rubbish (unlikely) the issue is with the rail section not the gauge. I'll order some rail from C & L...Hi Gordon, If the roller gauges are 16.5mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeway gaps, it means they are gauges for the DOGA Fine standard (DOGA-F). For use with this all your wheels will need to have the back-to-back widened. That's ok if it's what you want, but you shouldn't be stumbling into this inadvertently. It also means that after widening the wheels won't run properly through your Tillig turnouts. Was the gauge supplied as DOGA Fine or marked as such? In the absence of any other marking a 00 track gauge could be assumed to comply with the BRMSB standard (00-BF) for 16.5mm gauge with 1.25mm flangeways. Obviously it's a matter for you, but I do feel that a sensible choice for the layout you are planning would be either 00-BF or 00-SF, so that you don't have to adjust any wheels and the Tillig turnouts remain compatible. Looking at all those storage yards, you are not going to be short of wheels! I explained the different 00 standards in more detail at: topic 124 - message 567 regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 21:14 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon, Just to get a quick idea, I have broken up my previous design and dragged the bits round to a gentle curve. It looks better, but perhaps not as sweeping as might be wished: cjf_terminus3.png  To put curved turnouts further round in the 48" approach curves, they can't be 1:7 and need to be C-10 or more. That means the diamonds and slips need to be 1:10 too, which means they must be switch-diamonds. A switch-diamond curved double slip is very impressive, but not perhaps the first choice for a novice track builder! p.s. I have mentioned the rail/gauge matter on the 00-SF group as the situation seems to me to be far from satisfactory. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 9 Nov 2007 22:16 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin, I'm sitting chuckling away to myself and can see why you must be tearing your hair out! I have another two gauges from Mainly Trains which I have also measured. The rail slot is 0.86/0.87 which fit the SMP rail...but the flange width is 1.30 and gauge 16.60... Must admit I am quite surprised by the findings. Out of interest I am using a good quality digital vernier but will check the calibration using some slip gauges. I wonder what the tolerance is on measurements? I'll give some thought to as to which standard to adopt over the weekend... Going back to the layout, I'm trying to get my head around your comments. My thoughts were to either set the terminus board at an angle or curve the whole terminus board so that the top left corner remains on the 17' mark with the top right now aligned with the 15' mark. This will give an 82' radius curve to the whole board and ease the angles required. Changing the whole board alignment should ease the transition through 90 degrees. I think what I may do over the weekend is lay out three 8 x 4 sheets of ply on the floor, mark out the 18' length, stagger them to represent the required curvature and lay out some pointwork to see how the angles stack up. |
||
|
posted: 10 Nov 2007 04:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon, Here is a more drastic change. This takes up a lot of your operating space and covers a large part of the lower level. Reaching across might also be a problem. But you get a nice sweeping curve into a longer terminus. The lime-coloured tracks show the base line. Starting from the top left there is about 3ft straight, then a long transition curve in about 23ft length down to a radius of about 51" at 6 o'clock. At the 3 o'clock position the radius is about 72", and the pointwork for the station throat could begin about there. I have scattered some bits of the previous design (in orange) along the base line just to create the general effect. If you can reach that far, there is room top right beyond the MPD areas for an industry or warehouse of some sort, or perhaps a significant chunk of townscape. Is this closer to what you had in mind? cjf_terminus4.png  regards, Martin. p.s. Does this layout have a name yet? |
||
|
posted: 10 Nov 2007 13:51 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin, I think this is heading in the right direction. I'm not too worried about about the depth of the boards as I can plan for an access point in the top right hand corner behind the MPD. As yet my scenic talents have yet to be discovered, so I certainly visualise retaining walls and low relief urban buildings, rather than a full blown townscape. This will allow me to keep the depth of boards to be less than 4' which should allow rear access. The long curve certainly makes for a far more interesting plan and visually is a big improvement. The thought of an A4 plus 8 Mk1's running out around that long curve is inspiring.. I am learning more about Templot each day, but am struggling to generate a 1:7 double slip despite tacking the tutorial several times. So that I am able to be involved in the generation of this plan, is there a double slip template on file, or could a benevolent soul generate one for me? The straight and curve points are not an issue and having a slip template would enable me to experiment a lot more with the basic track design. I'm still a long way away from a name, but I'm sure as it progresses a suitable name will evolve. Thanks for your help and input so far. |
||
|
posted: 10 Nov 2007 17:47 from: Richard Spratt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: The lower level is shown here. Hi Gordon Can I suggest you change the entrances to your fiddle yards? At the moment the inner road is 2/5ths the length of the middle road. It is usually better to have equal length roads, unless you intend to run specific trains from specific roads. On a straight fiddle yard you can easily do this by having all the turnouts on road 1 at the entrance end and be having all the turnouts on the last road at the exit end. Another way of doing it is to have the turnouts so that the entrance to each yard is through the same number of turnouts: dxf_re_import.png  (Richard's attached DXF file re-imported into Templot. Added by Martin.) For your curved yard it’s not so easy but a start can be made by putting all the turnouts in what is currently the longest road. Regards Richard Spratt |
||
| Attachment: attach_125_228_Fiddle_yard_entrance.dxf 409 | |||
|
posted: 10 Nov 2007 18:59 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard, thanks for your comments. There is a couple of reasons why the storage roads are laid out as they are. The first being the fact that there is a bullustraded staircase at the bottom of the plan. The lower levels actually bridge across the stairwell with a 10'drop down. A little scary at times but there will eventaully be safety fences to hold stock should a derailment occur. The lower level lines actually travel between the stair spindles until they reach a height to go over the hand rail. It took ages of calculations and trials to arrive at the optimum spiral without going below the 1:100 gradient goal. This means that you cannot turn from the stairwell to the inner road without reducing the radius below 3' which is the absolute minimum. The points in the storage area are all 4' radius and to have a succession of points all in a row in a traditional style would present a problem on the curve at the top end of the layout. I tried most combinations before settling on the existing design. There is however another reason for laying it out this way. I'm running dcc and the storage yard is what it says. Trains will be held in predetermined rakes and they have all been allocated specific roads. The whole storage area has been planned to optimise the storage as it has been split into complete blocks which will be computer controlled via Railroad and Co software. So the inner lines will hold short dmu's and surburban traffic with the longest roads holding say 3 main line passenger or two long freights. Each storage road will be equally split to hold specific combinations and they will be automatically sequenced to move forward in each road as the train in front departs. Once they have travelled to the terminus or goods yard, locos will be changed and they will then return to the same dedicated road in the storage area. The emphasis really will be storage and not fiddle. If all goes to plan and the track is well laid, trains won't be touched in the storage area once the sequential programme is under way. I know this may not suit everyone, but the layout has been planned to run with just one operator controlling the terminus with a sequence of trains arriving and then coming under local control. Ultimately I should be hold up to 50 complete trains in the storage area. This view looking towards the stairs may help explain the problem. img1614xo1.jpg  |
||
| Last edited on 10 Nov 2007 20:33 by Gordon S |
|||
|
