|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 19 Feb 2012 17:40 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, I have an anomaly with timber spacing on a custom template. If I Shove Timbers, and use the dimensions (in inches) shown in the dialog box, when I come to measure the spacing on the workpad, I find the measurements do not agree with the dialog box. ( This was actually found when I loaded the particular turnout DXF file into a cad program and found the error, then went back to Templot to verify). I have put 3 images below which, together, show the anomaly, and also attached the appropriate box file. Circled in Magenta on each image is the dimensions at each stage which should highlight the dimensional error The problem seems to be only around the Vee rail joint, as all other timber spacings are correct. Now the prototype dimensions I wanted scaled, are as follows: Timber spacing from A timber X3-A to X4-B = 30ins. } X4-B to X5-C = 30ins. } All OK X5-C to X6-D = 28ins. } X6-D to X7 = 28ins. } X7 to E1 = 24ins. …………… Shows error Vee rail length = 11ft. from blunt nose ……. Dimension OK Dimension Anomaly Measured with the Templot ruler, X7 to E1 = 6.884 mm = 20.652ins. ??? This is also verified in the CAD program. Yet the Shove Timbers Dialog Screen shows 24ins ??? The ruler measurements were taken perpendicular to the angle of the timber centre lines. Can you please advise as to what may be wrong ? All the best, Brian Nicholls. 1853_191232_520000000.png 1853_191234_280000000.png 1853_191235_430000000.png |
||
Attachment: attach_1359_1838_Dimension_Anomaly_B.box 332 | |||
posted: 19 Feb 2012 21:04 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Brian, The puzzle here is why you have manually equalized (skewed) the timbers, starting from a square-on template? You would have had much less shoving work to do had you started with equalized timbering: real > timbering > equalized-incremental menu item. The reason for the apparent discrepancy in the dimensions is that E1 is a plain track sleeper, and therefore twists about the track centre line. Widening and lengthening it makes it appear to be a crossing timber, but to Templot the E numbered timbers are always plain track sleepers. X7 is a crossing timber, and therefore twists about its centre. If these timbers have the twist removed, you can see the different twist centres, and also that the spacing between those centres is correctly showing 8mm on the ruler for 24" centres: 2_191544_400000000.png A solution to this is to change the exit track to fully timbered: real > timbering > exit track > exit timbered menu item, and possibly do > turnout road > long menu item. You may then need to shorten the template using F4. regards, Martin. |
||
posted: 19 Feb 2012 23:57 from: Brian Nicholls
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: The puzzle here is why you have manually equalized (skewed) the timbers, starting from a square-on template? Hi Martin, Many thanks for the detailed response. The reason here is, that I started with a template having timbers < square-on (to main road) > and setup all the correct required spacing along it’s full length. Having done this previously and saved it as a library template for another purpose, today I again copied the template to the control, I then mistakenly thought that if I select the < equalized-incremental > menu item, I would upset all the correct required preset spacing, as Templot would choose the increments at which the timbers were spaced at. However, I have now tried what you suggested on another copy of the template, and have found that it does not alter any preset spacing, they stay as was. Regarding the remainder of your explanation, I can know see that the E1 timber will always take a space measurement from the previous timber (X7) along the horizontal centre line of the straight road (in this case anyway), irrespective of it’s length or twist angle. So I am now fully aware of that pit fall, and will not repeat it. I can only apologise for disturbing your work regarding this matter, as I say, I am now a little wiser. All the best, Brian Nicholls. |
||
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. |