|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 12 Nov 2019 02:08 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
A week ago I set myself the task of at least making a start at acquiring a working knowledge of Templot. In the interim I have probably spent in total about 3 days solid on it. Selecting topics randomly, I read much of the Templot Companion, then worked my way through the index from start to finish to make sure I had not missed anything, read the posts linked to from the Companion, worked through the user-contributed tutorials, watched the videos, re-read most of it all a second (and third and...) time, re-watched the videos (would have bought the tee-shirt but there isn't one - YET!!). Anyway, you get the idea. I even watched Martin's video on creating a single slip - thought I may need a second viewing - I forget the middle bit. When I started playing with XtrackCAD (way before finding Templot) I began with a 4'x8' format, but everywhere I looked I saw 'start small' and I gradually worked my way down to a 1'x5' shunting layout, Asok Yard, to use as a test bed for some of my ideas (mainly around turnout motors and electronics). 3620_112044_500000000.png SO ... to see if I had learned anything from all my Templot study, I decided to try to replicate that layout as close as I could. This is the result: 3620_112050_290000000.png I was trying to fit to mostly Peco 1st radius curves and the eagle-eyed may have spotted that I made the crossovers with curviform turnouts (and I am sure that I have committed all sorts of other horrors) but apart from the industry siding which I decided looked better at a jaunty angle, I was pretty pleased with the fit. You may be wondering why am I telling you all of this, Well I HAD to tell SOMEONE, and I don't know anyone else who would even understand what I was talking about. Not exactly a thing of beauty, I will grant you, but I think (or at least hope) it may be enough to qualify me as a Trainee Junior Layout Engineer's Helper's Assistant (3rd Class). Onward and upward! Cheers, graeme PS It is also, significantly, my first post on here which was actually about trackwork and not software. |
||
Last edited on 12 Nov 2019 02:24 by Graeme |
|||
posted: 12 Nov 2019 02:55 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Well done Graeme. However - "to fit to mostly Peco 1st radius curves". Those are model tracks. We don't talk like that here. The whole point and purpose of Templot is to work from prototype designs. Most of the commercial model trackwork is not a model of anything. Which is surprising in the light of how much effort goes in to the accuracy of model locomotives and rolling stock. I've no idea what size a Peco 1st radius is, or what scale it applies to. But most likely it is around 600mm radius, and you are working at 4mm/ft. So what you should have said is that you were working with 150ft radius curves. Or even 2.1/2 chains radius. A chain is 66ft, so that would be 165ft. If you are making turnouts at that sort of radius, I suggest using a 9ft straight switch with maybe 1:4.5 crossing angle -- which gives a radius in 00 gauge of 633mm, or 746mm in P4 (if curviform or generic). In P4 therefore you might shorten it to 1:4, giving a radius of 588mm. On the prototype turnouts as short as these would only ever be found in cramped yards and sidings, not on running lines. Your challenge now is to do it all again, but this time on a through curve. Keep an eye on the radii when curving turnouts, you may very likely need to use longer ones on a curve. p.s. don't bother with the slip video, it's all out-of-date. What you do now is click tools > make slip and Templot does it for you. Likewise for the tandems. cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 12 Nov 2019 03:44 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Well done Graeme. Hi Martin, and thank you. Yes, I should should have been more community-aware in my wording. (Note to self ... ) Out of interest it is much worse than you suspected. What I was trying to model was 438mm in OO, which comes out at 110 foot radius. Of no practical use, I know, but it was just an exercise in getting Templot to do what I wanted it to. I was probably not justified in calling it 'trackwork' at all - hahaha. You are right - my next step is to produce something more realistic (AND prototypical). But it is a bit like your first car - I doubt it will surpass this (seemingly meagre) effort in terms of the joy it gives me. Cheers, graeme PS Ah OK - fully automated slips. Drat! Never mind - my knowledge of partial templates is that much richer for the experience |
||
Last edited on 12 Nov 2019 03:48 by Graeme |
|||
posted: 12 Nov 2019 09:04 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Graeme wrote:What I was trying to model was 438mm in OO, which comes out at 110 foot radius. Of no practical use, I know,Hi Graeme, I wouldn't say of no practical use. Here's some data for industrial turnouts: http://templot.com/companion/prototype_information.php Your 438mm equates to 33.4 metres full-size, somewhere between the 3rd and 4th sizes in the list (turnout radius). Such turnouts are fine when used with short 4-wheeled wagons and short-wheelbase shunting locos: 2_172227_190000000.jpg It's when inserted in the East Coast Main Line that they look a bit daft. If you are looking for ideas for a small shunting layout, here is a dockside plan with some Templot contributions from me, starting at: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/141568-new-layout/&do=findComment&comment=3443576 cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 04:14 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: I wouldn't say of no practical use. Here's some data for industrial turnouts:Thanks Martin, I did stumble on that data before in my travels, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the reminder. This is exactly the kind of rolling stock I am intending - partly because of space constraints, but also because I am most interested in shunting operations, and by strange coincidence the Class 08 is my favourite loco, though I am coming to like some of the small steam shunters too. That's a very nice plan with some good ideas. I will load it and try to see how it has been made. Cheers, graeme |
||
Last edited on 14 Nov 2019 04:16 by Graeme |
|||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 04:46 from: Andrew Duncan
