RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 19, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, gordon s said: The only way I know out of that is to cancel the print and start all over again....slowly. Is there an easy way of going back to the previous row if you've gone too far? Hi Gordon, Sorry, no there isn't. The only way is to cancel and start again. It's also caught me out far too often, and if there was an easy fix I would have long since done it by now... There is a lot of calculation going on as you step from one page to the next. However, not easy is not the same as impossible. So I have moved it from the NOD list to the TD list*. If we have any more wet days, who knows? cheers, Martin. *Nice One Day , To-Do. Edited December 19, 2019 by martin_wynne typo 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) Honestly Martin, don’t worry about it. You’ve done enough already..... It was just one of those things that I put down to me rather than Templot. I’ll just have to slow down a bit when doing it. Feet up right now with a glass of wine watching the darts. Enjoyed last night seeing a girl get past the first round. She won on merit, so good luck to her on Saturday. Just one of those things I latch onto each Christmas. Still making progress on the layout front and never felt more positive about seeing things run. There’s a ton of work to do, but I just have to accept it all takes time and there are no real shortcuts. Everything just takes hours.... How others turn out complex layouts in hours, beats me...... Edited December 19, 2019 by gordon s 4 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNER4479 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 3 hours ago, gordon s said: How others turn out complex layouts in hours, beats me...... Ahem... Tongue firmly in cheek, Gordon. Apples and oranges are distinctly similar in comparison to the comparison between this layout and yours. 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 20, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 20, 2019 Morning Gordon. Forecast rain all day, so I've made a start: That's the easy bit -- now to make them work. But first a cooked breakfast before such a challenge... Ideally it needs a complete re-write of the entire function, clicking on the page outlines instead. But after working this way for 20+ years, IIABDFI. On the other hand, the code is all now open-source, so if anyone fancies a go... cheers, Martin. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post gordon s Posted December 22, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) I really appreciate what you're doing Martin, but honestly, if it's a load of work that takes you away from your photographic walks in the country, don't worry. I probably just need to slow down a bit and not click my mouse until I'm sure it's on the right row. The page prefix works fine and will prove useful when working from different print origins. Many thanks. Spent yesterday building turnouts again and stumbled across a small issue re precut sleepers. I've always bought them from SMP in the past and they were fine. I ordered some more a month or so ago and in all fairness the quality of the product has certainly improved. They come in a push out sheet like this... I've used them for a while now to connect droppers to track and they are fine. The problem has arisen when building pointwork, primarily because I use 1mm pcb strip so that it is height compatible with SMP bullhead. I will phone Marcway to check, but in offering a new product, believe they have changed the thickness of the material from 1.2mm to 1.5mm. Not a problem sliding under rail for droppers as there are no chairs in that situation, but I can't use them for pointwork where all the other sleepers are 1mm pcb strip. As I said, I will call Marcway, but the options are to buy 1mm strip from C & L and cut them or cut strips from 1mm sheet. Has anyone found a source of pre cut sleepers 3.3mm x 1mm? Progress is being made. The other boards are all cut to shape and the turnouts have been built. Managed to rescue 9 turnouts from an old board with gallons of boiling water and they may well get reused in non critical positions. With those boards out of the way, I've returned to the station exit board and now have the trackbed down and the two turnouts in place. With any luck I would hope to have this board wired, painted and ballasted in the next few weeks. Working round the rest of the layout should be fairly straight forward as most of it is plain track with just two crossovers. The gradient trials have gone well and everything appears to go up and down consistently. Only time will tell if a steam loco with seven coaches will cope with the 1:65 gradient. Simply looking at the slope, I can't see it being an issue, but with one going up and one going down, it may be an optical illusion.... Edited December 22, 2019 by gordon s 21 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, gordon s said: I really appreciate what you're doing Martin, but honestly, if it's a load of work that takes you away from your photographic walks in the country, don't worry. Hi Gordon, No walks in this weather! Don't worry, nowadays I don't do anything on Templot if I don't want to. But I do actually enjoy coding. The print pages dialog has been unchanged for over 20 years, and I've barely looked at the code for it in all that time. I have been meaning to remove some of its irritations for ages, so it's been an interesting exercise to go back through the old code. I'm well on the way to having something better, but if it goes wrong on me I shall just park it up for now. My development version of Templot is littered with such half-finished stuff, going back years! cheers, Martin. 