|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 16 Feb 2020 22:20 from: ikcdab
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
All, so here we are. I remember reading many years ago of someone building layout called something like “my last great layout” and I marveled at the time about the finality. But now I find myself doing the same thing. I am to build a new shed, 7.5m x 4.5m in our garden. In this will build my best OO layout yet. In simple terms it is a double track oval with two branches, one double track to a reasonable sized station, the other single track to a simpler one. It will be based on BR(S) practice in the 1960s..ish. I am not a novice and have been building railway models for many years. In the last few years I have built two end-to-end terminus to fiddle yard layouts. Both used templot and the track was built with SMP for plain line and copper clad soldered bullhead pointwork. I am very happy with both and I have learnt a lot, the second layout is much better technically than the first! I am not looking for slavish prototype fidelity but I want something that looks good and feels like the real thing. This jpeg is a general overview.1588_161717_090000000.jpg The attached box file shows where I have got to so far and I would welcome comments on the templot side of things. Please note that I have not really tackled timber shoving yet on this plan. That’s for later. Turnouts are B8s throughout but with C10s on the two mainline junctions. This feels right to me but I am open to other suggestions. My real question is around the transition curves. I have tried hard to get a smooth transition between the “straight” sides (though they are not really straight) and the end curves. But I seem to have ended up with several small templates, particularly on the double track branch. Probably a result of adding turnouts into the line, splitting off approach and exit the changing my mind, back to plain track, back to turnout etc. Are my transition curves OK? I really want to get a smooth mainline feel. I am happy to start all over again if needed as I want to get it right. I had a lot of trouble getting the oval to close up on its self, so I hope this is OK. All comments and suggestions gratefully received! Thanks |
||
Attachment: attach_2994_3613_charlton_junction_2020_02_16_1908_59.box 133 | |||
posted: 17 Feb 2020 19:42 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi, the first thing that jumps out at me, is that you have to access a siding before you can use the head shunt to access the rest of the yard and it also ties up a platform whilst you do it. I'm using my tablet, so unable to open up and check the boxfile. Phil |
||
posted: 18 Feb 2020 01:28 from: Andrew Barrowman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
1 in 50 might be OK but that could depend on a lot of factors. If you have not used 1 in 50 gradients with your stock on a previous layout you might want to run a few experiments, particularly with curved track. | ||
posted: 18 Feb 2020 08:51 from: ikcdab
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Andrew Barrowman wrote: 1 in 50 might be OK but that could depend on a lot of factors. If you have not used 1 in 50 gradients with your stock on a previous layout you might want to run a few experiments, particularly with curved track.yes thanks. having looked at it, i dont need that much clearance, the 1 in 50s would give 200mm roughly. i can reduce that and have gentler gradients. |
||
posted: 18 Feb 2020 16:08 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have taken the liberty of altering your terminus as per my earlier proposal and tidied up your platform roads. I think you can also perform a similar exercise in the fiddleyard as each road appears to be on the same radii. A further couple of proposals would be to add a crossover to the headshunt road and the adjacent platform road, unless you propose to shunt the yard with the train loco, I would also add a crossover to the branch station, to allow any loco hauled trains to run around. Cheers Phil. |
||
Attachment: attach_2995_3613_charlton_junction_2020_02_18_1546_53.box 122 | |||
posted: 18 Feb 2020 20:26 from: ikcdab
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Phil O wrote: I have taken the liberty of altering your terminus as per my earlier proposal and tidied up your platform roads. I think you can also perform a similar exercise in the fiddleyard as each road appears to be on the same radii.Hi Phil, many thanks. But now i have a facing three-way point in the up main....not sure if thats typical. I think it was frowned on. my current layout is based on Freezers Minories and this new one is a slight enlargement of that. Hence i am avoiding run rounds in the platforms to encourgae mire shunting.Any thoughts on my transition curves in the mainline? Should i use transition whenever i join up templates?? |
||
posted: 18 Feb 2020 20:51 from: Jim Guthrie
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
