Narrow Gauge Advice

[Rich]

Evening all,
I have had a search through the old and new forum on here and gleaned quite a bit of info. I am putting together a small 4mm narrow gauge layout, just to dip my toe in the water so-to-speak. Having really struggled to come to terms with 009 for 1ft 11.75 inch gauge, I have decided to have a bash at the scale equivalent - 7.83mm. Before I go too far with Templot and the track plan, I am just seeking some confirmation that I have things set up right.

The layout will be based on Ffestiniog practice, but won't be an FR location.

These are the settings I have come up with for the gauge/scale. I am working on the premise of 4mm:1 foot scale, with a track gauge of 7.83mm, based on 2FS standards.

Rail settings

Sleeper settings - not sure if the sleepers should be spaced a bit further apart, and they seem to be overlapping a bit around the middle three sleepers in the turnout?

Can anyone see is there anything I have got wrong, mis-understood or simply missed, that I also need to change?

Thanks in advance.

Rich

 

[Paul Boyd]

Evening all,
I have had a search through the old and new forum on here and gleaned quite a bit of info. I am putting together a small 4mm narrow gauge layout, just to dip my toe in the water so-to-speak. Having really struggled to come to terms with 009 for 1ft 11.75 inch gauge, I have decided to have a bash at the scale equivalent - 7.83mm. Before I go too far with Templot and the track plan, I am just seeking some confirmation that I have things set up right.

The layout will be based on Ffestiniog practice, but won't be an FR location.View attachment 984 These are the settings I have come up with for the gauge/scale. I am working on the premise of 4mm:1 foot scale, with a track gauge of 7.83mm, based on 2FS standards.

View attachment 985
Rail settings

View attachment 986
Sleeper settings - not sure if the sleepers should be spaced a bit further apart, and they seem to be overlapping a bit around the middle three sleepers in the turnout?

Can anyone see is there anything I have got wrong, mis-understood or simply missed, that I also need to change?

Thanks in advance.

Rich

Hi Rich

There aren't many of us about using this scale/gauge! My catalyst for this was seeing Paul Holmes' Borth-y-Gest in Railway Modeller December 2004. If you're not already aware of that layout, it's well worth tracking down a copy of the article. Paul Holmes has shifted up a scale more recently, he's still quite active on the Facebook 'Narrow Gauge Railway Modelling' group. Incidentally, a name for this scale has been suggested as S4n2, although I can't remember where that came from. The 'n2' is standard for 2ft-ish narrow gauge, the S4 may come from the fact that the late Lyndon Emery formed the Narrow Gauge Study Group as an area group of the Scalefour Society.

Right - rail section data. As it looks like you're using flatbottom rails, for the standards you quote (the same as I use), you'll find Peco IL-1 rail fairly close to prototypical FR flatbottom (possibly era-specific though). It also has a huge advantage in that the rail foot won't need filing away for flangeways! The dimensions for that are:- head width 2.25", foot width 3.69" and height 4.8".

If you want bullhead rail, I use code 60 from the 3mm Society, with their chairs. Rail dimensions are width 2.19" and height 4.5".

For timbering, I'm working on the basis that the FR once used standard gauge sleepers cut down, which means all sleepers and timbers will be 10" wide. I don't know if that's true for the period I'm now modelling - around 2000 - but it looks in proportion. I use C&L copper-clad sleepers, with the rail soldered directly to them. I've gone for plain track sleepers at 51" length (standard 8'6" sleeper cut in half!). It looks like I've gone for about 2'8" centres. On the turnout, just delete any overlapping timbers and shuffle the others about accordingly! (Make sure there's a timber under the crossing nose.)

You say you're working to 2FS standards, but you've set a flangeway gap of 0.67mm - it should be 0.5mm. Also attached (a lot of attachments!) is my equivalent screenshot. You will need to use wheels from the 2mm Scale Association - rolling stock wheels are drop-in but locos will need more work.