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 The new Marcway sleepers certainly look interesting - has the price changed at all? And do you know if the long lengths of sleeper (300mm or so?) have changed in any way - I seem to recall that you mentioned they could be a bit variable? Many thanks Brian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Rowsley17D Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2019 Hi Gordon, I hope your locos will cope with 1 in 65 with seven on but it could be a struggle with RTR locos. When I had 1 in 80 gradients I removed the coach weights and the locos coped with seven LMS bogies. I added as much weight as I could to the RTR stuff. Kit jobs should cope much better. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, Rowsley17D said: Hi Gordon, I hope your locos will cope with 1 in 65 with seven on but it could be a struggle with RTR locos. When I had 1 in 80 gradients I removed the coach weights and the locos coped with seven LMS bogies. I added as much weight as I could to the RTR stuff. Kit jobs should cope much better. Gordon is in Templot as we speak, adding a turn-back spur for the banking engine... 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 22, 2019 Author Share Posted December 22, 2019 (edited) Just measured the Marcway sleepers and they are actually 3.5mm wide, so fractionally oversize x 32mm long. I’ve also found one of the earlier versions and they were 1.2mm versus the 1.5mm of the new ones. Cost wise they are £9.99 for a sheet containing 100 sleepers. At 32mm long, that’s the equivalent of 3.2m length. C & L are 20 strips of 220mm, so 4.4m for £18.96, but they are 3.3mm wide. I can live with the extra 0.2mm width, but not the additional 0.3mm in thickness. I’ll ring tomorrow and let you know the outcome. Off the top of my head that probably makes Marcway 25% cheaper per metre and you don’t have to cut them to length. Gradient wise, I forgot I have now taken the gradient almost to the traverser, so now have a run of 7m for 82mm height which is 1:85, so much better. Like you, Jonathan, I remove the weights from all Bachmann coaches, so feel I should be OK. If not, Martin has the answer..... The line up to ET shed will be around 1:65, but that will only be light locos. Edit: Apologies, Brian, these new sheets are really consistent and have sharp edges, certainly on a par with C & L. The single sided strips are far more variable and because some were undersize width wise, I cut them up into single sleepers. Edited December 22, 2019 by gordon s 4 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted December 22, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 22, 2019 Gordon I have noted that Bachmann Mk1s are not the most "rollable" of items. I have tried using a pinpoint bearing adjusting tool to no avail as yet. However, my kit built stock fitted with Bahmann LMS bogies are fine. I will do some checks to see if I can suss out the real problem. As for RTR locos, well Shap is sorting them out as is the exit from the Fiddle Yard on Barnbow East. It just means you need to have lots of nice kit built express and freight engines! Baz 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 23, 2019 Author Share Posted December 23, 2019 (edited) Just had a very pleasant discussion with Mark of 'Marcway', which prompted me to go right back to the beginning and try to understand how I arrived where I am now after years of building my own pointwork to align with SMP track. It was certainly a very worthwhile exercise and one I probably wouldn't have done without the chat this morning. I find it amazing how we forget some things and remember others and sometimes between those thoughts, the reasons why you do things the way you do often gets crossed over. The starting point was to stick a vernier across SMP flexi and note all the major dimensions. In some cases the dimensions did vary along a length of track, so these are my closest estimates. The overall height of the track is 3.3mm and the height of the rail 1.88mm. That leaves the space between the bottom of the rail and the track bed as 1.42mm. Give or take a a fraction of a mm in overall height and it's easy to see why the loose sleepers are 1.5mm. Many track builders use 1.6mm sleeper strip, which would mean the finished turnout would be slightly higher at 3.48mm (1.6mm + 1.88mm), but builders either live with it or insert a small shim under the flexi to bring it to the same height. The thickness of the plastic sleeper on SMP is 0.9mm and because of ballasting issues I've had over the years, I chose to go with 1mm strip which enabled me to easily follow the 'Captain Kernow' ballasting method of painting PVA between the sleepers. A few years ago, I tried some tests on 1.6mm sleepers and the results weren't as good as I found the PVA shrank back once dried and personally, I wasn't as happy with the results, so I chose to stay with 1mm sleeper strip. Doing the maths once again and you have the sleeper at 1.0mm plus the rail at 1.88mm, giving an overall height of 2.88, so lower than SMP by 0.42mm. After all these years I'd forgotten that I slightly lift the last few sleepers to make up that difference in height and was convinced that 1mm sleepers gave the better match. This is where I will add a caveat as surprisingly, I found differences in the overall height. Taking several measurements along the track, I had variances between 3.20mm and 3.4mm in the overall height. Using 1.6mm strip and you end up 0.18 higher and 1mm strip means 