Templot Club Archive - Search Results
To search again, click the Back button in your browser.
Search results for: Former
83 results found.
5 pages of results.
... , rather like cassettes? The whole thing resembling a gentler version of the proprietary 'high-level-systems' once made by eg Tri-ang in 00/H0 and currently made by Tomix in N? One idea for cheap, precision-engineered units for accurately constructing successively increasing-height piers is to employ stacked 2x8 (or 2x12=2x8+ 2x4 alternating bond) Lego bricks, full-height and 'thins'- quick to plug/unplug. By plugging-in to an empty space in the site of former 3 yellow reversible roads you could choose to configure the layout either: a. With the Wynne-cline OR b. with plug-in replicas of something closely resembling the existing 3 yellow reversible roads. I think it's what Iain Rice calls 'jig-saw' construction, but I call it 'train-set technology'. Regards, Rodney who was brought up on a diet of Hornby-Dublo 3-rail. Inclines NO problem ;-) posted: 18 Nov 2007 20:50 from: rodney_hills Richard, ...
... better maintain the check gauge. I looked at the Paddington chair drawings and they confirm this. However, other bullhead check chair drawings show inclined check rails, so I'm not sure if this is purely a GWR practice or more widespread. Apologies for the error. However all bullhead wing rails are inclined. regards, Martin. posted: 15 Nov 2007 17:44 from: Bruce Boldner Martin, Well, I model the Midland, not 'God's Wonderful Railway', so I guess the jury is still out on whether the former may also have had vertically oriented rails in it's crossings. All very interesting. However I have found the most important aspect of a common crossing in order to achieve successful running by rolling stock (apart of course from getting the crossing to stock rail gauge right) is to have the point and splice rails in perfect alignment with their respective closure rails. By the way, for P4, what gap would you recommend between the tip of each switch blade and it's adjacent stock rail? I've been using the same gauge I ...
63. Templot new user
... for those who want that instead. regards, Martin. posted: 9 Apr 2010 09:27 from: Brian Lewis I do not see that as a problem Steven- but rather as an asset. For all my modelleing life I have been convinced that 'slop' is the enemy of faultless running. When, back in the sixties, or was it in the seventies, the EMGS moved from 18.0mm to 18.2mm with no consequnet uplift in the BB+ EF, I thought this was a mistake I carried on using the former. When I migrated to P4, I had the track gauge at 18.83mm and the wheels out as far as they could go. This left very little, if any, sideplay. The result was faultless tunning with no derailments. Anyone who saw my 40ft 31mm O-XF layout running at exhibitions will know that in 2-3 days of running we had zero derailments. Why should we have? It is the almost universal acceptance that there will be be derailments on layouts that I find so puzzling. A couple ...
... still getting nowhere. richard_t wrote: Have you got a printer installed? 0.91c needs to have at least one printer installed- even if it's just a virtual one. posted: 14 Aug 2010 15:28 from: Martin Wynne David Smith wrote: Connected to local printers, installed printer drivers, but still no go. Have tried just about everything but still getting nowhere. Hi David, Can you clarify whether it is the downloaded delivery file which won't run? Or the 091c program itself after being installed? If the former, do you get as far as seeing the dark blue screen with a dialog in the centre? If the latter, how far do you get before it fails? Do you see the "Ready, Steady, Click..."? What are the exact words of any messages which Windows displays? regards, Martin. posted: 15 Aug 2010 03:15 from: Martin Wynne Hi David, This isn't a solution to your problem, but it will get you running with a later version of Templot than ...
... . or the more likely.. where am I not looking for the correct commands?!.. Cheers Brian posted: 10 Sep 2012 10:33 from: Martin Wynne Brian Hanson wrote: I want to have the turnout road of the larger radius snap to the main road of the smaller radius turnout.. is this possible? Hi Brian, Could you clarify that? Do you want the second switch to be in the main road of the first switch or in the turnout road of the first switch? The former is the more usual arrangement, as in the video. For a single sided tandem that makes the outer exit the common main road. If you want the middle exit to be the common main road what you have in effect is a double-sided tandem (LH and RH) with significant contraflexure so that it appears to be single-sided. For the latter arrangement there is no common main road, so the method is slightly different from in the video. You must peg the second switch onto the heel of ...
... 6. click the OK button below the list. But in truth I have never heard of anyone wanting to change to the old 00 universal standards for hand-built track. Are you sure you want to do that? With modern RTR models the running quality will be very rough. If the problem is that you have been using the 00-DOGAF finescale settings, and want to avoid resetting wheel back-to-backs, it would be better to change to 00-SF or 00-BF standards. The former gives you the best possible running from modern RTR models, the latter is a bit more forgiving for older models and sharp curves. regards, Martin. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Templot talk> Changing track standards from 00 finescale to 00 universal 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 ...