I made my own gauges (drawings attached), and use a 0.5mm feeler gauge as a flangeway gauge. I've also attached a drawing of the rail and wheel standards I use, with due credit to Paul Holmes. Note that roller gauges don't allow for gauge widening on curves, so keep them fairly large radius!

There are more model photos on my Flickr page within this Collection:- https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjmarlow/collections/72157700083817292/ There's also my Ffestiniog Railway album, where some of the photos show details of the track without trains in the way! https://www.flickr.com/photos/pjmarlow/sets/72157715510039867/

I hope all this is helpful, and hasn't put you off! The biggest problem is wheels for locos where the use of a lathe is more or less essential. Standard RTR wheels won't work without RTR flangeways, so you're really back where you started with 009 but less a little bit! A couple of the attachments show a square-on shot of 009 compared to S4n2.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Rob Manchester]

Hi Paul,
Great reply there The pictures really highlight the difference the scale wheels make to the look of the chassis - going to a preserved NG line comes as a bit of a shock when you are used to seeing RTR models.

Rich - The hardest part with making the track gauges is grinding down the parting/grooving bit to 0.5mm but it is fine once you get the hang of it. Just make sure the bit has some side relief so it doesn't rub on the material as you cut in.

Good luck with the project.

Rob

 

[Paul Boyd]

Rich - The hardest part with making the track gauges is grinding down the parting/grooving bit to 0.5mm but it is fine once you get the hang of it. Just make sure the bit has some side relief so it doesn't rub on the material as you cut in.

Good luck with the project.

Rob

Hi Rob

In fact, the tools are ground to either 0.75mm or 0.8mm, depending on the size of the rail head! It doesn’t make it any easier to get an accurate cutting width though, it’s grind a bit off, cut a groove, try the rail in it, repeat! Then find you’ve gone too far and have to start again

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Rich]

Paul,
Many thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. I know Borth-y-Gest and have spoken to Paul Holmes about his modelling on NGRM, his work on the O14 gauge 1800s train and more recently is building of the original Mountaineer are one of the aspects that have made me dither about whether to go O14 (7mm) or 009FS (as I call it!). I agree its stunning modelling. In the end, I concluded on the 4mm 009 in the end so that I could put the train more in the landscape on the eventual layout - the first one I am doing will just be a small test bed to prove to myself I can do things, and have the chance to run things, but have been greatly inspired by Ted Pollet's Craigcorrie and Dunalistair Railway layout. The idea of modelling an entire line really appeals.

Thanks for the info on the settings, I had problems getting Templot to take the custom details, I kept putting them in and they shot to the top of list and said unavailable! I am a member of the 2mm Scale Association, so had taken some of the details from their Handbook, so I am not sure how that's changed back to 0.67mm

Using half length standard gauge sleepers is an interesting one, I hadn't considered that aspect. A friend of mine who runs one of the 2FS area groups has offered me the use of his lathe ( and hopefully his skill as I have never used one! ) so once we have the ability to move about, I'll try creating some roller gauges to ease the process. Wheels could well be the big issue, but in this day and age I don't think it is insurmountable.

Thanks again for all the input, defiantly hasn't put me off, and nice to know there is somebody else out there doing 7.83mm that I could shout out to if I get stuck!

Rob - thanks for your input too, much appreciated. Your comments about the track gauges are noted.

Rich

 

[Paul Boyd]

Paul,
Many thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. I know Borth-y-Gest and have spoken to Paul Holmes about his modelling on NGRM, his work on the O14 gauge 1800s train and more recently is building of the original Mountaineer are one of the aspects that have made me dither about whether to go O14 (7mm) or 009FS (as I call it!). I agree its stunning modelling. In the end, I concluded on the 4mm 009 in the end so that I could put the train more in the landscape on the eventual layout - the first one I am doing will just be a small test bed to prove to myself I can do things, and have the chance to run things, but have been greatly inspired by Ted Pollet's Craigcorrie and Dunalistair Railway layout. The idea of modelling an entire line really appeals.

