Templot Club Archive - Search Results
To search again, click the Back button in your browser.
Search results for: calipers
12 results found.
... fraught with issues. I notice Penlan was using what looked like one of the cheaper electronic verniers, in fact it may be the same as the one I use. I wouldn't trust it for accurate measurements. Also there's the question of why would it gauge narrow on curves, but presumably not on straights. Think this needs looking at in depth before reaching any conclusions. Cheers Nigel posted: 1 Aug 2019 13:46 from: Rob Manchester Hello Nigel, Yes, I agree with your comments. I ditched my electronic calipers a year or two back and switched to dial one's which are better in as far as they agree 99.9999% of the time with my micrometer( after doing a metric-imperial conversion) and the digital ones had a strange knack of having a flat battery each time I picked them up( cheap batteries?) I was going to suggest( tongue in cheek) that Penlan on RM had used the 3 point gauge the wrong way round- done that myself more than once on hand laid curves. Rob posted: ...
... . They're a lot easier to manipulate. Andy posted: 11 May 2018 17:24 from: Stephen Freeman Hi, Filing a lead won't help in this case as the height of the inside of the outside of the chair doesn't match the inside of the inside of the chair. All chairs are a very sloppy fit (well they don't really fit at all) as a result and none sit properly. I'll try it in the scanner to see if I can get a better result. Measurements? I'll try but my calipers aren't digital and are somewhat worn. Must keep eye open on Lidl and Aldi. posted: 11 May 2018 17:29 from: Andrew Barrowman Hayfield wrote: Please forgive me for being a bit thick, but I am just struggling a bit with the maths Appx what would a 50 chair sprue chair cost in£ 's and would it be cheaper (as in Off the Rails) if 4 or 5 sprues were printed at the same time, and if so how much I have no problems with Davids mark ...
... you can round off the sharp corner a fraction. Some P4 modellers like to skim the backs of EM wheels for a deeper flange depth than standard P4 wheels. cheers, Martin. Hi Martin, Thanks you as usual for your informed insight. Mr. Markits informed me a while back that he sold his wheels to guys running P4 track which had me puzzled even though he lists P4 axles. I guess they are skimming the backs off the wheels The only way I have of checking flange width is with the trusty dial caliper, holding one face against the wheel back and sliding the other face across the wheel tread until you feel it lifting where it meets the start of the flange. It seems to be a pretty consistent way to do it. Lets scrap the vast number of track/wheel standard for 16.2 to 18.83 layouts and just have two and we can call them 4-Casual and 4-Expert. Make the first one 16.2 gauge with 1mm flangeways and the second one 18.xx with 0.7 or 0.8mm gaps Seem to remember Iain Rice ...
... visually good for light railways as it suits the smaller stock often used even if it isn't prototypical. I do prefer the right head width for 'proper' 4mm scale layouts. A class 60 with a coal train doesn't look right on rail that is too narrow. Just my opinion. Rob posted: 31 Mar 2018 16:45 from: Stephen Freeman I know it might seem heretical but the head width of code 75 BH rail is I think approx 0.90mm and that of code 83 FB approx 0.85mm. Unless I get the calipers out, I can't subjectively tell the difference in appearance between EM (18.2mm) and P4 (18.83mm) a difference of around 0.61mm, so I don't think I'm going to be able to notice much difference in head width between Code 75 BH and Code 83 FB. Or am I missing something? Last edited on 31 Mar 2018 16:46 by Stephen Freeman posted: 31 Mar 2018 18:39 from: Martin Wynne Borg-Rail wrote: so I don't think I'm going to be able to notice much difference ...
... would -- we are a very friendly club of Templot users. Best wishes with your 00-SF layout project -- let us know how you get on. Bear in mind that I know that 00-SF works so you don't need to convince us on that score! What would be very useful would be to tell us how you get on with individual RTR models running on 00-SF. You said you have made your own 00-SF gauge tools on your lathe, so you probably have micrometers and calipers. It would be very good to know how consistent are wheel back-to-back dimensions on individual models, and how they compare with the manufacturer's published figures. If you can make a BEF gauge and report your findings that would be especially useful. BEF (Back to Effective Flange) is measured from the back of one wheel to the front of the flange on the other wheel. The gauge needs to be matched to the rail head profile where it fits against the flange -- the gauging point is just ...
... when seen on the monitor. Regards, Alan posted: 6 Aug 2010 12:53 from: kenbec Hello Alan, You said. I've been through the forum and discovered the way to create the foot of flatbottom rail; ie duplicate templates with the rail head dimension altered to the foot width I too thought this was the way and some time ago tried it out. I am intending to use Templot to design trackwork for an N gauge set up, so measuring my Peco Code 80 track with my somewhat dodgy Digital Vernier Caliper I came to the conclusion that the rail foot width is 1.3mm and the rail head .6mm. These measurements may or may not be precisely accurate but this does not affect my findings. Using Martin's suggestion to use the real> rails> rail section data menu item I entered the rail head as s1.3mm. When I printed out the test template not surprisingly the rails were 1.3mm wide and the gauge was 9mm between the inside edges. So I came to the conclusion that this was not the way to go because aligning the ...
