Jump to content
 

Current / future 4mm finescale track option clarification


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jeff Smith said:

Perhaps for parking maintenance vehicles periodically?

The ECML examples were industrial sidings.

The Hemel bay is not used and there is another siding at the other end of the former goods yard access track where the tamper or similar parks up. There is also a lay by loop used by freight trains near Kings Langley and looking at it from a train the dead end section appears to be in a far worse condition than the used part of the loop. Again not a feature that you see in model form.

Bernard

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Team! A little update, mostly Templot-related. Alongside planning trackwork, I've made some progress on the boards.

 

Part of me really just wants to use Peco Bullhead, as, where it fits, it's close enough for my eyes, and it would save a load of time. I also feel inclined to reward Peco for (finally) making such a big improvement to their OO range. I am still struggling to see the difference (or, perhaps more to the point, which is right or wrong) with the 'Large' Bullhead turnouts in a crossover situation. The closest I've got so far was this particular shot I saw in an Everard Junction episode, where the reverse curvature did look a bit 'funny' (see attached image). Is this the issue at hand, that I'm seeing there?

 

However...I've had a bit of a play with Templot, and I just don't think I would ever be happy with the alignment in the 'throat' (if I can call it that, when it's such a simple layout) using the Peco RTL kit - see attached image for a comparison of the geometry; Peco RTL in Anyrail, with a very quick stab at free-form geometry in Templot over the top. And if you don't do a small layout, with its limited trackwork, the right way...!

 

Probably not the right place for this (and I do know that Martin will most likely read this, so do take it the right way!), but I've had to park my tinkering with Templot for the moment to make use of the last of the decent weather for other, more outdoor, projects - plenty of cold winter months ahead for playing with software tools and building track! So far, it strikes me as brilliant and frustrating in equal measure. It's clearly hugely powerful and a massive asset to the modelling community...but almost nothing works the way I'm expecting it to, and I'm left wondering how many hours of support and explanation could be saved with a UI redesign...? I got as far as the screenshot shows (with some help from the companion and videos), but got totally lost at the double slip (as you can see!), and the method of saving a "project" (which I think might not be the idea...but then how do you ensure that different segments will join up...?) seems strange. I'm sure a full read of the companion in due course will clarify a great deal, but that can wait a couple of months.

 

Thanks again for all your help thus far. To be continued...!

 

cheers

 

James

Any-vs-Templot.jpg

Peco_Reverse.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
20 minutes ago, foggyjames said:

I do know that Martin will most likely read this, so do take it the right way

 

but almost nothing works the way I'm expecting it to, and I'm left wondering how many hours of support and explanation could be saved with a UI redesign...?

 

 

Hi James,

 

Templot is now 20 years old. In that time I have seen this sequence many times:

 

1. new user downloads Templot.

 

2. comes back 5 minutes later to say the program is unfathomable and the User Interface is all wrong and needs a complete redesign.

 

3. comes back 12 months later to say it's a great program, and doesn't know how the User Interface could be any different and still retain all the functions and features. :)

___________________

 

a. if you want to know why it's the way it is, see:

 

 https://templot.com/companion/origins_intent.php

 

b. if you want to change it, the code is available open-source, so over to you:

 

 https://sourceforge.net/projects/opentemplot/

 

c. if you think I might change it after all these years, the answer is I'm 72 years old. :)

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martin,

 

Thanks for taking my comments in good humour! I strongly suspect I will conform to your often-observed sequence in due course! :D

I hadn't seen the 'origins' page before, and at a quick skim (I'm supposed to be working...!) it looks like it will fill in a number of the blanks I'm currently experiencing in terms of why certain things are a certain way. I have a lot of reading to do!

 

Anyway, I think I'm sold on the idea of building my own turnouts. Part of me thinks it's the wrong side of the 'anorak line', but I don't think I'll ever be happy with the geometry if I go with the RTL option! :D

 

cheers

 

James

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Templot is a steep learning curve,  just work through the video tutorials, until the penny finally drops.  The videos are a bit out of date, but you will get the gist of it, but be aware that some of the terminology has changed, it took me around 3 months before I finally got the penny to drop,  its not like other software, but then trackwork is a bit of a specialist subject in its own right, as is the terminology.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement from a while back seems to have escaped correction:

Quote

...although I'm a little mystified about how the Peco turnout has ended up longer, in that case! Is it because the Peco points could be laid nose-to-noise to create a crossover with a scale six-foot, whereas the A-7 would require a short length of straight track between the two turnouts to achieve the same (hence the overall crossover length is actually longer)?

