Templot Club Archive - Search Results
To search again, click the Back button in your browser.
Search results for: Shorter
237 results found.
12 pages of results.
... to be used for an industrial type location where only 4 wheeled wagons and short wheelbase locomotives will be used. I am hoping the largest loco will be a Terrier or a P class, if they won't fit I will stick to 0-4 -0 tank locos. Mmmmm... that reminds me, I ought to go and look at the new Hattons Barclay! Cheers, Bryan. posted: 18 Oct 2017 15:02 from: Martin Wynne Hi Brian, You can adjust the check and wing rails much shorter than you have there. The trick is to shorten the flare length first, so that the rail length can then be shortened without losing the checking function. This is the absolute minimum Templot allows for a wing rail: 2_180947_240000000.png I think you are going to need something approaching that so that you can get the slip rail further from the K-crossing -- at present it will be almost impossible to maintain a flangeway on the slip rail and fit any K-crossing check rails. Prototypically I think an outside slip ...
62. Possible Bugs?
... working normally. Regards Alan412_011245_260000000.png Last edited on 1 Aug 2011 17:50 by Alan McMillan posted: 1 Aug 2011 17:55 from: Martin Wynne Alan McMillan wrote: I may have another one for you. The "both check rails shortened (for double slip)" menu item doesn't seem to work any more. I've used it before without problems but as you can see from the screenshot, it's selected but the checkrails have remained their normal length. Hi Alan, That function works only when the crossing angle is shorter than 1:8. For 1:8 and flatter, there isn't room between the rails to get the slip switch close enough to the crossing to need shortened check rails. It's always been that way, but I will think about some way to explain it when selected. regards, Martin. posted: 1 Aug 2011 18:01 from: Alan Turner Works for me. 42_011300_530000000.png regards Alan posted: 1 Aug 2011 18:21 from: Alan McMillan Martin Wynne wrote: That function works only when the crossing ...
... . For such a tandem it would be necessary to use a gaunt turnout instead for the 3rd crossing (as used in the double-sided tandems). Thanks for reporting this. I will put additional checks on the starting size in the next update, and do some more testing. If it seems that the no-fit exception will occur for reasonable turnout sizes, I will add a fresh block of code to switch to a gaunt turnout for the 3rd V-crossing. But a gaunt turnout won't fit for the shorter single-sided tandems, which is why they are using an irregular half-diamond. As I mentioned before I started all this, tandems are not simple. regards, Martin. posted: 16 Jan 2018 14:35 from: Rob Manchester Martin, No, I wasn't trying the find tandems that would break the system. The daft unusual starting turnout on this one was just because I had a track plan with one in it and wanted to play around with what would suit. My fault there for not realising ...
... We want to use the minimum land area necessary. Let us further assume a minimum 3 carriages to work out lengths of platforms over and above clearance and headway to allow release. Now the 'how long is a piece of string' question- what prototypical switch/points/crossing configuration allows the minimum safe working length of the scissors crossing? Hmm! Any ideas? Dave posted: 20 May 2015 01:51 from: Martin Wynne Hi Dave, If Castle class locos are using the crossover I doubt it would be anything shorter than B-8 and more likely C-10. Even then the platform edges will need a cut-back section to clear the loco overhangs while crossing over. Generally an arrangement such as you describe would be more typical of a suburban terminus, using smaller locomotives. For a main-line terminus a middle release road is more likely, or else incoming locomotives are released by the station pilot loco removing the stock to another platform, or to the carriage sidings. Alternatively, if space is very tight, you ...
... moving the rails too. Just shove individually as needed. Use the roll rails function to move everything and keep the sleepers in sync with joints. Have a look at the track in the diesel loco picture you posted. In the foreground track you can see the closed up sleepers at the rail joint, and count a standard 24 sleepers/60ft length back to the vee rail joint. On the other track, under the loco, the rail joint is about 8 sleepers closer to the vee -- so this is a shorter non-standard rail length. It's likely that the sleepers have all been shoved about to interleave with the foreground ones, but maintaining the closed up spacing at the joints at each end. cheers, Martin. posted: 7 Jul 2020 21:47 from: Julian Roberts 3591_080322_430000000.png 3591_080323_340000000.png 3591_071112_390000000.png Last edited on 8 Jul 2020 08:25 by Julian Roberts posted: 8 Jul 2020 08:32 from: Julian Roberts Hi Martin and folks I've seen here that arranging sleepering is not always matter of right and wrong, and ...
