Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 4 Aug 2010 09:58 from: grog_polymer
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Title says it all. How do I set sleeper size and spacing to match Peco flex track? Regards, Greg |
||
|
posted: 4 Aug 2010 11:27 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
grog_polymer wrote:How do I set sleeper size and spacing to match Peco flex track?Hi Greg, Easier to answer if you provide the details.  How long are the sleepers? How wide are they? How many per yard length? (or metre length?) regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 09:29 from: grog_polymer
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Lots of templot reading today - several aspects cleared up some more questions in other areas to come. Back to the plot ... I only had a piece of code 100 to go by but I believe they are the same webbing I went through the real timbers other size part. I only have code 100 track and turnouts at present as that was to be my standard until I found out how horribly things ran.... the start of the journey to OO-SF and templot. plain sleeper length 29.15 mm -> 87.45" plain sleeper width 3.13 mm -> 9.39" turnout sleeper width 3.13 mm -> 9.39" timber thickness 1.67 mm -> 5.0 " Max Fill 9.39 mm -> 28.17 " ( 3 sleeper widths) [ I just did this based on roughly what I was seeing as the defaults] End randomizing 0 Twist Factor 0 This looks to come out pretty good. Peco timbers on their turnouts are just evenly spaced. Templot makes sure that there is timber under critical places so there is obviously different spacing through part of the turnout as you would expect. But the Peco space between timbers is 4.05 mm -> 12.15" Measuring using the jotter gave me that the spacing on the plain track part of the template appeared to be 2 x sleeper width or 6.16 ( I should have zoomed and measured ). Peco is only 4.04/3.13 or about 1.3 sleeper widths. In putting this together it took me a while to figure out which template I had started with as I was playing around finding out how they differed. I have used the 1::40 model only template as a base. Can I set the sleeper spacing for plain track? Regards, Greg |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 10:29 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Greg, For plain track see: message 3703 For flexible track without prototypical rail lengths, see the program notes for CWR (long-welded rail). Set a dummy rail length equal to one sleeper spacing and set a single sleeper per "length" half-way along it. Templot expects the data in full-size inches. It will convert the model sizes in mm for you if you prefix the mm dimensions with a letter S (for "scale size"). For example, if the measured sleeper width is 3.13mm, enter s3.13 and Templot will convert it to 9.39 full-size inches automatically. But remember to set your desired gauge and scale first. There are some notes about Peco turnouts and templates exactly matching Peco which you can download from: topic 294 But Peco turnouts are not 00-SF, so I'm a bit puzzled why you want to replicate them for hand building?  peco_00h0.png  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 11:04 from: grog_polymer
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin I'll give the spacing a go tomorrow. I've been home ill for the last couple of days and I have been working though options and terminology to understand what it means. Why do I care about Peco track? The area I have to build my layout is large - about 6.5m x 5.5m. Track laying will be achievable if I can make use of normal flex track for the meandering parts of the layout and lots of parallel track. The gauge difference between Peco and OO-SF is insignificant for plain track running. So the P+C areas need to give me the running characteristics I want so OO-SF will do that. To get the track laid in my lifetime... Some/lots of flex track will certainly help. But, vastly different sleepers between P+C trackwork and plain track will stand out like ...'. ..... That's where the thinking is now. The thinking used to be code 100 insulfrog, then when I found out how poorly that ran modern RTR wheels I looked at the conventional code 75 Peco stuff. A Peco Technical Advice Bureau person responded to a question seeking to find out the flangeway spec on code 75, 100 and 83 by what I expected but hoped not to be the case. Code 75 and 100 have identical flangeway and span specifications. The code 83 being NMRA does have a better spec at 1.2mm flangeways but some modern RTR wheels I have measured at 2.37 and I suspect that may not be the narrowest. But code 83 turnouts have a US look to them as they meet several of the NMRA specifications given they are for the US outline market. BTB would still have to be changed which meant other BRMA members could not run their kit on my layout even if I did put up with the look of the US turnouts. So OO-SF was logical but track building gauges have been unavailable for some time until very recently. I got mine yesterday. I'm still not sure what to do in general PCB or plastic construction. Plastic means understanding the chairing better and learning additional technique. PCB is easy to make and can be made with very few sleepers. So for fiddle yards etc this will be quick, cheap and deliver reliable running. It allows me to get started building soon and not be concerned about chairing as an issue. I can also do complete sleepering on some and see if cosmetic chairing is viable. Sweating the joints leaves very little solder on the sleeper so it *may* be possible. Regards, Greg |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 11:26 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
