Templot Club Archive - Search Results
To search again, click the Back button in your browser.
Search results for: incline
107 results found.
6 pages of results.
... better. Thanks both, very enlightening. I'm happy to figure the conflicts as I build the points, but at least now I know what is more or less prototypical. posted: 4 Feb 2012 22:31 from: Nigel Brown The real engineers in practice had to fiddle around to get things to fit, so following that is prototypical practice! I notice there's a timber intruding on the tie-bar area of your turnout 65. Whether this actually matters depends on how you're doing your tie-bars. I'd be inclined to extend the timbers on either side of the tie-bar so that they serve the adjacent track as well, and use long timbers, suitably angled where necessary, between there and the 3-way. Nigel posted: 4 Feb 2012 23:05 from: Katier Nice spot nigel.. took me a while to find the timber but I see what you mean now. Then respective angles don't help!!! Had a fiddle with the timbers and also tweaked the 3 sidings to reduce the 'S' onto ...
22. gluing sleepers
... think the idea was that you fitted the staples to the sleepers before using them. I.e. drill a couple of small holes of the right distance apart lengthwise on the sleepers, on either side of where the rail should go (doesn't have to be too accurate), repeat for other rail. Insert staple and fold underneath to grip the sleeper (you might be able to use the stapler itself to achieve this). Personally I think if I was going to use some copper-clad sleepers on track, I'd be inclined to use all copper-clad. Makes life whole lot simpler. Nigel posted: 5 Apr 2012 13:12 from: Jim Guthrie Nigel Brown wrote: This was a fairly common method a while ago. Can't remember the fine detail, but I think it used small commercial staples. I think the idea was that you fitted the staples to the sleepers before using them. I.e. drill a couple of small holes of the right distance apart lengthwise on the sleepers, on either side of where the rail should go ...
... became 60 kg 7 metre blades with a 10.0 vee crossing for the main line and the cripple road turnouts remained the same as they were." posted: 29 Jun 2019 14:51 from: Matt M. Hi Mark, Are we talking the run up from Albury to Melbourne? While I'm not up with the Commonwealth Railway's per-way standards, by 1960's the Commonwealth would have been using Australian Standards. The NSWGR would also be using the same. The application may be different though. NSWGR is flat bottom, inclined track but not inclined through formations at that time. Plating through formations are specific to time period and use in NSWGR. Not sure about VR. Or Commonwealth. I have to say that 94 lb rail with 22'6" switch and 9.75 crossing doesn't sound standard for NSWGR. 20' switch and 9 or 10 crossing is more standard. Specials are, of course, done when needed. 30' on a housed switch is also standard. I admit my knowledge of 1960's per-way is weaker as most of my ...
... the nose of the vee. Here's some stuff I have posted on RMweb a few times:____ The knuckles should be radiused, the knuckle gap being wider than the crossing flangeway gap. Here's a diagram which may help when setting the wing rail knuckles: 2_220535_490000000.png The blue infill shows the theoretical ideal with a sharp bend at K exactly matching the angle of the vee and in line with it. In practice on the prototype it is not possible to make such a sharp bend because of the 1:20 inclination of the rails. Instead, a short curve is used, as shown by the green line, making the knuckle gap wider than the flangeway gap. It works fine, and can help if replicated on the model. Some companies made this curve quite gentle and obvious as shown -- the NER for example. On the GWR the curve matches the crossing angle in feet, so for example a 1:7 crossing has the knuckle bend curved at 7ft radius. But it's important to get the flangeway gap correct alongside ...
... brain. Nowadays I keep getting side-tracked and forgetting things. I made a start on adding the double-curved vertical FB switches to Templot, but something else came up, and now I've forgotten where I got to. But I must get on with it, because a program update is long overdue. When that's done I will be able to convert your plan and you will be able to use it. Sorry about the delay. If you need it urgently I can quickly convert it to the BS-113A inclined FB, but that would pre-date most of the track in your photograph. Of course hardly anyone would know the difference in an EM model, especially if you built in some cast crossings and lengthened the check rails. regards, Martin. posted: 28 Jul 2016 19:01 from: BigAndy Hi Martin, Thanks for the speedy reply. Don't worry, to be honest, modelling has been the last thing on my mind for the last few months anyway! Anyway, hmmmmmmm, in all honesty I would ...
