Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 15 Sep 2020 11:22 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin This isn't a problem whatsoever, but I thought I'd make you know about it anyway. If you create a diamond, enter either the K or V number and convert to CLM, then note the equivalent CLM number and enter it into the other directly as the CLM number, although the F2 info. pane records it correctly as (for example 5.98 RAM (6.00 CLM), Templot considers it an irregular diamond even though the two are matched. I hope that makes sense. Derek |
||
|
posted: 15 Sep 2020 12:34 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DerekStuart wrote: If you create a diamond, enter either the K or V number and convert to CLM, then note the equivalent CLM number and enter it into the other directly as the CLM number, although the F2 info. pane records it correctly as (for example 5.98 RAM (6.00 CLM), Templot considers it an irregular diamond even though the two are matched.Hi Derek, Thanks. I assume you mean a single half-diamond template? What's happening is that the displayed converted RAM value is an approximation rounded to 2 decimal places, but the value being used internally in Templot is the exact value. So if you enter the rounded value for the other crossing, they don't match exactly and Templot decides the half-diamond is irregular. I will think about whether I need to change this so that "regular" means very closely matched angles rather than an exact match. To create a CLM regular half-diamond: A. use the q (or Q) prefix: 1. real > V-crossing options > V-crossing angle...or B. convert RAM to CLM: 1. set both V and K crossings to the same RAM value. p.s. The quick method to convert an irregular half-diamond to regular: press F5 mouse action (or click the SIZE button) and then STOP it. The K-crossing angle will be set to match the V-crossing angle (and stay matched if you adjust them). (Use F9 to adjust the V-crossing angle only, or F10 to adjust the K-crossing angle only.) p.s. for a full list of other input conversion prefix letters, click the ? help button on the data-entry dialog. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 15 Sep 2020 23:50 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Sorry Martin. Now that you mention it, I do recall you saying before that prefixing it with a Q would do that. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the last point you made, but rather than start a new topic: If I know the two vees of a diamond are 1:5 and 1:7, by experimentation I have found the K should be 5.75. Is there a way to find that automatically in Templot? I'm sure arithmetic with pen and paper will supply the answer, when I've thought about it a bit more. Also I read in one of your tutorials that whilst unusual it is possible to have one vee as curviform and the other as regular. This diamond I am looking at sits on the edge of a transition curve, with part of it just sitting on the dead straight. Oh and it's also a single slip (on the outside of the curve) just to make it difficult. I've got it worked out now anyway, that's just curiousity. Many thanks Derek |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 01:00 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DerekStuart wrote: If I know the two vees of a diamond are 1:5 and 1:7, by experimentation I have found the K should be 5.75. Is there a way to find that automatically in Templot?Hi Derek, I'm baffled how you can know the V-crossing angles without knowing the K-crossings first? The answer will depend on the track gauge, the distance apart of the two V-crossings, any angular difference between them, and the radius in the two roads. How you could know all that without starting from the K-crossing angle is a bit of a puzzle. The starting point for any design is the intersection of the two roads. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 06:17 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin One diagonal leads to a turnout that is between B7 and B8. The OS map suggests a B7 is the best fit even though instinct suggests this is a little tight for the location and stock. However it is on the end of a transition curve and mindful of the fixed Vs moving K crossing. The other diagonal leads to a sharp curve. I put a V5 in it and used long exit and it matched up with the sharp curve just right. I first tried a V5 because of the 4 timber check rail, however this could have been a short check just because of the blades which start on the next timber along. However, at the other end, the blades clear the check by several timbers so I knew it had to be irregular- and quite irregular at that. Really it has been a case of putting in countless combinations and seeing if they matched photographic expectations. For example, does that check line up with the signalman's foot crossing, does the intersection between the two roads line up with this precise part of the signal box, etc. However, the breakthrough came when a contact gave me a copy of an official (L)NER diagram, which perfectly matched photographic expectations, however I couldn't get it to match the rest on the OS map, including this slip.... until I found out about your brilliant snap groups feature. I then snapped the official map group to a known accurate point at the North end and when I scrolled down the trackpad expecting another misalignment, it was almost perfectly matched. If you look at my posting history, you will see that I first asked about this slip and a