Jump to content

gordon s

Eastwood Town ...Paper, paper everywhere.....

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Thanks for that Martin. Been giving some thought as to how I can cut side rails on an angle

 

Hi Gordon,

 

You don't need to! Use a parallel strip and raise one end.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 .....but the side rails are laid flat on the saw bed. My thoughts were to cut a dummy side fence with spacers to bring out one end. That can be considerably longer than the fitted fence to allow a 1200mm length to be supported over it’s whole length. The dummy fence could be screwed or clamped to the one fitted on the saw. It the same thing , but you’re giving me the impression that you cut the side rails vertically rather than flat.

 

The other alternative would be to mark them out and then cut manually on my rail saw.

 

Congratulations on post 4,000 on ET....:)

 

Who’d have thought it after all these years.

 

Edit: It’sOK, the penny has dropped. I hadn’t realised you were using parallel side rails. Doh!

 

 

Edited by gordon s
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gordon,

 

These tracks appear to be at constant spacing:

 

gordon_multiple_tracks.png.b82ee60cb7ad28be09aeb9c97c87cd9e.png

 

That won't look prototypical. To comply with the regulations, multiple track like this should alternate 6ft way and 10ft way.

 

If the outer lines are Goods Loops, they should be spaced at 10ft way from the main running lines (spaced at 6ft way). So the spacings would be 10ft way + 6ft way + 10ft way. In 4mm scale that's 60.67mm + 44.67mm + 60.67mm centres.

 

If the outer lines are Up and Down Slow Lines, they could be at the same spacing as Goods Loops above, or they could be 6ft way +10ft way + 6ft way. It varies with different prototypes and locations.

 

Where space constraints make it unavoidable, such as on viaducts or between platforms, the 10ft is allowed to be 9ft absolute minimum (56.67mm centres).

 

I realise that because of the curves at each end you are probably using wider spacing than the minimum 6ft way (44.67mm centres) anyway, but it still needs to be wider on multiple tracks to look right. It also helps a lot with positioning signal posts, bridge piers, etc., between the tracks.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

Edited by martin_wynne
  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, gordon s said:

 Edit: It’sOK, the penny has dropped. I hadn’t realised you were using parallel side rails. Doh!

 

Hi Gordon,

 

In that 1985 pic they were in fact tapered side rails. But that was only because we were starting from a flat-top baseboard (I can't remember why we did that). You are using an open-frame baseboard, so you can easily use parallel side rails and raise the support under one end by whatever the gradient requires.

 

The tapered side rails were cut for us by a local firm of Ecclesiastical Woodworkers (church-fitters). They made a superb job of matching our specified angles, but of course they did have a higher power working for them. :) We even specified different angles for the inside and outside of the curves. Using parallel side rails you don't have that issue of course, the inner is just a bit shorter than the outer.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

I'll try to do a sketch tomorrow Gordon - it's a bit late at night now!

Hope this makes things a little clearer.

 

813915913_riserfixitblock.jpg.c2176e580787aea41e5f8f37af2e4c37.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

Hi Gordon,

 

These tracks appear to be at constant spacing:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_2019_11/gordon_multiple_tracks.png.b82ee60cb7ad28be09aeb9c97c87cd9e.png

 

That won't look prototypical. To comply with the regulations, multiple track like this should alternate 6ft way and 10ft way.

 

If the outer lines are Goods Loops, they should be spaced at 10ft way from the main running lines (spaced at 6ft way). So the spacings would be 10ft way + 6ft way + 10ft way. In 4mm scale that's 60.67mm + 44.67mm + 60.67mm centres.

 

If the outer lines are Up and Down Slow Lines, they could be at the same spacing as Goods Loops above, or they could be 6ft way +10ft way + 6ft way. It varies with different prototypes and locations.

 

Where space constraints make it unavoidable, such as on viaducts or between platforms, the 10ft is allowed to be 9ft absolute minimum (56.67mm centres).