... any other way of doing it. If it helps in terms of timbering practice, the track was originally laid by the NER but was likely to have been renewed by BR by the time period of my layout. Templot-1.jpg Last edited on 30 Dec 2019 09:52 by johndon posted: 30 Dec 2019 15:38 from: wcampbell23 Have you considered changing the timbering of the turnout just above the crossing to equalized- incremental as shown in the menu below? 54_301036_520000000.jpg This may give you enough elbow room to use shorter timbers. Regards. Bill Campbell. Last edited on 30 Dec 2019 16:11 by wcampbell23 posted: 30 Dec 2019 17:25 from: alan@york Here the timbers cross 1 1/2 tracks... an option for you.1953_301223_560000000.jpg Last edited on 30 Dec 2019 17:26 by alan@york posted: 30 Dec 2019 21:13 from: Phil O I have seen spliced timbering, where the two halves have been joined with a fishplate chair screwed to the two halves. Phil Last edited on ...
... is that it seems that I don't have to shell out for a new scanner just yet, maybe the 1670 overheard that it was to be replaced and had second thoughts about retirement. p.s. John, Did you re-route the USB cable, or uncoil it or move it away from monitor/mains cables? I have found (unlike HP/Canon, which work on any old bit of wire) that with all Epson stuff it is always very iffy about the connections. It needs a high-quality or shorter USB cable to work reliably. You also need to connect/switch it on in the right order, making sure it is on and the ready light has stopped flashing before launching its software. cheers, Martin. posted: 26 Dec 2019 15:41 from: John Shelley Martin Wynne wrote p.s. John, Did you re-route the USB cable, or uncoil it or move it away from monitor/mains cables? I have found (unlike HP/Canon, which work on any old bit of wire ...
... topic: 3797 Bullhead fishplates posted: 11 Oct 2020 23:37 from: Rob Manchester Hello, Is there any pattern or reason behind the use of short 2-bolt fishplates for joining bullhead rails? I remember them being mentioned in a topic a while back but a quick search didn't find it. Were there regional variations in their use? I am guessing they would not have been used in faster main line settings or in more recent times. "British Railway Track" does mention the use of these shorter 9 inch fishplates and comments that 4 bolt fishplates were the best option. Here is a poor quality pic( of GWR origin?) 2001_111830_180000000.jpg Should we be putting these on a few lightly used sidings? Rob posted: 12 Oct 2020 00:08 from: Matt M. Hi Rob. These were popular pre WW2. The Idea is they leave a shorter unsupported length of rail at the ends of the panels. This was supposed to counteract dip which is an issue at rail joins which collect excessive wear and damage as the ...
... I first thought.... posted: 20 Dec 2007 02:54 from: Paul Boyd Somehow I thought that 1:10 slip would have a larger radius on the slip roads and therefore allow long wheelbase locos such as 9F's to run through more easily. From your comment, I assume there is more to it than I first thought.... Actually, ignore my comment- I've just knocked up a 1:10 double slip in P4 (in Templot!), and it works fine! It's shorter angles I was thinking of that will give a problem The K-crossing bit is still valid though Last edited on 20 Dec 2007 02:59 by Paul Boyd posted: 20 Dec 2007 03:05 from: Martin Wynne Hi Gordon, Some confusion here. The presence of slip roads is irrelevant. The question relates to the K-crossings forming the centre of the base diamond-crossing. I strongly recommend that you don't try to build 00 gauge K-crossings as flat as 1:10 with fixed K ...
... I have no idea what this formation would be called! Suggestions on a postcard please... Hi Paul, At first sight it's an outside slip. But the slip road is the running line with switch deflections over the diamond. So I've no idea what you call that! I noticed the Barry slip there too, so this is obviously a Boyd slip. Excellent work, whatever you call it. Perhaps the check rail on template 22 could be extended to meet the diamond point rail, or else it needs a shorter flare length. At present the flare is opposite the knuckle on the V-crossing, so it's not fully checked. regards, Martin. posted: 9 Feb 2009 20:34 from: Paul Boyd Just had a look at the One And Only Track Reference Book, and there shouldn't be a timber in the centre of the diamond in this case. On the GWR at least, for fixed elbows up to 1 in 5 this timber was omitted. Because this diamond is around 1 in 3, it doesn't even ...