The issue here is that you don't get a scale 6ft with Peco points, it is actually overscale. The track centre spacing for Peco streamline is 50 mm when it should be 44 mm to scale. With hand built track you can use the scale spacing and this saves significant length in crossovers. eg an A7 or B7 crossover at 44 mm track centres is 42 mm shorter than one at 50 mm track centres.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use 44mm track centres remember to widen that on curves or your longer stock will foul anything going on the other track1 We made that mistake when we built the MRC's "New Annington" layout in the late 1970s/early 1980s with its spectacular elevated curve on the main line. BR mk2 stock would just about clear, Mk3 stock didn't. We had to change the track centres on that curve which involved a lot of digger but the final effect was worth it.

 

I've recently tried planning the same layout in Templot and it doesn't work! It was designed by the late Frank Dyer of Borchester fame and although the layout DID work and looked good in practice the track geometry was to Frank's standards, not anything prototypical!  As I've mentioned on here before, Frank made the track for the branch line to 16.2mm gauge and it worked perfectly no matter what stock we ran on it.

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, roythebus said:

If you use 44mm track centres remember to widen that on curves or your longer stock will foul anything going on the other track1 We made that mistake when we built the MRC's "New Annington" layout in the late 1970s/early 1980s with its spectacular elevated curve on the main line. BR mk2 stock would just about clear, Mk3 stock didn't. We had to change the track centres on that curve which involved a lot of digger but the final effect was worth it.

 

I've recently tried planning the same layout in Templot and it doesn't work! It was designed by the late Frank Dyer of Borchester fame and although the layout DID work and looked good in practice the track geometry was to Frank's standards, not anything prototypical!  As I've mentioned on here before, Frank made the track for the branch line to 16.2mm gauge and it worked perfectly no matter what stock we ran on it.

 

 

Templot has the facility to check that you have vehicle clearances. Utils, dummy vehicle. You can set the length, width and bogie centres and put one on each adjacent track and move one past the other.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Grovenor said:

This statement from a while back seems to have escaped correction:

The issue here is that you don't get a scale 6ft with Peco points, it is actually overscale. The track centre spacing for Peco streamline is 50 mm when it should be 44 mm to scale. With hand built track you can use the scale spacing and this saves significant length in crossovers. eg an A7 or B7 crossover at 44 mm track centres is 42 mm shorter than one at 50 mm track centres.

 

Thanks, Keith - good detail!

 

Did my screen-grab from Everard Junction correctly identify the 'reverse curvature' issue with the Peco turnouts in a crossover configuration? I'm still trying to get my head round that!

 

cheers

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

Templot has the facility to check that you have vehicle clearances. Utils, dummy vehicle. You can set the length, width and bogie centres and put one on each adjacent track and move one past the other.

 

 

Video clip showing that:

 

 https://flashbackconnect.com/Movie.aspx?id=NEZusxJ3GUOLWCQ8XTWt7g2

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

 

Templot has the facility to check that you have vehicle clearances. Utils, dummy vehicle. You can set the length, width and bogie centres and put one on each adjacent track and move one past the other.

 

 

Thanks, I'm aware of that. unfortunately we never had templot or indeed computers in 1979! The attempted recreation of Frank Dyer's plan reveals that he used a lot of very unprototypical curves and crossing angles, but the thing is, it looked right! And it worked.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, roythebus said:

Thanks, I'm aware of that. unfortunately we never had templot or indeed computers in 1979! The attempted recreation of Frank Dyer's plan reveals that he used a lot of very unprototypical curves and crossing angles, but the thing is, it looked right! And it worked.

 

I think some like Frank Dyer, Iain Rice etc have the gift of being able to replicate the spirit of the design into something that just looks right or believable 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 01/09/2020 at 13:50, foggyjames said:

I am still struggling to see the difference (or, perhaps more to the point, which is right or wrong) with the 'Large' Bullhead turnouts in a crossover situation. The closest I've got so far was this particular shot I saw in an Everard Junction episode, where the reverse curvature did look a bit 'funny' (see attached image).

 

 

Hi James,

 

It depends on your definition of "wrong". The problem is that prototype crossovers don't look like this. There is a clear instant reverse curve at the mid-point of this crossover:

 

peco_x_over_yellow.jpg.4ed47b41847bd9fef54af0e71f88b4e7.jpg

 

I can't find a comparable prototype shot, so I've generated one in CAD. This is an EM B-6 crossover:

 

x_over_cad.png.cb8f7dac5bd55ee2d6ebb1f5fd724025.png

 

You can see that there is a straight section between the V-crossings, with no instant reverse. If the track spacing was widened to Peco spacing, the straight section would be a lot longer.

 

Lots of folks don't care whether their track looks like the prototype. A strange attitude when you consider how fussy they can be about other things, such as the details on a locomotive. But there it is. Peco have built a handsome business over the years on folks not caring.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2020 at 19:09, Grovenor said:

This statement from a while back seems to have escaped correction:

The issue here is that you don't get a scale 6ft with Peco points, it is actually overscale. The track centre spacing for Peco streamline is 50 mm when it should be 44 mm to scale. With hand built track you can use the scale spacing and this saves significant length in crossovers. eg an A7 or B7 crossover at 44 mm track centres is 42 mm shorter than one at 50 mm track centres.