posted: 10 Nov 2007 23:47 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: I am learning more about Templot each day, but am struggling to generate a 1:7 double slip despite tacking the tutorial several times. So that I am able to be involved in the generation of this plan, is there a double slip template on file, or could a benevolent soul generate one for me?Hi Gordon, First make sure you have upgraded to version 082d: http://www.templot.com/martweb/pug_info.htm (Diamonds and slips are possible in 074b, but require very much more work.) Then here you go: 00bf_dslip7.png  There is video showing how it's done in the list at: topic 12 The box data file for this slip is attached below. To see the component partial templates, hold down the SHIFT key and run the mouse pointer over the name labels. This is a 1:7 slip for 00-BF. Note that because of the wide flangeways in 00-BF the slip road rails conflict with the K-crossing check rails. This can be corrected by shortening the check rails on the templates (real > K-crossing options > K-crossing check rails... menu item), or simply by adjusting them to fit during construction. This is one of the unavoidable compromises needed for 00 gauge. The conflict can be eased, but not eliminated, by changing to 1:24 switches (intended for 1:6 slips) instead of the 1:32 switches used here. But that can have radius consequences if the slip is curved. However, you don't really need any of this at present. Like timber shoving, it is a waste of effort adding slip switches and slip roads to a diamond-crossing until the track planning is finalised (except perhaps to check that the radius will be acceptable). Add the slip roads when you are sure the diamond-crossing is not going to be changed. regards, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_126_228_00bf_dslip7.box 488 | |||
|
posted: 11 Nov 2007 12:09 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks for the file Martin. That will certainly help me in the simple planning stages. Much appreciated. Just one question though. I have opened the file and the slip appears no problem but there is a red light warning on the information panel that the turnout radius is just 18". I'm a little surprised by this. Perhaps you can clarify for me? |
||
|
posted: 11 Nov 2007 16:36 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: I have opened the file and the slip appears no problem but there is a red light warning on the information panel that the turnout radius is just 18". I'm a little surprised by this.Hi Gordon, Sorry about that. It's not wrong, but obviously confusing. It's something in the program which I think I need to change. The red warning always applies to the current/control template from the generator, not any background templates. The templates loaded from file are always background templates, so the red warning can never apply to any of them. To see the actual radius in the slip, hold down the SHIFT key and click on the name label for one of the slip roads (template numbers 4 or 7 after loading). Then click copy to current or copy to the control on its menu. The radius will now show green as 1543mm (60.8"). Or you can click the top entry in its menu, which will display all the information for that template, including the radius (which is actually 1543.19mm). Or you can find the template in the storage box and display the information there. If instead you press the HOME key a few times immediately after loading the file, you will see that the red warning actually applies to a very short curved turnout which is nothing to do with the slip. Where did that come from? In order to add the slip switches as partial templates it is necessary for them to be part of a turnout. It doesn't make any difference for the slip what size of turnout they are part of, because the only part of it which will be used is the switch. When I was creating the slip I used 1:4.5 for the turnouts simply because I was lazy and it was the first entry in the list. (It would be more sensible to use the same angle as the slip itself, as is done in the video. And in the case of a curved slip doing it as in the video gets a turnout on the correct radius and avoids the need to separately align it to the curving radius.) When you reload a box file, Templot automatically "mints" a starting current/control template from the last template in the file, and puts it on a scale 10 chains radius. You are not intended to use this for anything, it is simply a way of setting the gauge and scale to match the loaded file. In this case the last template in the file is one of the slip switches, so Templot minted the starting current/control template from that, with the result you can see. This is one of those things which isn't confusing when you know what's happening but could be very confusing if you don't. I need to change the red warning radius check so that it is not visible when the current/control template is hidden. It would also be better if it applies only to the visible part of a template, and not any part which has been blanked off or shortened back, as is the case for partial templates such as the slip switches here. That's a more complex change to implement, but I will look into it. So thanks for reporting this problem. And my apologies for not anticipating the confusion when I created the file. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 11 Nov 2007 22:29 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: This looks very impressive Martin. Would you make the .box file available so that we can play with it? Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 11 Nov 2007 23:10 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon Just been looking at your proposed layout. Here's a few thoughts. (1) The terminus may be feeling a bit cramped because there's too much in the way of depots and carriage sidings too close. Have you thought, for example, of shifting the carriage sidings round to the opposite side of the room to the station? This would give you more room for the station approach, and more room to link the sidings in with the running lines. You'd then have a fairly straight fan of carriage sidings on the level with the main line rising up the gradient in front of it, which could be an attractive feature. (2) Likewise the diesel and steam depots don't have to adjacent; e.g. the former could be tucked in the top right hand corner. (3) How do you propose to work the carriage sidings? As it stands it looks as though you'll need to back the carriages in using the train engine (or replace it with a shunter). If sidings became loops you could draw the carriages in with a shunter and release the shunter. (4) An alternative arrangement to all the above is to stick the carriage sidings to the rear of the station, using a headshunt to feed both the station and the sidings. The two depots could go somewhere else. (5) I wouldn't worry to much about sharp curves into the station, after all on the prototype this did happen in city situations; the trick would be to make it look as though it was necessary. Of course the pointwork needs to remain workable. (6) Your American diesel worries me! Don't get me wrong, I like Anerican diesels. The problem is that models of them run rather well, better than most model steam locomotives for example. Have you tried the gradients you've built so far with any stock you actually intend to run. If not, it might be an idea, e.g. to check that an A4 with 8 or 9 up will go up and down the gradient with the ease and smoothness you envisage. Hope these thoughts are useful. cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 01:16 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Nigel, many thanks for your very constructive input. I have to agree in hindsight that I have tried to cram everything in! I have built up quite a stock of locos over the years and really would like to run as many as possible. It's strange, but when you first look at a room that is 18' square you believe you have stacks of space to build that layout that you have promised yourself for years. It's only when you actually come to the planning stage that you realise some of the restrictions that you are presented with. There are two major elements of the room which are quite restricting. The first is the stair well and allowing headroom to enter the room without cracking your head. I'm 6'3" tall and as such I am quite limited what can actually be placed over the entrance into the room. The second is the slope of the roof which reduces the width of the room as the height increases. I will try and explain from the outset what interests me. I was brought up in North London and was lucky enough to live throught the last few years of steam and the arrival of diesels. The ECML from Wood Green, Hornsey, Finsbury Park and Kings Cross was my home at weekends, hence my passion for A4's and the like. Standing at Wood Green and seeing an A4 plus 12 coaches thundering through is something you never forget. The need to model similar trains that will leave a terminus and travel some distance before disappearing is a goal I have tried to