 

I realise that because of the curves at each end you are probably using wider spacing than the minimum 6ft way (44.67mm centres) anyway, but it still needs to be wider on multiple tracks to look right. It also helps a lot with positioning signal posts, bridge piers, etc., between the tracks.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

 

Thanks Martin. Hopefully you have a copy of 'Bridges for Modellers' as there are some pics there which perhaps have muddied the waters (for me, anyway).....:D

 

Figure 112 on page 85 shows four parallel lines, all equidistant, but of course it's hard to tell if they are 6' or 10' apart. Likewise with Fig 160 on page 115.

 

The other pic I saw was Fig 69 on page 57 which is of interest. It may well be I'll have a plate girder bridge over the shed entrance and here there is a central girder, possibly within the 6'. Again hard to tell. Would the four tracks then realign into pairs or remain in the 10', 6', 10' as per your first comment?

 

What happened in station approach areas? Was it acceptable to have four or more tracks on 6' spacing as traffic speed would be slower? Did they widen out away from stations?

 

I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge on this subject or it's likely I could have some real howlers. Ultimately prototypical practice may not be possible within the space I have or without ripping up a lot of the work I have completed. If that were the case, I'd live with it as most people wouldn't know it wasn't accurate.......;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite a productive morning sat at my old PC. First thing that greeted me was Windows 7 is no longer going to be supported, so either I buy a new operating system or I'll never sleep again for fear of hackers......:D

 

Anyway, I digress. Picked up on Martin's comment last night and revised the spacing where possible to the two outer lines. In actual fact it was not so bad and any rework is limited to boards where just the bare track has been laid to allow something to run.

 

More challenging was trying to add the line extensions to allow four trains at once, but it's done...:good:

 

The top end of the plan went together fairly well, so I have two sidings for a coal yard/coal drops accessed from the good relief road. The bottom end was slightly more complicated and will involve removal of a couple of turnouts plus the associated rework. Bit of a pain, but the rewards will be worth it. Access to the lower levels has had to change and that needed an hour or so to ensure there was room for the trackbed and the gradients weren't excessive. Eventually they are virtually unchanged with 1:55 down to the shed and 1:80 to the traverser, so it looks like a change will be on the cards.

 

Traverser wise, I was concerned about a few things. The gap between ET station and the end of the traverser was tight and the questions of length of trains, access length and loco storage needed more work. I was not planning to hold loco's on the traverser as they will have to come off anyway to go to the other end of the train. Seven Mk1 coaches need 1905mm, so I started looking at the Peco loco lifts again and how much space they require. They are just over a foot long, so providing the length of the approach track will allow a loco to be pulled from stock and placed on the access road, it can then be backed onto the train and called forward. The reverse of that process will be to travel onto the traverser which will accept six coaches and the loco. The loco will go onto the Peco lift and be removed to storage and then the train manually pulled forward to allow the last coach onto the traverser. Can't see a problem with that and it's shortened the traverser by a few inches which has widened the gap to ET station out to 2'.

 

Everything is a compromise, but this appears OK. Any problems?

 

Here's the latest plan from this morning's efforts.

 

514815329_sketchboard_2019_11_17_1239_09(1).jpg.57c3f59dc857a4c203e504bc8fae7be1.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gordon s said:

Figure 112 on page 85 shows four parallel lines, all equidistant, but of course it's hard to tell if they are 6' or 10' apart. Likewise with Fig 160 on page 115.

 

The other pic I saw was Fig 69 on page 57 which is of interest. It may well be I'll have a plate girder bridge over the shed entrance and here there is a central girder, possibly within the 6'. Again hard to tell. Would the four tracks then realign into pairs or remain in the 10', 6', 10' as per your first comment?

 

What happened in station approach areas? Was it acceptable to have four or more tracks on 6' spacing as traffic speed would be slower? Did they widen out away from stations?

