Templot Club forums powered for Martin Wynne by XenForo :

TEMPLOT 3D PLUG TRACK - To get up to speed with this experimental project click here.   To watch an introductory video click here.   See the User Guide at Bexhill West.

  • The Plug Track functions are experimental and still being developed. Some of the earlier pages of this topic are now out-of-date.

    For an updated overview of this project see this topic.   For some practical modelling aspects of using Plug Track see Building 3D Track.

    The assumption is that you have your own machines on which to experiment, or helpful friends with machines. Please do not send Templot files to commercial laser cutting or 3D printing firms while this project is still experimental, because the results are unpredictable and possibly wasteful.

    Some pages of this and other topics include contributions from members who are creating and posting their own CAD designs for 3D printing and laser-cutting. Do not confuse them with Templot's own exported CAD files. All files derived from Templot are © Martin Wynne.
  • The Plug Track functions are experimental and still being developed.

    For an updated overview of this project see this topic.   For some practical modelling aspects of using Plug Track see Building 3D Track.

    The assumption is that you have your own machines on which to experiment, or helpful friends with machines. Please do not send Templot files to commercial laser cutting or 3D printing firms while this project is still experimental, because the results are unpredictable and possibly wasteful.

    Some pages of this and other topics include contributions from members who are creating and posting their own CAD designs for 3D printing and laser-cutting. Do not confuse them with Templot's own exported CAD files. All files derived from Templot are © Martin Wynne.

'THAT' tandem

Quick reply >

Derek

Member
Location
UK, Midlands
Hello Martin. Thanks for your offer to look at 'THAT' tandem for me. This isn't an issue of using Templot as I've done literally many 100s of this tandem over the years, none of which have ever looked right from every angle. I know this is rivet counting, but it's just this one piece of trackwork that I want to get to that detail level; many combinations will fit over the OS map well enough to satisfy 9,999 out of 10,000 people. I've set it as a B6.5/ C10. The switches are 100% correct as is the distance from toe 1 to toe 2. So it has to be the Vs. I've tried 7/10, 7.5/11, 6/8... All are in RAM but I can't see that making enough difference.

This is the heel:
This is the toe:

The only thing I can conclude is the first straight check has been moved a timber or so in order to fit, rather than fitting a cut down version.

If you can spot what I've missed, I'd be very happy. I planned this as a tribute to my late Dad- a Whitby based Driver at one time- and I think I'll be 'late' before I ever start at this rate.
Many thanks

whitbytandemtemplot060423.png


Derek
 
_______________
message ref: 6256
_______________
message ref: 6265
Hello Martin
Please see attached. Going based on an OS map, any one of several combinations will fit- baring in mind it crosses over onto a very gentle C switched turnout next to a platform.

But no combination matches the picture- with 10 timbers between the two check rails on the stock rail side of the straight, 5 timbers between the join on the second turnout and the start of the check for the third... If you look at my sketch diagram (yes, the red markers are joins and just as a memory aid to count back from).

I am aware that in a tandem you will often find timbers aren't spaced equally and other photos from other angles show this, but I am only going on what I can see in these photos for this part. It might be a case that I'm just going to have to accept without the original engineering notes (which I believe NYMR secured when this was all removed as they ended up with most of it- and no, I've asked with no luck).

99.99% of people wouldn't notice the difference, but it will always bug me. Any ideas welcome.
NB it MIGHT be that the first check, due to its proximity to the crossing rail was moved back one timber rather than be specifically made/ cut, which would still have the wheels in check before the vee (a 15mph dead end) and this would mean by reducing the Vee number of each turnout- ie reducing it by 1 timber- would bring it closer to the photo. Possible? Likely? this is the NER- and every reason to believe LNER and BR(E) just continued to replace 'like with like' all those years.

Thank you
Derek
 

Attachments

  • Whitby tanderm 080423-1.box
    42.9 KB · Views: 57
_______________
message ref: 6269
I think I've (nearly) cracked it. I was missing something so obvious that Martin has said time and time again... I didn't think about the positioning of the timber to support the check rail- I lined up the main (second) timbers to support the 3rd vee, but as that's at X angle to the main straight road it means the check rail has to be shifted. And when I then move one of the timbers it bares a striking resemblance to a photo in my memory from the other side showing 2 timbers only inches apart.
 

Attachments

  • Whitby tanderm 090423-2.box
    31.4 KB · Views: 56
_______________
message ref: 6278
Last edited:
Back
Top