What do you call this turnout formation, and how to make it in Templot?

[justin1985]

Some might be familiar with this image on the cover of vol.1 of "Great Eastern in Town and Country". It shows the approach to the terminus of the GER "London Dock Railway" branch (twig?) near St Katherine's dock. It sort of typifies the grimy urban yard doesn't it?

 

At first glance, I assumed the trackwork in the middle of the view was a slip of some kind, but then I realised the two turnouts are actually independent of each other. They're just "overlaid". What is the proper term for this? I've searched things like "interlaced" but that is something quite different! 

 

And how should I go about designing something like this in Templot? I've approximated something like it by first creating a parallel track, then crossover, then inserting a turnout into the original parallel track, and roaming it to overlay the crossover at the right point. Is that all there is to it? Or should I be doing something specific to prevent conflicts? (e.g. sleepers are all over the place)

 

 

Thanks!

Justin

[melmoth]

Two tracks overlaid but otherwise unconnected were said to be "gauntleted". An example would be double track in a tunnel with very limited clearance (e.g. Bolsover on the LDECR), but I don't know if that's the right term to describe the pointwork in your image.

[Chris116]

There is a point like that at Ropley on the Mid Hants. I think they are called Barry Slips but I may be totally wrong with the name.

[gordon s]

It is called a Barry Slip and I built one over a few days at Christmas just for fun. It was very easy to build and basically I just took a large radius slip for sleeper spacing and added a couple of crossings plus the necessary switch blades...
 

i

 

 

[martin_wynne]

Hi Justin,

 

It's a Barry Slip.

 

Many thanks to Sandy Croall for the pic.

 

Thanks to Mick Nicholson for this.

 

More info here:

 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=2583&forum_id=11

 

Templot instructions here (9-year-old topic):

 

http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=1356&forum_id=6

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 18, 2020 by martin_wynne
fix link

[Andy Reichert]

Since the "slip" is mostly buried, life will be a lot easier if you use Flat Bottom rail on a continuous base or PCB. And build it on the bench and either solder or glue and spike the rail down to your base. Note in that example, the points are short and hinged, There are simple, but 100% reliable and effective, hinges and throw bars available for FB rail. If you are serious, I don't mind sending you a couple of pairs.

 

 

Again, if you are building the  buried version , Slaters Plastikard for 2mm Stone would give a very similar effect. Just take care that the flange ways are to the "span" dimension for the track standard you use, or the wheels will rub the edges.

 

Andy

[justin1985]

Many thanks for all of the replies - I don't think I would have ever worked that name out myself! 

 

It does look quite fun, so my temptation to build it is growing! 

 

I work in 2mm Finescale, so hinging and tie-bars would probably be a bit different to larger scales. I just replied to a thread in this subform asking about this this.

On a 2mmFS layout I inherited from another 2mm member, he had built hinged switch blades in a way that seems to use flat headed brass pins (probably custom turned) soldered to a small notch where the bottom of the bullhead had been filed off. This seems to work well. I tend to use under - baseboard tie bars with wire droppers.

 

If I did go ahead and build this little scene, it would be a cameo/diorama to fit the 2mm Association Diamond Jubilee competition size of 600mm x 240mm. I am very inspired by Mikkel's Farthing dioramas, so I'm thinking this would work along similar lines - perhaps the inside of the goods depot could be an adjoining diorama etc.

 

Unfortunately MacOS Catalina has broken WINE by removing support for 32-bit code, so I'll have to wait until I dig out my old Windows laptop (which i keep for things like this) before I can play with Templot again, probably tonight. 

 

Justin

 

 

[martin_wynne]

33 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

Unfortunately MacOS Catalina has broken WINE by removing support for 32-bit code, so I'll have to wait until I dig out my old Windows laptop (which i keep for things like this) before I can play with Templot again, probably tonight.

 

Hi Justin,

 

CrossOver v.19 has fixed Wine to work on Catalina. Unfortunately not free, but not too bad if you don't choose the support option (they know nothing about Templot, so it's hardly worth having if you don't want to run other Windows software):

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover-mac

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 19, 2020 by martin_wynne

[justin1985]

51 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi Justin,

 

CrossOver v.19 has fixed Wine to work on Catalina. Unfortunately not free, but not too bad if you don't choose the support option (they know nothing about Templot, so it's hardly worth having if you don't want to run other Windows software):

 

 https://www.codeweavers.com/products/crossover-mac

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martin. Do you know if Templot has been checked as working in it?