tandem around 2013/14, so you can see I've not just jumped to a conclusion overnight. Sorry to go on about it, but a) you asked b) I'm really proud of the more or less forensic analysis of Whitby. Even if it never leaves Templot and goes onto a workbench, I think it is accurate enough that theoretically, one could rebuild the whole site based on these plans, with the right combination of original components. Much of this has been down to your advice, for which I thank you. Final point then (at 06:13) I'm off to bed. From the whole site there are not two turnouts the same. A range of A, B, C, 9ft and 12ft loose heel, barry slips (2), scissor, type 1 and type 2 tandem, single slip... NER interlaced. I think a double slip is the only thing missing to have a complete set. I'll let you know when I've published this post in hardback. Derek |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 06:22 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
PS if you're interested here's a couple of the reference photos. The V7 end: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jncarter1962/8704673139/in/photolist-egcJ4n-QNx4EE-cARaPw-e5FDaK-8SmnF2-2geyJr9-cqpoX9-b5UMXv-b6LNVz-QxLLsW-KwA8yY-Q37vCj-bgiBjk-H1KZwV-mSsn3d-bgiz5R-pc8nj1-6Q8oR9-6Q8oFL-6Q8noW-cAQXTS-J8a8AF-8Spff3-GXzXiL-Gb35VF-pbCChA-egsDGe-J1JQFP-oVbghC-6Q4gLK-J58XgJ-6Q4iJM-c8YQ75-6Q8mWf-6Q4iVK-2iMttoj-6Q8owd-J58Z1f-6Q8oeG-oUEWAu-Q37vRW-8Spf6m-6Q4hZa-fSvrmY-dJBfEP-dBBaL9-fUtt5Y-6Q8nwm-6Q4hm6-Ha8TKH The V5 end and K http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/ryedale/11836154.rail-enthusiasts-to-mark-50th-anniversary-of-grosmont-to-rillington-line-closure/ There are many others I've used as well, but these are the main two. I have high resolution versions of the latter but they're too big to upload. Derek |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 06:30 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Derek. I will have a look at the map. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 07:58 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Derek, Here's a quick stab at the 1927 map. 2_160231_360000000.png  The track spacing is a bit out (it's clearly 6ft way from the photos, and extremely unlikely to be less than that as drawn). Usually on the OS 25" maps you can at least rely on the position of the switch toe, so I started from there. And usually during a renewal it would be retained, to avoid modifying the rodding runs. A C-9 seemed a likely contender, so I tried one and set it curviform. Then tools > make ladder crossover > make curviform ladder gave a close match to the map: C-9 CLM V 7.62 CLM K 5.76 CLM K 5.78 CLM K 4.83 CLM Assuming a renewal post about 1930-ish, it's likely to have been re-drawn using the "standard crossing angles" method (with equal K-crossings), so I set the angles to C-9 CLM V 1:8 CLM K 1:6 CLM K 1:6 CLM V 1:5 CLM and the result matches the original 1927 map quite well. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 18:29 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Derek, Your question has prompted me to add an additional option to the new find intersection function: 2_161318_480000000.png  This will not only find an intersection, but adjust the curving radius in the control template until the intersect is at a specified angle. This will be useful for tracks crossing the interval where the V-crossing angles are known. It will be a help when making ladders across transition curves and suchlike. In the past I have adjusted the curve by eye zoomed-in, which works fine, but an actual calculation is more elegant. It is likely to be very slow sometimes, so don't tick that box by accident.  These functions will be in the next program update. Thanks for the idea. cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 16 Sep 2020 23:34 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin Many thanks for drawing out the junction. I had noted that turnout as a B, but when I zoomed in on a photo in my collection it is indeed a C. However, whilst the diamond is on the end of a transition, the the turnout is mostly on the straight. As for the observation about the 6ft gap- I wouldn't rely on 1840s lines in this area to be guaranteed 6ft apart. The (L)NER specification for 10ft gaps between running and sidings is not adhered to either. That will be fun explaining that to people if this ever gets to an exhibition. You've put me back on course, but I still need to tweak it a little bit yet. I wonder is there a point where we have to say "sod it, it's a model, this is close enough"? As for this automatic feature, that sounds pretty good... but the coding you must have to write for it- I can't even begin to guess. Many thanks Derek |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2020 14:19 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin Thanks for moving the thread over into the more suitable sub-forum. I have made a couple of tweaks, but I am happy with it now so thanks for putting me right. You have been very generous with your time as always, but could I impose with a further question? In the link below, the diagonal from the V5 end of the slip leads to another diamond. But before it there's a check rail on the outer rail of the curve. It is clearly not part of the diamond's own check rail. There appears to be 'something' connected to it at this end so I did wonder if it was perhaps a derailer, but I discounted that as on the other side of that diamond the incoming roads have trap/ catch facilities already, making it redundant. http://davidheyscollection-static.myshopblocks.com/images/cm/c1c2467f5bc2da912b3a7517081c6e67.jpg Any ideas from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks Derek |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2020 15:52 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
