Templot Club Archive - Search Results
To search again, click the Back button in your browser.
Search results for: simplify
89 results found.
5 pages of results.
... of sizes you have already mentioned. This is the major reason why commercial trackwork never looks right, because the geometry is so different. As has already been explained, it is a matter of trial and error adjusting the Turnout size to find the nearest match to the radius required if you wish to use that approach. It is generally better to use the largest radius Turnout that will fit the situation. Prototype track design is a subject in its own right and a large one at that. The above is a very much simplified explanation. Regards Tony W. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Baffled beginners> Selecting the correct Switch Crossing Angle about Templot Club Templot Companion- User Guide- A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time visitors. indexing link for search engines back to top of page Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to ...
... 2. click tools> make ordinary crossover menu item. 3. click template> convert turnout to half-diamond menu item. 4. click tools> make slip> make single slip- opposite hand menu item. This works for a straight or curved tracks. cheers, Martin. posted: 19 Mar 2018 19:08 from: Martin Wynne p.s. Charles, I suggest changing the timbering on the turnout to equalized incremental if not already. This is often done where turnouts connect to diamond-crossings and slips to simplify the timbering layout. Martin. posted: 20 Mar 2018 20:01 from: Charles Warr Hello Martin. Your instructions worked a treat. Many thanks for your help. Regards Charles posted: 20 Mar 2018 21:16 from: Martin Wynne Hi Charles, Glad it worked out ok. Actually the middle step, converting from turnout to half-diamond, is unnecessary -- it works just the same without doing that. But maybe not so intuitive to know what's happening, so I included it. cheers, ...
... a bit of an odd man out. It's there primarily for users who don't want to do track planning, just print a bog-standard template. I have tried to shunt such users into a separate way of doing things from the track planners. I'm not convinced it works very well, but I don't know how else it might be done. cheers, Martin. Hi Martin Yep I realised that New just repeated the template> new template function. I just had a feeling that pushing everyone through the menus might actually simplify things. Doing that you don't have to worry about people's intentions. "use template> new template" achieves the same effect for a beginner and is as easy to use, while introducing the template menu so they know what it's there for. Just my thoughts. cheers Nigel Last edited on 30 Jan 2018 12:37 by Nigel Brown posted: 30 Jan 2018 12:50 from: Nigel Brown Trevor Walling wrote:... I think too much worry is expended about people not being able to do this ...
... wrote: I notice that directly invoking the" basic viewer" brings up a windows app that only takes fbr files it doesnt know anything about sk5 files Its all getting quite complex Martin, surely just placing the videos on your website and playing them there is easier and more sustainable that a hybrid app/website approach Hi Dave, With Flash effectively dead, the only option for web pages is MP4, and I have decided that I just can't live with it. Watching it gives me a headache. I am trying to simplify things rather than complicate them by sticking to one format only, FBR. The SK5 loader means that they need to be downloaded only once, and can be played again by clicking the web link as many times as you like without downloading again. It also puts the video title in the player's caption bar. regards, Martin. posted: 27 Nov 2017 14:47 from: madscientist Martin Wynne wrote: madscientist wrote: no martin it doesnt work because as far as I can see, Mac finder does not allow ...
... the 1904 Tynemouth electrification, and prior to the installation of the manganese steel switch and crossing work. Note the road from platform 1 to the High Level- this connection was removed in 1904 as it could have caused problems for electric sets starting from the platforms due to insufficient lengths of conductor rail being available." Regards, Rodney -- -- -- --- 2. [quote=JudiR post_id=66371 time=1499337214 user_id=1150] It is, of course, now wired but the layout was simplified somewhat beforehand. Indeed Fromg http://www.railwayarchitecture.org.uk/Location/Newcastle/Newcastle%20Central%20Stati.comon/Newcastle%20Central%20Station.htm All done with off the shelf double slips and turnouts, not a diamond crossing in sight! Regards, Rodney -- -- -- -- 3. Some of the piccys of Castle Jct predate the manganese steel era. http://www.asminternational.org/web/hts/home/-/journal_content/56/10192/ASMHBA0001045/BOOK-ARTICLE "THE ORIGINAL AUSTENITIC ...
