martin_wynne

No apologies needed Ray, there is a lot of Templot stuff on RMweb. But I was concerned not to let it hijack Gordon's layout topic. Pot, kettle, etc. -- my own post would have been better posted elsewhere and linked here. Also, questions on Templot Club are more likely to be seen by other experienced Templot users who may join in the replies. I develop Templot but I'm not always the best one to explain it. regards, Martin.

Hi Ray, Gordon is using the diagram mode output in Templot, which is available in Templot2 -- free download from: http://85a.co.uk/for...p?post_id=10771 if you are not already using it. The two output modes are detail mode (the normal default to print construction templates), and diagram mode to create layout diagrams such as the ones posted here by Gordon. Diagram mode is available for all outputs (print, PDF, image files), but not directly on the trackpad work area. To see diagram mode on the screen, you need to swap to the sketchboard function. After loading your current track plan, click the sketchboard button near the top left: Then to create an image file for uploading to RMweb, click the file > export image file... menu item on the sketchboard window: The result after uploading the file to RMweb is this, click it to see the full-size image: Using the sketchboard control panel you can add lots of additional drawing items to create a full layout plan, control panel, signal box diagram, etc., or whatever you want: Which uploads like this, click it to see the full-size image: For detailed help in using the sketchboard it would be better to ask on the Templot Club forum. regards, Martin.

Hi Gordon, Have you considered swapping the levels so that the terminus is at the lower level? The outer green tracks could cross the station on impressive girder bridges A-B: This would give you much more visible length of run and easier access to the outer tracks, with no problems for clearance below the terminus pointwork. There should just be room for some operator/access at C. A bridge across a station always makes it look longer, viewed from the normal operating position at D. Just an idea, I know there are room constraints and roof angles to consider. edit: p.s. This idea may work better turned 180o so that the stairwell is on the right. regards, Martin.

Hi Gordon, How much allowance are you making for the vertical curves at each end of your 7000mm (23ft)? In 4mm scale I wouldn't normally recommend less than 30000mm radius (100ft) for the vertical curves, which for 1:100 gives you a length of 300mm and a drop of 1.5mm in that length at each end. So your actual gradient between them is 67mm drop in 6400mm = 1:95. If you increase the level difference you can place the vertical curves outside the 7000mm (23ft) and the gradient then becomes 70mm in 7000mm = 1:100. Not a big difference, but enough to be worthwhile -- and you gain the benefit of increased clearance below the terminus. regards, Martin.

Hi Gordon, Strange as it may sound, you can ease the gradient by making the lower level even lower. Then you don't have to allow for the length of the vertical curves at each end of the gradient: In other words, if the track continues to drop as it enters at X, and reaches the lower level only somewhere further along (Y), you can measure to X as part of the gradient. If the track has to be at the bottom level at X you must shorten the effective length of gradient to allow space for a vertical curve before X. Likewise at the top, if the bottom level is more than 70mm below the terminus, you can start the vertical curve before you reach the bridge and still reach a bare 70mm clearance there (or maybe even less with some nifty metal plate construction). The result then is that the entire distance from the bridge to X can be calculated as a simple incline for 70mm drop, instead of a shorter distance allowing for vertical curves at each end. regards, Martin.

Andy was wondering why he received a generous donation to RMweb from the Timber Merchants Association.

Fewer ads if you watch it embedded: http://yourmodelrailway.net/view_topic.php?id=10241&forum_id=68 Unfortunately RMweb won't embed SWF streams. Martin.

Next up -- no replies in the Favourite Biscuits topic from here:

Bucknell / Bedstone on the Central Wales line:

It will need a robin photoshopped onto the gate.

Some inspired typos there Howard.

It comes along in threes, like buses. See this posted yesterday by Derek: http://85a.co.uk/for...to=13593#p13591 Martin.

Howard also has a topic about his project here: http://85a.co.uk/for...1433&forum_id=6 Martin.

I never liked it or could see the point. The out-of-focus areas are unpleasantly distracting and make you think your glasses need cleaning. Martin.

