Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 9 May 2014 16:18 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
undefined Aft'noon all, My chosen route re the Templot track plan for Tor Giffard was to create the basic track plan for the layout myself and then commission Stephen Freeman at Borgrail to translate my efforts into a 'ready to print' and build trackplan. This approach would hopefully avoid my needing to spend considerable time learning about the niceties of Templot, instead I could get on with layout construction etc before moving on to track building. I am now at the stage where I need to practice track building (having no experience in this area to date) ready for a start on the real trackwork for TG. As a member of two Scalefour Society area groups I recently took along a suitable baseframe and Templot print section in the hope of canvassing opinion for a test track build 2297_091103_500000000.jpg  The members of the S4 area group felt that a challenging test track build was the way to go and I therefore chose the above section. This won't be used on the layout, rather I can test various methods of attaching the track to the aluminium sheet/cork baseframe and include some practice of building track on plywood baulks (as this style of trackwork will feature on the two large viaducts of TG). There were various admiring comments re the ambition of the trackwork and the work done with the trackplan thus far. However, the knowledgeable track builders amongst them quickly observed that there were several unsupported 'V's within the outside double slip undefined 2297_091115_510000000.jpg  Please study the above close up and advise whether the timbers can be positioned to properly support all 'V's. A larger version is in the Image Gallery at: gallery/2297/original/2297_091115_510000000.jpg Regards Dave |
||
| Attachment: attach_1842_2455_actual_print.box 329 | |||
| Last edited on 18 May 2014 07:07 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 10 May 2014 10:42 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, So far as I can see you have a problem with three common crossings in such close proximity on the right hand side of the formation that it would not be possible to construct these with conventional 'A' and 'B' crossing chairs. Re-working the top left to top right connection so as to use two ordinary turnouts rather than combining them into an outside slip might make it easier for you to position the two lower crossings on the right hand side further apart. Then 'A' and 'B' crossing chairs for these might fit. Once you have a formation that will accommodate these standard crossing chairs I suspect the timbering problems will become much easier to solve. |
||
| Last edited on 10 May 2014 11:43 by John Palmer |
|||
|
posted: 10 May 2014 11:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, I would echo John's comments. Also, the two inner V-crossings on the right are not properly checked -- the two check rails on the diamond roads need extending, as at the left-hand end of the formation. I agree with John that it would make sense to change the upper slip road to a half-scissors. A double outside slip is a rare formation and in that context it looks out of place. In fact a full scissors crossover looks possible in the space, with the advantage that the outside roads can then be used simultaneously. It would be much easier to comment on your plans and suggest improvements if you post the .box file here.  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 10 May 2014 20:33 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Evenin' all, File now attached to original post as requested. Thank you for your observations thus far. Rgds Dave |
||
|
posted: 11 May 2014 23:22 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
It's possible to rework this in such a way as to retain an outside slip for the lower connection, but I couldn't achieve an entirely satisfactory solution. In particular, I found that one of the obtuse crossings could not be properly checked. Instead, I adopted Martin's suggestion of trying to fit a full blown scissors, and think I may have come up with a reasonably workable solution, albeit one that still requires some fine tuning: 2129_111811_540000000.jpg  Note that to accomplish this I found it necessary to roam the 'eastward' facing connection off the double tracked line to a position closer to the double junction and to give this a longer lead. This brings the two diamonds closer to the junction and permits a much shallower curve at the bottom left lead-in to the scissors. Box file attached. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1843_2455_torr_giffard_2014_05_11_2246_34.box 302 | |||
|
posted: 12 May 2014 14:41 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
This has been an enjoyable exercise, so I've tweaked and cleaned up my previous work, and shoved timbering into what look like appropriate places. | ||
| Attachment: attach_1844_2455_torr_giffard_2014_05_12_1328_42.box 327 | |||
|
posted: 12 May 2014 18:22 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, Many thanks for taking the trouble to provide this solution. I do already have cork track bases bonded to the aluminium sheet deck for the original layout which will need some rectification/reworking. An alternative which I'd like to consider before making such alterations is the removal of one set of switches within the original arrangement as not all moves through the double slip are of equal importance. If all movements from the bottom left had to go towards the bottom right, all moves from top right had to head top left and moves from the top left could still go top right or bottom right...would this allow the outline track plan of the original formation to be retained. Rgds Dave |