Thanks for the info on the settings, I had problems getting Templot to take the custom details, I kept putting them in and they shot to the top of list and said unavailable! I am a member of the 2mm Scale Association, so had taken some of the details from their Handbook, so I am not sure how that's changed back to 0.67mm

Using half length standard gauge sleepers is an interesting one, I hadn't considered that aspect. A friend of mine who runs one of the 2FS area groups has offered me the use of his lathe ( and hopefully his skill as I have never used one! ) so once we have the ability to move about, I'll try creating some roller gauges to ease the process. Wheels could well be the big issue, but in this day and age I don't think it is insurmountable.

Thanks again for all the input, defiantly hasn't put me off, and nice to know there is somebody else out there doing 7.83mm that I could shout out to if I get stuck!

Rob - thanks for your input too, much appreciated. Your comments about the track gauges are noted.

Rich

Hi Rich

Keep us informed with any progress you make! Writing my previous reply made me wonder why I didn’t turn up any gauge widened roller gauges whilst I was at it.

Regarding sleepers, practice varied depending very much on the period modelled. The secondhand standard gauge sleepers cut in half was I think an expediency in the early days of preservation, but some of that track existed in places like Dduallt well into the early 2000s. Maybe still there, but 2020 was supposed to be a much anticipated holiday in North Wales to have another look. We all know what happened to that plan!

Nothing is insurmountable! If the wheels won’t be seen, I tend to buy the 2FS disc wheels and modify those with new axles and plastic (Delrin) bushes, otherwise I buy 2FS wheel rims and either turn my own centres or modify kit or RTR centres.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Rich

Hi Rich,

Welcome to Templot Club.

I am working on the premise of 4mm:1 foot scale, with a track gauge of 7.83mm, based on 2FS standards.

That's not a good idea. If you model in 4mm scale you should be using a 4mm scale standard, modified for the reduced track gauge. Otherwise the flangeways will be wrong and it would be impossible to create mixed-gauge track if you wanted to. I suggest starting from the S4-X standard (0.58mm flangeway) and reducing the track gauge to whatever you want - gauge > modify current settings menu item.

Can anyone see is there anything I have got wrong, mis-understood or simply missed, that I also need to change?

Your turnout has a switch size which is much too long for the crossing angle (and consequently a very small radius). If you have a specific n.g. prototype you need to create a custom switch using the prototype data. If not, it's a good idea for generic narrow-gauge to use one of the short model switches:

That will shorten the turnout to a more sensible size, but also increase the radius.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

@Rich

p.s. Rich, there are some sample 009 templates available for download here:

https://85a.uk/templot/archive/topics/topic_2934.php#p20825

from which you could use the custom switch, and maybe the timber sizes:

Martin.

 

[Paul Boyd]

That's not a good idea. If you model in 4mm scale you should be using a 4mm scale standard, modified for the reduced track gauge. Otherwise the flangeways will be wrong and it would be impossible to create mixed-gauge track if you wanted to. I suggest starting from the S4-X standard (0.58mm flangeway) and reducing the track gauge to whatever you want - gauge > modify current settings menu item.

Hi Martin

I beg to differ, as would a few other people! (and that doesn't happen often )

Attached are my notes made from measuring a turnout at Dduallt in 2003 - this was bullhead track probably laid in the 1970s - I must put my detail photos up somewhere some time. If you average the flangeway measurements at 1.5", in 4mm scale that scales to 0.5mm. That's spot on for 2FS standards. Taking the 2FS standards and knocking 1.59mm off the track gauge works very well, and that's been proven. I'm taking an established 2mm scale standard and reducing the track gauge instead of a 4mm scale standard with a reduced track gauge. Obviously I'm also using 2FS wheel standards, and again they're pretty much spot on for 4mm scale 2ft narrow gauge. One of my attachments in my earlier post shows the track standards used, and apart from the snug fit between BC and BB needing care, it not only works, but looks realistic because it is realistic. Any 4mm scale standard gauge track standards have flangeways that are simply too large for 4mm scale 2ft narrow gauge.