achieve. An earlier version of this layout got much further and it took a full 20 minutes for a train to leave the upper level, travel down through the lower levels and reappear. Unfortunately, I had to relay the levels and move the spiral to the outside of the layout as the storage yards became difficult to access and the gradients at 1:50 proved to be a problem. I have now cured that problem by dropping the lower level further and moving the spiral to the outside and incorporating an additional loop round. An A4 will now cope with 10 coaches up the 1:100 grade without problem so I know that is OK. Picking up your points in turn.. 1. I can move the carriage sidings around to the other side but width may be a little limited as the slope of the roof starts to impinge. I agree the upward slope of the main line with carriage sidings level will be an attractive feature. The lower inner goods loops need a lot of work and may have to reduce in number if the carriage sidings take up some of that space. The problem may then be getting a 3' radius curve from the stairwell to the inner goods loop. I'll check it out. 2. It's a similar issue with the steam shed. The slope of the roof may prevent a coaling stage if it is moved back to far. I am considering removing the small goods yard the other side of the terminus and putting a diesel shed that side. The other alternative I have considered is building a peninsular with all the loco sheds in one place. This will come out at right angles, halfway down the top wall and cross over the goods loops. I can accommodate a board about 8' long and 2' wide, purely to take locos. The problem will be a 180 degree curve and maintaining a 3' min radius. 3. With regard to the carriage sidings, I did think about a headshunt at the back of the terminus, but this would mean blocking the whole station whilst empty stock was moved across the station throat and then backing it into the headshunt, before pulling into the carriage sidings. As it is now, it is a straight pull into the sidings from any platform. The problem with looped carriage sidings is that the main line will be sloping away, so unless a dedicated road on the same level is used for exit and return, it may be difficult. 4. The sharp curves are as much about my locos as anything else. I have managed to build up a stock of DJH locos with Comet chassis and finescale wheels. All are close coupled and 3' radius is really the minimum they will take. 5. Totally agree about American diesels although the same could be said about my Bachmann 37's. They will pull anything I can throw at them. As I said earlier, I have had to rebuild most of this layout because I discovered certain locos would not handle 1:50 gradients, particularly with curves on the grade, hence the redesign. I'm comfortable now they will all handle the 1:100 minimum grades with up to 10 coaches. I really appreciate your comments and will see what I can do to accommodate some changes if they are practical. As always, everything is a compromise in railway modelling! With retirement in just 6 weeks time, I'm looking forward to dedicating far more time to make this dream a reality.... Regards Gordon S |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 03:40 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gordon I thought you might have some restrictions somewhere. Re the carriage sidings on the other side of the room, I was rather assuming a dedicated run round road, which I agree takes up a bit more space. With the sidings to the rear of the station, what I had in mind was a headshunt where your existing carriage sidings are, so that the station pilot pulls the carriages out of the platform, then pushes them into a siding, the sidings being beyond the platforms. But it probably means the depots would have to go somewhere else, e.g. other side of the room. Anyway, just some ideas. cheers Nigel |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 13:18 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I hope these pics will show some of the restrictions that the room presents. The slope of the roof and the staircase bring a whole set of problems. These pics are of the first incarnation of the plan which incorporated a through station. The problems were insufficient space between the levels which meant access was very limited and the spiral which was part of the design was inboard also restricting access space. I'm very pleased to have this space, but as always imaginary plans function perfectly. Reality is often different and whilst we can visualise three dimensional plans, the real problems are only apparent once you start construction. I am still confident that the plan will work as the majority of issues have already been dealt with. The terminus plan is the final challenge.... fiddle5lf1.jpg  img10411jj8.jpg  img1415xf0.jpg  lay111ms8.jpg  |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 18:49 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
cjf_terminus2a.png BTuckey wrote: This looks very impressive Martin. Would you make the .box file available so that we can play with it?Hi Brian, I'm a bit reluctant to do that, as it was purely a quick scruff design just to see how things might fit on the CJF original. It's definitely NOT finished or suitable to be built as it stands, because: 1. Nearly all the turnouts are A-7 as the best match to Gordon's existing SMP pointwork. As you know, A-size switches are not really suitable for running lines, and definitely not prototypical for such. The design would run and look very much better with B-7 turnouts instead. 2. All the track spacings are at 50mm to match the CJF original. Such wide running spacings are needed only for the approach curves on the right. The station area would be much better to follow prototype practice, with 6ft way (45mm spacings) for the running lines, and 9ft or 10ft way (57mm or 61mm spacings) for loops and sidings alongside, including the centre loco release road. (This is to ensure the safety of staff on the ground and it also leaves room for signal posts.) 3. None of the slip roads have yet been added to the diamonds, so the design as it stands doesn't make a lot of sense. 4. No timber-shoving has been done. There are many conflicts and gaps. Some of the template boundaries may not be perfect matches. The turntable exit tracks were positioned by eye only and are not correctly aligned to the turntable ring. Anyway, here's the file attached. Please bear the above comments in mind if you intend to make any use of it. regards, Martin. |
||
| Attachment: attach_127_228_cjf_terminus_a7_scruff.box 408 | |||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 19:15 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dear all, Now that this topic contains so many images, users of Firefox may be having trouble following the links. If the link doesn't take you to the intended place in the topic, simply wait until the page is fully loaded and then click Reload. This is a bug in Firefox. The anchor location within a page is calculated before the images have finished loading, and if the page source doesn't include the size of the images, the answer is wrong. This is a problem on all forums where images are often located elsewhere and inserted with IMG tags. RMweb has the same problem for Firefox users. I was hoping the frequent updates to Firefox would have fixed this by now, but apparently not. It goes against the grain to say it, but Opera and er, IE manage to get it right first time.regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 20:56 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Brian,Hi Martin, Many thanks for the file. I completely understand your reluctance and will fully bear in mind your remarks and caveats. The main reason for my request was that I don’t have a copy of the original plan and it is difficult to make out from the images above what are diamonds and what are slips. I was also interested in getting an impression of the overall flow of the formation. I now feel comfortable with the mechanics of overlaying components onto a track plan but do not have an intrinsic ‘feel’ for making flowing trackwork despite having done the tutorial. I guess it’s an artist thing. Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 21:41 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: I don’t have a copy of the original plan and it is difficult to make out from the images above what are diamonds and what are slips.Hi Brian, Here's Gordon's original scan: cjf_terminus.png  © C J Freezer There are two double slips in the station throat, and a plain diamond-crossing accessing the turntable from the loco release road. I added a third double slip in the access to the goods yard in order to preserve a long enough head-shunt. p.s. Gordon, you quoted this CJF design as being from 1989, but I'm sure I remember it from the Railway Modeller in the 60s.  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 21:52 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Of course it may well have been and I would be interested to see the article if anyone has it. I first saw it in "Track Plans for various locations" and it is dated with the First Impression as Jan '89. This is not the original plan as I made a minor mod to the access to the Platform at the top of the plan. The original had a stepped platform with the point about 1/3 down the platform. It's one of those plans that has been in the back of my mind for years and years and I am looking forward to making it a reality. | ||
