Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 11 Sep 2007 02:46 from: Cynric Williams click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Having had some time to start playing, I keep coming back the same question where do i start? Is it best to start with all the flowing curves and then fit the formations or should I start with a track formation and work out from that? In this case I'm trying to follow a prototype plan from a background file. I know there is no hard and fast rule but i would be interested to hear how others approach it  |
||
|
posted: 11 Sep 2007 16:43 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Cynric Williams wrote: Having had some time to start playing, I keep coming back the same question where do I start?Hi Cynric, Architect or builder? A grand design first or brick-by-brick from A to B? Brick-by-brick is definitely easier. And using the F7 snapping function it can be very fast. There's no risk of finding that something doesn't fit at the last minute -- you can see the space available and essential clearances for each template as you progress. But having set out from A and arrived at B do the curves flow nicely? Does it have a uniform feel? Or does it all look a bit disjointed? Brick-by-brick is really only suitable for small end-to-end layouts. For larger layouts and especially where you need to go round corners it is very helpful to lay out an overall scheme guide first. Usually this is done with "centre-line-only" templates. The detailed templates can later be aligned over these using the "align" functions. The prototype track designers obviously didn't give much thought, or probably any, to the look of the thing. But most railway modelling involves compression. To do that convincingly you need an "eye" for the curves through pointwork -- a gentle "flow" of sinuous curving rail can do much to hide the fact that it is less than 50% of the proper length. So laying out the curves first can be a big help. Not to mention knowing in advance that to get round into the fiddle yard at 42" radius will mean doing without one of the carriage sidings.  On the other hand Templot makes it easy to overdo things. Putting a 20-metre radius in a terminal platform when there is no obvious reason why it couldn't have been built straight can look a bit daft. If you are working over a background scan, it really depends on the scale. If it is a 25" OS map, or a pencil sketch on a piece of A4 which you scanned in as a rough guide, you do need to lay out the overall curves and mark key locations first. Otherwise it's difficult to know which size of turnout is the most likely to fit where. On the other hand, for a detailed 40ft rating plan showing the position of the switch toes and crossings, brick-by-brick is the only feasible approach. Having exactly matched one turnout you can move on to the next. Whichever approach you adopt, avoid closing in on the detail too early. You don't need to add in slip roads or shove conflicting timbers until the overall design is finalized. Otherwise you risk wasting a lot of work when you realise that the parcels dock is too short or the goods shed is too close to the signal box. Sorry this is an inconclusive ramble. Anyone else? If you've arrived at a great design can you remember how you got there and the twists and turns along the way? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 11 Sep 2007 18:25 from: Cynric Williams click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin I am looking at trackwork in more detail (and more critically)than I used to. I am experimenting with a small GWR branch terminus in 7mm because I want to get something built in a reasonable timescale (I have had too many unfinished and stillborn projects!) and the information is easily available. i have looked at Ashburton, Lambourn, Tetbury or possibly something ex Cambrian. I know they have all been 'done', but not by me! At the moment I am favouring Asnburton, so far my method has been to draw the plan full scale (7mm) with no compression before deciding where to make changes to fit within my space, but I also want to retain as much of the trackwork character and flow as possible! As you say, I do think i have complicated matters by trying to use transition curves where a constant radius, and straight would do just as well. I shall have another bash later |
||
| 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. |