I do take your point about mixed gauge track though. As I have no intention of doing this, at least not with these standards, then that doesn't become an issue. I keep looking at South African mixed gauge, with 2ft and 3'6", but it's clear that both gauges use the same standards in real life - they have to. I haven't got as far as deciding what 4mm scale (or more likely 3.5mm scale) standard I would use for that. I just wish I was old enough at the time I saw some of the 3'6" stuff running between Jo'burg and Durban to appreciate what I was seeing!

PS @Rich - looking at the attached notes, I see that in fact some timbers were 12" after all - my memory failed me! You can see the use of old 8'6" timbers though - whole, halved or just cut down.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Rob Manchester]

Hi Rob

In fact, the tools are ground to either 0.75mm or 0.8mm, depending on the size of the rail head! It doesn’t make it any easier to get an accurate cutting width though, it’s grind a bit off, cut a groove, try the rail in it, repeat! Then find you’ve gone too far and have to start again

Cheers,
Paul

Paul,
Yes, of course they are I had my 2nd Covid jab this morning and ( just like after the 1st one ) I am feeling a little under the weather. Ignore my ramblings - or just put it down to old age.
Rob

 

[Rich]

Welcome to Templot Club.

Your turnout has a switch size which is much too long for the crossing angle (and consequently a very small radius). If you have a specific n.g. prototype you need to create a custom switch using the prototype data. If not, it's a good idea for generic narrow-gauge to use one of the short model switches:

That will shorten the turnout to a more sensible size, but also increase the radius.

Hi Martin,
Firstly, thanks for the welcome and all your suggestions, much appreciated. I went down the 2FS standards route, purely thinking that if I was modelling O14, which is obviously 7mm scale, then its based around a 4mm standard, so it seemed logical that 009 (using N track work) to finescale principles would use a 2mm standard, but I take your point (excuse the pun) onboard.

To be honest, I'd just left the default one that Templot selected for that screenshot, as I was more thinking about gauge, sleeper spacing etc, and making sure id got everything right, but of course your comment about using the A switch size makes perfect sense and I'll remember that when I start sorting the track work out.

Keep us informed with any progress you make! Writing my previous reply made me wonder why I didn’t turn up any gauge widened roller gauges whilst I was at it.

Nothing is insurmountable! If the wheels won’t be seen, I tend to buy the 2FS disc wheels and modify those with new axles and plastic (Delrin) bushes, otherwise I buy 2FS wheel rims and either turn my own centres or modify kit or RTR centres.

Thanks for the added drawing scans, they are useful. I'd scraped some measurements together from various sources to try and give me a base, especially as I'm on the opposite side of the country to Wales and it isn't feasible to go over at the moment! But those details will really help, thank you.

I'll keep this thread updated, where the track work is concerned, and I'll put a link to the NGRM thread when I start it, for anyone that wants to keep up to date with the full story ... should there be anyone!!

Rich

 

[Paul Boyd]

It's been a long time since I looked at the track standards that myself and others are using, and prompted by the tight BB to BC clearance of 0.07mm (the 'back-back' against the 'between check faces' measurement) I thought I'd have another look. Firstly, the standards I posted earlier work both in theory and in practise, but I wondered if I could increase that clearance a little without the wheel flange hitting the crossing nose, without changing the BB and without changing the crossing flangeway gap. A true 2FS-1.59mm gives even tighter clearances, and I wondered why. It transpires that the published 2FS standard could have a wheel flange clearing the crossing nose by as little as 0.02mm!! The crossing flangeway is specified as 0.48mm ±0.03mm (so my 0.5mm is within spec)

The bottom line is that I'm sticking with what I've got!

@Guinea_Pig_Tester Rob, I'll let you off! My second jab is on the bank holiday Monday!