| Last edited on 12 Nov 2007 21:56 by Gordon S |
|||
|
posted: 12 Nov 2007 22:07 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Of course it may well have been and I would be interested to see the article if anyone has it.Hi Gordon, If memory serves, and I'm not mixing it up with a different design, it was called "A Thoroughgoing Terminus" and I think it was in a "small-size" pre-A4 Railway Modeller, which puts it pre-1966. The article explained the design concept of the various features. I'm sure someone reading this has a copy to scan? Mick? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 00:07 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: 3. None of the slip roads have yet been added to the diamonds, so the design as it stands doesn't make a lot of sense.Hi Martin, I've been thinking about this one and I am not sure what you mean.... Are you referring to changing the diamond for a single or double slip? Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 00:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: I've been thinking about this one and I am not sure what you mean.... Are you referring to changing the diamond for a single or double slip?Hi Brian, When you design a track plan with Templot, it is only necessary to do so with diamond-crossings, because their geometry is identical to a slip. It doesn't make sense to go to the trouble of adding the slip roads until you know that you have finalised the design and the diamonds aren't going to change. The .box file I supplied was simply the geometrical design. It's not ready to be printed out as construction templates until the slip roads have been added. But there is no point in doing that until the track plan is finalised, which in this case it isn't. If you change the diamond, curve it slightly say, or change the crossing angle, the time and effort put in to adding the slip roads is simply wasted. I knew it was a mistake to post an unfinished file! regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 00:42 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: knew it was a mistake to post an unfinished file!Sorry Martin, even if you hadn't posted the file I still wouldn't have known what a slip road was.... (I did a quick search on 'slip roads' on this and the Yahoo site. Lots of references to slip roads but no indication as to what they are!) I think I understand where the confusion has crept in: Here's Gordon's original scan linked from RMweb:I was assuming that you were intending to change the 'diamond' in the original plan not the 'diamonds' in the file. I should have paid more attention to the plurality of diamonds in your message! Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 02:08 from: Peter Ayre click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Here's Gordon's original scan:cjf_terminus.png © C J Freezer This track plan is from the Peco book of "Track plans for various locations" (the green cover). The book has been reprinted several times and even though it states the first print was 1989 there is a note from CJF that the book is an update of ideas and plans. I think minories is included as a plan in the book and of course that has just celebrated 50 years. Peter Ayre |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 10:13 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: Sorry Martin, even if you hadn't posted the file I still wouldn't have known what a slip road was....Sorry Brian, I tend to forget that not everyone is familiar with track terms. This illustrates a big problem I've mentioned before, of deciding at what level to pitch the Help notes to be the most helpful for everyone. I hope this diagram explains it. Slip roads are added to a diamond-crossing to provide a direct connection between the two tracks. A diamond-crossing with one slip road is called a single-slip. A diamond-crossing with two slip roads is called a double-slip. The underlying diamond-crossing remains the same and is the base formation which is used for all the geometrical layout design work. slip_road.png  A slip road (shown here in red) comprises a pair of switches, one of each hand, and the two rails linking them. In Templot a diamond-crossing is comprised of two half-diamond templates, and a slip road links from the main road of one half-diamond to the diagonal road of the other half-diamond. The slip road is overlaid on the diamond-crossing as three partial templates. The slip switch templates are created by shortening ordinary turnout templates. The linking rails are an ordinary plain track template without any timbering. The slip switches must be matched to any curving through the diamond-crossing, and the rails linking them must be adjusted for both length and curving to fit between the switches. If the design of the diamond-crossing is changed, the slip road will need to be re-done to match. It makes sense therefore to wait until the track plan is finalized before adding the slip road(s) to a diamond-crossing for the final single-slip or double-slip construction template. I have added these notes to the single-slip tutorial. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Nov 2007 12:57 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Peter Ayre wrote: This track plan is from the Peco book of "Track plans for various locations" (the green cover). The book has been reprinted several times and even though it states the first print was 1989 there is a note from CJF that the book is an update of ideas and plans. I think minories is included as a plan in the book and of course that has just celebrated 50 years.Peter, CJF produced three layout plan books in the 60s. IIRC, the first ones were "Plans for Smaller Layouts" and "Plans for Larger Layouts" (Dark blue covers). These books were compendiums of his layout plans in the Modeller through the 1950s into the early 1960s. He brought out a third book in the 60s (lighter blue cover) which was a compendium of layouts carrying on from where the first two left off. Also, I can probably dig up the original appearance of the plan being discussed as I've got the Modellers back to 1957. It'll have to wait till I get home at the weekend, or someone else might be able to oblige sooner. Jim. |
||
|
posted: 14 Nov 2007 06:04 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, Could you give me just a hint on how you constructed the formation comprising templates 13 and 14? I am trying to construct a similar formation and started with a plain track curve of 250 feet at around 45 deg to the horizontal. I then applied a transition curve using ‘easement to straight’ and used the F4 key to give a straight extension past the goal post. I then used the ‘insert turnout in plain track’ command to insert a B7 turnout. However, at this stage the diverging road of the turnout was not horizontal so I used F9 (slide through peg) to correct. I then applied the ‘make ladder crossover’ command. After some trial and error I was able to get the diamond horizontal but there is, I am sure, a more professional way. Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 14 Nov 2007 07:23 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: Could you give me just a hint on how you constructed the formation comprising templates 13 and 14?Hi Brian, To be honest, I can't remember. However, I imagine I did this: 1. Template 13 came first and is a standard straight 1:7 diamond. (It needs to have do > turnout road > set to crossover to keep the overlaps neat.) 2. Then I probably did tools > make double-track TS to create what is now the exit track on template 14 as straight plain track. 3. Then I would have extended that to the right (F4) to create enough length for the first part of the approach curve. 4. Now geometry > transition curve > easement from straight. 5. SHIFT+CTRL+F3 (or just the [ key) to move the transition start until it is just clear of the mid-point of the crossover from the diamond. This is important to be able to match the angle later. 6. F6 to set the second radius to about 900mm - 1000mm (or whatever you want). 7. SHIFT+CTRL+F4 (or just the ] key) to adjust the transition length. Repeat 6. and 7. until the the curve is aligned where it is wanted, and the radius is satisfactory. (8. If there is already an existing approach curve on a fixed centre further round the corner, you can now use the make transition function to link the two curves. Make sure you remember to swap the peg to the other end before doing this. Obviously you would have allowed for this in adjusting the first curve.) 9. Now template > insert turnout in plain track. 