... . Templot should reflect the resultant sleeper spacings on a curved template but I do not know if this is the case. Derek posted: 15 Mar 2010 20:00 from: Martin Wynne Dellboy wrote: Templot should reflect the resultant sleeper spacings on a curved template but I do not know if this is the case. Hi Derek, Unfortunately no, it doesn't. You are correct that the sleeper centres should be measured along the long rail on a curve. Specially made and drilled "short rails" (usually 3 inches shorter than the standard rail length) are introduced on the inside rail when the joint stagger has exceeded 1.1/2 inches. It has not (yet) been possible to introduce this feature in Templot, partly because of the complexity for S-curve transitions (where the short rail swaps sides), but mainly because of the effect of the much smaller than prototype model radii. For example, a 60ft scale outer rail on a 1200mm radius in EM requires every inner rail to be only 59ft long. That's a lot ...
... check flares bent or machined? I assumed machined, but on a closer look at the photo I think they are probably bent. You posted a drawing of a tandem with 1:7 angles both ways. It clearly needs to have the same angle both ways to create the parallel platform track, if both tandems are to match the drawing. But you say they are different? Do you have a drawing of that -- I can see in the photo that the left divergence of the first one might be at a shorter angle than the right divergence, camera lens permitting. If they are different, does the tandem drawing you posted have any actual relevance to this location? Looking closely at the drawing I see the crossing angles should be RAM -- the angle specified is in grads (1 /100th of a right-angle). cheers, Martin. posted: 13 Jul 2019 17:07 from: Martin Wynne Bernard Haste wrote: I didn`t make it clear previously. The two three ways are not identical. One ...
... a long entry-straight to the V-crossing -- the base moulding for the V-crossing is symmetrical (equalized timbering) so that the same base moulding can be used for both hands of turnout and for the diamond-crossing. In fact the left-hand turnout here has a right-hand V-crossing as regards the vee point rail. I've always assumed that the Y turnout also used the same V-crossing base, but the radius figure quoted (see below) suggests that it is much shorter -- presumably 16 degrees. Anyone? I'm puzzled by your reference to a curved turnout. I didn't know they made one, and it's not listed on the current Peco web site: TURNOUTS& CROSSING, Code 124 Bullhead Nickel Silver Rail: Catch turnout R/H Catch turnout L/H Y Medium radius (1828mm, 72") Turnout Electrofrog Medium radius (1828mm, 72") Turnout R/H Electofrog Medium radius (1828mm, 72'') Turnout L/H Electrofrog Long Crossing (8 ...
... even without calibration. An idea of the cost would also be welcome. Seasons Greetings and stay safe. Rob posted: 23 Dec 2020 21:38 from: stuart1600 Rob, My plans were certainly accurate; but as a precaution I took a short plan of a couple of turnout templates initially and checked those for accuracy- they were spot on, so I then went back with the long layout plans.... From memory I think I paid around £50 for the 9m plan and a couple of other much shorter ones. I got the idea that they didn't often do printing on this scale and so there was no list of prices, the lady who served me simply throught of what seemed like an appropriate figure! Again from memory, I think they did have prices for standard drawing sizes (such as those that would accompany a planning application, A1?)- £10 comes to mind. Apologies for not signing previous posts- other forums that I'm on have a 'signature' facility which provides a sign-off automatically; ...
75. Convert Group
... still be a bug which I need to find. But on those turnouts there is a slight discrepancy caused by the crossing flangeway dimensions. For S7 in Templot the flangeway is 1.05mm*. A 4/7ths conversion of that would give 0.60mm, but the crossing flangeway for S4-X is fractionally smaller than that at 0.58mm. The auto-fit entry straight is derived from the flangeway gap (this is for model reasons, nothing to do with the prototype). A fractionally smaller flangeway gap will result in a slightly shorter entry straight. Which in turn produces a longer turnout lead length. A whole number of timbers has to be fitted into that, and a slight lengthening can mean one extra timber is needed to avoid exceeding the maximum fill spacing. And on all templates the track gauge conversion is fractionally out at 33mm:18.83mm. To fix it, you could manually adjust the entry straight a fraction longer (CTRL+ F12). Or alternatively create a custom gauge/scale setting derived from S4-X with the flangeway gap modified ...