ikcdab wrote: Phil O wrote: Hi Phil, many thanks. But now i have a facing three-way point in the up main....not sure if thats typical. I think it was frowned on. my current layout is based on Freezers Minories and this new one is a slight enlargement of that. Hence i am avoiding run rounds in the platforms to encourgae mire shunting.Any thoughts on my transition curves in the mainline? Should i use transition whenever i join up templates?? I think if you made the turnout a tandem instead of a three way, that would be acceptable. Jim. |
||
posted: 19 Feb 2020 01:03 from: Nigel Brown click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Maybe you could tell us a bit more about what you see the layout depicting. Is it post-steam? Mixed steam/electric? Predominantly passenger or mixed passenger/goods? And so on. The one thing I wonder about is what happens to trains leaving the main terminus. They could end up in the smaller terminus of course. But otherwise, how do they get back to the main terminus? Or do they just end up in the sidings at the bottom? Just wondering. Nigel |
||
posted: 19 Feb 2020 08:02 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Jim Guthrie wrote: ikcdab wrote:Phil O wrote: Hi Phil, many thanks. But now i have a facing three-way point in the up main....not sure if thats typical. I think it was frowned on. my current layout is based on Freezers Minories and this new one is a slight enlargement of that. Hence i am avoiding run rounds in the platforms to encourgae mire shunting.Any thoughts on my transition curves in the mainline? Should i use transition whenever i join up templates?? Hi Jim It is a tandem! Phil. |
||
posted: 19 Feb 2020 09:47 from: ikcdab
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Nigel Brown wrote: Maybe you could tell us a bit more about what you see the layout depicting. Is it post-steam? Mixed steam/electric? Predominantly passenger or mixed passenger/goods? And so on.Hi Nigel, well rule one applies as always. It is 1960s with the aim of running green diesels and some steam too. i like freight trains so it will be a mix of both. Im not that much into shunting to its a layout when i can sit back and watch them belt round. The idea is that a train can leave the main terminus, go round the main circuit a few times then at some point either stop in the hidden loops or run to the branch terminus. in the hidden loops it can run round and go back to the main terminus if required. But as i said, rule one applies and i expect that at some point thomas and edward will make an appearance too. my main interest at the moment is getting nice, smooth flowing track, hence this posting on templot forum. I am confused. If i have a piece of curved track and attach another piece with the "shift and join" function, does that give me a proper transition or not? Or is it best practice to always make a transition link when joining templates? when the templates are on similar curves then i cannot make a transition anyway, so whats best in these cases? |
||
Last edited on 19 Feb 2020 09:52 by ikcdab |
|||
posted: 19 Feb 2020 15:01 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have been around your inner oval and all the transitions appear to be OK, so I would continue as you are. When I want a transition between two curved templates, I will alter the radius of one to be a bit tighter than the other and then make the transition template, which ones get altered depends on the situation at the time. HTH. Phil |
||
posted: 19 Feb 2020 17:23 from: Tony W
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
ikcdab wrote:I am confused. If i have a piece of curved track and attach another piece with the "shift and join" function, does that give me a proper transition or not? Or is it best practice to always make a transition link when joining templates?The "shift and join" function will always produces perfectly aligned joins between track sections regardless of their radius, no transition curve involved. The radius changes instantly at the joint. Transition curves between track sections of differing radii are optional and in sidings unlikely to be used. They would be found in running lines and Phil O has already commented on how to produce them. Regards Tony. |
||
posted: 1 Apr 2020 12:25 from: Stephen Freeman
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
shift and join is always best but what's the preferred method where it is not possible. I am thinking of situations where you are completing a continuous track - you can only shift and join one end? Mark one eyeball plus magnification? |
||
Last edited on 1 Apr 2020 12:26 by Stephen Freeman |
|||
posted: 1 Apr 2020 13:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Stephen Freeman wrote: shift and join is always best but what's the preferred method where it is not possible. I am thinking of situations where you are completing a continuous track - you can only shift and join one end? Mark one eyeball plus magnification?Hi Stephen, The F7 snapping "shift and join" function is intended for beginners only. For normal track planning, extend the original template and then use the split and insert functions. To complete a continuous track, or otherwise create a link between existing templates, use the link functions. More info about them, here: http://templot.com/companion/link_existing.php cheers, Martin. |
||
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. |