10. template > swap facing-trailing. 11. template > invert handing if necessary. 12. Change to 1:7 crossing angle if necessary (F5 ) to match the diamond-crossing. 13. CTRL+F9 to roam the turnout until it is aligned with the diamond (zoom in for fine adjustment). Watch the minimum radius and if necessary change to a longer switch size, but don't change the 1:7 angle. 14. Put the peg at CTRL-5 (or anywhere other than CTRL-0 or CTRL-9) and then extend/shorten exit track (F4) and/or aproach track (F3) according to requirements. Automatically store the turnout part by splitting them off, or do store & background to store the whole thing. I'm not sure if that is more or less professional than your process! Often with Templot it is better to start with the known pointwork and work back towards the curves. Rather than the CAD approach of first putting a known radius on a known centre. It doesn't actually matter if you end up with a 1183.7mm radius at 2091.3mm,1759.2mm centres, if that is what just fits nicely.If you post a screenshot of what you are trying to do, I can make more sensible suggestions. Usually there is more than one way of getting a result, and often it depends on what must remain fixed and what can be allowed to float. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Nov 2007 22:32 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Many thanks for all your comments. I have given a lot of thought to the plan and finally managed to come up with an acceptable compromise. The balance relates to the length of the platforms, approach pointwork and the transition curve which I have set at 4' radius. Apologies that this is still set in WinRail. It is a programme I have used for years and am therefore familiar with all the processes. I'm still really learning about Templot so now will attempt to convert this across. Martin, I have used Roco pointwork to develop this plan which are described as 10 degree slips (42493 & 42496) radius 959mm and 10 degree points (42488 & 42489) radius of 1946mm so feel confident it will fit the boards. The steam loco shed has been simplified but will still have a coaling stage and storage for up to 12 main line locos in the shed. I have abandoned the small goods shed at the bottom of the plan which had now become a small diesel shed and refuelling area. Local goods traffic will now be directed onto a peninsular board about 8'x2' which will be at right angles to the right hand wall. This has yet to be drawn but access will be via a 3' radius curve from the main line. Eventually this may become a Y with access back to the terminus, but at this stage I'm not sure if there is sufficient space to incorporate the curve. Access to the new goods yard will be at terminus level and as such will crossover the lower level goods loops. I am far from satisfied with the lower level loops and am open to suggestions as to how to make this an attractive area. The whole terminus area will be urban with brick retaining walls and low relief buildings. The station building will sit at a higher level with stairs down to the platforms. The coach sidings will eventually be curved to follow the main line but will stay level whilst the main line gently slopes away. This gradient prevents access at both ends and as such stock will have to be propelled backwards into the sidings. It may well be that a relief road could be incorporated from the last road back to the main line before it slopes away. I'll look at that possibility. Grateful as always for any constructive comments you may wish to add. terminusmodmultilevelveoj6.jpg  |
||
| Last edited on 15 Nov 2007 23:53 by Gordon S |
|||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 02:12 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: I have used Roco pointwork to develop this plan which are described as 10 degree slips (42493 & 42496) radius 959mm and 10 degree points (42488 & 42489) radius of 1946mm so feel confident it will fit the boards.Hi Gordon, ??? 10 degree crossing angle is 1:5.7, i.e. sharper than 1:6, so I'm a bit puzzled how this fits with the A-7 turnouts you have been building? Also, it's difficult to reconcile a 1:5.7 turnout with a radius of 1946mm. This is presumably the substitution radius -- the actual turnout radius will be very much less. Likewise I would regard a 10 degree slip as far too sharp, and I don't understand why the quoted radius is so different from a turnout of the same angle. Unless you are actually going to use Roco track I think it is going to be very misleading to base the design on that track. Have you upgraded to version 082d of Templot? You can then snap fixed templates together using F7 in a very similar way to WinRail, if you don't feel confident in using Templot in full. The SMP pointwork for which you sent me the scans is very close to Templot's A-7 turnouts and 1:7 half-diamonds in 00-BF, so you could easily build up a design by snapping those sizes together. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 02:39 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin, yes I know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.. I recall having some Roco points a while back and they seemed much larger radius than the Tillig ones I eventually used. I thought I was doing the right thing in choosing the Roco option purely to create a basic layout, not realising that the F7 key you describe above will allow me to do something similar in Templot. I use computers all day at work and can generate complex spreadsheets without problem but as yet can't get my head round Templot. I'll get there eventually.... Decided to use a Templot drawing this evening and build a B7 turnout. No problems whatsoever and very pleased with the result. Time is not an issue as I retire in 28 days... Right, glass of wine, Templot and F7 key. Apologies for the confusion, just trying to get this to fly.. |
||
|
posted: 16 Nov 2007 02:52 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Right, glass of wine, Templot and F7 key.Hi Gordon, There is a simple animation showing F7 snapping and some notes at: http://www.templot.com/martweb/f7_snap_demo.htm but I will do you a proper video shortly. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 18 Nov 2007 22:46 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: If you post a screenshot of what you are trying to do, I can make more sensible suggestions. Usually there is more than one way of getting a result, and often it depends on what must remain fixed and what can be allowed to float.Hi Martin, I have finished my first attempt at adapting Gordon's CJF terminus design into my scenario. The box file is attached below. What I am unsure of however, is whether any of the 'diamonds' can be converted (and built) into 'slips'. I also came across a rather strange problem. Having inserted a turnout into one of the triple terminus tracks, 413, I clicked on 'tools > make simple crossover'. Instead of making a simple crossover, it always tried to make a ladder crossover with rather odd timbering as below. This happens on all of the three tracks 413, 458 and 450 but nowhere else on the plan. By the way, what is the difference between 'invert handing' and 'swap hand'? exit_timbered.jpg  Cheers. Brian |
||
| Attachment: attach_139_228_arnewood.box 340 | |||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 02:19 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
While looking through my copies of the RM, I came across this in August, 1963 - this was the plan I was thinking of, and I can see that CJF wasn't averse to plagiarising one of his own designs :-) CJF-TERM.JPG  I might find the later design, but here are the words and music with the original. I'm sure CJF will waive copyright problems ;-) Jim. |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 02:57 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim, you have come up trumps again! It is good to read about the design's rationale. Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 03:37 from: Peter Ayre click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: While looking through my copies of the RM, I came across this in August, 1963 - this was the plan I was thinking of, and I can see that CJF wasn't averse to plagiarising one of his own designs :-)Thanks Jim, good to see where the original (?) design came from. As CJF mentions in quite a few books, plans sometimes evolved into completely new layouts whilst others are just tweeks of original ideas. It would be interesting to see if this plan was tweeked for the 1960's booklet or for the 1989 booklet. If you find your 1960's booklets I would be interested in the plans. I wonder, was the same numbering system used? Regards, Peter |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 03:45 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: Jim, you have come up trumps again!Brian, You'll note that the 1963 version is quite a bit less complex than the one being used in this thread, and I think I prefer it. I suspect that you might be able to lay the approach throat round a curve a bit easier than with the later plan with the slips. I've also dug through all my Modellers up to 1977, but haven't found mention of the later version so maybe CJF modified it solely for use in the 1989 plan book mentioned. CJF left the Modeller early in 1978 (a cataclysmic event, IIRC), so I doubt there is much point searching for more plans in later editions. Jim. |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 05:26 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: Brian, Indeed it is Jim and it has its own benefits but I think that I still prefer the later design. I am not sure that the ‘kinks’ in the platform ends work so well. However, the design raises a conundrum that I have often thought about. The head of the platforms has a wealth of detail and could convey some real atmosphere between the bookshop and ticket office. So, do we hide this detail under a ‘translucent’ roof or leave it bare? I seem to remember that the famous ‘Buckingham' was such a terminus but without a roof. Cheers. Brian |