@Rich I hope you can make sense of the drawing scans, and I'm glad they're useful to you. They were sketched up on site and I seem to remember it was drizzling (well, it was North Wales!) Looking at the notes again made me have to think about the timber spacing. I measured from the rail joint up to 303", then presumably ran out of tape measure so the next 117" goes back to the switch rail joint between 195" and 221". I hope that makes sense! The crossing nose is on the 140" timber, and I suspect the 106" check rail is really 108" (9') but I measured across the angle of the flare. I haven't built the bullhead sections of track yet so I'm going to go back and review my templates before building. I'm going to put my detail photos of the track around Dduallt in summer 2001 on my Flickr page - I'll post a link to the album when that's done. (The notes were drawn in June 2003)

 

[Paracelsus]

2FS roller gauges can be adapted to any gauge.

1. Drill a concentric hole thru the centre of a roller gauge such that a chunky metal rod can fit snugly. Too small and the drill will wander.
2. Make a mark along the centre of the narrow part of the roller gauge so you can line up the 2 halves later.
3. Cut the roller gauge in half and trim the cut ends as necessary to generously suit the new track gauge.
4. Place the two halves on the rod and make whatever gauge you like. Making a simple jig may help, especially as you need a few of them.
5. Glue or solder to fix everything in place.

That's it.

You can divide the roller gauge accurately such that they give the exact track gauge when put back together, but that needs more skill and a lathe.

 

[Paul Boyd]

2FS roller gauges can be adapted to any gauge.

1. Drill a concentric hole thru the centre of a roller gauge such that a chunky metal rod can fit snugly. Too small and the drill will wander.
2. Make a mark along the centre of the narrow part of the roller gauge so you can line up the 2 halves later.
3. Cut the roller gauge in half and trim the cut ends as necessary to generously suit the new track gauge.
4. Place the two halves on the rod and make whatever gauge you like. Making a simple jig may help, especially as you need a few of them.
5. Glue or solder to fix everything in place.

That's it.

You can divide the roller gauge accurately such that they give the exact track gauge when put back together, but that needs more skill and a lathe.

They can be adapted in the way you suggest, but the 2FS roller gauges are intended for Code 40 rail so I'm afraid won't help with the Code 60-ish rail generally used for 4mm scale narrow gauge - the rail head won't fit the gauge. Besides, I enjoy lathe work

 

[Rich]

Thanks guys for the input. I think I have made a little bit of progress and I have downloaded the templates that @Martin Wynne suggested and double checked my track settings. Having read another post this morning, what is the feeling for which V-crossing type should be used on narrow gauge trackwork? Bearing in mind, this is more of a Ffestiniog main line design than a Dinorwic quarry shunt layout.

I have also decided to take an easy option with the initial test layout and use some Code 100 rail - I appreciate it may appear a bit big, but as this is intended to be a test setting, and I have loaded of old Peco OO metre-lengths, it seems logical to reuse what I have got. I'll go Code 60 on the main layout (assuming it happens) however. Initially the test layout is somewhere to photograph the stock as its built, and test run the loco.

Right, back to Fusion360 and a bit more design on the chassis for Snowdon Ranger calls this afternoon!

Paul - looking through your Flickr site, full of admiration for your DHR/FR Garrett. You have set me thinking now! That was a Backwoods kit I think you said? I don't believe they are available any more, but it should be too challenging to design some etches for one. The motor bogies and connecting rods being the challenge I think! Hmm maybe a project for a couple of years time when two or three of the smaller locos are built!! Nice work tho, looks fantastic.

Rich

 

[Rich]

@Rich

p.s. Rich, there are some sample 009 templates available for download here:

https://85a.uk/templot/archive/topics/topic_2934.php#p20825

from which you could use the custom switch, and maybe the timber sizes:

Martin.

@Martin Wynne Just a thought I have had. I might have totally misunderstood this (apologies if so) but having downloaded your templates, if I import them into Templot, and use them as a basis for the point work, will Templot adapt them to the gauge/rail settings I have set, or will it adapt itself to the settings from the templates? Given that the differences are so small, I am not sure I'd notice on screen which way it went!
Rich

 

[Martin Wynne]

if I import them into Templot, and use them as a basis for the point work, will Templot adapt them to the gauge/rail settings I have set, or will it adapt itself to the settings from the templates?

