... The scale is P4 and the minimum radius is 36", although some templates still say 1000mm. The intention is that on the scenic side there is no track closer than 12" to the baseboard edge. I have let this slip slightly in the odd place. Space is limited to 12' x 26' as this is the size of the garage. I have compressed lengths as necessary except between the road bridge and viaduct as I feel this area cannot be compressed without changing the geometry. Unfortunately the exchange sidings are shorter than I'd like. I'd prefer 2m for the shortest siding. I've also taken out one siding on each side. The inner of the sidings are shown as a relief loops on the signal box plan, but I doubt it was ever used as such. I haven't drawn the fiddle yards yet except where it is necessary to get entrance tracks aligned. Orange represents the downhill Rhymney section which loops under the fiddle yards, around the front of the layout still hidden as green rising to join the fiddle yards. The lowest ...

... having used scale turnout plans rather than Peco geometry I found it took a much larger distance to contain all the trackwork- it'll be worth it for a more realistic appearance though. Having started to get to grips with Templot I have produced the attached plan. I have yet to complete one end of the fiddle yard where the Cannock lines rejoin the main lines. The fiddle yard is very simple, but with the length of each road I could fit around six long scale length trains on each road, so with a few shorter trains there should be plenty of storage space without the need to construct too many turnouts. Attachment: attach_455_696_Rugeley.box 375 posted: 16 Jan 2009 14:03 from: Raymond That's impressive Mark I wish you well building it. Did you lay it out on an OS map or a track plan or what? Regards Raymond posted: 16 Jan 2009 15:36 from: Mark Pelham The track was not overlaid on any background but follows the approximate shape to give the general feel of the prototype. I used Google to get ...

... from 8ft-6in (or previously 9ft in pre-grouping times) in increments of 6in up to 30ft. The very long timbers were expensive, and different companies had different rules about how many could be used. Some were very sparing with long timbers. Comparing an LNER drawing for a crossover with a GWR equivalent, you can see the latter used far more long timbers and produced much more heavily-timbered formations generally. Sometimes where a long timber was required it was made up on site by halving and splicing two shorter ones, using bolted-through fishplates top and bottom as stiffeners. For a single turnout, the usual rule was that crossing timbers stop at 16ft* length, after which normal sleepering is used, with the sleeper ends interlaced as necessary. Timbers up to that length would normally be held as a stock item by the railway company, longer timbers being ordered from suppliers as needed. *17ft for GWR renewals before about 1930. p.s. the longest timber in the template above is 26ft-6in. regards, Martin ...

... the mistake normally but coupled with the undo function it can mean going to the box and relocating the actual template and with my messy way of working sometime this is a little annoying. Your answer was. You have a transition curve which is too "gentle". The radius is changing by too small an amount in too long a length, and the maths capability of the computer processor is exceeded. In practice such a transition curve serves little purpose and you may as well use a fixed radius curve instead, or a shorter transition curve. Three:- when using transition curves to line up difficult track alignments and changing the curving with a mouse sometimes, and I find it difficult say exactly when, but it is at far extremes when the screen display loses coherence and has a zigzag appearance rather than the smooth lines we normally see Your answer was- Put the timber numbers on for the control template. They are always on the MS side: workpad> pad options for the control template> show timber numbers posted: 26 Oct 2011 16 ...

... estimate that the lost motion on each pin is of the order of .3mm. Whilst I have reservations about Howard Bolton's method of connecting switches by means of a functional scale stretcher and using this to drive the switch, I do favour his method of eliminating such lost motion by precise setting of the throw imparted by the crank used to move the stretcher. posted: 14 Apr 2015 14:33 from: madscientist my own idea, was to immediately underneath the sleeper, attach the pin to a sliding delrin, pseudo sleeper, shorter and narrower then the real sleeper above. This pseudo sleeper, prevents the switch blade from rising, and also allows the soldered hinge pin to pivot. I wasn't going to use a hinge tube. The drive from the point motor would then be collected to the delrin "sleeper" The main issue I have is that a hinge pin failure might need the removal of the turnout. but I suspect this is an unlikely failure mode posted: 16 Apr 2015 11:08 from: madscientist I'll add a sketch later it ...