... /www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/102711-drawing-curves-on-the-baseboard/ posted: 30 Nov 2017 14:18 from: Craig Scarisbrick I would like to take this opportunity to help answer some of the points raised. As the inventor of the 3CP curve plotting tool, I would first like to present the background. The tool was developed due to the need to construct a 5 inch track gauge miniature railway extension hampered by many obstacles to negotiate and limitations to routes available. A simplified large scale version of the tool was constructed, machined and calibrated to forward plot along the centre-line of the intended route, i.e. the tool does not require a centre of radius. Careful track geometry was important, such as transition curves and smooth constant curves as we were carrying people (in many respects like full size railways). This was the only accurate method suitable for solving and controlling the track layout design, which eliminated the variation of individual judgements. Hence, this invention would also work for model ...
... not worked out how to do those yet. In the image below the colours represent: Pink/Puple: points crossing baseboard joins. Orange: added private siding for ferro-concrete plant. 2356_151316_290000000.png Attachment: attach_2502_3046_kelly_shepperton _mod_2017_09_15_1816_38.box 171 posted: 15 Sep 2017 18:45 from: d827kelly Slight adjustments as the uppermost crossover had ended up off the end of the board. 2356_151345_320000000.png Attachment: attach_2503_3046_kelly_shepperton _mod_2017_09_15_1845_40.box 170 posted: 15 Sep 2017 20:06 from: d827kelly Discussed the right hand side with Natalie and figured it out mostly. Simplified to a single private siding, with a small spur to a small shed/stable point for the industrial loco. (ignore the orange bits in this). Still need to work on the overlapping (baseboard) points. Getting there slowly! 2356_151504_270000000.png posted: 15 Sep 2017 21:54 from: d827kelly I've altered the plan to move as much of the points off of joins. I can't get one of them to avoid it without shortening the carriage siding too much. Done most of the timber shoving (might ...
... Hi Godfrey, You have opened a can of worms which I have been trying to keep the lid on for years. Just trying to explain it is going to create a page full of ifs and buts below. The prototype rail lengths and timbering for K-crossings varies a lot, and for movable K-crossings (switch-diamonds) prototype info is almost impossible to find for angles shorter than about 1:9. There are also significant differences between bullhead and flat-bottom designs. For Templot I tried to simplify it by providing: 1. some default settings which look about right in most cases, and 2. the option to set custom rail lengths if you know what you want. But some of this is still a work-in-progress on my to-do list. My excuse is that I'm still waiting to find some definitive prototype information. The rail joints change because for movable K-crossings, Templot sets a single default wing rail length of 36ft (total). This differs from the defaults for fixed ...
49. Track Plan 01
... Shed Index which says that there was a single road loco shed at Llanrwst, built in 1867 and closed in 1881. Unfortunately the 1960 era track plan does not show the shed or where it may have been. See link: http://locosheds.co.uk/index.php?n =Sheds.LLANRWST As far as the junction at Bethesda; I did find (on line) some late BR diagrams c1960s thru 1990s which show initially a standard dual track single line junction as per the Board of Trade (BOT) recommendations and later a simplified ladder junction and later still the junction is removed completely. So my guess is that it was (in later LNWR and LMS days) a standard dual track single line junction. When I look at your Templot plan I can see roughly how it has developed. You have copied the major aspects of the prototype plan however; as Nigel has hinted in his response, when you flipped the plan to its mirror image you have lost a very basic aspect of UK prototype practice wherein the trains drive on the left hand track ...
... of "Liar to Children" is the teaching profession. The point is, if you want to get some one from 'a to z' you don't talk about 'x' first. You work through things as though 'x' does not exist till you need it. Most of what you learn in school particularly in science and math is out of date, incomplete, or just plain wrong. But it allows you to grab hold of concepts that give you tools for further study. In music there are similar times when you simplify what is going on. It's not right, but allows the student to grab fundamentals without distraction. It is the KISS principle. You do have to come back later and say "Well actually, it is really like this" With never assuming a student knows certain information there is a base line. In teaching piano I require the student to have the concept of reading sorted. They don't have to be good readers, but must understand the idea of a symbol on a page having a meaning. I'm not here ...
