Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 16:11 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi All, Having gone down numerous false alley’s, I finally managed to get a lead on the correct layout plan for Birmingham New Street c1938.  My quest finally led to Birmingham Central Library (BCL) archive department, where I discovered, whilst spending a whole day there, an original copy of an L & NWR 1921 plan of the station (there was also a 1929 version of the same plan, but not in such good condition). After some further investigations, I was satisfied, as it was verified that the station layout remained in that state up until during and just shortly after WW2, when subtle changes were made to the layout, culminated in the usual plans c1950, we see in books today. Whilst at BCL I took more than a hundred photographs of these plans and many other documents of interest.  After some six weeks, and much negotiation, since my visit to BCL, I have finally managed to get them to copy the 1921 plan, and was told only Friday, that the copy has been posted and should be with me in a few days. In the meantime, I started to try and scale from the photo’s I took of the plan, but am not 100% happy about accuracy due to many factors. However, the photo’s have allowed me to view some of the problems I am facing, so I have been practicing in TEMPLOT trying to produce the right templates. The attached photo shows one of those problem areas on the plan, the major concern here is the 4 way split just below the diamond crossing (or single slip), which is made up of three sets of turnouts combining into the 4 way. The problem I have is that these turnouts are Split turnouts, which curve away from each other. My first question is do templates for split turnouts exist in TEMPLOT ?  My next question is how do I go about making this 4 way “junction” ? If anyone uses the photo as a Background Shape, needless to say you will need to convert to bitmap format. Also when calling in the shape in TEMPLOT, when it asks for photo width, try putting in ‘840’ mm and this will give a good approx track width in TEMPLOT of P4 scale size. Any help will be greatly appreciated.  Very best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
| Attachment: attach_824_1178_BirminghamNS1_117-D.jpg 268 | |||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 17:00 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote:My first question is do templates for split turnouts exist in TEMPLOT ?Hi Brian, Interesting plan.  Thanks for uploading it. That will be a very impressive formation.Why do you think these are split switches? I have just doodled on your plan, and the centre road (coloured yellow) appears to be straight, at least as far as the 2nd V-crossing. All the switches are in that road, so they will be ordinary handed switches, not split. Split switches can be created by rotating a partial template on CTRL-2, but I don't think you will need them. More about that in the Y-symm tutorial at: http://www.templot.com/martweb/y_symm.htm and an update at: topic 603 - message 3398 What gauge/scale are you using? If not P4/S7 etc., you may have difficulty finding space for all the check rails in a 4-way. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 17:29 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Brian Nicholls wrote: Hi Martin, Thanks for your response. As you say it is, as I would rather put it, a difficult formation, and there are 5 or 6 of them dotted about on the whole station layout plan so lots of headaches !  Why I think these are split switches is, If you take the switch nearest the over bridge, this consists of the track coming down from the diamond crossing and the resulting track from the other two switches. This looks to me as a Split Switch, however, I will take a closer look and bow down to your expertise. I will certainly look at the tutorial you have mentioned, remember I’m still learning. I will be using P4 gauge for this project, and what you say about spacing for check rails has concerned me. I hope this is not the case, as I see it, if they can do this on the real thing, then why not at true P4 prototypical scale !. I think once I get the correct plan through the post, and scale more accurately, I hope this possible problem can be resolved I will look more closely into this and we shall just have to see what shapes up. Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 17:49 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian Nicholls wrote:I will be using P4 gauge for this project, and what you say about spacing for check rails has concerned me. hope this is not the case, as I see it, if they can do this on the real thing, then why not at true P4 prototypical scale !.Hi Brian, Indeed. I said if not P4, etc. You shouldn't have any difficulty in P4. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 17:57 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Hi Brian, Hi Martin, Sorry, must not have been wearing my specs, when I read that part, no offence intended. Thanks again, Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 25 Jul 2010 22:12 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Brian, Just a thing to consider when you are drawing it out - things could get a bit tight on the leftmost switch and the two crossings following it, where rails are a bit short in length and you are going to have to put isolating gaps in them for two rail powering. It's worth considering where you are going to make the isolating gaps so that any short rails will have at least two points of support, and the switch blades can be anchored or pivoted - which has knock-ons on how you do the timbering. Jim. |
||
|
posted: 26 Jul 2010 13:48 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: Brian, Hi Jim, You hit the nail right on the head there, this is exactly the information I was looking for, from the experienced in the group. When I first took a look at the photo’s, this particular formation gave me some concerns, and as I stated in my last post, there are 5 or 6 of them around the station. I think as you say, a bit of careful planning is required. I may well come back on this point a little later, as I suspect that I will need a number of awkward long timbers for this formation, to say nothing about the positions and orientation of them. Much to think about there. !! Many thanks for your input. All the best. Brian Nicholls. |
||
|
posted: 26 Jul 2010 19:54 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote:
Hi Martin, I have had another go at the complex formation that I posted earlier. It appears you were right, all the switches in the 4 way are indeed ordinary handed switches, not split. I have uploaded the box file of my last attempt, however this is not yet complete as I am sure you will rightly point out. I must admit, it will be interesting to get your reaction to the attempt, as I am still learning the ropes. As you will see, there are a couple of crossings that still need to be sorted, however, this as stated is a quick attempt and advice would be very much appreciated. Best regards, Brian Nicholls. |
||
| Attachment: attach_826_1178_BhamNSS_117BCL-E.box 198 | |||
| Please read this important note about copyright: Unless stated otherwise, all the files submitted to this web site are copyright and the property of the respective contributor. You are welcome to use them for your own personal non-commercial purposes, and in your messages on this web site. If you want to publish any of this material elsewhere or use it commercially, you must first obtain the owner's permission to do so. |