 

I was a bit put off by the fact that the two other Windows only programs I need to use occasionally, which are much more common - MS Access, and ESRI ArcGIS Pro - aren't listed as checked/supported on their online database. Doesn't seem to bode well ... I never actually tried those two in WINE before, but if I'm paying £50, I'd like to know they'd work!

[martin_wynne]

2 hours ago, justin1985 said:

 

Thanks Martin. Do you know if Templot has been checked as working in it?

 

I was a bit put off by the fact that the two other Windows only programs I need to use occasionally, which are much more common - MS Access, and ESRI ArcGIS Pro - aren't listed as checked/supported on their online database. Doesn't seem to bode well ... I never actually tried those two in WINE before, but if I'm paying £50, I'd like to know they'd work!

 

Hi Justin,

 

I don't have a Mac and know nothing about Macs. I do have a Linux/Ubuntu system running CrossOver v.19 and Templot runs fine on there.

 

But I know that several Templot users are running Templot on CrossOver v.19 on Mac/Catalina.

 

p.s. the price is £32 not £50. They know absolutely nothing about Templot, so there is no point in paying for support unless you want to run other Windows software too.

 

For Templot support, ask on the Templot Club forum. Lots of Mac/Wine users.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

[Andy Reichert]

4 hours ago, justin1985 said:

Many thanks for all of the replies - I don't think I would have ever worked that name out myself! 

 

It does look quite fun, so my temptation to build it is growing! 

 

I work in 2mm Finescale, so hinging and tie-bars would probably be a bit different to larger scales. I just replied to a thread in this subform asking about this this.

On a 2mmFS layout I inherited from another 2mm member, he had built hinged switch blades in a way that seems to use flat headed brass pins (probably custom turned) soldered to a small notch where the bottom of the bullhead had been filed off. This seems to work well. I tend to use under - baseboard tie bars with wire droppers.

 

If I did go ahead and build this little scene, it would be a cameo/diorama to fit the 2mm Association Diamond Jubilee competition size of 600mm x 240mm. I am very inspired by Mikkel's Farthing dioramas, so I'm thinking this would work along similar lines - perhaps the inside of the goods depot could be an adjoining diorama etc.

 

Unfortunately MacOS Catalina has broken WINE by removing support for 32-bit code, so I'll have to wait until I dig out my old Windows laptop (which i keep for things like this) before I can play with Templot again, probably tonight. 

 

Justin

 

 

 

My earlier post applies to using code 40 FB rail, in 2mm scale just as well as using larger FB rail codes in 4mm scale.

 

Andy

 

 

 

Andy

[justin1985]

I'm not sure I quite followed the instructions, and as Andy said, it will be buried, so not worrying about sleepers. But this looks like it should work, I think?

 

 

Thanks for everyone's help

 

Justin

[Andy Reichert]

1 hour ago, justin1985 said:

I'm not sure I quite followed the instructions, and as Andy said, it will be buried, so not worrying about sleepers. But this looks like it should work, I think?

 

 

Thanks for everyone's help

 

Justin

 

If you do decide to go the fast and easy route, set Templot to plot FB rail.  It's very difficult to lay FB rail on an un-adapted BH template.  ;)

 

Andy

[Izzy]

Going back to the original cover shot, and the reference to hinged blades in 2mm, am I correct in thinking the blades are loose heel. More likely to be used in a paved situation perhaps?
 

Izzy

[justin1985]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

Going back to the original cover shot, and the reference to hinged blades in 2mm, am I correct in thinking the blades are loose heel. More likely to be used in a paved situation perhaps?
 

Izzy

 

Hi Izzy - I'm not sure of the distinction - what does loose heel signify, as opposed to 'hinged'?

 

12 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

If you do decide to go the fast and easy route, set Templot to plot FB rail.  It's very difficult to lay FB rail on an un-adapted BH template. 

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy. I have built turnouts (actually for Z / 6.5mm gauge) using code 40 flat bottom rail, but I found the rail was actually much harder to work with in terms of filing down crossing Vees and blades, compared to code 40 bullhead. It was, however, refreshing to be sure I had it the right way up!

 

If most of the visible track work is going to be buried under paving etc. and laid on solid PCB or at least non-prototypically spaced sleepers, I don't really see any great advantage to either type of rail - apart from the fact the parts are easier to fabricate with bullhead. I'd be interested to hear why you think FB would be faster and easier?

[Izzy]

6 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

 

Hi Izzy - I'm not sure of the distinction - what does loose heel signify, as opposed to 'hinged'?