There is not a scale for the 6 foot,  the six-foot, and also the ten-foot and the cess,  are basically PW terms for describing the line, they are not to be interpreted as  "must adhere to for accuracy"  scale  dimensions, I have just retired from the railway,  we used to measure the  running rail  to running rail dimension  of the  six-foot when setting up the SSOW,  5Feet 8 inches was the minimum clearance from the SSOW book on a straight track for our usual SSOW with on-track plant, even 6 feet 6 inches was considered to be "too tight for comfort".   The six- foot could be a lot more ( fortunately).  Do not therefore fret  about the issue of  Peco  50 mm centres, thinking  it  should be 44mm for scale on my layout,  ,  adhere to the principle of making the six-foot suitable to allow long stock to pass without fouling due to overhang or overswing of buffers.

Edited by Pandora
  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
8 minutes ago, Pandora said:

There is not a scale for the 6 foot,  the six-foot, and also the ten-foot and the cess,  are basically PW terms for describing the line, they are not to be interpreted as  "must adhere to for accuracy"  scale  dimensions,

 

 

Are you talking about UK track?

 

The 6ft way and 10ft way minimum spacings are clearly laid down in the traditional regulations.

 

In 4mm/ft scale that's 44.67mm and 60.67mm.

 

I agree that they are often wider around stations and junctions.

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

It depends on your definition of "wrong". The problem is that prototype crossovers don't look like this. There is a clear instant reverse curve at the mid-point of this crossover:

 

...

 

You can see that there is a straight section between the V-crossings, with no instant reverse. If the track spacing was widened to Peco spacing, the straight section would be a lot longer.

 

Brilliant - thank you Martin! I thought that was the issue at hand from the various previous posts on the subject, but forgive me if I say that it's pretty subtle to my eye, and I was genuinely unclear on what exactly about it was unprototypical. For me, it's not as simple as just not caring - stage one is to identify the inaccuracy, and stage two is to decide on whether or not I am happy with that compromise. Of course the harder it is for me to spot what's wrong in the first place, the more likely it is that I will decide that I will settle for the status quo. Then again, some things are hard to unsee, and at one point I didn't really notice that Code 100 wasn't "right"...!

 

Thanks again, all, for your contributions. This is going to keep me entertained over the winter!

 

cheers

 

James

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

Hi James,

 

It depends on your definition of "wrong". The problem is that prototype crossovers don't look like this. There is a clear instant reverse curve at the mid-point of this crossover:

 

peco_x_over_yellow.jpg.4ed47b41847bd9fef54af0e71f88b4e7.jpg

 

I can't find a comparable prototype shot, so I've generated one in CAD. This is an EM B-6 crossover:

 

x_over_cad.png.cb8f7dac5bd55ee2d6ebb1f5fd724025.png

 

You can see that there is a straight section between the V-crossings, with no instant reverse. If the track spacing was widened to Peco spacing, the straight section would be a lot longer.

 

Lots of folks don't care whether their track looks like the prototype. A strange attitude when you consider how fussy they can be about other things, such as the details on a locomotive. But there it is. Peco have built a handsome business over the years on folks not caring.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

In the examples above the photograph suggests that the rail is curved from the frog nose.  The only Peco points I have are O-16.5 which definitely have straight rail from the frog nose as per your cad picture.  If I create a crossover with them there is no reverse curve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
21 minutes ago, Jeff Smith said:

In the examples above the photograph suggests that the rail is curved from the frog nose.  The only Peco points I have are O-16.5 which definitely have straight rail from the frog nose as per your cad picture.  If I create a crossover with them there is no reverse curve.

 

The Peco small-radius turnouts, 0-gauge turnouts, and some others are like that.

 

James was asking about the large-radius turnouts, specifically the bullhead versions.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, petejones said:

This is a gauge for correcting Peco sleeper spacings, should you not wish to build your own track:

 

https://www.englishmodelrailways.shop/set-spacers-for-sleepers-oo-gauge.html

I tried that with Peco code 100. That experiment was the point i started looking into making my own track, as it did look better but the simple fact you cant get curves nicely with set track points finished that project. I will be re building this at some time with Peco bullhead flexi and hand made points / crossovers.

 

IMG_20200417_184810.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 02/09/2020 at 17:51, martin_wynne said:

I can't find a comparable prototype shot, so I've generated one in CAD.

 

 

Hi James,

 

I have now found one. It's an early pre-group NER crossover with interlaced timbering. But shows the straight section between the crossing vees:

 

hessle_interlaced_ner.jpg.b6fd5ade6f0f343ae57b1a124efe7646.jpg

Thanks to Mick Nicholson for this pic.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 4
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...