... For the umpteenth time over the years, I have just posted a reply on RMweb explaining the difference between regular and curviform V-crossings, and how the latter can make more space in a cramped yard. It may as well be copied here: I fear there is insufficient room in the yard for a loading gauge or a crane Both of your turnouts need to be changed to curviform type V-crossings. This will improve the line of the curves and make more space. You might find that you could then use shorter turnouts. To change the type of V-crossing, click the green R indicator so that it changes to C: 2_200116_490000000.png You can see that in a regular V-crossing the part of the turnout marked in yellow is curving in the same direction as the main road. Changing to curviform causes that part of the turnout to curve away from the main road, creating more space between the tracks if the tracks are diverging. Changing to a curviform V-crossing also eases the diverging radius, in many cases allowing ...
... topic: 1268 Junction for Manchester Ship Canal sidings posted: 10 Oct 2010 00:40 from: Martin Wynne Some interesting trackwork in this pic just posted on RMweb of a sharply curved double junction. On the left the double junction has a switch-diamond because of the severity of the curve, even though the angle is probably shorter than 1:8 and would have been OK for a fixed diamond in straight track. On the right the turnout in the yard has a couple of single-blade catch points within it acting as traps, and the curve is continuously check-railed. See: image #22907 regards, Martin. posted: 10 Oct 2010 17:52 from: lippydavies Junction is actually the exit from the former Arley loco holding sidings around towards Arpley sidings. Line the 60 is coming from is known as Latchford and comprises 2 runround lines one of which was formally the Cheshire Lines route to Skelton junction shut in early 1980s now part of the Transpennine cycle route. Lee posted: 10 Oct 2010 19:43 from ...
... topic: 1470 Crossing angle warning posted: 30 Apr 2011 17:33 from: Paul Boyd Hi Martin I've decided that I'm fed up with "warning: 1:3 crossing angle is shorter than 1:4" Yes, I know it is! This is actually for a half-diamond so the warning isn't really relevant- could you consider losing it from the next PUG? Please posted: 1 May 2011 09:35 from: Martin Wynne Paul Boyd wrote: I've decided that I'm fed up with "warning: 1:3 crossing angle is shorter than 1:4" Yes, I know it is! This is actually for a half-diamond so the warning isn't really relevant- could you consider losing it from the next PUG? Please Hi Paul, Yes, I had already removed it for half-diamond templates. The warning will show only for turnouts, and only if the track gauge is wider than 4ft. That also fixes the bug which allows the warning to go on showing after converting to plain track ...
... internet check. If you are determined to go ahead could I ask that the check is still attempted and the user advised what version of Templot2 they are using and what the current version number is? Please don't get down-hearted- have another glass of wine or whatever tipple you fancy and the world will not seem so bad. Kind regards Peter posted: 3 Oct 2018 18:57 from: Phil O Martin, I have too agree with the others, I'm pretty sure that I don't always use all of the shorter ways of doing things, probably because I am ignorant of their existence, but as long as I can achieve what I set out do, I'm happy and if I get stuck I holler. I have seen various Templot demonstrations and learnt a trick or two and I have also taught the demonstrator a trick or two. So I wouldn't be so hard on yourself, currently we are all using the same version, with the possible exception of one or two who might still be using version 0. At least you know ...
... . I'm using WinXP Home running the latest update of Firefox. Jim. posted: 29 Jul 2007 15:57 from: Martin Wynne Hi Jim, Sorry you are having trouble. I'm also using XP Home and the latest Firefox update, and I haven't had the problems you mentioned. So I'm a bit puzzled what to suggest. Anyone else? Maybe there is a setting in Firefox somewhere which affects this. Perhaps it is related to the length of the quoted section -- I tend to trim long original messages into shorter quoted sections. Also after doing a Preview I almost invariably change something in the editor, maybe that makes a difference. The next time it happens could you (a) not edit it, so I can check what's in the database (send a fresh message instead) and (b) send me a txt file of the page source? In Firefox that's View> Page Source and then File> Save Page As... Many thanks. More generally, if anyone needs to make a major change to a ...
Search took 0.146 seconds
Back to Templot Club