grog_polymer wrote: To get the track laid in my lifetime... Some/lots of flex track will certainly help.Hi Greg, Using flex track is fine, but don't forget that SMP Scaleway or C&L 00 flexi-track will match 00-SF much better than Peco. Exactoscale also make some "Fast Track" 00 gauge flex bases for threading your own rail into. http://www.finescale.org.uk/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=51#track http://www.smpscaleway.com http://www.exactoscale.co.uk/4mmtrack.html You may find this popular RMweb topic of interest. Gordon has recently adopted 00-SF for his copper-clad pointwork, and is using SMP Scaleway flexible plain track (9 pages): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/ post-6950-126963806302_thumb.jpg  © Gordon S regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 11:42 from: grog_polymer
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin "Using flex track is fine, but don't forget that SMP Scaleway or C&L 00 flexi-track will match 00-SF much better than Peco." The thing is that for a Newbie I never knew so I didn't forget! I'll look up the references - I've just had a quick look through the Eastwood Town topic and there is plenty to look at there. I really hate taking up so much of your time but can you please tell me in what way the above better match OO-SF? Regards, Greg |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 12:44 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
grog_polymer wrote: can you please tell me in what way the above better match 00-SF?Hi Greg, I meant that if you select 00-SF in Templot you get UK-style timbering sizes and spacings by default.* Obviously you can use the 00-SF dimensions with any timbering styles or scales, such as 7mm scale narrow-gauge. But in that case you have to customize the templates in Templot accordingly. *note that if you start with one of the Peco templates and select match original on the gauge/scale dialog before changing to 00-SF, the Peco style timbering will be retained for the 00-SF template. Terry Flynn in Australia has an H0 Fine Scale equivalent of 00-SF which you may want to look at: http://www.angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 5 Aug 2010 12:55 from: grog_polymer
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Many thanks Martin, Tomorrow more play. I'm off for the night. The thing is with no options you seek at least one viable option. So I'll try using the Peco template as you say and see that work in Templot. Then with one viable I'll look up the other references from your earlier mail. The problem I find with many of the specialist groups and manufacturers is that there is a massive amount of assumed knowledge. "Here's our parts list and prices - have fun!" Regards and Good night from me, Good Day to you. Greg |
||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2010 11:19 from: roythebus
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Grog, I too am upgrading from Peco. Having built a large club exhibition layout years ago using f/s bullhead rail and pcb sleepers, I'm well used to handbuilding track. I thought Peco code 75 may be the answer to making a big layout at home, but like you, I don't really like the running qualities or the appearance. So I'm converting to SMP for plain track, I've got a lot in stock from an unfinished project from years ago, and trying to build points using the Templot OO/finescale options. ISTR asking the same questions on here a while ago about matching the Peco geometry, and to be honest it's not worth while, your running may not improve as the reverse curves on crossovers will not be any better. The answer is to go for the nearest Templot match. At least on my current layout it's not finished, so I'll be able to save the wiring loom providing I label everything and it will be a case of moving some point motors. The improvement in appearance between Peco and handbuilt using C&L components is out of this world, even in OO fine scale. I also modify the back to back spec on my stock as I buy it using the C&L back-to-backometer. This lessens side wobble, especially noticable on some steam locos. My layout is 20' x 15', luckily ony the station side has most of the track laid using Peco and Tillig mixed. so that's all being replaced asap. |
||
| Last edited on 13 Aug 2010 11:21 by roythebus |
|||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2010 11:35 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
roythebus wrote:The improvement in appearance between Peco and handbuilt using C&L components is out of this world, even in 00 fine scale. I also modify the back to back spec on my stock as I buy it using the C&L back-to-backometer. This lessens side wobble, especially noticeable on some steam locos.Hi Roy, If you adopt 00-SF standards (16.2mm gauge, 1.0mm flangeways) you get the same results without needing to modify any back-to-backs. 00-SF is listed in Templot. The gauge tools for 00-SF are now available again from Brian Tulley. More info: http://00-sf.org.uk Gordon S of this parish is now adopting 00-SF on his popular Eastwood Town project, using SMP Scaleway for the plain track (9 pages): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php/topic/3422-eastwood-town-update/ regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 Aug 2010 13:02 from: roythebus
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry, got the wrong gauge there, I meant fine scale 16.5, not the 16.2 version. The late Frank Dyer used 16.2 on the track he built for dyers End on the MRC's New Annington layout in 1980. It looked good and ran very well. |
||
| 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. |