... appear to show that a 1:8 crossing should have a 13'6" check rail (drawing dated Apr 1948) but that this extends to the 4C timber, not the 5C as in David Smith's Table 3 but matching his drawing of a B8, whereas document 2999 (Feb 1948) shows that it has a 14' check rail although the position isn't shown. So, two questions! For, say, early 1960s BR(W ), should the check rail be 14' or 13'6"? I suspect the former. Given that by 1948 the check rail seems to have moved back by one timber towards the toe, was this a BR thing or did that change take place sometime before that? Or have I missed something completely? (3rd question!) Cheers posted: 19 May 2012 22:45 from: Phil O Hi Paul I wish you had asked this question yesterday or earlier as I was on the ESR today measuring turnout timber centres and could have run the rule over the check lumps, however Wally of this parish ...
... 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 ...
... the tutorials (even though they don't quite match the current release) and it will click. Usual advice- forget anything you know about CAD! I might even have a go at Templotting this myself- just for fun- I'd never build it! I'm currently actually building two layouts. One based on Iain Rice's Shotley South Quay and the other one based on (OK, copied from!) Upbeach St Mary, which in turn is a copy of someones else's but it's supposed to be a quickie. Photos of the former on my website (scroll down a bit to the "Shotley" album) but no photos of the latter yet until I come up with a name! Have fun! Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Templot talk> Newby from the South West 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 ...
... topic: 1709 Change track plan from 2mm Finescale to N posted: 30 Nov 2011 21:25 from: Mark Pelham One quick question, which I think I know the unfortunate (for me) answer to, I have decided to stick with N gauge standards for my layout rather than spend a fortune re-wheeling my stock to 2mm Finescale. Will I have to redraw my layout plan or is there a way to change the gauge settings? I am assuming the former as I guess the turnouts will alter slightly? Kind regards, Mark posted: 30 Nov 2011 22:44 from: Rob Manchester Hi Mark, You can change the gauge/scale of a layout plan but it may not work out 100% correct as the ratio of the gauge may not convert absolutely. Depending on the version of Templot you are using you need to 'group select' all the templates and go to the gauge/scale selector and choose the new combination from the list. Then click on 'Convert Group'. You may get a warning message about ...
... Martin Wynne Hi Brian, You can add as many bonus timbers to a template as you wish. Each one will appear initially as a plain track sleeper at the CTRL-1 rail joint position. It can then be shoved to the desired size and position in the usual way. To remove added bonus timbers, click the real> timbering> bonus timbers> menu items. Before removing it you should normally restore a bonus timber if it has been shoved. Otherwise the next bonus timber which is added will take up the former shoved position. regards, Martin. posted: 24 Nov 2011 21:21 from: Brian Nicholls Hi Martin, Many thanks again for the explanation, will watch my step on bonus timber removal in future. Sincerest apologies for taking up your time on this matter. All the best, Brian Nicholls. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Development doings- archive> Extra Multiple B4 Timbers showing. about Templot Club Templot ...
72. Catenary
... . I then stretch white cotton thread between these pins to represent the contact wires. The positions can then be moved to fine-tune things like the stagger at the support points and mid-span points. The positions of the pins can then be used to create a front elevation drawing of the mast or portal at each location which is then used as a template in their construction. Regards Alan posted: 18 Oct 2011 15:19 from: Martin Wynne Hi George, This 8-year-old message on the former Templot email group may be of interest: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/templot/message/2270 For those who may have difficulty accessing the file link there, I have attached it below. To represent the overhead wires you could use dummy centre-line only templates. Or maybe use the draw with mouse function in the background shapes. There is also a function in the spacing-ring tool to draw background shape lines between specific locations. regards, Martin. Attachment: attach_1201_1657_ole_masts_EM.box 225 posted: 19 Oct ...
... , I was not aware that I had used RAE switches, I had been using the older style switches such as, 9ft, 12ft, 15ft straight heel types. However, this did make me wonder if in fact these were correct for the period, in particular since I've noted in past postings, a reference to them as being possibly GWR type switches. Also on this point, you suggest I need the LNWR chairing data, but can this be found in Templot? Now to respond to your detailed reply to my former previous message. I understand that crossing chairs will only fit rails in certain places, and should not be moved at all, it's just a question of knowing where those places are for the particular formation. I have, quite recently, received some track drawings from the LNWR society, and am expecting more to arrive shortly. Of those drawings I have viewed, there are some dimensions noted which give the spacing between the centres of adjacent chairs for various sized and angled crossings. Unfortunately, none as far as I can ...
74. print now!
... topic: 1497 print now! posted: 17 May 2011 02:31 from: Martin Wynne This topic is about the new print now! feature in TDV. posted: 21 May 2011 09:32 from: Martin Wynne You might like to test the new print now! functions -- print now!> print.. menu items. The former print menu is now called output, because it includes the settings for PDF and the other new output formats, and the metafile settings for the sketchboard. Which makes the function simply to print a template somewhat non-intuitive to find. So I have added the print now! menu items which should be obvious to anyone. They also by-pass all the usual printer setup and calibration dialogs (a frequent complaint) and just print immediately to the current printer using the current settings. Please give it a bash and see if it breaks. Martin. posted: 22 May 2011 10:31 from: Phil O Hi Martin I have just tried it and it works a treat. ...