... any radius. More about how to use the image wrapping function here: http://templot.com/companion/index.html?wrap_picture_shape_to_curve.htm (The templates are already straight, so the straightening part of the process can be skipped.) Here I have created a B-8 crossover in Templot on an outer radius of 1750mm, and wrapped the Scalefour Society B-8 template to match the curving and provide full underlying chair detail: Full view on the Templot trackpad: s4soc_b8_curved_crossover_1.png I increased the track spacing to 7ft-way to simplify the chairing at the centre just for this example. It's necessary to use the transparent option where the images overlap. Here is part of the printed template output -- a fully chaired curved B8 crossover in P4: s4_soc_b8_curved_crossover_print_1 .png Don't forget to tick the option to include picture shapes in the print (it is off by default). And set the timber infill to none so that the chairs are visible. You may also want to change the line thickness and colour settings for best results. I can't post more than ...
52. Long Lane
... but still enough of summer left so that I can model trees with leaves as they'll be needed for a possible scenic break or two. If anyone has any photos of Tetley mills I loved to see them and get reacquainted with the layout. Dave posted: 16 Nov 2008 03:08 from: Nigel Brown Hi Dave Just a thought. What sort of vans would have been around in the late 1970's? I'm no expert on this sort of thing but had a vague idea that by then BR stock would have been drastically simplified as regards type and the traffic they were used for cheers Nigel posted: 16 Nov 2008 15:14 from: polybear Paul Boyd wrote: I'm intrigued by the use of an electric fly swat to create static grass. I'd be interested to see how you get on with that idea- keep us up to date! Hi Paul, Dave Smith shows an excellent step-by-step sequence on how to construct a static grass applicator from an electric fly swatter here: http://railwaymodelling.fotopic.net/c1602617.html Best Regards ...
... either. The line was under the jurisdiction of the GER from opening in 1889 to incorporation in the GE&GN Joint in 1897, and it was in this brief window that the new loop to the goods shed and siding to the cattle dock were laid, and the sidings to the brickworks (1893). 53_270730_130000000.png The GE was the master in the 'prototype for everything' department, and swerves like this were not unknown elsewhere on the system. The LNER took a dim view of many of the GER's trackwork idiosyncrasies and simplified great chunks from time to time, but Warboys appears to have remained intact until much later. posted: 27 Aug 2009 14:03 from: rodney_hills Adrian, Thanks for the very interesting plans and your comments. BTW- Do you have any info or refs that could help the RMwebber locate any pictures of the centre section of the station building roof at Warboys or Ramsey East?: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f =5 &t =50059 The few view I've located are end- ...
... for the build. Regards Alan posted: 28 Jul 2009 22:17 from: Martin Wynne Hi Richard, Alan, I have rearranged the timbering a little so that the timbers for each crossing are part of the relevant crossing template. To show what I mean I have separated out the partial templates in this screenshot: 2_281657_530000000.png The modified end of one check rail will need some extra flaring during construction to ensure that wheel flanges don't catch it in the trailing direction. I wouldn't attempt the joggles shown in the GER drawing. Simplify it to plain sets in the stock rails as drawn for the long point blades, with the short blade tips one timber back behind them. Likewise for 0-MF it is not possible to build working loose heels in the correct position, and achieve the correct flangeway gaps. I would build it as flexible switches. Remember that each short blade works with the opposite long blade. Good luck with the stretcher bars! File attached. regards, Martin. Attachment: attach_623_911_3_throws_richard_la mbert_1.box 376 posted: 29 Jul 2009 09: ...
... topic: 859 Templates for Flat-Bottom track posted: 8 Jun 2009 23:46 from: MikeTrice I have bitten the bullet and bought a copy of Templot, specifically to produce templates for Flat bottom track. I have long appreciated the benefit of having accurate templates to simplify track construction. By accurate I mean with the correct rail dimensions and clearances, as it makes a difference where rail bends occur. It also clarifies where the foot of the rail has to be removed to allow the switches to mate with the stock rails. I was therefore very disappointed to learn that Templot does not reproduce the foot of the flat bottom rail (unless I am missing something). I have built a number of flat bottom turnouts using my own templates and always rely on the position of the footer to fix the rail into the correct location on the turnout, especially when fixing the initial straight road. The problem of course is that without the footer being shown once the rail is in place you cannot see where the rail head should be located, ...
