... garden. cheers, Martin. posted: 1 Aug 2019 21:42 from: polybear Thanks Martin posted: 14 Nov 2019 22:56 from: Rob Manchester Hi Martin, Have you thought about completing the EM plan for Downingham? It is a very nicely designed( and reasonably compact) plan for a garage/large spare room that would suit quite a few people's needs for a layout. BTW I have just tried converting Downingham from EM to EM-SF. I had thought there would be a slight error in alignment downstream of any turnouts due to the 0.2mm gauge difference and that appears to be the case but otherwise it looks good. Is there anything else likely to introduce small errors in alignment when converting like this? << <Insert nudge about the Template name labels warning message>>>> Rob posted: 14 Nov 2019 23:42 from: Martin Wynne Rob Manchester wrote: Hi Martin, Have you thought about completing the EM plan for Downingham? It is a very nicely designed( and reasonably compact) plan for ...

... 2014 16:07 from: Martin Wynne Hi Dave, I'm afraid I'm not much clearer what you are trying to achieve. Can you post a screenshot or a .box file? If you want a turnout on an existing transition curve template you can simply insert a turnout in the template. Then roam it along to wherever you want it, not necessarily within the transition zone. You can then if you wish split off any approach or exit track as separate templates. Or if it is special custom turnout you can use the align functions instead to align it over the transition template. Or if the turnout position came first, you can change it to a transition curve template, extend the length of it, and then adjust the position of the transition zone markers beyond the turnout or change radii as required. It's all much easier than what you seem to be doing. A screenshot would be a big help. regards, Martin. posted: 23 Mar 2014 02:06 from: pointo1d Hiya Martin, Sorry for the delay in replying.. ...

... which will apply to the Control template. In 0.91c this can be found under the Generator> Generator settings> Adjacent tracks. Hi Tony, As you have probably noticed, this feature has changed in TDV. It's now at geometry> adjacent options> adjacent rails as guide lines menu option. Also this setting is now template-specific and saved in the .box file. If you wish you can therefore now keep a selection of such templates in the file with different spacings, solely for use as design aids. Use the align functions to align them over existing templates. However, it is no longer possible to switch each rail on and off independently. I didn't see any real need for this. However you can in effect turn one side off by setting the centre spacing to zero. (Or you can when I have fixed a bug -- at present set the spacing to 0.01 mm.) There is now a single switch in the generator -- generator settings> adjacent features menu item. This controls generation of not only these guide ...

... the bottom right, all moves from top right had to head top left and moves from the top left could still go top right or bottom right...would this allow the outline track plan of the original formation to be retained. Rgds Dave Last edited on 12 May 2014 18:23 by Dave M posted: 13 May 2014 02:21 from: John Palmer Dave, You could certainly get a layout conforming fairly closely to the original trackbed 'footprint', as shown below in skeletal form: 2129_122108_090000000.png This preserves the original alignment of the route through the pair of diamonds, but at the expense of a short lead turnout with a minimum radius of just under 4'. Furthermore, you have little or no clearance between top left to top right and bottom left to bottom right routes (haven't tested this with dummy vehicles), so no simultaneous movement over these two routes is going to be permissible. Box file for this variant attached. I've done no tidying up or timber shoving on this as it is offered as proof of concept only. ...

... and equidistant between them. Then make sure that the angle of the bend in the wing rail exactly matches the crossing angle on the vee. Check by sliding the wing rail through the gauge tools up against the vee and seeing that it is properly flush against the side of the vee. Adjust the bend as necessary. Then slide the rail back just far enough to drop in the crossing-flangeway gauge strip without force but also without any freedom: 2_221146_430000000.png If you do both wing rails this way, the knuckle bends should align. The templates show the knuckle bend as a sharp bend, but it doesn't need to be sharp. Many prototype designs have a radiused knuckle bend, with the result that the knuckle gap is wider than the crossing flangeway. If you replicate this it will be less noticeable if the bends do not exactly align. A radiused bend also helps a lot if you are using functional chairs with the rail canted at 1:20 angle. Some modellers go to the absurd length of filing a notch in the rail to make ...