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Graeme wrote: A week ago I set myself the task of at least making a start at acquiring a working knowledge of Templot.Hello Graeme As Martin said well done I'd echo that. It's very impressive what youve learnt in a short but fun filled amount of time! And I loved your honesty that comes across loud and clear. no airs or graces, just saying it as it is which is both refreshing and courageous and will help others perhaps have a go where previously they feared to tread. Keep up the good work and I'm looking forward to seing your next incarnation on a gentle curve which would really set it apart from the pack. Incidentally I've been using Templot since 2013ish and it took me a lot longer then a week to learn what you have, but I think one of the secrets to getting a flow to your track is to lay in the general curves (straight is not as interesting to look at in my opinion) first, then add the point and crossing work (should I have said Switch and crossing?) afterwards. And this is actually easyish to do compared to say building a three way or a slip. But now, due to pestering from many of us on the forum, Martin has provided these at the touch of a button which is a blessed relief, as I never entirely got my head around the partial template approach. Looking forward to your next update. Kind regards Andrew |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 08:38 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Graeme On a practical note, its far easier to build turnouts with a straight crossing than one with a curviform vee Another way of using smaller Vees is to built Y shaped turnouts, even an asymmetrical Y. This may assist in achieving what Andrew was saying about adding curves for a more flowing (less angular) plan Tru obtaining a book written by Iain Rice Plans for small layouts, Ian is the master of flowing plans |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 12:59 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
On a personal note re flowing plans, I reckon it's a question of horses for courses. Railways put in curves because they needed to; a lot of industrial yards stuck to straight sidings where they could. Sidings alongside a quay or warehouse were usually straight. Whether curved or straight, the track needs to fit the environment. That applies to using sharp pointwork as well; the environment ought to be fairly cramped. Nigel |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 15:14 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andrew Duncan wrote: Hello Graeme Hi Andrew, Thanks for your kind words and encouragement - and advice! I will build Asok yard, but only as a test bed for some thoughts I have on turnout motors and electronics (and most likely using some Peco track I already have). From a Templot perspective, I have started work on what I intend to build as my first layout proper, and that should give me considerably more space. I am looking at 600x3000mm - luxury! I have watched a load of videos on layout construction, and mostly they seem to focus first on where the turnouts will go and then the plain track is just there to connect them together. As I work with Templot, I am getting the feeling that the plain track plays a much more important role when it comes to getting that 'flowing' feel, as you said. Best Regards, Graeme PS I enjoyed greatly the story of your work trolley. |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 15:30 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote: On a practical note, its far easier to build turnouts with a straight crossing than one with a curviform veeHi, Thanks for this - I was obviously using curviform vees to fit tighter curves in a small space, but I thought that doing so was also the way to get Y-shaped turnouts, by making the main road turn the opposite way. (I couldn't remember how to spell contraflexure - nor whether it is even the right term.) It seems I may have not understood something here. I will get back to my studies first thing tomorrow. Tru obtaining a book written by Iain Rice Plans for small layouts, Ian is the master of flowing plans I do have on of Iain's books, though not this one. I will look out for it. Thanks, Graeme |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 15:37 from: Graeme
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: On a personal note re flowing plans, I reckon it's a question of horses for courses. Railways put in curves because they needed to; a lot of industrial yards stuck to straight sidings where they could. Sidings alongside a quay or warehouse were usually straight. Whether curved or straight, the track needs to fit the environment. That applies to using sharp pointwork as well; the environment ought to be fairly cramped. Hi Nigel, Yes, important to remember what you are actually modelling. My next plan will be curved just to convince myself I can do it, but as a boy we used to walk to the beach over a footbridge which must have been at least 100m long over the tracks of the local steelworks, leaving me with memories of countless parallel tracks stretching off dead straight into the distance in both directions. Cheers, Graeme |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 21:34 from: Rob Manchester
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hayfield wrote: Graeme Tru obtaining a book written by Iain Rice Plans for small layouts, Ian is the master of flowing plansI agree with John ( Hayfield ) about Iain Rice's books, I probably have every one. Just allow a bit of extra space for the actual building of the track - some of the plans are a bit hard to fit in the spaces quoted. Rob |
||
posted: 14 Nov 2019 21:52 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote:I agree with John ( Hayfield ) about Iain Rice's books, I probably have every one. Just allow a bit of extra space for the actual building of the track - some of the plans are a bit hard to fit in the spaces quoted.Hi Rob, I have found that they can usually be fitted at a pinch, but it takes some careful Templotting. See: topic 3471 - message 27402 That needs finishing. cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 15 Nov 2019 08:51 from: Hayfield
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Rob Manchester wrote: Hayfield wrote:Graeme Rob I think its a perspective thing, in that we as so used to the train set/set track strict parameters that everything has to be geometric, and look nothing like the railways we know, which as has been said was actually the case in some instances. Verses the need to follow a route dictated by local geographical requirements. We are lucky that in Templot we can create designs where we can exclude straight sections. Iain is one of the layout designers who has a eye in being able to design plans which seem to flow, and are pleasing on the eye. My suggestion was not to actually copy a plan, but the style |
||
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. |