||
| Last edited on 12 May 2014 18:23 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 02:21 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, You could certainly get a layout conforming fairly closely to the original trackbed 'footprint', as shown below in skeletal form: 2129_122108_090000000.png  This preserves the original alignment of the route through the pair of diamonds, but at the expense of a short lead turnout with a minimum radius of just under 4'. Furthermore, you have little or no clearance between top left to top right and bottom left to bottom right routes (haven't tested this with dummy vehicles), so no simultaneous movement over these two routes is going to be permissible. Box file for this variant attached. I've done no tidying up or timber shoving on this as it is offered as proof of concept only. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1845_2455_TG_variant.box 311 | |||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 17:21 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, It looks like John has been busy on your behalf! Well done John! Which of these variants would be "correct" is down to the operational requirements - What are all these lines intended to do Dave? Could you provide an overall track diagram? Just from the look of things, the second variant does not look at all "right" to me as the reverse curve in the road crossing from bottom left looks very untidy compared to the nice smooth flow in the full scissors variant. For me, the original track formation always looked very contrived whereas by comparison, John's scissors solution looks quite natural - assuming that is that all these connections are actually justified by the traffic! Best wishes, Howard. |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 19:05 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Howard, The area including the scissors crossover will be as part of a goods run round loop behind the up (uppermost) platform on Tor Giffard. Principle purpose of this runround loop is to allow freight arriving from the bottom left direction to depart in the top left direction (from the Plymouth direction and towards the Barnstaple/Fremington direction) and vice versa. Also, in the up direction the line nearer the platform can double as a goods loop. However, the operational requirements can still be achieved with a simpler (and consequently cheaper layout) than the full scissors crossing....the bottom left to top right direction through the crossing is luxury rather than necessity and therefore is unlikely to have been provided. 2297_131350_440000000.jpg  undefined One difficulty is that I already have the baseframe part constructed for this area..with cork trackbases bonded into place. Thus I'm doing some headscratching re the best way to use as much of John's handywork as possible but needing to avoid the excess of the complete crossing layout. I'm minded towards removing the excess route through the crossover but still making the trackbase alterations so as to use 75% of John's work. Many thanks for your efforts John...I'm looking to use as much as possible. Rgds Dave |
||
| Last edited on 13 May 2014 20:00 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 20:15 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, I'm sorry to say this looks just as unlikely a formation as your original double outside slip: 2129_122108_090000000.png It's in effect an "outside" Barry slip. Since there isn't a 6ft way between the upper and lower roads they can't be used simultaneously and this would complicate the locking significantly. You might see such a thing in a yard as a legacy from some earlier track layout, but this is at the end of the platform and therefore in a passenger line. It looks wrong because it is clearly unnecessary and there is plenty of room to take the lower road clear of the upper one as John showed in his scissors design. I'm a bit puzzled by your remarks about the cork? Normally in an area such as this you fix a sheet of cork all over and cut away any unwanted bits after laying the track. Even if you have already cut some away, it shouldn't be too difficult to add some more alongside? It doesn't matter about a few small gaps because they will be hidden by the ballasting later. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but there are some misalignments at the template boundaries in some of the running lines in your plan. For example in the loop line to the right of this area and also in the double-track running lines below it, which are not properly concentric with a constant gap between them. Ideally this all needs fixing, and the rest of the layout checked for similar misalignments, before you start building track. It would be a shame to construct such flowing trackwork, and then find that by following the templates exactly you have introduced some slight kinks and doglegs. Templot includes all the functions needed to align templates across boundaries, and F7 snapping does it automatically if needed, so it's a bit of a puzzle how these problems have arisen. For example in the loop line (I extended the templates to see the slight kink at the boundary): 2_131502_060000000.png  It is not much, but it's at an untransitioned reverse curve and is enough to see rolling stock lurch slightly when running over it, roughly equivalent to the deflection of a C-switch (which would have a speed restriction). With the gauge freedom in 00 it might go unnoticed, but in P4 the wheels track the rails quite closely. And: 2_131505_070000000.png  which obviously needs fixing before you print the templates. I haven't checked any other areas for similar problems. Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, but it is much easier to fix things on the computer screen than on the baseboard after laying the track. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 20:38 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, That isn't the crossing that I'm planning to use...I'm looking at a simplified version of the scissor crossing (seen above that one in the thread). I find it disappointing that there are various flaws in Stephen's (Borgrail) work...he was paid to produce a track plan ready for printing/track building. Dave |