... png file of a scale drawing which has a straight running line through it. I've imported this file and saved it as required and have overlaid a control template on it; positioning the peg accordingly. Now I'm assuming that given the circumstances so far described I do not need to undertake the 'Straighten along the control template option....' and subsequently the need for banding is not required. I then believe I've saved the 'modified' file correctly as described. Next step I've created a new file which has a curved alignment over which I would want to wrap my picture file. It's here where things appear to go awry: I select my png file, modify shape& wrap along control template.... Except now I get an error message which seems to imply I do not have enough umph in the system to do the necessary calculations and should maybe reduce dpi etc etc. I've a relatively new laptop with umph and no other applications open at the time so am thinking I might just be doing something wrong in earlier steps when ...

... I very carefully curve these rails to fit perfectly over the Template- that way, when the rails are subsequently cut to length, they are already curved thus avoiding any tendency towards threepenny bit track!. This excess length also allows the rails to be positioned accurately prior to soldering-up. To assemble these units, I use short strips of nickel silver at all the positions where the prototype would use block chairs, the strips themselves will subsequently be hidden by Exactoscale crossing chairs. The rails are held in the correct vertical alignment by sliding functional chairs on the outer ends. I don't make any attempt to secure the bits of N/S to the Template and the rails are only located by means of blutac blobs. Nonetheless, by proceeding in a logical sequence, one rail at a time, you never need more than two hands which is handy for me. The advantages of building a pre-fabricated assembly this way are:- 1. you can "tack" solder it together, then lift it off the jig and squint along ...

... topic: 2853 Troubles with crossovers and alignments posted: 4 Mar 2016 20:33 from: kellyh I'm new to Templot, but have managed to figure my way around it for the most part. But I'm having trouble putting in a crossing that doesn't want to align properly. Not sure what Ive done wrong as I followed the video for the other I've created (a double crossing) and that seems to have worked ok. What I cannot seem to manage is to get two tracks running from the end of the crossing that remain parallel/equal distance from each other and putting in a crossing off of them off towards a wharf/dock. undefined undefined Attachment: attach_2235_2853_woolwich_dockyard ch_2016_03_04_1950_53.box 196 posted: 4 Mar 2016 22:10 from: Martin Wynne Hi Kelly, Welcome to Templot Club. To have tracks running parallel/concentric, use the tools> make double-track or the tools> make crossover functions to create the second track from the first (having first set the required adjacent track centres). n.b. In the centre of ...

... the field does not allow me to back up. If there is an error, I have to start over. No indication that I have to hit Enter to go to the next field. The entire calibration procedure is cumbersome. All of this should be done from one menu and not jumping through so many. I have spent 20 minutes getting this to work before finding out that someone has somehow altered my printer settings even though the LCD on the printer says everything was letter size. I still did not get a perfect alignment. The Inner box was off by 1 mm in each direction. I put in the actual measurements. Now the shaded cross dimensions are 1 mm too big in each direction. It appears to be unfixable. How do I print the current template showing on the monitor. The printout is a tiny box in the upper left hand corner and not the full-sized sheet I expected. 2. Menus All Windows programs I use have an Edit tool button with an undo option in it. I had to look around ...

... suggests the second road paralleled the goods shed road without any connection, which may be correct for its last days in public service. Altho' it's an OS map (?) I have occasionally seen maps where the surveyor's site notes have not been correctly interpreted by the cartographical draftsman back at the office. Bishop's Castle station is one such. Ian Not that uncommon, no, the L& Y used it in several places. In addition to what I wrote a few minutes ago about measurement of the platforms, if you align Google on the same orientation as the map, the goods shed, as it is now, appears to be aligned differently. Not much, but enough to make it more parallel to the siding alongside/through it and that brings up another point. I've recently been researching Dewsbury Market Place Station and the 1:2500 OS map bears a similarity to photos taken in the same year as the survey, but that's all. Track alignments slightly off, an obvious tandem turnout shown on the map as two separate ones separated ...