||
| Last edited on 19 Nov 2007 05:27 by BTuckey |
|||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 06:11 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
BTuckey wrote: Having inserted a turnout into one of the triple terminus tracks, 413, I clicked on 'tools > make simple crossover'. Instead of making a simple crossover, it always tried to make a ladder crossover with rather odd timbering as below. Sorry Martin, it has made a simple crossover. Still a bit strange though and it hasn't picked up the correct adjacent track spacing. (Could still be pilot error though! ) Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 13:09 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Peter Ayre wrote: It would be interesting to see if this plan was tweeked for the 1960's booklet or for the 1989 booklet.Peter, I've managed to find two of them at the moment - "60 Plans for Small Layouts" and "Plans for Larger Layouts". The third one is avoiding me at the moment, but being so thin, these books tend to 'disappear' in bookshelves. This terminus layout does not appear in either of them. The "smaller layout" book was first published in 1958 and my edition was from 1962, and the 'larger layout' book was first published in 1960 and my edition was from September 1961. So both pre-date the plan from August 1963. I wouldn't have expected this plan to have appeared in the 'smaller' book since the terminus layouts in there were much less complex, although some terminal plans did take up a fair bit of room, so belied the book title to a certain extent. In the 'larger' book there are no separate terminus plans, what terminii there are being incorporated in some of CJF's pipe dreamers. From what I remember about the third book, it was printed later in the decade and might even have edged into the 1970s. I actually saw the picture which was on its cover in an article in one of the later 1960s Modellers when I was thumbing through them. This book had a more varied selection of layout sizes and styles and I think I remember the terminus plan being included in the selection. The numbering of the plans in the book appeared to be completely arbitrary. In both books the smaller designs are to the front and the designs get progressively larger. In the 'smaller' book, there are also a selection of terminii at the end, the earlier designs being typical CJF roundy-roundies. The numbering starts at '1' and goes up to '60' and '33'. The plans from the 'smaller' book also include terminus designs by John Emslie based on Scottish prototypes, and CJF has a few partial designs at the end to help people design their own layouts. As an aside, the MRN also ran a layout page about the same era and the main contributors were people like Henry Pearson or Jack Shortland. Their designs tended to be based more on the actual prototype. But I always remember the contributions of R.G.Thomas to the item. These were quite rare and were mind blowing to a teenager like me who thought a double slip was some unattainable goal. I attach a sample from one of his few articles MRNLayout1.jpg  MRNLayout2.jpg  I've included part of the previous page to give the complete description of the design. The other design mentioned is a single track terminus which is quite attractive. The next month had yet another version on the theme with a much larger through station. I've always remembered these designs, principally because they always seemed completely out of my league as a teenager scratchbuilding TT-3 track with Peco spiked track kits. In retrospect, I wonder if it was Martin under a pseudonym, although that would put him a bit older then me Jim. |
||
| Last edited on 19 Nov 2007 13:11 by Jim Guthrie |
|||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 14:29 from: Peter Ayre click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: But I always remember the contributions of R.G.Thomas to the item. These were quite rare and were mind blowing to a teenager like me who thought a double slip was some unattainable goal. I attach a sample from one of his few articles Jim, A nice plan, I like the offset diamond in front of the signal box. I suppose with both versions of the CJF plan is if you take the bits that you like from either plan and place them around, you can then join up the scenes with some unique trackwork. Regards, Peter |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 18:39 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: In retrospect, I wonder if it was Martin under a pseudonym, although that would put him a bit older than meHi Jim, In Feb 1961 I was 12 years old -- not sure my Hornby-Dublo 3-rail would have interested the readers of MRN, even under a pseudonym! But I do remember seeing the plan in MRN, probably in "Smiffs Library" during the school dinner hour! At that time of course I would have been amazed to be able to do this with it: mrn_layout_em.png  It's difficult to get a handle on the intended size. This is in 4mm scale. I set the track spacing at 8ft way (52.67mm centres) to allow for the sharp curves, and scaled the scan for a best fit, which makes the main platform road a tight 42" radius. There is just room for a very short transition into it. But the pointwork appears to be a reasonable 1:7, so it's not totally impractical. Many thanks for finding it, and the CJF terminus, and for posting the scans. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 19 Nov 2007 22:19 from: Richard Lambert click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: But I always remember the contributions of R.G.Thomas to the item. These were quite rare and were mind blowing to a teenager like me who thought a double slip was some unattainable goal. I attach a sample from one of his few articles. I've included part of the previous page to give the complete description of the design.Hi Jim I've found this thread fascinating because the rationale behind it seems to parallel what I am trying to do, albeit on a smaller scale in 7mm scale 31.5mm gauge. A desire to see main line locos with 8 on overcoming all common sense! In particular the MRN layout has the station on the curve, which I always perceived as the weak point of my own plan (which, for other readers, Jim knows intimately as he Templotted it for me). Anyway, the first double track crossing formation has been completed, and there's only another 40 odd 'points' to go! Incidentally, my building in 31.5mm gauge has proved very successful. It is much tightened up over the normal 32mm standard, but there's enough wiggle room for minor discrepancies in construction. I've also found the video tutorials invaluable Martin - thank you. Regards Richard Lambert |
||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 07:11 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Guys, By changing around the station 'throat' area, I have managed to convert all of the 'paper' diamonds into templates. My triple track crossover problem has also disappeared. The design is attached below. As always, all suggestions and criticisms welcome. Cheers. Brian |
||