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Clearly a photograph trumps any drawing, regulation or theory. :)

 

The purpose of the rule is for the safety of train crew and other staff on the ground. If a train comes to a stand for whatever reason, the crew must be able to get down to the ground safely on one side or the other. They cannot do that from the middle track of 3 tracks all at 6ft way. This applies just about everywhere on the railway, including station approaches, etc., apart from perhaps close-spaced storage sidings. I don't think the line speed is a relevant factor.

 

However, how much space is safe? Clearly a lot of the railway even now dates back to the original construction date before the regulations were formalized, and the regulations did not require that the whole existing railway be ripped up and rebuilt.

 

For Figure 112 on page 85, I found the 1899 map on NLS and tried it in Templot. From the telegraph poles we can see that it is looking south (crossbars on the Up side of the pole).

 

The old 25" OS maps can't always be relied on, but where the rails do correctly scale to gauge, it is likely that the spacings do also:

 

gordon_lnwr_bridge_spacings.png.f599155801dfb52ccc47d8e57be2669c.png   

 

Which shows 10ft + 7ft-6in + 7ft-6in , plus or minus an inch or two.

 

Clearly the width under the bridge is fixed, so the total spacings of 25ft can't change. The two options within the regulations are 6ft + 10ft + 6ft (= 22ft). Or possibly 9ft-6in + 6ft + 9ft-6in (=25ft), taking advantage of the reduction in 10ft way permitted where existing space constraints apply (which is what I suspect the original bridge was designed for, being described as a standard LNWR bridge).

 

In the event the map appears to show neither of those applying in 1899, and the photo is clearly later than that (who put that bus on a bridge?). So what we are looking at remains unclear. I will see if there is a later map on old-maps.co.uk .

 

In Fig 69 on page 57 the tracks look to be at standard 6ft-way. It is permissible for underbridge girders to occupy this space provided they are below a specified height. I forget now the exact height, but I seem to remember posting it in this topic previously.

 

How far it's possible to replicate this stuff in a model having much sharper curves than the prototype, and needing to fit in a restricted space, is moot. The spacings have to be widened anyway to allow passing clearances, so you could argue that they are already wide enough to comply with the regulations. But multiple close-spaced running lines do look wrong, so it's worth varying the spacings a bit in line with the prototype.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Quite a productive morning sat at my old PC. First thing that greeted me was Windows 7 is no longer going to be supported, so either I buy a new operating system or I'll never sleep again for fear of hackers

 

Hi Gordon,

 

It can't be hacked if it's not connected to the internet, so unplug it! Templot no longer requires an internet connection on start-up.

 

Just remember to check for updates occasionally on your other system, and copy the downloaded file across on a USB stick.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd always thought it needed to be connected to the internet for Templot, but if that's not the case, then I'll disconnect and down load updates as you suggest. Good point Michael re signals, so happy to have widened the two outer lines to 10'.

 

Just printing off the templates now to see they will all fit OK in the gap to the stairwell wall and still leave sufficient trackbed without fouling the existing boards.

 

Edit: Another Doh! moment. Disconnected the internet and of course I can't print anything to my network printer. My PC is so old it doesn't have wi fi, so it's hard wired into the network. I can't run a cable to the printer as it's over the other side of the room.

 

I'll live with it unless there is an obvious solution for this non IT guy....:D

Edited by gordon s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

Clearly a photograph trumps any drawing, regulation or theory.

As you have discovered, it’s Yes, except . . . 

Four track Euston to Rugby is known in the industry as having regular 6’ all the way across, in some places at least. All it means is for a fictional location you can do what you want!

Paul.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gordon s said:

I'd always thought it needed to be connected to the internet for Templot, but if that's not the case, then I'll disconnect and down load updates as you suggest.

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I changed it a couple of updates ago, see:

 

 http://85a.co.uk/forum/view_topic.php?id=3489&forum_id=20

 

From which:

 

"It is no longer necessary to have an internet connection in order to run Templot2. It will still check for updates on start-up, but allow you to continue working if you wish, or if there is no internet, or if the Templot servers are down. I made this decision after an incident last year which proved that the rationale for a forced update wasn't working. I realise this means that I can't prevent some folks from going on using the same out-of-date version for 5 or 10 years or forever, but if so please don't give any demonstrations or advice to beginners or other users. Or expect any help and support."