... topic: 3750 Google/ Bing maps& 'satellite' Vs Ordnance Survey posted: 28 Aug 2020 18:12 from: DerekStuart Good afternoon all. The discrepancies between google aerial views and OS maps has been discussed before, but I can't see at any time anyone has reached a conclusion. I have engineering drawings of some buildings- copied from original records, which I'm inclined to accept as accurate, but these do not tally up with the aerial view from either Google or Bing. The OS map again shows something different. It's enough of a difference that I would be reticent to scale the whole plan based on this discrepancy. Does anyone have any ideas, please? Or can point me in the direction of a previous discussion that reached a conclusion? (I did try searching but found nothing conclusive). Thanks Derek posted: 28 Aug 2020 18:30 from: DerekStuart Thanks to a post elsewhere from Ickdab on another matter, I will go along with his suggestion that the OS maps are more likely to be accurate than the aerial ...
... nor is there any guarantee that they are correct or represent any particular prototype. In fact I can say now that they don't and won't, because the curves and fillet radii in the original castings have to be simplified to keep the drawing complexity and file size within reasonable limits. Here for example is an REA 3-hole S1 chair generated by Templot, for BS-95R rail in 7mm/ft scale (no such model rail actually exists): 2_280838_130000000.jpg 2_280838_490000000.png Note that this is for vertical rail. Prototype rail is inclined at 1:20. Model chairs are not strong enough to maintain rail at 1:20 inclination through the various bends in pointwork. File attached below, in mm units. You will need to change the scale and modify the key and inner jaw dimensions to suit your rail. If you find it useful, do please post some pics of the results here. Have fun with your new printer. cheers, Martin. Attachment: attach_2908_3511_tc_3d_0_mf_bs95r _mm.dxf 149 posted: 28 Sep 2019 14:30 from: Tom Allen thanks ...
28. US 3 foot gauge
... 26 May 2019 01:27 from: Rob Manchester Very nice Andrew, Thanks for posting these, is there a reason you posted them now? Rob posted: 26 May 2019 01:54 from: Andrew Barrowman Rob Manchester wrote: Very nice Andrew, Thanks for posting these, is there a reason you posted them now? Rob Hi Rob, I recently returned from chasing the restored UP Big Boy among other things and I included the D&S on my eight state circular trip. It was so much fun I'm inclined to do it again Andy posted: 28 May 2020 12:31 from: Ian Allen Andrew Barrowman wrote: Rob Manchester wrote: Very nice Andrew, Thanks for posting these, is there a reason you posted them now? Rob Hi Rob, I recently returned from chasing the restored UP Big Boy among other things and I included the D&S on my eight state circular trip. It was so much fun I'm inclined to do it again Andy I have to admit I love that area of Colorado. Would enjoy ...
... : http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/139084-emgs-commissions-peco-for-rtr-em-gauge-bullhead-trackturnouts/page-15#entry3383078 That looks very good. After all these years, it's hard to believe that such things are finally being made by Peco, or at least, in their factory. Martin. Yes, it is good to have some RTL( Ready To Lay) EM track after all this time. For people without the skill, inclination or time to build their own track it will be a bonus. But surely people who model using EM gauge actually chose it because it was more acurate to scale and understood the extra work that track building, wheel conversions and the like would entail. As somebody who makes sleepers from plastikard( which gives a choice of thickness) and adds some texture using fine wire wool the only downside of the new products is that awful faux wood grain effect. Rob posted: 1 Dec 2018 01:50 from: Andrew Barrowman ...
... 00 from: Martin Wynne Some progress today on the S1 inner jaw. For dimensioning purposes I have split the inner jaw into two components. This part I have called the "stand": 2_241233_460000000.png It sets the gauge-face of the rail by locating the foot of the rail*. This assumes of course that the rail foot is the same width as the head. If not there will be a gauge_tweak setting to make final adjustments to the chair position. *vertical rail. I'm not getting into the madness of inclined rail, which in my view is unbuildable in small scale models. Behind the stand there will be an "web insert" component in the rail web, which will be dimensioned to match the rail section, in the same way as the key on the other side. The two parts of the jaw will blend together in the final render. The central rib on the REA drawing is more difficult to replicate simply than the ribs on the outer jaw. I think I have got somewhere near without getting too involved in ...