 

 

Thanks Andy. I have built turnouts (actually for Z / 6.5mm gauge) using code 40 flat bottom rail, but I found the rail was actually much harder to work with in terms of filing down crossing Vees and blades, compared to code 40 bullhead. It was, however, refreshing to be sure I had it the right way up!

 

If most of the visible track work is going to be buried under paving etc. and laid on solid PCB or at least non-prototypically spaced sleepers, I don't really see any great advantage to either type of rail - apart from the fact the parts are easier to fabricate with bullhead. I'd be interested to hear why you think FB would be faster and easier?

 

Hi Justin,

 

Sorry, I believe they mean the same, just that I have always known them called loose heal. I was looking at the shot on the actual cover, which seems to show the loco is a J69 - the raised edges on the side tanks ( which is what I was musing about), when I noticed the extra visible detail re the track and wondered whether loose heels where preferred in these kind of situations re the infill.

 

I personally don't see any advantage of FB over BH, and especially if it going to be infilled. Soldered onto pcb seems nice and easy to me. No filing of the stock rail and less for the blades.

 

Izzy

[martin_wynne]

43 minutes ago, justin1985 said:

I'm not sure of the distinction - what does loose heel signify, as opposed to 'hinged'?

 

Loose-heel is mostly a UK term and denotes the usual method of constructing them in the UK where the fishbolts at the heel of the switch rails were left slightly slack in the fishplates to allow movement of the switch rail.

 

One two of the mysteries of life which I have never been able to establish is "how slack?" and "what prevents them working loose and falling out?"

 

The general trend to flexible switches in the UK, 100 years ago now, probably means such engineering details were originally left to the ganger to keep an eye on, and never updated.

 

In other parts of the world they have remained the norm, and are provided with properly engineered means for the switch rail to pivot at the heel.

 

The big problem with loose-heel switches in model terms is that you can't model them to scale in other than P4, S7, etc. The wider model flangeways in 00, EM, etc., require the switch rails to be made much longer and pivot over a greater length, to ensure an adequate flangeway clearance at the joint.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited May 20, 2020 by martin_wynne
clarity

[Andy Reichert]

7 hours ago, justin1985 said:

 

Hi Izzy - I'm not sure of the distinction - what does loose heel signify, as opposed to 'hinged'?

 

 

Thanks Andy. I have built turnouts (actually for Z / 6.5mm gauge) using code 40 flat bottom rail, but I found the rail was actually much harder to work with in terms of filing down crossing Vees and blades, compared to code 40 bullhead. It was, however, refreshing to be sure I had it the right way up!

 

If most of the visible track work is going to be buried under paving etc. and laid on solid PCB or at least non-prototypically spaced sleepers, I don't really see any great advantage to either type of rail - apart from the fact the parts are easier to fabricate with bullhead. I'd be interested to hear why you think FB would be faster and easier?

 

Back in 2000, I was devising engineering based methods for the Proto:87 SIG to help even neophytes make US style P:87 FB trackwork in a near foolproof manner and without special skills.  That effort resulted in quite economical pre-assembled crossings and machined FB point blades for turnouts that it subsequently turned out could also be made just as easily for Standard HO, N and Z scales. In your case, given a suitable accurate diagram,  I, (or most of us) you) could probably assemble a working Barry Slip crossing in code 40 N  from existing parts, including hinges and ,  in a couple of hours. The gauge is not a problem but exact 2FS common crossings are not part of the existing range. (Points and hinges and simple tie bars are).  It may be possible to create 2FS versions by adapting existing crossings, but I haven't evaluated that. Up to now there hasn't been a need.

 

Andy

 

PS. I'm not a BH rail user personally, so I never had reason to figure out how, or what to use, to easily and consistently hold the rail exactly upright if soldering directly to PCB. either as sleepers or as a continuous base.  FB rail doesn't have that issue.

[Grovenor]

9 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Martyn Wynne said:

One two of the mysteries of life which I have never been able to establish is "how slack?" and "what prevents them working loose and falling out?" 

Slack enough and regular preventive maintenance, which was the norm back in the days of cheap labour.

  

    The general trend to flexible switches in the UK, 100 years ago now, probably means such engineering details were originally left to the ganger to keep an eye on, and never updated.

The example in the photo was built well over 100 years ago at a time when loose heel switches were commonplace,
Edited May 20, 2020 by Grovenor
There used to be a button to allow proper editing of quoted posts. Now its just a mess.