Search Results for 'templot'

[John CutlerParticipant]

I recommend you produce a template of an A5 crossover in Templot and print it off.

By comparing it with the 2 kits (or with the Finetrax templates) you should see what needs to be modified; hopefully not too much. If you use the Templot template at least you know the geometry will be OK as per the prototype.

[John CutlerParticipant]

If you use A5 turnouts, you will not be able to reliably run large tender locos or bogie vehicles through them.
A5s were rare on the prototype for this reason.
I suspect A5 crossovers were rarer still.
By minimising the track centres, the reverse curve is accentuated in effect and will give more problems for larger vehicles.
In cramped yards, especially industrial sites, loose-heeled straight switches were more common.
These give a larger radius curve for the same 1:5 crossing angle and in a shorter footprint.
You could try modifying the A5 kit; the A switch blades can be used for the loose-heeled switches.
But you will probably have to incorporate some new sleepers and chairs and recurve and cut rails.
You do need to print a template from Templot.

I have a B6 to a 1:5 crossover in my yard.
By using loose-heeled straight switches for the 1:5 turnout instead of an A5, I can now reverse a short tender loco (Drummond 700) through it reliably.
My N mogul still complains though.

As regards couplings, my experience suggests AJs will give trouble on an A5 crossover even if all your buffers are lightly sprung.

Good Luck!

[pcarrick59Participant]

Hi Daryll,

Anyrail is a good package, I did try that, then moved on to Templot. Not sure I’m using that to it’s full capacity though. just getting by.

Paul.

[Russell DaviesParticipant]

Hi Paul

I worked up the plan in Templot, I didn’t bother trying to convert all the frogs/common crossings just left it as rails overlapping. For the check rails I used the Society check rail gauge constantly checking with a long wheelbase vehicle, a Parkside BY. Clearances are a bit tight, it turns out, for older Romford wheels.

Good luck with project.

[Russell DaviesParticipant]

Hi Paul,

Looking forward to how that progresses. I’m addicted to complicated track and docksides.

I’m a few years in to Barnstaple Junction and Ilfracombe but did do a Templot plan for Kingston Wharf at Shoreham a while back.

Here’s a link to my efforts on RMweb,

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/37186-barnstaple-junction-in-em-gauge/&do=findComment&comment=4211697

Russell Davies

[pcarrick59Participant]

Hi John,

Templot will convert to an image file, which I guess would work better than a screenshot. Its not as straight forward to do as the .dxf file though.

Paul

[pcarrick59Participant]

OK, so this is just a screen shot of the Templot file. Tried to convert it to different formats without success.

So this an interpretation of the track at the Ocean terminal. The track off to the right will join to a loop in the future if I ever finish this bit. Same with the track off to the bottom that will be the marshalling yard and the rest of the terminal to the right.

Funny but looking at the screen shot it looks so simple, but it’s feels like it’s taken me a life time to do it.

[Stuart FirthParticipant]

Hi Paul – any chance of  a picture of your Templot plan?

Looking a bit sparse on here so I thought I’d make a contribution.

Now I’ve been retired for three years or so, I was a prototype fitter at Ford Mo Co, preparing instrumentation for development vehicle testing, it’s time to indulge myself and build a model railway.

I grew up on the Hamble River and recall watching the trains as the wound themselves along the river bank from Bursledon, back in the early 60’s. That was the inspiration to build a layout. That said, I’ve actually planned a modest layout based on Southampton docks. I have made a plan on Templot and built a modular baseboard. I’ve also had a one-day lesson in turnout building by a EMGS member. So, ready to lay some track. Well, no, before I start just need to get a handle on building the ‘covered’ dockside section with copper clad sleepers.

Any pointers there would be appreciated.

All the best

Paul

[John CutlerParticipant]

Hi Malcolm

I think you are right to question the efficiency of the triangular gauges.
From bitter experience I know that the outcomes are not reliable; well not for me at any rate.
I suspect that the inline slots on the outer studs (on the outside of a curve) may tend to flatten the rail between them instead of curving it out, giving rise to gauge narrowing.

I discovered 50%+ of my poitwork was narrow to gauge and I reckon I relied too much on these gauges.
Now, whenever I build pointwork, I always use a template, usually from Templot, and deliberately build slightly over-gauge.
Then I check everything with a vernier.
Slightly over-gauge at turnouts is desirable; it allows extra clearance for point blade fitting to stock rails in particular.
As I use plastic chairs on ply sleepers, it is fairly easy to apply solvent and move a rail out slightly if narrow to gauge.

Also be aware that if you use these gauges on plain track with C&L chairs the gauges will tend to grip the rails at their base.
After removing the gauges the rail will then move to conform to the 1 in 20 cant of the chairs and you end up with gauge narrowing!
One answer is to file the gauge studs down so they only grip the rail head.

Good Luck!

[John CutlerParticipant]

@Nick Ridgway said:

@John Cutler said:
….sleeper depth at 1.51 mm seems to be about 0.4mm more than C&L….
….why not go the whole hog and go to 1.67mm (=5 inches as per the prototype)?…. 

The difference is the thickness of a piece of paper, which will be familiar to those using Templot to build and mount track and one would normally bury the template during top-ballasting.

5 inches is the depth of a wooden sleeper in 12in scale; crossing timbers are usually 6in deep, which would be 2mm in EM terms.

One is always going to think in 3 dimensions when building and laying track.  

Nick
This really has me confused! The average paper is 0.1mm thick +-0.03mm. Does this mean you will lay 4 sheets of paper under the thin-sleepered C&L track to match up to the new EMGS turnouts?
Or do you mean something different? Sorry if I am thick…..

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

@John Cutler said:
….sleeper depth at 1.51 mm seems to be about 0.4mm more than C&L….
….why not go the whole hog and go to 1.67mm (=5 inches as per the prototype)?…. 

The difference is the thickness of a piece of paper, which will be familiar to those using Templot to build and mount track and one would normally bury the template during top-ballasting.

5 inches is the depth of a wooden sleeper in 12in scale; crossing timbers are usually 6in deep, which would be 2mm in EM terms.

One is always going to think in 3 dimensions when building and laying track.

[Nick RidgwayParticipant]

The difference is the thickness of a piece of paper, which will be familiar to those using Templot to build and mount track and one would normally bury the template during top-ballasting.

5 inches is the depth of a wooden sleeper in 12in scale; crossing timbers are usually 6in deep, which would be 2mm in EM terms.

One is always going to think in 3 dimensions when building and laying track.

[John CutlerParticipant]

I finally built a 1 in 5 turnout to the loose-heeled template from Templot.
But as suggested by Martin Wynne, it is not loose-heeled.
So no complications with pivots.
This has resulted in the blades being a bit stiff.
However, I have tested with short-wheeled rolling stock and so far there are no problems.
It will be a while before I test under traction as I need to sort out actuation and wire everything up.
The real test comes with a tender loco.
But if it fails, it will be no worse than my previous efforts with an A4 (and an A5 come to that).