RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 5, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 5, 2015 Do you think it would it be terrible to continue with the REA turnout? I've already stuck down the timbers and cut the V rails (see new topic) Hi Andy, Well of course it's not "terrible" -- you can build any turnout you like. You don't have to take any notice of anything I say -- I keep telling folks not to use A-5 turnouts, but they all keep doing it. To me the shortest REA turnout which looks pleasing is A-5.3/4, with a generic-type crossing. Changing to equalized-incremental timbering is only one click at real > timbering > menu items: For me all pointwork looks better with equalized-incremental timbering. It was the default in Templot for years. I've written some prototype notes about that elsewhere, so I won't repeat them all again here. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 5, 2015 Author Share Posted April 5, 2015 Hi Martin, That does look very nice. I think I'll give it a shot. Thanks again for all the advice, Best, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Another turnout to 1:82 scale. This turnout has a substitution radius of 31 inches. If I understand Templot correctly, that means it could replace a 31 inch radius curve. The rail is Code 73 flat-bottom. Clearances are based on OO-SF, so it is fully compatible with modern RTR equipment and Romford etc. It's never going to pass for P4, but might it pass for EM? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 9, 2015 Here is my most recent effort in 1:87 scale for a comparison with the 1:82: Peco code 75 rail on C&L 3.5 mm wide strips, and c. 1 mm flangeways. Sorry it's going to be a while before this gets painted so I thought I'd be best to post it now. I ground off the copper on the sleeper edges after soldering as an experiment to see what it looked like. (the cork was set out for Peco hence the lousy fit) - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 This turnout has a substitution radius of 31 inches. If I understand Templot correctly, that means it could replace a 31 inch radius curve. Hi Andy, Yes, but first you probably need a short bit of additional approach track on the switch front. Click this menu item: EGTP = External Geometrical Tangent Position There is a video about substitution radius in Templot here: http://www.templot.com/martweb/videos/subs_rad.exe regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm getting a bit confused. What;'s 1:82 scale? And is the latest turnout supposed to be HO or 4mm scale? Model rail sizes of code 100, code 82/3, code 75 etc, refer to the model rail height in 0.001" inches. So code 82 = 0.082" high for exmple. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Andy - It's 16.5mm gauge (1/87) on a 1/82 scale sleeper base. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 Andy - It's 16.5mm gauge (1/87) on a 1/82 scale sleeper base. Sorry, along the way, I forgot the original basis of the thread. Just a note. For anyone doing comparisons with US HO, Here an accurately modeled turnout base would extend past the the frog until using full 16.5 ft length ties. So no tie interlacing at the end. I think PECO code 83 complies with that. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 I'm getting a bit confused. What;'s 1:82 scale? And is the latest turnout supposed to be HO or 4mm scale? See also 3.75mm/ft which I have given the designation 00-DN in Templot. This is a draft view pending an outcome to Andy's experiments: Andy is modelling UK prototype, not US H0. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 Andy - It's 16.5mm gauge (1/87) on a 1/82 scale sleeper base. Hi Jeff, Andy is building it to 16.2mm gauge, not 16.5mm. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Smith Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 OK, I stand corrected..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 See also 3.75mm/ft which I have given the designation 00-DN in Templot. This is a draft view pending an outcome to Andy's experiments: Andy is modelling UK prototype, not US H0. Martin. I think you have some truly weird and wonderful contradictory naming conventions in that list. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 I think you have some truly weird and wonderful contradictory naming conventions in that list. Andy You can't blame Martin for that. The list simply reflects the shambles of scales a gauges in the model world. As someone once said - "The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 You can't blame Martin for that. The list simply reflects the shambles of scales a gauges in the model world. As someone once said - "The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from." I was wondering what HO equivalent of a beneficial EM concept, Martin's idea of an HO version of 00-SF was derived from. . . . . Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 I was wondering what HO equivalent of a beneficial EM concept, Martin's idea of an HO version of 00-SF was derived from. . . . . Hi Andy, "EM dims" means the standard was derived from EM. In this case by subtracting 2mm. It thus accepts the same wheel profile, has the same flangeway gap, and the same radius restrictions as EM. Other 00 standards do not accept the EM wheel profile (essentially RP25/88), apart from 00-DOGA Fine (which was derived from EM by subtracting 1.7mm). 00-DN differs from 00-SF in that timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., are scaled at 3.75mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft. If Andy wants it added, 00-82 differs from 00-SF in that timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., are scaled at 1:82 instead of 4mm/ft. H0-SF is the AMRA / Terry Flynn standard. Essentially the same as 00-SF but with timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., scaled at 3.5mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft. And the adjacent track spacing increased to 50mm centres instead of 44.67mm. I'm sorry it is confusing. Templot is used around the world, so I have to include some unfamiliar options. Just imagine what this list would look like if it included any narrow-gauge settings. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 I suppose if we wanted to be really clever we could invent designations that incorporate three elements: Gauge Scale Wheel profile compatibility Do you think there's any chance I will ever propose something like this? No way José! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted April 9, 2015 It's still a very long list. This may sound perverse for software targeted at the finescale market, but suppose the user had these choices: Region: US / Europe / Australasia / UK Desired scale: 1:87 / 1:82 / 1:76 Desired check gauge: 15.2, etc Nominal gauge: 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16.2, 16.5, 18.5, 18.83, 19 ... then the software could plot out timbers and sleepers optimised to the chosen parameters, and it wouldn't be necessary to declare designations like "00-DN" at all. It would be easy to prompt the user to help them choose the most applicable check gauge for their application. In fact, there should be no reason for "1:87" or "1:82" or even the gauge to appear on a menu at all - it could be straightforward numerical input. So if I decide I'd like to build a turnout for my trains and make it 16.4 mm gauge with 1:79 timbering underneath, the software can give me the plot I need. I'll decide myself how much leeway I'll allow myself on timber widths, and then go shopping for the parts. Above all, it is most important that track plotting software treats formal designations such as "HO-SF" only as far as their original standard declares them, and does not impose (for example) a timbering arrangement peculiar to a particular region. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 9, 2015 So if I decide I'd like to build a turnout for my trains and make it 16.4 mm gauge with 1:79 timbering underneath, the software can give me the plot I need. Hi Richard, Templot can already do that. You can create any scale, gauge, timber size, spacings, rail section, switch size, and dozens of other settings, that you want. The gauge list is simply a convenient set of pre-sets for those who don't want to do all that. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 Hi Richard, Templot can already do that. You can create any scale, gauge, timber size, spacings, rail section, switch size, and dozens of other settings, that you want. The gauge list is simply a convenient set of pre-sets for those who don't want to do all that. regards, Martin. That's how I created my templates Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 I don't know about everyone else, but that turnout turned out better than I thought it would. It's a fairly tight radius and I thought it would look a bit "toy train", but I don't see that at all. What I should do is stick it on a plank with some SMP track and ballast the whole thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Hi Andy, "EM dims" means the standard was derived from EM. In this case by subtracting 2mm. It thus accepts the same wheel profile, has the same flangeway gap, and the same radius restrictions as EM. Other 00 standards do not accept the EM wheel profile (essentially RP25/88), apart from 00-DOGA Fine (which was derived from EM by subtracting 1.7mm). 00-DN differs from 00-SF in that timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., are scaled at 3.75mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft. If Andy wants it added, 00-82 differs from 00-SF in that timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., are scaled at 1:82 instead of 4mm/ft. H0-SF is the AMRA / Terry Flynn standard. Essentially the same as 00-SF but with timbering, switch lengths, rail section, etc., scaled at 3.5mm/ft instead of 4mm/ft. And the adjacent track spacing increased to 50mm centres instead of 44.67mm. I'm sorry it is confusing. Templot is used around the world, so I have to include some unfamiliar options. Just imagine what this list would look like if it included any narrow-gauge settings. regards, Martin. The problem with naming isn't that it's confusing. The confusion arises when people go around arbitrarily changing the names of already well-known standards, or hi-jacking well-known names for something that is actually different. Or adding inappropriate things into a standard that makes it non-generic. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Wheel and Track Standards are for interoperability of different manufacturers products and for interoperability across consenting modellers layouts. They actually don't require a scale, although it may be implied. And they usually don't include cosmetic details, such as sleeper size or spacing, which do not affect interoperability . But they do have to include both the track dimensions and the wheel dimensions together that are compatible with them. While you may be happy calling your 16.2 mm gauge dimensioned track 00-SF, Terry Flynn deliberately called the same set of dimensions "HO-Fine". Which he knew full well was, for the previous 30 years or so, the established NMRA name for 16.5 mm gauge with 0.040" flangeways. (Which is apparently not showing in your screen's HO grouping). And the US Proto:87 group adopted the exactly same standard as Joe Brook-Smith's Proto-87, for exactly the reasons of interoperability and avoiding confusion. I don't know if there even is a S3.5 or if HOPur uses a 16.48 mm gauge. And IIRC, Terry Flynn has his own set of different dimensions for Proto:87, which he also calls Proto:87. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted April 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 10, 2015 While you may be happy calling your 16.2 mm gauge dimensioned track 00-SF, Terry Flynn deliberately called the same set of dimensions "HO-Fine". Which he knew full well was, for the previous 30 years or so, the established NMRA name for 16.5 mm gauge with 0.040" flangeways. (Which is apparently not showing in your screen's HO grouping). Hi Andy, I wish it was all that easy. I have to find names which are all distinct from each other, which will be understood in the UK, and also understood in other parts of the world. I know on your side of the pond the deliberations of the NMRA are taken to override everyone else's, but the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. Terry Flynn has the same right to publish dimensions as the NMRA, although it is asking for utter confusion if he uses the same name designations. 16.5mm gauge with 1.0mm flangeways is in the Templot list as 00-DOGAF. Thanks for the pointer -- I will add H0-NMRA-F as 16.5mm gauge with 0.040" flangeways. You mixed metric and imperial dimensions there -- we are used to mixing them up, but not usually in the same track standard! And the US Proto:87 group adopted the exactly same standard as Joe Brook-Smith's Proto-87, for exactly the reasons of interoperability and avoiding confusion. I don't know if there even is a S3.5 or if HOPur uses a 16.48 mm gauge. S3.5 is in the Templot list corresponding to UK and USA Proto-87 at 3.5mm/ft. Elsewhere in Europe most prototype dimensions are not in feet, so a scale of 3.5mm/ft doesn't make sense. The scale is normally set at 1:87 exactly. I have included this in the list as P-87. Note that "P-87" is specific to that, "Proto-87" is generic to both. regards, Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyID Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Wheel and Track Standards are for interoperability of different manufacturers products and for interoperability across consenting modellers layouts. They actually don't require a scale, although it may be implied. And they usually don't include cosmetic details, such as sleeper size or spacing, which do not affect interoperability . But they do have to include both the track dimensions and the wheel dimensions together that are compatible with them. While you may be happy calling your 16.2 mm gauge dimensioned track 00-SF, Terry Flynn deliberately called the same set of dimensions "HO-Fine". Which he knew full well was, for the previous 30 years or so, the established NMRA name for 16.5 mm gauge with 0.040" flangeways. (Which is apparently not showing in your screen's HO grouping). And the US Proto:87 group adopted the exactly same standard as Joe Brook-Smith's Proto-87, for exactly the reasons of interoperability and avoiding confusion. I don't know if there even is a S3.5 or if HOPur uses a 16.48 mm gauge. And IIRC, Terry Flynn has his own set of different dimensions for Proto:87, which he also calls Proto:87. Andy Yes, well that's all great. Now, what did you think of that turnout? Do you think it would look good on a UK layout? (I other words, if you want a raging debate about standards, please do it on another thread.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.