... Manchester Hi Martin, The Storage box facility to add up the total length of timbering on all or some background templates is very useful. You can group some templates( say the ones containing only plain track) to sum the sleeper lengths but templates that have S&C work inserted are mixed between two widths- such as 3.3mm/10" and 4mm/12" on an EM or P4 plan. Would it be possible in a future update( ie not now or this week/month but when you have the inclination) to show the total lengths of plain track and turnout timbering as two figures rather than rolling them into one. This would help me( and others?) in checking that sufficient materials are to hand before building comences. I realise that some scale/gauge layouts may have odd timber widths or combinations but I suspect the vast majority of plans drawn using Templot have either one width throughout or a standard plain track width/S &C width mix. Thanks Rob posted: 19 Apr 2018 23:07 from: ...
... the vee filing jig) Borg: Yep it's in the latest on the last paragraph of page 8, But it is referring to an article in MRJ 259 Last edited on 2 May 2018 17:28 by Michael Henfrey posted: 2 May 2018 18:42 from: Phil O I believe that most of the gauge narrowing, is due to the track gauges gripping more than just the head of the rail and thus holding the rail vertically, whereas the chairs are made to hold the rail with a prototypical 1 in 20 incline and thus over time the rail reverts to inclined and gives the gauge narrowing. Phil posted: 2 May 2018 19:11 from: Rob Manchester Michael Henfrey wrote: Rob: I am staining my sleepers before I put it the chairs on with Colron Jacobean dark oak I believe. I have stuck some on and they have bonded well, But the exactoscale chairs I have seem to break more easily when trying to thread them onto the rail. I do agree they have more detail though. (I am filing it ...
... all forums box is unticked The from forums ticked action setting is set to daily digests My interpretation of these settings is that I shouldn't be getting any emails, and if I did they should be in the form of daily digests. Puzzled! Wonder if the fact I've never altered any of these settings (didn't know they existed to be honest!) has anything to do with it. I'm unsure as to whether I'm getting messages from Development doings, but I'm certainly getting most messages. Before I actually alter anything (my inclination would be to tick everything and set the email setting to receive emails as they are posted), just thought I'd check to see if any light can be shed on this. Cheers Nigel posted: 30 May 2011 15:14 from: Martin Wynne Nigel Brown wrote: Before I actually alter anything (my inclination would be to tick everything and set the email setting to receive emails as they are posted), just thought I'd check to see if any light can be shed on this. Hi Nigel, You can ...
... topic: 91 Turnout selection for high speed diverging route posted: 19 Jun 2007 03:29 from: BTuckey Hi, I have a situation on a planned layout where two tracks split out into four. After the junction, the two straight lines go from 'Up and Down Main' into 'Up and Down Slow' whilst the two diverging lines become the 'Up and Down Fast'. This is because the two centre tracks (Up and Down Slow) climb up an incline before crossing over the Up Fast to run into a Terminus. This gives the unusual(?) scenario of the two diverging lines being the high speed ones. If it survives the posting, the track diagram is as follows: -- -- -- -- Up Fast------------ -- -Up Fast--------/---------Up Slow----------- -- -Down Fast-- ...
... have their tools maintained as required. As far as C+ L is concerned, we have a rolling programme of maintenance and refurbishment. In recent years I have spent in excess of £20,000- probably more, on tool maintenance. Currently our P4 track tool is being fully refurbished. Excellent. Just out of interest, will you be expanding you range of chair types? I imagine that selling turnout chairs, especially GWR pattern, might well have a ready market given that the P4TCo seem not to have any inclination to sell their sprues separately. -- Ashley posted: 9 Apr 2009 14:36 from: Stephen Freeman OK here is a photo of some C&L and Exactoscale chairs, The C&L ones are the darker brown. chairs.jpg The one to the left is the C&L 4 bolt, the 2 in the middle S1 and the righthand one is the Exactoscale Bridge Chair. I think the bolt detail on the C&L chairs is slightly better and the key detail on the Exactoscale is slightly better ...