| Attachment: attach_142_228_arnewood_v3.box 339 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 08:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, Thanks for posting your files. But they contained over 500 templates, nearly 400 of which were unused -- making a massive 4MB .box file! I have removed the unused templates and re-posted the files as attachments to your messages on the forum. This is better than uploading them to the Yahoo group, where only Yahoo group members can access them. You can attach .box files up to 1.5MB* to forum messages -- see the Browse button below the message editor which works exactly the same way as on Yahoo. To remove unused templates from your project, go to control/main > storage box... and then on the storage box click the box > delete unused templates menu item. The usual reason for accumulating unused templates is that you are using wipe to current/control instead of delete to current/control before modifying them. That's fine on your own system and means you can easily revert to the previous designs later. But it's a good idea to prune unused templates out of the file occasionally to get a faster response from Templot, and also before uploading or exchanging files with others to keep the file size manageable. *It's worth checking the size of a file before attaching it to forum messages. If it exceeds the 1.5MB limit the posting of the message will fail, and you will lose the text of your message. You can do a Preview to check that the file will upload ok before writing the main text of your message. (1.5MB is equivalent to a .box file containing about 180 templates -- unused, background and library templates all take up the same amount of space each.) If you need to post larger files please zip them first. Templot's files will usually zip down very small. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 16:54 from: BTuckey click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Brian, Hi Martin, Many thanks for the heads-up, I thought that the file was uploading slowly! Prior to studying one of your videos I was indeed using ‘wipe to current’ as opposed to ‘delete to current’. I was unaware that I was still storing non-displayed templates. I shall pay more attention to file size in the future and have taken on board your comments regarding the attaching of box files.Although I have had Templot for some years as you know, I have only been using it in action as it were for the last few months. It has been a hard but enjoyable journey! Having sorted out most of the basic concepts I am now looking to the future. Hopefully the following is not too OT for the Forum... The size and ‘complexity’ of my proposed layout is an indication of my liking of ‘Operations’ as much as modelling. My period of operations is therefore rather wide ranging from the dying days of Corporate Blue through Sectorisation to contemporary freight. As you can see, my turnout templates are basically REA semi-curved. I am gradually ‘relaying’ the main tracks with CWR as per your notes utilising 24 sleepers per 60’ length for straights and 26 sleepers per 60’ for curved track. However, what I am not sure about is what to convert the turnouts to. If I base the infrastructure around 1990 would the main running line turnouts still be wood timbered within concrete sleepered plain track? Should FB rail and timbers be ‘C’ series curved flexible switches? How much pointwork and plain track off the mainline would still be BH? (I am thinking concrete sleepers and FB for the main four Platforms and BH for the rest of the station area.) My last question for now is do people build FB turnouts directly from the Templot templates. Any information pertaining to the above would be most welcome. Cheers. Brian |
||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 16:56 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote (snipped): Peter Ayre wrote:It would be interesting to see if this plan was tweeked for the 1960's booklet or for the 1989 booklet.Peter, Jim, Peter et al, The 'missing' CJF booklet is probably the excitingly-titled "Track Plans" - dated 'First Impression August 1964' on the back. 32 pages, 32 plans (P1-P32) but CJF cheats a little by squeezing Plan P32 onto the inside back card cover. The cover (see scan below) is uncaptioned, but is a slightly trimmed copy of a photograph by J. Pask that already appeared in C.H. Scoffin's article "A Complex OO Gauge Junction" in the April 1963 issue of "Railway Modeller". i've taken the liberty of scanning that as well, the text makes interesting reading and the flow of the formations in the photos is quite impressive. Back to Cyril's "A Thoroughgoing Terminus" of RM Aug 1963. It's P.29 in "Track Plans". The diagram is exactly the same but he's had time to reflect a little and ventures a few further thoughts which should be read in conjunction with the main original article. So I've done a text extract (below) of his words about P.29 from the booklet. Regards, Rodney Hills PS - There seem to be muliple images imbedded in previous posts on this thread, but: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/9419 says: ' The forum software allows only one attachment per message, so for multiple files simply post another brief message.' - so I'll do it that way " P29 is a really elaborate terminus, designed to repre- sent an important provincial terminus. Each of the platforms has a different function. Platform 1 is for parcels and mail trains and would be occupied for most of the time, either with the stock loading or unloading. For this reason it has a kink half way along to provide a spur on which locomotive handling can take place. Platforms 2 and 3 handle the long- distance expresses, and are provided with a central release road. This runs direct to the turntable, which feeds another valeting area. Platforms 4 and 5 are for local services, which would either be run by diesel multiple units or suburban sets headed by tanks, loco spurs being provided for these. Platform 6 is something of an anomaly, for it is primarily the part of the merchandise handling department, but could be used in a pinch, On reflection I would move the goods tracks forward 2" and extend platform 6 along the rear of the signal cabin. Lengthened in this way it could serve excursion trains, which are frequently shunted into outer platforms, away from the less plebian trains. If it was necessary the line could be gently curved at the exit and thus be got into a room no more than 14’ long, say a loft. From there it could go to a simple large reversing loop, laid under the terminus itself." |
||
| Attachment: attach_146_228_TrackPlans_C_1964.jpg 2368 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 17:00 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
CJF's foreward: | ||
| Attachment: attach_147_228_TrackPlans_F_1964.jpg 2150 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 17:02 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Back cover: | ||
| Attachment: attach_148_228_TrackPlans_R_1964.jpg 2240 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 17:16 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A-C-00-J page 1 |
||
| Attachment: attach_149_228_RM_ACJ1_Apr1963.jpg 2587 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 17:17 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A-C-00-J page 2 | ||
| Attachment: attach_150_228_RM_ACJ2_Apr1963.jpg 2972 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 17:19 from: rodney_hills
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A-C-00-J page 2 | ||
| Attachment: attach_151_228_RM_ACJ2_Apr1963.jpg 2252 | |||
|
posted: 20 Nov 2007 19:38 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
rodney_hills wrote: PS - There seem to be muliple images imbedded in previous posts on this thread, but: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/9419 says: ' TheHi Rodney, Many thanks for the scans, some interesting reading there. This topic is wandering off in various directions as usual, so I will answer the above point in a separate topic shortly.It has also reached the page size limit and started on a fresh page in the forum. To revert to the previous page of messages in this topic, click the page numbers or the arrow icons on the right in the blue bar at the bottom of this page. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 28 Nov 2007 22:43 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, what a great programme. Really taken me a while to get to grips with it but then suddenly everything fell into place. Many thanks to all those who have provided the background to the CJF plan. Really interesting to see how it developed so many years ago. It is still a great plan but I struggled with some of the radii and pointwork to fit it in within my space limitations. So took the basics and tried to modify it to suit the space and specification I required. Have now spent the last 10 days working on the plan, which is still based on the CJF design that inspired me all those years ago. Comparing this to my original WinRail drawing really shows the strength of Templot where all the "trainset" curves have been eliminated and I now have have real drawings to work with. What a bonus! (Slips have not been completed and have been left as simple crossings or converted to half diamonds for this exercise) Retirement is in just 4 weeks time and then the real work will begin. Timber and flexi track are already here so turnout construction will start shortly. Really feeling confident that all will go to plan and this layout will come to reality. Clearly not to everyones taste, it has been designed with running and operation rather than scenic, but I look forward to 7/8/9 coach trains plus long freight. The next step will be to plan the low level goods yard.... Happy to receive constructive comments.. The box file is here. |
||
| Attachment: attach_167_228_Terminus_plan_-_3H.box 311 | |||
|
