Sharing of Templot-generated DXF files with bespoke manufacturing firms

Andrew GW

Member
Location
UK
A query specifically for Martin Wynne please, if he wouldn't mind - and first of all, thank you Martin for Templot. Having previously worked out my track layouts with spreadsheets and 2D CAD (and before that a drawing board), I'm extremely grateful!

Much of my planned layout consists of inset track on a quayside. For this, and the hidden storage lines, I'm looking into using solid track bases with CNC- or laser-cut slots to accept the rails. I'm hoping that this will improve the build speed, strength and accuracy compared to conventional hand-built track. I work in P4 and the layout will use GWR loose-heeled switches throughout. My current plan is to make the inset track with continuous check rails, so each slot will be dimensioned to take two Code 75 bullhead rails plus a spacer strip to maintain the 0.68mm flangeway gap.

I've produced 2D CAD drawings of individual turnouts to work out the track base design and dimensions/tolerances, using prototype information mainly from David Smith's GWR Switch and Crossing Practice (Great Western Study Group, 2001). However, I've designed the overall track layout in Templot (over an imported DXF drawing of the layout site) and it would make sense to base the cutting files directly on the Templot output if possible, rather than re-drawing the trackwork from scratch. Whether that will be technically feasible I don't know yet (bearing in mind that Templot-generated DXF's form curves as a series of short lines), especially since I'll need to add the continuous check rails and potentially gauge widening on the sharpest curves. Thoughts on that welcome please.

Martin, my main query however is whether you are happy for users to share Templot-generated files with suppliers for bespoke manufacture (laser cutting, CNC milling, 3D printing etc.)? If so, do we need to include any clauses when doing so to protect your copyright? Aside from the final DXF cut files, it would also be useful to send suppliers a PDF or PNG "print" of the overall layout plan for initial discussions.

Many thanks,

Andrew
 
_______________
message ref: 340

Martin Wynne

Admin
Location
West of the Severn UK
Info
Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for asking.

You can do anything you like with Templot-derived material, except claim your own copyright on it. If you give a Templot DXF file to a manufacturer or anyone, they can do anything they like with it, except claim their own copyright on it. You have no redress if they provide a copy of it to someone else, or add it to their list of products.

I retain the copyright on anything which is created by Templot.

See para.5 at:

https://85a.uk/templot/companion/terms_of_use.php

In other words, once you release a design from your own computer, anyone else can copy and use it if they wish, unless I say otherwise.

I would normally have no reason or intention to do that, it is simply a fall-back in the event someone uses such material in a way which is derogatory or damaging to me or Templot. Or creates something to look as if it is from Templot when it isn't.

cheers,

Martin.
 
_______________
message ref: 341
I've produced 2D CAD drawings of individual turnouts to work out the track base design and dimensions/tolerances, using prototype information mainly from David Smith's GWR Switch and Crossing Practice (Great Western Study Group, 2001). However, I've designed the overall track layout in Templot (over an imported DXF drawing of the layout site) and it would make sense to base the cutting files directly on the Templot output if possible, rather than re-drawing the trackwork from scratch. Whether that will be technically feasible I don't know yet (bearing in mind that Templot-generated DXF's form curves as a series of short lines), especially since I'll need to add the continuous check rails and potentially gauge widening on the sharpest curves. Thoughts on that welcome please.


Many thanks,

Andrew
Hello Andrew,
I don't have any thoughts that would help you but I am interested to hear of the idea. Have you built any track in this way as a test ? I like the sound of it for inset track situations similar to yours. I can see it being workable for plain track and am thinking that street tramway modellers used a similar process with two rails to form each 'rail' of the track. What about the turnouts though ? Would your solution be to use the same process though them - leaving space for the switch blades to move of course.

Regards
Rob
 
_______________
message ref: 344

Martin Wynne

Admin
Location
West of the Severn UK
Info
Please do not send requests for help direct to me via email.

Post your questions on the forum where everyone can see them and add helpful replies.
... ... Much of my planned layout consists of inset track on a quayside. For this, and the hidden storage lines, I'm looking into using solid track bases with CNC- or laser-cut slots to accept the rails. I'm hoping that this will improve the build speed, strength and accuracy compared to conventional hand-built track. I work in P4 and the layout will use GWR loose-heeled switches throughout. My current plan is to make the inset track with continuous check rails, so each slot will be dimensioned to take two Code 75 bullhead rails plus a spacer strip to maintain the 0.68mm flangeway gap.

I've produced 2D CAD drawings of individual turnouts to work out the track base design and dimensions/tolerances, using prototype information mainly from David Smith's GWR Switch and Crossing Practice (Great Western Study Group, 2001)... ...

Hi Andrew,

A couple of points.

• Are you sure that inset quayside tracks would use the GWR (or REA) standard designs? Such track is more usually constructed from contractors industrial trackwork, often as private sidings, and often flat-bottom. Details of some typical BH and FB industrial turnouts here:

https://85a.uk/templot/companion/prototype_information.php

• Except where a functional check rail is needed, the flangeway clearances for inset track are frequently a bit wider than the standard flangeway gap. This will be the case anyway if there is some gauge-widening on the sharp curves.

cheers,

Martin.
 
_______________
message ref: 345

Andrew GW

Member
Location
UK
Hi Martin and Rob,

Thanks very much for all those points, and for the quick replies - and Martin, thanks for the clarification on the licence terms.

To respond to each point in turn:

Rob:

I'm currently in discussions with a laser cutting firm to get some test pieces made. I'll probably then produce an operable, single-turnout "micro-layout" to prove the design before progressing with the main layout.

I am intending to use the same basic method for pointwork, in fact that's where I see the most benefit to this idea; effectively the slotted base acts as a rigid jig that positively locates the rails, ensuring accurate assembly. The rail slots are widened through the switch blades to allow for movement (with the check rails in this region either joggled inwards or replaced by wooden boards, depending on prototype).

Martin:

I did wonder myself about the most appropriate prototype designs to use. I'm modelling a 1920's-set harbour line supposedly built and owned by the GWR, inspired mainly by the Weymouth Harbour Tramway. Studying photos of Weymouth, Millbay Docks and other GWR locations eventually convinced me (though I'm more than open to correction) that the track was built from standard GWR bullhead components, with loose-heeled switches. However, there's a wide variety of construction detail and I suspect these were always "non-standard" installations, designed case-by-case. David Smith's book above (p42 "Check Lumps") also highlights that where stock rail checks were continued right up to the switch heel and spliced into the closure rail, the loose-heeled switches had to be shortened by 2ft.

Thanks for the link to the industrial turnout details - whether or not I end up using them on this particular layout, in the long run I think I'll need a few of those!

Widened flangeways - this is something I was aware of (I believe the GWR normally set flangeways on level crossings etc. to 2", though I'd need to look up the references) and on which I'd appreciate your advice please. It is straying off my original topic and I can start another thread if you prefer:

A 0.68mm gap is only just over dead-scale for the 2" dimension and is specified for functional check rails in P4 - and since I'm working to P4 rather than S4 standards (though I do try to set back-to-backs to 17.75mm rather than any lower), I wondered if it would be worth widening this. In any areas requiring functional check rails (with or without gauge widening), I will be setting the check rail positions by check gauge rather than flangeway gap.

Thanks again,

Andrew
 
_______________
message ref: 346
Top