36. Flatbottom Track
... , at that time, I just didn't feel like another search. I have a file somewhat originally entitled MY OWN MANUAL which I use as a memory jogger, it mainly consists of extracts from Templot Club entries. I have since corrected this omission and will never make this mistake again. While I, hopefully, still have your attention. When I enter the s1.3 (now to be amended of course) as the rail head width a whole string of other answers is required which I leave unaltered with the exception of rail inclination angle which I set to zero. Is this correct? A further question. How do you generate a url such as the one in your response? :- message 4981 Which points to a single message in a thread. I find all of my urls in my manual point to the entire thread which means I sometimes have to wade through a lot of stuff before I get to the part of the thread I am interested in. For example, I can now copy the entry the above url points to rather than ...
37. flat bottom rail
... I would show a picture but I can't fathom out how to embed a picture. How can you tell if a length of track is canted or not, eg the picture now with Alan's e-mail on the Templot Forum, please? John posted: 27 May 2008 03:43 from: Martin Wynne John Lewis wrote: How can you tell if a length of track is canted or not, eg the picture now with Alan's e-mail on the Templot Forum, please? Hi John, If the rails are inclined, the baseplate thickness below the rail on the outside (at A) will be about 1/4" thicker than on the inside (at B): inclined_query.jpg Make your own judgement. I think they look about equal in Alan's picture, which means that the rails are vertical, not inclined. But it's difficult to be sure. Many thanks for the pic, Alan. regards, Martin. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot ...
38. Peg options
... Hi Jonathan, Untick the action> F7 snap options> snap on background templates menu option. You can also hold down the SHIFT key while doing F7 to prevent snapping. More information about F7 snapping at: http://www.templot.com/martweb/f7_snap_demo.htm regards, Martin. posted: 11 Apr 2009 16:36 from: clockwork Thanks, that seems to have worked at least it has allowed me to achieve what I have been trying to do for the last two evenings. Currently planning a possible model of the Corckle incline- the last cable worked incline the the UK closed in the mid 1980's the .box file is the point formation just after the hump- three tracks into two with a common center running rail. Jonathan Attachment: attach_538_785_corkicklehump.box 300 Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> I wish it would...> Peg options about Templot Club Templot Companion- User Guide- A-Z Index Templot Explained for beginners Please click: important ...
39. When to upgrade?
... but of immediate concern to me are: 1. I've installed version 0.74.b because that was the advice on installation. At what point should I upgrade to a later version? And how far? To a .8 version or .9? I ask this because I notice that some of the videos have commands not present in .74b. 2. This is nothing to do with Templot itself, but a more general question about 00 trackwork. I am attracted to 00-SF because the reduced flange ways look much better, and I'm inclined to believe running will be better than 00-?? (so long as B to Bs are monitored). But what is the cost in usable radii? Given that I have a penchant for 8- and 10-coupled heavy freight locos, what would be a sensible minimum – 36", 30", or something much more P4-like? Should I stick to 00-BF where presumably I could go down to 30" comfortably. 3. What method of track construction to employ? I'm not ...
40. Grindham Shed
... . These are simply personal observations (prejudices?). The line for the the coal hoist look a little close to the turntable road, do you have room there for the bank without it fouling? Regards Raymond Attachment: attach_644_929_grindham_shed_modif ied.box 180 posted: 17 Sep 2009 11:57 from: Richard Hall Hi Raymond Many thanks for your helpful reply and suggestions. I have downloaded your suggested revisions for further examination at the next "board meeting". Regarding the spacing of the coal stage line, we propose the start the incline at the point the lines diverge; this should give an incline of about 1 in 16 (rising approx 55mm over about 900mm) which seems OK, but I am happy to take further advice on this. The road was moved to this position to keep the ash pits on as straight a line as possible. Again, many thanks for your suggestions. Parts of Templot Club may not function unless you enable JavaScript (also called Active Scripting) in your browser. Templot Club> Forums> Templot talk> Grindham Shed ...
Search took 0.089 seconds
Back to Templot Club