@Rich

Hi Rich,

It's an ordinary Templot file. All the settings for each template will come from the file.

To convert them to what you want:

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Martin Wynne]

what is the feeling for which V-crossing type should be used on narrow gauge trackwork?

@Rich

Hi Rich,

Being narrow-gauge doesn't make any difference. Each V-crossing is set to suit its position in the track design. See this video:

https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=pu2F-wveux5-EWGYuqPd3g2

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Having read another post this morning, what is the feeling for which V-crossing type should be used on narrow gauge pointwork.

Paul - looking through your Flickr site, full of admiration for your DHR/FR Garrett. You have set me thinking now! That was a Backwoods kit I think you said? I don't believe they are available any more, but it should be too challenging to design some etches for one. The motor bogies and connecting rods being the challenge I think! Hmm maybe a project for a couple of years time when two or three of the smaller locos are built!! Nice work tho, looks fantastic.

Rich

Hi Rich

As Martin said, the V crossing is to suit the layout. For FR main line, I wouldn’t go less than 1 in 8. Most of mine seem to be curviform, but again that’s to suit their position on the layout.

Thanks for your comment on the DHR/FR Garratt. That one nearly broke me, with the split frame chassis and full springing! I won’t be doing that again! Yes, it is a Backwoods kit and no doubt there are many tucked away in drawers - extricating them is the problem. There are four sets of very tiny Walschaerts valve gear to make up - great fun!

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Rob Manchester]

Paul - looking through your Flickr site, full of admiration for your DHR/FR Garrett. You have set me thinking now! That was a Backwoods kit I think you said? I don't believe they are available any more, but it should be too challenging to design some etches for one. The motor bogies and connecting rods being the challenge I think! Hmm maybe a project for a couple of years time when two or three of the smaller locos are built!! Nice work tho, looks fantastic.

Rich

Rich,
Would these be any help for the Garretts - Articulated chassis kit I have used some products by the same guy and the quality is good.

Backwoods kits haven't been available new for a number of years as Pete, the owner, had to cease trading to provide care for his wife. His kits are very good and fetch high prices on Ebay.

Rob

 

[Paul Boyd]

Which reminds me - I was going to share a link to an album of photos I took at Dduallt in 2001 - it's here. I believe this track would have been laid in the late 1970s, although I'd have to re-check my FR history. It shows old bullhead track using second-hand BR sleepers and timbers - in some cases you can see bolt holes and chair impressions from their previous use.

A couple of interesting points (to me, anyway). One of the photos shows the use of Penrhyn Quarry Railway chairs, another the fact that short lengths of PQR rail were welded together (from memory, it came in 30ft lengths). Another photo shows a welded bullhead to flat-bottom transition rail - this is at the top end as the spiral has been laid with flat-bottom but the main line through the station is bullhead.

Unlike most photos that people take of track, there are no trains in the way

 

[Martin Wynne]

Unlike most photos that people take of track, there are no trains in the way

@Paul Boyd

Hi Paul,

Many thanks -- good info there. You obviously had some typical Welsh weather.

You might like to add the link to the Resources section:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?resources/categories/prototype.7/
so that it is easier to find in future.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Paul Boyd]

@Paul Boyd

Hi Paul,

Many thanks -- good info there. You obviously had some typical Welsh weather.

You might like to add the link to the Resources section:

https://85a.uk/templot/club/index.php?resources/categories/prototype.7/
so that it is easier to find in future.

cheers,

Martin.

Done!

 

[Martin Wynne]

Done!

@Paul Boyd

Thanks Paul.

Did you have a problem posting the resource?

The intention is that this is an external URL type of resource, so you would select this option and enter the URL:

After posting there would then be an orange button on the resource to go to the URL. Or should be. Maybe I should remove the word "download".

Are you saying that it didn't work? What happened or what error message appeared?

I'm still learning my way around this forum software. At present I can't see a way to edit the resource type after posting. It doesn't much matter in this case because you have put the link in the text.