||
| Last edited on 13 May 2014 20:39 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 13 May 2014 22:35 from: JFS
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, I have to say that if you have an issue with something that someone has done for you, I think you should take it up with them privately and not in a public forum. |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2014 00:10 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, I'm sure if you contact Stephen he will want to help you sort out any problems. What I did notice is that the file you originally posted above is from Templot version 206 and therefore over 12 months old. Is it possible that you have posted an out-of-date version of the track plan, and not the most recent one? regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2014 11:34 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, Apropos Martin's 20:15 post, I did think whilst laying this out "Is this a Barry slip I see before me?" Getting rid of one connection in the scissors is entirely straightforward and should cater for the movements I think you want, as illustrated below: 2129_140611_070000000.png  I have tidied this up a bit by making Branch Platform-to-Barnstaple a regular C-10 and pairing this with another C-10 on Barnstaple-to-Goods Loop. I've also taken the liberty of cleaning up lines running the length of the platforms, whilst trying to preserve so far as possible the original footprint. I think some easements at the Exeter end might be beneficial. You have three turnouts there with quite short leads that could be lengthened. One of these has a minimum radius of 49", which is under 5 chains in scale. The two main lines and the loop also seem to be diverging at the East end for reasons that aren't clear to me, and the the outside slip giving access to the goods yard and the horse landing(?) has a radius of only 42" on the slip road. As before, box file attached. If this assists, I'm happy to have been of some help. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1848_2455_torr_giffard_Variant_2_2014_05_14_1100_10.box 316 | |||
|
posted: 14 May 2014 12:51 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, That looks a lot better. I'm not entirely clear about the main traffic flows here, but if this branch platform is mainly used for passenger traffic to the top left, it's possible that the lower turnout would more likely be a left-hand turnout. This would probably tie in with the original intent for the outside slip. A C-9.5 curviform LH seems to fit quite well: 2_140738_450000000.png  It doesn't make a lot of difference in model practice, but on the prototype it would usually determine which way the lever stands normal in the frame, and how the interlocking is arranged. For example as a LH turnout this turnout might be paired as a crossover with the one at the far end of the lower line, rather than as an ordinary crossover from the upper loop line. By standing normal to the top left line, this then gives protection to the diamond-crossings over the main lines. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 14 May 2014 15:39 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Gents, The two lines in question are goods only (the platform face will finish short of the nearer line). Your most recent work is what I had in mind John...thank you again. As for the minimum radii...I had specified 10 chains for the non-passenger lines. As you say, more easement required. The reason for the divergence of lines at the Exeter end of the station is to facilitate a typical LSWR 3x single line arch stone bridge. Thank you to all who have assisted. Dave |
||
| Last edited on 14 May 2014 16:37 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 20 May 2014 03:10 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
At Dave's request I've been applying a few modifications to his layout and doing various tidying up jobs with timbering etc. My principal modifications have been to the connections at the Exeter end, where I have lengthened turnout leads and tweaked crossing angles in an effort to introduce easier curvature into the layout. In particular, I have done away with the slip connection between the goods yard shunting neck and the neck giving access to what I have previously referred to as the 'horse landing'. This has now been replaced with a simple diamond and two turnouts, which opens up the curve here to a scale 6.5 chains. Unless I've missed the means for doing so there's no way of posting a boxfile with a pm, so Dave has agreed that I may post the updated version here for his benefit, and in the hope that if there are shortcomings in my work some kind person can point them out and perhaps even correct them. And, yes, the posted version of the boxfile was saved at 02:47 this morning. We had a thunderstorm earlier this evening and I powered down the computer network, only to find that when trying to restart it the network switch had failed. I've only just finished restoring my internet connectivity using a replacement switch built into an old router. Bad moment when I realised that loss of the internet connection had, of course, also cost me access to Templot! |