Hi Mike, There are two types of link and Andy's original statement: If an image has previously been uploaded to RMweb and anyone other than the original contributor wishes to make use of that image within RMweb it should be linked to or its source and location acknowledged. doesn't really make it clear. This is the first type -- an image link: http://www.rmweb.co....20712_thumb.jpg This is the second type -- a post link: http://www.rmweb.co....100#entry761144 Try clicking them to see. It wasn't clear that the first type was acceptable, because in practice it is only one click different from hot-linking the image to display it without a click. Andy has now said that for the purposes of RMweb there is a significant difference, namely an image link is ok, hot-linking without permission is not. regards, Martin.

Hi Andy, Could you define "onward publication". Does that include hot-linking on RMweb to images uploaded to RMweb (which is within the law and not a copyright violation)? Is simple image linking OK, given that the only difference is that a click is required first -- the same content is delivered to the same browser screen either way. Or is it only acceptable to link to a full post or entire topic? As Miss Prism suggests, we do I think need a full codified set of rules, if we can't assume that something uploaded to this community is for communal use on here. regards, Martin.

Hi beast, The question I would ask is WHY do you upload them to a communal web site if you are then going to complain when the community makes communal use of them? Why not upload them to your OWN web site? They are then without dispute for your own sole use unless you give permission to the contrary. You could easily hot-link them to here if you wish. I do believe that uploading content to a communal site is making a statement about that content's availability as a contribution to the community. Otherwise it is reasonable to ask why you would upload it there instead of to your own web site. Why expect Andy/Warners to host your images free of charge if you want to retain full control of them? regards, Martin.

I'm glad it's all so simple. I think I was let off the hook when the owner CK clicked the Like button. Whether the law has caught up with Like buttons is less clear. regards, Martin.

Hi Mike, Templot now includes an option to play about with dummy vehicles and roll them along the tracks. So Gordon can run his new layout without having to build it: Martin.

Just one recent example: http://www.rmweb.co....de/#entry754412 Not merely a hot-link, but a clear violation of the owner's copyright. For which he thanked me. If you look in topics related to track and infrastructure you will find many contributions from me. However, I know next to nothing about the trains (except that they wear out the track), so I don't post in such topics. I don't understand why you now want to discuss my modelling posts instead of the actual subject? My posts in this topic are either right, wrong, or the ravings of a lunatic. What I have written or not written about modelling topics elsewhere doesn't change that in the slightest. And in response to Mod5's request, that's it. Since we were already on-topic I don't see any way to "move on" to something else. But I do hate Marmite. regards, Martin.

Personal abuse is no response to a discussion.

Thanks, Andy, but that would surely apply with equal force whether the image was hot-linked or a simple page link was posted? It would surely kill topics dead if before referring to someone else's content it is necessary to contact them, quote the context in which you would be using it, and wait for a reply? In the above situation, surely the normal response would be to post a strong rebuttal, rather than say a rule has been broken by using the image without permission? regards, Martin.

Hi beast, That does seem to be an incredibly contrived situation. But if it did happen and you were not happy about it, the Mods would surely respond to your request for it to be edited out. And if not, as a final resort you could delete the original image from the forum, thus breaking the hot-link. You could then re-post your image if you wished, under a new attachment ID. regards, Martin.

Hi Andy, Could you clarify the rules about hot-linking within RMweb. If I post this without asking you first, have I broken the rules: ------------------------ Andy Y posted this great photo of the Dartmoor scene at Pendon (at http://www.rmweb.co....hs/#entry760103 ). Can anyone confirm that such a heavy locomotive would have been permitted over a timber viaduct? ---------------------- It's fairly clear that copyright doesn't come into it -- it is hot-linked from the existing uploaded file. But what about RMweb's own rules? regards, Martin.

Hi beast, I assure you I did read every word you wrote. But I can only reply to the parts I understand. I don't understand the point you are making or the words "anything a well-known magazine (within the forum)". Your phrase seems to have some words missing. And which forum? Which magazine? How can a magazine be "within" a forum? If I've offended you in some way I'm sorry, but I don't understand in what way I've done that or what you are asking me. I can make your words make sense if I change "anything" to "do anything in support of", but I'm not sure if that was your intent, or if the "anything" is the thing being promoted or advertised. regards, Martin.