But it would be good to get the system working as intended. It could develop into a valuable archive of material which is easier to find than trawling through topics:

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Jim Guthrie]

2FS roller gauges can be adapted to any gauge.

1. Drill a concentric hole thru the centre of a roller gauge such that a chunky metal rod can fit snugly. Too small and the drill will wander.
2. Make a mark along the centre of the narrow part of the roller gauge so you can line up the 2 halves later.
3. Cut the roller gauge in half and trim the cut ends as necessary to generously suit the new track gauge.
4. Place the two halves on the rod and make whatever gauge you like. Making a simple jig may help, especially as you need a few of them.
5. Glue or solder to fix everything in place.

That's it.

You can divide the roller gauge accurately such that they give the exact track gauge when put back together, but that needs more skill and a lathe.I've done simial

I've done similar to adjust the 2mm Society gauges to FS160, but drilled and tapped the hole through the centres for 6BA and then you can use a 6BA bolt and lock one part of the gauge against the screw head, and screw the other part on until the gauge is reached and locknut it on the out end of the bolt.

Jim.

 

[Paul Boyd]

@Paul Boyd

Thanks Paul.

Did you have a problem posting the resource?

The intention is that this is an external URL type of resource, so you would select this option and enter the URL:

View attachment 1026

After posting there would then be an orange button on the resource to go to the URL. Or should be. Maybe I should remove the word "download".

Are you saying that it didn't work? What happened or what error message appeared?

I'm still learning my way around this forum software. At present I can't see a way to edit the resource type after posting. It doesn't much matter in this case because you have put the link in the text.

But it would be good to get the system working as intended. It could develop into a valuable archive of material which is easier to find than trawling through topics:

View attachment 1027
cheers,

Martin.

Hi Martin

I did have difficulty, but with how the post looked! The original post was 'external download URL', but when I posted it it wasn't at all obvious where the link was. I noticed the orange 'download' button but dismissed it because I wasn't downloading anything but just looking for a link. I then found I wasn't able to edit that part of the post so deleted it and started again with a link in the post.

As I was typing that, the word 'download' as I was writing the original post should have been a clue to me at least, but to anyone else there didn't seem to be any link to open - and people tend to be wary of clicking download buttons if they're not expecting to download anything. I realise that opening a link means the website is downloaded into the browser, but most people seem to think of it as downloading a file that might have a virus in it!

So yes, I think the word 'download' is misleading! How about something like 'view resource'? (which sounds a bit clunky!)

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Martin Wynne]

I did have difficulty, but with how the post looked! The original post was 'external download URL', but when I posted it it wasn't at all obvious where the link was. I noticed the orange 'download' button but dismissed it because I wasn't downloading anything but just looking for a link.

@Paul Boyd

Thanks Paul.

There are, or were, lots of places in this software where the wording clearly expected users to be strongly IT-savvy. I have spent a lot of time changing it to be more user-friendly where I can. Unfortunately changing something in one place tends to have unintended consequences somewhere else.

I have changed the orange resource buttons to "Get file" for uploaded file resources and "Go to link" for external URL resources.

I have also changed the wording on the dialog to make things a bit clearer:

The main design intent of the Resources function on XenForo seems to be for downloading software. We are more interested in using it for reference material, and I'm hoping it will build into something useful.

cheers,

Martin.

 

[Paul Boyd]

@Paul Boyd

Thanks Paul.

There are, or were, lots of places in this software where the wording clearly expected users to be strongly IT-savvy. I have spent a lot of time changing it to be more user-friendly where I can. Unfortunately changing something in one place tends to have unintended consequences somewhere else.

I have changed the orange resource buttons to "Get file" for uploaded file resources and "Go to link" for external URL resources.

I have also changed the wording on the dialog to make things a bit clearer:

View attachment 1034

The main design intent of the Resources function on XenForo seems to be for downloading software. We are more interested in using it for reference material, and I'm hoping it will build into something useful.

cheers,

Martin.

Hi Martin

That change of wording should make things clearer, thanks!