... the sleeper spacings for a partial panel length? Would the spacings of the two sleepers at each end, be the same as a full panel of 44'6" with the number of sleepers between each end being determined by the length track between the ends? Hi Graham, A lot of questions there. I think you are mixing up two different concepts: 1. the template boundaries (join locations between individual templates) are determined by the geometry, alignments and radii of your track plan. Often in models we need to use shorter lengths and sharper radii than the prototype. 2. the rail lengths, rail joints and sleeper spacings are determined by the practice of your chosen prototype. Often a template boundary coincides with a rail joint, but not always. As Roy said, it's usually better to get the overall design done before thinking about the details of rail joints and sleepering. Otherwise you risk wasting a lot of work on that if you later find it necessary to modify the design. If you watched my live session last week you probably noticed ...

... topic: 1841 Symetrical 3 way turnouts 1:5.25 and 1:7 posted: 21 Feb 2012 14:50 from: Geoff Cook Hi I have created a 1:5.25 symetrical 3 way turnout which I needed one set of blades tips to be 30" (one timber spacing) behind (shorter) than the others, I did this by having one turnout with B semi curved switch and the other turnout with 12' loosed heeled switch, the difference between the blades tips being 9.911mm (29.7") Having succesfully done it at an angle of 1:5.25, I needed to create another symetrical 3 way with crossing angles of 1:7, doing it the same way as I have done for the 1:5.25 fails to work the point blades are only 0.86mm shorter I understand that I could do a custom version of the 12' loosed heeled switch by shortening the blades by 30" to give the results that I need Its just that I cant understand why it is different doing it on a 1:7 compared to ...

... make a new single slip video. It has taken me much longer than I expected but it is now ready. This is my first serious attempt at using the new FBR format, so please treat this as a first draft version. I would welcome comments and feedback. The idea of the new format is to combine a written tutorial with video in the same file, so that I don't have to do everything twice. I'm not entirely sure the idea has worked. Perhaps it should have been split into 2 or 3 shorter videos? How do you find the font size? It is much smaller than my eyes find comfortable, but if it's larger the text panels obscure too much of the video frame. The video is available in two formats: 1. click this link to download the FBR video file. It may take a few seconds (20MB): http://templot.com/fbr/ladder_single_slip_v2.fbr When run from your browser it should open directly in the Templot Video Player* which is already on your system if you have installed ...

... the leading edge of the flange reaches the point rail. The rear corner of the flange is radiused, so even if it does contact the nose of the point rail it should be no more than a glancing contact and be deflected to the back of it. This is the reason that fixed K-crossings are not permitted for angles flatter than 1:8 -- the distance from the check rail to the point rail is too far. Movable K-crossings (switch diamonds) are used for flatter angles (and shorter ones, if any of the tracks are curved). regards, Martin. posted: 9 Mar 2016 22:03 from: DerekStuart Martin Wynne wrote: DerekStuart wrote: From the diagrams it does seem that the back of the point rail is just a standard flangeway gap from the wing rail. How it doesn't get hit by the back of the flange I don't know Hi Derek, As I explained, the rear edge of the flange is still in contact with the check rail when the leading edge of the flange ...

... Main what is the advantage? I still have to maintain a differential height and the distance between the junction and the crossing point has not changed. So the climbing gradient will be the same as the previous falling gradient. In addition, the falling gradient will become a climbing gradient for traffic leaving the Terminus. Hi Brian, I meant something like this, replacing the burrowing junction with a flying junction: brian_tuckey1.png The long rising gradient up to the terminus runs from A to B. Departing trains on the falling gradient have a shorter steeper fall from C to D. The through routes are now straight, which I think is what you wanted originally. Unless I've missed something obvious? regards, Martin. posted: 17 Aug 2007 04:18 from: BTuckey Martin Wynne wrote: The long rising gradient up to the terminus runs from A to B. Departing trains on the falling gradient have a shorter steeper fall from C to D. The through routes are now straight, which I think is what you wanted originally. Unless I've missed something obvious ...