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gordon s said:

Quite a productive morning sat at my old PC. First thing that greeted me was Windows 7 is no longer going to be supported, so either I buy a new operating system or I'll never sleep again for fear of hackers......https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png

 

 

Given you largely use the machine for templot tinkering and not for your general browsing or email and it sits behind a firewall in your router the chances of a hack have to be miniscule. Just keep using it. I'm still getting security patches for win 7 on my machine and have no intention of upgrading as it would require replacing the machine. Heck, I'm still running a machine on Windows XP!

 

Cheers

Dave

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gordon s said:

I'll live with it unless there is an obvious solution for this non IT guy....https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png

 

Hi Gordon,

 

Export from Templot as a PDF file onto a USB-stick. Walk across the room with it...

 

That's at output > export a file...

 

Just make sure when printing it that you set the scaling to None or 100% in your PDF reader program. That is not the usual default setting.

 

cheers,

 

Martin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon

 

time to stop the paper changes..back to real track building and laying.

 

baz

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to.....:D

 

Sadly, it's just something I have to do to avoid making costly mistakes. I'd much rather spend time sticking sheets of paper together now than rush into something that has primary design faults. 

 

I still have the scars of the past......;)

 

Golf cancelled again this morning, so you may get your wish before the week is out. :good_mini:

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, it's cold out there, so happy to be indoors.

 

I have a question you may be able to answer. Following on from track spacings yesterday, I'm looking at a bridge over the four tracks. At present they are set with the two fast lines at 45mm centres and the two outer goods lines at 60mm centres.

 

No problem with that but looking ahead, there is a possibility of a bridge and I want to allow space for the supports. Would A or B be correct, or is every case different?

 

Scan.jpg.bd4ce68dec3b986bee615b146be18299.jpg

 

 

A means the two fast lines have to diverge, but there are only two arches and one central support for the permanent way guys to build.

 

B keeps the fast lines together with the goods line splaying out, but now you need three arches and two supports.

 

Any views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote for B

Baz

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a quick look at bridges at the South end of the ECML Gordon, on the assumption that you are still focusing on that area, and almost all the photos do show the set up being as in your plan B. I could only find one brick arch structure with a single span over all four lines, but there were a number of single span girder bridges if you find that a single span is what fits and/or looks better.

 

Now I must go and run the 1145am Up Dundee.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gilbert, much appreciated. How your course right now? We've had over a week with the front nine closed or several holes out of play. It's pretty muddy right now....:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, gordon s said:

Thanks Gilbert, much appreciated. How your course right now? We've had over a week with the front nine closed or several holes out of play. It's pretty muddy right now....https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_mellow.png

We've been closed for several days, but the amount of rain we've had is unprecedented in my experience. I've just talked to our GM, and he's hoping to have at least nine open tomorrow, but carrying only, which doesn't suit old chaps with bad backs.

 

We put out an e-mail to all members on Friday saying the course was closed and would not be inspected again till Monday. On Saturday morning the GM had a phone call asking if trolleys were allowed in the competition! it was pouring with rain at the time.  I have only 67 days left as Chairman, thank goodness.

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on history - you can create some backstory for your layout here. 

Originally there were just two lines, up and down. The bridges accommodated this double track. Due to busy traffic, a third line was added for goods, and a single arch was added to the side of the bridges. A single, bi-directional goods line was found to be rather restrictive, so another was added on the other side. Hence many bridges have single-double-single spacing, but there might be some which were rebuilt completely, maybe as double-double, or even a single span girder. 

If you look at various tunnels on the former London and Birmingham, which was originally double track, you can see double-double (e.g. Watford) and single-double-single (Leighton Buzzard) examples. (I quote these as I am more familiar with them recently.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.