||
| Attachment: attach_1853_2455_torr_giffard_2014_05_20_0247_40.box 272 | |||
|
posted: 20 May 2014 07:06 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, Many thanks for your time and skill...I'll try to do justice to your efforts at the building stage. Rgds Dave |
||
|
posted: 29 May 2014 00:53 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
As Dave has explained, the two topmost routes through the layout are goods lines, and analysis of his operating requirements has revealed a need for a movement from Down Main to Up Loop via a facing connection at the Exeter end of the layout. At his request I have attempted to incorporate this into the layout, and the attached boxfile represents the outcome. I'll confess that I'm not entirely happy with the outcome. Even with a fairly long lead on the facing connection off Down Main my first effort gave me an unattractive reverse curve with multiple radii to connect with the Up Loop, so for my second effort I set up a transition curve to replace this then converted a section of this to uniform curvature in order to insert the diamond. Although all the elements of the resulting outside slip seem to line up tolerably well I'm sure there must be better Templot draftsmen than I who could make a better fist of this. Anyhow, Dave, for what it's worth, here 'tis. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1854_2455_tor_giffard_2014_05_29_0025_02.box 230 | |||
|
posted: 29 May 2014 01:09 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry, just noticed a timbering conflict at the 'horse landing'. Boxfile correcting this attached. | ||
| Attachment: attach_1855_2455_tor_giffard_2014_05_29_0103_03.box 273 | |||
|
posted: 29 May 2014 17:54 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Evenin' all, Many thanks for your work John. I've made a slight amendment to the up main at the Exeter end (see attached file) but otherwise I can't see any need to change what you have done. The 3 equi-spaced lines (up & down main and freight loop headshunt) at he Exeter end of the scenic section should now be ready for the 3 x single arch stone bridge which will cross over them and the twin single bore tunnels which will follow a short distance beyond. Rgds Dave |
||
| Attachment: attach_1856_2455_June_2014_best_yet_4.box 214 | |||
| Last edited on 29 May 2014 17:59 by Dave M |
|||
|
posted: 4 Jun 2014 11:52 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, As I mentioned, I wasn't entirely happy with the outside slip I had worked into the Up Main, so I have done a bit more work upon it to improve the alignment of its components and significantly altered the timbering to what I think is a neater and more prototypical arrangement. I have also adjusted the timbering of the shunting neck that lies alongside the Down Main and in one of the two goods loops. In the process I may have put the horse landing out of alignment and length, so you may want to adjust that. Hope this is to your liking. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1862_2455_tor_giffard_2014_06_04_0943_06.box 206 | |||
|
posted: 8 Jun 2014 23:06 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, Many thanks for your efforts....I'm not long back from a week in Suffolk and will check out the trackplan soon. Best regards Dave |
||
|
posted: 3 Nov 2014 09:27 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, As requested, I've re-worked the west end of the Tor Giffard design so as to increase passing clearances - the ruling spacing between running line centres throughout the west end of the layout now scales up to 11' 9". Using the dummy vehicle I have checked both Maunsell R4 and Bulleid carriages and foresee no likelihood of clearance infringement anywhere that I have reworked the layout in this revision. In the end I found it simplest to create the double junction afresh, and also took the opportunity to lengthen the lead on the Up Plymouth crossover connection - the effect is to increase the radius on the diverging road to 63.9" - more than 6 chains. As a consequence of the re-design there may be some minor deviations from the previous alignment, but they should prove to be insignificant. I have also redone the timbering throughout this area to mitigate the entirely valid criticism that there were too many very long timbers in the existing design. I think all clashes of timbering have been eliminated, but another pair of eyes on this would be a good idea. Those more expert than I may well be able to suggest improvements to my timbering arrangements. Hope this is to your liking. |
||
| Attachment: attach_1990_2455_Revised_tor_giffard_2014_11_03_0842_00.box 215 | |||
|
posted: 3 Nov 2014 10:40 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, This is all very impressive and it is beyond my current skill level to detect any issues. You still haven't advised of your bill. Once again, very many thanks for any and all assistance. Rgds Dave |
||
|
posted: 3 Nov 2014 13:35 from: John Palmer click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave, No question of my making any charge for this - I am amply rewarded by seeing the design come together. But perhaps one day I could get to see my GBL sweeping through on a down newspaper train .John |
||
|
posted: 3 Nov 2014 13:59 from: Dave M
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi John, As stated in the e-mail, you have first call in any situation to run whatever gladdens your heart. Very many thanks again Dave |
||
| 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. |