56. Despair
... - much appreciated. I said that I didn't know how to reply to that email, but I can now send a link to this topic. In reply to some of the comments, here are some extracts from the order confirmation letter which I send to new purchasers of Templot: "Please read all of this letter before starting to use Templot" No-one ever does, of course. "Upgrade to 091c when you have become familiar with Templot basics. With the proviso that diamond-crossings and slips are much simplified, so leave trying those until you are ready to upgrade to 091c. On the other hand, if you have previously used other track design programs and prefer simply to snap templates together, rather than work through the tutorials for prototypical design, you may want to upgrade to 091c immediately." A complaint that the release version 074b and the accompanying tutorials are out of date and don't properly reflect the current Pug versions would be entirely justified -- and I would find it difficult to respond. Strangely, no-one ...
... preferences saving. The main changes in the next full pug will be to the output options. In addition to the previous printed output there will be three new options: 1. output to PDF files, up to large sizes suitable for wide-format roll printing. 2. output to raster image files (GIF, PNG, BMP formats). 3. output to pages on the Templot Sketchbook. In addition any output can be in "diagram mode" or the existing "template mode". Diagram mode is a simplified output suitable for published track plans, signal box diagrams, control panels, and similar. None of these functions is yet finished, but I have made significant progress in recent weeks. Templot Sketchbook is new separate function within Templot -- almost a separate program in its own right. It's a mini desktop-publishing/drawing package, which will allow the creation of colourful layout plans, control panels and diagrams directly within Templot. Previously it was necessary to export a DXF file and do this sort of thing in a ...
... one." I shouldn't have raised that subject in this topic -- I mentioned it only in response to the requests to save gauge and scale. This topic is about saving the user's program operation preferences. Gauge/scale isn't one of those, it's a track design setting. Any mechanism to save and restore it has to be completely separate from the program preferences. There are existing mechanisms to do it, which I think adequately cover the requirement to have a selection of settings available. The master template idea is a simplified approach to get an instant startup with one particular set of template settings, without requiring the user to do or select anything. Re using a library style approach, when I started out in Templot I thought that, from past experience, adopting that as a method of working was a good idea, i.e. build up a library of useful templates which could be slotted in as appropriate, the train-set approach if you like. In the event, I didn't go in that direction because I found that in practice ...
... enough room at top and bottom of the plan to have a scenic background, even if it's only retaining walls? The clearance looks tight. Also the width of the plan seems to be about 11', so some of it's going to need to stick out into the hall. If you wanted a bit more scenery, there's just about room to stick a small goods yard in the top right hand corner, Leith like, but maybe you'd prefer a minimal scenic approach and stick to mostly just track. You could obviously simplify the track a bit, but probably this is what you want. You could angle the terminus into the room a bit, which could give room for a parcels bay by the far platform, but again, do you want it? cheers Nigel posted: 21 Feb 2010 14:34 from: Jim Guthrie wcampbell23 wrote: The main concern I would have about the layout design is that the track comes very close to the limits of the space you have available and this may create problems with setting the railway in a ...
... Nov 2008 02:26 from: Nigel Brown Hi Raymond Just a thought. Do you need the double slip? It could be replaced by a simple crossover, so that the headshunt is still able to access all the loop roads but leaving the main line only able to access the two top loop roads. Reasoning is:- a) in practice I think it unlikely that trains would run directly into the service road serving the sidings, so the main line doesn't have to directly access the service line. (b) simplifying things here may give you more flexibility in laying out curves cheers Nigel P.S can't think why operationally it wouldn't work. As a matter of interest, what sort of couplings would you use? Prototypical 3-link might be a bit of a pain. Last edited on 8 Nov 2008 03:18 by Nigel Brown posted: 8 Nov 2008 14:57 from: Raymond Dear All, Many thanks for your kind and most helpfull comments, I shall spend some time re-thinking it and see what I can do ...
Search took 0.087 seconds
Back to Templot Club