... am planning on modelling the station in 1929 but this was the closest map I could find. Before putting the plan into Templot, I modified it using Paintshop Pro in the following ways:1 Changed the angle of Old Charlton Road (the one in the top left of the picture) to make it more vertical and deleted the bottom two houses north of Station Road, so the houses are now Nos 8, 10, 12 and 14 going from Station Road northwards.2 Deleted at least 3 houses from Station Road to make it shorter to reduce the length of the platforms- it could hold a 12 carriage emu (possibly even a 16 carriage one) and I wanted to restrict it to 4 carriages not including the head shunt to the west of the crossover.3 Moved the turntable further west as well shortening the Up platform (the northern one)4 Reduced the Down Platform (the southern one) mostly to the west of the station building and in the process deleted most of the small orchard to the west of the station approach5 Cut the straight lines to ...

... -throw turnouts is that they often result in the V-crossings being opposite each other and therefore not properly checked for the middle road. Martin, I am running into this problem with designing some tandem turnouts, where the crossing noses for the middle road were getting very close to being opposite each other. To check them properly, it would look as though putting them exactly opposite each other and using the wing rails as check rails would do the job. I can see that the wing rail will be a fair bit shorter on the switch side of the crossing than a normal check rail- is this the objection to having such a formation? Jim. posted: 29 Mar 2012 22:14 from: Alan Turner mike47j wrote: In this photo http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/g /greenwich_park/index1.shtml It looks as if there might be extra check rails for the approach to middle road. Also the map labels that road as Engine Pit so it might not have been used very often. that's not a three throw it's a ...

... advance Attachment: attach_2404_3008_Crossing.jpg 361 posted: 11 Apr 2017 11:07 from: Martin Wynne Hi Panos, Have one template as the control template and the other as the background template. Click on the background template to get its menu on the left. On that menu click peg/align tools> make diamond-crossing at intersection menu item. However, that works only where the resulting diamond-crossing is flatter than 1:1.5 angle. Looking at your screenshot, it seems that you may be looking for a much shorter crossing than that. In which case you would need to create it manually using multiple partial templates. You also need some detailed prototype data, because there is nothing standard about short-angle crossings, they vary by company, period and location. There is a drawing in this 10-year-old topic, but I don't know how relevant it will be to your prototype: topic 160- message 812 regards, Martin. posted: 11 Apr 2017 21:43 from: Panos Tsirigotis Many thanks posted: 11 ...

... way to apply it to all the track? geometry> trackbed edges> modify group to match More info: geometry> trackbed edges>? trackbed- help regards, Martin. posted: 11 Jun 2017 12:41 from: Michael Henfrey Thanks posted: 12 Jun 2017 17:24 from: Michael Henfrey all the timbers have been nudged I think. I hope I have done them right as I didn't touch any supporting the vee's or checkrails or where the tiebar needs to go. I have taken to cutting some sleepers shorter rather than adding in lots of long ones. Track edges have also been done Next step is to try and align the templates and glue them down onto smaller cork sections so I can make them up a section at a time in a more comfy location Attachment: attach_2450_3030_theeloftplan5.box 293 posted: 23 Jul 2017 11:24 from: Michael Henfrey Hi all, Due to the space in my loft my goods yard was still getting shorter so I had a little idea.. I have removed it from the back of the station ...

... . Generally this means you need a significant difference in the crossing angles. For example a common size is a 1:6 turnout combined with a 1:8 turnout. A difference of only 1:5 to 1:5.5 may not be enough, but some further lead length adjustment is possible on the flatter angles by increasing the crossing entry straight. I have yet to try the 9ft straight heel switch option. Is this likely to make a difference? Yes, it will significantly change the geometry. Generally using the shorter straight switches saves a lot of space on non-natural turnouts and gives you more flexibility in the design of formations. You don't have to actually build them as loose-heel switches if you don't want to -- just adopt the geometry, adding dummy heel joints. I'm currently trying to get the next program update finished. But a top priority after that will be to make a completely new tutorial and video on tandem turnouts. This topic comes up very often, and Templot2 contains changes which make it a bit ...