posted: 29 Nov 2007 18:04 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Hi Martin, what a great programme. Really taken me a while to get to grips with it but then suddenly everything fell into place.Hi Gordon, Thanks for the kind words. I wish I had a pound for every time someone has said that -- "I couldn't make head nor tail of it at first, but then suddenly..." If I knew what the stumbling-block is I could maybe do something about it. We've discussed it here before, but I've never really managed to get a handle on it. Many thanks for uploading your plan. It's great to see such rapid progress. Whatever the problem was, you are certainly motoring now. A shame to lose the station concourse though, unless I'm misreading your 18ft space? Staggering the platform ends is a good way to signal the difference between the main and local platforms, and creates a more spacious look.Retirement is in just 4 weeks time and then the real work will begin. Timber and flexi track are already here so turnout construction will start shortly. Really feeling confident that all will go to plan and this layout will come to reality. Clearly not to everyone's taste, it has been designed with running and operation rather than scenic, but I look forward to 7/8/9 coach trains plus long freight. The next step will be to plan the low level goods yard....Best wishes for your project (and your retirement), Martin. |
||
|
posted: 12 Feb 2008 20:35 from: Robert Preston
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
rodney_hills wrote:
Hi, This relates to a somewhat old discussion now, but I'm new to internet discussions and have only just come across the description of Mr Scoffin's complex junction. I have wondered about this junction every time I browse Track Plans. Mr Scoffin's article was most enlightening, he used very basic tools, no fancy gauges or templates and all his stock runs through it very smoothly. For the last 40 or 50 years we have been told 00 doesn't work for various reasons. This junction would appear to dispel that myth very handsomely. I'm starting in 00 and was thinking of trying 00-SF. That's fine for modern British outline, but I have some Fleischmann PKP stock I want to run and that has 14.1 (or maybe 14.15) mm BB, and thus will not be able to negotiate 00-SF. From Mr Scoffin's example, is the only downside to traditional 00 the wide flangeways? Robert Preston |
||
|
posted: 14 Feb 2008 18:55 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thought you may like an update. At long last I'm starting to see some progress. Having laid out the terminus plan via Templot, I was able to send the file to a CAD printing company and got back a complete print of the station this morning. The print is on 130gsm paper, 900mm wide and 5.6m long. The actual boards will be just over a metre wide, so the tracks look closer to the edge on this print, which is limited to a standard paper size of 900mm. Having the whole plan on one piece has allowed me to see the station approach and the pointwork leading into the station. In total there will be over 50 points to build and to date around half of those have been completed. All have been constructed using C & L rail and pcb sleepers on top of Templot templates. Check rails have been set at 1.2mm gaps to allow both kit built and RTR stock to run without having to change all back to back wheels on RTR stock. The station will have eight platform faces plus limited goods facilitities. The loco shed consists of four roads plus a two road coaling stage and turntable. The station buildings will be overhead with access to all platforms via steps. Platform lengths vary although the longest platform will accommodate a seven coach train plus loco. What has really helped is having a full size print to set the board separation. Previously I would have just built four boards and then had to cut and rearrange track to avoid the board joins. Having the full plan means the sizes of the boards can be set to avoid pointwork and in particular the operating motors beneath the boards. I'm sure I will still have the usual ups and downs of layout construction but this morning has been a big step forward. By the way, I've already been told I can't play trains on the lounge floor.... icon_wink.gif  |
||
| Attachment: attach_228_228_Eastwood2.JPG 1905 | |||
|
posted: 14 Feb 2008 22:10 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: By the way, I've already been told I can't play trains on the lounge floor.... icon_wink.gifHi Gordon, Looking good. It seems the printing firm managed to sort themselves out! . Care to give us the contact details, price, postage, etc.? Did they charge extra for 130gsm paper? Now they've done one they will know what to do when someone else from this parish comes knocking on their door. file.php?id=5256 It's great to see it laid out full size, isn't it? You can never get the same sense of flowing curves just seeing it on the screen. I know most of the Templot work is now done and you will be following up construction of Eastwood Town on RMweb, but please post an update here when you can. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 Feb 2008 22:39 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I was hoping you wouldn't ask that question Martin as eventually the print did cost a lot more than I expected, but in all fairness I got a very good quality print on 130gsm paper, so I guess you get what you pay for. For other forum members, the first company quoted £15 + VAT and postage, but eventually decided they couldn't do it on one long roll. The second company quoted £7 VAT and postage, which was a very low price but in all honesty I don't think they really knew what they were quoting for and after endless mails and calls, could never move beyond an A3 size. The company I eventually used were very good and turned it round within 24 hours with no issues at all. The cost was £25 + VAT + Postage so was nearer £35 by the time it arrived. Yes, it was expensive, but I can't fault the service and quality. Overall it will save an enormous amount of time and I believe it will provide good value. The company information is as follows; Digiscans 66 High Street, Hoddesdon Herts EN11 8ET Tel: 01992 441516 Fax: 01992 450159 Email: admin@digiscans.co.uk http://www.digiscans.co.uk I am very happy to post updates as my layout progresses here. There are two reasons why this layout has been possible. The first was down to encouragement of fellow modellers to start making my own pointwork. This has opened up a whole new world for me. The second was discovering and eventually using Templot. It was very difficult at the beginning but as you know it all suddenly fell into place and this would not have been possible without Templot. Many thanks for such a great piece of software. The latest box file for my layout is here. |
||
| Attachment: attach_229_228_Final_plan_-_1.box 252 | |||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2008 01:12 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: I am very happy to post updates as my layout progresses here. There are two reasons why this layout has been possible. The first was down to encouragement of fellow modellers to start making my own pointwork. This has opened up a whole new world for me. The second was discovering and eventually using Templot. It was very difficult at the beginning but as you know it all suddenly fell into place and this would not have been possible without Templot. Many thanks for such a great piece of software.Gordon, The terminus is beginning to look very good when you see it on the full size plan. I envy you with all that space. I'm sorry to see that you haven't managed to incorporate a Barry slip anywhere Jim. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2008 01:26 from: Gordon S click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Always willing to learn Jim. What's a Barry slip? I've heard of slip points to protect the main line but not heard that expression before... | ||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2008 03:04 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Always willing to learn Jim. What's a Barry slip? I've heard of slip points to protect the main line but not heard that expression before... Hi Gordon, Here's a picture of a Barry slip at Beverley. Picture kindly provided by Mick Nicholson: barry_slip.jpg  So called because they were common in the sorting sidings at Barry Docks. There is more discussion about them in this topic. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Feb 2008 03:34 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Gordon S wrote: Always willing to learn Jim. What's a Barry slip? I've heard of slip points to protect the main line but not heard that expression before...Gordon, I see Martin has beaten me to it with the description But it must be the favourite formation for Templot users. I feel honour bound to include at least one in any layout design I do and I suspect that Martin is even now programming a "Make Barry Slip" into the next PUG. Jim. |
||
| 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. |