... -- the two turnouts are similar in size. As you can see, there are some minor conflicts. At 2 the turnout rail of the second turnout is conflicting with the check rail of the first V-crossing, and at 3 the stock rail of the second turnout is not clearing the wing rail of that crossing to provide a sufficient wheel flangeway: 2_031309_060000000.png What to do about it? You have some choices: a. Use a longer first turnout, say a B-7, or b. Use a shorter second turnout, maybe an A-6. If this was a straight tandem, that might be an option. However it is not advisable to curve short A switches very much, which is why I used B switches in the first place for this curved tandem. However, both of these options are likely to create other problems in the positioning of the additional V-crossing at 4. So instead c. Modify the check and wing rails to fit. This usually the simplest solution in practice. It is usually ...

... Apr 2014 12:39 from: Martin Wynne Godfrey Earnshaw wrote: Firstly, it truncates my entered title in the filename despite retaining my entered title in the Project Title Box. Secondly, it ignores the folder I was in and reverts to the Templot default of Templot-Dev/Box_Files/ Hi Godders, The truncation is to keep the file names within a sensible length. I could perhaps lengthen it a bit. It's useful to write the box title so that any changes are at the start -- e.g. "Shorter yard in Bristol... You can of course edit the suggested file name to include more info if you wish. After first saving a file to your specified folder it should go there again when saving another file. So you need to navigate to it only once. If it is not doing that it is a bug? However, the folder from which you loaded any files is not taken into account in this -- you may have added templates from files in many different locations. It's important to bear in ...

... is approximately equal to 2 flangeway gaps plus the blunt nose width on the vee, as you say. If the wheel is wider than this it cannot fall into the gap and will run smoothly over the V-crossing remaining fully supported on the wing rails. The angle of the V-crossing and the length of the gap is immaterial. However, wheels which are narrower than the required width will fall into the gap with a bump. This effect will be worse or much worse on longer V-crossings than on shorter ones, which is probably where the misunderstanding arises. I think this is the point Mike was making -- with 3.5mm wheels on GOG-F the bump may be acceptable at 1:6 but not at 1:10. But they will drop to some extent at all angles. It's unfortunate that the Gauge 0 Guild's long-standing published Fine track standard (GOG-F in Templot) doesn't actually work with most of the currently available 0 gauge wheels, a situation which has existed for over 10 years now ...

... thereby saving the cost of the extra timber and fixings, plus the labour of not having to lay the extra timber, so i shows just how conscious they were about costs. So I don't necessarily think it only applied to the Scots !! All the best, Brian. posted: 24 Mar 2014 13:58 from: Brian Nicholls Hi Peter, I managed to finish two version of the timbering of your Scissors crossing. 1. A Modellers version, with long timbers. 2. A simulated prototype version, with shorter timbers. Obviously the choice is completely yours which you use, as it is your model railway creation. See what you think. All the best, Brian. Attachment: attach_1796_2428_Scissors_after_ti mber_shoving_Model_Sample.box 338 posted: 24 Mar 2014 14:00 from: Brian Nicholls Hi Peter, Here's the prototype version. All the best, Brian. Attachment: attach_1797_2428_Scissors_after_ti mber_shoving_Proto_Sample.box 371 posted: 24 Mar 2014 14:54 from: Martin Wynne Hi Brian, I'm not sure that you should dismiss the "modellers version" as non-prototypical. ...

... 1964, page 54. It shows the spacings for traditional jointed track with timber sleepers for the BR post-nationalization era. The table shows centre-to-centre dimensions, so to create spacers for a jig you need to subtract 10" (the width of a sleeper) from each dimension. Modern concrete-sleepered CWR (long-welded) track differs. Pre-nationalization track also differs for each company and period, although not by much. Pre-grouping track for different companies varies more and generally used shorter rails. Those dimensions for 60ft bullhead rails are the default settings in Templot2, so to create a jig for such bullhead track you can simply print some straight plain track templates. To choose between 24, 25 or 26 sleepers per length, go to the real> plain track options> rail lengths and sleeper spacings... menu item. For flat-bottom track you will need to enter the table dimensions as custom settings. regards, Martin. posted: 16 May 2014 10:08 from: Len Cattley ...