Templot Club Archive 2007-2020
|
|||
| author | remove search highlighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
posted: 28 Jul 2008 15:55 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Dave Long of this parish has just posted some excellent pictures on RMweb of trackwork under construction on Templot templates for his Pensnett project: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=411442#p411442 Guess the track gauge here:  file.php?id=24796 © Dave Long linked fom RMweb That's looking great, Dave.  Martin. |
||
|
posted: 28 Jul 2008 17:39 from: davelong click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin Thanks for posting the link, I hadn't got round to posting on here. I'll add a few more from the construction photos I have. Once again thanks for Templot. Without this I wouldn't have even attempted this kind of trackwork. The pointwork is a mixture of B6.5s and B7.5s and the tightest radii is iirc 45.7" with the highest coming in around the 85" mark. The tight knitting of the points in the sidings was only possible with handbuilt track, and doesn't actually take up that much room, which is perfect. Kind regards Dave |
||
| Last edited on 28 Jul 2008 17:46 by davelong |
|||
|
posted: 28 Jul 2008 18:10 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Dave, Many thanks for posting the pics. The layout is looking great! It seems you had a good day out with it. I think you may have set some sort of record with the first public showing of a layout in 00-SF. Which is pretty amazing for me to see, after the idea lay dormant for so long. When I added "EM minus 2" to the gauge list in Templot 10 years ago, and called it 00-SF, it was purely for the sake of completeness. I had no inkling that RTR models would improve so much that they could be run unmodified on such good looking track. But hard on your heels is another 00-SF layout, and more excellent trackwork construction pics posted today by John (Hayfield of this parish): http://www.rmweb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=411440#p411440 Here's one of them: 1112jz2.jpg  © Hayfield Thanks for the pics John. It's looking real good. I hope Rodney Hills is noting this flurry of activity for the http://00-sf.org.uk web site. Martin. |
||
|
posted: 29 Jul 2008 13:46 from: Paul Hamilton click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
All lovely stuff guys. This of course begs the question. What's in EM then today? I guess the lack of perceived narrow gauge appearance when looking at the locos etc head on and I guess easier locomotive construction (fitting inside working valve gear comes to mind!) But what else? Have I missed the boat by deciding to go to EM? I don't really think so myself (which is I guess all that matters) as I would have had to re-wheel much of my stock anyway and rewheeling it to EM should be of no import. Thoughts? |
||
|
posted: 30 Jul 2008 10:58 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Paul Hamilton wrote: All lovely stuff guys. This of course begs the question. What's in EM then today?Hi Paul, After seeing Dave's and John's pictures of 00-SF track, I think that's an interesting question. If you compare 00-SF versus P4, then there are clear pros and cons on each side. But for 00-SF versus EM it is beginning to look less clear. Sure the wider EM track looks a lot better if viewed side-by-side with 00-SF. But on the other hand, someone for whom track gauge is important is likely to want the full P4 anyway. Maybe as you suggest it is the different appearance of the locomotives which becomes the deciding factor rather than track. But this really applies only to steam locomotives, and Dave isn't running any of those. I would have had to re-wheel much of my stock anywayUnless it is 00 RTR of older vintage, it should run on 00-SF unmodified. Otherwise there wouldn't be much argument for 00-SF over EM -- your CJF layout is going to be just as much work to build in either. regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 30 Jul 2008 17:30 from: donald peters
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
I have clicked on the addresses below for Rmweb and put the address in manually and got left out to dry both times. Is it me/my computer/ or the address that is wrong? Regards, Donald Martin Wynne wrote: Dave Long of this parish has just posted some excellent pictures on RMweb of trackwork under construction on Templot templates for his Pensnett project: |
||
|
posted: 30 Jul 2008 17:54 from: Martin Wynne
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
donald peters wrote: I have clicked on the addresses below for Rmweb and put the address in manually and got left out to dry both times. Is it me/my computer/ or the address that is wrong?Hi Donald, The link is working, but it's a long page with some large image files, so really only suitable for broadband. It takes a while to download from the RMweb server, even on broadband. Here's the link again, better formatted for email: Pensnett pictures on RMweb Here is Dave's excellent picture again, but with a bit more compression to make faster loading on dial-up if you're clicking the link in email. It's still quite a large file, but more compression would spoil it with jaggies: pensnett_00sf.jpg  regards, Martin. |
||
|
posted: 30 Jul 2008 19:34 from: Peter Finney
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
donald peters wrote: I have clicked on the addresses below for Rmweb and put the address in manually and got left out to dry both times. Is it me/my computer/ or the address that is wrong?They work fine here (WIN XP SP3 , Firefox 3) |
||
|
posted: 31 Jul 2008 17:37 from: donald peters
click the date to link to this post click member name to view archived images |
Hi Martin, Thanks for prompt reply (as ever) and it is clear that a bug is inside again. (wish I could get my brain renewed as effectively as an operating system) AVG had a field day at start-up today and a complete scan found 1192 viruses (virusi?) out of 219000 'objects' scanned So, hopefully today, I shall be moving on to XP installing (needing a new key) My problem could have been, as you wrote, that the original file was so large that the bug(ger) in my computer was slowed to snail's pace. (It takes 28 secs to raise a spreadsheet just at the moment. Kind Regards, Donald PS I am feeling a bit like the radio operator on board the Titanic as this may be the last outgoing e-mail before finally chaos (cannot open Mozilla now)  |
||
| 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. |