|
|||
author | remove search highlighting | ||
---|---|---|---|
posted: 5 May 2020 00:38 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've been plodding on with this over a number of evenings and finally have something that I'm happy to share for constructive criticism. Hopefully I've attached the correct file. A few points: The real place is pretty straight through the station but to create sufficient space for the bay platform I have put in a transition curve after the curviform turnout from the mainline The yard is much shorter than in reality for the later yard with just two sidings. It is closer in length to the original yard with 3 sidings where one siding faced in the other (southerly) direction, like a headshunt?, towards the hamlet. The layout is limited to 600mm in length but the plan is more than 600mm long. The ends will protrude into the off stage area. I've left them a bit raggedy as that can be cleared up 'on-site'. The turnouts are meant to be to earlier GWR switch and crossing practice and have had adjustments made as best as I can work out based on the GWSG publication on the matter by David Smith. The rails are based on GWR 44'6" lengths with 18 timbers. The catch points in the lead are just plonked over the turnout in the yard. I read that the only way to do this is separate templates. (I think I could do better next time by idea of copying the control, changing end for end and using roam for positioning.) I know the sleepers aren't properly adjusted. I haven't quite figured this out. The sleeper rolling does something but regardless of the option I don't seem to get a correct outcome when I count the sleepers between rail end marks. Worse though, I expect, is the matching up to the ends of the turnouts, which I decided to achieve by snaking the plain track through the peg so that I could match the spacing from the last timber and/or adjusting the length until I lost the rail joint in the right place. It's good enough to be able to build from knowing what I have done but it would be good to understand best practice for doing this. Thanks for reading, Richard. |
||
Attachment: attach_3023_3657_MSWJR-6.mecbox 94 | |||
posted: 5 May 2020 00:40 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Here also the background files should you wish to load them also. | ||
Attachment: attach_3024_3657_MSWJR-4.bgs3 94 | |||
posted: 5 May 2020 10:56 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Can we open a .mecbox file in Templot 2, please? Keith |
||
posted: 5 May 2020 11:01 from: DaveJ61
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Keith, Have you tried it? I didn't know either but I clicked the file from the post and it fired up Templot and displayed it. Dave Johns |
||
posted: 5 May 2020 11:26 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
KeithArmes wrote: Can we open a .mecbox file in Templot 2, please?Keith, .mecbox was created with Templot 2. It was .box or .mecbox and I plumped for the latter. I can upload the .box file instead but not until this evening. |
||
posted: 5 May 2020 11:40 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
KeithArmes wrote: Can we open a .mecbox file in Templot 2, please?Hi Keith, Sure: 2_050639_470000000.png cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 5 May 2020 12:51 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks, Martin. That worked fine. When I tried to open it directly, Templot crashed. Keith |
||
posted: 5 May 2020 19:11 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Brummitt wrote: I've been plodding on with this over a number of evenings and finally have something that I'm happy to share for constructive criticism. Hopefully I've attached the correct file.Hi Richard, I've been looking at the timbering of the main-line turnout at the crossing end. Might the timbering have looked like the attached, without changing the geometry. The reference is David Smith's book p 39. Best, Keith |
||
Attachment: attach_3026_3657_MSWJR_KSA.box 77 | |||
posted: 5 May 2020 22:57 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
<previously quoted text deleted>Hi Richard, Hi Keith, That's an interesting observation. I'd already been looking at the lead in the other turnout and wondering whether any of those timbers would have been slewed to facilitate the connection of the rodding to the catch point on the turnout side? Of course the catch point in the main of this turnout (from the loading dock) is okay since the timbers agree with the orientation of the switch, though the spacing is not quite as it is. I don't really know the answer but it would make a lot of sense; otherwise there are some odd short lengths of rail or custom parts. As I had it at least one of the rail joins is on a timber, which cannot be right. The V rail length should be 12' for me but I don't know if it is or not. I see you slewed the BC timber. Was this allowed in the real world? Surely it could be a little. Maybe this type of situation occured enough that it was a major factor in the GWR later deciding that the timbers should be perpendicular to centreline of the turnout? Thank you, Richard. |
||
Last edited on 5 May 2020 22:59 by Richard Brummitt |
|||
posted: 6 May 2020 10:45 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Brummitt wrote: Hi Richard,That's an interesting observation. I've been looking at your yard turnout. If you make a double slip from it you can see what happens to the timbering and switches in that case. I've copied your turnout and turned into a double slip, parked below the turnout. This shows that that equalised incremental timbering seems a good way go. I'm sure that if there was already a standard way of doing things it would have been used elsewhere. Box file attached. By the way, to produce the switches, I extend the main line, F4, and split it off. Put a turnout in the split off length and reduce it until you only have the switch or switches left. Then use 'Snake through the peg', Ctrl F6, to slide the switches along until they are where you want them. At the same time you can remove the unwanted switch and stock rail if its a single blade catch point. In the same way, the switch in the diverging road can be produced by using 'Make branch track', having first changed the turnout to curviform if not already like that. Remembering to change it back afterwards if you want generic. I'm sure Martin has a more elegant way of doing it, but it works for me! |
||
Attachment: attach_3027_3657_MSWJR_KSA_2.box 76 | |||