0.42mm lower. Using 1.5mm sleeper strip and 1.88mm rail would almost be spot on to the finished SMP flexi height of 3.3mm, hence the 1.5mm thickness of pre cut sleepers. Mark then very kindly said he probably had some 1mm x 3.3mm strip laying around and offered to send me some. It doesn't physically change anything, but at least explains how I got here... Edited December 23, 2019 by gordon s 3 1 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Gordon When building track with copperclad timbers with the known rail height of most commercially available track there has always been a mismatch in heights, then if using either ply or plastic sleepers/timbers with plastic chairs you have a similar issue if using ether thinner timbers or flexitrack. I decided to use exactoscale timbers and sleeper flexitrack/track bases, as you say harder to ballast, but the thicker track base in my opinion is a bit sturdier though I doubt if this is an issue in 00 gauge I don't know if you use rail joiners or fishplates, if the former they should level things up 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 23, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2019 Now if you were to construct all the plain trackwork from copperclad too, then there wouldn't be a problem..... Too late - I'm long gone..... 1 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 23, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2019 8 hours ago, gordon s said: Just had a very pleasant discussion with Mark of 'Marcway', which prompted me to go right back to the beginning and try to understand how I arrived where I am now after years of building my own pointwork to align with SMP track. It was certainly a very worthwhile exercise and one I probably wouldn't have done without the chat this morning. I find it amazing how we forget some things and remember others and sometimes between those thoughts, the reasons why you do things the way you do often gets crossed over. The starting point was to stick a vernier across SMP flexi and note all the major dimensions. In some cases the dimensions did vary along a length of track, so these are my closest estimates. The overall height of the track is 3.3mm and the height of the rail 1.88mm. That leaves the space between the bottom of the rail and the track bed as 1.42mm. Give or take a a fraction of a mm in overall height and it's easy to see why the loose sleepers are 1.5mm. Many track builders use 1.6mm sleeper strip, which would mean the finished turnout would be slightly higher at 3.48mm (1.6mm + 1.88mm), but builders either live with it or insert a small shim under the flexi to bring it to the same height. The thickness of the plastic sleeper on SMP is 0.9mm and because of ballasting issues I've had over the years, I chose to go with 1mm strip which enabled me to easily follow the 'Captain Kernow' ballasting method of painting PVA between the sleepers. A few years ago, I tried some tests on 1.6mm sleepers and the results weren't as good as I found the PVA shrank back once dried and personally, I wasn't as happy with the results, so I chose to stay with 1mm sleeper strip. Doing the maths once again and you have the sleeper at 1.0mm plus the rail at 1.88mm, giving an overall height of 2.88, so lower than SMP by 0.42mm. After all these years I'd forgotten that I slightly lift the last few sleepers to make up that difference in height and was convinced that 1mm sleepers gave the better match. This is where I will add a caveat as surprisingly, I found differences in the overall height. Taking several measurements along the track, I had variances between 3.20mm and 3.4mm in the overall height. Using 1.6mm strip and you end up 0.18 higher and 1mm strip means 0.42mm lower. Using 1.5mm sleeper strip and 1.88mm rail would almost be spot on to the finished SMP flexi height of 3.3mm, hence the 1.5mm thickness of pre cut sleepers. Mark then very kindly said he probably had some 1mm x 3.3mm strip laying around and offered to send me some. It doesn't physically change anything, but at least explains how I got here... That's very interesting Gordon. For years (more than 40) I've used SMP track and built my points using SMP point timber strip and SMP rail soldered direct to the strip, on the assumption that, being from the same manufacturer, the dimensions would be compatible. After reading your post I measured some odd bits that I have lying around on the bench, to the nearest 0.1mm. Track height = 3.1mm Rail height = 1.9mm Difference = 1.2mm Point timber strip thickness = 1.2mm So my assumption seems to have been correct based on those samples and I've never experienced any problems in practice. I'll go out to the railway room later and measure some SMP sleepers (as distinct from point timbers) and also some newer lengths of track to see if there is any difference. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 SMP copperclad prior to being taken over by Marcway was made from Paxoline and I guess imperial in thickness, the last batch I bought was soon after Marcway took over and there was issues with the Guillotine cutting widths of consistent width. After a price increase I started to use C&L strips which were cut on a router giving squared sides. I have now only got some old 7 mm strip at 1.2 mm. I guess what Marcway now supply is glass fiber and is much the same over broth brands. As has been pointed out rail height will be constant 1.9 mm. I do have some older C&L thin track base which comes in at appx 3.4 mm with rail. Their latest track base is now appx 0.8 mm higher 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 24, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, hayfield said: the last batch I bought was soon after Marcway took over and there was issues with the Guillotine cutting widths of consistent width Yes, I experienced that too. I use the narrow strips for off-stage points , keeping the full-width ones for the scenic area. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium polybear Posted December 27, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 27, 2019 Wizard Models also sell copper-clad strip for sleepers: 1.6mm thick by 3.3mm wide. 6m in total (20 x 300mm) for £12.00. (Also 4mm wide for £13-50) (C&L Finescale price for the same stuff is £18.96 for 4.4m, so significantly more expensive. Also 4mm wide for the same price - £18-96) C&L have a wider range (e.g. 1mm thick); I've no knowledge of the accuracy of the Wizard product, however. HTH Brian 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 27, 2019 Author Share Posted December 27, 2019 Thanks Brian. The bulk of my purchases are 4mm strip x 1.0mm thick. I now have 500 SMP sleepers that have very clean cut edges and even though they are 3.5mm wide, rather than 3.33mm, I will use them as the odd three or four sleepers at the each end of each turnout and where I need to add droppers for power feeds. They are ideal for those situations. I was going to try their 4mm strip and see how it compares to C & L, but had forgotten they don't do 1mm strip. In all fairness to C & L, the quality of their sleeper strip is very good, but they are more expensive. Personally I'm disappointed they have cut the strips in half as the amount of wastage is now higher from 220mm strips versus 440mm. I suspect it may be something to do with postage costs, but there may be more to it. Perhaps, I'll ask Phil next time. Currently laying track on the station approach board. Both turnouts are in place and ballasted, so just the plain track to do. Hopefully another couple of weeks will see this board completed. Hope you all had a good Christmas. I spent most of it coughing like a good 'un as I managed to pick up a bug just before the holiday. A few more days of anti bionics and I'll be all systems go again. Great to have the family here for a few days, but lovely to have the place just to ourselves this evening. It's so peaceful again..... 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted December 27, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 27, 2019 On 22/12/2019 at 20:32, Barry O said: Gordon I have noted that Bachmann Mk1s are not the most "rollable" of items. I have tried using a pinpoint bearing adjusting tool to no avail as yet. However, my kit built stock fitted with Bahmann LMS bogies are fine. I will do some checks to see if I can suss out the real problem. As for RTR locos, well Shap is sorting them out as is the exit from the Fiddle Yard on Barnbow East. It just means you need to have lots of nice kit built express and freight engines! Baz Especially in EM, have you tried this Baz?; Works for me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 28, 2019 12 hours ago, Enterprisingwestern said: Especially in EM, have you tried this Baz?; Works for me. Yep, I have something similar. What happens is you get a squeaky axle. You check the bearings .. fine. You check the pinpoint axle length..also apparently fine. Add a bit of GT85 to the axlebox..it helps a bit. Next up. Swap out the Bachmann wheelsets .. Baz 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 28, 2019 28 minutes ago, Barry O said: Yep, I have something similar. What happens is you get a squeaky axle. You check the bearings .. fine. You check the pinpoint axle length..also apparently fine. Add a bit of GT85 to the axlebox..it helps a bit. Next up. Swap out the Bachmann wheelsets .. Baz How do you get a squeaky axle with a brass pinpoint bearing Baz? Is part of the wheelset catching on the sideframe maybe? Mike. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Barry O Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 28, 2019 Pinpoin4 bearing only fitted as a matter of last resort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 28, 2019 2 hours ago, Barry O said: Yep, I have something similar. What happens is you get a squeaky axle. You check the bearings .. fine. You check the pinpoint axle length..also apparently fine. Add a bit of GT85 to the axlebox..it helps a bit. Next up. Swap out the Bachmann wheelsets .. Baz 1 hour ago, Enterprisingwestern said: How do you get a squeaky axle with a brass pinpoint bearing Baz? Is part of the wheelset catching on the sideframe maybe? Mike. 1 hour ago, Barry O said: Pinpoin4 bearing only fitted as a matter of last resort. Could the Bachmann axles have a non-standard taper on the ends? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Enterprisingwestern Posted December 28, 2019 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 28, 2019 7 minutes ago, St Enodoc said: Could the Bachmann axles have a non-standard taper on the ends? Speaking from personal experience only, Bachmann axles tend to have a slightly blunted pinpoint, presumably to save the plastic sideframes from becoming damaged. Whilst converting to EM I use the existing axles in brass bearings without any detrimental effect, only swapping the ones which are under the standard 26mm length, but, obviously, results may vary from one batch to another. I suppose in the perfect world, which I don't live in by any means!, the RTR wheels should be junked for the correct wheels to the correct standards (can't use that word, a fight breaks out!) dimensions and then theoretically all would be well. Mike. 1 1 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