... modelling will depend on the switch type you can use, certainly all the yard turnouts will use GW old type 10 ft switches. The GW flexible switches were not introduced until the 1920 and so would not have been cascaded down to branch lines until the mid thirties at the very least. The turnouts at Cranmore on the East Somerset Railway still have GW old type switches in place. The only new turnouts are on Network Rail in connection with the quarry traffic which are in flat bottom. Also GW check/guard rails are shorter than their BR REA counter parts only covering 4 sleepers. Have a look at GWR switch and crossing practice by David Smith available from the Great Western Study Group. Cheers Phil posted: 29 Aug 2011 09:24 from: Rich Pedder Changes have now been made to get GW 10s in the yard and GW 12s on the through line, Is there anything GW specific that would need to be changed on the single slip? Updated file now attached. Thanks for the help so far. Attachment: attach_1161_1608_Cheddar_mk4.0.box 280 posted: ...

... K crossing check rails before since I usually work in P87, P4 or S7 and I only discovered that command today. I just forgot to reset the drawing after I'd done it. Hi Alan, I know why you had to fiddle about with the K-crossing check rails. I was referring instead to the V-crossing check rails being on separate templates -- they can be part of the half-diamond templates, and there is a function to shorten them by a suitable amount to clear the switches for slips shorter than 1:8, that's at real> customize V-crossing> half-diamond check rails> menu options. regards, Martin. posted: 20 Dec 2009 14:16 from: Alan McMillan We learn something new every day!" I've always done that bit by entering the wing rail sizes manually! Alan Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Share and show> FS0 B6 Double Slip problem about Templot Club ...

... by RedgateModels posted: 1 Nov 2011 16:27 from: Martin Wynne Hi Ian, 1:4 is too short for an inside slip. The radius would be too tight and constructing the K-crossings would be extremely difficult. The usual way to deal with such a situation is to use an outside slip instead, like this: 46_060821_570000000.jpg Your plan includes some A-4 turnouts. An A switch is really too long for a 1:4 V-crossing. You would get an easier radius, and have shorter turnouts to save some space, by changing to a 9ft straight switch instead. That's at template> switch options... menu item. Your file contains 106 templates of which 91 are unused. If the unused ones are no longer wanted you can remove them by clicking the box> delete unused templates menu item on the storage box menus. regards, Martin. posted: 1 Nov 2011 16:39 from: RedgateModels Thanks Martin, I kinda thought that and have re-done it using a 1:6 ...

... Adrian, That's great! The forum software allows only one attachment per message. Which is fine, because you can add a caption to each without any confusion about which picture you mean. As you say, I think you may have stretched the gimped image too much lengthwise. Those switches don't look like 18ft and 15ft switches in the original -- that would be equivalent to D and C running-line switches. Judging by the number of timbers the switch rails are spanning I think they are probably 12ft switches. Maybe shorter. It's fun to do though isn't it? Many thanks for the gimping feedback. I may have a go at it myself and we can compare notes. regards, Martin. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Prototype pics> Point rodding pics+ Gimping turnout photos about Templot Club Templot Companion- User Guide- A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important information for new members and first-time ...

... narrower because you won't be able to reach the middle"- curse him, despite haveing a negative interest in model railways, he was right! Anyway, attached is the "final" (cough) layout and the background file- it may be of interest for those considering 0-FS to compare the diamonds now with the originals (they havn't moved since the original plan). There is one oustanding question though- the slip road on the single slip hits the check rails- what would be the soultion here? Shorter check rails, or maybe make the "junction" into a traingle? Any suggestions welcome. Cheers Richard Attachment: attach_252_261_sodding_final_3.box 376 Last edited on posted: 16 Mar 2008 18:07 by BeamEnds 16 Mar 2008 18:07 from: BeamEnds.... and heres the background file.... Cheers Richard Attachment: attach_253_261_soddinghell3.bgs 372 Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Share and show> Soddingham-under- ...

