Colin parks Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) After a period of inactivity, I have embarked on what I have rather ambitiously named a 'super' test track, designed using Templot. There will be a mixture of flat bottom rails and bullhead. The design has developed over the last few months and reached the point where track building has commenced. Here is my query: selected templates were changed to have flat bottom rails using the rails> flat bottom> show head and foot. For the first set of definitive templates, this was fine and all templates printed successfully. However, when trying to print more copies, one turnout remained stubbornly in bullhead rail mode. Does anyone know why this should be? No settings were changed in the intervening time between the two print runs. Also while am about it, how does the 'Print smaller group function' function? I can group all templates or select one (which turns red), but not a small group. Any ideas? Attached is the Templot plan itself and the turnout in question is number 35. It does, rightly or wrongly, share some timbers with a bullhead railed tandem point, but this did not affect the initial prints. Colin Super Test Track #4 extended version.box Edited January 27, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Colin I would try Templot club If you are using code 82 flatbottom rail the head is slightly narrower than bullhead rail (DCC do flatbottom rail gauges) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Thanks for your suggestion John. I will join the Templot club and see what they have to say. Re. rail head width, I had not considered that there would be a difference. So, I have just cast the vernier gauge across the C&L Hi-nickel bullhead rail head and the head of the Peco code 82 flat bottom rail that I am using. The bullhead rail measures 0.92mm across the head and the flat bottom rail head is 0.94mm, giving a difference of 0.02mm. There have been no issues with the gauges that I am using - so far! All the best, Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2017 Also while am about it, how does the 'Print smaller group function' function? I can group all templates or select one (which turns red), but not a small group. Hi Colin, There are several ways to create groups of templates, but for your small layout the simplest is to click on each template in turn and then click group select (toggle) on its menu on the left, or press G. Then output > print group templates only. For other options, see the group menu. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Thanks for your swift reply Martin. I have tried what you suggested and this particular template will not respond to those commands. There must be some connection between the rail foot issue and the group function not working. I just cannot think what I have done wrong! Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2017 Hi Colin, Which template? Only background templates can be grouped, it must be showing blue/green before you click it. Clicking the control template (black/brown) doesn't do anything. All the templates in your posted file are working normally for me. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) p.s. Colin, If you have duplicated templates, clicking it to a group may not show red because the other one is in front of it. That is the case for your bottom left-hand template for example. Apart from the obvious solution of deleting duplicate templates, a way round that is to group-select templates by dragging the group fence rectangle around them. That is also the best way to select a group of partial templates, such as your tandem. Martin. Edited January 10, 2017 by martin_wynne Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Hi Martin, It is numbered '35: Flat bottom lh shares timbers with tandem rh TL 438'. I am clicking on the template just as you say, to no avail. Could the file be corrupted? Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2017 It is numbered '35: Flat bottom lh shares timbers with tandem rh TL 438'. I am clicking on the template just as you say, to no avail. Could the file be corrupted? Hi Colin, The file you posted isn't corrupted. That template can be grouped and thye output is as expected: Have you got the control template over the top of it? Or a duplicate template? I suspect it is grouping ok but you can't see the change to red for some reason. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2017 p.s. Colin, The quickest solution to this is probably to quit Templot and restart, and then reload the file which you posted here. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meil Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 35 does not appear to be grouping because you have two copies of the template overlapping each other. Delete one copy and you will find it then groups as expected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Thanks for your suggestion John. I will join the Templot club and see what they have to say. Re. rail head width, I had not considered that there would be a difference. So, I have just cast the vernier gauge across the C&L Hi-nickel bullhead rail head and the head of the Peco code 82 flat bottom rail that I am using. The bullhead rail measures 0.92mm across the head and the flat bottom rail head is 0.94mm, giving a difference of 0.02mm. There have been no issues with the gauges that I am using - so far! All the best, Colin Colin I think Peco has the same head thickness where as C&L flatbottom rail has a thinner head, make sure if building a chaired turnout that the head of the rail can rotate within the gauge (to keep the 20% cant) and not too tight and held vertical, as the chairs will relax back into the cant resulting in a gauge narrowing. Hope I am not teaching granny to suck eggs but this may assist others By the way, like the test plank, why no slip though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Hi Meil, Thanks for your reply. I have done what you suggested and the template does now group and print the full flat bottom rail foot edges. Now I can get on and assemble the rail components for this point. More concerning for me is that I had diligently worked through all the templates and deleted many duplicates. That was easy enough when the name labels identified them, but in this case, there seems to be no identity marking that particular template (under no. 35). How on earth did you find it?! Similarly, Martin has mentioned a duplicate template at the left hand end of the Templot plan. Try as I might, I cannot find that 'rogue' template either. A;; the best, Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) Colin I think Peco has the same head thickness where as C&L flatbottom rail has a thinner head, make sure if building a chaired turnout that the head of the rail can rotate within the gauge (to keep the 20% cant) and not too tight and held vertical, as the chairs will relax back into the cant resulting in a gauge narrowing. Hope I am not teaching granny to suck eggs but this may assist others By the way, like the test plank, why no slip though? Hi John, By happy chance, it looks as if my choice of rail will pose no problems. I am using C&L roller gauges, a set of E4XX TG01 track gauges and also Scalefour Society three-point, check, and flangeway gauges. I have never built a P4 point to completion, so it is going to be an educational experience to say the least. Am I putting too much faith in these gauges in assuming that, as they are designed for use with bullhead rail, there will be no issues? Is the the angle cant on bullhead track not 1:20 or 5%? As for the omission of a slip in the plan, I have a