... 2010 21:21 from: Brian Nicholls Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Brian, It can look equally good on the sketchboard, the user can change the resolution settings to suit. It's the usual trade-off between image quality and response speed, and the graphics capabilities on the user's system. Here are a couple of sketchboard views at higher resolution (with the tracks in "detail" mode): Hi Martin, You have caught me out with two postings, been a little bit busy today. In response to the former, I must say that does now look really good in both 'workpad' and 'sketchboard', that's some blow-up you have demonstrated. It's great stuff !! Brian Nicholls wrote: I have attached a sample GIF file of the signal box scaled at 4mm to 1 foot. I'm a bit mystified by what you mean there? GIF images don't contain any real-world dimensions and can be stretched/shrunk on the sketchboard to any size the user desires. Obviously the original prototype has some real-world dimensions ...
... -know-where- this is the root of the "not like Windows" comments and it is nothing to do with Windows at all. My fear is that a lots of moans originate from people who seem never to have opened Templot for a "third" time- and certainly from people who have never got to the clever bits. Because of this, they have no ability to trade off what I might see as a minor irritant against the massive power at their disposal- because they have experience only of the former. Those same people are amazed when I show them some of the stuff I have created- they them proclaim me as a genius with the patience of a saint- well, there are two further misconceptions! But I am not thinking about any of this as a way to hold up the next PUG- I am merely looking to fill your empty days AFTER that has satiated your already appreciative, but still hungry, users!! Very Best Wishes, Howard. posted: 15 May 2011 12:15 from: ...
... am not alone. Rob posted: posted: 2 Mar 2011 23:45 from: Nigel Brown Rob If I was contemplating what you're doing, I'd wonder about the following. If you've got sharp curves, and if you're thinking of 6-coupled locomotives, there's got to be a bit of give somewhere. You can get this from two sources; the amount the wheels can slide from side to side on the rails, and the amount each axle can move from side to side relative to the chassis. Taking the former, both 31.2 and S7 are tighter than the alternatives, limiting sideways movement, but you can to some extent allow for this by gauge-widening. Taking the latter, generally speaking you can get away with a bit more sideways axle movement with the narrower gauge, which might point you in the direction of 31.2. Which is why in any scale, as you get closer to the scale prototype gauge, the recommended minimum radii tend to increase. Nigel 2 Mar 2011 23:45 from: Nigel Brown Whoops! ...
... dock- Humber Dock- in P4 and have successfully used a curve of a minimum radius of about 2ft. The problem with sharp curves is the potental for buffer locking, so the trick is to ensure that there are no sudden changes in the radius of the curve- especially not from a straight line (a radius of infinity) to a sharp curve. In other words, use transition curves, which are a doddle to design in Templot. Paradoxically, it might be more difficult in EM than in P4 as the former has more side play between wheels and rail, so keep things reasonably tight. If you do I think you should have no difficulty with four wheel locos and trucks round a two foot curve but, as other correspondents have advised, do try it out on a mock up first. Note that I learnt about the desirability of transitions the hard way! I look forward to seeing the results of your endeavours. Incidentally the tightest curves on the real Humber Dock in Hull scale out to about two and a half foot radius ...
... //www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12514475 Martin. posted: 19 Feb 2011 22:41 from: John Lewis Good to see they still have "chainage"! posted: 20 Feb 2011 11:54 from: Judi R It's one of those quirks of history. The railway companies are required by Act of Parliament to show distances along the railway line in miles with quarter-mile posts. There must be tens of thousands of drawings and plans that show miles and chains (or, if you're in former GWR territory, miles and yards) and it is simply too much trouble and expense to change all of this for the dogmatic whim of metrication. So, even when new railways are designed in metric, mile and quarter-mile posts are still provided. There is an odd little exception to this, the Heathrow Express railway is only delineated in metric once it enters the tunnels. The Sectional Appendix gives miles and yards to the tunnel portal just off Airport Junction and then changes to kilometres the rest of the way ( ...
... only is the obvious second cost but a lot of time is going to be taken. regards Malcolm. posted: 13 Jan 2011 21:24 from: Martin Wynne M Wright wrote: You have worried me, Looking at the NMRA standards (S- 4.2)again they detail the span as 7.49mm with the 0.71 flangeway and I assume this goes with the wheel standard S- 3.2 which gives the target back to back as 7.65mm. Hi Malcolm, The NMRA standards were changed recently to target dimensions (instead of the former max and min figures), and since then it has been quite difficult to make sense of them. Some of it just doesn't add up. The track gauge for N gauge is given as 9.02mm target, and the check gauge as 8.26mm target. That makes the nominal flangeway at the check rail 0.76mm. Those appear to be direct conversions from imperial dimensions. To be sensible I would change that to 9.0mm and 8.25mm, giving a check flangeway of 0.75mm -- and easily remembered dimensions. The check span is given ...
Search took 0.122 seconds
Back to Templot Club