... the measure tool in gimp to check the gauge is constant through the turnout before loading it into Templot. Looks are deceptive, in the photo it looks like the gauge is wider at the top than the bottom, but the gauge is in fact a constant width through the turnout. Attachment: attach_211_314_3way_measure.jpg 319 Last edited on 15 Jan 2008 05:15 by Adrian posted: 15 Jan 2008 05:29 from: Adrian On my previous attempt I stretched the image too much in Templot so on Martyns suggestion tried something a little shorter. So this attempt is a 12ft switch and a 1:6 crossing. Looking reasonable I'd be happy to using at this standard but it's not quite right on the match. The curve on the rails on the turnout sides doesn't quite match between the switch and the crossing. Using a slightly shallower crossing might help but increases the overall length. I'll still perservere because it's been quite instructive in the geometry of the turnouts and the interaction between the switch settings and crossing. Adrian Attachment: attach_212_314_3way_m3.jpg 308 posted: 17 Jan ...

... thought to this while cutting the grass. At present the template number simply represents its position in the storage box list, so the number changes as templates are inserted, deleted, etc., or the list is re-ordered on the storage box. I can see the advantage of giving each template additionally a fixed ID number which wouldn't change, and which could be printed as part of the timber reference instead of the list number. In principle this is not different from the template name, but it would be much shorter and created automatically without user effort. Thinking about it. regards, Martin. posted: 18 Apr 2013 17:49 from: LSWRArt Richard Spratt wrote: I'd like Templot to stop renumbering the templates every time as it gets confusing having two with the same number when you find a sleeper or something minor that needs editing half way through printing a large diagram. I agree with Richard about the template numbering. If I design the layout logically, then the numbers follow in successive areas, but if I edit something, ...

... them a tighter radius than the standard Templot ones but I'm not sure that I've made the radius tight enough. It's also a bit difficult to put a tightish radius on Code 180 bullhead and I suspect that I might need to make some king of press tool to do it in a vice. I've just popped outside to remind myself of what I have done- I store the track on the baseboards outside- plenty of room out there and that's where they are going to finish up in any case. I've basically used a shorter version of the Templot default straight bend but with a larger angle to give the same distance between the rail and the check rail flare end. I've gone back to the drawings on the oldpway site and one of them gives a largish drawing of a crossing nose and wing rails with some dimensions so it should be possible to work out what the bend length and radius should be to give a distance of 3 1/2" at the end of the flare. http://oldpway.info/drawings/1900pc_pl02_CalR_xings.pdf Martin might ...

... would be used in a yard. What would be the minimum sized pointwork& what would be the maximum sized points used I.E B6 C10 etc etc. Hopefully once this is cleared up i can design the layout a bit better knowing that the pointwork is correct. Many thanks. Hi Alberta Yard trackwork is normally cascaded down track so can be 20 or 30 years old before it is put in to a yard, so with out knowing the period you wish to model I cannot be user explicit, but usually it is the shorter end of crossings and switches used on main (passenger or freight) line turnouts that are used in yards but geographical considerations also have to be taken into account. Probably not much use but it may point you in the right direction. Cheers Phil posted: 8 Mar 2009 17:36 from: Martin Wynne Alberta, wrote: I am trying to design a new layout based on modern practice& I would like to know what kind of sized pointwork would be used in a yard. What would be the minimum sized ...

... sections will be made from C& L parts I thought I would try and get it as right as possible. Was the straight track in 60' lengths please? Hi John, For the main lines of the Southern Region of British Railways, yes. For the Southern Railway pre-nationalisation rail lengths will have varied across the various constituent pre-grouping companies. Bear in mind that track on branch lines, and especially in yards and sidings, can go many decades between renewals. So you could expect to find older shorter rails in such places well into the BR period. Were the end sleepers in each section the slimmer plain track size or the wider timber width? 12" wide joint sleepers were common in the pre-group period, but not usually with later 60ft rails in the BR period. They would then be standard sleepers at the rail joints. Finally was the gap between the sleepers thinner at the ends where they joined or the same width please? Rail joints always have the timbers closed up on each side of the joint ...