... topic: 1816 EM& 00 gauge+/- tolerances posted: 4 Feb 2012 17:42 from: Hayfield I have just brought a digital vernier caliper, testing my trackwork and RTR track there seems to be a few hundresds of a mm variation. Even between EM Gauge Soc and C&L gauges. Some of the variation may be down to the gauge as its a cheap one, but it seems quite consintant with its readings Please what is an acceptable+ or- variation in both EM and 00 track gauge posted: 4 Feb 2012 18:22 from: Martin Wynne Hayfield wrote: Please what is an acceptable+ or- variation in both EM and 00 track gauge Hi John, To be worthy of the name a track gauge tool should be within+/- 1/2 thou (0.0005") or 0.015 mm of the specified dimension -- i.e. a range of 1 thou (0.001") or 0.03mm. That's for the track gauge tool itself. You can't expect to build track containing wooden and plastic ...
... as I can get and they do give the general picture. It can be seen that using C&L FB rail in OO-SF gauges could result in the gauge being as wide as 16.5mm track but this would surely only present an issue at the frog of a point crossing on a turnout. Trying to do FB 18.83 track could end up with gauge widening on the straight bits of track too! The pragmatic thing to do, as Martin replies, is to take up the slack in the slots and measure with calipers around the turnout crossing areas. I will ring Marcway re their rail as they don't seem to publicise an email for making contact. Thanks again for your input. Rob posted: 15 Apr 2015 21:49 from: Rob Manchester Hi, I can now confirm that Peco IL-115 FB Code 82 rail has a head width of approx 0.9mm. It therefore is a good fit for track gauges normally used on C&L's BH rail in OO-SF, EM and P4. Does anybody want to buy some ...
... !) lens that looks very promising although not been out with it yet. Raise the camera to your eye with the lens set at 35mm and then zoom out and the view is amazing. It takes 77mm filters( ouch) although my pro filter system can cope with this size and I have graduated ND filters that are good for landscapes. Do you check the sizes of jam and pickle lids when you do the shopping? Round where I live the security would be carting you away if you started taking a ruler or calipers out of your pocket.... Rob P.S. Surprised you saw the rugby match...according to the Tenbury RUFC site the kick off was 03:00- still no result details. posted: 7 Oct 2018 17:24 from: Martin Wynne Hi Rob, Tenbury 66 Stourport 3. I did think the local spectators seemed to be in a good mood. Yes, I found it difficult to find a photography forum which I liked. There must be one somewhere. I do have an unused ...
... - just the exits. Desinging a custom swich using the by Lenz given (MOROP) empirical determined dimensions seems to promise (in my opinion) the posibility to build custom turnouts with a nearly equal reliability- like she is known for the given and available Lenz turnouts can you clarify whether your scale is 1:45 or 7mm/ft (1 :43.54)? Roling Stock is 1:45. posted: 28 Feb 2019 23:21 from: Stefan Sczekalla Just to add real-world measurements using a vernier caliper: (1): 32.20mm( also measured on other curved tracks) (2): 1.80mm (3): 1.80mm( on both siedes of the frog) (4): 1.90mm (5): 32.00mm( also used on simple straight tracks) I expect the curved tracks being .20mm more wide to fix the wheel/track problems which arise due to the realy small radii( here 914mm) 3579_281813_080000000.png cheers, Stefan Last edited on 28 Feb 2019 23:22 by Stefan Sczekalla posted: 1 Mar 2019 ...
... yes i need to do better on those frogs especially the "vee" if i have it all anatomical correct in railway slang/talk/parts. I will look tomorrow with a close eye over the frogs from the three way switches. At this point i can only test if the frog is in line with the other rails by putting a strait piece of "track" in it that would act like a long flange. But it does not give the accurate dimensions/measurement for checking there distance or clearance. My caliper can tell me a lot, would that not be a option? Or a simple 4 wheel boogie? Or did i missed your point completely? Thanks for reading and sharing your knowledge, Best Igor posted: 11 Sep 2020 21:50 from: Martin Wynne Hi Igor, You can see the dimensions for each track gauge setting in the Templot gauge list: 2_111634_520000000.png For your P-32 gauge, the flangeway gap is 1.5mm, which means the check gauge (from the V-crossing to the check rail) ...
12. A3+ printer
... Paul posted: 1 Dec 2020 20:32 from: Martin Wynne Paul Boyd wrote: Talking of which, it would be nice if the calibration test sheet could have an A3 option to fill the paper more! Any error in measuring will then be a smaller percentage so hopefully more accurate. Hi Paul, But do you have a means to measure A3 size to say 0.2 mm? And a flat enough surface to lay it on? I suspect you get more accurate results by measuring the existing calibration sheet with a digital caliper and a magnifying glass. But if you can measure A3, it's easy. Set the template grid to say 25mm squares, print without calibration, and measure the grid. Calculate the calibration factors and enter them manually. Do a test print to check. That was the original method in old Templot. I made the calibration function just to make it easy and avoid the need for a calculation. cheers, Martin. posted: 1 Dec 2020 20:48 from: Paul Boyd Martin Wynne wrote: But do you ...
Search took 0.102 seconds
Back to Templot Club