complete set of parts for a 1:8 double slip, but felt it would no have worked on this venture. If I ever get as far as adding a fiddle yard, a double slip would be useful, but that will be another story... All the best, Colin Postscript. Just measured the C&L roller gauges and found that they are bang on 18.83mm gauge. However, the outer dimension is 20.8mm. So, given the rail head width of .92mm the calculation would appear to demonstrate that a tolerance has been designed into the roller gauge to accommodate the rail cant: 20.8 - 1.84 - 18.83 = 0.13mm clearance. Well that is the theory, I have not installed anything yet. Edited January 11, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Colin I bet each make of gauge differs slightly I am getting quite fond of the Exactoscale gauges but with the E4XX TG01 (gauge widened) can find no instructions as to which gauge to use at what radii, so I only to date have used either the plain or 1 bar ones. I have 2 packs of E4XX TG01 and one of E4XX TG02 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 http://www.clag.org.uk/switch-traverse.html 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 11, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 11, 2017 How on earth did you find it?! Hi Colin, If you suspect you have a duplicate template (not responding as expected, etc,): 1. click on it. 2. delete to the control. 3. press the Home key a few times. 4. the control template should flash on and off with nothing underneath it. 5. if there is anything there, delete it. 6. click make the control on the next template and repeat the process. 7. repeat until all templates done. 8. store & background on the last one. Templot can't really help with this process because quite often you do need overlaid duplicate templates -- when using partial templates for example. Another trick is to count the number of visible templates and count the number in the storage box. If you show box list in the storage box and click on the first one on the list, you can run up and down the list on the keyboard arrow keys and each template will highlight in turn on the trackpad. You may then notice two templates in the same place. The best solution is not to create duplicates in the first place, but it's easier said than done if you are not concentrating. There is always a temptation to store a template again, "just in case". But you can check for that by pressing the Home key before storing, which is good habit to get into. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Got it Martin! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) Colin I bet each make of gauge differs slightly I am getting quite fond of the Exactoscale gauges but with the E4XX TG01 (gauge widened) can find no instructions as to which gauge to use at what radii, so I only to date have used either the plain or 1 bar ones. I have 2 packs of E4XX TG01 and one of E4XX TG02 Hi John, I had assumed that the +0.1mm gauge would be used primarily around the area of the switch/stock rail. The link to Russ Elliot's article in Missprism's post would seem to confirm this. The subject of gauge widening has been covered at length in the Scalefour Journal 196 by Alan Austin, pp.21-26 (if you have access). It is pretty comprehensive, giving values for various radii and stock wheelbases. Colin Edited January 11, 2017 by Colin parks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Hi Colin and all, Thought you might like to see my non-kosher way of rebuilding old or broken Peco Code 75 points to 18.83 gauge. No B6 or B8 drawings involved, just re-using the rails, frog and blades provided, and adding Peco Pandrol clips superglued to traditional wooden point sleepering strip. I started building my own 18.83 flat-bottom points over 30 years ago, using Minitrix N gauge rail from flexi (which had a proper head) and copperclad, but if making your own frogs and blades, are much harder work than the equivalent bullhead type, with far more grinding and filing involved. These are 18.83mm gauge, but built with EM fine clearances, rather than P4/S4, so I can use coarser wheels, which I find more reliable. I will still scratchbuild the longer types, or for special situations, but these are a handy back-up and make up quickly, employing roller gauges and the rectangular gauge shown, for gauge widening on curves. This one below, still needs the frog nose soldering up, plus a tie-bar, the only rail grinding was for the replacement check rails. I'd run out of Peco slide chairs, and no one seems to have them in stock, so these here are bodged-up from scrap black plastic. Outside radius is 72", inside radius is 30", I wouldn't go any sharper than this. Cheers, Brian. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold griffgriff Posted January 25, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 25, 2017 Sheer heresy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Can I ask if the wheels that you use are wider tyred or deeper flanged than P4, as at that gauge, the P4 wheels should run perfectly through an 18.83 point without any trouble whatsoever, no drop or sudden change of course, or it it that your flangeway is wider than the P4 standard? No comment against the work, it looks fine, but very curious indeed to hear that the standard pattern wheels do not work over your point. My own P4 wheels are to the minimums in size for the flange, normal width for the tyre. I also have two locos done years ago with flanges that are half the correct height as an experiment and they still run accurately. I wonder if they are commercial wheels if they really conform with the standards, not enough cone angle or the root curve from the tyre to the flange is wrong, perhaps too small a radius. I even made an 040 test loco with no flanges and just the start of the curve, and that stayed firmly on the track. How ever it is all up to you, and if you get better running with the wheels ( presumably EM depth), then all is alright for you. As said, just curious as to why P4 users get problems as I was a very early user of the standard, and got very good results indeed sticking to them (but without any Studiolith parts or wheels) Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertiedog Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 You mentioned the Peco slide chairs, I spoke to several "stockists" and it is an item that they are advised to order in as required, mine came in about a week by mail order. Same applies to the O gauge parts as well, few stock them. Stephen Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin parks Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 That is an epic attempt at a P(Eco)4 point Brian! I was fortunate in securing enough of the Peco Individulay slide chairs for my current needs a few years ago. Admittedly, the Peco Pandrols are a great improvement over the Streamline fixings, albeit a little on the large size. All the best, Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I use EM or even fine OO wheels re-gauged, using a back-to-back of 17.2mm. If you make the outer check rails a bit tighter than the frog clearance, you can even run P4 wheels set to 17.6mm, although there's more of a drop through the frog of course, whereas a coarser wheel will bridge the coarser frog gap. Stephen, can I ask how long your passenger trains are? Mine can be 12+ coaches long, with very few derailments and no bogie compensation. The only snag is you can't use coarse wheels at 17.2mm in steam loco splashers. I do use regular P4 wheels as well, not to mention my OO collection elsewhere. Each to his own, this suits me. :-)) BK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now