posted: 6 May 2020 14:41 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Brummitt wrote: Hi Richard, I've been looking at your yard turnout. If you make a double slip from it you can see what happens to the timbering and switches in that case. I've copied your turnout and turned into a double slip, parked below the turnout. This shows that that equalised incremental timbering seems a good way go. I'm sure that if there was already a standard way of doing things it would have been used elsewhere. Box file attached. By the way, to produce the switches, I extend the main line, F4, and split it off. Put a turnout in the split off length and reduce it until you only have the switch or switches left. Then use 'Snake through the peg', Ctrl F6, to slide the switches along until they are where you want them. At the same time you can remove the unwanted switch and stock rail if its a single blade catch point. In the same way, the switch in the diverging road can be produced by using 'Make branch track', having first changed the turnout to curviform if not already like that. Remembering to change it back afterwards if you want generic. I'm sure Martin has a more elegant way of doing it, but it works for me! |
||
Attachment: attach_3029_3657_MSWJR_KSA_2.box 72 | |||
posted: 6 May 2020 14:43 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry for the double post, Keith |
||
posted: 6 May 2020 22:58 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
KeithArmes wrote: Sorry for the double post, Weirdly I viewed this earlier and there wasn't a double post and then I got another notification and when I looked again saw the double post and the above apology. Two replies are better than none, Keith! I haven't looked at your file yet (I'm still working and so is my wife. We're fortunate in that respect but time is even shorter since the volume of work has gone up and we have a primary school child to attend to also.) What I have done this evening is read through the pages around p.39 in Smith. I've learned things and reminded myself of others. I believe that the answer to our questions on the mainline - yard switch is that the crossing timbers should be slewed such that the timbers work for the rail joint in the turnout road for the stock rails of the adjoining switch (ibid. p.37). This is as you suggested, referring me to the image on p39, possibly having read the same. Ideally the distance from the nose to the switch should be 17'4" too, although it could be less. Something for me to check is what I've actually made this distance. Unless there is a way to measure this in Templot - and even if there is - this might be most conveniently accomplished on my next printout. My previous question whether the BC timber can be slewed was a daft one. Of course it can as long as the bolts still have enough timber around them to secure. Would the timbering through the lead have been equalised on this turnout? I'm going to guess not. My other reasoning for going this way is that the equalised timbering would make it look more like later GWR practices and I want it to look older. Onto the yard switch: This one probably needs a whole load more work. The timber spacings in the lead would, I believe, ideally be adjusted to have the 2'1"-ish spacing for the timbers at the toe of the catch point, plus the 2' spacing at the rail joint for the stock rail of the same, which must have been a standard part with the joggle already within it (of course it could be cut back shorter but there would still be a joint to make). I'll review the idea of equalised timbering here or otherwise slewing to create what looks like it would make sense, having first tried to put myself into the mindset of the person trying to properly support all the joins/fishplates/chair requirements and make the rodding run between the timbers. I think I might need to go and look in other books for examples of rodding to catch points in leads first though. style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 238);"Thank you for the pointers on how you would create the catch points in the lead. Your explanation sounds pretty close to how I had thought it could work when I attempt it again. |
||
posted: 6 May 2020 23:15 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Richard Brummitt wrote:Unless there is a way to measure this in Templot - and even if there isHi Richard, utils > show ruler menu item. ALT+left-click sets one end of the ruler at the mouse pointer. ALT+right-click sets the other end. The ruler shows the distance between them. cheers, Martin. |
||
posted: 6 May 2020 23:47 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Martin Wynne wrote: Richard Brummitt wrote:Lovely, thank you.Unless there is a way to measure this in Templot - and even if there isHi Richard, |
||
posted: 7 May 2020 08:56 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Richard "My previous question whether the BC timber can be slewed was a daft one. Of course it can as long as the bolts still have enough timber around them to secure." If push came to shove, you could use a 14 inch timber, to give you a bit more space to play with. Wider trimbers were used in exceptional circumstances, the most usual were in diamond crossings. Cheers Phil |
||
posted: 13 May 2020 23:43 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I've been reading, shoving timbers and remaking the catch points as per Keith's suggested method. The attached is much better, I think. It's taken longer than I hoped to re-work, due to real work. There's some gaps and some dodgy sleepering in the plain track, which on the through lines will be realigned a little so that the S-bend has less deviation and those there will be 'fixed' after. I have tried to use the roll timbers function but it's not working for me how I think it should from the documentation. Sometimes there is no change and other times things change but I count the sleepers between rail joints and it's not what I thought I should get. I think I've got the result that is good enough in the yard area now by nefarious use of other actions. |
||
Attachment: attach_3048_3657_MSWJR-7.box 98 | |||
posted: 15 May 2020 12:05 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Rich, I think that looks as good as you are going to get, unless anybody knows more about catch points inside a turnout. Possible that the two catch points are in line, sharing the same space for the tiebar drive rods. Keith |
||
posted: 16 May 2020 21:01 from: Richard Brummitt
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Keith, for taking another look. I wondered about the rodding sharing a gap but decided that most of these that I've seen have them separate with the outside one closer to the the main line. The angle is different for each and I guess that makes space an issue where they come through the timber gap at an angle. They would both operate from the same lever, along with the turnout in the main line, but the rod must be separated at some place for the same reason. I've done another print out. I find it easier to see things than on the screen. I guess I should also reduce the timber spacing to 2'1" in the lead where the switch for the catch points are? It's currently a bit more than that. I might just do this as a deviation from the now printed template since it should be pretty simple. Richard. |
||
Last edited on 16 May 2020 21:02 by Richard Brummitt |
|||
posted: 17 May 2020 08:13 from: KeithArmes
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Glad if I've helped, Rich. Best of luck with the build. Keith |
||
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. |