DerekStuart wrote: In the link below, the diagonal from the V5 end of the slip leads to another diamond. But before it there's a check rail on the outer rail of the curve. It is clearly not part of the diamond's own check rail.Hi Derek, The check rail looks to be the remains of a V-crossing leading to a spur which has been plain-lined at some stage (replaced with plain rail on the same timbers). You can see the remains of the vee splice rail in the bottom-left of the picture. It looks very old: 2_171049_410000000.jpg  My guess is that the spur was acting as a trap until the other traps were installed, presumably when the turntable was moved. It was then redundant, so was plain-lined out. If modelling it, remember to use crossing timbers for this section. Looking at the 1892 map the spur (later cattle dock siding?) is much closer to the running line than on the later maps: 2_171039_510000000.png  cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2020 16:37 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Thanks Martin I am (reluctantly) coming to the same conclusion. I originally dismissed it as the curve leading to it appears to veer away from it, though that could be an illusion. Both the earlier map you show and the NER diagram I was given access to show the cattle dock closer to the running lines. However, I can see from photos that the cattle dock track runs just behind the signal box, not adjacent to it (in 1920s the signal box was further down the line, so presumably this is a rebuild). But in the b&w photo above I can count around 15 sleepers between each vee's check rail. If I were to move over the shed road that far it would 'foul' the running lines to well beyond the ground shunt signal protecting it. The only option I can think of is the cattle dock road was indeed moved over when they built the signal box and for some reason they left that redundant check rail there for the next 20-30 years... which is unlike the thrifty Northerners. Anyway, thanks for the further reply. It's now down to me which way I interpret it and choose one option over the other... Thanks Derek |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2020 18:05 from: Phil O
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
On the ESR there's at least one check rail left on a turnout that has been turned into plain line and is still using the original turnout timbers. I believe that it's likely to disappear as the road it's part of is due for relaying very shortly, it's been like that since the late 60's. Cheers Phil. |
||
|
posted: 17 Sep 2020 21:18 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Phil Even for a light railway, that's quite an impressive length of time. Whitby had a few like that from 1963 to 1987, although they spurred off a run around loop rather than a main track. Maybe it's just me, but I find it's those sort of details interesting- both on the real thing and model form, although they are rarely modelled. Derek |
||
|
posted: 30 Sep 2020 20:43 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin Following on from the other thread about Whitby, I thought you'd like to see the wide angle photo I was shown, which confirms your prediction. It's not mine so I will only put the link up, though the owner of the photo is a good bloke and I'm sure will allow me to post here if you can't see the link. http://scontent.fltn1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/119949225_10158157003334702_7932243659885122226_o.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=phYg5E4FL_4AX-_yMhn&_nc_ht=scontent.fltn1-2.fna&oh=c32ae0e394bac333d407a61cb8c15c24&oe=5F99C4F1 Thanks again Derek |
||
|
posted: 30 Sep 2020 20:55 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Derek, Thanks for the pic. But the check rail which you previously thought was redundant is in fact for the near V-crossing in the diamond. Am I missing something? What was my prediction? Should I be doing the lottery numbers this week? cheers, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 30 Sep 2020 22:23 from: DerekStuart
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hello Martin Yes, that's right. But I dismissed the obvious answer as the photo (distortion?) suggested the rail continued curving too far over- which was what the OS map also showed, so I thought a partial re-lay. It is this 'what I know Vs what I can see' that made me ask my question this morning about the tandem in the station. It's a strange feeling to be looking at these old photos- some from 1880s, looking through the eyes of someone who is not only long gone but whose children and grandchildren are gone too. I wonder what they'd make of the co-op now standing where their station used to be, or me designing their station on a computer to replicate in miniature. You predicted the purpose of the check and also the turnout/ slip geometry, which lines up perfectly- correct number of timbers and check rails line up with the expected location in photos etc. As for the lottery- I'm surprised between performing all your other miracles that you haven't developed a way to win the lottery every week. Can you walk on water? Derek |
||
| 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. |